Sitting of 9 April 1946

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENTS
  Major Bruceasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if, as a result of discussions with the interests concerned and with local authority associations, he is now in a position to make a statement on outdoor advertisements.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall): Preliminary discussions on broad principles with the interests concerned and with local authority associations have taken place, but further discussions on detail are necessary, arid I do not expect that it will be possible for my right. hon. Friend to make any statement for some considerable time.
  Major Bruce: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the considerable anxiety lest the countryside should be desecrated by these species of advertisements which were a prevalent feature before the war?
  Mr. Marshall: The Minister is very conscious of the urgency of this matter, but it has to take its place among other matters which are probably of greater urgency.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

    Broken Windows (Replacement)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Works if he will take immediate steps to replace the broken windows throughout the Palace of Westminster and, in particular, in the Central Lobby, in view of the fact that more glass is being exported from this country today than in 1938.
    The Minister of Works Tomlinson): The replacement of clear glass windows in the Palace of Westminster has already been largely effected, with the exception of Committee Rooms and other places where such work during the sitting of the House would cause inconvenience. No difficulty is expected in obtaining clear glass, and reglazing will he completed as the business of the House permits. The replacement of the stained glass windows of the Chamber of this House will be resumed in the coming Recess. The glass and probably the window frames for the Central Lobby and St. Stephen's Hall will have to he specially made, and it will be some time before the work can be carried out.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that the Central Lobby, especially when there are big deputations, is a very dark, dirty and stinking place? Cannot something be done in the matter?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I just do not recognise that description.

    Cafeteria (Lighting)
    Mr. Skeffinģtonasked the Minister of Works whether he will consider improving the inadequate lighting in the Strangers' Cafeteria, where many Members and their friends are often obliged to peruse documents.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Improvements to the lighting in the Strangers' Cafeteria have been carried out in consultation with the authorities of the, House.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is the Minister aware that the use of the Cafeteria for the perusal of documents and transacting similar business is a highly undesirable practice, occupying tables for an inordinate time, and preventing the serving of meals for people who are waiting?

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Surplus Army Huts
    Colonel Wheatleyasked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement as to the situation regarding the disposal of surplus Army huts to hospitals and British Legion branches.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Applications to purchase surplus Army huts receive preference, if they have the support of the Government Department concerned. Both the British Legion and the voluntary hospitals have this support, and every effort will be made to meet their requirements.

    Reģent's Park Terraces
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Works if he has any statement to make about the proposed use of the Regent's Park terraces.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the proposed use of parts of the terraces by my Department. Two hundred and twelve large houses in the Regent's Park terraces are to be converted for temporary use as Government offices. The houses were taken over in all cases by agreement, either with the Commissioners of Crown Lands or with the lessees. While not prejudicing any long term proposals which may be formulated in respect of these terraces, the scheme will be of value in preserving them from further deterioration and, at the same time, providing upwards of 500,000 square feet of office space which will enable me to release an equivalent amount of requisitioned accommodation.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Will the Minister assure the House that in regard to the short term conversions, and any long term scheme which may be introduced, he will preserve the facade and layout of this unique survival of Georgian architecture?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That is the purpose of the scheme.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May we take it that any alterations which are made will not in any way prevent this survival of a particular period from retaining its architectural features?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I imagine that that is what I have just said.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister see that the unique rents are not retained?
    Sir John Mellor: How does the Minister reconcile his answer with his statement that Regulation 68 (c) (a) is complied with by the Departments?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The answer is that this has been done with the cooperation of the Minister of Health.

    Kensinģton Gardens (Closing)
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Minister of Works (1) whether the area of Kensington Gardens on the east side of the Long Water can now be made available to the public;
    (2) for what purpose he is proposing to deny the use of Kensington Gardens to the public; and for how long.
    Mr. Tomlinson: A camp is being erected in Kensington Gardens, as on similar occasions in the past, to accommodate troops who will take part in the Victory March on 8th June next. Most of the Gardens will have to be enclosed with the exception of an area adjoining the Albert Memorial and some of the land west of the Broad Walk. The Round Pond and access to it will remain open to the public. The camp area will not be closed to the public until the camp is actually required for occupation. Most of the area east of the Long Water will become available to the public when the camp is struck in June next.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the great hardship which is imposed on the general public, especially upon the children, and will he see that as little barbed wire as possible is put up, and that it is put up at the last moment? Can he say when the park will be closed, and for how long?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am aware of the inconvenience which is caused, and I doubt whether we should have been allowed to close it for any other purpose. The period during which it will be closed will be cut down to the minimum.

    Rubber Boots Permit, Montrose
    Mr. Maclayasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that, on 13th February, Messrs. A. Gordon, Limited, Montrose, applied through the burgh surveyor for certificates to purchase six pairs of

    1773
    thigh-length rubber boots for use on under waterlevel work at a sewer, which was granted by the Department of Health for Scotland, on 22nd February, and forwarded by the firm to his Department in London; that on 1st March the firm was instructed by his Department to apply to the Inspector of Factories, Dundee; that this was done, but on 11th March they were instructed to apply for thigh boots to the Department of Health for Scotland through the Burgh Surveyor, Montrose; and on what date the firm finally received the necessary certificates.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir; owing to an unfortunate mistake in my Department the necessary permits were not issued until 13th March. and I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing my regret for the trouble occasioned to the firm.
    Mr. Maclay: While thanking the Minister for his expression of. regret, may I ask him to state categorically whether it is now known who is responsible for the issue of these certificates?
    Mr. Tomlinson: We hope to simplify the permit procedure with the help of the Board of Trade.

    Villaģe Halls (Building Licences)
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that licences for the building of village halls are refused by his Department; and, in view of the urgent need for these community centres, if he will reconsider the matter.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. It has been necessary in the existing difficult circumstances to refuse licences for the building of village halls in a number of cases, but such applications are sympathetically considered, if the work can be undertaken without prejudice to more urgent projects such as the provision of housing accommodation or other work of high priority. It is the practice to consult the local housing authority before granting or refusing a licence for this purpose.
    Mr. Shephard: While appreciating that houses must come first, may I ask if the Minister is aware that there is a real and urgent need for community centres in villages, and will be give an assurance that they will be given equal priority to schools?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot give any assurance regarding equal priority, but I can assure the hon. Member that we realise the urgency, and wherever possible are meeting requests of this kind.

    Office Accommodation, Llandudno
    Lieut.-Colonel Price-Whiteasked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the bad conditions under which the staff of the Special Commissioners of the Income Tax Department are forced to work at the Craigside covered tennis courts at Llandudno, due to the dilapidated condition of these premises; and what steps are being taken to put the building into proper repair, so as to provide reasonable working conditions for, and to safeguard the health of, the civil servants concerned.
    Mr. Tomlinson: A recent survey of the Craigside covered tennis courts at Llandudno revealed extensive dry rot due to the type of construction, and it is proposed to vacate the premises as soon as other arrangements can be made for the staff of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax.

    Tiles and Bricks
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Works the comparative cost per thousand in 1939 and 1946, for roofing tiles and common building bricks.
    Mr. Tomlinson: There is a very wide range of types both of roofing tiles and of common building bricks with consequent considerable variations in price. The present ex-works prices of typical hand-made tiles range from 148s. 6d. to 178s. 8d. per thousand, and of machine-made tiles from 120s. to 136s. 4d. The present ex-works prices of common bricks range from 46s. 3d. to 97s. 6d. per thousand. The average increase over 1939 prices is approximately 75 per cent. in the case of tiles and 70 per cent. in the case of bricks.
    Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these increases in price are disproportionate arid are not reflected in the wages of the workers? Will he take this into account when making inquiries into the difficulties of building new houses and improving conditions of the workers?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will take note of what the hon. Member said.

    Buildinģ Workers (Production)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Works what percentage of increase in output has been obtained as a consequence of the rise in pay to building trade operatives.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The rise in pay to building trade operatives is only one of a number of factors affecting the rate of output in this period of transition from war conditions, and I am unable to say precisely what effect it has had as yet. I should add that the two sides of the industry have set up a national joint production council with the object of securing a higher rate of production.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: While I appreciate the difficulties of the Government in giving a precise answer, will the Minister say whether under these conditions the estimate of "one operative, one house, one year" still holds good or not?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That is the rough figure on which we have been working, but in the light of improvements it is expected that changes of formula will be necessary.

    Plate Glass
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the difficulties of obtaining plate glass for shop windows in Coventry, he will increase local supplies and simplify methods of acquisition by enlarging the power of the city architects' department to issue licences.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The output of plate glass though higher than prewar is at present below the heavy demand consequent upon the widespread damage to plate glass windows by enemy action. Plate glass has, therefore, to be rationed and any increase in the supply to Coventry could only be made at the expense of the other areas. An arrangement under which the local authority issues permits for the use of such quantities as can be made available in the area should be the most suitable arrangement for ensuring fair treatment all round.
    Mr. McGovern: May I ask the Minister if anything has been done to increase the production of plate glass owing to the acute shortage?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, plans have been accepted for an extension of the available plant.

    Breakwaters
    Lieut.-Colonel Mackesonasked the Minister of Works how many groins or breakwaters his Department is responsible for and on how many of them work has taken place since 1st August, 1945.
    Mr. Tomlinson: It will take some time to collect the information desired by the hon. and gallant Member, and I will communicate with him when I have received it.
    Mr. Skeffinģton-Lodģe: Is the Minister aware that, normally, groans and backwaters are more associated by the people of the country with His Majesty's Opposition than are groins and breakwaters?

    Prisoner-of-War Camps, Enfield
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Works if he will reconsider his decision to construct two prisoner-of-war camps in Eastern Enfield in view of the inadequate sewerage facilities there.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. Other arrangements are being made.
    Mr. Davies: May I ask my right hon. Friend why it has taken so many months to reply to the protest of the local authority?
    Mr. Tomlinson: We were looking for alternative sites. The difficulty of making provision for prisoners of war is, I think, known to all hon. Members.

    Requisitioned Premises (Rats)
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Works why an inspector of his Department visited 87 and 86 Eaton Square, London, a British Restaurant and W. V. S., respectively, at approximately three o'clock on Wednesday, 27th March, and ordered the Westminster City Council rat catcher to stop operations in the two premises and pick up baits.
    Mr. Tomlinson: In accordance with the usual practice, the destruction of vermin in buildings in Government occupation is dealt with by officers employed by my Department. On the occasion referred to by the hon. Member, the rat catcher employed by the Westminster City Council was operating in the British Restaurant and, being unaware that 86 and part of 87 Eaton Square were in Government occupation, one or two baits had been

    1777
    supplied by him. These were withdrawn by mutual agreement.
    Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that his Department did not realise that these premises had rats in them, and that it was the Westminster City Council which discovered the infestation and took steps to deal with it?
    Mr. Tomlinson: It is the demarkation question which was in dispute.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the Minister give any information as to how the rats are getting on?

    Requisitioned Factory, Aintree
    Mr. Haworthasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that Messrs. Vernons, Limited, Liverpool, are anxious to recruit workers from the Walton area for their Aintree factory as soon as the factory is released; and whether he can now say when this place will be available to absorb some of the 5,000 registered unemployed from the Walton registers.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Messrs. Vernon's premises at Aintree, used before the war for their football pool business, area about 65,000 square feet, are occupied by a Post Office parcel sorting office and the War Office forms store. I am unable, at the moment, to say when it will be possible to release the premises, but we will do so as soon as and when alternative accommodation for these essential services can be provided.

    Neon Lightinģ, Oxford Street, London
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Works why licences were granted to several stores and shops in Oxford Street, London, W.1, for the installation of neon lighting, in view of the fact that lighting for advertisement purposes is prohibited.
    Mr. Tomlinson: No licences have been issued for the installation of new neon signs in Oxford Street. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind where new neon lighting is being installed I shall be glad to look into it immediately.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Coal Exports
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total exports of coal in the last six months.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): The total quantity of coal exported as cargo during the six months ended 28th February, 1946, was 2,690,000 tons. Apart from coal sent to bunker depots abroad, the great bulk of this coal was of very low quality.
    Mr. Shepherd: In view of the fact that many industries in this country are partially closing down because of lack of fuel, can the Minister justify these continued exports?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is no evidence of industries closing down. If the hon. Gentleman has any information to that effect, perhaps he will be good enough to send it on to me?
    Mr. Shepherd: Is not the Minister aware that I sent him a case of that kind where a works had partially closed down only the other day?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of that, but I will look into the matter.
    Major Peter Roberts: Is the Minister aware that in Sheffield certain steel firms are very short of gas?

    Household Coal (Quality)
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will consider a reduction in the price of household coal in view of the present content of slate and non-combustible materials
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. The presence of slate and non-combustible materials in supplies of household coal is not of general occurrence, and an all round reduction in price would not therefore be justified. A householder who considers that the coal supplied to him contains an abnormal amount of dirt should complain to his coal merchant, and failing satisfaction from that source, should report the matter to the local fuel overseer.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does the Minister consider that he is justified in selling slate at the same price as coal; and is he not aware of the hardship which this causes to old age pensioners, as a great quantity of this material is non-combustible?
    Mr. Shinwell: With the shortage of labour and other difficulties which confront the industry at present, it is not possible to provide coal with the same care as in normal times, but if the hon.

    1779
    Member has any specific instances, perhaps he will kindly indicate them to me.
    Mr. Erroll: Can the Minister say where all the good coal goes to nowadays?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is being well used.

    Petrol Rationinģ
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make an increase in the supplementary allowance of the petrol ration for business and professional purposes in the near future; and whether he will announce the date as early as possible to enable those concerned to arrange their affairs accordingly.
    Mr. Shinwell: I should like to increase the supplementary allowances for business and professional purposes, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to do so. I will keep in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion that when a change is possible suitable notice should be given.
    Mr. Freeman: Can the Minister give any indication whether it will be possible this summer to do anything of the kind?
    Mr. Shinwell: All sorts of things are possible this summer.
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he can yet give the date on which he intends to end petrol rationing.
    Mr. Kinģasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he now has any statement to make on petrol rationing.
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot yet say when it will be possible to abolish petrol rationing.
    Mr. David Eccles: Would the Minister say whether it is shortage of shipping or shortage of foreign exchange that is the major factor?
    Mr. Shinwell: There are a variety of causes. There is an inadequacy of tanker supplies and there is the demand made on our sterling resources in all parts of the world, but we hope to overcome most of these obstacles before long.
    Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister give the House any information as to whether there is enough petrol in this country at the present time to take advantage of this situation?
    Mr. Shinwell: Stocks of petrol are fairly good at present, but we cannot take any risks.

    Smokeless Fuel
    Mr. Keelinģasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to provide sufficient smokeless solid fuel, to give effect to the recommendation of the Fuel and Power Advisory Council, that such fuel should replace bituminous coal in domestic use as rapidly as appliances for burning it are available.
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he proposes to take with regard to the recommendations contained in the report by the Fuel and Power Advisory Council with regard to smoke abatement.
    Mr. Shinwell: In conjunction with my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health and Works I have set up an Inter-departmental Official Committee to consider and make recommendations upon the action required to implement the recommendations made in the report of the Fuel and Power Advisory Council. As far as increasing the supplies of solid smokeless fuel are concerned, I must point out that all possible steps are being taken to increase the production of all types of fuels, including smokeless fuels. The hon. Member will realise, however, that this problem is linked with that of the major reorganisation of the industry which is to take place when the National Coal Board has been set up.
    Mr. Keelinģ: Will the Minister say whether, in order both to save coal and to reduce smoke, he is in favour of these recommendations being carried out, if they can be carried out?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir, to a very large extent.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister aware that if these recommendations are carried out they will be of considerable benefit to health, an economy by saving in cleaning, and a great economy in the use of fuel?
    Mr. Shinwell: I fully agree with the hon. Member. It is merely a question of securing the necessary appliances.

    Brickyards (Fuel)
    Mr. Medlicottasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the

    1781
    output of bricks in the county of Norfolk is being curtailed by the insufficiency of fuel in the brickyards; and what steps are being taken to overcome this shortage.
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member has any information regarding particular works alleged to be held up by shortage of fuel and will let me have details, I will have the matter investigated immediately.
    Mr. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that some of these brickyards have had to close down altogether; and if I am able to give him details will he try to ensure that they will be put on the priority list for home supplies?
    Mr. Shinwell: Certainly, Sir, if I have the information, but we have no evidence to that effect.

    Coal Supplies, East Norfolk
    Mr. Medlicottasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the shortage of coal in the districts of Thorpe and Sprowston, East Norfolk; and if he will arrange for additional supplies of fuel to be made available in those districts at an early date.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have not been notified of special shortage in these districts but reserve stocks, formerly held by the Army, are available in Norwich and may, with the authority of the local fuel overseer, he drawn upon if required.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Building Industry
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many building trade operatives are at present unemployed in England and Wales;
    (2) how many building trade operatives are now unemployed in
    Scotland.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): At Nth February, the latest date for which figures are at present available, there were 7,924 insured persons aged 16 years and over, classified as belonging to the building industry, registered as unemployed in England and Wales, and 1,519 in Scotland.
    Sir T. Moore: As so many men are obviously available, may I ask the right
    1782
    hon. Gentleman why the Government did not exercise some foresight and imagination in providing the bricks for those men to use? Why always put the cart before the horse?
    Mr. Isaacs: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me a question about building trade operatives. He did not restrict himself to bricklayers. They are included, but many of these operatives are painters and plasterers, and until the walls are put up they cannot be used. A great many of these men will be needed when the class of work on which they are engaged becomes available.
    Major Ramsay: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider making available some more up-to-date figures than the ones he has given the House?
    Mr. Isaacs: I have given the latest figures that are available.

    Transitional Unemployment
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement clarifying the position in regard to transitional unemployment.
    Mr. Isaacs: As my hon. Friend will be aware, over the country as a whole the demand for labour considerably exceeds the supply. The numbers of insured workers registered as unemployed at 11th February, 1946, were 224,027 men and boys and 131,551 women and girls, a total of 355,578 or approximately 2½ per cent. of the estimated insured population. This unemployment is due to turnover of labour, seasonal variations in particular industries and to pockets of unemployment arising in certain districts where there are local shortages of suitable work. Detailed statistics of employment and unemployment are given on pages 74 to 79 of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for March.

    Advertisements (Racial Discrimination)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a list of vacant posts for scientific and technical workers circulated by his Department included several advertisements which stated that no aliens or Jews were required; and whether he will take steps to ensure that no advertisements involving racial discrimination are in future approved by his Department.
    Mr. Isaacs: Some vacancies containing a certain stipulation were notified to my Department whose duty it is to submit the type of applicant likely to be acceptable to an employer. In this case the list of vacancies with the stipulation was circulated internally in my Department and was also made available to an association of workpeople, but no question of the approval of an advertisement arose.
    Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgraceful business that these advertisements should be backed apparently by a Government Department?
    Mr. Isaacs: I do agree that the backing of a Government Department ought not to be given to advertisements of this character and I am very much concerned about it. What happened was this. This firm asked for persons within the classification and we passed it to one of our departments and to the association concerned with that class of workers. The information got out in that way. I personally regret it, and if I had seen it before it was published I would have prohibited it.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that in future his Department will not circulate applications for persons which contain such a racial discrimination and which are against the public policy of this country?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is certainly what I intended to say.
    Mr. Piratin: Will the Minister consult with his colleague the Home Secretary in order to ensure that legislation is passed to prohibit such cases of racial discrimination?

    Brickworkers, St. Helens
    Mr. Haworthasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that numbers of men registered at the Walton employment exchange, Liverpool, are willing to work at brickworks in the St. Helens area if transport can be provided; and whether he will arrange for omnibuses for this purpose as was done during the war and as is done now for prisoners of war.
    Mr. Isaacs: None of the workers registered at the Walton Employment Exchange is a skilled brickworker and vacancies for unskilled workers in the St. Helens area can be met from local sources.
    Mr. Haworth: Does the Minister know whether that applies to the Upholland district where they still want workers?
    Mr. Isaacs: I can only answer the Question on the Paper. Unskilled workers are more easily obtained than skilled workers.

    Building Industry, North Wales
    Mr. Emrys Robertsasked the Minister of Labour which training centres for building operatives in North Wales have recently been opened or are contemplated; and what will be the monthly intake of each centre.
    Mr. Isaacs: No centres for building trade training have so far been opened in North Wales but I am making every effort to obtain suitable premises for such a centre.
    Mr. Emrys Robertsasked the Minister of Labour the seasons for the decline of the persons engaged in the building industry in Wales, from 33,748 in July, 1939, to 11,740 in July, 1945.
    Mr. Isaacs: The main reasons are call up to the Forces and transference of workers to vital war work in other industries and areas.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister satisfied with the measures to bring these men back and to increase the number of people in the building trade, and will that number he sufficient to enable the Government to carry out the house building programme?
    Mr. Isaacs: I think that we are fairly confident that that will occur

    Agriculture (Essential Work Order)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the proposed relaxation of the Essential Work Order, designed to permit freedom of movement within the mining industry, he will consider a similar relaxation to permit farm workers to change their employment while remaining within the agricultural industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: No decision has yet been reached on the proposal referred to in the first part of the Question. The possibility of withdrawing or modifying the Essential Work (Agriculture) (Scotland)

    1785
    Order was recently considered by the Departments concerned when it was decided, with the concurrence of the representative bodies of both sides of the industry, that, for the time being, no relaxation should be made. The matter is to be kept under continual review

    Domestic Service (Aliens)
    Mr. Kinģasked the Minister of Labour if he yet has any statement to make on the admission of aliens for domestic employment in hospitals, schools and other institutions.
    Mr. Isaacs: I will, with permisison of the House, make a statement after Questions on Thursday next.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Students
    Lieut.-Colonel Thorpasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give consideration to allowing young men with open scholarships to be released from the Services after 12 months' service.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I cannot extend release in Class B to persons with so short a period of service.

    Provisional Proģramme (June-September)
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Minister of Labour whether he can now announce the programme of demobilisation releases beyond 30th June next, or when he expects to do so.
    Mr. Isaacs: I hope to be in a position, before the Easter Recess, to announce a provisional programme of releases up to the end of September.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister in settling his programme of releases have regard to the proximity of the new academic year, especially in universities such as Aberdeen?
    Mr. Isaacs: We will give consideration to all the relevant circumstances.

  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX
  Mr. Robensasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now a position to indicate when he will be able to intro-
  1786
  duce a more accurate cost-of-living index, for which the preliminary investigations were made in 1937–38, to replace the present index which is based on pre-1914 data.
  Mr. Isaacs: I am not yet in a position to say when it will be possible to undertake a revision of the cost-of-living index. I am referring the matter to an Advisory Committee which has considered the subject in the past.
  Mr. Robens: Will the Minister expedite this matter as it is so highly important to fix something like a decent wages policy for the country?
  Mr. Isaacs: To attempt to get any reliable figures on the fluctuations and conditions at present would be most unsatisfactory from every point of view.
  Mr. Robensasked the Minister of Labour on what grounds have the compilers of his Department's cost-of-living index concluded that the average of working-class rents has risen only twice during the war years, namely, in May, 1940, and May, 1945, and are now only 2 to 3 per cent. above September, 1939.
  Mr. Isaacs: Inclusive rents of the majority of unfurnished working-class dwellings have been controlled, since the outbreak of war, by the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939. In general the only increases permitted in the rents of such dwellings, above the level of September, 1939, have been those resulting from increases in local rates and water charges. During the war years increases in rates were relatively slight, and the total effect of such increases as occurred was only sufficient to raise the average level of inclusive rents by 2 to 3 per cent.
  Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that local authorities are now raising the rents of working-class houses?
  Mr. Isaacs: That is not a question which should be put to me.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TRANSPORT ORGANISATION)
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister why, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Supply has already an efficient transport organisation with regional offices throughout the country, which in

  1787
  the past has looked after transport for other Government Departments, including the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Works has now opened a separate Department duplicating the staff and organisation of the Ministry of Supply; and why the Board of Trade have, on behalf of the raw material controls, set up a further duplicating system of transport.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): During the war the Ministry of Supply Transport Organisation looked after the interests of the Ministry of Works very efficiently, as stated by the hon. Member. With the re-organisation of the Ministry of Supply and the combination of the Ministries of Supply and Aircraft Production and with the changing character of the transport problems which the end of the war has brought to both the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Works, it was felt that it was more appropriate for the latter Department to make its own arrangements for looking after the transport matters in which it was interested and which were in many respects different from those in which the Ministry of Supply was concerned. This involved the transfer to the Ministry of Works of the Headquarter Staff of the Ministry of Supply, who had been engaged full time on work for the Ministry of Works, and the setting up within the new Regional Organisation of that department of machinery to deal with transport matters throughout the country. I understand that there have been compensating reductions in the transport staff of the Ministry of Supply and I am not aware that any duplication of staff is involved by these changes.
  With regard to the last part of the Ouestion, no new transport organisation has been set up, but arrangements have been made for the Raw Materials Control under the Board of Trade to employ forwarding agents direct.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is not the Prime Minister aware of the shortage of both manpower and vehicles, and is it not an appalling thought that there should be duplication of a Government such as this?
  The Prime Minister: My information js that there has been no duplication. If the hon. Member has any evidence to the contrary, I should be glad to receive it from him.

  STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (PROCEDURE)
  Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the various reports of the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, especially with regard to the delay by certain Government Departments in the laying of Orders on the Table of the House; and what steps the Government intend to take to reduce delay in the future.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. A circular was issued to all Departments on 31st December last drawing their attention to the need for punctual compliance with Statutory directions for the laying before Parliament of Statutory Rules and Orders whether in draft or in final form.
  Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will instruct the Treasury to see that the Reports of this Committee are sent to the Departments, which are not receiving them at the present time?
  The Prime Minister: I will look into that, but I have no information.
  Captain Crowder: Could not the Prime Minister arrange to have more staff at the Stationery Office, because it is the Stationery Office who are always blamed for delay in printing these Orders?
  The Prime Minister: Subject to the question of duplication, to which I have already referred, I will look into the matter.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Cadet Forces (Capitation Grants)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet ready to standardise the capitation grants made for members of the Air Training Corps, the Army Cadet Force and the Sea Cadet Force and to make a special allowance for equipment.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir. The needs of these three Forces are quite different.
    Mr. Bossom: Does not the Chancellor recognise that there is going to be great difficulty in getting the Forces on to an equal footing?
    Mr. Dalton: It is still true that the needs of the three Forces are quite different.
    Mr. Bossom: If the Chancellor will look at my Question, he will see that I referred to a special allowance for equipment which would make a difference in these three Forces.

    University Boat Race (Tax Revenue)
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate amount of Entertainments Duty realised from the Oxford and Cambridge boat race; and at what rate the university boat clubs concerned are charged Purchase Tax on their boats and oars.
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue accruing to the Exchequer on account of entertainment and other tax due to the Oxford and Cambridge boat race.
    Mr. Dalton: The amount of Entertainments Duty received was about £700. The boats and oars pay Purchase Tax at the rate of 33⅓ per cent. of their wholesale value.
    Sir R. Ross: Does not the Chancellor recollect that undergraduates are not wealthy people, and is it fair that, when this great national event secures the Government £700, they should be taxed on the necessary boats?
    Mr. Dalton: The arrangements regarding Entertainments Duty have been unchanged since 1922. With regard to the Purchase Tax, my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget this afternoon.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Chancellor aware that rowing may stop at Oxford and Cambridge due to the high cost of boats, and will he, between now and making his Budget statement, give consideration to the remission of the Entertainment Tax, if he has not already done so?
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Is not the boat race part of an educational entertainment?

    Lord Nelson Annuity (Termination)
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he
    1790
    can make any further statement regarding the continued payment of a pension to the heirs of the brother of Horatio, Lord Nelson.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. H. M. Government have decided to introduce legislation terminating this annuity on the death of the present earl or of his heir, his brother, should he survive him. The Bill will also provide for releasing the Trafalgar Estate, which was bestowed on the first Lord Nelson's brother and his successors under the Act of 1806, from certain of the statutory restrictions imposed by that Act. The estate will then be put in the same position as an ordinary settled estate under the Settled Land Acts.
    Mr. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the statement he has made will be welcomed as representing equity tempered by liberality?
    Mr. Piratin: Are we to understand from the reply that similar steps are to be taken with other pensions of a similar kind?
    Mr. Dalton: There are no other pensions of a similar kind.

    India (Sterling Balances)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the balance of sterling is still accumulating in India; and whether he will consider separating the wartime and current balances and make the latter available for purchase of supplies from Britain as soon as goods can be exported.
    Mr. Dalton: The Reserve Bank of India's sterling holdings have increased between 1st February and 29th March, 1946, by £35 million, of which £11½ million is attributable to a final adjustment for the year 1944–45. Sterling balances in Indian hands are available for purchases of supplies from Britain; and there is therefore no need to separate them for the purpose suggested.

    Tax Demands (Delivery)
    Lieut.-Colonel Kinģsmillasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that certain local taxation authorities are presenting tax demand forms by messenger, the forms being unfolded and not enclosed in an envelope; and whether he will give instructions that, in

    1791
    future, all demand forms shall be enclosed in an envelope or similar wrapper.
    Mr. Dalton: If the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars of the cases he has in mind I will make inquiries.

    Public Men (Sculptures)
    Lieutenant-Colonel Liptonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what sculpture, in addition to the bust of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), has been commissioned at the public expense from Mr. Jacob Epstein and other artists.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Thirty works in all. They include seven by Mr. Epstein, the subjects being Sir John Anderson, Mr. Bevin, Mr. Churchill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I think I am in Order in mentioning names—Sir Alan Cunningham, M. Maisky, Lord Portal and Viscount Wavell.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Lipton: While it is satisfactory to know the full extent of our monumental liabilities, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as a precautionary measure, it may he possible for these busts, etc., to be shown in the Library of the House before being exposed to the public gaze?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Twenty-five of them have already been exposed to the public gaze, three I think in the National Gallery, and 20 at the War Artists' show at the Royal Academy in October, 1945.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a bust of Mr. Vishinsky is to be made a memorial for all time?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the list is now closed.
    Lieutenant-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: If busts are to be the order of the day, would it not be proper to include the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Local Authority Membership
    Captain Swinģlerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he permits civil servants of his Department to participate in local government; and why permission to be nominated for election to the Stafford Rural District
    1792
    Council was refused in the case of Mr. A. N. Hillier, a Customs and Excise officer, particulars of which have been sent to him.
    Mr. Dalton: The rules regarding participation by civil servants in local government are at present being reviewed. I am anxious to give all reasonable facilities for such participation. I find that Mr. Hillier was given permission to stand in 1937 for the Gnosall Parish Council and the Stafford Rural District Council. I understand that permission was refused this year, owing to the very heavy pressure of work at Stafford, but I am looking further into the matter.

    Typists (Pay)
    Mr. I. J. Pitmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, and when, he will raise the scales of pay of typists and of shorthand-typists in the Civil Service to bring them into line with those paid for comparable duties performed in other organisations owned and operated under the overriding control of the Government and, in particular, in the Bank of England; and whether the Government intend, Without discrimination, to maintain for all employees a just and fair employment policy throughout the whole field of comparable service both in Government departments and in organisations owned and generally controlled by the State.
    Mr. Dalton: I do not accept the view that the Civil Service rates for these staffs, which have just been improved, are out of line with those paid by the Bank of England.
    Mr. Pitman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the second part of my Question? Is he not aware that the differences are as much as 10s. a week?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Even if they were, it would not prove anything.

    Medical Examination (Fee)
    Mr. Georģe Wardasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will abolish the charge of £ for a compulsory medical examination, payable by candidates for the Civil Service.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am considering this possibility in consultation with the Civil Service Commission.

    Inland Revenue (Traininģ Committees)
    Mr. James Callaģhanasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give instructions to the Board of Inland Revenue to set up a Whitley Committee on the lines recommended in paragraph 88 of Cmd. 6525, Training of Civil Servants, in view of the fact that the Inland Revenue Staff Federation has not been able to get any satisfactory proposals from the Board for many months.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am anxious that this committee should be set up as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, all the training committees recommended in the Report have been set up and are actively functioning in the Inland Revenue Department, with the exception of the particular committee to which the Question refers. The delay in getting this going is due to the fact that the two staff associations concerned hold differing views on the constitution of the committee. I hope this difficulty will be resolved at an early date.

  REQUISITIONED LAND ACT (APPOINTED DAY)
  Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the hardship caused to hotel and boarding-house keepers whose property has now been derequisitioned by Service Departments, he will consider putting back the appointed day under the Requisitioned Land Act, 1945, from 24th February, 1946, to VE-Day.
  Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Apart from other considerations, there is no power to alter this appointed day.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (RATIONS)
  Mr. Skeffinģton-Lodģeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the rations of many prisoners of war on the land; and whether, out of consideration for those farmer's wives who are supplementing these rations and in the interest of good work, he will make more satisfactory arrangements.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenģer): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply my
  1794
  right hon. Friend gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) on 21st August, 1945. As my right hon. Friend stated in that reply, on the recommendation of the Ministry of Agriculture, prisoners of war employed for very long hours on harvest work are provided with additional quantities of foodstuffs, including sugar, margarine, cheese and preserves, so as to secure the maximum output in this vital work. In present circumstances my right hon. Friend is unable to consider any further increase of their rations.

  SCOTLAND

    Fishinģ Industry
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure the distribution of such drift and seine nets as become available to the boats most urgently in need of them.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): Cases of hardship due to the lack of nets by fishermen are being investigated by local fishery officers and the issue of additional licences to manufacture nets is being regulated accordingly.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fishing vessels from the East Fife coast were sold between 1939 and the present time; what were the sizes and ages of these boats; in how many cases these boats were sold because they had become uneconomic or unsuited to modern fishing methods; what is the total number of boats now available, and how many boats are now required to offer employment to fishermen now idle.
    Mr. Westwood: Out of a fishing fleet consisting at the beginning of 1939 of 83 vessels exceeding 35 ft. in length overall, 48 have been sold away from the Anstruther fishing district. With the hon. Member's permission I shall arrange for a table showing the sizes and ages of these boats to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not in a position to say for what reasons these vessels were sold. The total number of boats now available is 40, of which three are steam drifters and I estimate that 15 motor boats of between 50 and 60 ft. in length would' be sufficient to offer employment to the fishermen in the district who are now idle.
    Mr. Stewart: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Under-Secretary stated in a recent Debate on fishing that boats had been sold by the owners in Fife for purely selfish and private enterprise reasons? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the real reasons?

    LIST OF FISHING VESSELS 35 FT. AND OVER SOLD OUT OF ANSTRUTHER DISTRICT FROM 1939 TO DATE.

    Year of sale.

    Name of Vessel

    Letters and No.

    Type

    Length in feet

    Age-in years.

    Port to which transferred.

    1939

    " Godetia "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.145

    M/B

    45·5

    20

    Oban

    „

    "Orion"

    …

    …

    …

    KY.183

    „

    48·3

    12

    Arbroath

    „

    " Bright Ray "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.193

    „

    46·5

    12

    Glasgow

    1940

    " Emulate "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.56

    M/B

    55·5

    5

    Aberdeen

    „

    " Fortunatus "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.144

    „

    43·5

    18

    Aberdeen

    „

    " White Heather "

    …

    …

    KY.173

    „

    49·9

    6

    Fraserburgh

    „

    " Harvest Moon "

    …

    …

    ML. 15

    „

    70

    36

    Eyemouth

    „

    " Gowan"

    …

    …

    …

    ML. 38

    „

    72·3

    37

    Buckie

    „

    " True Love "

    …

    …

    ML. 51

    „

    71

    38

    Eyemouth

    „

    " Endeavour "

    …

    …

    ML.80

    „

    69·5

    38

    Scrabster

    „

    " Chrysoprase "

    …

    …

    ML.84

    „

    68·15

    37

    Fraserburgh

    „

    " Condor "

    …

    …

    …

    ML.487

    „

    70·6

    36

    Fraserburgh

    1942

    " Vigilant "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.200

    M/B

    48·4

    24

    Arbroath

    „

    " Marjory "

    …

    …

    …

    ML.41

    „

    70·1

    36

    Peterhead

    1943

    " Pilot Star "

    …

    …

    KY.48

    S/D

    86

    27

    Fleet wood

    „

    " Spes Aurea

    …

    …

    KY.81

    „

    86

    26

    Fleetwood

    „

    ' Agnes Gardner "

    …

    …

    KY185

    „

    86

    26

    London

    „

    " Acorn "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.194

    „

    86

    27

    Fleetwood

    „

    " Norman Wilson "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.228

    „

    86

    27

    Fleetwood

    „

    "Plough"

    …

    …

    …

    KY.232

    „

    86

    26

    Fleetwood

    „

    " Protect Us "

    …

    …

    KY.156

    M/B

    47·5

    17

    Grimsby

    „

    " Brighter Hope "

    …

    …

    KY163

    „

    38

    17

    Whitehaven

    „

    " Silver Cloud "

    …

    …

    KY.168

    „

    37·9

    18

    Newbiggin

    „

    " Express "

    …

    …

    …

    KY 641

    „

    49·7

    23

    Bridlington

    1944

    " Cassiopeia "

    …

    …

    KY.14

    S/D

    86

    26

    Milford Haven

    „

    " Spes Melior "

    …

    …

    KY.19

    „

    86

    27

    Aberdeen

    „

    " Lasher "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.25

    „

    86

    27

    Aberdeen

    „

    " Copious "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.I75

    „

    86

    27

    Fleetwood

    „

    " Flush "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.184

    „

    87

    26

    Fleetwood

    „

    "Scarlet Thread "

    …

    …

    KY.197

    „

    86

    28

    Aberdeen

    „

    " Defensor "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.208

    „

    86

    27

    Aberdeen

    „

    " Calliopsis "

    …

    …

    KY.223

    „

    86

    28

    Milford Haven

    „

    " Mace "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.224

    „

    86

    27

    Fleetwood

    „

    " Twinkling Star "

    …

    …

    KY.347

    „

    86

    26

    Fleetwood

    „

    " Boy John "

    …

    …

    KY.131

    M/B

    65·7

    7

    Newhaven

    „

    " Arfon "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.177

    „

    39·9

    35

    Girvan

    „

    " Deo Volente "

    …

    …

    KY.217

    „

    54

    12

    Glasgow

    „

    "Faithful"

    …

    …

    …

    ML. 240

    „

    46

    17

    Peterhead

    1945

    " Argosy "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.51

    M/B

    53·4

    9

    Kilkeel

    „

    " Royal Sovereign "

    …

    KY.75

    „

    69

    9

    Colonial Government

    „

    " Star of Hope "

    …

    …

    KY.119

    „

    54·4

    9

    Eyemouth

    „

    " Good Hope "

    …

    …

    KY.165

    „

    47·5

    14

    Eyemouth

    „

    " Foxglove "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.195

    „

    37·6

    19

    Whitby

    1946

    " Royal Burghs "

    …

    …

    KY.5

    M/B

    38·6

    26

    Campbeltown

    „

    " Foxglove" (late "Merit ")

    KY.195

    „

    37·6

    20

    Newhaven

    „

    " Vesper"

    …

    …

    …

    KY.169

    „

    60·3

    9

    Berwick-on-Tweed

    „

    " St. Ayles "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.170

    „

    40

    11

    Newhaven

    „

    " Refuge "

    …

    …

    …

    KY.306

    „

    41·6

    28

    Hartlepool

    Mr. Westwood: I thought I had given a fairly full reply to the Question. There may be varying reasons why they disposed of these boats. One reason may have been the price they were able to get at the moment, which happens to have been over £3,000 in some cases.
    Following is the table:

    Aģgricultural Executive Committees
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement on the future of county W. A. E. C. 's in Scotland.
    Mr. Westwood: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) on 2nd April to which at the moment I am unable to add.
    Mr. Boothby: Since a definite decision has been reached in the case of the Ministry of Agriculture, would the right hon. Gentleman say how long the present uncertainty in Scotland is to continue?
    Mr. Westwood: In the reply to the hon. Member for East Fife I said I hoped to be in a position to make a statement in a little more than a fortnight. I needed a fortnight for the purpose of completing the discussions which are going on at the moment with the interests that are affected.
    Mr. Snadden: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that to set up the new committees requires legislation, and as he does not know how long they are to function will he expedite his decision?
    Mr. Westwood: There will be no undue delay, but I think it is right to point out that I have to carry with me in these alterations the interests that are to be affected, and at the moment I can assure the House I am getting every help from them.

    Consolidation of Statutes
    Sir William Darlinģasked the Lord Advocate (1) whether he has considered a request from the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland to put in hand a consolidation of the Scottish Conveyancing Statutes; and when a start is to be made to the work;
    (2) whether he is aware that the Statute Law Revision Committee consider that among other subjects the following are suitable for consolidation, namely: Court of Justiciary (Scotland), Court of Session (Scotland), Lunacy (Scotland), Roads and Bridges (Scotland), Sheriff Courts (Scotland); and what arrangements are being made for the drafting of the consolidating measures.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. G. R. Thomson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are alive to the need for consolidating Scottish statute law, and the staff of my Department has recently been strengthened with this need, among others, in view. A Bill to consolidate the Scottish Education Acts is now before another place; and it is hoped to introduce an amending and consolidating Local Government Bill this session. Work on further consolidating legislation, including the consolidation of the Conveyancing Acts, will be undertaken as soon as opportunity offers.
    Sir W. Darlinģ: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the possibility of the employment of ex-officers in the additional work falling to his Department?
    The Lord Advocate: I will certainly bear that in mind.

  B. O. A. C. (PURCHASE OF U.S. AIRCRAFT)
  Captain Delarģyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will withdraw the sanction to use American dollars for the purchase by B. O. A. C. of the five Constellation aircraft, in view of the rapid progress now being made in the production of the Tudors I and Tudors II, and in view of the technical and other delays involved in the purchase and delivery of the Constellations.
  Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. The decision to buy Constellations was taken in full knowledge of the schedule for the production of the Tudors; and I am advised that there have been no delays in the plans for introducing the Constellations into service.
  Captain Delarģy: Is the Chancellor aware that there has been much indignation at the news of this purchase, especially at this moment when our skilled aircraft workers are being laid off as redundant?
  Mr. Dalton: If the latter statement is correct, it shows incompetence in a branch of private industry. The desire of the Government is to get as many good civil aircraft as they can and to get them into the air as soon as possible. This covers both the Constellations and the Tudors. We want the lot.
  Wing-Commander Geoffrey Cooper: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the procedure followed by his Department in such cases, and whether dollars are made available as a result of a request from the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Ministry of Supply or direct from B. O. A. C.?
  Mr. Dalton: Certainly not the latter. The B. O. A. C. are only a chosen instrument of a Government Department. The primary responsibility is that of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, It my hon. and gallant Friend wants any further information, he should address his request to the Parliamentary Secretary of that Ministry.
  Mr. W. Shepherd: Is not the Chancellor aware that the present position is due to our preoccupation during the war with combat types and not to any inefficiency?
  Mr. Dalton: That is undoubtedly true. During the war, we focussed our attention on combat types, whereas the United States focussed on civilian transport types, but it is also true that, since the war, a drive has been set on foot to produce good civilian aircraft in this country and the Government are anxious to do all they can to forward it.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Hospital, Wheatley
    Sir G. Foxasked the Secretary of State for War if the military hospital for head injuries at Wheatley, owing to the bad conditions there, can be removed to the Churchill Hospital, Headington, pending an inquiry; or if he will ensure that conditions are improved.
    Mr. Bellenģer: The Churchill Hospital at Headington is urgently required to meet civil needs, and it was for this reason that the military hospital had to be moved to Wheatley. Steps have already been taken to improve conditions at Wheatley in certain respects, and I am expecting a further full report shortly. When my right hon. Friend has considered this report he will write to the hon. Member.
    Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that all the wards except one are heated by Army stoves which are quite unsuitable and cause constant irritation to people
    1800
    who have bad head injuries and who have suffered severe head operations?
    Mr. Bellenģer: We have already made certain improvements in that respect, but we are awaiting a further report. We shall do all we can to improve conditions.

    Surplus Stores, Europe (Guards)
    Briģadier Lowasked the Secretary of State for War approximately how many men are employed in guarding and/or maintaining British surplus war material in Europe.
    Mr. Bellenģer: I regret that it is not possible to give exact figures of the numbers employed in guarding or maintaining surplus stores, as these stores are normally held at the same depots as those which are still required. The following numbers are estimated to be engaged solely on looking after surplus stores: B. A. O. R.,1,000;C. M. F., 800.

    Sick Personnel, India (Repatriation)
    Major Diģbyasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that sick and invalid officers and other ranks in India are having to wait in hospital at Poona up to six months for repatriation to the United Kingdom; what is their movement priority; and what steps he is taking to reduce this delay in repatriation.
    Mr. Bellenģer: So far as I am aware there has been no such delay as the hon. Member suggests, but if he will send me particulars of any case which he has in mind I will gladly investigate it. If invalids are considered fit to travel by troopship they are normally despatched in the first available vessel, otherwise they are repatriated by hospital ship or ambulance transport. The requirements of India Command for shipping accommodation for invalids are being fully met.
    Major Diģby: Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of cases of this kind and that it has been most discouraging to the officers and men concerned who have had to wait long periods before being brought back?
    Mr. Bellenģer: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will send me particulars of any of these cases, I will have them looked into and will certainly follow up any justifiable complaints.

    Deferments
    Flyinģ-Officer Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for War why it has been necessary to further retard the release of Pioneer Corps officers of age and service Group 26 who are serving in the M. E. F.; and for what period these releases are being deferred.
    Mr. Bellenģer: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Northern (Lord John Hope) on 26th March. My right hon. Friend is taking special steps to ensure that every effort is made to reduce the necessity for compulsory deferments.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider the release of Lieutenant C. A. Belcher, R. E. M. E., 334735, under Class B, who is required by the London County Council in connection with housing and reconstruction work and whose release has been already recommended by the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. Bellenģer: The application made by the Ministry of Labour for this officer's release under Class B was refused owing to the shortage of R. E. M. E. officers and the fact that he is in Group 42. No further application has been received from the Ministry of Labour.

    Traininģ Grounds, Monmouth
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for War if he will provide the number of training establishments and the number of acres of land held by his Department in the county of Monmouth
    Mr. Bellenģer: The War Department holds six training areas wholly in the county of Monmouth and two partly in Monmouth. Seventy acres of land are held under Defence Regulation 51 for training purposes, and training rights over a further 5,338 acres are exercised under Defence Regulation 52 without dispossessing the owner or occupier.
    Mr. Freeman: Can the War Office give up any of these areas?
    Mr. Bellenģer: It is not possible to say at the moment whether it is possible to give up any of these areas, but I am optimistic that we shall be able to do so.

    Officers' Clubs, Germany
    Captain Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has investigated conditions in the Rothenburg, Nienburg, Bad Harzburg, Hamburg and other officers' clubs in Germany, about which he received information from the hon. and gallant Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick on 13th March; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Bellenģer: I am assured that the orders issued by B. A. O. R. forbidding the entertainment of Germans in British officers' clubs and messes are being strictly enforced throughout the Command. My hon. and gallant Friend has not sent me the dates of the occurrences referred to in his letter. If he will supply this information I will look into the matter further.
    Captain Noel-Baker: While I do not want to describe in detail now what I have already described to my hon. Friend, and one cannot give a particular date about things that have happened, may I ask if an investigation can be made into conditions in general in these clubs?
    Mr. Bellenģer: From the investigations we have already made, we feel sure that none of the things the hon. and gallant Member has referred to are happening now. What has happened in the past, I should not like to so sure about.
    Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order. Is it in Order to put on the Paper a Question with certain implications or inferences that are not clearly defined?
    Mr. Speaker: Questions which pass the Clerks at the Table are sure to be in Order.
    Captain Noel-Baker: A previous Question on this subject, the implications of which were quite clear, was put by me on the Paper some weeks ago, and this refers to the same subject.
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT
  3.17 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): The financial year which ended nine days ago, on 31st March, was a year of transition from war to peace, and I will begin by resuming some of the figures relating to the past year. First, there is the revenue. The revenue which my predecessor 12 months ago estimated at £3,265 millions came within £20 millions—less than one per cent.—of the target, which I regard, and I think the Committee will agree, as another amazing example of the prophetic precision of my advisers. The actual revenue was£3,284 millions.
  So far as the Customs and Excise are concerned, the estimate last April for the yield of these duties was £1,130 millions. The remissions of Purchase Tax which I made in the October Budget reduced this to £1,129 millions, and the receipts have turned out to be millions—£18 millions less than the target. But I am glad to be able to report to the Committee that beer has flowed in very well during the past year. Indeed, beer—well it is called beer, and taxed as such—tobacco and entertainments, have all three established new high records, yielding over £300 millions for beer, over £400 millions for tobacco and over £50 millions for Entertainments Duty. They have not merely beaten the estimates; they have beaten all previous records. Purchase Tax at £118 millions also set up a record, though it fell short of the estimate by £6 millions. A number of the other Customs duties failed to reach the estimates by a relatively small margin. On the other hand, most of the other Excise Duties were very close on the estimates.
  1804
  Turning to the other great branch of the tax revenue, the Inland Revenue Duties—this last year at £2,043 millions—fell short of the estimate by £22 millions. The Income Tax produced £1,361 millions, which beat the estimate by £11 millions and set up a new high record. Death Duties at £120 millions beat the estimate by £5 millions. Stamp Duties at £25 millions beat the estimate by £6 millions. On the other hand, Surtax at £69 millions fell short of the estimate by £11 millions. That was before I put it up. The Excess Profits Tax and the National Defence Contribution together brought in £466 millions, falling short of the estimate by £34 millions; this was because during the past year the amount of profit coming under charge to these taxes declined considerably. The sale of war stores last year brought in £60 millions. The process of disposal began slowly, as was to be expected, but during the year it quickened considerably. So much for the revenue.
  LAST YEAR'S EXPENDITURE
  With regard to the expenditure last year, the actual expenditure was £5,484 millions. This is a saving of £81 millions on last April's estimate of £5,565 millions. The Committee may wish me to analyse for a moment this net saving. On the Vote of Credit which was, of course, the main item on the expenditure side, issues were only £4,410 millions as against an estimate, 12 months ago, of £4,500 millions, and a total amount voted during the year of £4750 millions, which, as I said at the time, contained a margin for caution. In the result, we have spent£340 millions less under the Vote of Credit than the amount voted.
  The total expenditure on Defence and Supply Departments fell slowly between the ending of the war, first in Europe and then in Japan, and last December. But since the new year, the reduction has been rapid, and, in the last three months, the rate of expenditure by these Departments has fallen by a quarter, as compared with the month of June last year; and has fallen by a quarter, in spite of very heavy terminal expenses during this time. As the speed of release from the Forces and from munitions production has been accelerated, these terminal expenses, in the form of gratuities to men released and compensation for war contracts cancelled, have increased faster than the non-terminal expenditure has

  1805
  diminished. If we had demobilised more slowly, our total expenditure last year would have been smaller. But that would not have been a wise economy.
  On the other hand, there are some items of expenditure outside the Vote of Credit which have been above the estimate. There was a supplementary block grant to local authorities of £10millions; a £10 millions loan to Greece, to stabilise the drachma and to get production going in that country; increased provision of millions for civil aviation; and of £6½ millions for education. On the other hand, the debt interest—
  Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman is going very quickly. Members like to take the figures down.
  Mr. Dalton: I am sorry; I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It will be more interesting later on. The debt interest, on the other hand, was £10millions below the estimate, the first fruits of the cut in short-term rates of interest, for Treasury bills and the like, which I was able to announce last October. Therefore, the realised deficit for last year was £2,200 millions, £100 millions less than the estimate.
  Towards financing this deficit, and other capital items, Small Savings provided £658 millions—a very fine total in my view—as against £666 millions in the previous year. The larger tap loans—the National War Bonds and the Savings Bonds—produced no less than £1,290 millions, a larger figure than in any previous year. The flow of subscriptions to these loans was heaviest in the December quarter—hastened by hints dropped as to the probable future movements of interest rates—and the floating debt in that quarter was reduced by £522 millions, mostly in our borrowings from the banks.
  FLOATING DEBT
  The net increase in the floating debt over the year was only £371 millions. I think perhaps I might, at this stage, say that I do not regard the present floating debt of nearly £6,500 millions as too large, in relation either to the total of the internal debt, which is £23,000 millions, or to the present scale of our expenditure and revenue, or to our future requirements Since most of the floating debt costs us only one half of one per cent.,
  1806
  I see no pressing reason to replace it by more expensive forms of public borrowing at this stage.
  PROSPECTS FOR 1946–47
  So much for the past; now let us face the future. Prospects for the year 1946, on which we have just entered, are less sombre than some scribes have imagined. The estimated expenditure is £3,837 millions, a reduction of £1,728 millions, or 31 per cent., on the estimate for last year. This year's expenditure is made up of three elements: first, the Defence and Supply Departments on which we shall expend £1,667 millions; secondly, the Civil Departments—excluding, for this purpose, the Ministry of Supply, which we class with the Defence Departments—£1,652 millions; thirdly, the Consolidated Fund services, mainly interest on the National Debt, £518 millions.
  The Civil Departments, other than the Ministry of Supply, will, as I have said, require £1,652 millions. As was shown in the White Paper on the Civil Vote on Account, published some little while ago, these Civil Estimates contain some £886 millions for services which last year were borne on Vote:, of Credit, which as the Committee knows, have now been discontinued and replaced by Departmental Estimates. If we exclude these services, transferred from the one category to the other, the Civil Estimates for this coming year require £766 millions as against £621 millions voted for corresponding services last year. Thus, the true increase this year over last year in the Civil Departments is £145 millions.
  SOCIAL SERVICES
  This increase is due to the fulfilment of the pledges that we gave to the electors in relation to our social programme. It signals a swift advance along a broad front of social improvement, each item of which I am prepared to defend on merits. The main items are: first of all,£21 millions more for education. This includes, among other items, £4 millions more for the universities, and for museums, libraries, and art galleries. There will be an increase of £4 millions for school milk and meals. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education recently announced, milk in schools will be free for all children from 1st August next. There will be, this next year, £19 millions more for housing. There will be

  1807
  £38 millions for the start, next August, of the Family Allowances scheme which was passed under the Coalition Government. There will be £14 millions more for old age and widows' pensions, under the great charter of "Freedom from Want" now being piloted through the Standing Committee by my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance. Under his programme, to which I am sure the Committee will be willing to work, the old people will begin to draw their increased pensions next autumn.
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS
  I am also finding £10 millions more for the Development Areas. The battle of the Development Areas is not yet won, but we mean to win it. We mean to wipe. out the evil heritage of mass unemployment in these areas, due to long years of political neglect and private unenterprise. The Distribution of Industry Act, also the product of the Coalition Government, was a good Act. We have powers under it strong enough to bring these prewar distressed areas—industrial Scotland, South Wales, County Durham, the North-East coast and West Cumberland, and the other small areas recently added by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, with their fine people, who, let it never be forgotten, produced some of our bravest fighters in two World Wars—to the same level of full employment and prosperity which it is our aim to maintain throughout the country. If I may be permitted a personal word here, I would say that no task lies nearer to my heart than this. I have studied this topic in pretty close detail for many years. I think I may claim to have done my share, in speaking, writing and agitating on the subject. Now we have the Statute which we inherited from the previous Parliament, and the power, and the will, to use it.
  One of the first instructions I gave when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer last July, was that, as regards constructive plans for the Development Areas, the Treasury was henceforth to be, no longer a curb, hut a spur. I have told my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and other colleagues cooperating with us in solving this problem, that I will find, and find with a song in my heart, whatever money is necessary to finance useful and practical proposals for developing these areas, and bringing them
  1808
  to a condition which they never had in the past, a condition of full and efficient and diversified economic activity. I pledge my word that this job shall not fall down for lack of finance.
  CIVIL AVIATION AND FORESTRY
  I am finding also £11 million more this year for civil aviation, another great new socialised service that this Government is creating. I am finding £2 million more for the Forestry Commission. I would like to say a word about the Forestry Commission, which had to be called into existence to redress the balance, which had tilted heavily against afforestation in this country. It has a very fine record of work, and money spent through the medium of the Forestry Commission is, I submit, a sound Socialist investment in trees and real estate. The Forestry Commission today is the largest single landowner in England. It owns more than a million acres, and we intend during this Parliament steadily to increase that acreage. I have agreed with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland that I will place £20 million, over the next five years, at the service of the Commission, which has already brought into being 750,000 acres of State forest and will soon, I hope, rid us from the reproach of having a smaller percentage of our land under trees than any other country in Europe. In this connection, we have to make good not only the ravages of two great wars on our timber reserves, and the beauty of our woodlands, but also the failure, over long periods, of private landowners at large, in spite of some admirable exceptions—but they were exceptions—to take proper care of existing woods and forests, or to plant on a sufficient scale.
  Mr. Churchill: That is quite undeserved.
  Mr. Dalton: I have looked at some of these places.
  SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES
  Finally, on the Defence Votes this year, not in the Civil Estimates, there are some £20 million more for better pay and allowances for officers and other ranks, designed to make life in the Services more attractive, and to remove any inferiority of living standards and of prospects compared with civil life. I have further provided, as part of the £145 million,£10 million this year, for more generous war pensions under the new Royal Warrant.
  All the items in this wide and varied range of increased expenditure have this in common. They will all add, I believe, to the health and welfare of our people. They are all social investments, some in material things and some in human values. They are all expenditures which we cannot afford not to incur in the national interest. They are the first year's instalment of our five year plan for this Parliament. I commend them to the Committee; and I believe that this expenditure will be approved.
  DEBT CHARGE
  As regards the Debt Charge, I put that for this year at £490 million, an increase of £35 million over the cost of interest last year. This includes interest on borrowing to meet the prospective Budget deficit, and also on borrowing under the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act of this wear, and the Finance Act of last autumn to cover the exceptional and non-recurrent items of payments for war damage on the one hand, and E.P.T. refunds on the other. Neither of these can be closely estimated as yet; but I am provisionally assuming that war damage will require, this year, between £100 million and £150 million, and E.P.T. refunds something between £150 million and £200 million. Other Consolidated Fund charges, on the existing basis, will cost £28 million.
  COST-OF-LIVING SUBSIDIES
  I would like at this stage to say a word on the cost-of-living subsidies. With regard to these, we are spending a formidable total. We are providing, this year, no less than £335 million for cost-of-living subsidies. In my Budget speech last autumn, I announced the decision to hold the present cost of living steady, even if this meant an increase in Exchequer subsidy. I went on to say that, for the next year at least—I was speaking in October —and until further notice, we should seek to hold the index where it then was, and not allow it to vary by more than an insignificant amount. I am sure that has been a wise decision. A stable cost-of-living index is a sheet anchor for us in the stormy and unsettled waters of transition from war to peace. I am sure the smoothness of what has been a gigantic turnover of our industrial machine from war to peace, and the almost complete
  1810
  absence of industrial disputes in Britain —[Interruption.] The almost complete absence is correct, and if the hon. Gentleman who interrupted will do a hit of foreign travel on business, to try to encourage the export trade, he will find this is so. The almost complete absence of industrial disputes in Britain is largely due to the quiet confidence of our people that they can rely on a firm basis for the cost of living, and for the purchasing power of the money they receive. I intend to continue this policy, with as little departure from it as possible, for the year 1946.
  But there are two points which I should perhaps make clear, to avoid any misunderstanding hereafter. The first is that, while the main elements making up the cost-of-living index are under close control, there are some which are not. There may be small changes in prices, here and there, which may move the index, from time to time, by a point or two. I cannot guarantee that this sort of variation will not occur, though I shall try to prevent it. Secondly, and more important perhaps, some commodities such as new potatoes, have their "in season "and" off season," and seasonal variations in the index are difficult to avoid. We should, therefore, think of stability in the sense that the index will remain at the present average level over the year, but that, from month to month, there may be some temporary fluctuations up and down.
  The Committee must appreciate that this policy of price stability is costing a lot of money. These subsidies were running at the rate of £250 million a year before Lend-Lease ended, and in my Budget statement in October I estimated that the ending of Lend-Lease would add at least £50 million a year to the cost. In fact, it has added more than that. As I have said, I now put the cost for 1946£47 at £335 million. This is a very-large figure. It is already nearly three-quarters of the cost of the National Debt, and it may rise still higher. For the cost of imported food is steadily tending upwards, for reasons altogether outside our control. And when, as we hope to do, we are able to import a greater volume of supplies, the cost of the subsidy will rise, by reason of the larger quantities of goods being brought in, in addition to any rise that may be due to the increase in

  1811
  their unit price. Having said that, I repeat that to hold the cost of living steady in present circumstances is still, in the judgment of His Majesty's Government, wise. But we cannot go on doing this indefinitely, regardless of cost. We shall have to reconsider this matter next year. We might even have to do' so earlier, if the prices of our necessary imports, or home supplies, rose steeply. Subject, however, to this qualification and this warning, I repeat my determination, on behalf of the Government, to hold the cost of living substantially at its present level, for the calendar year 1946.
  REVENUE, 1946–47
  I turn to the question of revenue in the coming year, the revenue on the existing basis of taxation. We have a total expenditure of £3,837 million. What revenue shall I have, this year, to meet that expenditure, on the existing basis of taxation? The estimate for Customs and Excise shows a welcome increase over the receipts last year. With the progress of demobilisation, there will be more consumers of dutiable articles in this country, and some of the cigarettes and other goods which used to be sent abroad, for the troops, without paying duty, will now be sold in this country, and will pay duty. This is one of the pleasures—from the point of view of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in his departmental capacity—in more rapid demobilisation. I have felt justified in putting receipts from beer at £312 million this year, from spirits at £77 million, from tobacco at £425 million and from Entertainments Duty at £51 million In addition, I can look forward to a substantial increase in the production of articles subject to Purchase Tax. I have assumed a rise of a little over £50 million compared with the receipts from Purchase Tax last year. At the existing rates of taxation, therefore, Customs and Excise Duties should produce about £1,200 million this year—an increase of £89 million on last year—though this figure might have to be substantially reduced, if unfavourable developments abroad led to reduced imports, and hence reduced Customs re venue.
  Turning to Inland Revenue, Income Tax last year yielded £1,361 million. I said in my Budget speech in the autumn, that the reductions in Income Tax which I then proposed, would cost the
  1812
  Exchequer £322 million in a full year—or £315 million after allowing for the slight increase in Surtax—and that they would cost £283 million in the current year. This would leave me with a yield on Income Tax this year of £1,078 million. But, thanks to increasing profits and increasing incomes generally, I expect to do a bit better than this, and to get an additional £67 million from Income Tax this year, giving a total yield of £1,145 million.
  I am advised by my experts, who calculate these things, that Surtax should produce £80 millions this year, Death Duties £125 millions, Stamp Duties £29 millions, and Miscellaneous Duties £1 million. Excess Profits Tax and National Defence Contribution together yielded £466 millions last year. The reduction in the rate of Excess Profits Tax to 60 per cent., which I proposed in the autumn Budget, will hardly affect the yield this year, and the full cost of that reduction will not be felt until 1947–48. But a further fall must be expected in the profits subject to E.P.T. and repayments on account of deficiencies, which up to date have been small, will increase. I do not, therefore, count on the Excess Profits Tax, together with N. D. C., to produce more than £325 millions this year. This gives a grand total of £1,7o5 millions for the Inland Revenue Duties, a decrease of £338 millions on last year's receipts.
  Then there is revenue other than the tax revenue to be considered. Motor Vehicles Duties are always put in a class by themselves for purposes of classification, and are an uncertain quantity. I put them at £45 millions for this year. The new form of motor taxation which I proposed in my last Budget, and which was accepted by the Committee and the House, will apply to vehicles first registered after 1st January, 1947. Miscellaneous revenue, I put at £43 millions. This year, and henceforth, it will not include any large amount for war damage contributions and premiums.
  I would like the Committee to notice the next point. It is one of those which were, naturally, not known to the commentators in the Press, and were partly responsible for their too gloomy estimates of our prospects. There are two substantial items.If non-tax revenue which I shall get this year as legacies of the war. I can only

  1813
  estimate them in round figures; but I count on getting £150 millions from the sale of surplus war stores, and £50 millions as surplus receipts from the trading activities of various Government Departments, particularly the Raw Materials Department of the Board of Trade. I shall thus get £200 millions of which the Press have had no notice. My total estimated revenue is, therefore, £3,193 millions, or some £91 millions less than that received last year. To put it in another way, this £200 millions which comes from the sale of war stores, and from the trading receipts of the War Departments, nearly cancels out the loss of revenue due to the Income Tax reductions—not quite but it goes a long way towards it.
  Putting it with still more exactitude, the £200 million from these two items plus the natural increase in Income Tax due to enlarged incomes—these two together, practically cancel out the loss of revenue this year due to the Income Tax reductions of last autumn. I wish to pursue the point of the sale of war stores. After the last war, there was much criticism of the practice then adopted of treating the sales of war stores as ordinary revene. They are, indeed, terminal revenue, and it may be argued that they should be set against terminal expenditure. I think, however, that is a slightly prosaic view, and I have decided this year to make a certain departure from this rule-of-thumb finance. In view of last year's receipt of £60 million from the sale of war stores, and the prospective receipt of £150 million from the same source this year, I propose to carry £50 million to a separate Fund, with a special purpose, which I will describe to the Committee in due course. Though I do not contemplate that much will actually be spent out of this special Fund this year, it is necessary, for accounting purposes, to add the £50 million to this year's estimated expenditure, under the heading of Consolidated Fund Services.
  DEFICIT, 1946–47
  What conclusion do we reach regarding the deficit for the coming year, on the existing basis of taxation? We have an estimated expenditure, including the £50 million carried to the special Fund, of £3,887 million, and a total revenue, on the existing basis of taxation, of £3,193 million. Thus, the prospective deficit for this financial year stands at £694 million.
  1814
  This is a considerably smaller figure than most of the prophets anticipated. Most of them said it would be £1,000 million, at least; it is, in fact, £694 million. This deficit represents a drop of £1,506 million, or 68 per cent., on the realised deficit of £2,200 million for last year.
  I think the Committee may be interested in the following figures. In the last full year of war, 1944–45, our expenditure was £6,063 million and our revenue £3,238 million. That is to say, in the last full year of war, out of every £1 of expenditure we met 10s. 8d. out of revenue. We thought that was a good record for a full year of war, and so it was. In 1945–46, the year of transition from war to peace, our expenditure was £5,484 million, and our revenue £3,284 million; so that, last year, out of every £1 of expenditure, we paid 12s. out of revenue. In the year which is now opening, 1946–47, the first full year of peace, expenditure is estimated at £3,887 million, and revenue, on the existing basis of taxation, at £3,193 million; so that, on this basis, we shall pay, this year, out of every £1 of expenditure, 16s. 5d. out of revenue. This, I suggest, is a pretty quick recoil towards a balanced Budget.
  Nor is this all that can be said about this year's prospective deficit. Both the expenditure and the revenue this year contain large terminal items due to the winding up of the war. These will not recur in future years. The clearest and most definite of these items are the following. On the expenditure side, there is £576 million for the Defence and Supply Departments. Of the total provision which those Departments require this year, £576 million is terminal, and will not recur. Also there is the £50 million —which I have already mentioned—which I am carrying, as a "once for all" operation, to the special Fund. On the revenue side, there is the £200 million, which I have mentioned to the Committee, from the sale of war stores and war trading receipts. If we subtract these terminal items from each side, the prospective deficit is reduced to £268 million this year, and out of every £1 of expenditure, we shall be paying no less than 18s. 4d. from revenue. We may, therefore, claim that, if we allow for these terminal items on both sides of the account, we shall not be very far off a balanced Budget this year.
  This I regard as a most remarkable achievement, to be proclaimed not only in this country, but throughout the world, in countries where too little is known of what we are doing and what we intend to do. It is a great tribute to the practical capacity of the British people, in the management both of their public and of their private affairs, that, in the first year following our victory, after six years of long and exhausting war, and with a Government in power which has deliberately embarked upon a great and costly programme of social betterment, we should so nearly have attained this goal of traditional financial rectitude. In my view that is something to boast about.
  In 1947–48, and in following years, the choice between having a Budget surplus and a Budget deficit is in our own hands. Throughout the war period, Budget deficits have been inevitable. From now on, as I say, the choice is in our own hands, and will depend predominantly on our own decisions in the field of economic and financial planning. As I said last autumn, we shall aim at balancing the Budget, not year by year, but over a series of years, making our choice each year according to the state and prospects of trade and employment and in the light of the general economic and financial situation. But we shall choose in future. The choice will not be made for us. We shall choose whether to balance the Budget, or whether to incur a deficit, for clearly understood reasons.
  THE BUDGET DEFICIT AND THE OVERSEAS DEFICIT
  So much for the prospective Budget deficit. It is not so serious as some have imagined. A much more serious and more anxious problem is presented by another kind of deficit, by the deficit in our overseas balance of payments. For the calendar year 1946, I put this deficit at £750 million. It represents, of course, the excess of our overseas expenditure—mainly on essential imports, but also on the maintenance of troops abroad and other overseas expenditure of a miscellaneous character—over receipts from our exports, visible and invisible.
  Here, the special and unique character of our contribution to the common war effort has strained us very severely. We put everything into the war effort, and, as a consequence, we are suffering. Not
  1816
  from any deep or permanent disability—far from it, we are pretty healthy in our essential economic life—but, for the moment, from a strain, due to this extensive and unique contribution we made. This deficit cannot disappear in this year. It will certainly persist in 1947 and perhaps in 1948. Our problem is to find ways and means of bridging the gap, until we have fully recovered our strength, and restored the flow of our export trade—which, at the moment, is moving very well. Exports now are rising more rapidly than some people thought likely. Our good friends and kinsmen in Canada have granted us a credit, which will be a welcome aid while we are bridging this gap. We appreciate deeply the spirit in which that aid is given.
  ANGLO-AMERICAN LOAN AGREEMENT
  The proposed Anglo-American Loan Agreement is now before the American Congress; and it would not be proper for me to intervene in that debate. But it is right for me to emphasise now how greatly we need, and how greatly we shall appreciate, the proposed measure of assistance, in order to hasten the time—for this is the purpose of it—when we shall once again pull our full weight in the expansion of world trade, and when it will be no longer necessary to restrict imports as closely and as harshly as was inevitable in time of war. My Budget has been prepared on the assumption that the Agreement will be approved. Some of the figures I have used would need to be amended if it failed. If it did fail, we should at once have to take very vigorous measures to reduce imports, especially those which have to be paid for in American dollars, arid to adapt our economy, and that of other countries which trade with us, to the changed situation. This would mean a substantial loss in revenue, and it might be necessary for me, in that event, to introduce some supplementary financial proposals.
  THE PROSPECT A FEW YEARS AHEAD
  If I might return from the Overseas Deficit to the Budget proper, it may interest the Committee if I now look a little further ahead than the current year. I have been asked to do that sometimes in these Debates, and to say something on the probable trends, so far as we can now discern them, over the next few years. The Budget of 1946–47, as I have

  1817
  explained to the Committee, is not very far from being balanced, if the more obvious terminal elements on both sides of the account are excluded. But there are some items of expenditure which will undoubtedly grow considerably in the next few years.
  I take, in particular, what I might call the central group of the social services—education, housing, health services, national insurance and family allowances, and war pensions. These are the central group of the social services. They will cost the Exchequer some £500 millions in 1946–7, and this total is likely to rise to some £700 millions in 1948–9, two years hence, and, after that, to go on rising, though at a much slower rate. The movement will be from £500 millions to £700 millions in two years, and then the curve will flatten considerably, so far as we can foresee, but it will still rise, though much more slowly. More than half the increase of £200 millions in these two years is in the health services, and especially in the new arrangements for hospitals, under the bold and constructive National Health Service Bill of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. But, from the point of view of the Treasury, it is necessary to remember that a great part of this increased Exchequer contribution to the health services is, in fact, a transfer from the rates to the taxes, and will have to be offset, in large part at least, by a re-arrangement in the relations between the central and local authorities, by a reduction in the total grants from the Exchequer to local authorities, and by a revision of the Block Grant
  On the other hand, as an offset to the increase which we shall deliberately incur in regard to social services, there should be some big savings in expenditure over the same period. Unless we should be faced by some serious worsening of international relations, and we hope that will not be the case, we are entitled to anticipate further substantial reductions in defence expenditure. A figure of £500 millions a year in the postwar years used to be taken as a rough, approximate estimate in the war period, when the late Sir 'Kingsley Wood was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In looking forward to the future, he once offered such a figure, in a speculative spirit, to the Committee—
  1818
  something of the order of £500 millions a year for defence services, in times of peace. We may not be able to get down as low as that for a long time; but, leaving out the terminals altogether, the present expenditure on defence services and supplies is more than twice the figure which Sir Kingsley Wood thought might be proper in times of peace.
  Furthermore, it is of great value to the national finances if we can not merely reduce expenditure on defence, but reduce the overseas expenditure incurred in connection with defence. In a sense, the soldier in this country costs the Exchequer much less than the soldier overseas, because he represents a less severe pressure upon our balance of payments. In any case, my point is that we are entitled to anticipate, unless some ill befall us, a substantial reduction in defence expenditure, a reduction at least, I hope, as large as, and, perhaps, substantially larger than, the increase in social expenditure.
  Moreover, we are spending this year no less than £80 millions under the estimate for the Control Office. This is a large figure. It represents, in part, the cost of the British civilian administration in the Western Zone of Germany—the cost not of the military, but of the civil, administration—and, in part, the cost of the food for the Germans in that Zone. This food costs us dollars, from our limited reserves. So far, we are getting disappointingly little in return, and that is a matter which may have to be probed in the House one of these days. I am quite sure that the British taxpayer cannot, and should not, much longer be expected to go on paying, on this scale, what are, in effect, reparations to Germany. Speaking as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I grudge the money.
  CHEAPER MONEY
  May I turn to the topic of interest rates? I have frequently declared, since taking office, and I now once more repeat, that the aim of the Government is to cheapen money and to lower rates of interest to the greatest extent that economic and financial conditions, will permit. In my Budget speech last October, I was able to announce a cut in short-term rates. The Treasury bill rate was reduced from one per cent. to one-half of one per cent. and the rate on Treasury deposit receipts from one and one-eighth per cent. to five-eighths

  1819
  per cent. Thus the cost of the Floating Debt was cut nearly in half. On 27th November, I proposed the repayment of the 2½ per cent. Conversion Loan, 1944–49, and of 2½ per cent. National War Bonds, 1945–47, offering the holders of these Bonds the option of conversion into 1¾ per cent. Exchequer Bonds, 1950. The response was pretty good. It was sufficiently good to reduce, as I told the House on 7th March, the interest on the National Debt by a further L3½ million a year. I might add that, in so far as the offer of conversion was not taken up, the floating debt looked after the balance, and the interest saving was even greater.
  On 15th December I "turned off the laps "—as the City phrase goes—and stopped the sale of the 2½ per cent. National War Bonds, 1954–56, and the 3 per cent. Savings Bonds, 1965–75. Since then, no new tap loan has been offered.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS MOVEMENT
  My path for the future has been made much easier by the splendid tenacity of the National Savings Movement, to which, once more, I desire to pay my tribute. Only last week I was, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at a most impressive demonstration at the Albert Hall, where the Movement pledged themselves to find, during this coming year, £520 million of new money in the form of small savings. I regard that as an exceedingly fine figure, having regard to the relaxation which must naturally follow the ending of the war. I told them that I would take them at their word, and write this figure into my Budget estimates. This massive contribution, from a great multitude of patriotic and not over-rich citizens, powerfully fortifies the Treasury and also guards us against the danger of inflation. It is exceedingly desirable that all these hundreds of millions should be saved at this time, instead of being spent.
  With this reinforcement of our finances by the Savings Movement, I frankly tell the Committee that I shall not need to borrow, from the City of London and the money market, any very large sums of new money this year. This means, I am glad to say, that much new money which otherwise might have been absorbed by Government Loans will now be available to finance other needs, including those
  1820
  of local authorities, of the great public boards, and of the whole range of private industry. All of these, local authorities, public boards, and private industrialists, will gain, equally with the Treasury, from reductions in rates of interest. It is not sense to pay more for a loan of money than you need.
  BRITISH GOVERNMENT CREDIT.
  Since last October, British Government credit, which already was high then, judged by the standards of the City, and measured by the yields on Government stocks, has risen even further. The long-term rate of interest has already fallen below 3 per cent., and it is still tending to fall. It follows from this that the 3 per cent. Defence Bond is no longer an appropriate security, and I intend to discontinue the present series at the end of this month. There are three weeks in which these bonds may still be taken up at 3 per cent.—three precious, fleeting weeks. As from 1st May, there will be a new offer of Defence Bonds, bearing interest at 2½ per cent., but otherwise on the same terms as the present issue. The maximum individual holding of Defence Bonds, of all series taken together, will be raised, from 1st May, from £2,000 to £2,500. Further, since, as I have already told the Committee, my need for new money will be so much less this year than last, I do not propose to issue any new. tap loan at present. I intend, however, to take the first opportunity, on 15th May, to give notice to repay, on 15th August, the 1490 million of the 2½ per cent. National War Bonds, 1946–48. Any terms of replacement will be announced later. I have great faith—and I believe it is justified by facts and events—in the financial strength and resiliency of Britain. I ask Members in all parts of the Committee—for this should be above party, and I am sure it is—to support the Government in our determination to do all we can to register a still further improvement in the national credit.
  TAX CHANGES—GENERAL
  Now I come to an interesting topic, namely, consideration of what changes, if any, should be made in taxation. The Committee will have realised, from what I have said earlier, that we must go slow with further tax reliefs this year. Until there are more goods in the shops, the risk of inflation will remain serious. Let

  1821
  us not blink that fact. I must be careful not to release too great a flow of purchasing power too soon, before there are goods to absorb it. Particularly, in the next few months, we must be cautious as to what further tax reductions we provide. I must remind the Committee, as, of course, they will recall, that the Income Tax concessions made in my October Budget, which are worth, to those who benefit from them, no less than £322 million in a full year, have only just begun to take effect, three days ago.
  The only counter to inflation is to produce more goods. It is with this object that Ministers, supported, I know, by broad and sober bodies of public opinion among organised workers and employers, and other elements in our community all over the country are now engaged, both in propaganda and in practice, in a campaign to increase production. As I say, the only counter to inflation is to produce more goods, and thus to increase both the national income and the public revenue. It is against this background—the need to stimulate more production, and the need, on the other hand, to hold back purchasing power from too precipitate and premature a release—that we must judge all proposals for further tax reliefs. We must be cautious, but this does not mean that there is nothing that can be done, and I will now unfold to the Committee a series of modest proposals, falling, I believe, within the bounds of prudence.
  First, as to Customs and Excise. I will begin with a few quite minor proposals, none of which appreciably affects the Revenue. The Finance Bill will, as I promised in my Budget speech last October, provide for the continuance, until the next Schedule A general revaluation, of the rebates of liquor licence duty provided in the Finance Act, 1942. It will also provide, for the first time—and this will be good news for travellers—for the issue of Excise licences for the sale of liquor and tobacco in aircraft. That shows what a socialised service can do. I am assured that there is no danger either to passengers or to pilots, in this change. Theobromine may be known to some Members, but it was not known to me until my attention was drawn to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson),
  1822
  my predecessor, will have met it before, but I did not know that it is a drug, made from cocoa residues. I propose to remove the title to drawback of Cocoa Duty on the export of British manufactured theo-bromine. A Clause in the Finance Bill will enable British manufacturers to obtain the drawback when they receive the residues for manufacture, and the drawback on export will thus become unnecessary. I also propose to remove the statutory prohibition on the import of coffee essences, and to substitute an import duty But no import licences will be granted for the present.
  The existing legislation governing the Key Industry Duties expires this year. These duties were imposed after the first world war to protect manufacturers vital to our war potential. We shall consider, in the light of recent experience and scientific developments, what changes may he necessary in these duties. Meanwhile, I propose that they should be extended in their present form for two years, though we may make some changes before the end of this period
  The present sugar preference margins expire next August, and I propose to continue them for a further period of two years. We are pledged to give 18 months' notice of any change.
  PURCHASE TAX
  Now I come to the Purchase Tax. I must confess that I do not regard this as a temporary tax or as a wartime aberration of one of my Conservative predecessors, to be hastily swept away. On the contrary, my view is that the Purchase Tax has got to stay, and must yield an increasing revenue over the next few years to help to pay the bill for social betterment. Its yield will rise as the production of taxable goods increases. This tax, in present conditions, not only raises revenue but also absorbs, or "mops up," as they say in the Treasury, purchasing power, and so helps to prevent inflation. But, having said these rough words to optimists, I would add that, following the beginning which I made last October, I propose, on a carefully selected range of articles, either to remit the Purchase Tax altogether or to reduce the rate.
  I first propose one or two minor changes in the machinery of the tax. In the past there has been some tax avoidance in connection with the processing of certain

  1823
  goods. Experience has revealed certain loopholes through which some goods escape tax altogether, contrary to the intention of the legislation. For example it is possible to buy raw fur skins, which are not subject to tax, and to have them made into a fur coat. But there is no sale of a fur coat as such, and the tax on such coats has, therefore, hitherto been dodged. Again, to take another example, neither a motor manufacturer who sells a chassis only, nor a coach builder who sells a body only, is selling a motor car; and the completed car, therefore, has hitherto escaped tax. I propose to take appropriate steps to close loopholes of this kind. I shall also provide, in the Finance Bill, that visitors to this country from abroad, including officials on leave from India and from the Colonies, may buy a British car for use here, free of Purchase Tax, provided they take it away with them when they leave. Visitors can now bring in a foreign car, free of Customs Duty and free of Purchase Tax; and I therefore propose to remove what I regard as an indefensible discrimination against British cars, and to put them on the same footing.
  It has been represented to me that the charge of Import Duty and Purchase Tax on legacies of personal effects—I am not now talking of securities, but of personal effects received from abroad—occasions hardship. I propose, therefore, to relieve such objects from these charges. I promised during the discussions on the Autumn Finance Bill, to go carefully through the whole range of articles now subject to Purchase Tax, and to consider how far I could make further concessions. I have done so, and I will now make to the Committee the following proposals. I propose, first, to exempt wholly from the Purchase Tax a number of articles, which I will enumerate in a moment, and, secondly, to reduce the rates of Purchase Tax upon a further list. Full descriptions of these articles will be found in the White Paper which will be available in the Vote Office. I will name them briefly. I propose to remit the Purchase Tax entirely from the following articles. First, pots and pans; more precisely, articles of pottery, china, glassware, plastics or metal hollow-ware used for the preparation or serving of food or drink—a wide class of goods. These are now taxed, in nearly every case, at 16⅔ per cent. I believe that this remission will be popular with housewives, particularly now that there
  1824
  are more pots and pans in the shops. It might have seemed a mockery to tell people that they would not be taxed on something which they could not buy. Now that these articles are flowing into the shops in larger quantities, I hope this remission will be helpful to many.
  Next I propose to exempt certain articles now taxed at 33½ per cent., the most important being: kitchen fitments, such as dressers, cupboards, draining boards and so on. This should reduce the cost, and increase the convenience, of setting up house.
  Mr. Gallacher: Stoves?
  Mr. Dalton: Stoves were freed in the autumn Budget. I propose to make utility spring mattresses tax free, to encourage healthy slumber. Next, utility woollen blankets. These are a new and welcome venture by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade. When I was President of the Board of Trade I could never persuade the Wool Control to make utility woollen blankets, but he has done better than I could. We will remit the tax on them. Then come electric kettles; and at the request of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, firebricks and certain other fuel saving devices, designed to encourage economy in fuel consumption. Next, office machinery—the tax on office machinery, including typewriters and cash registers, has been represented as a tax on business efficiency and modern methods, and this remission will take care of that. Further, I propose to exempt certain items which are of more limited interest but are important to the people concerned—sensitized document base paper, mains operated hand lamps, certain railway lamps and public clocks. Finally, I propose to exempt one item now taxed at zoo per cent., namely, epidiascopes, for the benefit of educationalists. All the articles which I have mentioned will now be completely free from tax.
  I next propose reductions in the rate of tax as follow: A reduction from zoo per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. on musical instruments, gramophones, and gramophone records; on photographic requisites and projectors; on hair-waving and hair-drying machines— [Laughter] —in which, perhaps, I should declare that I have no interest; but these are the tools of trade

  1825
  for hairdressers, including many men and women returning to this honourable and artistic calling from the Forces. Next, we have leather cases for professional use, garden furniture, and, finally, plain wooden walking sticks. It seems to me to be most unfair that these should be taxed more heavily, as they were up to now, than umbrellas.
  I propose to reduce the tax from 33⅓ per cent. to 16⅔ per cent. on vacuum flasks and also lawn mowers and garden rollers, for those who are interested in their gardens. All these changes will apply to goods delivered by registered manufacturers and wholesalers to retailers as from tomorrow. Many of these articles are still in short supply. The public should be warned of that, and should realise it. In addition, the clearance of all tax paid stocks will, of course, take a little time. But, as new supplies come forward there should be price adjustments on all goods on which I have announced concessions, whether complete repeal or reduction of the tax. Most of these goods are subject to price control, and our price control is pretty good. It would be an offence for a trader to try to pass on to the purchaser a tax which he had not paid. Therefore, I hope that, after an interval of time for the clearance of tax paid stacks, many of these articles will be both cheaper and more plentiful for our consumers. The total revenue which I shall sacrifice on purchase tax will be about £12,000,000 this year, and £15,250,000 in a full year.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY
  Now I turn to Entertainments Duty. As the Committee knows, there are two scales of rates of Entertainments Duty. The lower scale now applies only to the theatres and to a few other live performances, the higher scale applies to all other entertainments. I have received many representations in favour of applying the lower scale to football, cricket and a number of other sports and I have decided that it is right to do so. I propose that the lower scale shall now apply to football, cricket, boxing, tennis, athletics, swimming; in short to all outdoor sports—including the University Boat Race; I could not anticipate that at Question Time—except horse, motor and dog racing. Horse, motor and dog racing will continue, with the cinema, to pay
  1826
  at the higher rate. Broadly speaking, practically everything else—those I have mentioned and a number of others that I have not mentioned—will come down to the lower level. This reduced scale will be brought into force for all events held on or after 5th May. I should add that the reduced scale will apply also to indoor games such as billiards and chess.
  I think that these changes will be welcomed in all parts of the Committee. I have proposed that they should be made because I am very anxious to help clubs all over the country, especially the football and cricket clubs, to restore their finances and to improve their facilities, in the interests of their members and of those whom they employ, and in the interests of the general public. I hope that, as a result of this concession, the principal football clubs will be able next season to reduce their usual price of admission from is. 6d. to Is. 3d., and that all other sports clubs and associations, who will gain from the concession, will pass on part of the benefit to the spectators. Part of the benefit will, of course, need to be retained by them, to improve their facilities, which have necessarily been neglected during the war years. This concession will cost £1,000,000 this year, and £1,250,000 in a full year. I believe that it is well worth the money, in the interests of British sport, recreation and physical fitness.
  While still on this topic, may I say that I shall also fulfil the promise which I made last November, to amend the law relating to entertainments provided for a partly educational purpose by non-profit making bodies. At present, exemption is allowed only if the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that, in each particular case, the entertainment has educational value. I propose that in future the test shall be, not the educational merit of a particular play or a particular film, but whether the non-profit making body which provides the entertainment has educational aims and activities.
  INLAND REVENUE
  I now turn to the Inland Revenue. I propose to amend the law regarding payments made to charities, under what are known as "seven-year deeds." Under the existing law, those who make such payments escape both Income Tax and Surtax. Thus, if someone who is liable

  1827
  to Income Tax and Surtax at the highest rate now ruling makes such a payment, nominally for charity, he himself pays only 6d. towards each £of his contribution, and the Revenue finds the remaining 19s. 6d. The number of deeds of this type has been increasing year by year, and it is clear that this state of affairs cannot be allowed to go on. Therefore, I propose, without changing the provisions regarding Income Tax, to disallow these payments for Surtax. This provision will not be retrospective, but will apply to all payments made under any seven-year covenant entered into from today.
  On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has suggested to me that it would be helpful to the progress of technical education, if the existing right to Income Tax relief on contributions by employers towards the current costs of technical colleges were extended to cover capital contributions also. I therefore, propose, in response to her persuasive arguments, to grant an Income Tax allowance in respect of such capital contributions made by an employer to a technical college attended by his own employees. I hope that employers, who are interested—as I am sure many are—in the advancement of technical studies, will respond to this inducement.
  INCOME TAX
  As regards Income Tax, the reliefs announced in my autumn Budget came into operation only three days ago. They are very substantial. Every weekly wage earner will become conscious of them this week; he will take home a heavier pay packet. The Committee will recall that the standard rate of Income Tax is being reduced from 10s. to 9s. in the £ the personal allowances are being increased from £80 to £110 a year for a single person, and from £140 to £180 a year for a married couple; the exemption limit is being raised from £110 to £120 a year; and the standard rate of tax is being re-graded, so that this year the first £50 of taxable income will pay only at 3s. in the £ and the next £75 only at 6s. in the £These changes mean that no less than 2,000,000 people are being exempted from Income Tax altogether this year, and that everyone who remains liable will pay substantially less this year than last. I recall these facts to the Committee; but I do not propose to go further now in giving examples of the reliefs given to
  1828
  particular cases, because full particulars are given, in relation to various incomes, in the White Paper which was issued with the autumn Budget. I will not, therefore, repeat the details now. These tax remissions, only just now coming into operation, will cost the Revenue £283,000,000 this year. Undoubtedly they contain a certain danger of inflation; but they were made deliberately, with the approval of this Committee, in order to provide incentive for, and to remove discouragement from, large numbers of wage earners.
  There is, perhaps, some exaggeration in the stories told of the check to productive activity due to Income Tax. But we deliberately took a risk last autumn, and we are facing it now. The only answer is: increased productive activity and more output. His Majesty's Government rely on the workers of the country to respond, in increased and sustained effort, to this new stimulus, and to this beginning of the lightening of their heavy war burden. It is a snare to give people more to spend, unless they are also given more on which to spend it. I hope that is going to be accomplished now.
  Clearly, I cannot do a great deal more by way of further immediate Income Tax relief, but I have one or two more proposals to make to the Committee. First, I propose to exempt the workers' contributions under the National Insurance Bill from Income Tax. The law on this matter is, at present, in a very untidy condition, and one of the purposes I have in mind is to tidy it up. At the moment, these contributions are not exempt from Income Tax, though part of the compulsory contribution relating to widows' and orphans' benefit and to old age pension is given relief as life insurance. My proposal to exempt all workers' contributions to National Insurance from Income Tax will give the contributors a noticeable relief, equivalent, when the contributions reach their maximum under the Bill, to an additional allowance of £11 a year. The employers' contributions are exempt now; they are a trading expense. I should add that the exemption will extend to self-employed persons on the one hand, and householders, who employ domestic servants or gardeners, on the other. My broad intention is to treat all contribu-

  1829
  tions to the National Insurance Scheme, by whomsoever made, as due deductions for Income Tax purposes. This concession will cost the Revenue £40,000,000 in a full year; it is, therefore, substantial. But the full cost will only be felt when the new and higher rates of contribution become payable. I attach importance to this fact, because my proposal is a relief, but a postponed relief, which does not become fully operative until we have had a chance to pick up production and to avoid inflation.
  It is a necessary counterpart of this proposal that, apart from lump sum payments, such as death and maternity benefits, all benefits, and not merely some, as now, should be assessed for Income Tax. But I must make it clear that benefits will never, in fact, be reduced by Income Tax, because they are less than the present Income Tax allowances—and even these might, in the future, be increased, and will, in fact, be increased under the provision which I have mentioned as regards contributions. If earnings cease, no further tax is payable under P.A.Y.E. On the contrary, there are tax repayments due and the only effect of assessing the benefit, as I propose to do, will be that the repayment will be some, what less than it would otherwise have been. The effect on the revenue this year is negligible.
  I have no doubt that the balance of advantage in this arrangement is wholly with the general body of contributors. The proof of that is that it is costing the Revenue such a lot of money to do it. It will not apply either to the benefits or to the contributions under the Industrial Injuries Bill.
  POSTWAR CREDITS
  As to the postwar credits the Committee will appreciate, from what I said earlier, why I cannot contemplate as yet any general repayment of those credits. The total mass of them, more than £800 millions, is a great inflationary potential, which we must hold back for the present. Were we to release this flood too soon, it would wash away all our defences against profiteering and inflation. Moreover, we may well need this mass of reserve purchasing power in the next year or two, as an anti-deflationary corrective, should there be any worsening in the prospects of trade and employment. But I think the
  1830
  time has come when we can make a small beginning in the repayment of the Income Tax postwar credits. I propose that here, following the same sequence of benefits as in the National Insurance Bill, the old warriors, the veterans of industry, shall march in front, and be the first to draw an instalment. This desire was expressed in all parts of the Committee when this matter was debated in October. I have taken that into account in reaching this conclusion.
  I propose to start with a payment to men over 65 and to women over 60. In order to simplify administration as much as possible, I shall not restrict the payment to old age pensioners, but shall make eligibility dependent on age only. I do this entirely for reasons of administrative simplicity and economy of labour in the Tax Offices. Payments will be made on application—but no one who does not want his credits need apply; he can leave them with me—as from 1st September, and will cover the credits, of those entitled to them, for the three first years of the postwar credit system, that is to say, 1941–42, 1942–43, and 1943–44. Credits for the two following years have not been fully calculated, and cannot be for some time, owing to the very heavy pressure of work in the Inland Revenue Department. Nor do I wish to go too far at this stage in disbursing, even to the old people, the credits that are being held in store. They will get three years' credits on 1st September or soon thereafter. Payments will be made in cash, not, as we intend to make the general rule when we are releasing credits in larger quantities, in the form of deposits in savings banks. But I hope recipients, whenever they reasonably can, will put some or all of the money into Savings Certificates or some other form of national savings. I estimate the sum involved in these payments at £26 millions. This will be found by borrowing—under powers I shall seek in the Finance Bill—because it is of a non-recurrent character.
  TAXATION OF MARRIED WOMEN
  There is another class of taxpayer for whom I am anxious to do something now, and that is the married women in industry. It is in the national interest, as the Prime Minister and others have stated, that married women, who can do so, should enter or remain in industry, particularly for the next year or two. I am

  1831
  told that Income Tax is acting as a deterrent to married women from remaining in or taking up industrial work. The married woman already enjoys a special allowance of £80, in addition to the marriage allowance of £180. I propose to increase this special allowance to £110, the figure at which the single person's allowance now stands. This change gives better results than the separate assessment, which is sometimes suggested. A separate assessment would not help in a great number of these cases; often, indeed, it would increase the tax liability of the married couple. I am satisfied that this is the best way to give assistance, and I hope every married woman will reflect how this concession will affect her personally, and, wherever possible, will respond to the Government's appeal for more volunteers for the production drive. The cost this Tear will be £4 millions and slightly more in a full year.
  EARNED INCOME ALLOWANCE
  I have one further proposal in the field of Income Tax to make to the Committee. I can go no further by way of immediate relief; but I am thinking of the situation six months hence, after six months, as I hope, of strenuous effort by all producers, of a steady increase in the output of goods, both for the home market and for export, and of steady decline in the fear of inflation over that period. Six months hence summer will be over. The days will be growing darker and we shall be on the threshold of another winter. I should like to give a further let-up at that time. Therefore, running some risk, consciously running some risk, but putting the hope of incentive above the fear of inflation, I propose to increase the earned income relief allowance of one-tenth to one-eighth, subject to the present maximum of £150 a year. The allowance of one-eighth will apply to the whole of this financial year, but, for the reasons I have indicated, the benefit will not begin to accrue, until October. Until then, the existing P.A.Y.E. tables, calculated on the basis of one-tenth, will continue to be used; but in October new tables will come into use and will automatically adjust the total tax payable to the new basis of one-eighth for the whole year. The cost of this relief will be £30 millions this year and £33 millions in a full year. All those with earned incomes of less than £1,500 a year will benefit, and this change will relieve a further 350,000 people from all
  1832
  liability to Income Tax. Taking into account, also the exemption of National Insurance contributions from Income Tax and the increase in the allowance for the earnings of married women, I estimate that the total additional number of persons wholly relieved from Income Tax by the changes made in this Budget will be about 500,000 in a full year.
  The effect of the reliefs in the autumn Budget, together with the adjustments of the earned income relief, to which I have just referred, will be that this year, in the case of earned incomes—looking at the whole year—no single person with less than £2 8s. a week will pay any Income Tax; no married couple without children with less than £3 19s. a week—it is worth while getting married; no couple with one child with less than £5 is. a week, no couple with three children with less than £7 5s. a week, and no couple with five children with less than £9 9s. a week. I give three further examples, hoping that I shall illustrate the point, without wearying the Committee with excessive statistics. A single person earning £300 a year will, this year, pay only £42 7s. 6d. as against £66 2s. 6d. last year. A married couple, without children, having an earned income of £400 will pay only £50 5s. this year as compared with £81 2s. 6d. last year. And a married couple with two children and an earned income of £600 a year will pay only £84 this year as against £121 2S. 6d. last year. Next year allowing, in addition, for the exemption of the National Insurance contributions, these reliefs will be even larger.
  EXCESS PROFITS TAX AND NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION
  So much for Income Tax. I now turn to E.P.T. and N. D. C. Last Autumn I proposed a reduction in the rate of E.P.T. to 6o per cent. as from 1st January this year, and I made provision for the early repayment of the 20 per cent. E.P.T. postwar refund, in order to assist industry to reconvert and reequip itself. The Committee will be glad to know that these refunds, amounting to about £250 million altogether after deduction of Tax, are already being paid to the industrialists entitled to them. Since the autumn I have been considering the future of these taxes. I said then the
  " E.P.T. at the rate of 100 per cent. is the perfect tax for a short war "—
  and I believe that still—

  1833
  "but as the war period lengthens and, still more, as we enter upon the postwar period, this tax works against incentive and against efficiency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1945; Vol. 414, C. 1897.]
  even when the rate is less than 100 per cent., as it is now. Further reflection has not weakened my opinion on this matter. I now propose to repeal E.P.T. altogether as from 31st December next.
  This repeal will cost me nothing this year, because we shall still be collecting tax at too per cent. on the profits of 1945. It will cost very little next year, because we shall be collecting at 60 per cent. on the profits of 1946. It will cost me more, perhaps £150 million gross, in 1948–49, when we shall be collecting nothing except arrears from earlier years. This estimate takes into account the fact that the yield from E.P.T. would, in any case, be running down during these years, with the gradual cessation of profits due to war contracts. Further, as the Committee understands, for every £1 I lose through the reduction of the rate or total repeal, I get 10s. back in Income Tax and Surtax; and the net cost, in 1948–49, of repeal will not, therefore, exceed £75 millions. This repeal has been asked for by industry. I hope, therefore, that it will stimulate private enterprise to put its best foot forward, and to go flat out on an expansionist course.
  Turning to N. D. C., I propose to retain that at the present rate, but to change its name from National Defence Contribution, which is no longer very apposite, to the "Profits Tax." E.P.T. will disappear, and N. D. C. will in future be known as the Profits Tax. It is a flat tax of is. in the £on all profits prior to distribution. With the termination of E.P.T. it should bring me in about £50millions a year. It is not open to the strong objections that can be urged against E.P.T.
  As I propose that E.P.T. shall come to an end this year, I am including in the Finance Bill appropriate provisions dealing with terminal losses—allowance for deferred repairs and renewals, post-E. P. T. expenditure on the rehabilitation of industry to a peacetime footing, and falls in stock values. I propose also to fix the date at which the provisions relating to exceptional depreciation are to come into operation.
  I have carefully considered whether, while repealing E.P.T., I should either increase N. D. C. or introduce some new tax on profits or on excess dividends. Upon this I have not yet reached a final decision. Nor is it necessary for me to do so this year in order to replace lost revenue. Even if I were to decide to make good, by a new tax on profits, the whole of the loss from the repeal of E.P.T., it would not be necessary for me to make legislative provision until next year's Budget, for the reasons I have been explaining to the Committee. I shall continue, during the coming year, to study this and other possibilities of new taxes, of which a great variety has been suggested to me. Human intelligence is most inventive with regard to new taxes.
  I shall be guided in my decision next year, as to whether or not to impose such a tax, by a number of considerations—by the general budgetary and financial situation to a large extent, and, to some extent, by the conduct of private enterprise in the meantime. I can assure the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) that I shall be so guided. Last autumn, I expressed the view that postwar development should come before increased dividends, and I invited industry to plough back increased profits rather than to distribute them to shareholders. The response to this invitation has been patchy. Many of the most efficient and up to date concerns have responded very well; but others have shown a tendency to chuck money about among the shareholders, rather than to strengthen their reserves and improve their equipment. Therefore, it would be premature for me to decide now whether or not, next year, it would be in the general interest to introduce a new tax, designed to check these, as I think, unfortunate practices.
  DEATH DUTIES
  I have also been giving some consideration to the Death Duties. I have been having a good look in particular at the Estate Duty, which, as the Committee knows, is by far the most important of the Death Duties, bringing in some 90 per cent. of the total Death Duty revenue. The Estate Duty was first introduced by Sir William Harcourt, that most gifted and attractive Victorian Radical, in his historic Budget of 1894. His scale started at one per cent. on estates between £100

  1835
  and £500. This part of the scale, it is extraordinary to relate, indeed, the whole scale up to £5,000, has remained unchanged from that day to this. Sir William Harcourt's scale rose to a maximum of 8 per cent. on estates over £1000,000 The history of the Estate Duty since then has been one of continuous increase. The rates of duty were increased by Mr. Asquith in 1907, by Mr. Lloyd George in 1909 and again in 1914, by Sir Austen Chamberlain in 1919, by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in 1925, by Mr. Philip Snowden in 1930, by Sir John Simon in 1939, and by Sir Kingsley Wood in 1940. All these successive increases have brought the scale up to a maximum of 65 per cent. on estates over £2,000,000. The most notable of them was that imposed by Sir Austen Chamberlain in 1919, in the first postwar Budget after the last great war, the opposite number to this one. Sir Austen Chamberlain increased the Estate Duty substantially on the larger estates and on estates over £2 million he doubled it by increasing it from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent.
  All these illustrious predecessors of mine, whenever they have touched Estate Duty, have touched it only to increase it. None of them has ever reduced it. I propose to break with this long tradition as regards the smaller estates, but faithfully to follow it as regards the larger. A moderate inheritance is a reasonable provision for the widow and dependants of the deceased. We should seek to assure this possibility for all. An immoderate inheritance, on the other hand, seems to me to serve no good social purpose, and looks unseemly in these modern days. It is leading a man into very great temptation to dangle before him the prospect, while he waits for a dead man's shoes, of an enormous unearned increment of his fortune. Unless that man has an unusually strong character, he will be tempted to become lazy and thriftless, unambitious and unenterprising. Was it no', H. G. Wells who once said:
  " No energetic directive people can be deeply in love with inheritance. It is a fatty degeneration of property."
  In the light of these observations which, I tope, will win general acceptance, I propose to raise the exemption limit for Estate Duty from £100 to £2,000. No
  1836
  estate of less than £2,000 will pay Estate Duty any more. I further propose to regrade the duty so that all estates from £2,000 to £7,500 are partly relieved; estates from £7,500 to £12,500 pay as at present; and estates above £12,500 pay more than at present, on a scale rising gently up to a maximum of 75 per cent., as against the present 65 per cent., on estates of £2,000,000 and over. The results of this regrading are very remarkable. The total number of people who die each year is about 600,000. Of these, only about 200,000. —one in three—leave property which even now is subject to Estate Duty. As a result of the changes which I am proposing, 150,000 out of the 200,000 estates now liable—75 per cent. of the whole—will be entirely relieved. This change, taken alone, will cost the Revenue only £2 millions, out of a total yield from the Estate Duty of over £100 millions. To repeat—of the 200,000 estates now liable, 150,000 will be wholly free. Of the 50,000 which will still be liable, more than 30,000 will have their liability reduced, and the charge on rather less than 7,000 more will remain unaltered. The increased duty will apply only to about 10,000 estates, or 5 per cent. of the whole number.
  Mr. Gallacher: Some of them are on the benches opposite.
  Mr. Dalton: On the other hand, the total amount of capital now becoming liable to duty each year is about £680 millions. Of this suns, only some £94 millions—about 14 per cent. of the total—falls in the range of estates which, henceforward, will be wholly exempt from duty. But no less than £396 millions—nearly 60 per cent. of the total—belongs to those estates which will pay a higher duty. An estate of £2,000,000, having paid Estate Duty on the new scale of 75 per cent., would still leave £500,000 to the fortunate heirs of the deceased. They should be able to keep out of harm's way on that.
  These changes in the Estate Duty will operate from tomorrow. Taken together, they will give an additional yield, from the duty thus remodelled, of £15 million this year and £22 millions in a full year.
  I propose also to extend the period in which gifts inter vivos are liable to duty from three years, with one year for chari-

  1837
  ties, to five years, with two years for charities. In my first Budget speech, last October, I said that I regarded it as' part of the mission of this Government, and of the great Parliamentary majority which sustains it, representing an awakened and war-scarred generation, to close, from both ends, the gap which separates the standard of living of the great mass of our fellow citizens from that of a small privileged minority. I think that this rearrangement of the Death Duties is in harmony with that idea.
  1946–47 OUT-TURN
  What is the final effect of these changes in taxation upon the balance sheet for 1946–47? The concessions on Purchase Tax and Entertainments Duty will cost about £113,000,000 this year. The in- creases in the earned income relief and the special allowance for the earnings of married women will cost a further £34,000.000. To offset this total of £47,000,000, there will be some £15,000,000 of additional revenue from the Estate Duty. There is thus a net loss of revenue of £32,000,000. The total revenue should, therefore, amount to £3,161,000,000, as against an expenditure estimated at £3,887,000,000. The deficit will thus he about £726,000,000. But, if we subtract from each side the terminal items which I have mentioned earlier, the deficit is reduced to only £300,000,000; and, on that basis, we shall still be paying—after these tax remissions and adjustments—out of every £1 of expenditure not less than 18s. 2d. from revenue. I regret that it has been necessary to speak in this degree of detail; but I thought it would be the wish of the Committee that these figures should be deployed at full length, for this first full year of the postwar period.
  NATIONAL LAND FUND
  Finally, I have a word to say about the land, and about the special fund to which I have already referred. In 1909, 37 years ago, David Lloyd George introduced a famous Budget. Liberals in those days sang the "Land Song "—" God gave the land to the people." I think that the right hon. Member for Woodford used to sing that song.
  Mr. Churchill: I shall sing it again.
  Mr. Dalton: Then I hope for the right hon. Gentleman's full support in the proposals I am about to make. The strains of that song have long since died away. But much land has passed, since then, from private into public ownership and 't is the declared policy of the Labour Party that much more should so pass, and that the principle of the public ownership of land should be progressively applied. There remains on the Statute Book one Section of the famous Finance Act of the late David Lloyd George which is of present day interest and importance in this connection. Section 56 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910—I will not trouble the Committee with its wording—provides that, when the Executors and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue agree, Death Duties may be paid by the handing over of land instead of cash.
  There was never much follow-through of that Section during the years that followed. It has remained almost sterile upon the Statute Book. It has never been used as was originally intended, even although this mode of payment might often have been a great convenience to Executors, no less than to the State. Indeed, only twice in 36 years, in two quite trivial cases, has this Section been the means of bringing two small pieces of land into the hands of public authorities. One instance was when the Somerset County Council took over some land and school houses valued at £2,300, and the other was when four houses in London, valued at £5,000, were taken over by the Post Office. That is playing the fool with a great idea.
  Mr. Gallacher: Let us take the whole damned lot.
  Mr. Dalton: Those arc the only two cases so far on record—though I regret to acid that, in 1930, the late Philip Snowden missed a great opportunity, when, in connection with the estate of the Duke of Montrose, he was offered Loch Lomond for the nation, and refused it. I regretted the refusal, as I told him at the time.
  I propose that, from now on, muck more use should be made of this power to accept land in payment of Death Duties. Even as the law stands, much can be done. I have instructed the Inland Revenue to keep a constant watch for suitable instances, and to suggest this possibility to executors, particularly where

  1839
  landowners are embarrassed by the burden of their estates in relation to their liabilities.
  Further, to fortify this provision, I propose, as I indicated earlier in my speech, to carry £50 millions in this coining year—due to the sale of war stores—to a special Fund, to be called the National Land Fund. It will be available for a variety of purposes, all designed to increase the National Estate.
  I do not expect that this Fund will all be spent for some years to come. It will be a convenient reserve against any operations which it may seem to be in the public interest to undertake. Any balance in the Fund will be lent to the Treasury at a suitable rate of interest.
  We shall use this Fund in various ways. In some cases, where payment of Death Duties is made in land, it may be in the public interest that that land should be transferred to some non-profit making body, which may not have the money with which to purchase it. The National Trust may be such a body, or the Youth Hostels Association. There are other examples. In such cases the National Laud Fund would be used to reimburse, wholly or in part, the Inland Revenue.
  The necessary provision, up to this point, will be made in the Finance Bill. But I do not intend to stop there. In consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Town and Country Planning, I have Inert considering future possibilities, including the creation of National Parks and the acquisition for the public of stretches of coast and tracts of open country. Legislation will be required for these further advances, and for using the Fund, in other selected cases, to cover the cost of acquisition, whether voluntary or compulsory, of land which, in our view, should be publicly owned.
  The Fund might well be used to help such bodies as the National Trust, the Youth Hostels Association, the Ramblers' Associations and many other such societies, whose purpose is not to make profit, but to open the country to the people and to facilitate recreation, open air sport, and physical fitness. We regard all these bodies as friends of the public interest, as good supports of the commonwealth, and we desire to help them. We
  1840
  propose, following upon the announcement I have made today, to take counsel with them in due course.
  There is still wonderful beauty to be found in Britain. Much of it has been spoiled and ruined beyond repair; but we still have a great wealth and variety of natural scenery in this land. The best that remains should surely become the heritage, not of a few private owners, but of all our people, and, above all, of the young and the fit, who shall find increased opportunities of health and happiness, companionship and recreation, in beautiful places. There is still a wonderful, incomparable beauty in Brita in the sunshine on the hills, the mist adrift across the moors, the wind on the downs, the deep peace of the woodlands the wash of the waves against the white, unconquerable cliffs which Hitler never scaled. There are beauty and history in all these places. It is surely fitting, in this proud moment of our history, when we are celebrating victory and deliverance from overwhelming evils and horrors, that we should make through this fund a thankoffering for victory, and a war memorial which, in the judgment of many, is better than any work of art in stone or bronze. I should like to think that through this Fund we shall dedicate some of the loveliest parts of this land to the memory of those who died in order that we might live in freedom, those who for our sake went down to the dark river, those for whom already "the trumpets have sounded on the other side." Thus let this land of ours be dedicated to the memory of our dead, and to the use and enjoyment of the living for ever.
  The Chairman: It is now my duty to propose the Budget Resolutions to the Committee. As right hon. and hon. Members will have received a copy of the Resolutions, I assume that it will be for the general convenience of the Committee if I put them in summary form.
  Hon. Members: Agreed.
  1 CONTINUANCE OF PART I OF TILE. SAFE GUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT, I921. (CUSTOMS)
  Resolved:
  "That the duties of customs chargeable under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, for a period expiring on the nineteenth

  1841
  day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-six, shall continue to be chargeable for a further period of two years from the said day."
  2. COFFEE AND CHICORY EXTRACTS, ETC. (CUSTOMS)
  Resolved:
  " That customs duties shall be charged on preparations consisting of or including extracts, essences or other concentrations of coffee or chicory imported into the United Kingdom at the following rates, that is to say—
  preparations not being Empire products —the lb. (dry weight)—9d.
  preparations being Empire products—the lb. (dry weight)—7½d.,
  or, where the preparation contains, as a part or ingredient thereof, any article which is liable to customs duty apart from this Resolution, with the duty aforesaid or with the duty chargeable in accordance with the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1876. whichever is the higher.'
  3. COCOA DRAWBACK—THEOBROMINE (CUSTOMS)
  Resolved:
  " That drawback under subsection (2) of section two of the Finance Act, 1911 (which provides for a drawback on goods manufactured or prepared from cocoa) shall not be paid in respect of theobromine.'
  4. ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY—GAMES AND SPORTS. ETC. (EXCISE)
  Resolved:
  " That as respects payments for admission to entertainments held on or after the fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-six. in subsection (3) of section one of the Finance Act, 1935 (which provides for reduced rates of entertainments duty in the case of stage plays and certain other entertainments) for the words ' a circus or a travelling show ' there shall be substituted the words ' a circus, a travelling show, a menagerie or any game or sport other than the racing or trial of speed of animals, vehicles, vessels or aircraft.'
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913 "
  5. ENTERTAINMENTS—EDUCATIONAL ENTERTAINMENTS (EXCISE)
  Resolved:
  " That in lieu of the exemption from entertainments duty of entertainments provided for partly educational purposes by a society, institution or committee not conducted or established for profit, there shall be an exemption of entertainments which consist of a stage play, a ballet, a performance of music, the exhibition of a cinematograph film, a lecture, a recitation, an exhibition of artistic work or an industrial exhibi-
  1842
  tion, being entertainments provided by a society. institution or committee which is not conducted or established for profit and the aims. objects and activities of which are partly educational.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  6. PASSENGER AIRCRAFT LICENCES (EXCISE)
  Resolved:
  " That an excise duty of one pound shall be charged on licences, to be taken out annually by the owner of a passenger aircraft or his agent, authorising the sale of intoxicating liquor to passengers in the aircraft."
  7. PURCHASE TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND REDUCTIONS OF RATES)
  Resolved:
  " That as from the tenth day at April. nineteen hundred and forty-six, subject to any subsequent order under section twenty of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940,—

  (a) purchase tax shall cease to be chargeable in respect of goods of the classes specified in Part I of the Table set out at the end of this Resolution: and

  (b) purchase tax shall become chargeable at the reduced rate and at the basic rate in respect of goods of the classes specified respectively in Parts II and III of the said Table, not being in any case goods of the classes specified in the third column of the Seventh Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act. 1940, or in Part I of the said Table.''

  TABLE
  PART I
  Classes of Goods Becoming Exempt
  Upholstered mattresses with interior springs to which the mark shown in the Third Schedule to the Apparel and Textiles Order, 1942, is applied in a manner consistent with any requirements as to the manner of application thereof imposed by or under that Order or the Limitation of Supplies (Cloth and Apparel) Order, 1941, and having effect in relation to such goods.
  The following articles of a kind used in the preparation or serving of food or drink (but not including goldsmiths' and silversmiths' wares):—

  1. Articles of china, porcelain, earthenware. stoneware or other potteryware.

  2. Glassware, not being cut glass.

  3. Hollow-ware of iron or steel (whether enamelled or not), aluminium. magnesium. copper or brass.

  4. Articles of celluloid, bakelite or other plastic material derived from cellulose, casein, papier mache or synthetic resin.

  Cupboards, dressers, draining boards and similar articles designed for use in kitchens.
  Electric kettles and other cooking utensils incorporating heating elements (but not including goldsmiths' and silversmiths' wares).
  Thermal insulation covers designed for domestic water systems.
  Portable lamps of the following descriptions:—

  1. Hand lamps designed for operation from electric mains.

  2. Head, side and tail lamps designed for use on railways.

  3. Signal gantry lamps.

  Accessories for domestic stoves, grates, ranges and fireplaces, of the following descriptions:—

  1. Fire bricks and similar articles designed for use as fuel economisers.

  2. Trivets and similar articles.

  Epidiascopes.
  Sensitised document base paper, transparent tracing paper base and tracing cloth.
  clocks designed for use as public clocks with dials not less than two feet in diameter or with dials having a diagonal measurement of two feet six inches or more.
  Typewriters, dictaphones, calculating machines and other office machinery. Cash registers.
  PART II
  Classes of Goods Becoming Chargeable at Reduced Rate
  Vacuum flasks and vacuum jars, being flasks and jars of a kind used for domestic purposes (but not including goldsmiths' and silversmiths' wares)
  Lawn mowers and garden rollers.
  PART III
  >Classes of Goods Becoming Chargeable at Basic Rate
  Walking sticks and canes, being sticks and canes which, except for the ferrules, are wholly of wood.
  Hair waving and hair drying machines. Garden furniture (but not including garden ornaments).
  Trunks, bags, wallets, jewel cases, pouches, purses, suitcases and similar receptacles, being articles of leather, hide or skin, designed for use solely for the purposes of any trade, profession, employment or vocation and unsuitable for use for other purposes.
  Photographic cameras.
  Photographic enlargers.
  Projectors for sub-standard film or for slides.
  Lenses and other parts of, and accessories to, such cameras, enlargers or projectors as are mentioned in this Part of this Table.
  Unexposed sensitised photographic paper, cloth, plates and film.
  Musical instruments, including gramophones, player pianos and other similar instruments, and accessories to, and parts of, musical instruments.
  Gramophone records. Player piano records. Radio gramophones.
  8. PURCHASE TAx—PROCESSORS
  Resolved:
  " That as from such date as may be specified by any Act of the present Session relating to Finance (not being a date earlier than the passing of this Resolution)—

  (a) purchase tax shall be charged where any process is applied to, or so as to produce, chargeable goods of a class specified by or under any such Act;

  (b) all persons who, in the course of or for the purposes of their business, apply any process to, or so as to produce, any such goods shall he included among the persons who are, under the enactments relating to purchase tax, required to be registered;

  (c) the said enactments shall have effect subject to such adaptations and modifications connected with the matters aforesaid as may be provided for by any such Act.

  9. INCOME TAX—MARRIED WOMEN'SEARNED INCOME
  Resolved:
  " That subsection (2) of section eighteen of the Finance Act, 1920 (which, as amended by subsequent enactments, provides, in the case of married persons, for an allowance in respect of wives' earned income of an amount equal to nine-tenths of that earned income or an allowance of eighty pounds, whichever is the less) shall have effect as if the words "seven-eighths" were substituted for the words "nine-tenths" and the words "one hundred and ten pounds were substituted for the words" eighty pounds ".
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
  10. INCOME TAX—BENEFIT AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES
  Resolved:
  " That income tax shall be charged on benefit under any Act of the present Session relating to National Insurance or any Act amending any such Act, and on family allowances payable under the Family Allowances Act, 1945, or any Act amending that Act."
  II. SURTAX ON SETTLED INCOME
  Resolved:
  " That where income arising during the lifetime of the settlor is by virtue or in consequence of a settlement made on or after the tenth clay of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six, payable to or applicable for the benefit of any person other than the settlor, it shall, unless it is income from property of which the settlor has divested himself absolutely by the settlement, be treated for surtax purposes as income of the settlor; but this shall not apply to any income if the income is payable to an individual for his own use or is applicable for the benefit, of an individual named in the settlement, and the individual to Whom it is payable or [or whose benefit it is applicable is neither in the service of the settlor nor accustomed to act as the sottlor's solicitor or agent.''
  12. EXCESS PROFITS TAX—TERMINAL PROVISIONS
  Resolved:
  "That it is expedient to make provision as to the extent to which matters arising during any accounting period falling wholly or partly after such date as may be fixed by any Act of the present Session relating to Finance for the termination of excess profits tax can be taken into account for the purposes of excess profits tax."
  13. NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION—EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX
  Resolved:
  " That Section nineteen of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939 (which fixes the relation of Excess Profits Tax to the National Defence Contribution) shall not apply to the National Defence Contribution for any accounting period or part of an accounting period falling after such date as may be fixed by any Act of the present Session relating to Finance for the termination of Excess Profits Tax, and that amendments consequential on the termination of Excess Profits Tax shall be made in the enactments relating to the assessment and collection of the National Defence Contribution."
  14. RATES OF ESTATE DUTY
  Resolved:
  " That in the case of persons dying on or after the tenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six, the scale of rates set out in the Table below shall be substituted for the scale of rates set out in the Sixth Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, as the scale of rates of estate duty."

  TABLE

  Principal Value of Estate.

  Rate per cent. of Duty.

  Not exceeding

  £2,000

  Nil

  Exceeding—

  £2,000 and not exceeding

  3,000

  1

  3,000 and not exceeding

  5,000

  2

  5,000 and not exceeding

  7,500

  3

  7,500 and not exceeding

  10,000

  4

  10,000 and not exceeding

  12,500

  6

  12,500 and not exceeding

  15,000

  8

  15,000 and not exceeding

  20,000

  10

  20,000 and not exceeding

  25,000

  12

  25,000 and not exceeding

  30,000

  14

  30,000 and not exceeding

  35,000

  16

  35,000 and not exceeding

  40,000

  18

  40.000 and not exceeding

  45,000

  20

  45,000 and not exceeding

  50,000

  22

  50,000 and not exceeding

  60,000

  24

  60,000 and not exceeding

  75,000

  27

  75,000 and not exceeding

  100,000

  30

  100,000 and not exceeding

  150,000

  35

  150,000 and not exceeding

  200,000

  40

  200,000 and not exceeding

  250,000

  45

  250,000 and not exceeding

  300,000

  50

  300,000 and not exceeding

  500,000

  55

  500,000 and not exceeding

  750,000

  60

  750,000 and not exceeding

  1,000,000

  65

  1,000,000 and not exceeding

  2,000,000

  70

  2,000,000 and not exceeding

  75

  15. ESTATE DUTY—GUTS inter vivos,ETC.
  Resolved:
  " That, in the case of persons dying on or after the tenth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six, periods of five years and two years before the death shall be substituted for the periods of three years and one year before the death which are material for Estate Duty purposes in relation to gifts inter vivos and in certain other circumstances."
  16. STAMPS—UNIT TRUSTS
  Resolved:
  "That—

  (a) the enactments imposing Stamp Duty shall, with such modifications as may be specified in any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, have effect as if units or other shares in property subject to unit trust schemes were stock, releases or reissues of such units (including issues of fresh units where other units have been released) were transfers, and hearer certificates in respect of such units were stock certificates to bearer, and where, whether before or after the passing of this Resolution, such bearer certificates as aforesaid have been issued before the passing of the said Act, Stamp Duty shall be charged in respect thereof when they are assigned, transferred or in any manner negotiated:

  (b) Stamp Duty shall be charged under the heading "Settlement" on the trust deed or other similar instrument of a unit trust whatever the nature of the property which becomes subject to the trusts and by reference to the amount or value of all such property, and shall be so charged as often as any property becomes subject to the trusts as if, on each occasion, a new deed or other instrument were executed in relation to the new property.''—[Mr. Dalton.]

  17. AMENDMENT OF LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance."—[Mr. Dalton.]
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman's severest critic would not deny that he is a master of lucid and forceful exposition, and certainly this afternoon, in the manner in which he has presented this Budget, which must in itself have been a considerable physical strain, he has well lived up to and, indeed, has fortified that reputation. As to the manner of the right hon. Gentleman's exposition, we on this side have no complaint whatever to make, but as to the nature of that which he we shall from time to time, perhaps, have a few observations to

  1847
  make. not all of them of a laudatory character. As he knows, in accordance with the memorable traditions of this Committee, this valuable copy of the Resolutions has only just reached our hands, arid, therefore, what I have to say wilt have to be of a relatively cursory character, although I hope it will not he entirely inappropriate.
  First, about the past year, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to congratulate himself that he has spent £81 million less than his predecessor had budgeted for—I hope that I have got the figure right. That achievement is, perhaps, not quite so remarkable as the right hon. Gentleman made it seem, for his predecessor's figures were for a period of total war, and I am sorry to say that there are one or two other instances in his statement where similar forgetfulness took place May I remind the Committee that in the year 1939, which was the last financial year before the war, the Government of the day introduced a Budget with a figure of £1,000 million, and that the present Prime Minister described it as colossal? Today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and we make allowance for his difficulties—says that he has done better than some sections of the Press forecast, which is quite true, but he has presented us with a figure almost exactly four times as large as the expenditure of 1930. I mention that because I know that the right hon. Gentleman himself would agree that the gravity of the burden which we still have to bear must not be overlooked, merely because some financial newspapers thought it was going to be even worse than, in fact, it will be. The amount this year of £3,800 million is still nearly four times as much as the Budget put forward in preparation for war. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would also agree that the burden of taxation borne by all sections of people throughout the war has been staggering, and is, so far as I know, without precedent in this country, and, indeed, without a complete parallel in any other country, including our Allies who fought by our side. I do not think that that would be disputed, and it is in the light of that fact that we have to look at the tax remissions which the right hon. Gentleman has made today.
  Nor, I think, would he deny that even the present burden cannot be
  1848
  continued indefinitely and that further remissions must be made. It is in that spirit—not in any carping one, I hope—that I look at the gap with which the right hon Gentleman has presented us today
  I think that there is a wide measure of agreement nowadays that the sanctity which used to be attached to the 365 clays no longer applies, in the sense that it is not just the financial year but a period of years at which we look. But, none the less, I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for giving us this picture—for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) asked—over a period of years. This picture remains a very serious one in the sense of the burden which the taxpayers of this country will be called upon to bear in relation to the burden which in the years before the war was then thought to he very heavy by everyone, including the present Prime Minister. I am not denying that much of the legislation and the benefits which will come from it arose from the preparations made during the lifetime of the Coalition Government. But it is the duty of the Committee, in the light of the fuller information which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us about the years ahead, to try to see what our financial position is going to be, and what the burdens are going to be which our people will be called upon to carry. I emphasise that, because if the gap over a period of years cannot be narrowed and the Budget cannot be balanced, the only result will be inflation, as I know the right hon. Gentleman himself will not deny.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the cost-of-living subsidy and of the Government's intention to retain it. I was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman issued a warning about the cost of that subsidy He will remember that the right hon Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) told him last autumn that he thought then that hi., estimate of the cost was too low, and so it has proved. It may well be that with the cost of importing food, he will find even his present estimate too low. At any rate, I am glad that he has uttered a warning about it.
  Then, with regard to our civil charges in Germany, I was staggered at the figure of £80 million. I did riot think that it

  1849
  was anything like that amount. I share the right hon. Gentleman's views about that. We should not be paying reparations to Germany, which is what this really means. We shall be interested to hear later on a little more about that position and how it has come about in order that it may be remedied, as remedied it surely must be.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he would have to go slow on tax remission. He spoke about the Purchase Tax. So far as I am concerned, he spread a little gloom over me by saying that the Purchase Tax was not to stop. I had always hoped that it was a war measure and would go when the war ended. He tried to comfort us for that by giving a long stream of remissions, which began to impress me quite a lot until I added up what they were worth in relation to what we are still to pay, and found that the comparison was not so good. In a full year on that list of specified articles, the Treasury will let us off a payment of about £15 million and will be getting about £160 million. That is not quite as good as it might sound. It is a relatively small remission which the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual Parliamentary skill, caused to sound so much more than it is.
  There is one warning which I would give. The right hon. Gentleman expressed satisfaction at the narrowing of the gap between our expenditure and national income. When it is estimated that our fiscal policy should be harnessed to the achievement of full employment by unbalancing our national Budget, overspending in some years and under-spending in others, it is, I think I am right in saying, maintained that the function of the Government is to spend beyond its revenue in years of depression. From that it follows that in time of full economic activity, such as at present, the Government should, if possible, budget for a surplus. I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman could have done that this year—we understand the exceptional circumstances. But I recall that because, unless that is remembered, there is a possibility that the position which the right hon. Gentleman has today described will result in a measure of optimism which would not be justified by the underlying truths of the situation. The fact is that in a postwar year with an
  1850
  economic and employment situation such as this, the Government should be able to budget for a surplus to lay up against the lean years or had economic years which will most certainly come.
  There are one or two more general observations which I should like to make This is a point which I would impress upon the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said about the position of industry—I could not agree with him more—that the only way to avoid inflation is to increase production. That is absolutely true. He made an appeal about that, and he has nude his contribution in respect of E.P.T. which we all warmly welcome. With regard to what is to come thereafter, we can neither welcome it nor frown upon it, because we do net know what it is. It may be that it will never materialise and, if so, that may be better for the country, for industry and, perhaps, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  What about the position of industry? What are his colleagues doing? We really must ask the Government to make up their minds as to what is their attitude to that part of industry which, even under the present Socialist dispensation, they propose to leave to private enterprise. At present there is nothing but order, counter order and disorder. A Minister makes a statement on Thursday and a colleague goes into the country at the weekend and makes a precisely opposite statement. We would like to know where we are. May I give this example? The right hon. Gentleman talks as if industry would go right ahead as a result of this encouraging Budget. It is good to hear that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but has he read what the Minister of Fuel and Power said last Sunday, and did his speech represent the policy of the Government? If another speech like that follows on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, then the good will which he has tried to create by his Budget speech will be dissipated.
  On Friday the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross) let loose a tirade of abuse on the motor manufacturing industry which was admirably replied to by the joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. He made a very good speech, if I may say so, because I agree with every word of it. I have one quotation from it here in which he contradicted the hon. Member who had attacked the industry. He said:

  1851
  " I am very pleased to pay tribute to the industry for the response which it has made since the war to the Government's request t hat it should expand exports to the maximum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April,
  1946; 121, c. 1615.]
  He went on to explain how the exports had increased. I think that he said that a 50 per cent. increase in the number of cars exported is very greatly to the credit of the industry. That is admirable. But the Minister of Fuel and Power went to Leeds and held up to ridicule the very industry which the joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply had been defending from that Box on Friday. Where are we?
  How can the Prime Minister expect re salts from his appeal to industry and from his broadcast unless he can, at least, coordinate the utterances of his own Front Bench? I have got a bit of advice for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that he holds a little class for his colleagues and tells them that, henceforth, they must stick to the line which he has tried to put forward in his Budget Speech, because if they do not they are wrecking;he Government's policy. It is really intolerable that one weekend the Prime Minister should broadcast and talk about the 1940 spirit, and a few weekends later the Minister of Fuel and Power should attack one of the largest industries of our country with which he has, in himself, no concern. I cannot help wishing that the Minister had read the Prime Minister's own advice on the subject of industry given to the House a little while ago. He said this:
  "I think our motto should be to look first of all to see that we are doing our own job well, and not always thinking that it is the other fellow who is slacking.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1946; Vol. 419; c. 1970.]
  That is very good advice for the Minister of Fuel and Power.
  I am bound to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I am referring to this now because it is the heart of the matter—that unless our industrial production expands rapidly within the year the figures which the Chancellor has presented to us this afternoon arc, to borrow an historic phrase of the Lord Privy Seal, meaningless symbols. It does depend on whether industry can do what we expect of it, and, therefore,
  1852
  industry has a right to ask what is the Government's policy. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman the impression which we get today.. It is like a bad rider who drives his spurs into his horse and the next minute jabs it in the mouth and, when the poor brute gets into a "muck sweat," beats it and says," What a rotten horse you are," while it is really the rider who is both arrogant and inept. There is truth there, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should curb the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is to turn his meaningless symbols into live figures. I will conclude with one reference to the Land Fund. We should like to examine these proposals, but so far as I am concerned I am not against the principle of the thing at all. I have never quite understood why land could not be accepted by the Treasury in the same way as other possessions and I hope one of the results—I do not want to talk any more about the Minister of Fuel and Power—of his interest and activity will he that he will respond to the appeal of, I think, the Yorkshire Miners' Union and do something about the bit of vandalism which is taking place there just now, because we hope that if these places, which have no other future, are to be preserved for the people, they, should not be destroyed by the Minister of Fuel and Power before the people get the chance which the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that they should have.
  I would conclude by saying this. The Budget presented to us by the right hon. Gentleman, with his customary skill, we will examine with careful criticism. If he will now and in the times ahead tell the country frankly what the position is and not conceal from us the mounting charges we shall have to hear, then the country, no doubt will be ready to face that situation. It is not by any means an easy one and my anxiety is lest his statement should have given the impression that things are easier than they are. If that impression gets abroad I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman, as some previous Chancellors of the Exchequer had to do when they created that impression, will put the exact position before the country when he winds up the Debate. Our approach to this matter and to all other matters will be on a national basis, and our criticisms will be directed to those proposals which we do not think will serve the nation well.
  5.45 P.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: It is the pleasant custom and kindly tradition in this House on Budget Day that the first speeches after that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take the form of, if I may say so, a metaphorical shaking of the hand before the contest, a fraternisation in the dressing-room before the match begins. I do most sincerely congratulate the Chancellor. He has an amazing gift of presenting the thing lucidly, clearly and simply and with a mastery over figures; which, so far as I can recall, has only been equalled by Mr. Bonar Law, who was, in that respect, undoubtedly a quite outstanding Chancellor. I offer my most sincere congratulations on this Budget to the right hon. Gentleman. I also want most sincerely to congratulate and thank his advisers in the Inland Revenue and Treasury. It is amazing how well they estimate and prognosticate not only the expenditure, but the revenue year by year. The Chancellor stands up at that Box and takes all the credit to himself saying, "Look how well I have estimated what the revenue will be. I was out only a few pounds." The real credit must go, of course, to the advisers 'o the Treasury and to the Board of Inland Revenue, who serve the country so well.
  The next thing to which I should like to call attention is the fact that we seem to have gone back to the old days before the war when there were excitement and interest in Budget Day. Those of us who are older Members here will remember those days and recall that today was very like them. The House was full, the galleries crowded and all of us agog with interest. During the war years Budget Day became almost a matter of indifference. We could not express our criticism nor could we do much, and so we accepted what the Chancellor said. I am glad to sec the renewed interest today.
  The matter upon which we should all take great pride, not only in this House but throughout the country, is the wonderful resiliency of this old country. It is always able to rise to the occasion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) referred to the Budget before the war when we were budgetting for an expenditure of £1,000 million. May I say that I made my protest then that it did not seem to be enough
  1854
  either for home services, and certainly not to put this country in a proper state of defence. Soon afterwards we were right in the war, and increased money had to be found. It was found in spite of the fact that millions were taken away from productive industry. Here again in our first year of Peace, when we have not got back into our ordinary peacetime methods or the ordinary flow of trade, and when there are still many hundreds of thousands in the Services, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to estimate that in the coming year the Revenue will very nearly reach the required amount of expenditure. Leaving out those terminal amounts, the Revenue is to the Expenditure in the proportion of 18 to 20; nine-tenths is already forthcoming. This is a wonderful tribute to this great country of ours and to its people.
  Might I also take up the point that has been touched upon by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington in regard to the increased expenditure, amounting to over £3,000 million? I call his attention to the fact that, in my view, looked at in the proper way, this country was never so wealthy as it is today. Never were there so many skilled and trained men, and never were there so many new methods and new sciences. Never was our capacity for production greater than it is today. As our expenditure ones up, so our strength increases. I. therefore, look forward to the future with considerable optimism.
  I wish the Chancellor had said a little more about his five year plan. If I may boast, I think I was one of the first—in fact, I believe, almost the very first—to call attention to what I regarded as a wrong method of budgeting. I remember very well that we were budgeting and that the speech of the Chancellor of the day was following along the usual lines, and I pointed out that it was much the same speech which was made to the Committee of Ways and Means in the time of Edward III. All we were considering was how we were to meet the actual expenditure that the Executive were going to undertake for the one particular year without regard to whether the public income was rising and wealth increasing, or whether we were on one of those downward slopes leading to less production and less wealth.
  The Chancellor talked today about the trend of expenditure. I wish he had

  1855
  spent a little more time—and I hope he will do so before we leave this Committee—in dealing much more fully with what he can see ahead if things go right in this country. I suggested this to one of his predecessors who had far and away, less courage than he has. He replied "I would not indulge in such a prophecy. Suppose I turned out to be wrong? "But the Chancellor need not be frightened, for we know how carefully his advisers can make their proper calculations and how true they are likely to be. It would be a great benefit, I am sure, if we could see the picture spread over this period not only of the expenditure, which lie has already touched on, but showing whether he can see a rise in the country's wealth, as I am sure he can. I am glad that the Chancellor has done what he has been able to do in this Budget to increase the stimulation of production. It is not only necessary, as he says, to maintain it as one of our best weapons for keeping down inflation during the increase in production, but it is essential so as to increase the export trade and thus meet that tremendous deficit of £750,000,000 in our overseas trade balance.
  Mention has been made of Death Duties and agricultural land. I remember being told by the late Sir Austen Chamberlain of a conversation that had taken place between his father, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and Mr. Gladstone at Hawarden after Mr. Gladstone had retired and immediately after Sir William Harcourt had introduced Death Duties. Mr. Gladstone had made this remark to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain at the time: "This may be the death knell of agricultural estates in this country.'' That was certainly an overstatement. But Death Duties have undoubtedly had a very big effect on agricultural estates. I will give a comparison to the Committee. Supposing there is a very wealthy man whose wealth in a company is represented by shares, when that man comes to die no single person need have any tear of losing his job. The owner's shares will be distributed, which is right. I wonder whether people who have denounced Death Duties have realised that probably they have been the saving of this country from a graver fate and that since 1894 there has been a greater distribution of wealth instead of it all being con-
  1856
  centrated into the hands of a very few. On the other hand, on the death of the old landowner, whose wealth depended upon his land, either the estate had to be mortgaged or a portion of it had to be sold. His successors kept up their positions, and kept up the main mansion, but they now have very much less with which to undertake what the old landlord undertook on the countryside. He fulfilled a very different function from that of the town landlord by providing repairs, gates, and fencing, drainage, and so on, and generally helping the countryside. Undoubtedly, the country landlords for the last 45 years have been less capable of doing that than before, with the result that the tenant farmers have suffered, and agriculture and production have suffered.
  Mr. Alpass: They are very anxious to keep hold of their land.
  Mr. C. Davies: They never took advantage of the Clause which was put in the Budget of 1910. I think it is a kind of pride in them to hold on. They do not realise that they are doing damage to themselves and certainly to the tenants of the countryside. It would have been better had they taken advantage of that Clause and handed over a portion to the State which would have developed it through the county councils for the benefit of the community.
  But, for today, I have said enough, and, in conclusion, I should like to repeat my warmest and most sincere congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. James Hudson: My friend Joe Tinker, who used to be a Member of this House in the years which are gone, always insisted that it should be the right of one of the back benchers in the Labour Party to take his part in the congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the leaders of the two other. parties had offered their congratulations the first day that the Budget was introduced. Without wishing to appear too presumptuous, I feel that this is a very special occasion when I might be allowed to offer to the Chancellor my own extremely warn congratulations on the speech which he has made and on the Budget which he has introduced.

  1857
  The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps permit me one or two personal reflections. I was very close to the first Labour Chancellor who brought the first Labour Budget into this House. I had the privilege of carrying Mr. Snowden's first Budget in that little red box and I certainly thought —as did most of those on the Labour benches on that occasion—that it was a very wonderful Budget in which he was able to distribute some £30million of extra money that had come his way—partly as the result of a previous Administration—in what was called "the establishment in reality of the free breakfast table." This Budget entirely outshines that one. The Chancellor will bring encouragement and hope to great numbers of our people by the plans he has laid bare today. I watched the faces of Members opposite when he was making his speech, and I derived appropriate encouragement therefrom. In fact, the party opposite realised, as I realised, that in many respects this Budget will start the country on a new path towards the financial provisions which the nation has to make. It will have great consequences for the general welfare of our people.
  With regard to the point my right hon. Friend made about starting again from where my old friend Philip Snowden failed—in connection with land which can be received as payment of tax—I believe he may go further than his Death Duties of 75 per cent. If he does, his officers will not have to do any persuading, because there will be no other way in which to pay the tax if the process is continued to its logical conclusion. I would like to refer to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) about Sir William Harcourt. Mr. Gladstone spoke rather dolefully about the consequences of Death Duties and their effect on the land, but Sir William Harcourt said, in connection with the introduction of that Budget, that we were all Socialists now. He referred to the fact that there was being converted into public property, even although it was only 8 per cent., some of the wealth which had been retained for private enjoyment and private ownership.
  Mr. Clement Davies: I do not want to do an injustice to that grand old man. He did not object to Death Duties dolefully or otherwise; he simply made a remark as to
  1858
  the possible effect on agriculture as it was then carried out by landowners.
  Mr. Hudson: I do not think it was an altogether encouraging remark which the grand old man made. At any rate, I think the Chancellor is on the right track, and I am sure that we on these benches are all delighted at the step he has taken.
  I was also pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that he was not altogether satisfied about the behaviour of those who have been paving Excess Profits Tax, and the methods they have adopted to benefit from the encouragement which he gave in his last interim Budget. My right hon. Friend said that some had been doing the right thing, but from my reading of the reports of companies I have noticed many cases where money, instead of being put to reserves, or being reinvested in new capital undertakings, has been squandered, as my right hon. Friend said, in payments towards revenue. It seems to me that there has been very little encouragement for continuing the rebate of E.P.T., and the further step of removing the tax in due time. Unless there is some radical modification in the attitude of the bigger companies in regard to this matter I hope my right hon. Friend will put on a new tax to make up for this remission, and will insist upon such companies playing their part in avoiding inflation. I observe that the gentry who divide E.P.T. money between themselves never think of that money going for the purpose of countering inflationary processes. It is always the working class, it is said, who are likely to be responsible for the inflation. If we are to discourage workers—and I think the Chancellor is right, in present circumstances, in so doing—from wasteful expenditure, that should apply all round. There should be no waste of the wealth which my right hon. Friend makes available in the form of remission of E.P.T.
  May I now make two small criticisms? I was not altogether surprised to learn of the amount of money we are still having to pay for the rehabilitation of Germany. I think the Government, in the next few months, will have to reconsider very carefully the issue which has been presented so well in this week's "Economist." There, it says that the policy we are pursuing in Germany is one of great difficulty, and is leading to so many setbacks in the Germans' efforts

  1859
  to build themselves up again that it is almost inevitable that we shall have to continue to pay out, for Germany, money which we badly need for ourselves. I do not feel that the Government really need urging in this direction, but I hope back benchers will give them every possible encouragement in embarking on a saner and more reconciling policy towards the German people in order that we may be relieved of this enormous burden of expenditure for the rehabilitation and policing of Germany. I am sure the Chancellor will do what he can.
  My second and last point is this: What does the Chancellor think about his announcement today that he has persuaded the working classes to make small contributions, up to£ 520 million, towards general war savings? It is all to the good, but it is not as good as the approximate £500 million which they have spent to provide the Chancellor with his £300 million from beer. I know the Chancellor will not complain about my making that point—
  Mr. Dalton: Not if my hon. Friend puts it that way round.
  Mr. Hudson: I have to put it any way round in order to make the point. Recently, from the opposite direction, I tackled the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food on this matter. The Government must face up to the fact that the raising of money by means of a Beer Tax is a thoroughly expensive process. The Government get their £300 million, but the workers pay, roughly, about £500 million in order that the Government may get that £300 million. It is a thoroughly reprehensible process. We should go back to Adam Smith's old canons of taxation that one should take out of people's pockets about as much as one expects to put into the Inland Revenue. This process of raising the revenue by taxation upon beer is a thoroughly wasteful process, and is putting into the hands of the brewers a great amount of wealth which, if we followed a different line, we would get in the form of savings. If the wealth saved upon liquor consumption were to be in the form of savings, it would be a vastly better financial process from the point of view of the country than that now being pursued. With that one little note of criticism, I end where I began—with the warmest congratulations personally to the Chancellor for having done what he
  1860
  has done, in the best way in these difficult times.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. McKie: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) into the many interesting details which he presented for the Committee's interest, but I want to touch on one point of the Chancellor's Budget to which no hon. Member has yet alluded. We are in a very congratulatory mood, but it is not usual for a Member of the Opposition to have anything very glowing to say about the Government's Budget. I was, however, delighted to hear the concession that the Chancellor had indicated he is to make when he presents the Finance Bill to the House in connection with the lowering of the Entertainments Duty with regard to various forms of sport. I am particularly glad from the point of view of those interested in football. Many hon. Members will have received similar representations to those I have received in recent weeks with regard to this very important sport, in which many millions of people in Great Britain are so keenly interested. The Chancellor's statement—I am speaking from the point of view of those interested in football, but it applies to all the other sports— will be received with very great approval and congratulations My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) alluded in some detail to the Chancellor's proposals with regard to the acceptance of land for Death Duties. Again, as an Opposition Member—and I must at once own to my interest in landed property, as that is the proper thing to do—I am in cordial agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery about this' being a very salutary proposal indeed on the Chancellor's behalf. For years in this House —all 'the 15 years I have been here, aril before that—until at least before the war, when any Finance Bill was considered in Committee or on Report, a Clause was invariably put down to plead with the Chancellor of the day, whether he was a Conservative or in a National or Coalition Administration, to make this concession to the landed interest. I suppose those are words which will not appeal very much to the Members on the Government Benches. All the Chancellors I can remember always turned it down. It has fallen, I am sorry to say, to a Socialist

  1861
  Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a concession that I never thought any Socialist Chancellor would be willing to make. I only hope there is nothing sinister about it, and that it is not just a little sop before we have a vast scheme of land nationalisation legislation presented to this House of Commons. I do not know; only those who sit on that Bench know what they intend to do in the life of this Parliament in regard to nationalisation of the land or if there is no time in the life of this Parliament, if they are so fortunate in the next appeal to the people of this country as to be returned in sufficient numbers once again to preside over the destinies of this nation I must be grateful for small mercies. I was very glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery giving an interesting anecdote about Mr. Gladstone, the grand old Victorian statesman, talking with Sir William Harcourt at Hawarden Castle in North Wales when the Death Duties first formed part of Britain's Budget, in, I think, the fourth Gladstone Administration of 1894. The Parliament was from 1892 to 1895, and I think it was in the spring of 1894 that the proposals which came to be known as the Death Duties first formed a part of a Budget and a Finance Bill.
  I did not know of that interesting anecdote to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, but I am delighted to think that Mr. Gladstone should, with his great far-seeing capacity, at once realise that, as my hon. and learned Friend said, Death Duties, as far as agricultural estates were concerned, must have a very prejudicial and deleterious effect. My hon. and learned Friend with whom I so seldom agree—that is a matter of great sorrow as far as I am concerned—is in wholehearted agreement with me on this point. There can be no doubt that the Grand Old Man's prognostications have been very amply fulfilled. My hon. and learned Friend was inclined to suggest that if landlords had been more willing to take advantage of some obscure Clause in the People's Budget of 1909 or 1910, things might have gone better with them. As a small boy I remember that Budget, but I cannot profess to be intimate with its details, and that was a Clause I did not know about My hon. and learned Friend said that if they had taken ad-
  1862
  vantage of this Clause, conditions would have been better for agriculture and things as a whole. I must bow before the superior wisdom of my hon. and learned Friend, or, rather. his superior knowledge, because I am completely ignorant as to the nature of this Clause.
  Going back to the main theme, there can be no question that the landed interest all round has suffered very heavily indeed in the last 50 odd years as a result of the Government of the day being unwilling to accept land in lieu of money in payment of Death Duties. My hon. and learned Friend put to the Committee very graphically what has resulted, and hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should know very well that there have been in the past very many large landed estates in this country the owners of which and their families depended entirely on the land They had no other source of revenue to fall back upon. My hon. and learned Friend agrees with me once again that when the head of a family and the owner of a large estate died, not merely had he very often to mortgage his estate to provide for his children, but he had either to mortgage or sell to provide for the Death Duties for which the Government of the day at once asked from his heirs and successors. At last a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to accept land in lieu of money, and it certainly will be a great help to those who even today have no other source of revenue than the land which they have owned for so long and for which they still have such very great care, anxiety and solicitude.
  My hon. and learned Friend quoted Mr. Gladstone. I did not agree with him in the other parts of his speech when he took up what the Chancellor said about the balancing of this Budget and the way in which the Chancellor hoped to balance future Budgets, or nearly balance them. I thought my hon. and learned Friend was too optimistic when he associated himself with the Chancellor's rosy optimism in this direction. I only hope my hon. and learned Friend will be right. He spoke about the resilience of this great old country of ours. I agree with him about it in the past, but will it be resilient in the future?
  Mr. Murray: Yes.
  Mr. McKie: The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) is more

  1863
  sanguine than I am. It is only natural that he should he, because he has been sent here to support the political and economic theory with which I am completely at variance, and, naturally, it is up to him to buoy up his Government, and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with hope, false though it may prove to be.
  Mr. Murray: He is already buoyed up.
  Mr. McKie: My hon. and learned Friend is different: he inherits the Gladstonian tradition. He would not have quoted the Grand Old Man at such length today if he had not still in his heart the hest principles of Liberalism— Victorian Liberalism at its best. Indeed, it is very often a great grief to me, after hearing the hon. and learned Gentleman in his best moments putting forward the grandest precepts of Victorian radicalism, afterwards associating himself with the Socialist philosophy which comes from the Government Front Bench. I think he will forgive me for saying it, hut he was rather guilty of doing that this afternoon. I do not say it offensively. I shudder to think what the Grand Old Man would think of the principles of finance as practised in this House today by Members of the Government Front Bench, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular. I think my hon. and learned Friend, when he comes to reflect, will he inclined to agree with me that there is a good deal of truth in what I have said. The Grand Old Man would most certainly have recoiled in horror from all these instalments of National Socialism—I do not use the term offensively—which have already emanated, and which we are informed will continue to emanate, instalment by instalment, so long as this Parliament lasts or, indeed, so long as this Parliament is content to support the present Administration sitting on the Treasury Bench.
  I do not think Mr. Gladstone would have agreed with my hon. and learned Friend that the production, the output and the export trade of this country will expand under the Socialist economic regime which we now have installed with such a large majority in this country. I hope I am wrong. I say that even as an Opposition Member. However, I cannot agree with my hon. and learned Friend that everything in the garden is as lovely with regard to our economic position as
  1864
  he would indicate to this Committee is the case.
  I conclude by saying that whole I share to the full the apprehension- expressed in moderate language by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) about the way we are drifting in out economic and financial policy, I am grateful at all event, for the two concessions which the Chancellor made today —the one which affects the millions of sport-loving people of this country, arid the other the amelioration of the very hard hit and quite deserving people, though few in number, who represent the landed interests of till, country.
  6.25 p.m.
  Colonel J R. H. Hutchison: It is early for any hon. Member to sit back and regard the whole picture of the Budget as it was unfolded today in all its aspects, but knowing the difficulty that back benches have of intervening at a later stage in these Debates, I take this opportunity to comment shortly on one or two points which stand out clearly as a result of the Chancellor's exposition this afternoon.
  There is evidence that the right hon. Gentleman, and hon. Members on the benches opposite, are beginning to realise the necessity of producing an incentive to the industry of this country if we are to regain the position which we once had, and little by little we are glad to see that recognition of the need of incentive is being offered. So while there is, naturally perhaps on these benches, a tendency to fear the Greeks and the gifts that they bring, nevertheless I think it will be generally welcomed that the Chancellor has seen fit in some cases to abolish, and in some cases to reduce, Purchase Tax, although I regret that he warned the Committee this afternoon that he regarded this tax as being something in the nature of a permanency. Also we can only look with favour upon his decision to abolish that extremely unfair and crippling tax of E.P.T., and I congratulate him upon his wisdom in so doing.
  He made one comment with indications of a veiled threat behind it, that if private enterprise did not behave itself, he had other rods in pickle for it, and he indicated that since his interim Budget had been introduced, the response of private enterprise to the ploughing back of profits into industry had in fact been patchy. I

  1865
  think that all those who have the interests of this country and its trade at heart will be at one with him in recognising the importance and the essentiality of preserving our financial resources, in order to be able to compete in what will be a desperately competitive market throughout the world a few years ahead. So we have but little sympathy with those who, at the expense of their future prosperity, are in fact wasting their assets at the present time.
  However, I would like to remind the Chancellor—who is unfortunately absent at the moment—that at the time the Bank of England Bill was introduced, I pointed out to him that the very result which has come about today, would arise from the basis upon which he proposed to calculate the compensation he was giving to stockholders at that time. So long as the only consideration upon which his eyes arc fixed is the earning capacity of a concern, when it comes to the consideration of the compensation that shall be paid to it under nationalisation, so long will there be a tendency for all concerns in the country to tend to improve their possibilities under nationalisation in the future, by increasing their dividends at the present time. I warned the right hon. Gentleman that unless he could give some satisfaction and some assurance that in the calculations which he had made, by which he arrived at the figure with which the Bank of England stockholders were to be compensated, and that unless that compensation contained a measure of capital value for the assets which the Bank of England held then, he was bound to produce some such result as that of which the right hon. Gentleman is complaining today. That is one of the things he should bear in mind in any nationalisation scheme, and in the coal nationalisation scheme which we are now considering— that the current earnings or past earnings of a concern by themselves are not enough If that is the only yardstick by which compensation is to be measured, an attitude of mind will be created which will tend to make industrialists want to raise their dividends as high as they can, at the cost of future security.
  The second matter is the desperate insecurity in which the country is living at present. None of us know for how long the reprieve from nationalisation has
  1866
  been granted. The President of the Board of Trade punches industries as he tells them to get on with their initiative and at the same time there is this sword of Damocles over their heads of the uncertainty of controls and the risk of nationalisation in the future. There is a further uncertainty about which much has been written in the papers in the last few days—with that keen anticipation of what the Budget is going to contain in which the Press and general public indulge. Are there to be taxes in the future on increased dividends, or are these dividends to be prohibited? So long as there is uncertainty there, so long is there a tendency for companies to make for their shareholders hay while the sun shines. The Chancellor would be doing a great service to the country if he would remove these uncertainties and show what further policy lies in the future for trade.
  The Chancellor said that block grants to local authorities were to be adjusted in the light of the burdens which he says some of the national legislation is going to take off their shoulders. I would like to warn him that in Scotland, at least, there is a strong feeling growing that already the local authorities are bearing a very large burden which the State itself should all along have been bearing. So far from our looking for a reduction of block grants there has been a growing tendency to expect the State to shoulder more than it did in the past. After all, the State, by legislation, imposes these burdens on local authorities. It is too early to try to anticipate a Debate of this kind but no doubt the Chancellor will seek to show, and will perhaps succeed 'n showing, that by nationalisation part of the burden is being taken off local authorities' shoulders. But other burdens are being piled on to them. When it comes to the day when he proposes to reduce block grants or other burdens he will have a hard light to get away with it.
  Finally, the incentive he wants to foster in industry, to get on with things and get the trade of the country going, is not very evident in the results left to individuals. I suppose it depends whether one sits on this side of the Committee or on the other side, whether one thinks a particular point in a Budget is good or bad. But the day will surely dawn, as it has dawned in Russia, when it will be realised that one cannot give incentive to the type of man who can contribute

  1867
  the most to the benefit of the country in brain, great enterprise and great initiative—which after all are what we need—so long as he goes on suffering crippling personal taxation. Death Duties, which hon. Members opposite joyfully hailed and gleefully listened to, are only a penalisation on the private individual's incentive at some stage. I would draw the analogy that one can have a cow and milk it, but one cannot kill the cow and still have the milk. These Death Duties will eventually kill the source from which Surtax flows and the Chancellor will find that the already dwindling return from Surtax will disappear altogether. Death Duties, which are capital, are being treated as a form of income, but the time will come when at the rate at which the Chancellor proposes to levy them they will dry up and end by drying up the Surtax with them.
  Until one has stood back from the whole great picture on this canvas, and is able to see one's way more clearly through the tangle of figures which one has to wade through, it is difficult to see the whole broad scheme of things, but these single facets of it leave me in no doubt.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Lipson: I should like to say a few words in praise of the Budget, which I consider is very well balanced, wisely conceived, and broadly planned. I think it will do a great deal to strengthen Britain's credit throughout the world. The fact that we, in the first year of peace, are able to bring forward a Budget in which, allowing for terminal expenditure and income, we shall be meeting something like 18s. out of every f, of our expenditure out of revenue is, in my view, a remarkable achievement, and one which, I think, will be very widely appreciated as evidence of the financial strength and remarkable resilience of this country.
  The concessions which have been made are very well spread and will be generally acceptable. In particular, I am glad that a beginning will be made in the payment of postwar credits to men over 65 and women over 60. That is the right thing to do and there is no serious danger of inflation from action of that kind. There will also be a stimulus to industry in the abolition of E.P.T. and encouragement to married women to go into industry by the increase in the earned income
  1868
  allowance from £80to£110. All lovers of true sports will be glad that sport and games are to be in the same position as the living theatre, so far as Entertainments Duty is concerned, and their financial recovery made possible. Spectators, one hopes, will be able to enjoy games at reduced prices as a result of the reduction in the tax.
  Like the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) however, I regret the view expressed by the Chancellor, that the Purchase Tax should be a permanent feature of our national life. I hope not, because I think the Purchase Tax is extremely unfair to the married man, particularly the married man with children. I should have thought from the point of view of the national interest and encouragement of people to have children—and the population question is one of our most urgent national problems—an indirect tax of this kind is something to be deprecated. I hope that if we have to retain it, it will be retained as a purely luxury tax and will not apply to the essentials of life. Subject to that reservation, I congratulate the Chancellor on the Budget, which I venture to prophesy will be popular and generally welcomed by the country as a whole.
  Ordered: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Michael Stewart.]
  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  BROADCASTING, SCOTLAND
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Michael Stewart.]
  6.41 p.m.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I have this brief opportunity of bringing forward the question of Scottish broadcasting. I do not want it to be thought for a moment that this constitutes an attack on the B.B.C. as such. The B.B.C., we must all recognise, has, during the past years, worked up what is unquestionably the most widely spread and best known, and, above all, the most trusted radio system in the world. We cannot get away from that. Neither do I wish it to be thought that this is an attack on the Director in Scotland. He has an extremely difficult task, which he fulfils

  1869
  with enthusiasm and cultural ability, which I think will be generally recognised.
  Having said that I am neither attacking the B.B.C. as such, nor the Director in Scotland, I must say quite firmly that there is widespread dissatisfaction in Scotland today with the B.B.C. programmes provided for Scotland. The B.B.C., of course, do not admit this, and they have their methods of finding out what the attitude of the nation is, which I have no doubt are very effective methods. At the same time I have rarely met, in Scotland, anybody of any grade of society, or in any walk of life, who has expressed himself as satisfied with the B.B.C. programmes in Scotland. It would be asking too much perfection to expect everyone to agree with every programme; one must be more reasonable than that. But a very wide cross section of opinion has been examined on this subject and there are various points which we feel should be put right.
  What are the proper functions of a broadcasting service? I do not think I can do better than repeat the very brief headings given in an extremely good pamphlet produced by the Saltire Society, a society which deals with every form of Scottish culture. The five headings of what is required of a good broadcasting service are, first, that it must reflect and interpret the life and background of its listeners: it must inspire and entertain, and act as an enlightened patron of the arts and sciences in Scotland; it must provide a. means for discussion, and a means of education; it must conduct an efficient and objective news service, holding a wholesome news balance between Scottish and world news: it must maintain a close relationship, by means of relay broadcasts, particularly for cultural and technical purposes, between Scotland and other countries both within and outwith the British Commonwealth.
  These arc brief and clear objectives at which we ought to aim in a good broadcasting service. If they are to be achieved for Scotland, I maintain very strongly that there must be far greater scope, there must be much greater opportunities for enterprise in Scotland for broadcasting, and I do not think that the present regional system, as devised by the B.B.C., can be said to provide for all these very necessary things. At present the system, broadly speaking, limits Scot-
  1870
  tish broadcasting to purely Scottish subjects, and frequently matters which we should like to discuss in Scotland from a purely Scottish point of view must be ruled out, because they have already been dealt with by the B.B.C. at headquarters. This is quite unsound, and tends to create a sort of parochial outlook. or at least an appearance of parochialism, to the rest of the world.
  I do not think that so far as Scotland is concerned the fees paid to Scottish artists are sufficient to get the very best talent. That is an important point, because obviously the artist will go where the good fees are. The present layout of the B.B.C. so far as Scotland is concerned consists first of all of a Board of Governors in London, and a Director-General, also in London. There is a Scottish Director who is responsible to the Board of Governors and to the Director-General for the programmes, etc., in Scotland. As I have already said, he has shown enthusiasm and keenness to the very utmost of his ability, but it is inevitable, with such a set up, that the background must be mainly that of London, not of Scotland. This cannot satisfy Scotland's cultural needs. Also it cannot adequately give Scotland's contribution which she has to make to the thought and art and culture of the world.
  I do not wish it to be thought that I am being anti-English in this respect. Nothing is further from my mind. We wish for cooperation with England, Wales and Ireland and all countries in the world in broadcasting, and we do not want to be narrow about this. But there is no doubt that the Scottish outlook, make-up, history, religion, law, culture, are very different from those of the other countries in the United Kingdom. There is no reason, to my mind, why Scotland should not have its proper representation to produce for the world its own ideas and its own opinion on the various things going on in the world, not only in its own country. We are entitled at least to our cultural independence.
  I maintain that the reason for all this dissatisfaction lies in the fact that the main control is centred in London. But it is of no use criticising without making some contribution towards a remedy. I would like to suggest that this year, the B.B.C. Charter having to be reconsidered at the end of the year, is the ideal time to go into this question thoroughly. What

  1871
  I should like to see, and what I think would be generally acceptable at this stage to Scottish opinion, would be a small, very active and thoroughly qualified Board of Governors sitting in Edinburgh, not out with the B.B.C. organisation but within it. I have no doubt that there are big financial considerations that must be taken into account before any question of separate systems could be thought of. I am not suggesting that. I am saying that within the B.B.C. organisation we should have a board of governors in Edinburgh completely responsible for the broadcasting programmes in Scotland, and not subject to the overruling of the Director-General or a board in London, but working in complete harmony with them. That would give us very largely what we want, because we should feel that the approach to broadcasting was being made by Scotsmen in Scotland, with full powers, and adequately reflecting Scottish opinion.
  I urge upon the Government most strongly that a full public and impartial inquiry should be set up before the Charter is renewed so that we in Scotland, or in Wales or Ireland, can fully give of our opinions and let them be properly weighed up. The Government have refused so far and they have given no satisfactory reason why. There cannot be anything to hide either on the part of the B.B.C. or of the Government. I ask the Minister at least to give us adequate reasons if he is going to turn down that proposal again. I do not want to exaggerate the case, but I ask most strongly that proper consideration of these proposals may be given in the interests of Scotland.
  Captain Marsden: Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants Scottish broadcasting under the B.B.C. or would he prefer it as free enterprise?
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: At the present stage I would not advance the proposal more than that we should have complete control in Scotland within the present B.B.C. layout.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. Willis: I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) in his plea for a Scottish Board of Governors to govern to Scottish B.B.C.
  1872
  There is no doubt that, listening to the Scottish Regional Programme, one cannot help feeling that it is very pedestrian with possibly a few sparkles. Why is that? Why does one have that feeling? It is because, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the present Director is limited to Scottish affairs only. He can interpret Scottish life. He can take certain aspects but he is not free to interpret the world outside Scotland to the Scotsman. I think that is a very difficult limitation There is no doubt that in the past 20 years we have seen in Scotland a renaissance of cultural life. We have seen great literary activity and activity in the realms of art and music, but when we listen to the B.B.C. we find very little reflection of that renewed cultural activity. I cannot help feeling that what Scotland needs is a greater power to govern the programmes placed before it. This sense of frustration from which Scotland is suffering today is not yet fully appreciated in London
  I am convinced that much Scottish activity is suffering simply as the result of frustration because of a feeling—I think a correct feeling—that the affairs of Scotland are being governed from 400 miles away, and that the powers given to Scotsmen are too small. They are not being given the power to regulate, frame, or direct their own activities and life This is one sphere in which it is rather urgent. I would ask the Minister very seriously to consider the proposals that have been made. I ask him to go into this question properly and to see whether it is possible within the framework of the B.B C itself to give to Scotland the power to run its own broadcasting services.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I rather agree in general with the proposal put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), but I feel that within the scope which is allowed to those who select the Scottish programmes a great deal of improvement could be made. I want to say, as a Highlander and a Gaelic speaker who does listen carefully to the Scottish Highland and Gaelic programmes, when I get the opportunity to do so, that the quality of these is by no means a compliment to the Gaelic listener. For one thing, we cannot

  1873
  altogether blame the staff of the B.B.C., because there is very little talent from which to select items for broadcasting. For example, I think that there is far too narrow a circle of contributors and artists and very little effort is being made to train younger artists to take their place and, I hope, to supersede them in some cases.
  Gaelic listeners feel very often that they get much better value if they turn across to Athlone and listen to the Irish Gaelic programme, if I may call it that. One finds that that programme is extremely popular among those who want a good Gaelic concert. Very often we have the criticism that we get a very narrow selection of music from the Highland areas. On the other hand, one has to be careful not to over criticise those who make the selection because they have to choose within a very limited amount of popular material. The difficulty is that very little original musical and dramatic Gaelic material are coming forward. That, in its turn, becomes a criticism of our Scottish educational system to the extent that it is not developing, or attempting to develop, that particular faculty among the Highland Gaelic speaking children and older students. On the other hand, I think that, even within the material which is at the disposal of those who arrange the Highland and Gaelic programmes, a great deal better could be done than is being done at the present.
  I want to turn to another aspect and that is the Scottish political reporting on the B.B.C in both the Gaelic and English languages. It is a matter which has caused a good deal of thought and has disturbed not only myself but quite a number of my colleagues. I say this in the full consciousness that it is putting a charge at the door of the B.B.C. and those who select the political news for Scotland. There has been a preponderance of representation of the activities of a Conservative Member of this House both in the Gaelic and English broadcasts in Scotland. I wish at this moment to draw the attention of the Minister concerned to a very serious charge which many of us have mentioned outside and in this. House obliquely at different times and which should be quite frankly stated. Repeatedly— last night was the latest example—week after week, night after night on which this Scottish programme of political news is broadcast, the hon.
  1874
  and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) has the good fortune to catch the eye, or the ear, of the person who reads, or at least arranges, the Scottish political news. It is a very serious thing that any one Member should have at his disposal for private political propaganda a publicly subsidised and financed Corporation of this kind. I am sure that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House as well as on this side must agree that it is a most unfair and unrepresentative thing. I am quite certain, as a neighbour of the hon. and gallant Member on perfectly good terms with him personally if not politically, that I am not being unjust to him.
  There are only two ways in which this type of information of the hon. Member's political activities—the Argyll political saga—could go to the B.B.C. These methods are either by direct supply from himself or his private secretary of Ministers' replies to his various letters and interviews as well as his representations in this House, or else—which would he a worse thing—by a direct selection or request from the Scottish B.B.C. to hint for material concerning his own political activities in his constituency. The result is, though I am an offender myself in these local matters at times—by the indulgence of Mr. Speaker—that we do get over the Scottish broadcasts many statements about a pier in Mull or a piece of road somewhere else in another part of Argyllshire which—while very important locally— cannot be of general political interest to the people of Scotland. At the same time, almost all the rest of the Scottish Members' activities are left completely out of that broadcast. This is a fairly serious allegation to make about those who select the news and those who collect the news, and I would draw the Minister's attention to this matter, because hon. Members on this side are very much perturbed about what appears to be, at all events, perhaps accidentally and perhaps by a succession of coincidences, a certain indulgence which has been given to the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll. I do not want to make this a personal attack upon him; it is an attack on the method of presentation of Parliamentary news to the people of Scotland.
  7.2 p.m.
  Sir William Darlinģ: I am glad to have the opportunity

  1875
  of speaking on this very important matter, because you must be aware, Mr. Speaker, that, in Scotland, we think far more of broadcasting than they do in England and Wales The Scotsman is a man of economical tendencies, and, when he spends 10s. on a licence, he is not content merely with turning on the wireless at 9 o'clock and hearing the news. His ear is attuned almost continually to his machine, and he gets a greater degree of value from the Corporation's appliances than those careless, indulgent and wealthy English. This is a very proper and fitting subject for discussion
  As was elicited from the Minister a few weeks ago by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence), in Scotland they collect from the people £ 900,000 in a year. That was the answer given to a Parliamentary Question some weeks ago, and I want to know, and it is relevant to this discussion, how much of that money is spent in Scotland, how much is spent on engineering and how much upon entertainment services and the other facilities which the Corporation supply. I do not conceal from the House the fact that I do not believe in State monopoly of public opinion or public entertainment. I think the B.B C. is the unfortunate forerunner or forefather of many even less successful children. We have not only the British Broadcasting Corporation, but another grandchild or stepchild in Scotland in the form of control of aircraft. I think it very fortunate that we have seen the disadvantages of the British Broadcasting Corporation as applied to Scotland, so that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be tempted to apply that form of administrative machinery to other devices which they are contemplating at the moment.
  We have a great appreciation of broadcasting in Scotland, but we suffer in these days from the fact that the first, and perhaps the greatest, of the Directors of the B.B.C. was a Scotsman. I refer to Lord Reith. Since then, it would appear that the directorate of the Corporation seem to he satisfied that they want no further Scotsmen in important directorate appointments. It frequently happens that, when a Scotsman makes such a success of the enterprise upon which he embarks, his successors always have to be English. I remember that the Bank of England was started by a Scotsman, has greatly
  1876
  deteriorated since then, and has now passed into the hands of the Government. Similarly there seems to be an idea that, because we had Sir John Heidi, a great pioneer, one Scotsman will do for a very long time. It is an impertinent assumption anti I would like to rebut it. I am glad to see that one of the Under-Secretaries for Scotland is here tonight. I can rely upon him upholding the Scottish point of view with his right hon. Friend.
  I deplore the fact that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) should be so peevish about the publicity enjoyed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum). I am never jealous of a Scotsman, because there is sufficient greatness to go round the whole lot, but I rather deplore the tact that the hon. Member for the Western Isles should be so peevish. It is unworthy of his normally generous character to cavil at the fact that one of the hon. Members on this side has been selected to broadcast about political affairs. Let me console him by saying that his turn, as well as mine, may come, and probably all the more quickly for the excellent speech he made this evening.
  This matter of Scottish broadcasting has been very much in the mind of the people of Scotland, more so than in the minds of the people of England and Wales. We have in Scotland a very vital and original cultural society known as the Saltire Society—a sort of busybodyish organisation which has sometimes afflicted me in that sense—but there is no doubt that it is deeply and profoundly interested in the cultural development of Scotland and that it applies its mind to these very considerable questions. It has formulated a series of propositions which have been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), who said that broadcasting is of far more vital importance to the people of Scotland than to the people of England. No such society exists in England. No such society represents to the Minister the dissatisfaction of the people. The English are a tolerant and indulgent people, who will put up with almost anything, and the Minister must not suppose, in his innocence in regard to the Scottish character, that we are prepared to put up with broadcasts of a low and indifferent character such as are tolerated in parts of England.

  1877
  If it is, in the opinion of Parliament, desirable that we should have an Under-Secretary charged with the important business of agriculture, another one charged with the important business of housing, and another charged with the important business of Scottish education, of which broadcasting is an aspect, are we not entitled to have similar representation on the Board of the B.B.C.? If it applies in the field of education, it is irresistible in the field of broadcasting; and to suppose that Scotland will tolerate a heterogeneous collection of people whose names are hardly familiar to us, and that we would tolerate that indefinitely, is an illusion which I hope the Minister does not cherish. We intend to have an increasing measure of independence in Scotland, though we have had very little of it so far from this Government. I am not surprised at that, because I carry in my pocket a very important statement made by this Government, through the Lord Privy Seal, who said:
  " Scotland cannot always continue"—
  I want the Committee to mark those words, "always continue "—
  " to have special advantages. [Interruption.] Why not? I think we have been excessively generous to Scotland.''—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 17th August, 1945; Vol. 413, c. 256.]
  That statement was made during the Debate on the Address. I thought it was a light and 'irresponsible statement for a Minister with new-found responsibilities and was somewhat evasive. It is not so. It is the deliberate policy of the Government towards Scotland, whether it 's broadcasting, or the development of the Highlands or Prestwick. I see the mark of that policy in all that they do, and hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scottish constituencies are deeply grieved, and public opinion deeply alarmed, about this attitude, of which this matter of the B.B.C. is only the latest illustration. Where Englishmen come to Scotland and are familiar with Scottish habits of thought, and learn to admire and like them, as has happened with the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), an Englishman from Norwich who has lived in Edinburgh for some years, they are struck by the indifference, ignorance and stupidity of the attitude of the Government towards Scotland generally. I am therefore very glad
  1878
  that this subject, which is only one of many on which Scottish Members are much concerned, has been brought before the House tonight.
  I would ask the Minister to make up his mind, before the Charter comes up for consideration, to carry out such radical changes in the management of the B.B.C. as to ensure that there is a Scottish Board. I do not say that a Scottish Board would do better, but we in Scotland want the control over our national character, our national destiny, our national education and our national entertainment. If that is denied by His Majesty's Government, we will know how real are the pretentions which they have put forward for many years for Home Rule for Scotland. The Minister must press forward with the setting up of a Scottish Board charged with the direction of this essential and important method of Scottish culture. I feel that I am making a case of which he is already convinced and that he cannot see any reason why we should not have control of this important matter. I beg him to give effect to the views which have been expressed, not only from this side of the House, but also from his supporters behind him.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: I do not know whether it is an impertinence for a Welshman to intervene in a Scottish matter, but I should like to support the request made by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) for an independent and open inquiry before the B.B.C. Charter is renewed. I have very great sympathy with the demands of Scottish hon. Members in this respect, because our problems in Wales are very much the same. We must accept the great importance of the B.B.C. in the realm of culture and the fact that it has a cardinal part to play in that respect. At the moment, the hon. and gallant Gentleman finds the same difficulty as I have found in obtaining from the Minister the cost, for example, of running Scottish and Welsh organisations The figures we need can only come to light after an inquiry. The so-called Scottish and Welsh Regional stations are not really regional; they are national, with their own traditions and their own way of looking at things and, in the case of Wales, with their own language. I must emphatically deny the allegation

  1879
  made by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) that there was more interest being taken in Scotland than in Wales. At the present time one local authority after another is passing resolution after resolution—
  Sir W. Darlinģ: I said England; I did not include Wales.
  Mr. Roberts: I gladly accept the remark made by the hon. Member. One local authority after another are passing resolutions asking for a separate Charter to be accorded to Wales, and for a separate Welsh Broadcasting Corporation to he established. The request made tonight by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross that an inquiry he made before the Charter is renewed, at which these things can be investigated and ventilated, is a very modest one. Therefore, I as a Welshman, accord him the fullest support in his request.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Cook: I do not wish to follow the line of argument taken by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W Darling), but I was glad to see he took off his hat when he rose to speak. I wish to, support the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). There are one or two points which must be brought out here and a great deal of the frustration, so far as Scottish broadcasting is concerned, is the result of mismanagement in Scotland itself. There is a tremendous lack of imagination in the direction of Scottish broadcasts. Indeed, some of our better known Scottish playwrights have never had an opportunity of having their plays broadcast because they have Labour sympathies. James Barke has so often submitted manuscripts that his wastepaper basket is being filled with rejections.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: Could I ask the hon. Member whether James Barke has Labour sympathies? I have never noticed that he has.
  Mr. Cook: I said there have been playwrights with Labour sympathies and, as far as I am aware, James Barke has Labour sympathies.
  Sir W. Darlinģ: What about Joe Corrie?
  Mr. Cook: There are others. There is one other point I want to raise on the technical side of the B.B.C.—the setting
  1880
  up of regional studios. There are areas in the East of Scotland which are almost blind spots, and we are being pestered by the radio diffusion service to sponsor certain types of programmes which would be doing the work that the B.B.C. ought to be doing as far as Scotland is concerned. Certain statements have been made with regard to the development of television and so far no announcement has been made as to what part Scotland is to play in this, or whether it is to have television at all. These things are not being said from any parochial point of view. Like the hon. arid gallant Member for Perth and Kinross, I want to see the B.B.C. being one central unit, but with Scotland having a much bigger share in developing her own programme. I must say that if there were a full Scottish programme I, for one, would not listen to it. We would find it very difficult to find the necessary talent to fill in the time. I want to see more and more evolution, and I cannot agree with the hon. Member for South Edinburgh that we should not be jealous of a programme from Argyll; he said it was selection. We can have a much better standard of Scottish broadcasting by having a Board of Governors set up, as has been suggested, dealing with Scottish broadcasting within the B.B.C.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Maclay: I do not intend to follow the many speakers who have gone before into the very interesting realm of organisation. I find myself agreeing with almost everything that has been said so far, but I want to come to something more fundamental. I am not an expert on wireless, and I must apologise to the House if I get my technical terms wrong. All of us in Scotland are anxious for the best possible programmes and to have arrangements made to enable us to get those programmes, but it is not much use if we cannot use them. I believe there are a good many places in Scotland where reception is shockingly bad, particularly in Angus and Perth. I understand that the same trouble is experienced in some parts of Wales. I hope the House will agree that this point is fundamental to our discussion, and that the Minister will say what consideration he has given to requests for improvement throughout the country. Positive proposals have been made for changing the wavelengths of the Scottish programmes.

  1881
  I am not certain what these things mean, but I think the Minister has heard enough to say whether he has found it possible to do anything about these representations. I hope that if he receives further representations he will give further consideration to improving reception in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. McAllister: I would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Cook) in his plea for the allocation of wavelengths to Scotland of such a character as will enable listeners in every part of Scotland to hear the Scottish programme, because I understand that in some parts of North-East Scotland people have to tune into the Norwegian programmes in order to get decent reception. It is not only a question of hearing the Scottish programmes in Scotland. We want the Scottish programmes to be heard in other parts of the British Isles. It is very difficult to hear the Scottish programmes in London, and I think that is entirely wrong.
  I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) in raising the whole question of Scottish Home Rule on this issue, although I am sure we are grateful to him for his assurance that he was not jealous of any other Scotsman. I do not know if all of us can subscribe to that y generous view, but at least we can assure him that no Scotsman is jealous of him. If one considers the history of Scottish broadcasting, one appreciates that it has had a very fine record. It is true that Lord Keith deserves an enormous amount of credit, not only for broadcasting in Scotland but for broadcasting in the United Kingdom and for having raised it to a level such as no other country in the world has provided. Lord Reith's principle of giving the people a little better than they wanted seemed to me to be an excellent principle, and one which could be carried out by the B.B.C. in general and in the Scottish Regional programmes in particular with very good effect
  One director of the B.B.C. in Scotland, Mr. Cleghorn-Thompson, has used the B.B.C. in a very efficient and satisfactory way. He used it as an instrument to stimulate Scottish culture in every direction. I do not wish in any way to imply
  1882
  that I am criticising the present director, Mr. Melville-Dinwiddie, or the programme director, Mr. Andrew Stewart. They have done magnificent work, but now that we have come to the end of the second world war, we are looking forward to the reconstruction of Scottish broadcasting as part of the programme of Scottish reconstruction. I think its main purpose should be to reflect Scottish culture in every aspect —music, literature and drama. We are producing very great playwrights in Scotland such as Bridie, who have a national and an international reputation, novelists such as Neil Gunn, and poets such as Hugh MacDiarmid. Our Scottish orchestra will rank with most of the great orchestras, and the Glasgow Orpheus Choir stands incomparable in its own field. We want to see the Scottish B.B.C. reflecting all these aspects of Scottish life so that the Scottish programme is the voice of Scotland, not only to the people at Scotland but to the people of other countries. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee raised the question of Scottish television because we in Scotland have a special right to some kind of priority in that matter. It must be remembered that Baird was the pioneer in television, and although it is true that the B.B.C. decided to employ the Marconi system instead of the Baird system, it still remained to the Scotsman to make the greatest contribution to television on the technical side.
  Every hon. Member who has spoken in this Debate, including the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts), whom we were very glad to hear, has put forward a plea for autonomy for Scotland in this matter. From the point of view of Scotland as a nation and as a cultural entity, I am fervently in favour of Scottish autonomy. I think in this connection there can be no argument against granting Scotland the things she desires. Fletcher of Saltoun in his famous phrase said:
  " Let me make the songs of a nation, and let who will make its laws."
  We are not discussing the making of laws, but we are discussing the songs and the culture of Scotland, and I appeal to the Government to give Scotland the opportunity to use this great instrument in the best interest of Scottish culture.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Alex. Anderson: The House tonight owes a debt of grati-

  1883
  tude to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) for bringing up the question of Scottish broad-coasting, and if there are directors of the B.B.C. listening or taking an interest in this Debate, I am certain they will obtain renewed hope. They have surely discovered in the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) a person who could fill gaps in their programmes—
  Sir W. Darlinģ: if the hon. Member will allow me, I am frequently in demand by the Scottish programme—very frequently indeed.
  Mr. Anderson: If there should come a time when the attractions of ''Itma" pall, or when people should tire of the trans-Atlantic idiom of Vic Oliver, I am certain that in the hon. Member for South Edinburgh they will find a worthy substitute. If television should be developed I can imagine no sight more entertaining to the Scottish people than a vision of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh on this very occasion It is true that there are faults in Scottish broadcasting, but it is neither true nor fair to a very excellent Corporation to have nothing but criticism in this House and not a word of commendation. We have heard something of the service rendered to Scottish and British broadcasting by Lord Reith; also worthy of commendation are the services of Ogilvie, who succeeded him, and a long succession of distinguished Governors, who have all given their quota to the development of a broadcasting system which, without advertisement and without vulgarity, is hard to beat in any country in the world. Scottish self-government is an excellent thing, but Scottish broadcasting—I refer to the purely Scottish programmes without any of that exaggerated sentimentality which causes Scottish Members often to talk about Scottish self-government—provides departments which are unbeaten. I have had experience as a teacher, and I am confident that there is no department in broadcasting in any country in the world that is better than the department responsible for the Scottish educational programme. I have still to listen to features—and outside features particularly —that are more effective and more interesting than many of our Scottish features World news is another matter, and I would not like to be a B.B.C. announcer who had to try to fill in the time by giving purely Scottish news.
  1884
  I suspect that many of the matters of which the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) complained—for instance, we heard that the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) had gone to visit Colonsay— are simply due to the fact that there are not in Scotland sufficient items of general interest. With regard to the other features of the programme, hon. Members are inclined to forget that the B.B.C. is catering for a whole people and not for a few individuals, and what pleases one person displeases another who may want a jazz band. I think, on the whole, the B.B.C. deserves commendation. I feel, however, that in Scotland we have some reason to ask that a little more money should be spent on the service, partly to give us the first essential, namely, good reception, and, secondly, in order that we may develop the traditional Scottish culture. I do not mean by that, that we should get an extension of the Gaelic items, although they appeal to many Scotsmen. In Scotland we have a traditional culture and a background, both humorous and sentimental, which can add greatly to the enjoyment of broadcasting by our people. There is no cheaper and no better entertainment that the people of Scotland get for their money, which they spend reluctantly, than that which they get from the British Broadcasting Corporation.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. Hurd: It a mere English Member may intervene for a few minutes, I should like to remind the House that in the Southern counties of England when we twiddle our knobs it often happens that we get not only the best reception, but the best quality when we strike the Scottish Regional. I may be biased, because I am half Scots by blood. I would remind the House that Scotland has her own advisory broadcasting committees. I happen to have worked closely with the Scottish Agricultural Broadcasting Committee, and—and I hope this will be borne in mind when any changes affecting the control of Scottish broadcasting are being considered —we found that the Scots put on a better programme, of greater interest to the whole farming community, when they were given their head and not held on leading strings by a central advisory committee in London. I am sure they make a better job of it when left to them-

  1885
  selves. As a mere Englishman, who often listens to the Scottish programme—and I know others in Berkshire do the same—I would like to add my word to support the plea to let Scotland have her own organisation in large measure. Let Scotland arrange her own programmes so that she may give something that is satisfactory to Scotland, and give English listeners something that we shall enjoy listening to occasionally, when we want to break away from the more generalised programme that must serve the whole country.
  7.33 p.rn.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am of opinion that Scotland should have its own system of radio. I say that because it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that Scotland had a system of broadcasting entertainment before there was any radio or any B.B.C. It had such a system to a greater extent than any other country, including Wales I do not believe any country anywhere developed such a widespread and cheap entertainment. They had choirs going round singing here and singing there, always with soloists of one kind or another accompanying them; there was not a part of Scotland, even in the remote areas, where there was not this broadcasting of Scottish songs week after week, month after month and year after year. When talking of choirs of Scotland we do not have to talk only of the Glasgow Orpheous Choir. There is an amazing amount of talent in the Scottish choirs. In my own home town, which is not one of the most important, although it is fairly important, for the last three Saturday nights there has been a cooperative festival of choir and solo singing. That is only one town. In all other towns these festivals are going on, with competitions of all kinds.
  When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was Prime Minister, to whom did he turn for inspiration in one of his most difficult periods? He turned to what he called "that grand old minstrel," one of our Scottish entertainers, Sir Harry Lauder. A very important development in entertainment is the Citizens' Theatre; in addition to which we have the very powerful and growing Unity Theatre. Here let me say a word about James Barke, whose name has been mentioned. He is one
  1886
  of Scotland's greatest novelists and playwrights. If anybody doubts that, let him read "The Land of the Leal "—apart from the concluding pages where he goes in for a bit of propaganda by dragging me into it, quite unnecessarily. Apart from that, there is no greater Scottish classic than "The Land of the Leal." He is not a strong party man; his last play was criticised for being anti-Communist. But his plays are all working class plays. James Barke is a splendid playwright, and he is a great novelist.
  An effort is now being made in Scotland to develop a Scottish film organisation. We have in Scotland beautiful scenery, entertainers, music—everything that is needed to lay the foundation for a magnificent broadcasting system. That does not mean to say that everything we do has to be Scottish, but the basis of the programmes would be Scottish. As has been said here tonight on two or three occasions, we have in Scotland a music, an appeal and a culture of our own. Under the control and direction of the B.B.C., however anxious they are to get a good Scottish programme, it is not possible to give those talents the fullest and essential development. If we had a board of our own in Scotland— and there is no reason why we should not—working in cooperation with the Board here in London rather than working under its control and direction, I am quite certain that the values and advantages of Scottish broadcasting, as has been pointed out tonight, would be increased a thousandfold in a very short time. I think we should ask the Minister, in preparing the Charter, to consider very seriously Scotland's long history and tradition in music and entertainment—a very widespread entertainment in music, which has always been supplied in Scotland. Taking that into account, it would be of value to broadcasting as a whole in this country that, when preparing the charter, he should consider the question of a Scottish board to control and direct Scottish broadcasting. That would be to the advantage not only of Scotland but to broadcasting throughout the country as a whole.
  7.39 P.m.
  Mr. Emrys Huģhes: I not only agree with what has been said about the necessity of having greater

  1887
  control over broadcasting in Scotland, but I think there is an element of danger that, under cover of arguing that, there may be a rather specious attempt to advocate that broadcasting in Scotland should be transferred to private enterprise. I am rather afraid that if that happened Scottish broadcasting would be turned into a glorified advertising campaign, with Johnnie Walker and other Scottish concerns getting advertisements over the ether in a way they would not do if State control or public control were retained. I suggest there is a very great danger from private capitalism in Scotland trying to attain control of vested interests over various parts of Scottish life under the specious plea of claiming that it represents something individually Scottish.
  I think the Scottish news service could be far better, and greater detail could be given about the news of Scottish affairs. I will refer to one instance, namely, the way in which the Scottish Hews service broadcast the news of the last municipal elections. It did not broadcast the news in the morning at all, and, innumerable people all over Scotland were waiting to hear the results of the elections, but there was not one word about what had happened in the Scottish towns That applies to the county council and the district council elections. I believe there could be great improvement in the news service and that that would come if there were a greater Scottish control under a Scottish board of governors, or a greater measure of advice from some Scottish advisory authority. We should press for greater control of Scottish news. It could he developed, and we would get a more efficient and detailed news service, if more advice were taken in Edinburgh or Glasgow.
  Could not a greater number of discussions on politics and social problems take place over the B.B.C.? Why cannot we have heated discussions on politics, such as are characteristic of every place in Scotland where people meet together—discussions on politics, sociology or religion? Why cannot we have "The Communist Party versus the Labour Party" or the L L.P. versus some other party? These are live political subjects in which the people are interested. The people of Scotland are naturally argumentative. I believe we could increase the interest in our Scottish programmes if we had a greater
  1888
  measure of political discussion, and we would get that if we had a greater measure of Scottish influence in Scottish broadcasting. Under cover of this appeal for greater control in Scotland, do not let us hand over the concern to vested interests who will be only too ready to exploit the growing nationalism, which is now expressing itself in so many ways throughout Scotland.
  7.44 P.m.
  Mr. Hector Huģhes: I would like to support the argument propounded by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). He has done a great service in bringing this before the House. It is a timely service at a time when the B.B.C. Charter is coming up for revision. I support him on two grounds: first, the ground of principle; second, the ground of utility. It seems to me an anomaly that Scotland should not have complete control of its own broadcasting. I do not think I am exaggerating in saying that in this Scotland is treated as a backward Colony with no culture of her own, no background and nothing of an individual character to contribute. That is not so. Scotland is far from being that. Scotland has a history, a record, and a reputation which justifies it having home rule in this, if it has home rule in nothing else. This is not a political question, and when I use the expression "home rule" I will not be misunderstood as suggesting that it is a political question. There is every reason why Scotland should, in principle, control her own broadcasting.
  Perhaps I may be able to peak with some little objectivity upon this, seeing that I was born in Ireland, live in London, and sit for a Scottish constituency. Even a Sassenach would admit that Scotland has great cultural claims to control her own broadcasting. Her history, genius and character are distinctive; partly indigenous, partly developed by her association with other nations other countries, other cultures, and other literatures all over the world, perhaps of closer character than that to which English people can well lay claim; partly developed in that way and partly from her own cultural heritage. It has been said already in this Debate that Scotland has made great contributions to world thought, in science, literature and art, from Burns

  1889
  the poet to Bridie the playwright, and to Baird who is so closely associated with television. They are all Scotsmen. Scotland has her own special intellectual, cultural and spiritual influence. It is not denied that Scotland has a wit and humour peculiar to herself, and which are characteristic I suggest it is wrong that she should not have a completely free and untrammelled opportunity for expressing that genius in her own way. to do that she should have control of her own broadcasting programmes in order to draw not only from her own peculiar genius, but also from a Scottish angle, what is best and roost suitable from the genius, history and literature of other countries.
  I have one or two criticisms to make about the present Scottish programmes. First, the news service. I am not exaggerating, I am sure the House will agree, when I say that the news service is a mere appendage of the English 6 o'clock news. It is an incidental turn. It has been said, and I quote:
  Scots listeners are subtly trained to assume that the concerns of their country are subordinate to British concerns, and not part of the normal structure of life.''
  It has also been said that
  " Scottish programmes frequently make Scotsmen feel like member, of some backward African tribe.
  There should be, in my submission, a complete reorganisation of the Scottish news service, and home and foreign news could be broadcast to Scottish listeners from a Scottish angle. As far as the musical programmes arc concerned, they are not characteristic, and by the broadcasting of characteristic Scottish musical programmes the world would be enriched. It is right that the Scottish music and the Scottish genius should he presented to the world by Scotsmen. It has been well said that when Scottish songs are sung upon the radio they are not sung intelligently: they are not sung in the Scottish fashion: they arc not presented to the world as they should be presented. Drama has already been dealt with. Education and religion are not presented from the Scottish angle, and I appreciate and support what fell from the lips of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) when he spoke of the way in which the Gaelic programmes are presented.
  1890
  There is another aspect of this. It is that the fees which arc paid to artists who contribute to the Scottish programmes are not adequate. It seems to me that a Scottish Board of Control would deal with this question of fees more generously than the existing Control does. To sum up, a Scottish broadcasting system, being the broadcasting system of an ancient nation, should not be merely a regional system. It should be a home controlled national system. Therefore, I have very great pleasure in supporting the argument which has been so ably propounded by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Hoy: I just want to detain the House for two minutes. I should not have done so if it were not for the fact that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling: seemed to think this was an occasion for making a tremendous attack upon the Government. He went further, and said that there was a great furore existing in Scotland with regard to the way in which Scottish matters were being handled Has he reflected that, on the Benches opposite, there are only two Scottish Members of the Scottish Conservative Party who have deigned to come to listen to this Debate on Scottish broadcasting? Surely if there were this great furore it would have been reflected in the attendance, and I am afraid that the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh is riot borne out in fact.
  There arc two small items with which I should like to deal. One is the reception of the Scottish programme. I do think, with some little knowledge I have of wireless, that it could be improved fairly easily. There are certain areas, even in Edinburgh itself, where the reception is of the poorest, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will deal with this The other point is with regard to the programmes themselves. I am not such a fervid Scot that I think that every minute should he occupied with Scottish news, Scottish plays and Scottish songs. I think that many nations of the world can teach us many things. I do think, however, that by interchange of culture a nation does improve its own culture. I certainly cannot support the view suggested from the Benches opposite that the whole of the English listeners are ignorant and pay

  1891
  no attention to what is coming over on the air. I would hasten to deny it. I remember that when it was suggested that licences be increased to £1 from 10s. they outnumbered the Scottish protests by 100 to one. That proves they are taking an interest in affairs. I seriously add my voice to the plea for a greater devolution in Scottish affairs. I think Scotland has a contribution to make to broadcasting, as has any other part of the British Empire. I am only requesting that when Scotland is asked to make that contribution, it shall be given with every consideration for the people in Scotland.
  7.55 p.m.
  Captain MacLeod: I should like to support an argument put forward by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) about having a greater interchange of cultural viewpoints. I should like to support this plea, particularly for a reason not yet put forward. I think Scotland has a part to play in the international field. We all know the B.B.C. transmits programmes in foreign languages. There ought to be an international broadcasting company spreading the cultural traditions of different countries to the world. One of the soundest methods, surely, of ensuring world peace is to have countries understand each other better. How could they understand each other better than by having their viewpoints and their cultural traditions put forward on the wireless? That Scotland has a point of view to express, the speeches of hon. Members on all sides of the House tonight has shown. Scotland has a cultural tradition behind it, and Scotland can contribute to world peace by being able to contribute really cultural programmes now and again to the world. I consider that Scotland, by having more control over its programmes, will be able to play a greater part in the international field.
  7.57 p.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): I think we have had a very interesting Debate tonight, and I am certain that those people who attempt to understand the Scottish viewpoint on this subject will have gathered from the various speeches we have heard a good deal that will help them in formulating their programmes in the future. Hon. Members know that Ministers in this House have always declined to accept
  1892
  responsibility for particular items in the broadcasting programmes. It is perfectly obvious from what has gone on here tonight that there are different opinions even among hon. Members about the Scottish programmes. That is not peculiar to Scotland. The same is true with regard to Wales and the same is true with regard to England. One has only to discuss the previous night's wireless programmes with our fellow passengers in the train in the morning to find all the elements of an immediate row, whether one happens to be in a third-class or a first-class carriage.
  There is, at least, one strain running through all the arguments that have been put here tonight, and that is that Scotland has a contribution of her own to make, and that she would like the greatest facilities for making it. That is something with which the Government, and certainly I, should not like to quarrel. As an internationalist, I object to nationalism only when it is competitive. I am in favour of nationalism when it has a contribution to make to culture, and the contribution Scotland can make, I am certain, is a good contribution, and one which this country and the world will want to hear. Whether it is necessary to alter the Charter in order that Scotland can make that contribution is a point on which there are differences of opinion, but, in any case, if it is a question of a different set-up for Scotland from the present one, then that is a matter which must be debated when we come to review the Charter as a whole. In the meantime, I can only try to deal with some of the points that have been raised in the Debate.
  The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) was concerned about reception in Scotland. There are, of course, the same difficulties in certain parts of England and in Wales, but those difficulties are due, in the main, to the configuration, to the mountains and to the peculiar geographical situation of certain parts of the country. I am surprised to hear that there are difficulties in reception in Edinburgh; I should have thought that was one of the places in Scotland where there was good reception. That matter can certainly be looked into. Scotland has two stations, both of them as powerful as the London Regional station, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that they could not have been put there if

  1893
  the amount of money allocated to Scotland was confined merely to the amount of fees raised in Scotland.
  Sir W. Darling: £900,000.
  Mr. Burke: Half of that amount— £496,000. The hon. Member is thinking about the amount when the licences will cost twice as much as they do at present. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), who initiated this Debate, presented very forcefully the case for a change in Scottish broadcasting. It was contended by him and by some other hon. Members—though other people have a different view—that there is need for a change in order to give a more adequate presentation of the Scottish way of life, Scottish traditions and Scottish sentiment. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels keenly about this matter, which he has raised at Question time, once with the Minister of Information and once with me. I take this opportunity at saying that when I told him that certain figures about the cost of Scottish broadcasting were not available, I had no idea of trying to keep the information from him. The simple fact is that we do not know exactly how much is spent on Scottish broadcasting. I gave the amount which we allocated for the premises, the payment of salaries and the payment of artistes in Scotland, which was roughly £ 246,000, but the Performing Right Society, the royalties on news, the cost of engineering and a host of other things which make up the purely Scottish programme are, of course, paid for outside Scotland, and one cannot allocate them with any degree of accuracy.
  It has been said that there is much dissatisfaction with the Scottish regional broadcasts, but the B.B.C. in Scotland have been collecting information. They are very sensitive on this matter. I am certain that all that has been said tonight will be noted very carefully by the Director in Scotland. They have ways and means of discovering the reaction of the people of Scotland to their programmes and the appeal which the programmes have. They take very careful notice of correspondence that comes to them. It may be argued that the whole of the money raised in Scotland from licences— £ 496,000—should be spent in Scotland.
  Sir W. Darling: Why not?
  Mr. Burke: The reply is that a good deal more than that is spent on Scottish broadcasting, because it has the benefit now not only of the Scottish Regional programme, which absorbs about half the money, but of the very expensive and varied programmes that come from other regions and from the country as a whole in the national programme. In a very short time, Scotland will have the benefit also of another programme which, for want of a better term, we call the Cultural Programme. I hope I shall not he asked to define what is meant by "Cultural Programme" as compared with the Light Programme, but hon. Members will know what the idea is. Scotland will get that extra programme as well. Extra services in regard to great public events, sporting events and such items as "The Week in Westminster," and" Today in Parliament "all come to Scotland free of charge, and they could not be provided if Scotland attempted to he self-supporting from the financial point of view. The problem seems to me to be very largely an economic one. I suggest that Scotland does very much better when she is regarded as' part of a larger economic unit.
  Soon after the restoration of the Regional programmes at the end of July, the Scottish Region put over a series of broadcasts in the Scottish Home Service, and listeners were invited to write to the B.B.C. and give their views on the Scottish Regional programme as it was then and as it is now. Of the letters that were received, 62 per cent. were, without qualification, in favour of the Scottish Home Service as at present in operation. I know there are societies who disagree with that. We all have our views about the kind of things we like. But from as wide a sphere as possible, from a section of Scottish people generally and not of people who believe in one narrow type of culture, 62 per cent. of the people said that they were satisfied with the service.
  Mr. McGovern: How did they get 62 per cent.?
  Mr. Burke: They invited people to write to them. They did not take a particular section, as was done by the society to which reference has been made. There is the testimony of those people that they were satisfied.
  Sir W. Darlinģ: Sixty-two per cent. of how many?
  Mr. Burke: Sixty-two per cent. of all the letters; I do not know how many they had. It was a wide selection, and the correspondence was carried on over a period of weeks. The question of a separate Corporation for Scotland is, of course, a matter which must be bound up with the general discussion of the Charter. It is a matter which may be raised when the general question of the B.B.C. Charter is raised. A similar suggestion was made arid examined by the Ullswater Committee in 1935 with regard to Wales. It was the considered view of the Committee which had that matter before them that such a proposal would be contrary to the best interests of Wales and would not help to meet the wishes of Welsh listeners.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that I was not seeking to get a separate Corporation, but a Board of Governors in Edinburgh under the B.B.C.
  Mr. Burke: The present Governors are set up under the Charter, and to alter the arrangement in such a way that extra Governors are given to one particular rejon—if I may call Scotland a region for the moment—would mean a change in the general set-up of the B.B.C. organisation. Hon. Members have said that the Scottish B.B.C. is unrepresentative of Scottish life and tradition. It is the particular concern of the regional
  1896
  director—and great tributes have rightly been paid to him tonight by Scottish Members—to see that Scottish life, tradition and sentiment are adequately expressed. He has a number of advisers to help him in that matter. I am certain that if, with the extra finance that comes under a regional scheme, Scottish tradition, sentiment and culture do not find adequate expression, it would find less expression, generally speaking, and be less satisfactory to the whole of the people, it Scotland were to attempt to be self-supporting in this matter.
  It might pay to have a purely Scottish programme for a limited time, but it would be wrong to expect to receive, without payment, the programmes from other parts of the country which are so generally accepted and widely enjoyed by Scottish people. I do riot think I can go any further now into the matter of the Charter. I know that the remarks and the views which have been put forward by Scottish Members here tonight, and by Welsh Members as well, will be looked at very carefully. As far as reception is concerned, I hope that we may be able to give as wide a coverage at the highest possible level of efficiency in Scotland, as we try to do in all parts of the United Kingdom.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes past Eight o'clock.

FUEL AND POWER
  Domestic Coal (Allocation)
  Domestic Coal (Allocation)
  Civil Aviation Fuel (Allowances)
  Civil Aviation Fuel (Allowances)
  Military Hospital, Wheatley (Electricity Supply)
  Military Hospital, Wheatley (Electricity Supply)
COAL INDUSTRY
  North Staffordshire Coalfield
  North Staffordshire Coalfield
  Midland Reģional Survey (Report)
  Midland Reģional Survey (Report)
  Output
  Output
  GREATER LONDON PLAN (ABERCROMBIE REPORT)
  GREATER LONDON PLAN (ABERCROMBIE REPORT)
SCOTLAND
  County Committees (Farminģ Operations)
  County Committees (Farminģ Operations)
  Agricultural Education (Alness Committee's Recommendations)
  Agricultural Education (Alness Committee's Recommendations)
  DEMOBILISATION (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)
  DEMOBILISATION (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Appointments Offices (Registration)
  Appointments Offices (Registration)
  Buildinģ Workers, Portsmouth
  Buildinģ Workers, Portsmouth
  Dorset
  Dorset
  Plumbers
  Plumbers
  DUTCH TROOPS (EQUIPMENT)
  DUTCH TROOPS (EQUIPMENT)
BRITISH ARMY
  Officers' Pay (Overissues, Recovery)
  Officers' Pay (Overissues, Recovery)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Oversea Service (Military Family Scheme)
  Oversea Service (Military Family Scheme)
  Defence Works (Removal)
  Defence Works (Removal)
  R.A.P.C., Edinburģh (Petition Siģnatures)
  R.A.P.C., Edinburģh (Petition Siģnatures)
  Sailinģs (Greece)
  Sailinģs (Greece)
  Requisitioned Houses, Gravesend
  Requisitioned Houses, Gravesend
  Alleģed Fraud, Southampton.
  Alleģed Fraud, Southampton.
  Release Deferment
  Release Deferment
  Requisitioned Buildinģs, Hull
  Requisitioned Buildinģs, Hull
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Arab and Jewish Enlistments
  Arab and Jewish Enlistments
  Polish Paratroop Briģade (Pay)
  Polish Paratroop Briģade (Pay)
  Service Doģ Licences
  Service Doģ Licences
  Compassionate Release
  Compassionate Release
  R.M. Academy, Sandhurst (Racial Discrimination)
  R.M. Academy, Sandhurst (Racial Discrimination)
  Surplus War Material, Europe
  Surplus War Material, Europe
  Infantile Paralysis, Sinģapore
  Infantile Paralysis, Sinģapore
  Civilian Clothinģ Depots (Closinģ)
  Civilian Clothinģ Depots (Closinģ)
  East Africa Command
  East Africa Command
  Searchliģht Site, Aldbourne
  Searchliģht Site, Aldbourne
  Dump, Abinģer
  Dump, Abinģer
  Establishments, Holywood (Employment)
  Establishments, Holywood (Employment)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  WAR GRAVES (VISITS)
  WAR GRAVES (VISITS)
  ALLIED STORES (PERSIA AND IRAQ)
  ALLIED STORES (PERSIA AND IRAQ)
  EAST AFRICA (INTER-TERRITORIAL ORGANISATION)
  EAST AFRICA (INTER-TERRITORIAL ORGANISATION)
  FISH SUPPLIES
  FISH SUPPLIES
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Coal Shortage (Industrial Products)
  Coal Shortage (Industrial Products)
  Car Tyres
  Car Tyres
  Clothinģ (Cost)
  Clothinģ (Cost)
  Cloth Exports (Price)
  Cloth Exports (Price)
  MINE BALLOTTEES (BADGE)
  MINE BALLOTTEES (BADGE)
RAILWAYS
  Restaurant Cars
  Restaurant Cars
  Electrification
  Electrification
SHIPPING
  Government Owned Ships (Sale)
  Government Owned Ships (Sale)
  Sea Marks (Chanģes)
  Sea Marks (Chanģes)
  COAST EROSION (PREVENTIVE MEASURES)
  COAST EROSION (PREVENTIVE MEASURES)
  VIVISECTION
  VIVISECTION
  GREEK ELECTIONS (OBSERVERS' REPORT)
  GREEK ELECTIONS (OBSERVERS' REPORT)
  EMPIRE SUPPLIES
  EMPIRE SUPPLIES
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Palace of Westminster (Heatinģ)
  Palace of Westminster (Heatinģ)
  Old Palace Yard (Heatinģ)
  Old Palace Yard (Heatinģ)
  Water Leakaģe, Sherborne
  Water Leakaģe, Sherborne
  Kensinģton Gardens (Closinģ)
  Kensinģton Gardens (Closinģ)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, and I may perhaps be allowed to say a word with regard to it. Unfortunately, owing to illness, our Chairman of Committees is unable to be with us for a little time, and we have a number of Bills which require skilful pilotage through the Committee stage shortly coming before us. It is necessary, therefore, to invoke the good will of those noble Lords who have previously occupied the position, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it is very kind of them to allow themselves to be nominated in this way, as we certainly need their help. It has occurred to me, since this emergency was brought to my notice on Thursday last, that it might be useful to have some conversation through the usual channels as to how we shall deal with such an emergency in the future.
It might be useful if from the two sides, Peers somewhat junior to those now nominated, were appointed to deputise for the Chairman of Committees, and were afforded the opportunity of acquiring experience in this way. But as I have already said, I will discuss that matter with the Leaders of the other Parties in the House. I certainly think that this is a matter which we should have in mind with a view to future emergencies. In the meantime, we are very grateful to these noble Lords who have previously been in the Chair for allowing themselves to be nominated. I am sure that it would be inconvenient that we should each day move at the opening of the sitting of the House that a particular
596
noble Lord should take the Chair. The course I am now proposing is obviously for the general convenience of the House.
Moved to resolve, That it is in the interest of the business of this House that a panel of Lords be appointed at the commencement of each Session as Deputy Chairmen of Committees who shall, in the absence of the Chairman of Committees, be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in him, and that for the present Session the following be named to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees:

V. Hutchison (E. Donoughmore),

L. Stanmore,

V. Mersey.ߞ(Viscount Addison).

VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the expression of our appreciation of the public servants who, so well tried, have very generously come back to help us with their experience. It is no reflection upon them to say that we all hope our new Chairman will soon be completely restored to health. I hope the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, will be back immediately after Easter.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it is certainly a very desirable regularisation of the procedure. Indeed, it seems strange that such a measure was not adopted long ago. It is the custom to set up a panel of Deputy Speakers of the House, as it is desirable to have noble Lords ready and allocated to replace the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack, when necessary. This should apply equally to a replacement of the Chairman of Committees, and it seems to me that the Motion made by the noble Viscount is a desirable precedent and should be made permanent each Session. I notice that the noble Viscount observed that it would be well to nominate a member from each side of the House to the panel, but, for such purposes as these, this House is a triangle and has three sides, and it will be agreed that all sections of the House should contribute service of this character. I am happy to see that on this occasion these Benches have the privilege of contributing two out of three. A certain proportion, of a just character, should be observed in the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

INVERNESS WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to order).

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, in a few words I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is pure consolidation. The law relating to education in Scotland is at present contained in some twenty-three separate Statutes beginning with the Act of 1872 and ending with the Act of 1945. One of the purposes of the Act of last year was to prepare the way for the present Bill. Consolidation is long overdue and will be a great boon to all concerned with Scottish education. If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be sent to the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.ߞ(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.ߞ(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
2.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I move that this Bill be now read a second time. Since I entered your Lordships' House,
598
there have been several debates on the housing question. These debates have invariably shown the practical sympathy and interest of noble Lords in all parts of the House and the desire to assist in the planned effort to grapple effectively and successfully with this most pressing social problem. I do not need to lay stress on the acute and urgent demand for new houses. We are all aware of it. I am confident, therefore, that the Government will be able to enlist the general good will and support for the Bill which is now before us. This Bill is, to put it shortly, the financial instrument of the Government's housing plan. Its main purpose is to settle the subsidy which the Exchequer will pay to local authorities for every house they build with the approval of the Minister and to fix the minimum amount which the local authority itself must contribute from the rates. The proposed subsidy and the rate contributions, taken together, will be sufficient to enable the houses now being built, in spite of high building costs, to be let at rents which the people can afford to pay without hardship.
In the standard case, an average rent (exclusive of rates) of 10s. a week, has been assumed and, with building costs at their present levelߞapproximately £1,000 (excluding the cost of land, road works and services), for a three-bedroomed house, 900 to 950 square feet in areaߞthis entails an Exchequer subsidy of £16 10s. per annum for sixty years and a rate contribution of £5 10s. per annum for sixty years, making a combined annual contribution of £22 for sixty years. The Exchequer subsidy, which is three times the size of the rate contribution, is very high. Before the war the Exchequer subsidy was only twice the rate contribution. In a standard case the figures were respectively £5 10s. a year for forty years from the Exchequer and £2 15s. per annum for forty years from the rates. As I will explain later, this very high Exchequer subsidy is a temporary measure to be reviewed as soon as building costs begin to come down. This subsidy—the general standard amount, as it is called—will be paid to the great majority of houses now going up. It is related to a three-bedroomed house, as that is the house most required, but it applies equally to houses of two bedrooms, four bedrooms, five bedrooms and so forth, and local authorities do in fact

599
provide all types. The Government do not impose uniformity; they seek to encourage diversity. As I have stated, the figure of 10s. a week for rent is an assumed average related to the three-bedroomed house. There is no direction to local authorities about the rents to be charged, and these will vary according both to the circumstances of their districts and to the size of the house.
Having dealt with the standard case, I now come to six special cases in which additional subsidy is being given to meet special needs. First, there are the houses built by county district councils for the agricultural population of their districts. In this case the average rent assumed for the three-bedroomed house is 7s. 6d. a week. The Exchequer subsidy will be the special standard amount of £25 10s. per annum for sixty years, and the local authority contribution will be £1 10s. a year for sixty years, with a further £1 10s. a year contributed by the county council. I should perhaps mention here that, under Clause 19, district councils are required to secure that a number of houses equal to the number for which they receive the specially high Exchequer contribution are reserved for members of the agricultural population, except in so far as the demand for houses by this population can be satisfied without such reservation. Noble Lords will, I am sure, appreciate that the very generous Exchequer subsidy, plus the county council contribution, will enable district councils to provide all the housing needed by the agricultural population without incurring an undue financial burden.
The second is the case of the county districts, both urban and rural, where tenants have a low rent-paying capacity. The Bill provides in Clause 3(2) that the special standard Exchequer subsidy of £25 10s. and the county council contribution of £1 10s. provided for agricultural houses are to be paid also in county districts where rates are substantially below the average and where the local authorities' expenditure on housing would be unduly heavy without special assistance. This type of area can be found, for example, in North Wales, and no doubt other areas will suggest themselves to noble Lords.
The third special case is that of the local government areas whose general rate
600
and housing rate are unusually heavy. These are areas where the general rate exceeds by at least one third the average general rate of comparable authorities and whose rate for housing is at least half as much again as the average rate burden incurred for housing by other local authorities of the same class. In such cases the Minister can increase the Exchequer subsidy by an addition up to half the amount due from rates, reducing the rate contribution proportionately. I might add that district councils who qualify for the special standard Exchequer subsidy given for agricultural areas and for tenants of low rent-paying capacity are not debarred from receiving this additional Exchequer assistance. Noble Lords will, I think, recognize that this provision in Clause 7 will be of real assistance in areas struggling with a heavy rate burden where a heavy housing charge has also been undertaken.
The fourth category is that of flats. A special subsidy is given for the erection of flats on expensive sitesߞthis is set out in Clause 4ߞsince a flat costs, on an average, substantially more than a house. In the case of flats an average rent of 12s. a week is assumed. The special subsidy is tied to the high cost of land for the reason that fiats are built in any numbers only in the centre of big towns, where the cost of land is high. The subsidy rises with the cost of the land. Where the cost is between £1,501 and £4,000 an acre the Exchequer subsidy will be £28 10s., and the rate contribution £9 10s., both for a period of sixty years. The total contribution from public funds will be increased by £1 for an additional £1,000 per acre up to £5,000; by £2 for the next £1,000 up to £6,000, and by an additional for each increase of £2,000 per acre beyond £6,000.
The ratio of three to one between the Exchequer subsidy and the rate contribution is maintained throughout the scale which is set out in Part II of the first Schedule. Noble Lords may be aware that there was a good deal of discussion in another place about the subsidy for flats, some members saying that the subsidy should be paid for any building on expensive land, whether houses or flats, their objection being to the effective compulsion of local authorities to build flats as distinct from houses on the expensive sites. The Minister pointed out that in the total sum of local authority building,

601
flats would form a very small proportion, and that it was necessary, if people are to be rehoused in central areas in any adequate numbers, that the rehousing should be done largely in flats. Noble Lords will be aware that a substantial measure of decentralization of population is contemplated. That is sound policy and we are all agreed about it. But even so, flats are necessary, and I do not think I shall be challenged when I say that in the discussion on the Bill in another place, although there was strong opposition from certain members, the view that flats were needed in built-up areas was generally accepted.
I wish to call your Lordships' attention to another point of importance. The same clause contains a provision, new to housing legislation, giving a special subsidy for houses built on a site with flats as part of mixed development, provided that the total accommodation amounts over-all to not less than three storeys. The same clause provides for an additional Exchequer subsidy of £7 a year per flat and an additional rate contribution of £3 10s.a year per flat where a lift is provided. To qualify for this a lift is provided. To qualify for this, a block of flats must include at least four storeys, that is, the ground floor and three storeys above.
Then there is a fifth special case which involves another provision new to housing legislation. Clause 6 relates to the case where the cost of providing a house is increased by the necessity for acquiring rights of support or otherwise ensuring protection against subsidence. In such cases the Exchequer subsidy may be increased by a sum up to £2 a house and the rate contribution may be increased by half the extra Exchequer subsidy. This clause will be of obvious value to local authorities in mining areas, where there is often great difficulty in finding enough land for building.
The sixth, and the last, of the special cases deals with prefabricated houses. Under this clause, the Minister of Health may make a special contribution, additional to the Exchequer subsidy, towards the cost: of a house constructed with his, the Minister's, approval by a non-traditional method. The Government are arranging for the large-scale production of two non-traditional types of house. The first is the steel-framed house designed by the British Iron and Steel Federation,
602
which is a house particularly suitable for erection in urban areas in large groups. The Ministry is at the present time consulting with many of the larger authorities in order to arrange for the early erection of several thousand of these houses and it is hoped that they will make a substantial contribution towards the number of houses to be constructed during this year. The house can be erected with comparatively small demands on local labour, and for that reason it is particularly attractive to the local authorities of "blitzed" areas where the demands on building labour are especially acute. A prototype of this house can be seen at Northolt in Middlesex by any noble Lord who may desire to do so. The other type of house in respect of which the Minister is arranging large-scale production is the Airey house, a house of pre-cast concrete construction. This type of house is considered to be suitable for erection in rural areas and a design has been produced for this purpose. No prototype of the rural design is yet available, but this type of construction can be seen both at Leeds and at Chingford in Essex.
Both these types of house are estimated at present to cost rather more than the traditional type of house, and it is for that reason that the Government are taking powers to make a special capital contribution towards the cost. This power extends, however, only to proposals submitted to the Minister before the end of 1947, as by then it should no longer be necessary to provide special subsidies for alternatives to traditional methods. If the alternatives cannot by that time compete with traditional methods, there should then not be such need for them that additional cost ought to be incurred in getting them.
I stated earlier that the Exchequer subsidies provided in the Bill are very high, that this is intended to be temporary and that the subsidies will be reviewed as soon as building costs begin to come down. Claus 16 provides that the Minister may, by order, reduce both the Exchequer subsidies and the rate contribution in relation to new houses completed after June 30, 1947. I would repeat what was said in another place—namely, that it is the Government's intention that both Exchequer and rate contributions shall be reduced at the earliest possible moment. I feel there will be

603
general agreement that the financial provision which I have indicated is generous, that it covers all cases, and that no local authority should have cause to feel inhibited by financial considerations from a maximum building effort during the next year. It will be appreciated that the subsidies apply to all post-war housing, no matter whether it is begun or even completed before the Bill becomes law. Further, by Clauses 9, 10, and 11 certain classes of war-time houses built by local authorities or by housing associations will become eligible for the appropriate subsidy under the Bill. This provision is in fulfilment of promises given at the time by the Governments of the day.
There are one or two other points in the Bill to which I feel I should direct your Lordships' attention. I have referred to the contribution made by county councils to housing for the agricultural population and to housing for population with a low rate-paying capacity. A second subsection was added to Clause 8 during the passage of the Bill through another place, empowering a county council to contribute to the housing expenditure of any county district council if the Minister approves. There has been some criticism of this Amendment, which was moved without the normal consultation between the Minister of Health and the representatives of the local authorities. The Amendment was due to the fact that three county councils were promoting private Bills this Session, containing a similar power, and a decision had to be taken with regard to them. The Minister felt that if the power were appropriate to one county council it was appropriate to all, and further that it was a reasonable and useful provision. Fears have been expressed that under this power county councils will in effect undertake major building operations which may affect local government boundaries, but in the Minister's opinion these fears are adequately dealt with by the provision requiring his approval to any contribution. Should a major proposal be contemplated, full opportunity would be given to all interested local authorities to express their views, but it seems unlikely that major operations will be contemplated under the powers of this clause.
Clause 13 provides that a subsidy of £15 a year for forty years may be given to private persons building a cottage for an
604
agricultural worker. This is a repetition of a provision in the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, with a substitution of £15 for the £10 then provided. It is the only instance in the Bill of a subsidy given to a private person, and the reason for it is that there are cases where a farmer needs to build an isolated cottage or two at or near his farm, and it is more convenient and economical for him to build it than for the local authority to do so. Subsection (2) of the clause, which provides that a cottage built with the subsidy must be let, if it is let, at a rent not exceeding the rent which would be appropriate to it if the house had been provided by the council, is included in order to bring the cottage under the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts, that is to say, to prevent the cottage from being "tied." The landlord will still be able to obtain possession of the cottage, if necessary, but only by a judicial process under the Rent Restrictions Acts, and this would protect the tenant from unreasonable eviction.
Clause 18 of the Bill contains a provision relating to a housing association established under arrangements to be made by the Minister of Health. Hitherto, the Minister has taken no active part in the formation of housing associations, which are ordinarily formed by charitable bodies, or employers anxious to provide houses for their employees, or by bodies of would be owner-occupiers and so forth. It is now contemplated that the Minister might arrange the establishment of a housing association which would either carry out all the functions of an ordinary association operating under Section 94 of the Housing Act, 1936; that is, would build and manage houses instead of the local authority, or, quite simply as architect-cum-contractor for a local authority which is in difficulties, perhaps owing to shortage of technical staff, planning and building the houses but handing them over to the local authority for management. It is impossible to say at the present time to what extent it may be necessary to use a housing association of this kind in supplementation of local authority efforts, but it is obviously useful that the Minister should have the power to supplement as may be needed.
As noble Lords will have noted, the Bill deals only with the provision of new houses. The Minister has made it clear that he does not want, at the present time, to divert building labour and materials to

605
the conversion and adaptation of existing houses beyond the very substantial efforts being made by local authorities in respect of houses which they hold on requisition. This does not mean that the housing programme will not be supplemented later by improved measures for securing reconditioning and conversion, but it is the deliberate intention of the Government to delay such action until new house-building on a sufficient scale is under way, so as to avoid the risk of diverting productive capacity from its main task. The overriding need is for new houses, and it is to that objective that the Government's main efforts are being directed.
I have covered the main features of the Bill, but I have refrained from dealing with a number of minor points in order not to encroach unduly upon your Lordships' time. I will add only one word in conclusion. The rehousing of the people is a national responsibility. The Government are determined, so far as they can ensure it, that the task shall be progressively discharged with speed, efficiency and in accordance with the sound principles of town and country planning. By this Bill the Government provide the local authorities with generous financial assistance, so that there need he no failure on the score of finance. The Bill is a necessary Bill. It is a sound Bill, and it is a Bill which should be welcomed and supported. I commend it to your Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Henderson)
3.7 p.m.
LORD LLEVVELLIN: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord. He covered all the essential parts of this Bill and, if he will allow me to say so, I think he did it very clearly and very succinctly. As the noble Lord has told us, this is a Bill which provides a very generous subsidy towards the building of houses. If one begins to work it out one finds that the standard amount of £22 for sixty years will work out at no less than £1,320 subsidy per standard house, or a capitalized value at the present time of £594 subsidy per house; the rural subsidy, capitalized, works out at £768 a house, and for flats on expensive sites as much as £1,400 per house. I think there is no doubt whatever as to the generosity of the size of the subsidies. I suppose we
606
all wish they had not got to be so high, but it is unfortunately necessary to provide them, and we are agreed upon that at the present time. It is as well to notice that if we were to build on those terms three million houses—and this is a figure often talked about—we should be imposing a burden on the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country of no less a capital sum than £3,960,000,000.
It is just as well to look at the broad background of proposals such as these, to pause for a moment to consider what other burdens there are upon the people of the country at the present time. There are the very heavy food subsidies, for which indeed I was responsible for some twenty-one months, which come to a sum of over £240,000,000 a year, and very heavy costs are to fall on the Exchequer and on the rates for the new health services. In addition there is the dreadful and wasteful burden of the expenditure on two world wars which we have to pay. We are actually piling upon this and future generations burdens which would make, and perhaps for all. I know are making, some of our predecessors who sat in Parliament—and especially, perhaps, Mr. Gladstone—turn in their graves.
Incidentally, it is as well to remember that the housing and the food subsidies are really direct subsidies to wages in this country. Therefore, perhaps one of the most important clauses in this Bill is one which was specially referred to by the noble Lord in moving the Second Reading—Clause 16, which provides for periodical reviews of the amount of the subsidy. This, as I understand it, is going to work only—and quite properly—in a downward direction. That will mean that local authorities will not have any ground for thinking: "If we hang back we may get an increased subsidy next year."
I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health, introducing this Bill in another place, said that "costs must not be allowed to remain so high as to frustrate the fulfilment of our task." I should think that we all in this House would agree with him in that—the task, of course, being that of making up this serious housing deficiency. I must say, nevertheless, that I do not see how, under the present procedure, building costs are going to be most effectively brought down. The way to bring down building costs is to encourage competition in the building industry, and this, indeed, is not being done.

607
Private builders are not going to be encouraged under this Bill. They are not going to be allowed to put forth their utmost efforts towards the solution of this housing problem. A number of them, I quite sincerely believe, are shortly going to be put out of business altogether. Nonsensical as it may seem, I suppose what has been happening in this connexion is well known.
There are local authorities who have tried to get houses built by every possible means, one of them being by giving a large number of licences to private builders to build their houses. A number of such local authorities have, within the last few days, received circular letters from the Ministry of Health telling them that they are to give no more licences to private builders until such time as building by the local authority has caught up to the original four to one ratio which the Minister of Health has seen fit to lay down for the country as a whole. Indeed, in this same letter, the authorities are told that they are to consider cancelling some of the present licences if they have not yet been acted upon, or have only been partially acted upon. If they carry out this instruction, which, quite frankly, seems to me to be an absurd one, it will mean that in some cases the licences for houses the foundations of which have already been laid may be taken away for the simple reason that the private builders in that neighbourhood are building more than one house against the four of the local authority. This will immediately put out of business a number of small builders who have got sufficient manpower to tackle the building of one or two houses at a time but have not got adequate staff to enable them to tender for the large municipal contracts. They will have to get rid of their present employees, and those employees, at a period when they ought to be working hard building houses, will have to spend some time looking round for new jobs. Really, of all the odd things, when there is this clamant need for houses this seems to me one of the oddest actions one could expect from the Minister responsible for the building.
I gather that any competition by the private builders is to be eliminated, and that they are not, in future, to be allowed to show, in the Ministry's housing returns,
608
that they are, in any area at all, beating the records of the local authorities. That is to be done by this order from White-ball. As a result fewer houses will, in fact, be built. These private builders are not to be given any encouragement under this Bill. So their building will be restricted, and there will not be that competition occurring which I believeߞand which I think every man of experience in these matters well knowsߞis the one way in which to reduce building costs in the end, to save part, at any rate, of these subsidies, and to allow the Minister to be able effectively to reduce them when he puts Clause 16 into operation. We should, I think, do everything we can to see that these subsidies—if they can possibly be brought down—are not kept so high for too long. I believe one of the harshest and hardest things that is happening in this country at the present time is to be seen in the case of the retired person or the widow who is living in a respectable, modest and moderate way and who finds that he or she cannot manage to meet the increasing burdens, particularly of the rates, which we, from London, impose. It seems to me that we should try to relieve these people, to whatever extent is possible of these burdens instead of piling more and more upon them.
Another thing which is being done by the Government is illustrated by this episode. I was told of it by the builder concerned, who, to my own personal knowledge, is a very good and very efficient builder. He had a licence to build a number of houses and apparently he was restricted in that licence to working 45 hours a week. Now his men, as a matter of fact, were quite anxious to make overtime money, and they agreed with him to work 49½ hours a week, which is not an excessive number of hours in the building industry, in good weatherߞsuch weather, for example, as we are lucky enough to be enjoying at the present time. But last week this builder got a notice from some Government source saying that it had come to their knowledge that his men were working 49½ hours a week, and that if he did not restrict the working to 45 hours a week, in accordance with his licence, the licence would be cancelled.
Really, I ask, do the Government want to get houses? Are they really in earnest about this matter? Do they want to

609
bring down the cost of houses or do they not? The opportunities given to build more houses by these generous subsidies are all, in my submission, being whittled away by administrative actions such as the two which I have just described. It seems to me to be quite mad, if you have builders ready to do their work, to stop them doing it until the local authority catches up with them, and equally mad to restrict the hours of work where an employer and his men have voluntarily agreed to do these longer hours. It might seem from these different actions that there was not the clamant need for houses which we all recognize here. The fact is that by not including the private builders in this Bill, those who built three out of every four houses erected in the period between the two wars are not being given the proper encouragement to make the great contribution that they could make to the housing needs of the people of this country.
Even in rural areas, where there is a subsidy payable to the private individual, it is extraordinary to compare the difference in the amount of the subsidy paid to the local authority and that paid to the private individual. The local authority gets a subsidy of £28 10s. for sixty years for every cottage built; anyone else building a house, although it has got to be a house to let, only gets £15 a year for forty years. Whether that means the local authority cannot build as cheaply as the private person one does not know—nor what is the background for that very different arrangement for building similar houses in the same area between the local authority and the private enterprise builder.
Nor, in this Bill, is there any help to the landlord or farmer who wants to build a house for occupation by those working on the land, and working for him on the land. We had some discussion in this House on the last occasion in regard to tied cottages. It is quite true, of course, that a man who ceases to do the work in connexion with which the use of the home was given him, has to move out. But he has to move out because it is necessary for another man, who is going to do the job, to move in. It is exactly the same—and there is never any criticism about this—with the policeman who ceases to be a policeman in a particular area or district, who has to move out of the police house to make way for the
610
policeman coining to take his place. There are two great advantages in these tied houses. The first is that they house the man near his work; and the cowman who has to get up at the crack of dawn to do the first milking of the cows does not, believe me, my Lords, relish having to walk or perhaps bicycle two or three miles before he gets to his cows to start his day's job. He much prefers to walk from the farm cottage, perhaps 100 or 150 yards. The second thing about this—and it came out in debate the other day—is that these cottages are not used, as was said about a number of cottages built in rural areas between the two wars, for week-end visitors. They are kept for the people who really need them and who work on the land.
I suppose there will be no dissent at all in this House from the opinion that there is a crying need for more good houses for agricultural workers. During the war, we have had an immense return out of our farm land in country; we have more intensive cultivation than we had in the years before the war. But with more arable land we need more labour; and we cannot count on having the mass of prisoners of war to do a lot of our farm work, although they may save the situation for us this year. When these men go back, there will be this clamant need for houses in the countryside, and I should have thought it would be wise to try and get every possible person to build houses. Under the old minimum farm wages provisions, you were not allowed to charge, I believe, more than 3s. or 3s. 6d. for these houses, so long as the house was really provided for the worker on the land. No excessive rent was allowed to be taken for it.
The final matter on which I wish to say a word or two this afternoon is one that was dealt with by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, when we had our last housing debate. That is the question of the conversion and reconditioning of houses. In this connexion, although I understand the noble Lord's explanation was that the Minister is determined to put his labour on to the building of new houses and to put back reconditioning and conversion for the moment—that is what it amounted to—I believe that he is wrong. After all, we have the advantage of a report by a Committee of the Ministry of Health, which, as it happens, was set up by the

611
Coalition Government, by the then Minister of Health. The Minister of Town and Country Planning, certainly concerned with our housing problem today, was Chairman of the Committee. And the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health was one of the members. It is as well to see what they said about this particular question of giving financial aid towards conversion or reconditioning of houses. They said:
"We have reviewed a number of suggestions, and discussed them, and dismissed them all except the following—namely, that a percentage of the approved cost of actual conversion should be payable to the owner, up to a limited amount, for dwellings provided."
They go on in their recommendations to say that conversion will provide much-needed additional housing accommodation, and can be accomplished with less material in time of shortage than will be needed in the construction of new houses, and where the cost does not exceed £500 or the dwelling will need less skilled labour. They also go on to point out that social and other amenities are available without any extra cost, so that the answer there, my Lords, is that you do get with less cost more done by the small builders. But it can only be done in present circumstances, and with reasonable rents, if there is some subsidy. In spite of these recommendations by the Minister of Town and Country Planning and by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health, any kind of a grant or help towards the conversion of buildings is curiously lacking from this present measure. So that in that respect again, in my view, this Bill falls short of what we should have properly expected.
To sum up, it falls short, I think, in three ways. There is not that encouragement that should be given at this time to the private builders to do their utmost to solve this problem alongside, but irrespective of, the local authorities. There is not sufficient encouragement to build houses by such private builders in rural areas. That subsidy should, in my view, be as large as that given to the local authorities in those areas. There is no encouragement to the farmer or landlord to build houses for his own workpeople, which could make another contribution to this problem. There is no encouragement to help on conversion. But let us be frank with regard to the matter. In all
612
these ways we in this House are powerless to improve this measure because, were we to do so, more houses would be built, and if more houses were built, a greater charge would fall upon the taxpayers. Therefore, we should be out of order in trying to impose such a charge. So there it is. In my view, this Bill deals generously with local authorities, but it falls short, in my opinion, in the three ways that I have indicated to your Lordships' House. But it is no good turning down a measure which will do some good because you do not think it will do so much good as another which might have been introduced. Therefore, your Lordships can rest assured that we shall not divide against this Bill, but indeed give it as fair a passage as we can through your Lordships' House.
3.32 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I should like to thank the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill for his exposition of it and the very clear way in which he has described the provisions of it to your Lordships. I rise merely for the purpose of asking for more information (or for information) on two points in respect of which I have given private notice to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. The first is of a rather general character. I think it is relevant on the Second Reading of this Housing Bill to consider the inter-relation of the Government's acceptance of the policy of dispersal, which they have just recently announced, and the interesting announcement about the new towns which has recently been made. I think it is relevant to ask for information, if any is available, on the bearing of that policy upon the future building of houses. Perhaps I may refer particularly to London. Your Lordships will remember that we have had several debates here about the increasing public anxiety as to the size of the urban aggregations, and, of course, London is the greatest urban aggregation in this country.
To put my question in the shortest possible form, I should like to ask His Majesty's Government if they can tell us to what extent the adoption by the Government of the policy of dispersal and the policy of new towns will have a bearing on the future development of housing, which will come under this Bill, here in

613
London. I will not detain your Lordships for long. I just want to recall to your Lordships that there has been great public anxiety about the policy of the London County Council in developing dormitory housing estates. It is not so very long since the Provisional Order was confirmed for the compulsory purchase of the Oxhey estate out to the north. There was a good deal of anxiety that that did make a great encroachment into the Green Belt, and many of us felt that it was a great misfortune. We were assured that it was inevitable, but we did feel that it was a great misfortune to see so much of the Green Belt disappearing under further suburban growth.
What I should like to be assured of first is that this acceptance by the Government of the policy of dispersal really will be of great assistance to the London County Council in the furtherance of its redevelopment plans and will enable the London County Council to avoid any more of these dormitory estates on the periphery. I am very glad that the noble Lord who leads the London County Council has found it possible to be present. It would be a great comfort to all of us if he could give us some assurance on that subject. I know there is no dissent in your Lordships' House, but I think we all feel that, if the rate of increase of London can be slowed down, that will be a great advantage. Nobody is sanguine enough to think that London will not continue to grow. All we hope is that it will continue to grow in the right places, and with the greatest regard to the amenity of its inhabitants. We are all devoted to London; we are all proud of London, and we want to see London grow in the way which will give its inhabitants the greatest possible chance of having the sort of life which they ought to have.
The other point in respect of which I wish to ask information is more in relation to this Bill itself. I want to tell your Lordships quite frankly that I am very much disturbed with regard to Clause 4. Clause 4 is the clause which gives a subsidy for expensive sites. I want to remind your Lordships that this system of scaled-up subsidy was first introduced in the 1936 Bill. And of course the object is this. At that time particularly we were all very anxious, and still are, with regard to the need of housing people near their work. It was found necessary, where the cost of land formed
614
a very great proportion of the total cost of the dwellings, to give this extra subsidy. There has been a big change in the relative importance of the cost of the land and the cost of building, and I venture to say that that is a factor which has been overlooked by the Government in settling these subsidies, The matter is very difficult to discuss, because the language of the clause is so obscure. This is to some extent a Committee point, but I think it is so important: that I am justified in taking up a little of your Lordships' time now, because I think it affects the whole action under review.
Broadly speaking, the additional subsidy for expensive sites seems to me to be limited to flats. There is a proviso under which maximum development can attract the expensive subsidy but it is wrapped in terms of such obscurity that it is very difficult to understand. If I am right—and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong—I believe that the proviso means that no scheme will attract the higher subsidy unless it is developed to the extent of three-storeyed flats. If that is correct I should like know what density is really envisaged by the Minister as satisfactory. The Minister can allow the local authorities a higher subsidy if the development is satisfactory. In the Housing Manual of the Minister of Health there is a three-storey flat development which shows about twenty-five dwellings to the acre. I would like to know whether that is the sort of development that the Minister would consider satisfactory or whether he would like to go higher—thirty or thirty-six.
What is the lowest development that will qualify for the higher subsidy? This is a vital question, as the noble Lord who introduced the BM told us. The capitalized subsidy on the ordinary house on land up to £1,500 an acre is £594. The capitalized subsidy for a flat on land worth £1,500 to £4,000 acre is £1,024. From £5,000 to £6,000 an acre it works out at £1,105, and from £10,000 to £12,000 an acre at £1,2657. Now houses can be built up to a number of twelve to fifteen per acre quite satisfactorily and on a mixed development you can get up to twenty or twenty-five dwellings per acre. If you have a small proportion of houses, so many houses to so many fiats, it may be both practical and desirable to have a development of that sort even on land

615
of value of up to £12,000 an acre. I do not know why the clause is drawn to prevent the Minister, as I think it does, from allowing the higher subsidy for a desirable mixed development of that sort.
I am not saying I want to put houses in the middle of great towns which have got to be redeveloped. I know that flats are necessary on the most expensive land, but I do not agree with having the flats, or a development equivalent to flats, on land of £2,000 an acre. Although the noble Lord in introducing the Bill said the Government seek to encourage diversity I cannot see under the wording of the Bill that that is so. If I understand that provision aright, I do not think there is administrative discretion. I have studied it carefully. I think a great deal of money will be wasted, a great number of people forced into flats, and altogether that much better results would be reached if the Minister could use a little discretion and be enabled to give the higher subsidy for mixed development of housing and flats. If I have spent too long on a Committee point I apologize to your Lordships but I felt justified in raising it on the Second Reading.
3.44 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I would like to support the Second Reading of this Bill. Its financial provisions have emerged after many months of consultation and consideration both by the Ministerߞindeed Ministers, as a former Minister, was concerned in the question of subsidyߞand between the local authorities associations. If one applies the word "generous" to the State subsidy, it must be understood that generosity is determined not by any excessive avidity on the part of the local authorities but by the temporary high cost of building at the present time, and indeed under the proposals now, although the proportion between Exchequer and rate contributions has been reduced from two to one to three to one, if, as we all hope, the local authorities get busy there will be a very large cumulative burden cast upon the rates in respect of the share borne by the local authorities. It is a proper circumstance that the Minister should propose to take power to review the subsidies in the light of what we hope will be the descending cost of building in the near future.
616
With regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I have no difficulty myself in understanding what the Minister proposes in regard to mixed development. We, the local authorities, pressed for a special subsidy in respect of cottages where such cottages would be built on expensive land. It would not have much helped the L.C.C. because there is not much land upon which cottages can be built in London. But there are one or two fringe sites, for instance Kidbrooke, where we are pursuing a cottage development, and where the land at its present cost would have qualified for a special subsidy had it been applicable to cottages. The Minister has, I think for the first time, agreed to pay the special subsidy in respect of mixed development. I understand that to mean that according to the circumstances of the site and to the over-all conception of the scheme, it will be possible to build a number of cottages or terraced houses on a site which would be mostly used for the building of flats, and that if the over-all height is not in excess of three storeys and other things are appropriate, the houses, cottages, or terrace houses will qualify for the special subsidy applicable to flats.
Personally, as one not unconnected with an authority which perforce has to build mostly flats, at all events in the County of London, I must say I do not accept the suggestion which was emphasized in speeches in another place, that the special subsidy for flats will induce an authority to build flats because of getting a larger subsidy. Certainly that is not the case in London. The problem with which we are faced in London is not only the problem of expensive land, which is not unimportant, but there is not sufficient land upon which to build. If there were, then we should have to face up to the problem from a different point of view, and it is absolutely inescapable that most of the dwellings erected in London whether by the L.C.C., the metropolitan borough councils or private enterprise, will have to be flats. The County of London plan envisaged an over-all density of some 136 persons per acre in the built-up congested areas of Central London. Such a density can only be achieved by building two-thirds flats, one-third terraced houses or cottages. In other areas right in the centre, where under the County of London plan the density is zoned at 200 per acre, then the dwellings must be all flats.

617
I was interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh on dispersal. The County of London plan envisaged that by reference to the 1938 population, and anyone can see what the effect will be with the 1950 population—a dispersal or decentralization from London of about 618,000 persons. That is a pretty substantial number. I myself share the regrets of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh at what we call the London sprawl. But the London sprawl is here, and we must be very careful that we do not proceed to excessive decentralization with the result of the devitalization of London. London is a great port, it is a great industrial and commercial city, and we must be careful that in decentralizing we do not dismember. We must also bear in mind that it is inevitably the young, virile sections of the population who go out of London when decentralization takes place. We do not want to remove from London too many of the young, virile men and women, leaving an ageing population here. Nor do we wish, I hope, to decentralize without regard to the fact that there is a substantial body of industry which must remain in London—industry associated with the great port of London, one of the world's greatest ports and one which we hope may become even greater and more busy in the future than in the past.
So much for the general problem. I am sure your Lordships will accept my statement that the London County Council would be the last body to desire to build excessively on what is now open country outside London. I think this is shown by the step it took in initiating the great Green Belt project, by its willingness to contribute a sum of no less than £2,000,000 to the acquisition of assets which it did not possess and which were outside its own areas, and by the earnestness and the assiduity with which it has pursued that project, so that we already have some 25,000 acres, free for all time to be enjoyed by the people of Greater London, while a further 50,000 acres have been approved for acquisition, which will make a total of some 75,000 acres—an extent as large as the whole County of London. This is a project which I say, I hope with all due modesty, was entered upon at the initiation of the London County Council.
We are deeply concerned not to impair the dwindling open spaces, the glens and
618
dells, which exist in the Greater London area. On the other hand, however, we are faced with a very acute housing problem. It was estimated in 1942 that London needed 50,000 dwellings in order to remove the slums and to abate overcrowding, and 50,000 to replace those which, up to that time, had been destroyed by enemy action. It is now estimated that the 50,000 destroyed by enemy action has gone up to 70,000, and we therefore need, on a minimum basis, 120,000 new dwellings. The situation in London is desperately acute. We have received up to the present 70,000 applications for dwellings and the borough councils have received among them 160,000 applications. It is the case, of course, that there is some measure of duplication of applications between ourselves and metropolitan borough councils, and between the metropolitan borough councils themselves. We are now taking steps, in co-operation with the metropolitan borough councils, to eliminate, if we can, this duplication. That will reduce the number, but even so the number will remain terrifyingly large, and it has not reached its peak, if I may use that phrase. Applications are coming in, I suppose, in London as a whole, at the rate of something like 2,000 a week. When we envisaged our immediate post-war housing activities and programme we had many consultations with the then Minister of Health and later with the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and we pointed out that we should need large sites within a reasonable distance of London and with considerable transport facilities to rehouse some 200,000 persons. That, on the present density of occupation, would mean some 55,000 dwellings outside London.
The Greater London plan, and indeed those who were concerned with its formulation before it was published, agreed that we should use what are now described as seven quasi-satellite towns. Three of them were sites which we had acquired before the war, and in respect of two of them some building had begun but it had to stop owing to the needs of the war. Of the others Oxhey was one; and although there was a great deal of fuss and bother about Oxhey, it has never yet been objected to on town planning grounds. It is not disapproved in the Greater London plan; it is in fact, approved. So were the proposed sites at Loughton and at

619
Averley—I think Averley was approved almost at a Cabinet level. Therefore as regards those sites we cannot be charged with offending against the proposed greater metropolitan Green Belt, or of doing anything against good planning outside London.
But those seven quasi-satellites, plus a relatively smaller site in Kent, amount to about 2,100 acres and they are totally insufficient to provide for the immediate pressing housing problem of London, leaving aside altogether the question of the later long-term decentralization of London and its industries. It is estimated by those responsible for the Greater London plan that those quasi-satellites would provide for a population of 125,000 persons. Well, if the new demands are to be satisfied for ancillary purposes, such as, for instance, larger playgrounds for schools, community centres, provision for churches, provision for clinics and for other social and statutory purposes which are insisted upon and, in my view, properly insisted upon by the local authorities in whose areas the land is, then so far from providing accommodation for 125,000 persons they will provide accommodation for only 78,000 persons, a reduction of very nearly 50,000. I am not complaining of this, but it has now become the fact that if you want to acquire one acre of land for housing purposes outside London you have, in fact, to acquire two, because the other acre will be needed for ancillary social, public and general purposes. And so we are at the present time, according to our estimates, short of some 3,750 acres to provide for the immediate needs of cottages for the people of London outside London.
It is no good saying that we must wait for the new towns, the satellite towns. That is a long-term policy. However active the Government may be, however energetic the national co-operation to sponsor new towns may be, it will be a long time before a satellite town is available to take the population of London or indeed of any other centralized urban area. The people of London need dwellings now. We must, therefore, I submit, with proper regard for amenities and open spaces outside London, find adequate sites to provide living accommodation for the people of London who are so desperately in need of it. The Greater
620
London plan has not yet been approved by the Minister or by the many planning authorities who are concerned in the Greater London area. It is, I understand, at the present time under consideration by the Advisory Committee for Greater London Regional Planning. I say with all respect to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh that I hope we shall preserve a proper balance between the serious and grave need for places for people to live in and the need for preserving amenities.
I take second place to no one in my desire to see as much as possible of the Green Belt in Outer London preserved. But the people cannot live in the Green Belt; they must have somewhere to live. We may, therefore, have to submit proposals which will appear to be in conflict with some of those contained in the Greater London plan. I hope that none of us seeking good planning will take up the point of view that the proposals contained in that plan are inflexible. We have never taken that view as regards the County of London plan; we have sought to make it abundantly clear that as new circumstances and new conditions arise, some of the proposals, and indeed some of the principles, of the County of London plan will have to be adjusted. The only way in which it is possible to plan is on a basis of reasonable flexibility, without sacrificing the main principles of the plan.
That is the situation so far as London is concerned. We need more land for our cottage estates. We contemplate providing 50,000 dwellings in the County of London to replace slum areas, and that will be a long job, because we shall have to find what we call decanting accommodation for those who are in dwellings which will have to be pulled down, but no one contemplates pulling down any dwelling at the present time. However bad it may be and however overcrowded it may be, we cannot contemplate pulling it down, thereby reducing the available living accommodation when it is so perilously short as it is at the present time.
I want to end by giving my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh the assurance that even when these 100,000 dwellings have been provided there will still remain the problem of the decentralization of London. It seems to me it is in connexion with that problem, which will be a long-term problem to be worked out gradually,

621
that the consideration of satellite towns or new towns can take place. For instance, we have recently promoted a reconstruction scheme in connexion with Stepney and Poplar, embracing 1,960 acres, an area three times the size of the whole Borough of Shoreditch. In that reconstructed area in order to provide for adequate school sites, proper open spaces, adequate roads, and the appropriate needs of industry, which in that particular part of London is largely tied to the Thames, we shall have to displace, if I may use the term, some 23,000 persons. As we go on with our reconstruction schemes, there will be thousands of other persons who will have to be provided with accommodation—a small proportion of it in London, but the hulk outside. In that connexion it seems to me that satellite towns will come into the picture.
I submit to your Lordships that we cannot in Londonߞand I believe this to be the case in other urban areas, especially the "blitzed" areas—wait to house the people who are without homes until the satellite towns shall have been brought into existence. We want, the Minister wants, and the nation wants, decent dwellings, built in appropriate areas, as rapidly as they can be built. People are clamouring for them. The living conditions of thousands upon thousands of families in this great City are appalling, so appalling that one hardly dare contemplate them. I submit that in any proper balance between the demands of houses and the demands of amenities, the demands of houses cannot be overlooked.
4.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but its scope has gone far outside the terms of this Bill, and the speech to which we have just listened from the noble Lord, the Leader of the London County Council, is one of great gravity, requiring, I think, the immediate attention of your Lordships, because it is obvious from that speech that the situation that has now arisen is precisely that which was foreseen during your Lordships' debates in the course of the war. Many of us then said that unless while the war was still continuing adequate legislation was passed to enable local authorities to proceed then with the completion of their housing plans, an impossible situation would be created when the war was over.
622
Many members of your Lordships' House—I myself was among them—foresaw and foretold that the moment would come after the war was over when there would be a conflict between providing houses and accommodation of all kinds in a manner which would be worthy of this country, and preventing the repetition of quasi-slums; and not merely preventing the repetition of quasi-slums, but preventing the repetition of the dull, crowded and miserable accommodation which has been the shameful environment of the masses of our working population in this country ever since the Industrial Revolution.
We foresaw that there would be a conflict between the claims of proper town and country planning on the one hand and the immediate and urgent need for houses for the people on the other hand. We foresaw and foretold that many local authorities, if they had not been enabled to make proper plans in advance, would, as after the previous war, immediately be obliged to set to work to build houses wherever it would be quickest or cheapest to do so. From what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has sad, apparently that is the situation in which the London County Council now find themselves. They are going to infringe upon their own admirable County of London plan and abandon in certain cases the principles of the Greater London plan, sacrificing the future to the present. They are going to give to posterity badly planned areas, again with insufficient amenities, infringing the admirable Green Belt proposals which have been previously laid down, because they are under the urgent necessity of providing for the people here and now. That seems to me a most lamentable situation. I do earnestly trust that in this House, and in the other House, pressure will be brought upon the Government to go no further than the absolute minimum and urgent necessities of the case require in sacrificing the planning of the country to the needs of our time.
Let me add one further point. In all these discussions, and in the speech of the noble Lord himself, inadequate attention has I think been given to the question of transport. The housing question is very largely a transport question. When we are discussing matters of whether a person should live in tome vast block of flats near his work or, alternatively, whether he should live some miles away,

623
and have to undergo perhaps three-quarters of an hour's or an hour's travelling to and fro every day in great discomfort and at great expense, the answer is that there ought to be no such dilemma. If our transport from the centre of the cities to the outskirts were twice as good as it is; if we had twice as many buses; if we had express bus transport; and if we had twice as many tubes, then obviously that situation would be solved; and, per contra, if we had no tubes in London at all, if that device had never been adopted, obviously the whole situation would have become an impossible one. Therefore, it appears to me that in this question of planning, in the Bill which is supposed to be before your Lordships' House these elements are undoubtedly very largely transport problems, and if the Government would fix their minds more upon transport and bring in the Ministry of War Transport into closer relation with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, they might find that by doubling or trebling the facilities for transport to and from the outskirts you would not be imposing upon the workman an hour's travelling. He might spend twenty minutes, and he need not be overcrowded and uncomfortable. He might go to and fro with ease and rapidity, and at one and the same time he might be able to come within a reasonable time to his work towards the centre of the town, and also enjoy the pleasure of a house of his own with a garden in agreeable surroundings.
I apologize to your Lordships for having developed this theme, but I was led into it by the speech of the noble Lord who represents the London County Council, for it is so important coming from him, and dealing with matters of such moment and such urgency, that it seemed to me it ought not to be left in your Lordships' House without immediate reply.
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure every one of us will agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken that my noble friend Lord Latham—who, I know, is under dire necessity to leave us just now—has contributed a very significant and important speech to our proceedings. I say this because, as a matter of fact, it was at my own personal and urgent request that he altered his engagements
624
for this afternoon in order to come and take part in our deliberations. As the noble Lord who has just spoken said happens not unusually, the debate in this House has wandered rather far from the Bill we are supposed to be considering which really deals with financial aid for housing almost from first line to last. For all that, I think we are all glad that the discussion has taken this wider range, and I myself share the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, on the dangers inherent in the situation, namely, the extent to which the terrible pressure for accommodation is likely to, or may, jeopardise Town Planning. We are all painfully conscious of it, and it was evident when my noble friend Lord Latham was speaking, that it was in his mind also all through. But I do not think things are quite as bad as the noble Viscount seemed to forecast. For example, I do not know whether he has made himself acquainted with the scheme for reclaimingߞbecause that is what it amounts toߞthe Stepney and Poplar areas, but I think myself that it is a very significant and a very fine example of the improvement of a terrible area under exceedingly difficult circumstances. I have no doubt that that kind of example will be followed, so far as it is physically possible, and so things are not quite as bad, in my view, as the noble Lord perhaps seemed inclined for the moment to suggest.
I think it is almost inescapable that housing provision must be made in these urgent circumstances and it will necessarily, to a great extent anyhow, take precedence over the provision of new towns. That does not in any way depreciate from the validity of what the noble Viscount said as to the need for improvements in transport and all the rest of it. That has been a headache to a considerable number of Governments for a long time past, and I am not going to pass beyond the bounds of housing to discuss transport, however tempting the prospect. I am afraid the noble Lord must excuse me if I stop short of discussing that. I will say just this—and I think he knows us well enough to know this—that more effective dealing with transport is one of the projects which we mean to prosecute, and that in no half-hearted way.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh quite rightly expressed his misgivings as to the effect of the subsidy for flats on very costly land and we all

625
sympathize with those fears. The temptation will be to build more flats than we should like to see, and I am sure we all realize that that is a danger which has to be guarded against. At the same time, I think it is inescapable that there must be a large population housed in London and that it is impossible to divorce that population in many areas over London from the industries of the City. Therefore, it is inevitable that some of this more costly land must De used to build flats because it is the only way in which you can get room enough for the people to live in.
LORD LLEWELLIN: And where they want to live.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am coming to that point. We, of course, recognize to the full desirability that young people who hope to have children shall have space for their children to grow up in and gardens for them to play in. At the same tune when you have said that, there are multitudes of people for whom it is appropriate to provide flats, and as a matter of fact flats must be provided. And while that is the case, it is clear that there must be this special provision to enable them to build.
As to the question which the noble Lord asked me about the density of building. I have made an inquiry and, so far as I am informed at the moment, the proposal is that the density should generally be about 35ߞor the equivalent of 35—flats per acre, and, on the arrangement forecast, it might be 28 flats to 7 houses—that is, a proportion of four to one. I am afraid that I cannot give any further information upon that point. But it is quite evident that, if you are going to provide these flats, you have also to provide extra money in order to build them. The thing that I should think is at the back of the mind of every one of us to-day is the appalling size of these subsidies. As one who has suffered in this cause, I do not envy my successor in having to begin on houses contemplated to cost £1,000 each, apart from land. But there it is I That is the position at present, and I am sure we all welcome the provision which will enable this scale to be brought downward in the course of time.
I have done my best to obtain answers, to some of the more important points which have been brought before us to-day
626
by my noble friend Lord Llewellin, and I will now endeavour to put before the House the effect of those answers. With regard to the case which ray noble friend cited of some builder who had been informed that his men were not to be allowed to work 49½ hours a week, and that if they continued doing so there would be some question of withdrawal of the licence given to the builder, I have this to say: We have no information at all of that particular case. It seems a very surprising case, I must admit, and perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough, alter the sitting of the House, to provide me with such details of it as he can. My right honourable friend has promised that it shall be looked into without delay. Obviously, I cannot say more about this matter now.
As to the rest of my noble friend Lord Llewellin's remarks, I think they were a little—shall we say coloured by his prejudices? The Government is really not so inimical to persons building houses for themselves as he, perhaps, seems to suggest. I think that the fact, for example, that the subsidy for building cottages in rural area? has been put up from £10 to £15 for 40 years is at all events a useful indication of the absence of prejudice in this matter.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The local authority gets £28 10s.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes, but in the case of the individual who builds, the house belongs to him in the end. In the other case, it belongs to the community, which is a rather different matter. I would remind my noble friends opposite that they only made it £10 but we are putting it up from £10 to £15. So we are making it a bit better. I agree, of course, that the extra costs of building go to wipe out the difference, and I do not seek to make anything of that particular increase, except to say that we are doing a little bit better.
With respect to the position as between private builders and local authorities and the matter of the possible withdrawal of licences, to which my noble friend Lord Llewellin also called our attention, I understand that the Minister has directed about 100 local authorities to issue no more licences without consent. This direction has been given in cases where the local authority has already issued licences for more houses than can possibly be built

627
with the labour available. That would seem to be, on the whole, a fairly sensible proceeding. It will apply in those cases where it will not be possible to get any more houses for people of small means. The Minister has not said that the licensing is to stop until the position as between the local authorities and private enterprise is in the ratio of four to one. He has merely called a halt in such cases for the time being.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope that that will go out, for there is a very universal impression abroad that four to one is an absolute rule which no local authority may alter.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am trying to correct that impression. According to my information, the Minister has only stopped this building until the local authorities' building gets going. About twelve local authorities have been told to consider cancelling the licences where too many have already been issued for the building labour available. Noble Lords will note that the total number of local authorities who have been so instructed is only twelve, and the stoppage of the licences applies only to houses the building of which has not actually been begun. It will be realized, therefore, that the picture that Lord Llewellin conjures up of a house with walls and no roof being left in that state owing to stoppage of the licence, was quite an imaginary one.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps I put a wrong construction on the words "which have only partially been acted on." Those are the actual words. If that means, merely, that the stoppage applies only in a case where someone has, as it were, just thought about a house and nothing else, then that is quite all right.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes, I think it is quite right that the noble Lord should have called attention to this matter, and I have been fortified by an authoritative statement, which I am now reading. About twelve local authorities have been told to consider cancelling licences, where far too many have been issued for the labour available to build. Only in the case of houses not begun will the licences be stopped. If we hear of work on any houses in which work has been begun being stopped, we will immediately take the matter up. That is
628
an undertaking from the Minister. I hope that, so far as it goes, that statement will be some comfort to those who may have had some misgivings on this matter. I think that, at any rate, that statement deals effectively with the particular misgiving to which the noble Lord, quite properly, gave expression. I assure him that my right honourable friend is not being governed by some preconceived antipathy to the private builder. The number of licences issued shows that. It is only where my right honourable friend finds that he is being governed by the physical limitations of labour and building material that action of this kind is to be taken.
I am afraid that I am bound to give expression to some misgiving on this subject of material. I must say that the country, I think, is by no means out of the wood with regard to the shortages of building materials. We have a long way to go in the matter of providing bricks and other supplies before the advice can confidently be given to everybody: "Get along as fast as you can." Unless this sensible kind of regulation is applied, in face of the existing shortages of many building materials, it will mean a hopeless scramble and the position will be worse than before. So I do respectfully ask the noble Lord to have a little more consideration for us, and not to be quite so ready to attribute our actions to political prejudices. I ask him not to attribute to political prejudices steps which have had to be taken owing to shortages.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I correct the noble Viscount to the extent of pointing out that I was commenting upon the statement that the position will be reviewed in the light of the progress made with the local authorities' own house-building programme?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I would remind my noble friend that that house-building programme is contingent upon there being available the necessary labour and materials to enable them to get on with the job. I am sure that when there are adequate supplies of labour and materials for the local authorities there will be more licences for others. I know that that is the intention of my right honourable friend. But he is limited all the timeߞso are the local authorities and so are the private buildersߞby shortages of men and materials. If we had not these shortages we should be only too glad to go ahead

629
as quickly as possible. With regard to conversion the same limitations, particularly in regard to the employment of labour, have induced the Government to take the action they have taken. At the same time, I think it is fair to bear in mind that local authorities at the moment are in possession of 88,000 premises which are undergoing conversion and adaptation. Of these 58,500 are in. London, and are being converted as quickly as possible. In these cases the cost is being borne wholly by the Exchequer. Within limitations, progress is being made. But I am quite sure every one of the criticisms of the noble Lord was worth making and I do not complain that they should have been made.
My plea is that full and continual recognition shall be given to the governing factors of this situation, which are that there is not sufficient labour available to do as much work as we should like; nor is there sufficient material to get on as quickly as we should like. These, as I have said, are the two governing factors and, as far as I can see, it will be some considerable time before we have dealt with either or both of them. As to the rest, these comments of mine, like many of the speeches, are entirely outside the Bill, and I was glad to recognize that the noble Lord, at the end of his remarks, realized that that was so, as well as I do. So far as the Bill went, he was glad of it. He recognized that it was generous and would make the best use of it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION 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 Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Division of a single school into two or more schools.
(5) Subsection (4) of Section fifteen of the principal Act (which relates to the circumstances in which an order directing that a
630
school is to be an aided school is to be revoked) shall have effect as if the references therein to an order included references to a direction having effect under ibis section.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWELhad given Notice of two Amendments in subsection (5)—namely, after "order," where that word occurs for the second time, to insert "by virtue of which a school is an aided school"; and to substitute "that a school shall be an aided school" for "having effect." The noble Earl said: The first Amendment to this clause in my name is a drafting Amendment to clarify the word "order" in line 35. The Bishop of Truro has been good enough to tell me he means to speak on it and I am sure your Lordships will listen with interest to anything he may wish to say. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, after ("order") insert ("by virtue of which a school is an aided school").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: Subsection (4) of Section 15 of the principal Act deals with cases in which the managers or governors of an aided school or special agreement school are unable or unwilling to carry out their obligations under the Act. It is greatly to be hoped that such cases will be rare. The Church of England, if I may speak for the Church of England in particular, is very anxious to co-operate to the full in the new educational development throughout the country. But we are conscious of great financial strain at the present time, and we see no prospects of that being lightened in the near future. Our supporters find it difficult to increase their contributions with taxation at its present level, and it is too much to hope that any substantial relief will come from another place this afternoon. And there is so much to do with Church money. So many of our benefices have large unmanageable houses and inadequate incomes, and very often, under the operation of the Tithe Act, income is seriously decreased, even now. I have one important country living to be filled, and the income has gone down automatically by £98. It was not too much before.
Then we really must look to the Minister of Education to maintain a sympathetic a generous attitude, as

631
we do our best to tackle the new problems as they occur one by one. Perhaps I may be allowed to say how much we welcome the realistic approach to the question of the village school which is taken in Circular 90. I think it will be generally welcomed by all who are concerned with village life. The Circular lays down that village schools should be considered individually, on their merits, and, further, that where necessary the Minister will be prepared to consider some modification in the standards of accommodation set out in the Third Schedule regarding building regulations. No one, of course, would wish school buildings to be left in a condition that would endanger the health of the pupils, but various modifications might be allowed, as regards cubic space and so on, in certain instances. We therefore very greatly welcome the realistic approach of that Circular, and although this Amendment, as I am well aware, only concerns drafting, I think your Lordships would not object to my just raising these points. These measures, this Bill and the principal Act, give the Minister very great powers. No doubt it tends to efficiency to have executive powers concentrated in this way. All may be well if the Minister continues to act with sympathetic understanding of the considerable difficulties of the voluntary bodies which are genuinely making great efforts to co-operate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The second Amendment does for the word "direction" what the first did for the word "order."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("having effect") and insert ("that a school shall be an aided school").ߞ(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Qualification of teachers for membership of local authorities and their committees.
10.ߞ(1) For the proviso to Section ninety-four of the Local Government Act, 1933, there shall be substituted the following proviso:
"Provided that a person shall not, by reason of his being a teacher or holding any other office in a school or college maintained by a local education authority, be dis
632
qualified for being a member of any committee or sub-committee of any local authority:

(a) appointed for the purposes of the enactments relating to education;

(b) appointed for the care of the mentally defective; or

(c) appointed under this Act or under Section four of the Public Libraries Act, 1893, for purposes connected with the execution of the Public Libraries Acts, 1892 to 1919;

or for being a representative of a local authority on a joint committee appointed by agreement between the authority and other local authorities for any such purpose as aforesaid."
(2) Subsection (2) of Section fifty-nine of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall not operate so as to disqualify any person for being elected or being a member of the council of a county district by reason of his being a teacher or holding any other office in a school or college which is maintained by a local education authority.
4.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), in the substituted proviso, to leave out "or holding any other office in a school or college maintained" and insert "in, or being otherwise employed in, any school college or other educational institution maintained or assisted." The noble Earl said: We now come to the first Amendment of substance, which I am proposing. The object of this Amendment is to widen the scope of eligibility of people employed in educational activities for service on local authorities. The first subsection of Clause 10 as now drafted would not allow such employees of local authorities as youth wardens or youth organizers to be members of the education committee of the local authority that employs them or, of course, of any of its sub-committees. The inclusion of, the words proposed, "other educational institution", will cover youth centres or community centres, which cannot, of course, be described either as schools or colleges. But it would be rather absurd to make wardens and organizers, engaged authorities, eligible for this kind of public work without also admitting those employed in similar institutions merely receiving financial assistance from local education authorities. Accordingly, it is proposed to acid the words, "or assisted" after "maintained".
Amendment movedߞ
Page 5, line 28, leave out from ("teacher") to ("by") in line 29, and insert ("in, or

633
being otherwise employed in, any school college or other educational institution maintained or assisted").ߞ(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The next Amendment, in subsection (2), really follows on the previous Amendment. Its object is to give a wider eligibility for service on local authorities. It is proposed that what is now provided for in subsection (1) of the clause shall apply also to membership of county district councils. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, leave out from ("teacher") to ("by") in line 2 and insert ("in, or being otherwise employed in, any school college or other educational institution maintained or assisted").ߞ(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Compensation for certain officers of county councils.
12.ߞ(1) If in consequence of any alteration in the arrangements for discharging the functions of a county council relating to education, being an alteration attributable to the coming into force of the principal Act, any person who was, immediately before the commencement of Part II of that Act, an officer employed by that council suffers, at any time after the commencement of the said Part II, direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or the diminution of his emoluments, he shall, unless provision for his compensation for that loss is made by or under any other enactment for the time being in force, be entitled to receive compensation from the county council under this section.
4.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "If in consequence of any alteration in the arrangements for discharging the functions of a county council relating to education, being an alteration attributable to the coming into force of the principal Act" and insert "If as a result of any action taken by the council of a county in consequence of the fact that any of their functions relating to education are, or are to be, exercised in accordance with a scheme of divisional administration."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to tighten up the provisions relating to compensation. The object is to limit the right of officials to compensa-
634
tion in cases in which direct financial loss has been caused by the setting up of a divisional executive by the local education authority. The clause as now drafted might admit of other claims as well, and, therefore it needs to be qualified in this way. I beg to move.
Amendment movedߞ
Page 6, leave out from the beginning of line 33 to ("any") in line 36 and insert the said new words.ߞ(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The next Amendment is consequential and follows on the preceding Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 37, leave out ("that") and insert ("the principal").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is a drafting Amendment to leave out of redundant worn the word "county." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 44, leave out ("county").—(The Earl of Listowel).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
FIRST SCFIEDCLE.
MAINTENANCE OF VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
2. Where under subsection (1) of Section sixteen of the principal Act the Minister has made an order authorizing the transfer to a new site of an aided school or a special agreement school, the duties of the managers or governors of the school; hall include the duty of defraying, with the assistance of any grant which may be made in accordance with Section one hundred and three of the principal Act, the expenses of providing any school buildings to be provided on the neat site, and accordinglyߞ

(a) the Minister shall not direct that a school shall be an aided school or a special agreement school unless he is satisfied that the managers or governors of the school will be able and willing to defray any such expenses;

(b) the duty of the local education authority to maintain an aided school or a special agreement school shall not include the duty of defraying any such expenses; and

(c) if at any time the, managers or governors of an aided school or a special agreement school are unable or unwilling to carry oat their obligations under this para

635
graph, it shall be their duty to apply to the Minister for an order revoking the order by virtue of which the school is an aided school or a special agreement school, and upon such an application being made to him the Minister shall revoke the Order.

4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH moved, in subparagraph (c) of paragraph (2), after "paragraph," to insert "and desire that the school shall continue to be carried on as a voluntary school." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will notice that I have two Amendments on the Paper, the first on the First Schedule and the other on the Second Schedule. If your Lordships will allow me, I will explain the reasons for the two Amendments together, as the second is really consequential on the first. Your Lordships will be aware that under the Act of 1944 the voluntary schools are of three kindsߞagreed schools, aided schools and controlled schools; but the principles which govern the controlled schools are not acceptable, as your Lordships may perhaps know from previous debates, to the denomination to which I have the honour to belong.
If you will look at sub-paragraph (c) in paragraph 2 of the Schedule, in respect of which I am proposing an Amendment, your Lordships will see that it reads as follows:
"If at any time the managers or governors of an aided school or a special agreement school are unable or unwilling to carry out their obligations under this paragraph, it shall be their duty to apply to the Minister for an order revoking the order by virtue of which the school is an aided school or a special agreement school, and upon such an application being made to him the Minister shall revoke the order."
I call your Lordships' attention to the word "shall" occurring in both cases because we hold that, in respect of those cases, a definite mandate is laid on the Minister. She has no latitude or discretion. Supposing that such a case arises. We fear that if the managers or governors of a Roman Catholic aided or agreed school find that they cannot defray expensesߞand the expenses are likely indeed to be far higher than was estimated at the time of the 1944 Actߞthen the managers or the governors have to go to the Minister, and the Minister will be compelled to hold that, as the school cannot
636
be continued as an aided or agreed school, it must become a controlled school.
As I have said, that system of controlled schools is not acceptable to us. An Amendment was put forward in another place in order to remedy the difficulty, and the Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not consider that any such Amendment (which was a little different to the one I have put down) was necessary. But he gave a categorical assurance. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with the first part of the assurance, but with the second part. He said that the reason why it was unnecessary, the second reason, was that the provisions of Section 15 of the main Act as to the conversion of an aided or special agreement school into a controlled school under subsection (4) only apply if it is intended that the school shall continue to be carried on as a voluntary school of one sort or another.
We were very grateful for that assurance, but we did not feel it was quite sufficient by itself. Therefore I have put down these two Amendments to ensure that the interpretation given by the Parliamentary Secretary is actually embodied in the Bill. I very much hope, as that is a quotation from an assurance given, that the Government will see their way to accept it. Without it I am advised that there is, to say the least, a serious doubt about what may happen in the future. Although of course we have every confidence in the Minister, she cannot bind her successors simply by such an assurance. If the Amendment were accepted, we should feel fully safeguarded, because if the managers and governors of an agreed or aided school wish that such a school shall continue as a voluntary school, it can then be declared a controlled school by the Minister. If they do not wish it to be so continued as a voluntary school, then, then according to the 1944 Act, negotiations can take place with the local authorities, and the school either becomes a county school or is discontinued altogether. I beg to move.
Amendment movedߞ
Page 10, line 38, after ("paragraph") insert: ("and desire that the school shall continue to be carried on as a voluntary school") ߞ(The Earl of Perth.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for making one speech on both Amendments because it enables me to reply in the same way. The noble Earl has explained that this subsection of the First Schedule of the Bill provides for one of the things that may happen if the managers or governors of a voluntary school are unable to meet their financial obligations owing to the monetary difficulties with which they find themselves confronted. The noble Earl has quite correctly pointed out that the legal effect of the revocation of an order establishing an aided school is that it automatically becomes a controlled school. I appreciate the views of the denomination which the noble Earl represents in regard to, the conversion of a voluntary school into a controlled school, but there are two other courses which can be taken. Either notice can be given to the Minister by the managers or governors of their intention to discontinue and close down the school altogether or, alternatively, if it is thought that the school should carry on, but not as a controlled school, the school premises can be transferred to the local education authority for use as a county school. Now I hope that this explanation of the position, which I think offers two alternatives to the managers of an aided or special agreement school, does satisfy the noble Earl. So far as the actual words of his Amendment are concerned, I do not feel that they clarify the provisions laid down either in the First or Second Schedule, and as I am advised that they make no difference at all to the legal position, I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied with my explanation.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation, but I am still rather troubled about the effect of sub-paragraph (c) as it stands now. It is quite definite, surely, that if the managers and governors find that they cannot defray these payments they have to go to the Minister for him to make this order, and I cannot see that they have the alternative, therefore, of saying to the local authority: "We want to negotiate with you." They must go to the Minister. That is my real trouble. Can I have a definite assurance in this respect? I think the noble Earl sees the point that is troubling me.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am assured by my advisers that there are
638
these two alternatives which can be employed, if the managers are not satisfied about their school being converted into a controlled school. If the wording does not carry out the intention, I will have the point re-examined before the next stage of the Bill and let the noble Earl know what the experts think if the intention, which I think we both share, is not fully carried out.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment movedߞ
Page 10, line 39, after the second ("order") insert ("or direction").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 42, after ("order") insert ("or direction").ߞ(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Miscellaneous Amendments of Principal Act]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to insert in Part II:

"Section thirty-four

At the end of subsection (4) there shall be inserted the words "unless the parent makes suitable arrangements for the provision of such treatment for the child otherwise than by the authority."

In subsection (6), for the words "cease to provide" there shall be substituted the words "if they are providing"; and after the word "issued," where that word secondly occurs, there shall be inserted the words "shall cease to provide such treatment for the child"."

The noble Earl said: The Minister is proposing this Amendment to meet the representations made by the noble Lord, Lord Holden. The noble Lord pointed out that the Bill might be interpreted as requiring a local education authority to provide special educational treatment for a child even if the child in question is already receiving suitably and satisfactory treatment, for example, from a tutor at home. In order to avoid any ambiguity

639
it is made clear in this Amendment that a local education authority is under no obligation to provide these facilities in cases where they are satisfied that the parents have arranged for the right treatment to be given. My right honourable friend is extremely obliged to the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken to put the matter right, and I hope he will accept this as an alternative to the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 54, at end, insert the said words.ߞ(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD HOLDEN: I should like to thank the noble Earl for his Amendment and I hope it receives the support of your Lordships. There is now no need for me to move my Amendment which is the last on the list. Parents of children who are receiving special educational treatment should be in the same category as all other parents under the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LICENSING PLANNING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.
PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MARQUESS OF ABERGAVENNY'S ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Personal Bills Committee on the Petition for the Bill made: Bill (in the form approved by the Personal Bills Committee) presented and read 1a.
RHODES TRUST BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Personal Bills Committee on the Petition for the Bill made: Bill (in the form approved by the Personal Bills Committee) presented and read 1a.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill
640
was withdrawn. The Order made on the 20th of March last discharged and the Bill committed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
County Borough of Gateshead;
City of Leeds;
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolutions and ordered to lie on the Table.

BENEFICES (SUSPENSION OF PRESENTATION) MEASURE, 1946.
Text of the Measure laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (CURATE GRANTS) MEASURE, 1946.
Text of the Measure laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
CLERGY PENSIONS (SUPPLEMENT ARY PENSIONS) MEASURE, 1946.
Text of the Measure laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
Ninety-fourth Report, being a Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure, 1946: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
Ninety-fifth Report, being a Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Curate Grants) Measure, 1946: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed.
Ninety-sixth Report, being a Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Clergy Pensions (Supplementary Pensions) Measure, 1946: Laid before the House, and to be printed.
House adjourned at five o'clock.