Sitting of 16 April 1946

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING

    Temporary Houses (Cost)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Works what is now the average factory cost of temporary prefabricated houses; and the average cost of the work on the site.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): The average ex-works cost of the factory-produced temporary houses, including the aluminium houses, is approximately £690. This figure includes fixtures and fittings. The site work and erection is carried out under competitive tender and it is not in the public interest at this stage of the programme to publish the average cost at which it has been possible to have this work carried out.
    Mr. Shepherd:Will the Minister say what is the average cost of the aluminium house as distinct from the other types and why he cannot publish these figures, of which the House should be informed?
    Mr. Tomlinson:I could not give the first immediately, and I cannot publish the second at this stage because new contracts and tenders are being accepted for the remainder.
    Mr. Quintin Hoģģ:What possible advantage can there be in concealing from the public the average cost, as distinct from individual tenders?
    Mr. Tomlinson:I am not asked the individual cost.
    Mr. Hoģģ:That was the Question and why will the Minister not tell us what is asked in the Question?

    Gravesend
    Mr. Garry Alliģhanasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that, of the 118 prefabricated houses allocated to the Gravesend Borough Council in December, 1944, fewer than 50 hulls have yet arrived and only some internal fittings for 12 have been supplied, but none can be occupied owing to the absence of certain minor plumbing parts; where, and why, this hold-up has occurred and when he expects to release the material so that Gravesend can get the first prefabricated house occupied.
    Mr. Tomlinson:By 10th April the hulls of 75 houses had been delivered to Gravesend, 37 had been erected, and equipment for 16 had been supplied except for some small plumbing parts which had been omitted in packing at the factory. This omission has been rectified and the first two houses should be available for occupation within a fortnight. Further supplies of fixtures and fittings are expected to be sent to Gravesend this week.
    Mr. Alliģhan:Does not the Minister realise that there has been a very serious lack of coordination between the various Ministries resulting in the fact that there have been houses standing empty in Gravesend which could have been occupied if there had been cooperation?
    Mr. Tomlinson:I think I have admitted before that there has been a shortage of components due to the fact that we were not manufacturing them at the same speed as the hulls. Whatever coordination there was, if there were not sufficient of them they could not have been supplied.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Georģe V Memorial
    Mr. Hoģģasked the Minister of Works what buildings it is proposed to demolish in order to make a space for the proposed George V Memorial.
    Mr. Tomlinson:The scheme approved by Parliament in 1939 for the George V Memorial requires the eventual demolition of No. 5 Old Palace Yard.
    Mr. Hoģģ:Is that a rather beautiful eighteenth century building?
    Mr. Tomlinson:I should imagine it is eighteenth century, but I think the question of beauty is a matter of taste.

    Victory Celebrations (Cost)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister Of Works the estimated cost in money and man-hours of temporary buildings, including accommodation for troops, to be erected in connection with the Victory Day celebrations in London.
    Mr. Tomlinson:I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 2nd instant, of which I am sending him a copy. It is not possible without undue labour to separate the cost of temporary buildings from the remainder of the camps. No temporary buildings are being erected by my Department unless the saluting base and the Press stands are so regarded. The total cost of these is estimated at £5,500.
    Mr. Gammons:Would not these men be better employed in putting up permanent houses instead of preparing for a victory march that no one wants?
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Works the estimated cost of the Victory Parade on 8th June and if he will give details of some of the larger items of expenditure.
    Mr. Tomlinson:As the answer contains a number of figures, I will with the hon. Member's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir W. Smithers:Whatever the figures are, in view of the appalling political and food situation throughout the world, and incipient civil war in Britain—
    Mr. Speaker:That supplementary question seems to be going very wide.
    Sir W. Smithers:May I withdraw the wide part, Sir, and finish the question?
    Mr. Speaker:I imagine that if the hon. Member withdraws the wide part he would have to withdraw the whole of his supplementary question.
    Following are the figures:
    I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 2nd instant.
    The major items of expenditure on the Victory celebrations on 8th June are now provisionally estimated as follow:

    £

    Camps:

    Expenditure by the War Office

    …

    30,000

    Expenditure by Ministry of Works

    …

    5,000

    Decorations

    …

    20,000

    Floodlighting, sound amplification and expenses connected with the Aquatic Display

    …

    30,000

    Saluting Base. Press Stands, etc

    …

    5,500

    Public Lavatories

    …

    15,000

    Children's entertainments, including transport

    …

    19,000

    Fireworks

    …

    15,000

    Expenses of the Civil Contingent taking part in the Procession

    …

    15,000

    There will in addition be expenditure on barriers, etc., for the protection of the public and on transporting and maintaining troops, for which details are not vet available.

    Vehicles, Reģent's Park
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Minister of Works whether, having regard to the need to maintain public service vehicle services and to the present scarcity of omnibuses and motor-coaches available, arrangements can be made to return, immediately, approximately 30 vehicles, now standing idle in Regent's Park, to the original owners of those vehicles or to make them available to operators in the industry, those vehicles having been taken by the Government from their owners for war purposes and a list of them having been furnished to him for identification.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Nine of the 36 motor coaches in Regent's Park are beyond repair. Fifteen are awaiting their turn for repair and reconversion and are required, with the remainder, for further use in the Ministry's Mobile Labour Service. I regret therefore, that it is not at present possible to dispose of them
    Sir W. Wakefield: May I ask the Minister why these vehicles that are awaiting repair cannot be returned to the operators and owners so that they can repair them and put them on the roads for public use?
    Mr. Tomlinson: They are awaiting repair for public use, that is, by the Mobile Labour Service.

    Reģent's Park Terraces
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Works (1) how many of the 212 houses in the Regent's Park terraces, which he proposes to convert into Government at offices, came within the scope of Regulation 68cA;
    (2) upon what grounds he applied to the Minister of Health for exemption from the provisions of Regulation 68CA in respect of the Regent's Park terraces.
    Mr. Tomlinson: All but two of those houses in Regent's Park terraces, which it is proposed to convert temporarily into Government offices, come within the scope of Defence Regulation 68CA. The houses are not suitable for conversion into economic units of residential accommodation except at a disproportionate cost in labour and materials which cannot be spared at the present time. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) on 9th April, their use for offices will enable me to release requisitioned accommodation. These facts were borne in mind by the Minister of Health in giving his consent under the Regulation.
    Sir J. Mellor: Was the Minister of Health informed of the large number of applications from people who wanted to live in these houses?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The Ministry of Health is fully informed.
    Mr. Hoģģ: Is it part of the policy of the Government to destroy all our architectural features in London?
    Mr. Tomlinson: If the hon. Member had been present last week he would have discovered that it was to save the architectural features.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: As this is a point upon which the House would like to be clear, may we assume in this case that occupation means restoration?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, that is the purpose of it.

    House of Commons (Acoustics)
    Mr. Championasked the Minister of Works if he will install a microphone on
    2484
    the Table for the benefit of those hon. Members who cannot at present hear replies to questions by Ministers who read down towards the Despatch Box.
    Mr. Tomlinson: For technical reasons, a microphone on the Table would not be practicable, but some improvement might be effected in the reception of answers made by Ministers by altering the position of the microphone nearest the Despatch Box, and experiments will he carried out during the Easter Recess.
    Mr. Champion: Is the Minister aware that this Question is not directed towards him?
    Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask whether something can be done not merely to— [HON. MEMBERS: Speak up."] —improve the audibility of the replies from the Front Bench but also substantially to improve the character of them?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That is not a matter for the microphones.

    Office Buildinģs, London (Repair Licences)
    Mr. Gammonsasked the Minister of Works why he has refused to grant a licence for the repair of Market Buildings, 29 Mincing Lane, in the City of London, in view of the urgent demand for office accommodation, especially in connection with export trade and the fact that the greater part of the work would not involve the type of building labour utilised in the erection of houses.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The demand for repair of office accommodation in the City of London is far greater than can be satisfied at the present time, and it is my policy to discriminate according to the amount of space that can be brought into use for a given expenditure of labour and material. The application for a licence in respect of Market Buildings has had to be rejected on this ground, and most of the labour that would otherwise have been required will instead be available for housing and other urgent work.
    Mr. Gammons: Does the Minister realise that if we are to get business going again and also if we are to derequisition many of the flats at present being unsuitably used for offices, some sort of priority must be given to the repair of office buildings?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. I am fully aware of that and the only limiting factor is the availability of labour and material and the most economic use of the space that can be brought into being.

    Statutory Rule and Order No. 371 (Error)
    Mr. Georģe Porterasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that there is a minor printing error in S.R. & O., 1946, No. 371; and what steps have been taken to correct this error.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am aware and regret that in Paragraph (1) of Statutory Rule and Order No. 371, 1946, the word "of" has been printed instead of "or" in Paragraph (6B), sub-paragraph (b) of Defence Regulation Fifty-six A. The mistake occurred owing to an accident to the type at the Stationery Office after the proof had been read. Since the Order in Council itself was in the correct form, I was advised that the matter could be put right by an erratum slip, which was done as soon as the mistake was discovered.
    Sir. T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Would you indicate whether this is a suitable Question to put on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not see why not.

    Brick Production
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Works the number of bricks that are now being produced monthly; what is the monthly national requirement; and what was the number in reserve on the latest date available.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The brick returns for March are not yet complete, but it is estimated that production will amount to approximately 170 million. The monthly national requirement for March was estimated at 290 million; the number of bricks in stock at the end of March is estimated at 725 million.
    Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister realise that the British public infinitely prefer brick houses to houses of any other material and especially to many of those now being built by the Ministry today, and will he therefore see that every effort is made to increase the production of bricks so that we can have brick houses?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I can assure the hon. Member that we are doing all we can to
    2486
    increase the supply of bricks, and that any effort from any source that will increase the number of people going into brick works will be welcomed by us.

    Government Buildinģs (Architects)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Works, for which Departments his Ministry is responsible for the buildings and in how many of these cases the design for any important building was selected by competition or by some other suitable method which enabled independent architects to be considered for these commissions.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The Ministry of Works is responsible for the erection of buildings required by Civil Departments together with those needed for housing the headquarters staffs of the Service Departments. Between 1918 and 1939, at least 10 important schemes were entrusted to independent architects. In addition, as the hon. Member is aware, during the last war extensive use was made of nominated architects to carry out a large war programme of buildings, including hospitals, hostels, camps, schools and factories.
    Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the same policy will be carried out in peace as was found successful during the war?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot give an all-round assurance that the same policy will be followed, but I can say that it is our intention to use outside architects as well as our own.

    NEW FACTORY, CROOK
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Works the present position regarding the proposed new factory for Messrs. Ramar, Limited, Crook, County Durham; whether any date has been fixed for the completion of this work or can be given now; arid if he is aware that the local authority are anxious to see the erection of this building as early as possible, with the view of providing further employment in this district.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I have been asked to reply. Negotiations which have been proceeding between the company and the North-Eastern Trading Estates, Ltd., are now nearing completion. Subject to satisfactory agreement, it is hoped

    2487
    to complete the factory before the end of the year. I am aware of the need for providing further employment in this district, and the company has been allocated temporary premises in Crook where they are employing over a hundred workers.
    Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that the temporary accommodation is very limited, that this firm could employ at least another 400 people, that production could be much greater if they could have the new factory built, and that it is much better to have people employed and producing goods than drawing unemployment benefit and not being employed.
    Mr. Belcher: I am aware that there is a difference of about 500 between the panther employed now and the number who will be employed when the factory is completed. For that reason I am doing everything I possibly can to speed up the completion of the new factory.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Electricity Supplies (Rural Areas)
    Major Diģbyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if lie is satisfied that adequate materials and manpower have now been made available to electricity undertakings to enable them to extend electricity supplies to rural areas; and if he will now make a statement on the result of his discussions with representatives of the industry.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 12th March to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr Gooch). As regards the last part of the Question the representatives of the Electricity Supply Industry have assured me that normal development work will proceed in the interim period before the industry is placed under public ownership.
    Major Diģby: Is the Minister aware that plans for supplying electricity to rural areas completed before the war are likely to take at least two years to carry out, unless steps are taken to increase materials and manpower?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am well aware of the difficulties. We shall do all we can to expedite the work, but the hon. and
    2488
    gallant Member must also be aware that there are difficulties about materials and manpower. It is not so easy to overcome them.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley:Has there been any noticeable improvement since 1st March, when the Minister gave his answer about the supply of timber poles for electricity?
    Mr. Shinwell: I could not say offhand. The matter is not referred to in the Question. I rather imagine that it is being dealt with.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Surely the word "materials" covers timber?
    Mr. Speaker: That point is rather outside the Question.
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the present delay in the extension of electricity to farms caused by shortage of poles, potential consumers may be given the opportunity of supplying the poles themselves subject to the necessary specifications
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir.
    Colonel Clarke: Will the Minister communicate with those concerned to see that advantage is taken of this?
    Mr. Shinwell: I will look at that and see whether it can be done.

  Railways (Coal Supplies)
  Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to ensure that main line railways arc supplied with coal of quality which will enable them to maintain efficient running.
  Mr. Shinwell: Every endeavour is made to ensure as far as possible that the main line railways are supplied with coal of suitable quality, but so long as there is a shortage of the best large coal to meet all requirements the inclusion in the railways' supplies of some qualities which they would not normally use cannot be avoided.

  Hydrocarbon Oils
  Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make available in respect of the years ended 31st March, 1942, 1943 and 1944 respectively, the certificates of information referred to in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1938.
  Mr. Shinwell: Under the Finance Act, 1942, the Minister of Fuel and Power was relieved of the duty during the period of the war of laying the certificates which were required under Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1938. Information in respect of the years mentioned in the Question was seriously affected by war conditions, but I will consider whether there is any information which could now be made available.

  Alkali Production (Coal Supplies)
  Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the allocation of fuel to the alkali factories of I.C.I. in the northwest region was reduced from January last; and for how long this reduction will operate.
  Mr. Shinwell: Existing coal supply arrangements are designed to spread available supplies equitably to all industrial consumers, and the I.C.I. factories have been getting their fair share on this basis. Any question concerning the relative priority of particular firms or industries is now a matter for decision by the regional production boards.
  Colonel Clarke: Is the Minister aware that according to the answer the Board of Trade gave me yesterday, the reduction of this allocation brought about a reduction of exports of 34,000 tons of alkali over February and March, and there was also an increase in price to the home consumer of about 5 per cent.?
  Mr. Shinwell: I am aware that I.C.I. have experienced some difficulty as regards exports because of the shortage of coal, but obviously if there is a shortage, we must allocate it on the basis of suitable priority.

  Hull (Coal Distribution)
  Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) whether the further inquiries into the maldistribution of coal, both among merchants and consumers, in Hull have been completed; and what action he proposes to take with the local fuel overseer, the house coal officer and regional officers in Leeds, particularly those who are members of the trade or connected with a colliery, to prevent a recurrence of such maldistribution in the new coal year May. 1946-April, 1947.
  2490
  (2) what steps he proposes to take to ensure that small customers in Hull who, through maldistribution, have not received their fair share of the coal actually supplied to the city, some having several hundredweights due to them, will receive their coal before the end of the coal year 30th April, observing that many have to rely on coal alone for cooking as well as heating.
  Mr. Shinwell: My regional controller has now completed his inquiries and I am expecting a detailed report at an early date. When I have had an opportunity of examining this report I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Commander Pursey: May I ask the Minister if he is aware that no fuel officer in Hull will accept the responsibility for the equitable distribution of coal in the city, that regional officers have interests in collieries, that the Hull coal officer is a principal of a large firm of coal merchants and that large firms have had more than their equitable share of coal: and will he have a public inquiry into this grave problem of maldistribution to which merchants and customers can give evidence, instead of the present secret hole-and-corner affair by which the public know nothing?
  Mr. Shinwell: Those are precisely the allegations which have been inquired into. So far as I can tell from the evidence available, some of them cannot be sustained, but further inquiries arc, being made.
  Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what percentage of the allocation of domestic coal has actually been supplied to Hull during the 14 weeks since 1st January, 1946, or nearest period for which figures are available; and what percentage of their allocation has been supplied, respectively, to Hull Cooperative Society, Risdale and Walker and other merchants in the city.
  Mr. Shinwell: The percentage of the house coal allocation supplied to the Hull district during the 14 weeks ended 6th April, 1946, was 89·5. The percentages supplied to Hull Cooperative Society, Ridsdale and Walker and other merchants were 88·6, 90·5 and 89·7 respectively.
  Commander Pursey: May I ask the Minister whether the difference of 6 per cent. in the allocation to the Cooperative

  2491
  Society has resulted in a deficiency of over 7,000 tons, and that a thousand different customers in various weeks of the 46 weeks have lost 2 cwts. of coal?
  Mr. Shinwell: There is no difference of 6 per cent. There is a difference of about one or two per cent. at the most. Moreover, it depends very largely on where the coal supplies are provided. If the Hull Cooperative Society purchases from particular collieries, it must take the risk entailed.

  Petrol Stocks
  Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the amount of petrol in stock in this country in March or April, 1938; and what is the amount of petrol in storage at the present time.
  Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. Member to the last paragraph of the answer I gave on 18th December to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers).
  Mr. Bossom: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the actual figures for petrol in storage in this country?
  Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry, but it is not customary to publish these figures.
  Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister publish the latest storage figures—a month ago, for instance?
  Mr. Shinwell: That would be a departure from our customary practice.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Directed Miner (Trade Union Membership)
    Mr. Garry Alliģhanasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that Mr. G. E. Reynolds, a Gravesend member of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, has been directed to work in the Greenside Pit of the Stella Coal Company, Limited, at Blaydon, County Durham, who are making deductions from his pay as compulsory contributions to the Durham Miners' Association; and whether his Regulations permit colliery owners to make such deductions from the pay of directed mineworkers.
    Mr. Shinwell: The deductions to which my hon. Friend refers were made as a
    2492
    result of a misunderstanding and I understand they have been refunded. I have not made any regulations concerning deductions from pay on behalf of trade unions.
    Mr. Alliģhan: Will the Minister assure the House that representations will be made from his Ministry to make it certain that young fellows who are directed into the coal mines are not also directed compulsorily into any particular trade union, outside the union of which they were ordinarily members?
    Mr. Shinwell: We shall not do anything to force men into any particular trade union, but obviously, it is desirable that the men should be in a trade union.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Leslie: Is not this a matter for negotiation among the unions concerned rather than for a Question on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Shinwell: It happens to be on the Order Paper, and I was replying to it.

    Underģround Transport
    Mr. D. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many collieries have dispensed with the use of horses for underground haulage; and what progress is being made in the mechanisation of underground transport.
    Mr. Shinwell: The number of collieries at which horses are employed fell from 1,582 in 1925 to 821 in 1945, and the number of horses from 60,852 to 23,491. This decrease is due largely to the replacement of horses by mechanical methods of transport and is likely to continue.
    Mr. Williams: Is not the Minister aware that in many cases the transport arrangements are exceedingly primitive and that men have to travel long distances to and from their work? Is there not a tendency to concentrate on coal face mechanisation while neglecting the most important feature of mechanisation of transport?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is because haulage arrangements are so primitive that we are presented with difficulties about coal. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not much use to mechanise the coal face unless we modernise transport facilities.
    Mr. Peter Freeman: Will not the National Coal Board have full power to

    2493
    deal with this matter? Will they be instructed to complete the mechanisation of coal mines at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Shinwell: One of the primary duties of the National Coal Board will be to mechanise the pits.

    Opencast Operations, Wentworth Woodhouse
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps have been taken in the last three months to ensure that the opencast mining near Wentworth Woodhouse does not damage this famous Georgian mansion.
    Mr. Shinwell: I anticipate there will be no damage to the mansion through opencast operations.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has the proposal put up by the miners' leader, Mr. Hall, for winning the coal by normal methods, come before the Minister? Has the Minister rejected it and, if so, on what ground?
    Mr. Shinwell: The proposal to work the coal from underground came before the Department many months ago, and was rejected on technical grounds.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodģe: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that all alternative means of procuring the coal which is to be obtained from Wentworth Woodhouse have been explored? Many people are exceedingly disturbed at the proposed despoliation of this charming oasis of natural peace.
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course, every possible alternative has been explored. It is obvious that if we could have secured the coal by other means we should not have adopted this method. As to "spoliation," we are very anxious to prevent any undue disturbance, and indeed, we are going to do it.
    Mr. Hoģģ: Before taking action of this kind does the Minister make it his practice to consult the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and other such bodies?
    Mr. Shinwell: The decision to work the coal on the Wentworth Woodhouse site was taken by my predecessor, in consultation with the then Minister of Town and Country Planning. I have not consulted
    2494
    the organisations to which the hon. Member referred, but I have consulted the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
    Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not a question of blaming this Government or other Governments? I think that the genuine concern is whether amenities that might be preserved for the enjoyment of the nation will be destroyed. How does the Minister explain the views of the Yorkshire miners themselves?
    Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is ill-informed. The Yorkshire miners have expressed no opinion on this matter. Mr. Hall does not happen to be the Yorkshire miners but the President of the Yorkshire miners, speaking in his individual capacity. I have received no representations against the scheme from the Yorkshire miners or from the National Union of Mineworkers. On the contrary, some of the Yorkshire miners have written to me commending the scheme, in existing circumstances. Nor do I blame my predecessor for what occurred. I merely state the facts. Moreover, it is not for the right hon. Gentleman to complain about blame. I notice that he has been dealing with that subject himself.

    Knowes Colliery, Fauldhouse
    Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will withdraw the notice to close Knowes Colliery, Fauldhouse, in view of the firm pledge to prevent another stoppage given by 97 per cent. of the men employed, who have greatly increased production during recent months and who will be affected should the colliery be closed, because a few youths and the management had a dispute over a recent grievance affecting part of the pit.
    Mr. Shinwell: With permission of Mr. Speaker and the House, I propose to make a statement in answer to this Question at the end of Question time today.
    Later—
    Mr. Shinwell: During the past six months the number of unofficial stoppages in Lanarkshire and the adjacent area in West Lothian was 285— compared with 194 in the rest of Scotland and 288 in the whole of England and Wales. Stoppages in this small area are thus proportionately far in excess of those in any other section

    2495
    of the British coalfield although in this, as in other areas, there exist joint agreements entered into voluntarily on the workers' behalf by their trade union representatives providing comprehensive machinery of collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration for the settlement of any dispute on wages and conditions without recourse to direct action of this kind. Following discussions which I had with their Executive, the Scottish Area of the National Union of Mineworkers, recognising the dangers inherent in the situation, issued at my request in January of this year a general warning to a number of collieries that the continuance of unofficial stoppages was likely to involve the risk of the collieries concerned having to be closed.
    There have been nine stoppages at Fauldhouse during the past six months, involving numbers of men ranging from six to 180, of which four have occurred since the beginning of this year Following one which took place on 25th and 26th February, I authorised my Regional Controller to cause a notice to be posted at the colliery to the effect that if any further stoppage of the colliery or any section of it took place after 1st March. the colliery would be closed without further warning being given. This notice was posted on 27th February, but notwithstanding its unequivocal terms, a further stoppage involving 18 men took place on 3rd April. Although I carefully considered the facts, I was unable to discern any extenuating circumstances in connection with this stoppage which would have justified me in intervening to prevent closure, and all the men employed were accordingly given notice terminating their contracts of service with effect from 13th April.
    Every effort is being made to find alternative coalmining employment for the men displaced, and there is every prospect that the great majority will be engaged at other collieries in the vicinity with outputs of 25 cwts per manshift and over, as against an output at Fauldhouse varying from 12 to 17 cwts. This level of output at Fauldhouse had resulted in heavy losses being incurred, and since 1942 the maintenance of the colliery in production has cost the Coal Charges Fund £190,000. The position in Lanarkshire and the adjacent area in West Lothian is that the value of the joint machinery of conciliation and
    2496
    arbitration is gravely endangered by the recent course of events, which has also resulted in the loss in that area of over 100,000 tons of coal during the past six months. The maintenance of this machinery is of the highest importance not only in the national interest but also in the interest of the general body of workers in this basic industry. I cannot stand aside and see it weakened or destroyed as must ultimately happen unless there is an end re unofficial stoppages on this scale.
    Mr. Mathers: Limiting anything that I have to say to the Question I put on the Order Paper with regard to this one pit, may I ask if my right hon. Friend is aware that the last stoppage there could have been avoided if the management had accepted the desire of the hulk of the men, 370 of them, to dispense with the services of the nine who caused the stoppage? Does he not agree that that would have allowed production to go forward at a time when production was being stepped up owing to the way in which the men were trying to play their part? Does he not think it would have been advisable to deal with nine men who caused the stoppage instead of scattering 370 others over the whole of the coalfield?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is no evidence to show that the nine men were entirely responsible for the stoppage. In any event, in all the disputes, unofficial disputes, which have occurred at this colliery different men have been responsible, and if on each occasion we dismissed those who were regarded as primarily responsible we should have no men left. Obviously, that is not the way to deal with this problem. This is not the only colliery in Lanarkshire and it is obvious drastic steps must be taken to put an end to this unconstitutional action.
    Sir William Darlinģ: Arising out of that historical survey, would the right hon. Gentleman care to indicate to the House that he at one time was the representative of West Lothian? Has his personal influence entirely abated in that constituency?
    Mr. Shinwell: Unlike the hon. Member I have learned some sense.
    Mr. Scollan: I would like to ask, on a point of elucidation, whether the Minister in his original reply, which if I followed

    2497
    it correctly—[HON. MEMBERS: Speak up."] In the original reply given by the Minister, if I followed it correctly—
    Mr. Churchill: Is this a question?
    Mr. Scollan: Yes, it is. I want to know the point or policy in the original answer —[Interruption.] Please give me a chance. The point is that the Minister did state that he was looking for alternative employment for the men. He was having the machinery of the pit looked after. At the same time, he wanted disciplinary action. I want to know exactly what disciplinary action can be taken if the pit is closed, the cost of maintenance of the machinery is incurred, and men are sent to work somewhere else.
    Mr. Shinwell: The cost of care and maintenance is not considerable. In any event, it is desirable to take precautions. Some day we may require to use the coal resources of this colliery. As for the distribution of the men over the collieries in the adjacent area, we shall get higher production, as I indicated in my reply, and that is very essential; apart from that, we think that distribution will prevent recurrences of this kind.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government could give consideration in connection with all these unofficial strikes to the question of dealing with the Communist shop steward movement?
    Mr. Shinwell: We have no evidence that the Communists are responsible for these unofficial disputes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. I have nothing to do with shop stewards. This matter relates to colliery undertakings where there are no shop stewards. We have no evidence that the Communists are responsible. We must be fair in this matter. There is evidence which goes to show that the Communists, at any rate in this area, are anxious to avoid these unofficial stop pages. It does not follow that every unofficial stoppage must be dealt with in this fashion. There are occasions where an unofficial stoppage is attributable to causes outside the control of the men. In these circumstances we are very careful not to take action which would seem unfair; but in the present circumstances it was impossible to do other than I did.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that immediately after his notice was put up at the pit head the whole of the miners in the colliery held a meeting? They conveyed to the manager of the pit the majority decision of that meeting, which was to discharge any man who caused an unofficial strike? Immediately these men struck unofficially, the secretary of the union went to the manager and asked that these men be discharged. Surely it is not at all the fault of the men. It is the fault of the management. I ask the Minister whether this is the sort of treatment to be expected by these 370 miners, who are willing to raise production and to back the Minister to the hilt in keeping unofficial strikes away—to be penalised for nine men whose action they deplored?
    Mr. Shinwell: I must point out to my hon. Friend that on previous occasions the majority of the men were implicated. They cannot be excused on the ground that they did not all come into the dispute on this occasion. It may well be that in certain cases the manager may have been responsible. I direct the attention of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to the fact that the men can always have recourse to the constitutional machinery and should not defy their union or its leaders.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think we can debate this matter by question and answer.
    Miss Herbison: I wish to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Miners' Hostels, Durham
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many hostels for ballotees for the mines there are in county Durham and how many are fully occupied; what use he intends to make of the Crook Hostel, which is now empty; and whether he will consider adapting it as a rehabilitation centre for disabled ex-Servicemen.
    Mr. Shinwell: There are five miners' hostels now operating in county Durham. None is fully occupied. There were recently two other hostels which have since been handed back to the Ministry of Works. The Crook Hostel was reported on 30th March to my right hon.

    2499
    Friend, the Minister of Works, as available for disposal. I will convey my hon. Friend's suggestion to my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that this is causing a considerable amount of discontent in the Crook district, and will he have this matter pressed forward?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, that was my intention.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Government Traininģ Scheme
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether since shortage of accommodation is part of the cause of the inadequacy of the Government training scheme for ex-Servicemen and women, he is satisfied that he has now earmarked sufficient accommodation for the planned expansion of training centres and colleges; how far such accommodation is immediately available; and what steps he is taking to obtain suitable accommodation without delay;
    (2) how many Government training centres and technical colleges, shown separately, it is planned to have operating by 30th June and 31st December, 1946, respectively; and what is the total planned capacity of all centres and colleges that will be operating on these dates.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Training facilities are being extended as rapidly as possible. Since VJ-Day the number of centres has been increased from 18 to 39 and by 30th June 56 centres with 19,940 training places should be in operation. By 31st December next 69 centres with 25,488 places are contemplated. Similar figures cannot be given for technical colleges but their facilities will continue to be used to the maximum extent possible.
    Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that, apart from nearly 15,000 ex-Servicemen on the waiting list hoping to go to these centres and colleges last month, thousands of officers would have applied if they had seen any signs of efficiency in the way the Government are running the scheme?
    Mr. Isaacs: My source of information as to those who would have applied is not
    2500
    equal to that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but we admit there is a waiting list. The difficulty is to get accommodation in which to put our classes, and to make a proper balance between building of the training centres, the building of houses and factories and so on. We are pressing on, and will get the list down as quickly as possible.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Has the Minister considered taking over aerodromes, of which a great number are vacant and have suitable buildings which could be used as technical colleges?
    Mr. Isaacs: They are being surveyed. They are not always easily made suitable. One cannot always use a shed on an aerodrome in its existing condition. It will want walls and partitions, and that is part of the difficulty.
    Major Beamish: Are there not vacant camps all over the country that could easily be used?
    Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows of any—I do not say it sarcastically—if he will let me have particulars, I will be glad to look into them.
    Major Beamishasked the Minister of Labour if he has now looked into the question of how far shortage of equipment is causing the inadequacy of the Government training scheme for ex-Servicemen and women; if he will make a statement; and what steps are being taken to remedy all shortages.
    Mr. Isaacs: Certain trades, such as watch and clock repairing and hairdressing are dependent on equipment not normally produced in this country, and conditions in the producing countries place difficulties in the way of imports. Other trades, such as tailoring and the leather trades, which depend on still scarce raw materials present special difficulties. These are being overcome as far as possible by the use of reasonable substitutes. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, whose Department is responsible for supplying the training centres, assures me that everything possible is being done to ensure that supplies are available as soon as possible.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Labour whether he will withdraw Leaflet P.L. 156 and replace it by another giving a more accurate description of the Govern-

    2501
    ment vocational training facilities available to ex-Servicemen and women and of the conditions of eligibility for this training.
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not accept that Leaflet P.L. 156 gave an inaccurate description of the Government training facilities. In order, however, that in future there shall he no question of misunderstanding, a revised edition of the leaflet has been prepared and will be issued shortly.
    Mr. Warbey: Will the new leaflet make it clear that training is not normally available for occupations other than that in which the Serviceman or woman was previously engaged or for which they were previously trained?
    Mr. Isaacs: The trouble with the previous leaflet was that people put different interpretations upon it from those of the Ministry of Labour. Therefore, we have published a leaflet of questions and answers which we hope will clear up all the doubts.

    Domestic Service (Aliens)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to announce permission for a limited number of suitable applicants from Austria to be allowed to come into this country for domestic service, especially as cooks and nurses, in view of the grave shortage of these workers at the present time.
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in the House on Thursday, 11th April, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. Freeman: Will permission have to be obtained from the Home Secretary as well as from my right hon. Friend's Department, or either, and also will he say what travel facilities will be available for those concerned?
    Mr. Isaacs: I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will read the statement, and if there is any point on which he has doubt, and he will see me, I will try to clear it up.

    Munition Factories
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour what investigations his Department is undertaking into the complaints that more staff than necessary are being kept on the pay rolls of Royal
    2502
    Ordnance and other factories making munitions; and when these investigations are likely to be completed.
    Mr. Isaacs: My officers both regionally and locally, as part of their normal duties, bring to notice for proper action any instances in which there may be temporary under employment due to various causes, such as delays in the delivery of raw materials or components or uncertainty as to future contracts. In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply I have taken and will continue to take all possible steps to see that staff is not retained unnecessarily.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the statement made in, amongst other places, "The Times" to the effect that this was very widespread, is any special investigation being undertaken?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. A special investigation has been undertaken and has been completed, and I am sure the House will be pleased to hear that whilst there were one or two instances of this, in the main no real case exists that would cause us to complain to employers of unnecessary retention.

    Bricklayinģ (Trainees)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour why a man demobilised from the Services who takes the course in bricklaying, arranged by his Department, continues for five years to be treated as an apprentice and to receive only the wages of an apprentice.
    Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman appears to have been misinformed. The bricklaying courses agreed with industry and in operation under the Vocational Training Scheme last, not for five years, but for 20 months, at the end of which time the trainee will be paid the full skilled rate.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it, then, a fact that for the full period of his training the man, regardless of his age and obligations, receives only the pay appropriate to an apprentice?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, he receives the pay appropriate to this kind of apprenticeship in this scheme. The man goes into the training centre for six months. He gets intensive training there, then he goes out, and for 14 months is paid a special

    2503
    rate—something less than the craftsman's rate—and at the end of 20 months he gets the full rate. However, I am pleased to report that employers come to these training centres, and are so pleased with the results of the six months' intensive training, that many of them take men away and are prepared to put them on to the full rate straight away.

    Caterinģ Employment Aģencies
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Labour whether he will favourably consider taking the necessary steps to abolish the hotel and catering employment agencies, with a view to all catering staffs being engaged either directly by their prospective employers or through the appropriate Ministry of Labour Employment Exchange.
    Mr. Isaacs: This is a matter upon which I must await the views of the Catering Wages Commission.

    Wales
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Labour the present number of unemployed in Wales; the areas and industries in which they occurred; and what steps are being taken to provide full employment for all concerned.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the reply to the first and second parts of the Question contains a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it the OFFICIAL REPORT. As to the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on 1st April to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas).
    Mr. Freeman: Do not these figures indicate that in some areas in Wales unemployment is still increasing? Does my right hon. Friend think that schemes now in hand will fully absorb the unemployed before long?
    Mr. Isaacs: I think it would be helpful if my hon. Friend 'would look at the answer before he presses that further question. The evidence of the last week for which we have returns showed that in certain parts of Wales the unemployment figures, whilst not dropping, show considerably less increase than has been the case for some weeks.
    Following is the reply:
    At 11th March, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 69,644 unemployed insured persons suitable for ordinary employment on the registers of employment exchanges in Wales and Monmouthshire. Of this total, 60,839 were in the South Wales and Monmouthshire Development Area, and 2,461 in the Wrexham Development Area.
    In the Table below the number of unemployed insured persons in Wales and Monmouthshire at nth March is analysed for the principal industries:

    Industry.

    Number of insured persons unemployed

    Building

    983

    Civil Engineering Construction

    1,725

    Engineering

    8,325

    Construction and repair of Motor Vehicles Circles and Aircraft

    4,884

    Explosives

    18,747

    Steel Melting and Iron Puddling, Iron and Steel Rolling, etc

    1,042

    Brass, Copper Zinc, Tin, Lead. etc.,Manufacture

    1,238

    All other Metal Industries

    3,831

    Hotel, Boarding House, Restaurant Club, Catering, etc., Service

    1,060

    Coal Mining

    6,900

    Distributive Trades

    3,301

    National Government Service

    3,156

    Local Government Service

    1.299

    All other Industries and Services

    7,920

    Ex-Service Personnel not classified by Industry*

    5,233

    *These are ex-Service personnel who have not yet been classified to a particular industry, although they may have had some employment since release or discharge from the Forces.

    Appointments Department
    Fliģht-Lieutenant Haireasked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that employers are making sufficient use of the Higher Appointments Department to justifiy its continued existence.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am satisfied that the Appointments Department fulfils a useful function and that its continuance is not only fully justified, but necessary. Nevertheless its usefulness would he very greatly increased, especially to ex-Service officers and men looking for suitable employment, many of whom are being forced to advertise and canvass for posts, if every employer would notify his vacancies.
    Since VE Day, 47,406 vacancies have been notified by employers to the Appointments Department of my Ministry. During the same period, 26,925 vacancies were

    2505
    filled by persons submitted by the Appointments Department. In addition to this employment service, the Appointments Department provides an advisory service on the choice of careers, and administers the Further Education and Training Scheme and the Business Training Scheme.
    Fliģht-Lieutenant Haire: Is the Minister aware nevertheless that in many cases employers appear to prefer to notify vacancies to private agencies rather than to the Higher Appointments Department? In many cases they say that they do not get any service from this Bureau at all.
    Mr. Isaacs: I think that if a study is made of the figures I have given, it will show that we have quite a number of applications, and that we successfully fill the vast majority of the vacancies.

    Personal Case
    Lieutenant William Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the dismissal of a disabled ex-Serviceman by Messrs. Washington of Manchester; whether he is award, that this man's dismissal prompted 17 of his colleagues including eight ex-Servicemen, all members of a newly-formed trade union branch, to strike in sympathy; and what action he proposes to take to secure this man's reinstatement.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. A joint meeting between the employer and the trade union has been held under the auspices of my Department. I understand that the man concerned was dismissed in order to permit the reinstatement of a former employee returning from H.M. Forces. I have no powers which would enable me to secure his reinstatement.
    Lieutenant Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first statement of the employer in this case was that he did not like this man's face—an excuse for dismissal, or an expression of opinion, which might go very ill with some of us in our employment in this House?
    Mr. Isaacs: I would hesitate to gamble upon my security of tenure if that applied to me. This was a case in which 15 men and two women were concerned. They took action against the advice of their trade union and declined the advice of their trade union about resumption of
    2506
    work. The matter has been negotiated between the employer and the trade union concerned, and I hope they will find a satisfactory settlement.
    Sir W. Darlinģ: May the House learn the name of this newly formed union? As a believer in private enterprise, I would like to know the name of this new enterprise.

    Resettlement Scheme (New Arranģements)
    Mr. Asterley Jonesasked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he is proposing to make in order to give effect to the policy outlined in the White Paper on employment policy (Cmd. 6527) in regard to the payment of resettlement allowances to workers transferred to new areas under approved schemes; and whether he contemplates making any alteration in the present arrangements for the payment of grants and allowances to transferred workers.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am proposing to introduce on 1st May a new scheme for assisting the resettlement of workers who, with the approval of my Department, transfer permanently to a new area. At the same time, steps will be taken to modify in the light of present conditions the present temporary scheme of grants and allowances which was framed on a wartime basis. I am also introducing immediately a special voluntary transfer scheme for assisting the transfer of certain unemployed workers to temporary employment in a new area while they are awaiting the development of new industries in their home area. I will, with permission, circulate particulars of these arrangements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars:
    1. —Scheme of permanent resettlement
    (1) This scheme is designed to assist three types of cases:
    (1) The permanent transfer of key personnel for the purpose of establishing new industries or extending the scope of existing ones in development areas or other areas where it is desired to encourage the growth or diversification of industry in pursuance of the Government's employment policy;
    (2) The permanent transfer of unemployed workers from areas where the

    2507
    prospects of employment for them are poor to areas where the prospects are good; and
    (3) The permanent resettlement of workers already in employment away from home for whom there are no good prospects of employment in the home area.
    These workers will be assisted to resettle either in the area where they are now employed or in another area according to the existence of regular employment for which suitable persons are not available locally.
    2. The main facilities which will be available are:
    (1) Free fares to the new area for the worker and his dependants;
    (2) A travelling allowance for unemployed workers to meet the incidental expenses of the journey;
    (3) A settling-in grant of 24s. 6d. (for both men and women);
    (4) Financial assistance towards the cost of removal of household effects;
    (5) A lodging allowance of 24s. 6d. per week for a period up to three months for married men (and unmarried workers with similar responsibilities) while seeking family accommodation in the new area;
    Note.—Until the general housing situation improves the three months' period will be extended, if necessary.
    (6) A continuing Liability allowance of up to 24s. 6d. per week in cases other than (5) for the minimum period necessary to dispose of a liability for payments in respect of the old home.
    II.—Temporary continuance in modified form of wartime scheme of grants in respect of temporary transfer
    This scheme will continue to operate in a modified form. The scope of the scheme will be restricted as regards future transfers to workers placed in employment away from home in a very limited field of industries or services of the highest priority. In the cases of workers already transferred away from home the facilities of the scheme will continue to be provided for those whose employment away from home is still essential in the national interest and will otherwise he withdrawn after due notice has been given to the workers concerned.
    III.—New voluntary temporary transfer scheme
    The scheme is supplementary to the normal arrangements for assisting workers to obtain suitable employment. It is designed to meet the needs of workers in certain places where developments are planned which will, in due course, provide new employment, but where meanwhile considerable numbers of workers cannot be placed in work locally. The aim is to alleviate this special temporary situation by enabling such workers to accept temporary transfer to work in other areas pending the development of employment in their home areas. They will be able to record their names on a special Register in their home areas so that their absence from home will not result in the loss of opportunity of local employment and they will be eligible for submission for any suitable vacancies there in the same way as if they had remained unemployed at home.
    Assistance available under the scheme will include,inter alia, free fares, a settling-in grant of 24s. 6d. and, for workers with dependants, a lodging allowance of 24s. 6d. per week.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Students (Class B Release)
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the long term needs of agriculture, he will consider allowing universities to make application for the release from the Armed Forces of a limited number of students taking the ordinary B.Sc. agriculture degree.
    Mr. Isaacs: I hope to make a statement about Class B releases of students at a very early date.

    Provisional Proģramme, July-September
    Mr. James Callaģhanasked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to announce a further programme of releases from the Forces beyond June next.
    Mr. Isaacs: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Under the provisional programme the estimated num-

    2509
    ber of men and women to be released and discharged in the third quarter of this year will be 532,400 bringing the cumulative total since 18th June, 1945, up to 3,988,000. I am asked by the Service Ministers to make it clear that although as far as possible men and women will be released in accordance with this provisional programme, compulsory deferment of release of a number of individuals will continue to be necessary, and, as in the past, there will be some inequality in the rate of release for certain branches, categories and trades of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

    RELEASES AND DISCHARGES FROM THE FORCES

    Provisional Programme—July to September, 1946.

    PERIOD.

    MEN.

    WOMEN

    Age and Service Groups(Class A releases).

    Estimated Number of Releases and Discharges.

    Age and Service Groups(Class A releases).

    Estimated Number of Releases and Discharges

    Mr. Collaģhan: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the highest group reached in his programme in all three Services?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is all set out in the statement which I am circulating. I will be obliged if my hon. Friend will refer to that.
    Major Cecil Poole: Will my right hon. Friend tell us up to what period he is referring in his answer?
    Mr. Isaacs: Up to the end of September.
    Following is the statement:

    NURSING SERVICES.

    Period

    NAVY

    ARMY.

    R.A.F

    Age and Service Groups(Class A Releases)

    Estimated Number of Releases and Discharges.

    Nursing Officers

    V.A.D.s.

    Age and Service Groups (Class A)

    Estimated Number of Releases and Discharges

    Age and Service Groups (Class A)

    Estimated Number of Releases and Discharges

    (Average)

    R.A.F estimate not yet completed. It will be issued by the Air
    Ministry as soon as possible.

    Nursing Sisters and V.A.D. Officers

    V.A.D.s

    1946.

    July

    46

    52 and 53

    145

    Pt. 43

    108

    50

    90

    August

    47

    54

    145

    Pt. 43-Pt. 44

    95

    51

    70

    September

    48

    55

    145

    Remainder 44

    102

    Pt. 52

    50

    46–48

    52–55

    435

    43 and 44

    305

    50-Pt. 52

    210

    —

  MILITARY SERVICE

    Volunteers (Choice of Service)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour if he is prepared to make arrangements to enable men who volunteer prior to being called up for National Service to elect which of the Services they shall join.
    Mr. Isaacs: Any man who is accepted as a volunteer by the Armed Forces before being called up under the National Service Acts ceases to be subject to the provisions of those Acts, and I assume that he will have joined the Service of his choice. Men who are called up under the National Service Acts who expressed a preference for a particular Service at the time of registration are posted to that Service whenever it is practicable.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that all men are entitled to volunteer for any Service prior to the date of being called up?
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not know if anything further than this Question and answer will be necessary, but that is the fact: a man can volunteer, and obviously, if he volunteers, he volunteers for the unit of his choice.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if that is the absolute case now as I understood from the Minister of War that a man was not allowed to volunteer for compulsory short service now?
    Mr. Isaacs: I was not speaking about that. The Question deals only with the choice of unit.

    Dairymen
    Major Niall Macphersonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now include dairymen in the category farm workers entitled to deferment.
    Mr. Isaacs: Cowmen employed on farms are not at present called up and dairymen are eligible to be considered for individual deferment I can see no justification for going beyond this.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH EMPIRE WAR ASSISTANCE)
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Prime Minister if he will publish a comprehensive statement giving a list of
  2514
  the weapons and materials, together with their costs, that were supplied in aid to the U.S.S.R. by the British Empire, between 1st October, 1941, and the termination of hostilities in Europe.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. I am circulating a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The House may like to have the following summary of this. In the period from 1st October, 1941, to 31st March, 1946, we supplied to the Soviet Union 5,218 tanks, of which 1,388 were from Canada. We supplied 7,411 aircraft, including 3,129 aircraft sent from the United States of America. As previously explained on the 10th May, 1944, the aircraft from the United States of America were sent on United States Lend Lease to the Soviet Union as part of the British commitment to the U.S.S.R. in exchange for the supply of British aircraft to United States Forces in the European Theatre. The total value of military supplies despatched amounts to approximately £308 million. We have also sent about £120 million of raw materials, foodstuffs, machinery, industrial plant, medical supplies and hospital equipment.
  We are very glad to have been able to give this assistance to our Soviet Allies and to have helped to equip and sustain them in their bitter struggle against the common enemy.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Prime Minister say whether the Soviet public have been informed by the Soviet Press and radio of this substantial contribution to the Allied victory over Germany in the East?
  The Prime Minister: Full publicity was given to the reply which was given by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on 10th May, 1944 Of course, this is essentially a matter for the Soviet authorities, but I should hope that full information will be given.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodģe: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for this information to be put over the B.B.C. by the regular Russian broadcasts which are now being made so as to enable our Russian Allies to develop a proper perspective in judging the relative merits in contributions of those who brought about our united victory?
  The Prime Minister: I would like to consider that suggestion, which seems to me to be a good one.
  Mr. Vernon Bartlett: May I ask whether it is possible for a comprehensive statement to be given in detail of the shipping losses from the Arctic convoys?
  The Prime Minister: I should like to look into that, to see whether it can be given. There were actually 41 outward convoys to Russia during the war.
  Sir T. Moore: Could the Prime Minister say how many British lives were lost in convoying or transporting this great equipment?
  The Prime Minister: I could not do that without notice.
  Mr. Gammans: May I ask what is the value of war materials and other equipment which we received from Russia during the same period?
  The Prime Minister: I could not give that without notice.
  Mr. Beswick: With a view to getting the matter in perspective, could the Prime Minister state the number of Russian lives which were lost in the using of that equipment?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is now asking me to give a short account of the late war.
  Following is the statement:
  The following list shows the approximate quantities of the main items of military and civil supplies despatched in aid to the U.S.S.R. from 1st October, 1941, to 31st March, 1946. The value of munitions sent during this period is approximately £308 million. The value of raw materials, foodstuffs, machinery, industrial plant, medical supplies and hospital equipment is approximately £120 million. These figures exclude sea freight costs. They also take no account of the very considerable aid provided by the Royal Navy in the form of convoy escorts.
  The cost of the battleship, destroyers and submarines listed below has not been included in the figure of £308 million. These ships were the subject of a special arrangement, as stated in the right hon. Member for Woodford's reply to a question in the House on 5th June, 1945.
  It has not proved practicable to relate the lists of supplies to the period ended the 8th May, 1945. To do so would moreover render the picture of our war
  2516
  time aid to the U.S.S.R. incomplete in that a proportion of supplies, military and civil, which we contracted to send under the wartime arrangements continued to come forward for shipment after the 8th May. The lists have therefore been compiled to include all shipments of supplies provided under wartime commitments up to the end of the quarter just concluded. The shipment of military supplies virtually came to an end with the termination of hostilities, and the terms of the Military Supplies Agreement, under which military supplies had been provided during wartime on a Lend-Lease basis, ceased to apply on 8th November, 1945, six months after the termination of hostilities in Europe. Civil supplies have been provided under the terms of the Civil Supplies Agreement, whereby the Soviet Government paid 40 per cent. of the value in gold or dollars and the remaining 6o per cent. out of a credit from His Majesty's Government.
  The figures given relate to what was despatched. In the period covered by the earlier statement incessant attacks by enemy submarines, warships and aircraft, especially on the route followed by the Northern Convoys, took toll of shipments to the extent of some 15 per cent. After 1st April, 1944, in consequence of our growing mastery over the enemy, losses were fortunately negligible. The hazards faced by the Royal Navy and by our merchant ships neverthless continued, and the fortitude and endurance of all concerned is a matter for high praise and gratitude.
  SUPPLIES TO THE U.S.S.R. DESPATCHED BETWEEN 1ST OCTOBER, 1941, AND THE 31ST MARCH, 1946.
  1. MILITARY SUPPLIES.
  (a) War Office Supplies
  Tanks: 5,218, of which 1,388 were supplied by Canada. All tanks were shipped with ammunition.
  Vehicles(includes lorries and ambulances): 4,020.
  Machinery Lorries:323.
  Bren Carriers and Carriers Starting and Charging:
  1,212 to which should be added 1,348 from Canada.
  Motor Cycles:1,721.
  Tank and Bren Carrier Spares and Maintenance Equipment:20,145 tons.
  Other vehicle spares and Maintenance Equipment:4,090 tons.
  Weapons

  1,000 P.I.A.T.

  103 Thompson sub-machine guns.

  636 2-pdr. anti-tank guns.

  96 6-pdr. anti-tank guns.

  3,200 Boys anti-tank rifles.

  2,487 Bren guns.

  5 81 7·92 mm. Besa guns.

  Ammunition:

  100,000 rounds P.I.A.T.

  20,786,000 rounds 45-in. sub-machine gun.

  2,807,000 rounds 2-pdr. anti-tank gun.

  776,000 rounds 6-pdr. anti-tank gun.

  1,761,000 rounds 55 in. Boys anti-tank rifle.

  89,332,000 rounds 303-in. rifle.

  53,411,000 rounds 7·92 mm. Besa.

  1,163,000 2-in. Mortar (H.E. and smoke).

  162,000 3-in. Mortar (H.E. and smoke).

  303,000 Smoke Generators.

  2,204,000 Signal Cartridges

  159,000 Clams.

  Electronic Equipment.

  Radar sets: 1,474.

  Radio sets (including suitcase sets):4,338.

  Valves: 42,850.

  Radio test equipment about 850 items.

  Charging and Generating Sets: 160.

  Telephone Equipment:

  Telephone Cable: 30,227 miles.

  Telephones: 2,000.

  Switchboards, 10 line: 400.

  Switchboards, 40 line: 60.

  Miscellaneous:

  Exploder Cable: 1,070 miles.

  Camouflage netting: 3,013,000 metres.

  Camouflage face veils: 1,199,500.

  Surveying and Meteorological equipment: 925 Items.

  Specialloid pistons: 159,000.

  Tyres: 72,000.

  (b)Admiralty Supplies Ships

  1Battleship.

  9 Destroyers.

  4 Submarines.

  5 Motor mine-sweepers.

  9 Mine-sweeping trawlers.

  Asdics:293 sets.
  Radar:329 sets.
  Submarine batteries complete:41.
  Guns

  56 130 mm guns complete

  2 6" guns complete.

  36 4" guns complete with 16 spare barrels.

  22 12 pdr, guns complete with 12 spare barrels.

  162 20 mm. guns complete with 54 spare barrels.

  384/" Vickers complete with 52 spare barrels.

  240/" Colt Browning complete with 120 spare barrels.

  210 30" Martin.

  36 sets 2" Rocket Projectors.

  16 sets A.A.D. Type L Projectors and ammunition

  530 Various Gun Mountings

  Underwater Weapons—

  3,206 Mines.

  318 Paravanes.

  6,800 Depth Charges.

  2,304 Hedgehog Projectiles.

  361 Torpedoes.

  Ammunition—

  2,000 Rounds 15"

  2,400 Rounds 6".

  13,600 Rounds 4·7', 4·5", 4,3".

  31,000 Rounds 12 pdr.

  93,000 Rounds pdr.

  882,000 Rounds 20 mm.

  5,792,000 Rounds 5 Vickers.

  1,399.500 Rounds.5 Colt Browning

  26,00o Rounds 455"

  359,500 Rounds 303"

  889,000 Rounds 30".

  4,000 Rounds 2" Rockets

  Pyrotechnics, etc. —

  8,273 Flares, Grenades, Rockets, Signal and Identification Cartridges.

  5 124 Generators and Smoke and Lachrymatory Candles.

  67 Sets of Fire and Grenade Throwing Equipment complete.

  (c)Air Mtmstry Supplies—

  Aircraft: 7,411, including 3,129 sent direct from the U.S.A. on British account.

  Aircraft Engines:976.

  M.T. Vehicles:L724.

  Aircraft Engine and M.T. Spares to the value of£1,15,981,000 including £8,806,000 sent direct from the U.S.A. on British account.

  Equipment for aircraft to the value of£1,734,000.

  Petrol, Oil and other Product,14,146 tons.

  Ammunition.

  162,000 000 rounds 303-in., including 13,000,000 rounds from U.S.A. on British account.

  66,450,000 rounds. 30-in., including 58,450,000 rounds from U.S.A. on British account.

  24,000,000 rounds 50-in., including 17,000,000 rounds from U.S.A. on British account.

  17,500,000 rounds 20 mm

  2. RAW MATERIALS, FOODSTUFFS, MACHINERY AND INDUSTRIAL PLANT
  GRAND TOTAL OF CIVIL STORES MADE AVAILABLE BY THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM ALL SOURCES: £111,626,000
  (a)Raw Material.,.—The greater part of these supplies have been bought from Empire sources. The following are the more important of the items we have sent:
  30,00o tons of aluminium from Canada (£3,038,000)
  2,000 tons of aluminium from United Kingdom (£720,000).
  27,000 tons of copper from Canada (£1,431,000).
  13,000 tons of copper from United Kingdom(£773,000).
  £1,424,000 worth of industrial diamonds, mainly from African production
  100,435 tons of jute from India (£4,975,000).
  114,359 tons of rubber from Ceylon and from the Far East (£15,574,000).
  9,050 tons of sisal from British East Africa(£239,000).
  3,300 tons of graphite from Ceylon (£160,000).
  28,050 tons of tin from Malaya and United Kingdom (£ 7,774,000).
  29,610 tons of wool from Australia and New Zealand (£5,521,000).
  TOTAL VALUE of these and other raw materials: £47,841,000.
  (b)Foodstuffs.—These include tea from Ceylon and India, cocoa beans, palm oil and palm kernels from West Africa; groundnuts from India, cocoanut oil from Ceylon; pepper and spices from India, Ceylon and British West Indies.
  TOTAL VALUE of all foodstuffs supplied: £8,210,000.
  (c)Machine Tools, Industrial Plant and Machinery.—These form the principal direct contribution to civil supplies for the U.S.S.R. from United Kingdom production The following are the major items which have been provided since 1st October, 1941: —
  Machine Tools: £13,081,000
  Power Plant: £12,264.000.
  Electrical Equipment: £9,091,000.
  Various types of machinery: £4,691,000
  (e g. telephone equipment, food processing plant, textile machinery, port and salvage equipment).
  Miscellaneous industrial equipment: £3,201,000.
  TOTAL VALUE of (c), including certain minor items: £43,616,000.
  3. MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND COMFORTS, AND HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT.
  The public have contributed a large proportion of th funds for these supplies. Since October, 1941, £5,260,000 have been spent through charitable organisations on surgical and medical items and clothing. In addition, His Majesty's Government have made a grant of £2,500,000 for clothing, nearly all of which has been spent.

  MIDDLE EAST (DEFINITION)
  Major Symondsasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention to continue to use the term "Middle East" to cover those geographical areas which, in the past, have been referred to as "Near East" and "Middle East."
  The Prime Minister: It has become the accepted practice to use the term "Middle East" to cover the Arab world and certain neighbouring countries. The practice seems to me convenient and I see no reason to change it.
  Major Symonds: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that we might get rid of this confusion once and for all if we used geographically correct terms such as "South East Europe" and "South West Asia "?
  The Prime Minister: That seems rather a large, omnibus definition, because ii would also include a hit of North East Africa.
  Mr. Keeling: If Egypt is to be called the "Middle East," where is the "Near East" now? As Egypt and other Eastern Mediterranean countries were called the "Near East" before the war, would the Prime Minister consider—I do not ask him to answer now—whether, in the interests of geographical decorum, he could not apply the term "Near and Middle East" to the commands, committees, and other organisations which cover both Egypt and countries further East?
  The Prime Minister: The vital point was that put in the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. It all depends where you are in the world.

  GERMANY

    Aģriculture
    Fliģht-Lieutenant Haireasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is to be the agricultural policy in the British zone in Germany.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The policy is to produce as much food as possible for direct human consumption. Shortage of seed, fertilisers and agricultural equipment are serious handicaps but the programme includes the ploughing up of 650,000 acres of grassland, the reduction of livestock, the prohibition of luxury crops and the use of town gardens for growing potatoes and other vegetables.
    Fliģht-Lieutenant Haire: Does not the Minister consider that this policy might be furthered by the socialisation of this land?
    Mr. Skeffinģton-Lodģe: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is necessary to retain a measure of industrialisation in Germany if there is to be a balanced economy in our zone?
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient seed in Germany for the amount of land already ploughed up?
    Mr. Hynd: I could not give an affirmative answer to that, but the fact is that the land is being ploughed up in the hope that as much seed as possible will be coming forward. We cannot guarantee the necessary amount.

    Shipyards (Operations)
    Mr. Douģlas Marshallasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many major shipyards in Germany were in production in April, 1945; and how many are working at the present moment.
    Mr. J. Hynd:Seven major shipyards were in production in April, 1945, six are working at present; they are used exclusively for meeting essential allied requirements.
    Mr. Marshall:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the retention of German shipbuilding power means the retention of German sea power? I trust he will keep this fact in mind.
    Mr. Hynd:That is already covered in the Potsdam Agreement, but it should be appreciated that if the vessels and other equipment that are to be allocated for reparation, if for nothing else, are to be put in the necessary order, it is necessary that we should retain the use of equipment at the shipbuilding yards and not destroy it before we have met the reparation allocations.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Food Subsidies
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the index of 69 for food over the level of July, 1914, takes account of the subsidy of £335,000,000.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton):Yes, Sir.
    Sir W. Smithers:Would it not be better in the national interest to reduce the gap betwen production and consumption prices so that the consumer might be—
    Mr. Speaker:The hon. Member seems to be indulging in argument and not in a
    2522
    supplementary question arising out of Question 49.
    Sir W. Smithers:I am asking the Chancellor to reduce the gap between consumption and production so that the consumer may be aware of the very grave food situation, aggravated by the policy of this Government.
    Mr. Dalton:What the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do is to put up the cost of living, and that is not going to happen.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part of the sum of £158,000,000 representing cost of maintaining home-grown food prices at their present level, is accounted for by administrative charges; if these charges include the administrative costs of the Ministry of Food; what these costs amount to and what commodities are covered by them.
    Mr. Dalton:About£4million, or less than 3 per cent. of the subsidy, is attributable to the administrative charges on home produced food. The commodities covered are shown in the estimate.
    Mr. Stewart:Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean what I asked, namely, that that £4 million to which he refers represents the cost to the Ministry of Food?
    Mr. Dalton:No, Sir, what I have given is the administrative cost of the subsidy on home produced food.
    Mr. Stewart:Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the Question?
    Mr. Speaker:We have taken only 54 Questions up to now. We are doing badly today.

    Messrs. Simmonds Aerocessories, Limited (Profits)
    Mr. Diamondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Second Report from the Committee of Public Accounts that Messrs. Simmonds Aerooessories, Limited, and Messrs. Simmonds Aerocessories (Western), Limited, made an average profit for the years 1939, 1940 and 1941 of more than 70 per cent. on the capital employed; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Dalton:Yes, Sir, and I am now considering what steps, if any, should he taken.
    Sir J. Mellor:Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that the Treasury ultimately get most of these profits through the Excess Profits Tax?
    Mr. Dalton:The report of the Public Accounts Committee showed that these profits were far in excess of any rate considered to be appropriate in Government contracts. At the same time, there was no contractual right to regulate profits secured in this case by the Ministry of Aircraft Production.
    Sir W. Darlinģ:Why not?
    Mr. Dalton:I was not Minister of Aircraft Production. Any adjustment other than a voluntary refund by the firms concerned, which the Treasury will be very glad to accept, will require retrospective legislation.
    Mr. Gallacher:Robbing the community.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley:I do not think the Chancellor quite answered the question. Could he tell us how much of this profit came back to the Treasury through E.P.T.?
    Mr. Dalton:The answer is that E.P.T. at this time was at the rate of 100 per cent.
    Mr. Stanley:Is it a fact, then, that all this profit came back to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Dalton:Not necessarily at all, but I think the right hon. Gentleman knows the law well enough not to make it necessary for me to answer at greater length.
    Mr. Mikardo:Is it not a fact that in a previous similar case, the Committee of Public Accounts stated as a reasoned view that taxation does not compensate for this form of profiteering?
    Sir W. Wakefield:Is not the Chancellor aware that in subsequent years this firm suffered very heavy losses?
    Mr. Dalton:That is not the Question on the Order Paper. I have endeavoured to answer the Question, I hope. It is difficult to pursue the matter at greater length now.
    Mr. Cobb:May I ask the Chancellor where his costing officers were?

    Women's Land Army (Income Tax)
    Major Diģbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why members of the W.L.A., living at home and paying their parents for their keep, have to pay Income Tax on the amount so paid, whereas others, living in billets, are not liable for Income Tax in respect of their cost; and whether he will Lake steps to exempt girls living at home from liability to Income Tax in respect of the amount they pay for their keep.
    Mr. Dalton:No, Sir. A member of the Women's Land Army cannot, any more than any other taxpayer, be allowed a deduction from Income Tax on ordinary living expenses paid for out of income
    Major Diģby:Would not the Chancellor agree that where two girls are doing the same work on the same farm they might expect the same remuneration?
    Mr. Dalton:I have taken steps, having the Women's Land Army particularly in mind, to reduce Income Tax, so that most of these girls will pay nothing when my proposals come into operation.

    Dutch Forces, Britain
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of rnamtaining, training and equipping Dutch forces in Britain since August, 1945; and who will bear the cost.
    Mr. Dalton:This information will take a little time to collect. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question after Easter.

    Patent Riģhts Claim
    Mr. McKieasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will make a statement regarding the patent rights claim of Mr. Buchanan Reith.
    Mr. W. Whiteley:I understand that the Admiralty, the Department concerned, are in correspondence with the claimant's solicitors.
    Mr. McKie:Seeing that the First Lord—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up.''] — declined to receive representations on behalf of Mr. Reith, contrary to the appropriate Section of the Patents and Designs Act, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the First Lord the need for him to take some steps in the matter?

  BRITISH MUSEUM (ADVISORY COMMITTEE)
  Sir John Graham Kerrasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the national importance of the Natural History Museum as an instrument of public entertainment and instruction, a treasure-house of valuable collections and a centre of scientific research, consideration is being given to ' the installation of an advisory committee large enough to cover the varied technical matters which confront the British Museum trustees in connection with the postwar reconditioning and reconstruction of this museum.
  Mr. Dalton:Yes, Sir. The Trustees of the British Museum are considering the representations which have been made to them on this subject.

  BRETTON WOODS PLAN
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has approached the International Monetary Fund to obtain an interpretative declaration of the phrase, fundamental disequilibrium, in the Bretton Woods Plan; and what answer he has received.
  Mr. Dalton:This matter has been referred to the Executive Directors of the Fund, who are meeting to consider it next month.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (APPROVED EMPLOYMENT, PENSION RIGHTS)
  Major Guy Lloydasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether civil servants appointed to the boards of nationalised industries are to give up their Service pension rights.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley):I have been asked to reply. In the case in which this question has already arisen the officer concerned is to be treated as being in "approved employment" and will retain his existing pension rights.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
  Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many permanent and temporary houses, respectively, have
  2526
  been erected and occupied from 31st July, 1945, to date, in the burgh of Ayr.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan):Fifty temporary houses have been erected and occupied, and 30 others are in course of erection. In addition, 74 permanent houses are under construction.
  Sir T. Moore:In view of these figures, and also in view of the fact that there are 1,900 families waiting to be rehoused in Ayr, does the hon. Gentleman realise that it will take some 20 years before the people of Ayr are properly housed?
  Mr. Buchanan:So far as Ayr is concerned, we are making not unreasonable progress, and when one compares it with the progress made by past Governments which had not the same difficulties, it is not the worst record we could have.
  Sir T. Moore:That is due to the Member.
  Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new houses have been completed in the Ayr district of Burghs between 31st July, 1945, and 31st January, 1946.
  Mr. Buchanan:Twenty-four temporary houses were completed during the period in question and 26 more since 31st January, 1946. In addition, 228 permanent houses are under construction, and 96 more are in approved contracts.

FOOD EXPORTS (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith):The Government have recently been reviewing the question of export policy with regard to processed foods. During the war, a small volume of exports of certain foods was maintained, principally to meet programmes submitted by Colonial and other Empire Governments where this country was the normal or most convenient source of supply. It had been hoped that it would be possible, after the termination of hostilities, to allow exports of small but increasing quantities of the more freely available foods, and token quantities even of foods still in restricted supply, such as those containing appreciable quantities of flour, fats and sugar, so that the food industries could begin to play a part in the

2527
general expansion of exports, as well as to enable exporting firms to begin to regain a footing in markets which had been lost during the war. Some steps in this direction were in fact taken. With easier shipping conditions, and a reduction of Services demands, exports of certain foods especially to the Colonies began to increase. In December of last year arrangements were put in hand for a strictly limited increase in exports of other foods, such as chocolates, biscuits and soft drinks.
With the deterioration of the world food situation, however, the Government have been obliged to review this policy. It has been decided that, until further notice, export licences will not be issued in respect of a list of processed foods containing more than an insignificant quantity of ingredients which are in short supply. An exception, however, will be made in the case of the approved programmes of exports to Colonies and other Empire countries to which I have already referred and to certain Middle East countries. Requirements of this kind will continue to be met if supported by the Governments concerned, to the extent that the current supply position permits. Experts of certain foods which can be spared for relief purposes will also continue. It is, of course, impossible to stop supplies which are already in transit and a small trickle of exports will continue for a time under export licences already issued. The Government will continue to permit exports in the case of a group of foods where it is clear that exports cannot adversely affect the food situation. This will apply to foods which are in ample supply, such as yeast extracts and various types of cured herrings, and also to such products as mustard, spices, cocoa powder, unsweetened fruit juices, flavouring essences, chicory and coffee, which either have little food value or do not contain significant quantities of scarce materials. It will also include whisky and gin, for the production of which no cereals are now being issued. The export of certain quantities of staple foods, which are subject to Combined Food Board allocation will also continue in cases where the United Kingdom is nominated as a supplier. Export licences will continue to be required for all foodstuffs except for a few non-essentials, and the flow of exports still permitted under the policy I have described will be con-
2528
stantly watched. Exports of particular foodstuffs will be restricted or encouraged in the light of prevailing conditions.
The Government regret the necessity for the revision of policy. The immediate loss of trade will probably not exceed one half of one per cent. of the value of all exports in 1946. Nevertheless the recovery of prewar export markets in certain valuable processed foodstuffs will be delayed Moreover, the decision will cause disappointment and inconvenience not only to the manufacturers arid exporters concerned, whose arrangements to resume exports had in some cases reached an advanced stage, but also to importers overseas who had been hoping for a renewal of their customary trade with this country. In special cases, arrangements may be made to enable exporters to meet firm commitments, so far as may be practicable without prejudicing the general policy. But no further commitments for food exports should be entered into, unless they fall within the categories of permissible exports to which I have referred. A statement setting out the particulars of the revised policy in more detail is being issued to trade associations. The Government warn consumers not to expect any perceptible increase in the supplies of processed foods available in shops, as a result of the curtailment of exports. The quantities to be diverted from export are quite insignificant in relation to home consumption.
Mr. Churchill:Could the right hon. Gentleman say, epitomising his statement, whether we are going to get more or get less?
Sir B. Smith:I am afraid the potential recipients are going to get less, and we are going to get less in the form of the amounts of money that will accrue to this country.
Mr. Quintin Hoģģ:In view of the length of the statement, could it not have been rendered down and clarified?
Mr. Kinģ:Is the Minister aware that, in Cornwall, pilchards, which could be processed and exported, are being thrown back into the sea because buyers are un-willing to pay 2s. a stone for them?
Sir B. Smith:I am not aware of that.
Mr. Kinģ:It is so.
Mr. Oliver Stanley:In view of the repeated Government statements that they knew many months ago how serious the food position was, why was not this action taken earlier, thus avoiding the necessity of importers and exporters going on with arrangements which now have to be cancelled?
Sir B. Smith:I agreed to small amounts of commodities—sugar, oils, fats, flour—in December last when everything was more promising—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh "]—yes, in December—being used to start a trickle of exports. From then, the whole thing had to be started and markets opened up and licences issued on firm markets. It is in the light of the present situation that I have had to say that I cannot any longer permit, for export, things that are in short supply in this country, with this difference, that where during the war we maintained our Colonies as well as we could, that we shall continue to do.
Mr. Stanley:May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how is it possible to reconcile the statement he has made now, that everything in December looked promising, with the speech he made not so long ago trying to prove that, as far back as last October, he knew it was disastrous?
Sir B. Smith:It was promising in the sense that—I speak from memory—there were 8,000 tons of sugar available for this purpose, and the oils and fats position was not nearly what it is today. In fact, we had good stocks, but we had not had the monsoon in India, which resulted in the United Kingdom losing 97,000 tons of groundnuts, and it was in the light of that fact that we had to change over.
Mr. Boothby:Is the Minister aware that there is nothing in the present situation to warrant cutting down the export
2530
of canned herrings from this country; and is he also aware that the policy of the Government in cutting down the production of whisky is short sighted in the highest degree because it is the best dollar-earner?
Sir B. Smith:The obvious answer to that is that we have to choose between feeding the people and making whisky. I have taken the liberty of saying to the distillers that I cannot issue any more barley for distilling while the position is what it is.
Sir W. Darlinģ:Is the Minister aware that the principal cereal product of Scotland is oats, and that the exportation of oats to Scotsmen all over the world is a necessity for the maintenance of their character and individuality? Is the Minister also aware that the stopping of the export of porage and Scottish oats will cause great disappointment to Scottish millers, who have looked upon the American and other markets as very valuable indeed?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Henderson Stewart:May I ask a Question on Business in order that we may know how to act on the Estimates today? Is it intended to take the Herring Industry (Amendment) Order tonight; and, if so, at what hour?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley):That will follow the Estimates.
Mr. Stewart:Yes, but how long will the Debate on the Estimates take?
Mr. Speaker:With regard to the Motion on the Herring Industry (Amending) Scheme, that is exempted Business.

BILL PRESENTED
RAILWAYS (VALUATION FOR RATING)BILL,
" to amend the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930," presented by Mr. Bevan; supported by Mr. Westwood, Mr. Barnes and Mr. Key; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 30th April, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Whiteley.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  AIR ESTIMATES, 1946
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, '' That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. Whiteley.]
  3.48 p.m.
  Major Sir Thomas Duģdale: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  " This House deplores the continued failure of His Majesty's Government to specify the period for which men are now being called up for the Royal Air Force, thus causing needless uncertainty and difficulty to both employers and employees and also to young men on the threshold of their careers, and urges upon His Majesty's Government the need for making an immediate statement of policy."
  I feel that it is such a long time now since I had the honour of trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, that I should ask for the indulgence which the House usually affords to those hon. Members who are addressing it for the first time, but my political life has followed a course which has made it, up to now, inappropriate for me to take part in these Debates. Those days are now over, and I am happy indeed, through the fortune of the Ballot, to be able to move this Amendment on the Air Estimates.
  2532
  I have no personal experience of the Air Force, but as a member of a sister Service, I have always admired the work and exploits of that great Service in all its fields of operations. Today I am dealing with the calling up of young men into the Air Force arid the other Services. I believe that we are discussing this afternoon the most important age group in the country, that between 18 and 21, or 22. Young people in the late 'teens and the early twenties appear to me to demand the greatest possible attention from all hon. Members of this House and from the Government. Each year, according to my research, I understand that there are, approximately, 300,000 people who reach the age of 18. No doubt the Air Force will be responsible for the future careers of a goodly proportion of that number. However small or great that proportion may be, I am certain that the Under-Secretary will agree that their well being should be carefully considered.
  It is eight months since hostilities against Japan ended in victory for the Allies. Yet the Government still keep the nation waiting to hear for what period of service men are now to be called up in the Armed Forces. I believe that in moving this Amendment in the terms which I have read to the House, I am expressing the anxiety of hon. Members in all parts of the House and that of hundreds of thousands of parents, of wives, of industry as a whole, of universities, and, indeed, of the young men concerned. The whole nation is waiting on a Government whose Election pledge was that the affairs of the nation would be planned. We in this House, and the nation as a whole, are entitled to know what those plans are, and to know quickly in regard to this particular Service. If I might digress for a moment, I would say that there is very often misrepresentation in regard to the word "planning." It appears to be suggested that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are the only architects of "planning" and that hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House do not want to plan anything. That is very far from the truth. The view which hon. Members on this side of the House take is that we do not want to plan for planning's sake but we do want to plan when it is necessary. If there is one problem today which requires urgent and immediate planning, it is the problem of our

  2533
  young men. Since the present Government came into office there have been interesting discussions in this House both as regards the older members of the community—on the question of old age pensions, and so on—and as regards the younger section. The country is engaged in putting into operation the great Education Act which was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). That is a very important Act for the young people of this country; yet we. have this age group of the 18's to 20'S being left, literally and completely, in the air as to their future.
  I would refer for my argument to a statement made by the Prime Minister during the Debate of 4th March, because the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, I think, is not reassuring. During that Debate he used the following words:
  " The reason why we cannot come to a decision vet is that it all depends on so many uncertain, indeed, unknown, factors."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 6.]
  Six weeks have gone by and yesterday, in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), in regard to the voluntary service scheme, the Prime Minister said:
  "We have to consider the length of term in relation to the general scheme of voluntary service I am not prepared to make a statement at once. —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1946; Vol. 124, c. 2366.]
  I hope to come back to that point before I sit down, but, in my view, those statements by the head of the Government are just not good enough. If we are to take the words of the Prime Minister literally, then, I believe, we should have to wait for Armageddon itself, before we could solve the problem of conditions of service for our young men. It is also true that the longer the delay in making decisions, the greater and more widespread becomes the resulting chaos in our national life.
  May we examine for a short time this afternoon the position of the men who are now being called up, and who are actually joining the Royal Air Force? As long as the war was in progress, and we were fighting a common enemy, there was no question in the minds of the personnel of the Air Force, or, indeed, of the other Services, about the length of their engagement. When we were engaged in a life
  2534
  and death struggle, and when the fate of civilisation itself depended upon our efforts and those of our Allies, the only thought of the personnel of the Royal Air Force was how soon they could get into action against the common enemy. Those days have passed. After six bitter years of war we are now a free people once more, made so by the efforts of ourselves and our Allies. We have now a new series of problems to solve, and in solving them I think it will be agreed that the first and most important thing to do, is to re-equip our Services, and the Air Force in particular, with fresh men in order that they may relieve those who have borne the brunt of the struggle. But in doing that there are other weighty considerations to be borne in mind.
  The country is trying to effect a change from war conditions to those of peace. It is true to say that service in the Royal Air Force must be fitted into the general plan for peacetime employment, but so long as there is no indication of the period of national service, it is impossible for our young men to plan their futures. It is the duty of the Government of the day to make it possible for these young men to plan their futures. Many hon. Members were in this age group at the end of the first world war. If we cast our minds back, we must remember the difficulty and the anguish of mind which many of us experienced when we had to make up our minds which direction our lives should follow. We had not at that time however this overriding difficulty of not knowing what the country wanted and expected of us in the most critical years immediately following that war. Many of my hon. Friends in that age group at that time arranged very different kinds of lives for themselves, but all will agree that that difficult time would have been made a thousands times more difficult, if they had not known w hat were the Government's plans.
  I wish to say a few words on the question of national service. Yesterday the Financial Secretary to the War Office, talking of this subject in the Debate on the Army Estimates, implied that much as he disliked it, he accepted the necessity for compulsory service at present. That was the first time we heard such a statement made from the Government benches. I believe that statement reflects opinion throughout the country, and that people

  2535
  expect compulsory service to apply from the age of 18. Therefore, the real problem is to decide the exact period of that service. I would like to give a few examples, from different sections of the age group of 18, of what is happening today. Let me refer first to apprentices in industry. I believe it is of the greatest importance that the system of apprenticeship should be encouraged by all of us. Yet those who, today, are undergoing apprenticeship do not know when they will be able to practise their trades. In many trades, depending on the age at which apprenticeship commences, apprenticeship will not be completed at the date of call-up. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider very carefully the problem of apprentices, and to say whether it is possible within the Air Force, which is a very technical Service, to help forward those people who are apprentices in certain industries, while they are in the Service, so that they can benefit during their period of service and prepare for their return to civil life. I throw that out as an idea. I know the difficulties in connection with this proposal, but I believe it is worth examining.
  I turn to a different section of the community, in dealing with education. I will not say much in this regard because my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden is present and he is an expert in this matter. In general terms, for students at present the uncertainty is complete. They do not even know if they will be called up, and if they are called up they do not know the terms of service. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Let me turn from the question of students to that of the universities. It is impossible for them to make provision for their intake, and to organise their teaching staffs, when they do not know the conditions governing young men today. understand that the Government have given to the universities an assurance that before the new academic year in the autumn, a decision will be made on the question of the faculties in which postponement of compulsory service will be granted, but that does not clarify the position. The universities are still anxious about the way in which they should advance in the interests of the young people. I believe that this uncertainty is having a bad effect on many boys at school. If they knew where they were, they could work
  2536
  for university scholarships, whereas many of them are wondering if it is worth while doing so, and instead of working for scholarships are sitting back and, not doing as much work as they would do if they knew what the future held in store for them. School teachers have a very great problem in regard to the work which they have to do under the Education Act of 1945. This uncertainty as to the future must be a hindrance to them in the work of preparation for the raising of the school leaving age. I leave the field of education at that point, but I am certain that the Under-Secretary will agree there is much food for thought in that sphere of our national life.
  In commerce and industry the same uncertainty exists. How can any firm be expected to offer a permanent career to a young man who will shortly be leaving it for an unspecified period of service in the Forces? It is impossible for industries to plan their future. Every good industry, it will be agreed, wants a representative of each age group among its ranks. We do not want one industry to consist entirely of old workers, because the day will come when they will be too old to work and conduct their business, and the industry will cease. Everyone who is planning industry on modern productive lines wants representatives of every age group so that the young men can come forward, the best of them can gain promotion, and the whole unit can go forward to greater efficiency and production of whatever the commodity may be. That is impossible until a decision is made on this question. This is a time when every ounce of effort is required to keep the wheels of production moving, both for export trade and our home consumption.
  With those instances, I will leave the subject of the effects on our young people. I hope and expect that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), who is seconding this Amendment, will carry on the story in regard to the effect that this uncertainty has within the Royal Air Force itself. I leave that side of the problem to him, because he is specially informed on these matters, and I know it will interest the House to hear his views as to the effect on various branches of the Service.
  I pass to some of the reasons which have been given from time to time in

  2537
  amplification of and following on the statement of the Prime Minister on 4th March why a decision must be delayed. It is said: "We do not know our future commitments; we do not know the size of our contribution to the United Nations; we do not know what the atomic age has in store for us." Surely, it will be years before any solution will be found to those problems. Even when a solution, or partial solution, or partial answer is found to them, I am perfectly confident there will be many different points of view in regard to each and every one. It would be the height of folly to delay a decision on that account. There is one reason which I would like to argue more closely, because I believe the Government attach special importance to it, and it is my profound belief that they have got it the wrong way round. That is the statement that we do not know what will be the extent of voluntary enlistment. I believe that here the Government are putting the cart before the horse. I will try to explain, in as few words as I can, why I take that view. It was referred to in general terms during the Debate yesterday, but I do not think the point I want to try to bring forward for the study of the Under-Secretary was mentioned.
  My belief is that if we settle a national service and get a foundation on which to work, we are much more likely to improve the voluntary recruitment. I believe so for this reason. Nobody knows yet the period of national service. If it is to be a year or 18 months, it is obvious to all who have had Service experience that that would be too short a period in which to ask men to go on foreign service, because they would not have had time to learn their job. It would be quite improper for any Government or any Service to send untrained men on foreign service. If that supposition is correct, it would be bound to follow—and in fact it does follow—that the regular Air Force would spend a very large proportion of their service overseas, and a large proportion of that overseas service would probably be East of Suez. I submit that that state of affairs is not conducive to getting a large number of volunteers. If, on the other hand, the decision is taken that the service required in the national interest is, say, two or two and a half years, then the Service would be able to plan accordingly; and the Air staff would
  2538
  be able to say there would be so long for recruit training in this country, that the recruits would go overseas for a period of further training, and then return to civilian life. Under that method, if it were known that that was the decision of the Government, we would get a large increase in volunteer recruitment for the regular Air Force. I ask the Under-Secretary to deal with this point in his reply, because I believe it is the crux of the whole question. I am under the impression—I may be wrong—that the Government are putting too much store on the opposite point of view, namely, wait-upon the result of a voluntary scheme, before they decide on the period of service.
  In conclusion, on this important consideration for our young men, I ask the Government—and particularly the Air Ministry—not to treat this problem as one affecting the Air staff or any of the other great general staffs of our Services. It is natural that the Air staff should like a neat and tidy scheme, all dressed up, with all the problems solved. With all the problems we have to face, that is an improbability. A decision can come only from the Minister of Defence in consultation with his Cabinet colleagues. He should give a directive to the Service Ministries as to the result of those deliberations, and, having been given that directive, it should he the duty of the Service Departments to prepare a scheme in response to it. On many occasions during the past six months we have been told that this is the first time the Socialist Party has been responsible for our Government and has at the same time been in power. With power goes responsibility, I ask the Government to realise the extent of that responsibility in this very human problem affecting, as it does, the young men of Britain who are, we must agree, the most precious raw material in the world. My final words are these: Act now and take a decision quickly. Every day that goes by is making everything more difficult for all sections of the community. The whole country demands a speedy decision on this matter, and I think they are entitled to have it.
  4.9 p.m.
  Air-Commodore Harvey: I beg to second the Amendment
  I am very pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Air back in his seat

  2539
  today, after his recent illness to reply on this very important subject. With respect, I would say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) presented his case most ably and in a very fair manner. There is no doubt that the delay of the Government in announcing the terms of service is causing great distress throughout the whole country. I shall refer to points which affect the men who are in the Royal Air Force. The Service is steadily losing really good men who, in their heart of hearts, would like to stay in the Service and serve their country. The Halton apprentices—who, in my opinion, and I think in the opinions of other hon. Members, have been the backbone of the Royal Air Force—enter Halton at 15 years of age, and carry out an intensive course of training lasting some three years. The Halton apprentices proved during the war that they were the core of the maintenance side of the Service. These men also proved themselves in other directions. One apprentice became an Air Vice-Marshal at the age of 38, which I call good democracy. Nevertheless, these men are steadily drifting back into industry, because they do not understand or realise what is in store for them if they remain in the Service.
  I will now refer to the question of N.C.Os. Many N.C.Os. have attained acting rank, some paid and some unpaid. Are these men to retain their rank in continuing their service? Perhaps the tinder-Secretary would give me an answer later to that question. The N.C.Os. see less prospect of being commissioned. Naturally the number of commissions will be less than it was during the war, but the Air Ministry should give some indication of the chances of N.C.Os. attaining commissioned rank. I hope the Air Ministry will have a really sound policy to ensure the future of the N.C.O. pilots, to whom I referred in the Debate on the Air Estimates who fought alongside commissioned officers in battle, and who proved themselves. We all know that the Royal Air Force is steadily becoming more technical. There are jet turbines, and aircraft are advancing in the kind of technical equipment they carry, such as radar. Therefore, we must have the best maintenance crews available to look after the aircraft and to ensure safety in flight. Unless we keep a big nucleus of men who
  2540
  were in the Service during the war it is going to take a great deal of time to achieve the necessary efficiency.
  I consider that the warrant officers have had a very raw deal in the Service. The rank of warrant officer is a most unfortunate one. He carries great responsibility, and gets very little reward. His pension is minute He can give the major part of his adult life to the Service, at the end of which time he gets a pension of something in the region of 3os. a week, which is not enough. As an example, take a warrant officer in 1o39. The war came along and he eventually found himself serving as a wing-commander, in charge of the maintenance of aircraft on a large station.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. and gallant Member is referring to conditions inside the Service at the present moment. The Amendment, of course, only mentions the period for which men are now being called up, and asks for a statement of policy in that regard. It says that the failure to specify the period of the call-up is causing uncertainty and difficulty to employers and employees. The conditions of service inside the Royal Air Force are not under consideration, and they would be outside the scope of the Amendment.
  Air Commodore Harvey: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was doing my best to show what effect the failure to give decisions in this matter is having on the men who perhaps desire to remain in the Service, making a Service career. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond has already dealt with the points to which you referred. If I may make this point, I will do so as briefly as possible. Some of the young officers who are being demobilised are being offered permanent commissions. The Permanent Commissions Board has been sitting for over 12 months. A great number of officers have been accepted for permanent commissions, but those who are leaving the Service are told that if they return to civilian employment, and then find they would like to be given a permanent commission, they may still be accepted. Surely it is quite wrong from the point of view of the individual, and very unfair on the employer, that a man should return to civilian life for four to six months and then assume a Service career.

  2541
  Likewise I think young men going into the Service want to know what is offered at the cadet college at Cranwell, when the cadet college is to be opened, but nothing has been said about the conditions of Service except that cadets will be drawn from the ranks. I ask the Air Ministry to make up their mind on this point. Every day it becomes more serious, and I believe that in delaying their decisions the Government are doing a great disservice to all concerned. The Chiefs of Staff want their plans tidied up, so that they can build up an efficient Service. By delay we shall go backwards.
  4.16 p.m.
  Mr. Cove: I am glad the opportunity has been given me to support, not the Amendment as it is worded, but some of the remarks made by the mover of the Amendment. There is, undoubtedly, a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety right through the ranks of our young men, who do not know what their future immediately is to be; and this uncertainty is spread throughout the field of secondary education. It is affecting the schools and the pupils in the schools, and I hope, therefore, the Government will be able to make a pronouncement in the near future. I rose mainly to make this further appeal to the Government. If there are to be any special categories at all as far as the provision of further training in the technical schools and colleges and the universities is concerned, I profoundly hope that the Government will not restrict those privileges and facilities merely to science students. There has been an overemphasis—necessarily an over-emphasis owing to the necessities of the war—on what might be broadly termed, and I say it without any taint of derogation at all, technical education, on the expansion of technical knowledge and technical skill. There is no doubt about that.
  But now that we are in peace time, surely, it is essential that those pupils who have an aptitude for what is broadly termed the arts should have an equal opportunity of going to the universities with those who have an aptitude for scientific studies. Therefore, I make my plea to the Government not to exclude those pupils who have this broad general
  2542
  aptitude for the study of the arts. After all, we can narrow our education too much, and so not produce the volatile, quick nation we desire in the future. Too narrow specialisation, particularly at too early an age, and even at any age, is not good for the general wellbeing of the future of Britain. I make the special plea that, in any consideration given for facilities to enter the universities in the future, such facilities shall apply at least equally to all types of students—equally to art students and students of literary subjects, as to science students. I do not want to argue the case at any great length, but I would say in conclusion that if this nation relies merely on a narrow development of technical skill alone, it will not be able to face the great problems of the future. A broad, general, liberalising education is profoundly essential for the mass of our people and for the prosperity of our nation. I hope, therefore, that the Ministry, in considering the future of these young men, will not only make a speedy pronouncement, but will realise that a broad, general education is essential, not only for individuals, but for the health and wellbeing of Britain herself.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: There is no matter upon which the Government have needed more pressing than on this question of making up their mind about the length of service which they require from our young men, and I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) in the excellent initiative he has taken in introducing this subject this afternoon. His view is one to which we on this side of the House attach the utmost importance, and it is one which, I believe, all educationists—witness the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove)—deliberately try to support in view of the great uncertainty which prevails. I, therefore, trust that, as a result of the short Debate on this Amendment before we come to the more general question of the Estimates, the Government will give us some satisfaction. If they cannot give us some satisfaction, and satisfaction to the mothers and fathers, to the universities and to the apprentices in industry, and to the whole generation of our young men, I think they will profoundly disappoint the country as a

  2543
  whole. If they cannot give an answer today I hope they will do so, before we rise for the Easter Recess.
  The Government have been repeatedly pressed on this matter. They were pressed in the Debate on the Defence White Paper on 4th and 5th March. It is now over a month since that Debate. We hoped that after that Debate that they would come out with some statement. I trust, therefore, they will not leave this important matter any further. The Government usually say that the delay arises from two main considerations. The first is the need for defining our commitments, and the second would appear to be the need they appear to feel for defining the ratio of voluntary service as against compulsory service. Let me examine these two excuses of the Government for not coming to any decision on the matter. On the question of defining commitments, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air, and through him the Prime Minister, what was the meaning of the Prime Minister's words in his speech on the Defence White Paper on 4th March. On 4th March the Prime Minister said as reported in column 44 of HANSARD of that date:
  " I hope that the Armed Forces will be susceptible of further reduction, but I have a very full knowledge of what our obligations are "
  The very full knowledge of what our obligations are is set out in the Defence White Paper in a detailed list of our commitments in various parts of the world. The Prime Minister appears to revise his opinion later, because in column 46 we find these words:
  " As I have already shown, we cannot tell the extent of our commitments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 44 and 46.]
  What is the meaning of this volte face on the part of the Prime Minister in the course of ten minutes in one speech? Do the Government know or do they not know the extent of our commitments? If the Government cannot come to some idea of their commitments why should the Prime Minister make a statement of the sort I have quoted? The Government in this matter have acted in a most dilatory manner. They are unable to make up their minds, and it is high time they came to a conclusion and told us what are the reasons holding them up.
  2544
  Now I come to the second excuse given by the Government—and one can understand the difficulties of reaching a decision —which is even less convincing than the first. This was dealt with in a fair manner by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond. The Government appear to want to test the value and possibilities of a scheme for volunteers as against the need for clearly defining the length of compulsory military service. In my view, my hon. and gallant Friend is profoundly right on this matter. We shall never get clarity about volunteering until we have some clarity about the length of compulsory service. In this matter, as in that of defining commitments, the Government are chasing their own tail. Therefore. I hope the Government will throw aside this excuse and tell us what, in fact, are the reasons why they have to hold up young men in the present uncertainty so many months after the end of the recent war, totally differently from what was done after the end of the previous war. Let us look at one or two statistics. We have been told in the course of these many Debates on demobilisation that the total forces—and I am coming to the Air portion in a few minutes—at the end of December, 1946, are to amount to some 1,200,000, of whom 100,000 will be in training. We have been told that Regulars, that is, as opposed to conscripts, will amount at that date to approximately only 250,000. Thus, the Government are depending for well over three-quarters of our Armed Forces at that date on conscription, and they are, therefore, appearing to rely indefinitely upon compulsory service. This information was given us by the First Lord of the Admiralty in the same Debate on defence on 5th March.
  Now we come to the position of 'he Royal Air Force. The Under-Secretary of State told us in the Debate on 12th March that the total numbers he expected to be in the Royal Air Force at approximately the date I mentioned would be about 305,000 persons, men and women. We were told yesterday-15th April—by the Prime Minister that of these it was hoped, as a result of this recruiting campaign, some 60,000 would be volunteers. We are beginning to get some idea of the proportion of the volunteers who will stay in voluntarily as Regulars.

  2545
  They would be approximately 60,000 —on a certain contract of service, as opposed to 305,000 men and women altogether. I want to ask whether these figures are correct. Do the Government imagine that the results of their recruiting campaign will be to give them figures of this sort; and if so, are they aware of how many can be secured by voluntary enlistment altogether? Whether the Government think these figures are correct or not they must decide the voluntary and compulsory proportions of the Royal Air Force, because unless they do we are going to be perpetually held up, and it is going to be extremely unfair to the young men joining the Royal Air Force.
  I appeal to the Government to decide this question by stages. The first stage, I suggest, would be to come to some clear decision about those in whom we have some educational interest. This is the educational side. I will deal with the apprenticeship side in a minute. I am informed by the universities and schools that there is an immediate need for a decision for the October term in 1946, that is, this year. The universities and schools are quite at sea. They do not know what the policy is going to be. Are scholars to be deferred, or not? We on this side of the House have parents asking us whether this Government are seriously educational or not, and whether they are in earnest about the provisions of the Education Act, which provided new State scholarships and help for our young men to proceed up the educational ladder. Are the Government in earnest about those provisions or not? On this matter the Government do not appear to me to be educationally minded at all. I do not know which sections of the Government are in predominance at the moment. I have studied the observations of "Lindo" and others who are good at making astrological forecasts. There are people in the Government and on those benches opposite interested in education, but those stars are not in the ascendant at the present time. The tough boys are on top; those who believe in the moral improvement of our young men and the educational improvement of our young men are completely submerged. They are the submerged tenth, and it is our business on this side of the House to cause them to rear their heads again and to come to the surface with the aid of allies
  2546
  such as the hon. Member for Aberavon who has come to our aid this afternoon.
  I want to pursue this matter a little further. The hon. Member was quite right when he asked whether there is to be exemption in the Government's policy for the arts. The position in the universities can only be described as chronic, and it is a position which has been allowed to deteriorate. Today, in the view of the Government, the dentistry as compared with the humanist has an importance ratio of 100 to one. I am the first to agree that the professions are very important to this country. I believe that dentists, scientists, doctors and so on are very important, but I am convinced that the greatness of any country is dependent upon the proportion in which that country rates the arts as against scientists and mathematicians. If we look abroad to other countries, we see that those who have held the practical things of life to be of more importance than the spiritual, have been led to their own destruction, and have led to the destruction of others. It is high time that we restored the balance, and got back to the real study of man. We want to know from the Government whether, on this occasion, there will be exemption, as during the war, and whether, unlike the procedure during parts of the last war, there will be exemptions only for technical students, scientists, doctors and dentists. Are they going to treat with equal consideration those young men who have dedicated their lives to the study of what are broadly known as the arts?
  I also wish to ask the Government about their policy in regard to teachers. I think I am perfectly justified in saying that we have spurred the Government on in this matter. The whole future of the Education Act is at stake, and no statement, so far as I know, has yet been made by the Government to reassure those who intend to be teachers. Today we have a gap of some 100,000 teachers which has to be filled, and we have had from the Minister the most miserable figures about those at present al training. We know the difficulties, many of which I bequeathed myself, but what we want to hear from the Government is whether, in this call-up, special facilities are to be given for deferment for young men entering training colleges, and whether these deferments are to apply to the long-term

  2547
  training colleges and, if so, how are they to he operated. We also want to know what is to happen to the teachers when they have concluded their training at the colleges, and what sort of service is expected from them, because until we know that, we cannot operate the Education Act. We also want to know about agriculturists. From the fumbling statements made almost daily by the Minister of Food, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the agricultural position of this country is one of vital importance. We want to know whether those who are dedicating their lives to the higher ranges of agricultural study will be similarly deferred or exempted, and what kind of military service may otherwise be demanded of them. Can the Under-Secretary give us any idea of the position of universities? Is it the case that the universities are willing only to take ex-Servicemen? Are they so full that they cannot take any young men, because, if that be the case, I make the plea, if the new Education Act is to mean anything, for a combination of those who have been in the Services and those who may normally continue their curriculum by passing through the universities from the age of 18 onwards?
  That is the first stage. We want to hear from the Government their immediate plans for the autumn of this year in a matter which should have been decided long ago.
  The next stage is more important, and it concerns what all the young men in the Royal Air Force want to know. We want to know what is the Government's long-term view. The only official view I have seen, if I can so regard it, is an article which appeared in the "New Statesman" on 23rd March, 1946. The editor of this excellent journal, in his freer time, is a constituent of mine, and as he has full liberty of movement, he is not prevented from making speeches or addresses in my constituency. His journal has stated that the country should expect one year's compulsory service. He also states that a target figure should be given for the Regular Forces to be raised by voluntary enlistment. He then makes the striking suggestion that, having done all that, our commitments should be adjusted to the figure finally reached. I should not like to follow the "New Statesman" quite as far as that, because I think it would be much more reasonable to ascer-
  2548
  tain clearly from the Government a definition of our commitments, and then for this country to carry out her age-long tradition of framing tip to her commitments, whatever may be the cost. I do not ask the Government to follow the editor of the "New Statesman" in the wilder suggestions which he makes at the end of his article. Perhaps he was absent on the day the article was written and did not write it.
  Whether that is the case or not, I should like to know if the Government believe in a one-year compulsory military service. I believe that we made a mistake in previous discussion on these matters in trying to decide this question too far ahead. I want the Government first to make a statement about immediate needs for this year, and then to give a longer term policy for a short time ahead, until they get out of their present problems and U.N.O. is operating successfully. Eventually we shall have to decide our long term policy for the Services and for our young men. I think it is reasonable to take these things by degrees. We are not asking the Government to put themselves into an obviously embarrassing position with their supporters by deciding on a long-term policy tonight, even if they are capable of giving a decision at all. We ask the Government to do these things by degrees, and by doing so they will be doing a great service to the young men of this country.
  In conclusion, I make the appeal that the first stage shall be decided now, namely, this year's programme—the programme which can be foreseen for a year or two ahead. Without that the whole attitude of the Government towards the young men and education is a mockery. We may be told that the Government can only give way to pressure groups. In the course of another Debate, we were told that for many years the old have organised themselves into such pressure groups, and that the Labour movement cannot stand up to them. With the help of hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Aberavon, and all educationists in the House, we hope to bring home to the Government, in the most insistent manner, that the young, although they may not have the experience of the old, have the vigour to form the biggest pressure group of all. If politics are to be run by pressure groups, I can assure the Under-Secretary that he will not be disappointed, but I

  2549
  hope that he will decide this matter calmly and in the light of ideals. Our greatest ideal should be, based on the statement in the White Paper, that "the bulwarks of a city are its young men." The bulwarks of our city are our young men, and it is important that they should not have this perpetual uncertainty hanging over them if, educationally, they are to give of their best. I leave the Under-Secretary to fill in the gaps in my remarks, and to fill in most definitely the gaps in policy in regard to the call-up to the Services, giving us a reply in the same way as hitherto he has answered us so successfully in this House. I hope that he will not disappoint us today on these all-important matters, and that he will not disappoint us by giving a negative reply.
  No doubt other Members will wish to join with us, and I do not wish to delay the House further, because I know there are other matters to discuss. When the Government do make up their minds regarding this period of military service, I hope that it will not be treated by the young men as a brake and a burden on their lives, and that they will take it cheerfully in their stride. Whether it is to be for some at 18, for others, perhaps, at 21 or even for others a period of service in the Territorial Army, or in some other way combining their duties with their studies, whether in industry or outside it, let it be a composite picture, a democratic process. If the Government take that decision there need he no controversy in any part of the House. We shall have made a decision in a proper way, and we shall not have frittered away the time of the young men of our country.
  4.42 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): There is no difference of opinion on any side of the House as to the urgency and importance of a decision on the duration and conditions of national service in the immediate future. I do not think that anyone on this Bench—certainly I do not—wants to quarrel with the various points which have been made, very ably and forcibly, by each of the speakers in this short Debate on the inconvenience, and more than inconvenience, unquestionably—the anxiety—which must be caused, in many spheres of national life, to the young men themselves, to potential em-
  2550
  ployers, to educational authorities and the like, so long as they do not know the duration of the period for which young men must be called up.
  It is true that this affects the apprenticeship scheme. I think that the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment put his finger on a very important point. It is also an exceedingly complex one, and there is a wealth of trade union experience on this side of the House on the matter. Although it is not one on which I am qualified to speak, I believe that, not only in relation to national service, but also in relation to the changed and changing character of modern industry, the whole question of apprenticeship might repay careful re-examination. There is no quarrel on the points that have been made with regard to industry and trade, and the uncertainties which must go on until a decision is given on the duration of the call-up. Those in agriculture, and, it might have been added, in mining too, will want to know where they stand —whether the deferment or exemption which they have hitherto enjoyed is to continue—and the educational authorities, of of course, are profoundly affected.
  I cannot, at this stage, answer in detail the questions which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) put to me on that point. Some of them, I think, are questions which the spokesmen of the Ministry of Education are much better qualified to answer. But when I have said all that, and agreed and admitted the obviously vital importance of this decision, I would like to put it to the Committee that the more important the decision, the more important it is that it should be a right decision. Do not let us overlook how much hangs on this decision, even in the immediate future, for this nation. I am now speaking of what the right hon. Gentleman termed the first decision—the decision as to the immediate call-up, the duration of the immediate call-up and how much the nation depends on that. On the one side, there is the maintenance in the immediate postwar period of adequate Armed Forces and, on the other, there is the provision of an adequate labour supply of the right quality for industry, for the export trade and for agriculture.
  The whole problem of our manpower allocation, which is a life and death

  2551
  issue for this country today, is intimately bound up with this question of the duration of the call-up in the immediate future. I would emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden has said, that what is being asked for is not one decision but two, and it is very important to keep them distinct. We have to decide the duration of the time which young men who are being called up, or who will be called up in the immediate future, must serve in the Royal Air Force and, consequentially, of course, in the other two Services. That is one decision and one of the very greatest urgency. There is another decision—really, two related decisions—the question of whether we are to have, as a permanent feature of our national life, a system of compulsory national service, and, if so, what is to be the duration of the call-up under that permanent system of national service. These are entirely different. The first is the period for which it may be necessary —some period clearly is necessary—to call up young men compulsorily at the present moment. We are doing that, so obviously there is no question of its necessity. It is simply a question of the duration for which they shall be called up. But that period is not necessarily the same, by any means, as the period which would be fixed were it decided to keep a permanent system of national service; and it would be the greatest mistake, when a decision is announced by the Government on the duration of immediate call-up, if that were taken to mean that it would necessarily, or even probably, be the same period as would be given for a permanent system of national service, if there is to be one. The two things are completely distinct and should not be confused in any part of the House.
  I do not think that it is true to say, as has been suggested, that the Government are waiting to see what is the result of a system or an appeal for voluntary enlistment. We are appealing to men as they leave the Services to re-engage, and a certain number are doing so. The Prime Minister yesterday announced a bounty scheme for special short term re-engagement to cover the postwar period. The result of that cannot be known fully for some months at any rate, but that is not what the Government are waiting for. It is a misconception to think that it is. The reason why no decision has yet been
  2552
  announced on the duration of service of the immediate call-up is that it has not been possible hitherto to foresee the numbers in the Armed Forces which will be necessary after the end of this year. A figure has been arrived at, and announced to the House, for the Armed Forces taken together and for each Service separately as of 31st December, 1946. That has been as far ahead as His Majesty's Government were willing to commit themselves. Is that an unreasonable position? I ask hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House to put it to themselves: Do they feel confident that they could tell us here and now what the size of the Armed Forces will be which it will be necessary for this country to maintain during 1947, 1943 and 1949?
  Those who are pressing the Government this afternoon for a decision on this matter of the duration of the call-up are asking for nothing less than that the Government should commit themselves here and now, to the maximum size of the Armed Forces of this country two, three and four years hence. That is a decision of the utmost difficulty as well as of the utmost importance. What is it that makes the decision difficult? It is, of course, the uncertain—is it too much to call it tumultuous?—character of the world situation today. That is why I would complain of only one word in the Amendment which has been put before the House today, and that is the word "needless." The mover of the Amendment told us about the uncertainties, to which he was perfectly right in alluding, and their consequences, and he said that they were needless. I cannot accept the view that they are needless. Those uncertainties are not of the making of the Government or even of this House. They are the uncertainties of the world situation, and they affect us in such a way that we cannot come to a decision on this matter without the utmost care. What are the uncertainties of the world situation? Are they abnormal? I do not think they are. I think they are such as occur at the end of any great war. In the past, the years immediately after any great world conflict were always periods of great uncertainty and great international disturbance before the world settled down. That was so after the Napoleonic wars of 150 years ago, and

  2553
  it was certainly so after the first great war in 1918.
  When we complain today of the uncertainty and the tumultuous character of the world at present we too easily forget what the world was like in 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922. At that time there were six separate British Expeditionary Forces actually fighting in various parts of the world. They were attacking Russia, which had been our Ally during that world war, under the very active leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition. Any uncertainties and difficulties which the world faces today are of a very mild character compared to that situation. That situation persisted for a very long time. After all, it was not until 1922 that the Chanak crisis took place, which was really the end of the period of extreme uncertainty after the last war. Therefore, when we point out, as we must, the difficulties and uncertainties of the present international situation I hope that I am not complaining or drawing a picture of special difficulty or referring to something unexpected. In fact, they are considerably milder and we hope and believe that they will be much shorter than they were after the last world war. As the mover of the Amendment pointed out, it is only eight months since the end of the Japanese war. There is nothing, therefore, unusual or extraordinary about the fact that the world situation is disturbing and difficult, and that it has been hitherto a matter of great difficulty to look ahead two, three or four years and commit ourselves to the exact size of the Armed Forces which we shall need at that time.
  The situation in the world is changing every day, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The Foreign Secretary is going out in the next few days and will be engaged in what we hope will result in the signing of a whole batch of peace treaties. That will be one factor in the world situation which should have a stabilising effect. It will then be possible to see far more clearly in the immediate future. Though I cannot make, and I am sure hon. Members opposite would not seriously expect me as a junior Minister on this occasion to make, an announcement of such transcendent importance as this would be, I can say that the country will not have too long to wait before this announcement on the
  2554
  duration of the period for which, in the immediate future, and without prejudice to any more permanent schemes, men in the Armed Forces will be called up. It cannot be made before the Recess, but it will be given after the Easter Recess, and I do not believe that it need be unduly delayed.
  4.57 P.m.
  Sir Ralph GlynI do not think we can leave the question where it has been left by the hon. Gentleman. It is a most important matter in its effect on the Services. I really have great sympathy for both the Under-Secretary and for his colleagues sitting behind him, because they know that these uncertainties are not only destructive to the hopes of young men, but are very confusing to the Staffs of the three Services in making their plans. All I rise to ask is whether we can have it as a definite promise that the announcement will be made by the Prime Minister after the Easter Recess. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that he is not in a position to make an announcement of this kind today, but are we to take it as certain that after the Easter Recess a definite statement will be made? I only want to know whether it will be a definite statement, and it so how soon will it be made after Easter?
  Mr. Strachey: I can say perfectly definitely that a statement will be made after the Easter Recess.
  Sir. R. Glyn: In those circumstances, if it means soon after Easter, it will be welcomed, because it is of the greatest importance to young men who are now considering what their future is to be at the university. I hope that the announcement will be made at such a time, and definitely before the Summer Recess, that we shall know exactly what the terms and conditions are, because it is not good enough to go on indefinitely as at present. I could not help thinking during the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the whole of the younger generation will suffer for all time if we go on like Mr. Micawber and await events. It is for us to take a decision occasionally which may have the effect of making other countries far less turbulent. One of the reasons for this turbulence is that we do not seem to know our own mind, or we do not seem to be strong enough to take a definite line. If an announcement is made after Easter, coupled with an announcement

  2555
  from the United Nations Chiefs of Staff Committee, it will help to clear the air. I think the statement of the hon. Gentleman is a most important one, and we must hurry His Majesty's Government until the promised statement is made, which we hope will be within a few days of the resumption after the Easter Recess.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hoģ ģ: I intervene only for a short time, first to say that the announcement which the Under-Secretary has made regarding the prospect of a statement immediately after the Easter Recess reduces to absolute nonsense the whole of the remarks which he addressed to the House. The hon. Gentleman made his usual courteous and extremely well-reasoned speech, but it was the speech of a man who had no decision to announce, and which gave reasons why no decision could possibly be arrived at. It was the speech of a man who asked us to remember the tumultuous nature of the times. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman hopes to happen in the next 10 days which will make the times so much less tumultuous that he will he able to give then, a decision which he is unable to give now.
  It is not plausible to suggest that the Easter holiday will reduce the tumultuous happenings in other parts of the world to such an extent as to enable this vacillating Government to come to a decision. It is not plausible to pretend that the Government have been taken by surprise by this Debate today, because the topic was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) as long ago as October last, and has been pressed almost continuously from these benches ever since. One would have thought, having regard to the persistency of the criticism, both in this House and the country, about failure to reach a decision, and having regard to the grave inconvenience and anxiety caused not merely to those about to enter the Services, but to industry and the learned professions, that the Government would have done the House the courtesy, on this occasion, to have announced their decision. I cannot accept the argument that the hon. Gentleman is limited entirely by the terms of his Departmental responsibility. He might well have been authorised by the Cabinet to say what was in their minds today. The hon. Gentleman has told us
  2556
  that the world is in too contused a state to make a statement on 16th April, but that presumably by 1st May—Labour Day—some decision will he arrived at.
  My experience of these matters leads me to wonder whether the announcement, when it comes, will be of the slightest use to the universities, to industry, or to the young men concerned. Our experience has been unfortunate in this respect. The attitude of the Government has been that in the disturbed state of the world decisions were impossible. I believe that that is an argument they will continue to use, and that the real point of the difference between hon. Members on these benches and hon. Members opposite resides in the fact that we believe the disturbed state of the world makes a provisional decision abundantly necessary, while they regard it as their excuse for want of planning. We have not had an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that this will not be the case, and I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division, in which case I shall go into the Opposition Lobby. What disturbs me about the present situation is that I cannot resist the impression, gained over a period of months, that the very frequent "stalling" on the Government Benches is what is really holding up a decision. It is not the disturbed state of the world, as we are constantly assured, but the confused state of the Labour Party's mind on the subject. It is not the disturbed state of the world which is causing delay. We know enough about the difficulties of the present situation to enable us to arrive at a provisional decision. What is holding up the decision is that any decision on this point would cause trouble in the Labour Party. It is the internal division of the party opposite, and not the external divisions in the world, which is preventing the decision being made—
  Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that internal divisions in the Labour Party will vanish by 1st May?
  Mr. Hoģģ: I hope that by the Whitsun Conference, at least, the Labour Party will have made up their mind. Perhaps it was to that that the hon. Gentleman was referring. It is not fair to ask that the affairs of this great country should be held in suspense on so vital a matter while the Labour Party make up their mind. There-

  2557
  fore, without the smallest sense of personal offensiveness to the Under-Secretary, who discharged an unpleasant task with notable distinction, I trust that the Opposition will go into the Lobby against the Government, in order to express their disapproval of their characteristic want of planning.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Under-Secretary is "tipped ' in many newspapers for early promotion, and if the ability to say absolutely nothing at great length, felicitously and disarmingly, is the main criterion for high office in the Socialist Party, then the hon. Gentleman has a bigger appointment in his pocket. I think the House has been disappointed at the absence of any statement from the Government, either for immediate or long-term purposes. We cannot allow the exceedingly lame defence which the hon. Gentleman put up to pass un-answered from the Opposition Front Bench. Members know that there is no subject on which their constituents, and those to whom we look for guidance and advice— educationists, in particular—are more concerned than this subject of length of service in the Armed Forces. My postbag is full. I am a school governor, and all of us know the difficulties in which school governors are placed. Many people are engaged in training for industry, and we know the difficulties in which industrialists and trade unionists find themselves. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), were abundantly justified in putting forward this Amendment today.
  The Under-Secretary has been at great pains to show the difficulties in which the Government are placed in coming to a rapid decision. But the Socialist Party did not always take so long in coming to a decision on the length of service in regard to conscription. In April, 1939, when the Military Training Bill was introduced, they did not even wait a week to make up their minds as to what period of service they thought proper—no period at all. The present Prime Minister told the government of the day:
  " You will appeal to us, but you will appeal in vain."
  2558
  And on the question of a fixed period for conscription the present Minister of Health described this and other aspects of conscription as
  " another squalid attempt by the Tories to defend themselves against a re-distribution of international swag."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May. 1939; Vol. 346, c. 2139.]
  The Socialist Party had thus a great many useful sources to draw upon in coming to a rapid decision at that time. Indeed, following their action, the Socialist Prime Minister of France said he was staggered at such an attitude in the United Kingdom. What effect that had on the will to resist in France only history will show.
  We, in that Bill, provided for six months' liability for military training for those between 20 and 21. Within a day or two the Socialist Party made up their mind to vote against that Bill, and against any period of compulsory service. This was only a few weeks after Hitler marched into Prague, and five months before the outbreak of the war. We are also entitled to claim that those were tumultuous times. The Government came to a definite decision as to the length of service. At that time we did not have the advantage of an Opposition Front Bench which was prepared to cooperate on the subject of a fixed period for compulsory service. I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour at that time, and I remember the many conversations we had in 1939 with the vice chancellors of the universities, the President of the Board of Education, in regard to technical training, and the teaching colleges, Members of Parliament—and what talks have the Government had with the University Burgesses?—the University Grants Committee, and innumerable trading and industrial bodies. I saw a great number of them myself, and I remember vividly what pains we were at to see that the compulsory period of training, from 20 to 21, was achieved with the minimum of disturbance.
  If I may interrupt the theme of my few remarks, there is one point of very considerable interest to a small number of people to which I would like to direct the attention of the Under-Secretary of State. It concerns the release from the Royal Air Force of people half way through university courses. I am thinking, in particular, of the long-term needs of agriculture and one constituent of mine —representative of a number, but not too

  2559
  many—who had done half his agricultural course before he was called up, his agricultural course being a bachelorship in science at a university where that was not an honours course. The university is precluded from asking for his early release as he was not working on an Honours course. His university career was interrupted and after a period of Service, which, as hon. Members will realise, in the case of these young men, having gone on not for one or two years, but for three or more years, he finds the Government's refusal to make up their minds before the university term starts in September absolutely intolerable. On behalf of that constituent and many others I urge the Government to look at this matter again with real and renewed vigour.
  In place of the statement that we had hoped to hear from the Under-Secretary of State, we have had nothing further than the very woolly statement by the Prime Minister on 4th March, a statement couched in phrases reminiscent of the speeches of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. He repeated, not for the first time, that we can make up our mind in this matter only when certain other things are settled—our commitments in the world and our international obligations under the United Nations.
  As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) pointed out, if we are to wait till those are settled, we shall have to wait a very long time, and the lives of not only this university generation, but a number of other generations will be partially wasted. The Under-Secretary referred to the suggestion that the Government were waiting for voluntary enlistment before they made up their mind, and said that nothing in the Prime Minister's speech could have that meaning read into it; but, in fact, the Prime Minister said that the Government were prevented by a number of factors, of which he expressly named the ignorance of the numbers of voluntary enlist-
  ments,as one, from coming to an early decision. I hope that we can have an interim report on the subject of voluntary enlistment in the Royal Air Force. It would be exceedingly interesting. That is one of the practical comments that we had expected to receive from the Under-Secretary of State.
  The hon. Gentleman made great play at the close of his speech with the difficulties in the world today, and compared them with the difficulties in the period after the last war, and even drew attention to the fact that in Poland then, a. perhaps in parts now, the war was still continuing years after the Great War, in 1921. But there is this difference. The Government of that time did not go on calling up' young men without giving them any indication of the period of service to which they would be liable. It is futile to compare the situation in 1918 and the situation now. In 1918 the Government, whatever in the eyes of later generations their demerits may have been, most certainly did know their own mind on this subject. The present Administration, tortured by past statements which, now that they have been confronted by the facts, they realise will not bear examination, and with their own followers having been bemused for many generations by some of their Election speeches, are now finding the utmost difficulty in reconciling their own party, whom they have themselves deluded, to the acceptance of compulsory service for a fixed period. Because of this, undergraduates at many universities, young apprentices hoping to start their apprenticeship, and education authorities all over the country, are being held up to ransom, and I hope the House will, by its vote, register most emphatically a protest against this intolerable delay by His Majesty's Government.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 124.

  Division No. 129.]

  AYES.

  [5.15 p.m.

  Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Barton, C.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

  Allighan, Garry

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Bellenger, F J.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Austin, H. L.

  Binns, J.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W T.

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Burden, T. W.

  Balfour, A

  Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H W

  Callagham, Jame.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Jones, P. Ascerley, (Hitchin)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  King, E. M.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Champion, A. J.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Scollan, T

  Chater, D.

  Kinley, J.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Chetwynd, Capl. G. R

  Kirby, B. V.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kirkwaod, D.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Cobb, F. A.

  Lavers, S.

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Shurmer, P.

  Collick, P.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Silverman, J, (Erdington)

  Collins, V. J.

  Levy, B. W.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Cook, T. F.

  Logan, D. G.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T C.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Longden, F.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  McAdam, W.

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Cove, W. G.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Daggar, G.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Smith, T (Normanton)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  McLeavy, F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Deer G.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Sparks, J. A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Stamford, W.

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E)

  Diamond, J.

  Martin, J. H.

  Strachey, J.

  Dobbie, W.

  Mathers, G.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Douglas, F- C. R.

  Medland, H. M.

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Edelman, M.

  Mitchison, Maj G. R.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Monslow, W.

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Edward:, John (Blackburn)

  Montague, F.

  Thurtle, E.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Moody, A. S.

  Tiffany, S.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Timmons, J.

  Ewart R.

  Morley, R.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Tolley, L.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Morris, P. (Swansea. W.)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. C.

  Foot, M. M.

  Mort, D. L.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Moyle, A.

  Usborne, Henry

  Fregman, Peter (Newport)

  Murray, J. D.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Nally, W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Gallacher, W.

  Naylor, T. E

  Walkden, E.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Walker, G. H.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthatmtow. E.)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Warbey, W. N.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Watson, W. M.

  Grey, C. F.

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Grierson, E.

  Paton, Mrs, F. (Rushciiffe)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  Pearson, A.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Perrins, W.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

  Hale, Leslie

  Piratin, P.

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

  Poole, Mai. Cecil (Lichfield)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Popplewell, E.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Harrison, J.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Herbison Miss M.

  Price, M. P.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Williamson, T.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Willis, E.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Ranger, J.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Hoy, J.

  Rankin, J.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roes-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.

  Yates, V. F.

  Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Reeves, J.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Irving, W. J.

  Rhodes, H.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  John, W.

  Robens, A

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Captain Bing.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Drewe C.

  Boothby, R.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Duthie, W. S

  Bowen, R.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Eccles, D. M.

  Bower, N.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Erroll, F. J

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Crowder, Capt. J F. E.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  2562

  2563

  Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

  Low, Brig. A. R W.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Smithers, Sir W.

  George, Maj. Rt. Hn G Lloyd (P'ke)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I of Wight)

  Spence, Maj. H R

  Gomme-Duncan, Col A. G

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife. E.)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J

  Haughton, S. G.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon Sir C.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Thomson Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C

  Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cireneester)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R A. F.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj C. E.

  Turton, R. H.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Neven-Spence, Major Sir B

  Wakefield, Sir W. W

  Hurd, A.

  Nioholson G.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H P

  Ward, Hon G R.

  Hutchison, Cot. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Jennings, R.

  Prescott, Stanley

  While, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Keeling, E H.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Raikes, H. V.

  Williams. C. (Torquay)

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Loro

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C (Hillhead)

  York, C.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Renton, D.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lennox-Boyd, A T.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Major Sir Thomas Dugdale

  Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)

  Scott, Lord W.

  and Air- Comdre Harvey.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  PAY, &C., OF THE AIR FORCE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £73,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defra the Expense of the Pay, &c., of the Air Force, which svill come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, in addition to the sum of £103,500,000 to he allocated for this purpose from the sum of £150,000,000 voted on account of Air Services generally."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

HERRING INDUSTRY
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move,
" That the Herring Industry (Amending) Scheme, 1945, under Section 2 (7) of the Herring Industry Act, 1935, a copy of which Scheme was presented on 22nd March, he approved."
The purpose of the Herring Industry (Amending) Scheme, which is now before the House, is to confer certain additional powers on the Herring Industry Board. This Board was set up in 1935 under the Herring Industry Act of that year which
2564
empowered the Board to prepare a scheme for the reorganisation, development and regulation of the industry, and it specified a number of powers which could be conferred on them by the scheme. The scheme had to be approved by Parliament. Such a scheme was duly made. Since then, however, the request has been made for further powers being conferred on the Board and it is accordingly proposed to amend the original scheme. The amending scheme confers three additional powers on the Board. There are further powers which, under the Herring Industry Acts, may be included in the herring industry scheme. Probably it might be an objection against the scheme which I am now submitting, that it does not confer enough, but these other matters which are involved are of a somewhat controversial nature and we have therefore picked out for the present scheme, the powers which are most urgently required, and about which there is general agreement. We have consulted the industry and there is agreement, in accordance with the statutory requirements, about the prcposed extension of the powers of the Board.
The three additional powers arc as follow. The 1935 scheme empowers the Board to make loans in connection with the construction, reconditioning and equipment of boats. The amending scheme substitutes in effect, in paragraph (a, 1) the word "provision" for the word "construction" as authorised by the

2565
Herring Industry Act, 1944. This alteration will enable the Board to assist a man in buying an existing boat as well as in the building of a new boat, and will be of great value at the present time, when many fishermen are hoping to purchase secondhand vessels which the Admiralty are now releasing. The second provision is in paragraph (a, 2). It provides additional loan-making powers to the Board, in accordance with the provision made in Section 61 of the Herring Industry Act, 1935. The inclusion of these powers will enable the Board to give assistance to societies or organisations for the purpose of acquiring nets and gear, fuel for boats and other fishing requirements. The third proposal is in Section 2 of the Herring Industry Act, 1944. It says that the Board may be given power to purchase boats and equipment for the purpose of chartering or hiring them to fishermen. The amendment proposes, under paragraph (c) to provide those additional powers, the need for which has been represented by several hon. Members. The men coming back from the Forces who are willing to give service in gathering the food we require cannot, in many instances, purchase boats, but can hire them. The amendment makes it possible for this to be done. This is a relatively small but I hope useful scheme. I commend it to Members of all parties, and I hope that this Motion will be agreed to.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Boothby: So far, this scheme has been a complete washout, as the Secretary of State for Scotland no doubt knows. We have to discuss whether the amended scheme will make it any less of a washout. I do not think it will. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the purchase of existing boats instead of newly constructed ones, and particularly those about to be released by the Admiralty. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the figures issued by the Admiralty only the other day. For a 75-ft. boat, which is the only craft of real use to the industry, the hull, at the launching stage, costs £3,750. Those are the terms offered to the fishermen. The complete boat, with engine, costs £6,750. In addition to that, they have to be reconditioned at a cost of not less than £2,000, making the total cost of a 75-ft. boat of the type
2566
held by the Admiralty and about to be sold to the industry, £8,250, as compared with about £3,000 to £4,000 before the war. That is not, on any calculation, an economic proposition for the herring industry. Before I come back to this point, I will ask a question. The word "requisites" I take to include nets. The question is, Do second-hand nets qualify for a grant or loan?
The point is important. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows that a new net is of no use for fishing. It has to be put into the water for two or three months before it can catch fish. The Government have made little or no attempt to make new nets available in recent months; and none of them will now be of any use until July. The only way in which the fisherman can get effective nets for immediate fishing is by the purchase of secondhand nets. I want to know whether the grants and loans cover the purchase of secondhand nets. If not, why not? It is a very vital point.
I confess I am bitterly disappointed with the operation of the Herring Industry Act, 1944, and of those schemes which preceded it. Those who took part in the passage of that Act will not easily forget it. It was at the peak hour of the doodlebug but we were much too enthusiastic about the herring fishing industry even to worry about the doodle-bugs. We were all led up the garden path. The Secretary of State for Scotland, then Mr. Thomas Johnston, spoke of the Bill in glowing terms, and of the scheme which was to be produced. It has turned out to be simply tall talk. Large sums, relative to this industry, were bandied about, and included in the text of the Bill. Now we know that it was only the Treasury up to their old tricks again. One of the favourite tricks of the Treasury is to use the phrase, "a sum not exceeding." In this case, the sums ranged from £500,000 to £750,000. They were mentioned in debate, and written into the text of the Bill. Everybody thought that the fishermen were to get this £500,000. They have turned out to be only a few paltry thousands of pounds. We should have known better, and have taken the figures only at their face value.
What is happening? The Board have laid it down that grants and loans are available only for
" successful and energetic fishermen."

2567
I ask the Secretary of State to think of the man aged 21 who joined up at the outbreak of the war and served throughout, on Admiralty service, and perhaps rose to the rank of skipper lieutenant by the end of the war. He had not much chance to become a "successful and energetic fisherman," because he was too young to have started fishing before the war. He may have been only 18 or 19 when the war broke out. Nevertheless, this is the very kind of man who now requires financial assistance. A fantastic position has been reached in respect of the qualification for the grant or loan. Either a fisherman must be possessed of "considerable means," in which case he does not need the grant, or, if he has only about 200—a man who served throughout the war could hardly be expected to have saved more than that out of his pay—he does not qualify for the grant. The net result is that practically nobody qualifies for a grant. Either a man has cash, in which case he does not need the grant; or he has no cash, in which case he does not get it. That is the position at the present moment. The number of applications for grants and loans have been few enough in all conscience: but the number turned down has been almost 90 per cent. The Act has hardly come into effective operation at all.
In this amending scheme there is just one ray of light. For the first time, and at long last, there is one reference to the ex-Serviceman as such. That is at least a step in the right direction, because these are surely the men to whom we most need to bring assistance. It is the young fisherman coming back from the Services whom we want to start up again; but, so far, we have not been able to do anything for them at all. I went recently to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on a deputation representing the British Legion. We asked for special treatment in these schemes for ex-Servicemen as such. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland told us categorically that he saw no reason why any distinction should be drawn between a man who had served in the Forces during the war, and another man who had been fishing in the ordinary course, and in many cases made a great deal of money. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that that was a most disgraceful statement to be made by a responsible Minister of the Crown. I cannot believe that he had Cabinet responsibility for it. [Inter-
2568
ruption.] I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Joint Under-Secretary said he saw no reason why the slightest distinction should be made between the ex-Serviceman as such and anybody else; and he applied that principle over the whole field of industry. That was a grave and most disquieting statement of policy. I say to the Secretary of State that, if he is not proposing to do something special to help the young ex-Servicemen who served magnificently right throughout the war to get back into the fishing industry, he will be making one of the mistakes of his life. Nevertheless, so long as boats remain at their present prices, and the present terms and conditions of granting loans continue, I personally should hesitate to advise any fisherman to make an application for a loan. Under existing conditions, he may well find himself burdened with a load of debt which will hang around his neck for many years to come.
I was in Peterhead, in my constituency, last weekend, and I had a discussion on the granting of loans at a meeting of fishermen. One of the young ex-Servicemen, who has just got back from the Forces, and wants to get to sea, and cannot do so at the moment, asked me what could be done. He pointed out the exorbitant price for boats now being charged by the Admiralty, the impossibility of getting nets, and the difficulty of the situation he was in, without any capital, in getting a grant or loan. I had to tell him of the observations of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and his answer was, "Ah, well, it is just as I thought, it will be the burroo ' for us for the next few years." Translating, for the benefit of the Sassenachs in this House, I may say that "burroo" in Scotland stands for unemployment exchange. That is the frame of mind induced by the schemes introduced up to date by the Government among the young fishermen who have just come back atter serving their country so magnificently for the past six years. It is a disastrous situation; and I wish 1 could feel—I cannot at the moment—that this scheme was anything like drastic enough to remedy it.
5.42 p.m.
Sir Basil Neven-Spence: There is nothing in this scheme to which one can object. It does not contain anything which is not in

2569
various Acts already. I was very much surprised the other day when I discovered that the Herring Board had not actually got power to make grants and loans for the acquisition of secondhand boats. All their powers were for building boats. I put down a Question to the Minister, and I do not know whether that was what woke up the Herring Board. They have been slow, considering the amount of pressure that has been put on the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture to deal with this question. It has now become a matter of urgency because. as a result of this pressure, the Admiralty are about to release a number of boats.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) dealt very adequately with the case of the young fisherman. I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to another class of fishermen who have suffered very severely as a result of the war. I want to know how far this amending scheme is to be used to help them. The men are those who had their boats requisitioned at a time when they were at a very low value indeed, owing to the depressed state of the herring industry. After one, two, three or four years' hiring, many of these boats were lost, and all the compensation these men are entitled to is the very depressed value at which the boats stood at the date of requisitioning. This is all tied up with the Act dealing with defence compensation. We thought we had found a hole, through which relief could be brought to these men but I am sorry to say that I got a letter from the Ministry of Transport yesterday to the effect that that is not the case. It says that it is specially desired to help men who are engaged in industry, or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take particular care to see that this amending scheme is made use of to help men who have lost their boats and have received in compensation a sum of money which is wholly inadequate to replace them.
There is another point about which he would perhaps say a word. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the interest on these loans will he 3½ per cent. repayable in 20 years. Under the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, as far as I can make out, the interest is 2½ per cent. repayable in three years. I do not know what the reason is for this very wide difference in
2570
terms. We can welcome this scheme because it gives the Herring Board powers which it ought to exercise as quickly as possible.
5.45 P.m.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I support the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) about ex-Service fishermen having priorities and special treatment. While one welcomes the amendment of the law, one hopes that under it better opportunities will be given to the actual working fisherman rather than an extension of privileges under the scheme as amended to the shore owners, in financing the new fleet we hope to see come to Scotland to prosecute this industry. At the moment, even with this amendment, the cost of boats, nets and gear makes it virtually impossible for ex-Servicemen, or others who are of poor economic status, to acquire new vessels. I am repeating myself, but when the Act went through in 1944 I made a prophecy—quite an obvious one, hardly worthy of the name of prophecy—that men coming back with an ordinary Service gratuity could not hope to take advantage of the scheme as it stood. Even with this amendment, I cannot foresee any enthusiasm among the men in my constituency who have been fishermen and are the sons of fishermen, and hope to become fishermen again.
A great deal more must be done. There is no mention yet of the training which hon. Members, including myself, proposed on the technical side for the new entrants to this industry, who have to learn the whole technique of the diesel-engined vessel and bring their fishing methods up to date. They hope to make a vocation of the herring industry, with a certain guarantee of security in what is, we trust, going to be, in their own interests and that of the nation, a wholetime job. We have not gone nearly far enough on the financial side to meet the needs of these men who are the first legitimate claimants for any assistance this House can give. We, should not pamper the shore owners and others who are out, for their own private profit, to finance other people going to sea, at any rate, until we have seen that these men, who, during the most profitable years of the industry—shame to say, during the war—were elsewhere serving the nation, have first the opportunity of acquiring vessels and of getting

2571
the greatest possible financial assistance to set themselves up in the industry.
I am extremely alarmed at the state of the fishing industry, not only in Scotland generally, but particularly, in my own constituency. Today we have there what is relatively in proportion to population—and to able-bodied population—the highest record of unemployment in Great Britain. Two months ago we reached the figure of 1,200 able-bodied men unemployed—in Lewis alone. Today it must be over the 1,500 mark, but I have not the most recent figures. Taking the whole of the Outer Hebrides alone, we must nearly have reached the 2,000 level. That is a serious state of affairs. We have another record, and again it is in proportion to the population. We contributed the greatest number of able-bodied men to the Services of this country to the sea-going Services, both the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy, and ancillary services of all kinds. For that reason we have a special claim on the Government and the Secretary of State, and especially on the Treasury—because these men have given what cannot be represented in pounds, shillings and pence. Those will not be "meaningless symbols," if put in the proper context in which my right hon. Friend, the Lord Privy Seal used them some time ago. Pounds, shillings and pence are the lifeblood which we have to infuse into these islands, because it is as much a social problem for the whole nation as an immediate personal problem for the men and area concerned. If we intend to maintain these communities, and I think in the interests of the nation we must do so, then we must rehabilitate the industry and give men an opportunity, to the limit to which this House can go in generosity, and in every other form of assistance we can give, to build for themselves and their families a livelihood, and security for themselves and their children their native land.
This is an honourable calling—the calling of the sea, the calling of the fishermen. Tributes have been paid to them in this House during the war and, in a less practical way, before the war. We had derelict areas then, and this House accepted a Motion in 1936 that in the Islands of Scotland and the Highlands the conditions were conditions of distress. They were described as a "distressed area" and for all practical purposes they were
2572
accepted as such but. "for geographical reasons," as the Scottish Office then argued, they could not be scheduled as a distressed area. But surely geographical disadvantage strengthens the case for help. Surely, there you have a more especial case than any other in Great Britain; and, when you add to that the fact that today you have nearly 2,000 able bodied men, passed as men of first-class physical condition for war service, and praised as men of first-class performance during the war, unemployed, I think it is high time that the Government gave priority to doing all they can to assist these men to rehabilitate themselves in an industry which is so important to the nation.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: At the end of Questions, the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) was very anxious to know when this question would come up, because he wishes to take part in this Debate, but in view of the fact that he is not here, the hon. Member for West Fife will take it up.
I remember, when we were discussing this subject in 1944, I said, from the other side of the House, that every fisherman who returned from Service who was capable of sailing a boat and desired to do so, should be able to get a boat. Many hon. Members have taken up the slogan in connection with pensions, "Fit for service, fit for pension." I say that every fisherman who has been taken into the service of the Admiralty, if he is fit for the Service, is fit for carrying on the fishing industry, and a boat should be placed at his disposal There should be no hesitation about that at all. Some hon Members opposite, when on this side of the House, were very much astonished that I should be advocating such a system of private enterprise, but I am all for the fishermen getting boats and equipment, and the opportunity to follow what the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) has called a great and honourable calling, one of the original callings, with agriculture.
I have paid many visits to Aberdeen and to Peterhead—not the prison—and have found the conditions amongst the fishermen deplorable. I am certain, however, that bad as they may be in the immediate days ahead, though some may

2573
have to go on the "bureau "—although I would prefer that not one of them went on to it—I am certain that this House will never allow the fishing industry to go back to the condition in which it was during the period between the two wars. I have had a lot of experience in the North of Scotland and at Loch Fyne of the condition of fishermen, and it is almost impossible for hon. Members who have had no such contact to understand the deplorable conditions of the fishing industry and the fishermen at that time. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had many discussions with people interested in the industry, but I want to see the right hon. Gentleman working out boldly, on the basis of the 1944 Act and the Amendment, a general scheme for the industry, to ensure that every fisherman who is capable of going to sea and sailing a boat shall have a boat supplied, and that the industry is organised. It has been in a disorganised condition for years. Fishermen would go to sea and bring back catches, never knowing whether the catches would be properly disposed of or not. The organisation was always chaotic, and very often it was not the fishermen or the consumers who benefitted from the catch, but the people in between the fishermen and the community. I have been in the market many times when fish was scarce and demands were coming in from different places, and I have seen one man in the market buying up the catch of another member of the market without having touched the catch or the boxes of fish, but making very big profits out of buying from one to sell to another. I know the Secretary of State is deeply interested in this question, and his experts should work on the financial plmi not only so that the fishermen may have an opportunity to go and fish, but they should work out a broad general plan to ensure the organisation of the industry for the benefit of the fishermen themselves.
I see that the hon. Member for East Fife has just come into the House. I felt it was necessary to try to hold the fort until he arrived, but I will conclude by saying that I hope the scheme will be worked out in such a way that the fishermen and the consumers will be able to rely upon it, and, as a consequence, our people will get a good and healthy food
2574
and the fishermen will get a good and deservedly high standard of living.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) among his other qualities shows always a great friendliness towards other Fifers in the House, and I express gratitude for the courtesy he has extended to the county and to me also this afternoon. I apologise to the House, and especially to the Secretary of State. I was most anxious to hear his statement and to take part in the Debate, but I did not know that it had actually begun.
I attach the greatest importance to this amending Order, particularly to that part of it which enables the Herring Industry Board to charter rather than to sell vessels. The House is aware that I have in recent months been pressing the Government very hard to consider the dire straits of the fishermen in my constituency. In November last, half of my constituent fishermen were idle; today, three-quarters of them are idle. Why? Because there are not sufficient boats—
Mr. Boothby: Or nets.
Mr. Stewart: I am coming n to nets—with which they can go to sea. ''Our chief concern in Fife is boats, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State informed me a few days ago that he thought that at least 15 new or additional boats were wanted. Fifteen boats is a considerable number in a limited part of the coast such as that which I represent. Fifteen boats would give employment to many men. As a matter of fact I think the Secretary of State is underestimating rather than overestimating the case at the present time. I believe the number required is greater.
I have been endeavouring, with not very great success, to persuade the Government, and eventually I had to appeal to the Prime Minister, to release for fishing purposes some of the boats now owned by the Navy. The Prime Minister, after, no doubt, a general strafe round the Departments, was able to inform me that a considerable number of motor fishin,, vessels were to be released for sale to fishermen. But as I have always pointed out, these boats, while good enough for tiding us over the present period of 15 months or so, until new boats are built, are not entirely

2575
suited to the industry. I do not think a great many fishermen will purchase these M.F.Vs; but large numbers would charter them. I have discovered, however, that the Admiralty have no power to charter these vessels. I ask the Scottish Secretary to represent to the Cabinet, particularly to the First Lord of the Admiralty, the necessity for giving the Admiralty power to charter vessels, as we are now giving the Herring Industry Board power to do. that were done, I feel certain that, in Fife at all events and possibly elsewhere, considerable numbers of fishermen would apply for such charters and would hire those boats for a year, two years, or perhaps more, until the up-to-date vessels with which the Herring Industry Board is experimenting, are ready to operate.
The powers taken by the Herring Board to charter arise out of the recommendations of the Herring Committee, a prominent member of which was the Provost of Anstruther. Many men returning from the war without means and perhaps without friends to whom they can turn for the very large capital sum involved in purchasing boats today would probably find it much easier to hire boats. I am glad the Herring Board is to be given this power.
I think it is not out of Order to ask the Secretary of State to what extent it is proposed to use these new powers. How many boats is it proposed to build? There must be some financial provision behind the Order. To what extent is the House committed; what sum is involved? The funds of the Herring Board are voted by this House; how far can they go for this purpose? Is the Secretary of State to ask for an additional grant? I feel he ought to provide a very considerable sum of money for the Board to purchase boats for the purpose of chartering them to men returning from the war. I would be glad it he could tell us what the programme is, how many boats he has in mind and in what period they are to be built?
Or is this Order to represent merely an easy-going programme for the Herring Board during the next five or ten years? I hope that is not going to be the case and I have every reason to believe that it will not be so. The Board is composed of men of considerable energy and sympathy for the trade, but unless the Government provide drive behind the Board and provide finance and above all
2576
facilities for acquiring essential equipment, nothing effective will be done. What are the facilities to be? One cannot get engines for the boats today. The Minister of Supply told me the other day, under a good deal of pressure, that the manufacturers of fishing boat engines have now been instructed to show preference to fishermen over private yachts and, I believe, over certain exports. But does the right hon. Gentleman know the terms of that instruction to the engine makers? Is it a real instruction? Does it mean anything? Will it mean that I can get engines which I cannot get now for the men for whom I have been fighting all these months? Does it mean that the Herring Board will have power not only to acquire hulls, but also the engines, which are vital? And if these boats are built and chartered will they have the gear? The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has drawn attention to the fact that there are no nets. What is being done to ensure that the Board, if not the unfortunate fishermen, are to get nets for the boats?
I have put a number of questions to the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure he will not regard it unfair or unreasonable that he should answer them. I can assure him that the industry will regard this Order as of very little value unless the answers are given with the greatest definition. I congratulate him on bringing this matter forward. It should have been brought forward a long time ago. I press him now that it has been produced and will be welcomed in all quarters of the House not to make it valueless through the lack of real power and drive.
6.8 p.m.
Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Some years ago a right hon. Member of this House was told to "Speak up for England, Arthur." It seems to me that in this Debate it is time someone spoke up for England. Every speaker, so far, has spoken for Scotland and I am certain that people who read the Debate will assume that the herring industry is a Scottish industry, whereas the herring, of course, is at its finest maturity when caught off the English coast, particularly off the coast of my own constituency.
Mr. Boothby: I think I must ask for your Ruling on this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

2577
The hon. and gallant Member has made a mistake. The herring is at its finest off the coast of Aberdeenshire.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think this is drawing a red herring across the question under discussion.
Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I must rest content with saying that I do not think the herring either in England or Scotland can be beaten anywhere in the world.
The herring industry in England must be built up if we are to get rid of places which can be classed as distressed areas. I hope the provisions about ex-Service men and so forth will be interpreted very widely. I also hope that the provision regarding people who have been engaged in the industry will not only apply to the fruitful years before the war, but will be interpreted in the widest sense. The shoals are there and there is the prospect of colossal catches off the coast of my constituency, where the industry could be built up to what it was in its heyday.
It is important to my town that we should get this basic industry started, so that it can, in the long run, bring prosperity back to us. In the short run, it is important in relation to the food problem in Europe. If we in Yarmouth could provide each German with one herring, and other places could provide each German with two potatoes and a slice of bread per day, we could solve the problem of starvation this year. It is to be hoped that the industry will be of great help to this country, and also in solving the crucial problem which is facing us in Europe today.
I was interested in the provisions relating to freshing, curing, kippering and processing, because I have been trying to impress on business men, and on people coming from the Forces with capital, the possibilities there are in this direction for investment. There is a great future in my district, and no doubt in others, for the processing of herring and other fish, and linking that up with the preservation of other kinds of food. It is an industry which has never been worked properly. Here is a chance, and I hope that when we decide on this scheme the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries will not he content with working out their scheme in the Ministry, but
2578
will go to the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Transport and see that there is proper coordination, in order to make the herring industry a really big new industry in the East of England. I hope that this scheme is only a beginning. It is but a drop in the ocean, or, shall I say, in the herring shoal. We have the chance to revitalise an old-established industry which had almost collapsed in Eastern England, and to build it up into a basic industry which will last for years to come. I hope that the Secretary of State, for Scotland, will assure us that he intends to show some interest in the herring industry in England.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. Alex. Anderson: I must disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn). I believe myself that the herring is only at its very best when it passes out of the Pentland Firth along the Caithness coast, coming as fast as it can from the Hebrides, seeking a less salubrious area further South. I would like to give my blessing to this Bill as one who has been actively engaged in this industry. I feel sometimes that we do not approach the problem from the proper angle. It is not a matter of providing boats or nets or engines. The industry has been depressed since 192.4. That has not been due to lack of nets. With modern catching power the danger of any herring fishing is unregulated landings of fish, with no provision made for proper processing or proper marketing.
I would particularly impress on the Secretary of State one part of this amended scheme, to which he should give the full force of his authority, that is, the development of scientific research and technique in dealing with herrings. Unless we can get the herring treated in a modern fashion, the markets that we are at present finding on the Continent because of the needs of hunger will not persist into that period when we in this country will be looking for a higher standard of living. I particularly urge this point upon my right hon. Friend, since I believe that of all fishing, herring fishing is the most important, because of the tremendous amount of shore employment which it gives. It is not merely the catching and landing of herring which is important, but the ancillary industries, such as barrelmaking, hoopmaking, kippering,

2579
netmaking, ropemaking, canning and the procuring of salt. All these industries help to make our countryside not merely prosperous because of our proximity to a fishing port but make the hinterland a busy hive of ancillary activities.
Passing from the processing and preparation aspect, I turn to the fact that modern fishing requires a craft of such extent that the ordinary fishermen cannot face the capital charges; so that, unless this scheme is administered sympathetically and rightly, we shall have the industry getting into the hands of the shore corporations. These can, at all times, secure a profit by laying off sufficient ships to make the catching power of the remainder meet the demands of the market—laying fishermen idle so that shore owners can secure a profit out of a restricted catch. That will happen if these loans are given, in an excessive degree, to the shore corporations, and it the ordinary fisherman is not treated so as to make it possible for a young man, who has given good service in the Navy during the war, who is ambitious and knows his job, to become not merely a paid deck hand in some boat, but, after a time, a share-owner in that boat, able to take pride in the condition of his ship and the product he is providing. We must ask the Secretary of State to see that the widest possible interpretation is given to the terms of this scheme, in order that the ordinary primary producer may have an opportunity to do more than be a pawn in the ancient game of catching fish. I think the proposed amendments of the scheme are wide enough to give the Secretary of State and the Herring Board an opportunity to put this industry once more upon its feet. There is no industry more important; there is no better food, than this product and there is no finer class of men than the men who go down to the sea in drifters, to catch the herring.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. Scollan: I wish to deal with a phase of this subject which has so far not been discussed. I have been under the impression for a long time that a separate Ministry of Fishing is required in this country, not one attached to the Ministry of Agriculture. It was found necessary, in the state of agriculture before the war, to have some kind of organisation, but in the fishing industry and the herring industry
2580
there was no organisation of any kind. Working on the distributive side—in which I was engaged for many years—I have watched boats coming in with great catches, and seen the buyers coming down and selecting exactly what they wanted. Because there were no facilities in that particular point on the West coast of the Clyde, apart from one or two little backdoor places where some curing, kippering, etc., was done, whole boatloads of fish had to be thrown back into the sea. There is not one iota of difference between the position today and what it was in those days. Things have not advanced at all.
This proposal now before us does not propose to alter the position in any way. It only proposes to give a kind of compensation to the men who have served in the Forces during the war, to put them back into a postwar job. There is no attempt to deal with the fishing industry or the herring industry. I can remember when the finest herring in the world, coming from Loch Fyne, were sold in the streets, eight and 12 for 6d. There was a time, when fishermen brought in their catches, and everyone in the population of the West of Scotland took the opportunity of buying and selling fish. Even the unemployed did so, and it helped to get us out of a difficulty. Instead of that, there is now a chaotic condition and a scarcity of the fish which is teeming round our coasts.
I think the greatest disgrace in the administration of this nation's affairs—and I would commend this point to the attention of the Secretary of State—is the fact that we as an island, with the greatest potentialities for fishing in the whole world, have to import fish from Newfoundland. It is a disgrace the blame for which should be attached to lack of organising ability on the part of past Governments. I sincerely hope the present Government will bring forward something which is better than a mere palliative of this kind, to deal with what is a very great problem.
6.21 p.m.
Mr. J. J. Robertson: I wish to add a word in praise of these measures which have been brought forward. It is impossible for this industry, one which has been neglected probably more than any other British industry, to be rescued in the short space

2581
of a few months after long years of neglect by previous Governments. The scheme which is now brought forward amending the Act which was passed by the Coalition Government shows that that Government did not take a wide enough view of the problem. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland upon bringing this matter forward. Particularly, I would like to say how happy we feel on this side of the House about the arrangements which, I hope, will shortly be made for the processing of the fresh herring. In that, I think, lie great possibilities for the expansion of this industry. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that we can look forward, as a result of the application of science to this industry, to a time in the very near future when the British housewife will be able to have fresh herring every day in the week, should she so desire. There is no reason why that should not be the case as a result of the introduction of quick freezing. I hope that this system may be developed and expanded in the greatest possible measure.
It is true that there is a scarcity of boats and nets. I hope that the Secretary of. State, when he comes to allocate the available boats, will remember that there are other places in Scotland where there are unemployed fishermen besides Fifeshire, on whose behalf a special plea was put forward by the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). In my own constituency I am told that we could man something like ten boats with unemployed men. There are other constituencies in other parts of Scotland where that could be done. I hope that in the allocation of these boats my right hon. Friend will have regard to the needs of ex-Servicemen, particularly those who lost their boats miring the war. They should have first priority.
There is another problem to which I have been trying to draw the attention of this House, and that is the problem of neglected harbours. Unless we can have these harbours repaired and put into a proper state to receive the boats when they come in with the fish, then we shall not get very far. I was in my constituency a few days ago and I watched the boats as they were coming in and were having to wait until the tide changed before they could land their fish. Those boats were
2582
waiting for two or three hours. During that time, of course, the fish was deteriorating. We find not only one defect in this industry, but a whole series of defects which will have to be tackled with courage, and very quickly. The state of the industry is the result of long years of neglect. I hope—and I believe my hope is not misplaced—that in this Government we see prospects of, at last, the requirements of the fishing industry being tackled in a methodical way and thereby fishermen will get that justice for which they have looked in vain to previous Governments.
6.25 p.m.
Winģ-Commander Millinģton: We have listened to Members from the fishing ports debating these provisions mainly from the point of view of their constituency interests. It is perfectly proper that Members should come to this Chamber and debate those interests. There are, however, wider interests in connection with the fishing industry which ought to be mentioned. We have heard of the shortage of nets and boats and of the other problems which confront fishermen throughout this island kingdom of ours, but I hope the Secretary of State will bear in mind consumer interests when these provisions are further considered by his Department. We had an occasion at Question time a few weeks ago when the whole House was made to laugh at my expense, and I lughed, too. The laughter was caused by the Parliamentary-Secretary to the Ministry of Food on a matter connected with the loss of fish at Billingsgate Market. A question was raised by an hon. Member stating that during one weekend some 40 tons of fish were destroyed because, through bad marketing and distributive facilities, the fish had gone to rot. Forty tons of fish were wasted out of 4,300 tons.
We are living in a world where there is a shortage of food. The fact that 40 tons of fish were destroyed because there had been some breakdown in the distributive machinery, is a reflection upon the whole administration. I suggest that, as this wastage of food consisted of a highly nutritious catch by our fishermen—part of it even the herring we are debating—it is a disgrace. I hope the system will be rectified. I represent a rural constituency where we are very grateful whenever a man knocks at our door, once a week, purveying fish for our consumption. We

2583
very rarely receive fresh herring and even more rarely the kippers which are produced by the herring industry. I am concerned that in the reorganisation of the fishing industry of this country we should have some positive provision for the total consumption of the catch which comes into our fishing ports. I must admit with regret that I do not see this provision in the scheme we are discussing this evening. For example, I want to feel that the Government have well in mind plans for a major canning industry, particularly in respect to the herring catch. I ask the Secretary of State to state, when he winds up, if he has in mind provisions for the modernisation not only of distribution but for the preservation of the catches of the herring industry. If he has not those matters in mind, will he at least give a promise that there is some expectation for the uture that there will be no further wastage of the magnificent catches which we can confidently expect in the next few years from the herring fleet?
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Westwood: I assure the House that I do want to do something useful to help one of the finest bodies of men that we have in England or Scotland at the present time—those engaged in the fishing industry. If we cannot get men in the herring industry, we shall not have that wonderful reservoir of manpower on which we were able to fall back during the last two great wars, and particularly the last one. If we had not had that reservoir of men, who knew the dangers of the sea and who were willing to take all the risks associated with saving this nation from the attacks of our enemies, we should have been in a very bad position today. Consequently, I want to do what I can to help those engaged in the herring industry.
I did not suggest, when I introduced this amending scheme, that it was the last word and I have no complaint about the manner in which it has been received. Not one hon. Member who has taken part in the Debate has objected to the provisions of the Scheme. Therefore, I am justified in saying, that, having got the approval of the industry itself, and now, having got the approval of all who have taken part in this Debate, I have done something useful for the industry which I am seeking to serve. After all, I wa.s brought up in a fishing village. It is all
2584
right for the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to talk of Buckhaven, but I have jumped from the pier more than once when it was not so easy to do so as it has since become. There we had a fishing community who taught me something of the energy and enthusiasm which they showed in trying to win the harvest of the deep.
I repeat that I want to do something useful to help this industry. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has already pointed out that there is a ray of light here so far as ex-Service men are concerned. I do want to do something for the ex-Service man, and one proposal which I put to the House in introducing the scheme specifically states:
" including in particular persons who have given service in H.M. Forces."
It may be only a ray of light, and I am not making the claim that the full blast of sunshine will come on the fishing industry as the result of this Scheme. It will not, but it is quite possible that there may be more than one amending order. We are trying to get more agreement, to get something that is noncontroversial, and I think that, so far, we have succeeded. It is hardly fair to talk about delay or the ineffectiveness of the operation of the 1944 Act. We could not operate that Act fully during the war, and even this Scheme, which I have introduced today, is a long drawn-out procedure under the 1935 Act, and I was not responsible for that Act. I assure hon. Members that I want to see this Scheme, which I am now amending, applied in the very widest interpretation, both in the chartering and hiring of boats and in the giving of the loans.
A number of points were raised by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). In reply to one of them, may I say that it is not for me, as I have no responsibility in connection with the Admiralty, to give the answer, but I will draw the attention of the Admiralty to the question of hiring some of their -boats directly to those engaged in the fishing industry.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would the Secretary of State, in case that endeavour does not come off, also give the Herring Industry Board powers to purchase these motor fishing vessel.; from the Admiralty,

2585
in order that the Board may hire them quickly in the course of the next few months?
Mr. Westwood: I have been too long at this Box to. give a definite pledge unless I know I can fulfil it. What the hon. Member has suggested will receive full consideration. Beyond that I cannot go until I have had time to discuss the suggestions he has made. The provisions of the Herring Industry scheme were suspended at the beginning of the war, but some were revived in January, 1945, to enable the Herring Industry Board to undertake the preparatory work with a view to its future activities, and I propose to revive the remainder immediately, so that the Board may take charge of production and of the export side of the herring industry this year. In the small amending scheme which I have put before the House today, I cannot deal with all the problems of the industry, but we will at least try to do something here, in agreement with the industry, and now, apparently, with the complete agreement of both sides of the House.
Mr. Boothby: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with the point which I raised about loans or grants for second-hand nets?
Mr. Westwood:Certainly I will, but, at the moment, I think this must not be taken as a pledge. I do not see why powers should not be used to buy secondhand nets, and, if it is possible for that power to be used, the suggestion will receive not only sympathetic but favourable consideration so far as my advice to the Board is concerned.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the Minister say what number of boats he expects to get, and when?
Mr. Westwood: I have tried to be very fair with the House, and have said that all points raised would be looked into. I want the Order to be applied as widely as possible. I cannot say offhand just the number of boats required, but I know of no limits that have been placed on the Board's activities to give effect to the amending scheme which I am now submitting for the approval of the House.
Resolved:
" That the Herring industry (Amending) Scheme, 1945, under section 2 (7) of the Herring Industry Act, 1935, a copy of which Scheme was presented on 22nd March, be approved."

INDIA (FAILURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY)
6.37 p.m.
The Under-Sceretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move,
"That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act. 1935, by the Governor of Madras on 3oth October, 1939, and of his Proclamations varying the same issued on 15th February, 1943, and 29th September, 1945, copies of which were presented to this House on 28th November, 1939 It:4h March, 1943, and 12th October, 1945, respectively."
As the House is aware, the Province of Madras, in common with a number of other Provinces, has been under the direct rule of the Governor of the Province since October, 1939, when the Leaders of the Congress Party of India instructed their party representatives in the various Provinces in which the Congress Party had a majority, thereby exercising the function of government, to withdraw. As a consequence, it was necessary for the Governor of the Province to take over the powers of the Legislature which, as the House is aware, he is empowered to do under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Elections have recently taken place in the Provinces and, indeed, in all cases where the election has been completed, with the exception of Madras, the leader of the majority party has been entrusted with the formation of a Ministerial Government. In the case of Madras, the election was completed on 30th March, and the results up to date are to the effect that 161 seats have been secured by supporters of the Congress Party and 39 seats are distributed among the Muslim Party and other parties in the Province. Unfortunately, the majority Congress Party are unable, up to date, to decide who shall be their leader and thereby be entrusted with the formation of a Ministry. The Proclamation, under which the Governor of Madras is at present exercising direct rule, expires on 29th of this month. Unless a Ministerial Government were to be formed before that date, it would be necessary for the Governor's powers to be

2587
extended for this Proclamation to be continued.
On 5th April a telegram was received from the Governor of the Province informing the India Office that there was this dispute about the leadership and, in consequence of that telegram, a telegram was sent from the India Office on 8th April drawing the attention of the Governor and his advisers to this problem which might arise under Section 93 and to the fact that the proclamation would come to an end on the 29th of this month. On Friday of last week a telegram was received from the Governor saying that there was little sign of the dispute being settled and suggesting that it would be preferable to ask this House to extend the life of the proclamation. I am here tonight to ask the House to extend the life of the Proclamation so as to cover any possible contingency which might arise in the event of no agreement being arrived at. It will be possible, as the House knows, to revoke the Proclamation at any time following an agreement among the majority party in the Madras Legislature. The Governor has power to do that, but I am asking the House tonight to agree to an extension of the life of the Proclamation in order to safeguard the position in view of the present dispute.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: It is very regrettable that the Government have had to come to the House with this Order. We are quite aware of Orders under Section 93, but the House should clearly realise the position with which we are now faced as the Parliament about whose work arid about whose influence there is so much criticism in India. We find ourselves in a position where elections have been held in the Province of Madras—a Province which we have always regarded as being exceptionally enlightened and one in which the working of the reforms, on the whole, has been satisfactory with the exception of the last few years—and where the Congress Party have a very large majority of 161 as against their opponents 39. At a moment when we are told that self-government in desired in India, we are also told by the Government that the Congress Party in Madras, unlike other well-regulated parties in this House, is quarrelling about its leadership, and is unable to form a constitutional Government.
2588
This is an extremely disappointing sign, coming at the present moment. I should have thought it would have been possible for Congress, with whatever well. wishers or friends they may have in Madras, so to resolve their differences that out of their immense majority, they could, at least, attempt to form a Government before 29th April. I am sorry that the Governor, who is, I know, one of our most distinguished men, has thought it necessary to appeal to the home Government to come to this House for an Order. I should have thought there was sufficient time for negotiation before 29th April, to do without this Order. We on this side have no desire that there should be a reversion to Governor government in Madras. I would like to put this fairly and squarely before the Presidency of Madras. What is the position? In all the Indian Provinces, with the exception of Orissa, the Central Provinces and Bihar, all India has reverted to responsible government as we would desire her to do. Madras is a place where, thanks to the majority, the issues are perfectly clear, and I should have thought Madras would have been the first Province to revert to the ordinary constitutional working of democracy under the 1935 Act.
It appears to be impossible to get Congress to make up its mind about leadership unless the Under-Secretary comes down and gets this House to pass an Order, which will act as a sort of sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the Congress Party, so that unless they make up their minds by the 29th, they know the Governor will resume rule. It is necessary to speak bluntly on this occasion, because the Under-Secretary has had to come to this House on other occasions on vital Bills and Measures, and other matters which ought to have been decided on the Indian sub-continent itself. On a previous occasion the Under-Secretary had to come to the House on the Indian Divorce Act, because the High Courts of India were unable to follow the developing process of legislation and watch its effects, with the result that a mistake was made in the High Courts and certain people who thought they had been or had not been divorced were in a state of despair and irritation. As I say, this is not the first time that the Under-Secretary has had to come to this House with matters that ought not to have been

2589
brought here. This is particularly the case in regard to the Presidency of Madras.
What will the position be? We shall, I presume, pass this Order because, in the circumstances, if the House does not pass it, it will be impossible for Madras to be governed under Section 93 and it will have no government at all, and the powers under the Government of India Act will lapse. Therefore, it is necessary for us to pass the Order, but, at the same time, it is a distinct indication to the Congress in Southern India—in Madras—that they should make some attempt to resolve their differences before 29th April. Questions of leadership in this country are solved with the greatest of ease and, despite journalistic prognostications, we never have any difficulty. I should have thought the Congress Party in Madras—I will not enter into personalities because that is not our affair—could, out of their majority, have indicated to the Governor who would be a suitable leader and that, at the same time, the Governor would have been able to find from this majority a responsible Government.
It would be out of Order on this occasion to mention anything about the major Indian constitutional question which is being discussed in another part of India, and I have no intention of so doing, but I would like to make an appeal to the Presidency of Madras that it would be a better augury for the working out of the vital questions of India, if they resolved their differences and proceeded to proper constitutional government. I hope that if the Under-Secretary says anything further he will echo those words. It is an intolerable situation that, because a vast majority party is unable to make up its mind about individual personalities, they should have to come to the Imperial Parliament for Orders to enable the Governor to rule by himself. That is all I have to say on the matter. I trust those words will have some effect and that, as a result, it will be found that a reversion to constitutional government will be possible and that the Presidency will proceed with that fair wind which we wish it to have.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am certain that this House wishes to send
2590
a message of confidence to the Acting Governor, Sir Henry Knight, who is a most distinguished member of the Indian Civil Service and who has a most remarkable record in Bombay. In Bombay he was entirely responsible for the introduction of the system of rationing, which is a model not only for the rest of India but, perhaps, for the whole world. There is no man in India more suitable for the position of Acting Governor than Sir Henry Knight. I am stare that if there are steps which he can take to resolve this difficult position, they will be taken, and I hope they will be successful. I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) in deploring this situation. It is, indeed, a bad omen for India if, in Madras of all Provinces, constitutional government cannot be re-established. I beg and pray all Indian statesmen to ponder this situation seriously in the light of their objective, which surely is that the day shall come when there will be no Section 93 and no British Parliament to which to appeal, and perhaps no British Governor on to whose shoulders the burden of responsibility can be thrown. It seems to me that if at this juncture of India's destinies petty bickering over questions of leadership and political plotting should stand in the way of a full resumption of provincial self-government, then indeed the outlook for India's future is dark. I know it is not in Order to refer to what is going on at New Delhi, but, as a friend of India—and indeed, we are all in this House friends of India, without distinction of party—I beg Indian political parties to take warning by this sinister development.
There is one other factor which comes into play in Madras, and I hope it has nothing to do with the political crisis. That is the fact that within the next few months much of Madras Presidency will be passing through a period of acutest famine. As one who has just been to India I registered a vow that I would neglect no opportunity of hammering home to this House our duty towards India. If we expect India not to let herself down, we must not let India down so far as allocations of grain are concerned. It will be a lasting disgrace to us if we allow one single grain to be diverted from our fellow subjects in India to any other part of the world unless it is absolutely necessary. I notice your

2591
warning look, Mr. Speaker, and I will resume my seat.
6.53 P.m.
Mr. Sorensen: Inevitably speeches on this matter will be very brief and somewhat reiterative. What I am about to say reiterates what has been said before. I naturally express my very great hope that the unfortunate differences will be resolved at an early date and that the threat which is held out will be withdrawn. Therefore, I endorse what has been said by the Under-Secretary of State for India, and I support the appeal which is made to our friends in India to resolve their differences so that this unfortunate proposal shall not be carried into effect. I do not think we necessarily assist our Indian friends by suggesting that this is a bad omen for the future. It concerns only one part of India and, serious as it is, in other parts of India Provincial Governments have been formed. Again we should appreciate that these unfortunate difficulties are not unknown in other parts of the world besides India. Sometimes Governments are held up because of very sincere, though lamentable, differences. We are not entirely unaware of similar difficulties in our own country, even though they have not reached the very grave stage which they have reached in Madras. Therefore, I urge on hon. Members not to overplay the note that this is a very had omen or a bad augury for the future.
On the contrary, while we must make our appeal, as we shall make it, to our Indian friends to resolve their differences for the sake of India and for the sake of future self-government, we should also point out to them that, if in other parts India has succeeded in establishing self-government in the Provinces, it should be possible in Madras as well. For that reason, I hope we shall be able to accept this proposal with the hope and understanding that directly there is in this major Indian party in Madras agreement regarding leadership, this proposal shall be withdrawn. I would like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that that will be so. If that assurance is given, then, with great reluctance, we shall pass this proposal, but at the same time make a fervent appeal that at no distant date the Congress Party in Madras will resolve its internal difficulties and, for the sake
2592
of Madras and India as a whole, the Province will be able to re-establish self-government.
Mr. A. Henderson: With the permission of the House, I would like to echo the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) in expressing the hope that this dispute will be quickly settled. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) that the sooner the dispute is settled, the sooner will Ministerial Government be established and the sooner will the Proclamation which has been made under Section 93 be revoked.
Resolved:
" That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on 3oth October, 1939 and of his Proclamations varying the same issued on 15th February, 1943, and 29th September, 1945, copies of which were presented to this House on 28th November, 1939, 16th March, 1943, and 12th October, 1945. respectively."

HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Ordered: "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
CLAUSE 4.—(Standard amount of Exchequer contributions for flats etc., on expensive sites.)
Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 28, leave out from "Schedule ", to the end of line 37.
6.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment really results in the omission from Clause 4 of the proviso which limits the discretion of the Minister with regard to the granting of increased moneys for the erection of flats and houses upon land of high value. It was felt when we introduced this Bill that the extra money given for flats might possibly be

2593
extended to houses if a mixed development could be made to result, but the proviso limits the power of the Minister to do that in cases where the mixed development would result in the provision of accommodation equivalent to an average three storey flat over the whole of the area concerned. It has been felt that in the lower ranges of the values set out ir. Part II of the First Schedule—that is land valued from £1,500 to £6,000 an acre —it might be even more economical to put on that land only houses and not a mixture of houses and flats. For that reason it is desired to agree that this proviso shall be taken out. I must, however, say that so far as the central areas of large cities are concerned, in order to provide the necessary accommodation in proximity to the places where people work, we shall have to insist upon the erection of flats. It is felt that a wider discretion should be given to the Minister in this matter.
7.0 p.m
Captain Crookshank: I think the Minister has persuaded me and my hon. Friends that it is right to take out this proviso. In his speech he said the Amendment "really" resulted in taking out the proviso. Of course it does. It does not do anything else. That is the object of the Amendment. Whether or not he need say it "really" results in that I do not know. That is all it does. It is quite true, as I read it—and I hope I am right—it gives the Minister a much wider discretion in the use of this expensive land. To that extent I suppose it is a minor triumph for the town and country planning Members, who are not here at the moment, so we need not expect any speeches from them. At the time the Bill was being discussed they urged that there should be more mixed development than seemed to be the case under the Clause when we had it before us. In the end, of course, it must rest with the Minister as the Bill is drawn. As a result of the removal of this proviso I presume the Minister will feel himself more free, in certain circumstances, to allow houses to be built as well as flats, which, we all agree, will be the predominant development of the expensive sites in the central areas. If I may say so, I think the Minister has been very well advised in accepting this
2594
Amendment in another place, and in asking the House to approve of it. So far as we are concerned, we take no exception at all.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [One with Special Entry.]

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES TRANSITIONAL POWERS)
7.3 p.m.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move,
" That the Order in Council, dated 20th March, 1946, amending Regulation 56A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, and the Defence (Recovery of Fines) Regulations, 1942 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 371), a copy of which was presented on 25th March, be annulled."
This Order in Council is an addition to Defence Regulation 56A. That regulation is used for the purpose of preventing building operations being carried out without licence from the Ministry of Works. If any work is carried out, beyond what I think is at present the limit of £10 normally, either without a licence or in such manner as to infringe any condition in a licence, then no less than three different kinds of people are subjected to penalties: first, the person at whose expense the work is done; secondly, the person undertaking the work; thirdly, the architect or engineer who supervises the work. All three people are guilty if any infringement takes place. In the Defence Regulations there are set out defences, rather difficult to interpret in particular cases, which may easily give rise to quite legitimate differences of opinion. The first is, if those who are charged reasonably thought, when they began the work, that the permitted limit of expense would not be exceeded—a somewhat difficult question, very often, to determine whether that defence can be sustained. The second, equally difficult, is to the effect that a permit will not be required, and an offence will not be committed, if the work carried out was urgently necessary, so that it was impracticable to obtain the necessary authority. Obviously quite difficult questions can be raised there, and persons may easily be guilty of an offence without any serious criminal intent, merely by making some comparatively trivial error.

2595
I agree that at the other end of the scale there may very well be deliberate attempts to evade this control. I realise that, as the Government policy is at present proceeding, this control is vital to them. Perhaps their policy is not as good as it should be. Nevertheless, we have to take things as we find them, and if they insist on this policy I cannot object to a raising of the maximum penalties. The maximum penalties at present are quite severe. They are, three months' imprisonment or £100 on summary conviction, and two years' imprisonment or £500 on indictment. It may well be—and I do not quarrel with this at all—that those penalties may have to be stepped up in particular circumstances. I ask the learned Attorney-General, whom I am glad to see in his place, whether he really thinks it a good thing to step up the penalty on summary conviction to the extent of one year's imprisonment. I do not take any exception to stepping up the penalty to seven years' penal servitude for the serious type of case. However, I do venture to suggest that we should not get out of line with the normal maximum penalty on summary conviction. I would be interested to know why a penalty so heavy as one year's imprisonment is thought necessary on summary conviction. Although the financial penalty may be raised—and I take no serious exception to that—for both summary conviction and on indictment, and although the penalty of imprisonment on indictment may be raised, we should be very careful about raising the penalty of imprisonment to these heights on summary conviction.
The main matter to which I have to draw the attention of the House is the novelty of a minimum fine. I draw the attention of the House to the new paragraph (6B):
"The minimum and maximum amount of the fine referred to (above) shall, subject to the provisions of the three next following paragraphs, be as follows…
I leave the summary conviction and pass to the other, for a reason that will appear later:
" on conviction on indictment the minimum amount shall be the said cost of five hundred pounds, whichever is the less, and the maximum amount shall be three times the said cost or five thousand pounds, whichever is the greater."
2596
That does not make sense grammatically. The word "of" obviously ought to be "or," and it ought to read:
"…the minimum amount shall be the said cost or five hundred pounds, whichever is the less, and the maximum amount shall be three times the said cost or five thousand pounds, whichever is the greater."
One would not mind very much about a misprint in a comparatively obscure part of an Order, but I am bound to say I am astonished that in the most important part of the Order we should be given a misprint of this kind. It is the sort of thing that would not have happened in ordinary times; it could not have happened. The idea that a document containing a misprint of this character was submitted to His Majesty in Council would be just unthinkable in ordinary times. I do not seek to blame anybody in particular for this, because I know that the Government are overdriving the machine, and this is the kind of thing that happens when the machine is overdriven. I hope the Government will take warning from this comparatively trivial incident, and see to it that the machine is not driven in such a way that those who are responsible for this important work have not even the time to see that there is no misprint in a legislative instrument. Of course, the Government must accept this Prayer. An Order containing an absurd misprint of that kind cannot be left. Therefore, because the Government must accept the Motion which I am now proposing, I cannot imagine the learned Attorney-General or the Parliamentary Secretary would wish to persist with an Order which contains an error of this character. I do not want to criticise anybody, but I think we shall criticise very strenuously if this Order is not withdrawn.
I pass to the problem of what the substituted Order should contain in addition to the correction of this misprint. A minimum fine is not a good thing, and I do not think either of the Law Officers would say that it was a good thing in the ordinary case, It is a bad thing, and I know of no precedent at all like this. I can think of only one, which is quite different, and that is the "black market minimum. There we do not have a settled sum; we have a minimum penalty of the amount of the profit involved in the offence. The amount of the profit is proved in the course of the case,

2597
and then, quite properly, the court is directed that, in the absence of special circumstances, the man must be fined the full amount of the profit. There the amount of the minimum fine depends on the circumstances of the case. In this case—and I know of no other—the amount of the minimum fine is settled in advance, however trivial the case may be. It is worse than that, because the amount of the minimum fine is £50 on summary conviction and £500 on indictment. It is bad enough for Parliament to enact a minimum fine, but it is very much worse that Parliament should delegate to somebody the settlement of what that minimum fine shall be, because the question of whether a case is to be taken summarily or on the indictment, according to the procedure with which I am familiar, is determined by the Lord Advocate and by nobody else, that is to say, by a Member of the Government. I know it is not quite the same in England. It is wrong for this House to delegate to a Member of His Majesty's Government the task of determining what shall be the minimum fine imposed upon a particular defendant. I hope that point will be taken into consideration.
What is the point of having a minimum fine at all? In the normal course Parliament indicates to His Majesty's judges the gravity of the offence, as they see it, by determining the maximum. Any court, seeing a maximum of seven years' penal servitude, will, of course, see that, apart from common knowledge, this is regarded by Parliament as a very serious type of offence; then it is the duty of the judiciary to determine what the penalty is to be. This is an encroachment by the Executive on the judiciary of a wholly unwarranted character. Why are His Majesty's judges not to be trusted to inflict a proper penalty? Is the object of this minimum fine to ensure that His Majesty's judges do their duty? Is it the Government's view that His Majesty's judges will not inflict a proper penalty unless this is done?
To my mind it seems to be rather insulting, and I do not think that is at the back of the minds of the draftsmen of this Order. There is some muddleheaded idea that the gravity of the offence is indicated by fixing a minimum fine, and the meaning of fixing a minimum fine is that it is ensured, or at
2598
least provided, that the man's deserts are not to be the measure of the penalty. No matter how technical the offence may be, no matter how deserving the man may be, he will still be fined £50 on summary conviction and £500 on indictment unless he can point to special circumstances.
What are these words "special circumstances "? They are not new. Under the Road Traffic Act the provision for the suspension of a man's licence can be modified for special reasons. Those words "special reasons" have caused the courts of Scotland a great deal of difficulty, and we have had a series of cases, but nobody has quite determined what they mean. But one thing is quite certain. It is not a "special reason" merely that the man does not deserve to have his licence suspended. It must be something different from the deserts of the individual offender to come up to "special reasons." If that is good authority there, it is good authority here, and, indeed, we should not want that authority here, because if it is suggested that it is a "special reason "that the man does not deserve to be fined £50, then the enactment of a minimum fine is wholly nonsensical. If we are going to reduce the minimum fine every time a man does not deserve it, we may as well not have one; and, therefore, the court will necessarily be driven to the conclusion that Parliament meant something different from merely reducing the minimum fine when the man appeared not to deserve it. This will result, in my judgment, in the courts construing this provision in this way.
We must contemplate circumstances in which this Order will require the court to impose upon the offender a penalty greater than he deserves by imposing this minimum fine. This, surely, is a new theory of criminal jurisprudence. I have always thought in the past that even the most reactionary people did not want to impose on persons who offended against the law a greater penalty than they deserved, and I thought hon. Gentlemen opposite regarded themselves as rather enlightened in the matter of criminal jurisprudence. I am very surprised that they of all people should come forward and say that they now require to impose upon offenders penalties which, admittedly, are not deserved, and that they are doing so only in order that it may be a warning to others not to offend. There is a good deal of controversy in legal circles about what is a proper philosophical basis of a scale

2599
of punishment, but I had thought that we were long past the day when the Government had to come forward to impose upon an offender a penalty which they knew he did not deserve because they thought that would act as a warning and a deterrent to others. That, unquestionably, is the theory that underlies this minimum fine. I defy anybody to prove otherwise.
It seems to me that we ought not to accept this new doctrine. If we are to accept this doctrine of imposing a minimum fine, which must be imposed even upon technical offenders, where are we to stop? Nobody can suggest that a breach of control of building regulations is one of the most serious crimes in the calendar. Nobody can even suggest that this control so much more vital to the recovery of this country than any other in the book of Defence Regulations. Why should it he treated separately? There are many other controls in the book much more important in the national interest. I cannot see any reason at all for imposing this new type of punishment in this limited class of case and not imposing it also in a great number of other controls under the Defence Regulations.
I do not know whether the Government intend to bring in this penalty in other cases. I do not know whether this is just an example of what we are seeing increasingly—that one Department in this Government does not know what another is doing. I strongly suspect that. I know how busy the Law Officers are. I am sure that this has not been properly considered by them. I strongly suspect that it has not been properly considered by other Departments concerned, and I suspect that this is a result of gross overwork, that one Department has had a bright idea which has slipped through without much criticism by other Ministers. It certainly slipped through without the supervision of the draftsmen, of the Stationery Office, or whoever has to see that these things are properly printed. I am very much afraid that this is a result of a little slackness and a little lack of coordination. The Attorney-General is really asking for well-merited comment from His Majesty's judges when they are asked to enforce this. I should have thought he would have sought to avoid that. But we shall see what they do. I do not think any of us would hold it against the Government, if they were to
2600
withdraw this, and modify the penalty. These things happen and it is a pity. But we hope that the Government can learn from their mistakes. It they persist in this new type of jurisprudence of a rather un-British character, I think we shall have to take such steps as are open to us.
Captain Crookshank:On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether we are in Order in discussing this at all. It is within my recollection, which is, of course, quite different from that of the Law Officers, who were not in the old Parliament, that on a previous occasion we had a somewhat similar case in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Regulations. At that time, if my memory is right, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T Smith) in the course of Debate found there was a misprint. It had no relevance at all to the subject under discussion; it did not make any difference. But it was then ruled that the Order could not be discussed, and the Order, as such, had to be withdrawn, and was discussed anew on another day. That is exactly what has happened here. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has pointed out, the Order, as printed, on page 2, Bb, does not make sense. For that reason I submit that the Order should not be discussed any further until it is reprinted.
It is true that the Government have introduced a little corrigendum affair here with a sticky back. But in its present form, I submit, it is not valid. It just states that it is an Order in Council. It does not give the proper definition or state when the Council was held or where. At the end it just says "London. H.M. Stationery Office." I submit to you, Sir, that that is not a proper designation of the Order, because all the Orders bear the words "London. Printed and published by His Majesty's Stationery Office." That is the usual description, which is the common form and governs the validity of the document. This little corrigendum slip has none of that on it. On the precedent of the Unemployment Insurance Regulation, which had to be withdrawn on exactly the same ground, I put it to you, Sir, that we should no longer discuss this Order, but that the Government should withdraw and reprint it, and that we should discuss it on a future occasion.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a very interesting point; but as far as my recollection goes on the former occasion to which he refers, there was no slip attached amending the printing of the Order. It was incorrectly printed. In this case the House has a corrected form, and can learn how the Order should have been printed. On the former occasion, as far as my recollection goes, no public attention was drawn to the error until the time when the House discussed it. On this occasion, attention was drawn by a Question on the Order Paper, and, therefore, the House had notice, so to speak, that there was a slip and that there was a misprint. Therefore, it seems to me that this is correctly put before the House of Commons, and so far as I am concerned, I cannot rule that the mater should not be discussed.
Captain Crookshank: I am very much obliged to you, Sir, far what you have said But the House must surely take it that the original document was the document which was before the King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council. If we are right, we must assume that it was that document, which does not make sense, which was before His Majesty in Council. We then get this little document which corrects the mistake, but there is nothing to say the error has been before the King in Council and rectified there. It is on that point that I join issue with the Government
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harold Wilson): Further to that point of Order. Perhaps I can set the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind at ease. I can tell him that the original Order in Council, of which I have myself seen a copy—I had it dug out of the archives especially for this purpose—was quite correct, and that the misprint which has occurred, and for which my right hon. Friend apologised to the House this afternoon, occurred in the printing of the copies. I can give him the whole story of how it happened in the Stationery Office, but I am sure he does not want to press the matter so far. I can assure him, and you, Sir, that the Order was quite correct.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: How are we to know? Of course, I do not doubt the word of the hon. Gentleman, but these things must be done formally, I submit,
2602
and it is wrong that this House should have to depend upon the word of any Minister or any other Member of the House in matters of this kind, particularly as the hon. Gentleman has seen only a copy of the document which was submitted to His Majesty. He has not seen the document submitted to His Majesty in Council, and it is that document which ought to rule. We are entitled to have that document, and we ought to have a right copy before us. To say we are going to save 2½d. by putting in a corrigendum is absurd. I ask then whether it is proper for us to discuss this.
Mr. SpeakerThe point has been carefully explained at Question time, and, therefore, the House has had notice of it. It is in Order to discuss it.
Captain Crookshank: Further to that point of Order. I am not sure whether this point is for you, Sir, or the Minister. What I had in mind and what I am wondering about is the position of the general public. Have any of these Orders gone out without this corrigendum? So far as I know, hundreds must have gone out, because the error was only discovered later on. That reinforces the point that I have been making to you; that we should not discuss it, until it has been reprinted correctly, because so far as this subject is concerned outside the House, those who have received the Order in its original form will see that it is nonsense and will be unable to be informed in the proper sense by that document. Of course, if I am assured that all the Orders recently printed have been withdrawn, and every one concerned now has a correct one, that alters the case, but, unless it is so, I submit that these Orders should be withdrawn, and should not be discussed, until the matter is clean and tidy.
Mr. Speaker: The situation, so far as I am concerned, is this: Has the document been properly presented to the House of Commons? I think it has been properly presented. What happens to the public is a matter which will he decided by our votes. I cannot rule the document out of Order because there is the possibility that one copy may have gone out without this corrigendum. We are discussing the document which has been put before us, and all we are concerned about is whether it is a correct document.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I do not want to labour this point, but I have in my possession two copies which I obtained on different days from the Vote Office, neither of which has this corrigendum. I shall be surprised to be told that this corrigendum was added before yesterday, whereas the document has been available in the Vote Office for a matter of three weeks, and every copy issued to this House, and the copy which was laid on the Table of the House, were without the corrigendum. These copies have been issued from the Vote Office without the corrigendum to this House for a matter of three weeks, and I submit that at the last moment, to stick a piece of paper on the remaining few copies in the Vote Office, is not treating the matter properly.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: May I point out that this Order has affected the law from the date of its presentation, 25th March, and that all the earlier copies of the Order have gone out without this addition?
Mr. Speaker: It seems to me, from the little Debate we now have had, whether "of" "or" "or" is the correct word, that public attention has been drawn to the misprint, and everyone who has a copy will now know perfectly well the position. As far as I am concerned, this document is in Order for discussion.
7.34 P.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The difficulties and the complications to which the printing error contained in this document has given rise, seem to me to be a most vivid illustration of this unsatisfactory method of dealing with serious matters of this kind by delegated legislation. Here we have a document which has been part of the law of the land for over a month, containing an error in the most vital part, which affects the subject, namely, the penal Clause. It is now admitted by the Government to be completely erroneous, which illustrates the dangers necessarily involved in dealing with criminal legislation by this method. It illustrates further the technical difficulties in which the Government involve themselves. I do not know whether it was by happy coincidence that the corrigendum happened to be mentioned at Questions today—no doubt it was a spontaneous Question to the right hon.
2604
Gentleman the Minister of Works. I do riot know whether it is proposed to lay the corrigendum upon the Table of the House, and whether it will be possible to pray for its annulment within 40 days from today. It is an illustration of the complexities and technicalities in which the Government involve themselves by this method of legislation. It is no doubt by reason of this that the House has the advantage of having a straight flush of Law Officers to assist in the deliberations of this evening.
The position surely is this. The Amendment to the law affected by this Order is one of serious import in the criminal code. It involves the possibility of the imposition of a sentence of up to seven years' penal servitude. It is a serious matter, quite apart from the confusion in dealing with the matter in this way, and there is the further disadvantage that we are not told and have not been told of the necessity for it. Surely, if it is thought necessary by the Government to amend the law of the land so as to include serious and substantial criminal penalties, before that is done some explanation as to the necessity for this change should have been given. Had this matter been dealt with properly by Act of Parliament, an explanation would inevitably have been given by a responsible Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill. Here we find that the law is changed in this direction, and changed over a month ago, with no explanation whatever. Owing to the vigilance of certain hon. Members, it is only now that we have an opportunity to discuss it. On the principle of better late than never, I hope that someone on the Front Bench opposite will explain to the House the necessity for this very big increase in criminal penalties. I am perfectly certain that progressively-minded Members opposite would not increase the penalties of the criminal law in a light hearted or wanton manner. I am sure that there must be some serious and substantial justification for it.
It would appear that the existing penalties must have proved inadequate. I hope that the House will be told in full detail and with full evidence why the present penalties are inadequate, and why this change is necessary. There is the strange provision, to which my right hon. and learned Friend drew attention, that in the absence of special circumstances

2605
there shall be minimum penalties. I put it to the Government that that provision will either have no effect at all and will be worthless, because it will be disregarded, or, inevitably, it will cause injustice, because it will take away from courts of law their very difficult and complicated discretion in assessing a proper penalty. That is the dilemma with which we are faced. Either this provision is not worth the paper it is printed upon, because the courts will be able to find special circumstances, or it is a calculated attempt to inflict injustices on individuals. In matters affecting the safety of the Realm, it is necessary sometimes to include such a provision, but is it seriously suggested that breaches of the regulations, directions, orders and rules, and other pronunciamentos of the Minister of Works will affect the stability of the Realm to the extent that it is necessary to inflict serious hardship upon individuals in the administration of the criminal law?.
Finally there is this strange provision which gives to the Minister the right to direct that a case be not tried by the magistrates, but shall be sent for trial on indictment. The provision giving discretion to the Director of Public Prosecutions is not unreasonable, but why is it desirable to give these special powers to the Minister is it seriously suggested that the Minister is vindictively to pursue alleged offenders against his Orders? Is the Minister who has made the Orders to be entitled to dictate the forum in which breaches of these Orders are to be discussed and awards made? For a party which prides itself upon a progressive approach to criminal jurisprudence, this seems to be a strange provision.
I hope that we shall be given an assurance, if only as a result of the technical deficiencies which have been fully elucidated, that this Order will be withdrawn. If it is not, I hope that we may be taken fully into the confidence of the Government, and that they will explain why the necessity to increase the penalties has arisen. If a full explanation is not given, no doubt hon. Members on this side of the House and most people in the country will regard this Regulation as being simply part of the Government's policy to substitute the uttering of threats for the building of houses, and of indicat-
2606
ing, as a last resort, that they have decided to solve the problem of accommodation for our people by ensuring that, at any rate, there is no waste of accommodation in His Majesty's prisons.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. Weitzman: I do not desire to criticise the Government with regard to the necessity of these provisions, but I wish to make one point with regard to Paragraph (6G) of this Order. I would like to draw the attention of the House to its wording:
" Where proceedings for an offence against this Regulation are being carried on before a court of summary jurisdiction—

(a) by or on behalf of the Minister; or

(b) by a person specified by an order made by the Minister and for the time being in force; or

(c) by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions,

the court shall not deal with the case summarily if it is certified by the Minister or the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the case may be, that there are circumstances which make it undesirable that the case should be dealt with summarily."
I desire to draw attention to what I suggest is a grave danger which is now increasingly affecting the liberty of the subject. In the days before the war, before the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, were passed, the position was this: If a person committeed an offence and was dealt with summarily under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, the proceedings had to be commenced within a period of six months. That was increased to 12 months by the Defence Regulation of 1939. That meant two things. It means, first, in the case of a Ministry bringing proceedings, that they had 12 months in which to make up their minds, and, if they did not do so, they could not bring summary proceedings. It also meant—and I want to impress this upon the House—that if proceedings were brought in summary fashion, and the Ministry failed in their case, the magistrates had power to grant costs against the Ministry. By way of contrast, if proceedings were brought by indictment, generally speaking, there was no time limit and there was no power to give costs to an injured person. The result, in my submission, is that a premium is given for delay.
Officials of any Ministry—I am not criticising any one in particular—if they

2607
care to delay, may take a considerable time in making investigations and bringing proceedings. Twelve months and possibly years may elapse, and, in that way, the matter is kept hanging over the head of the individual concerned. Then proceedings are brought by indictment, because there is no time limit, and when they are brought, the person concerned may be involved in an elaborate trial at assizes, quarter sessions or the Central Criminal Court, incur very considerable expense, and get no costs at all because the proceedings are brought by indictment. I suggest that that is a very grave danger, and it is very important to note it now because we must, by the very nature of things, have many more Orders brought into being The more Orders we have, the more provisions, and the more provisions, the greater the likelihood of more offenders. As there is no remedy against the Crown, and no question of costs, the result is that, if proceedings are brought by indictment, an innocent person may suffer very considerably..
I suggest that this is a power which ought to be exercised only in very special circumstances. I am glad to see that in this Order it is stated that the court shall not deal with the case summarily if it is certified by the Minister or Director of Public Prosecutions that there are circumstances that make it undesirable. But what are these circumstances? The circumstances are made in a very vague fashion. I should have thought that some indication would have been given to justify a course being taken which may mean so much to the subject. I agree with the criticism made on the other side of the House that the Minister should certainly not be the person to certify that this matter shall be dealt with by indictment and not summarily. I would suggest that the Director of Public Prosecutions ought not to be the person. Why a magistrate should not certify, I do not know.
We are in danger of taking away from the judicial functions which we praise very much in this country. Whatever Government is in power, we know that we have a splendid set of persons in our judges and magistrates, and we ought to rely upon them to act properly in these cases. I would press that the rule ought to be in this Order, and in other Orders, that the greatest possible care should be taken
2608
in every case which might tend to interfere with the liberty of the individual in that way. If you give him the right to trial in summary fashion, do not take it away in such a manner that you allow officials to delay for a long period, then get a certificate of special circumstances, and involve the individual in the cost of a trial before judge and jury without any possible compensation for the loss incurred.
7.47 P.m.
Mr. Maude: I feel somewhat diffident in following the hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) partly because I agree with him profoundly on certain points, and partly because I think he must have given considerable thought to arguing his contention. It seems to me that there must be power for the Minister to certify because—I am sure the hon. Member will see the point immediately—it is not wise that the Director should be involved in the case. It would be an intolerable nuisance, so far as the prosecution is concerned, if the Department who were prosecuting were perpetually having to consult the Director. If it was a very serious case, no doubt the Director would quite properly be invoked. Nevertheless, it does leave one with a considerable amount of anxiety on the point of delay. There is considerable force in what the hon. Member says about delay.
If I may be allowed to give the benefit of some experience in these matters from an angle which is not universally seen by hon. Members here, I have had and will have the opportunity of seeing this matter from the point of view of the Bench. May I draw attention, first, to the fact that, it is true, as the hon. Member has told the House, that there is a tendency to delay. He has voiced something which I can echo with absolute certainty. Certainly there has been this sort of tendency to delay. Let me draw attention to this because, although you entrust everything to the Law Officers and prosecuting agencies, such as the Director and so on, surely the House must be careful to try to understand the complexities in these matters and see that attention is given to these points.
I can think of a recent case, in one of the most distinguished courts of the realm, in which a man was brought there for an offence against a Regulation—quite properly, no doubt—but a mistake had

2609
been made in the indictment. Owing to a technicality, he was free, and months went by before that man was brought back again to the Old Bailey. There the case was dealt with, but the man had suffered agonies, and had become ill through worry. I will willingly give the Law Officers particulars of the case but I ought not to mention the name in this House.
The Department have now discovered that they desire to proceed in respect of matters well within their knowledge at the time when the man was brought before the Old Bailey months ago. I assure the House that unless we take particular care here to see that the various legal advisers to the different Ministries act with speed we may be certain they will not act with speed. It needs that spur, which the Lord President of the Council, or perhaps it was the Home Secretary, used to say should be applied to legal departments as well as other persons who may be a little dilatory.
May I turn to something different? I am not going to take the view of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). That does not mean that there is a division in the camp, because one may speak differently from one's colleagues on an administrative point. Let us turn to the short words Paragraph B and try to imagine ourselves in the position of the judge on an indictment at assize or quarter session. The House does not need an assurance that the judges are trying to do their duty and enforce the law of the land no matter who has brought the law into being. They try to see that the law is carried out. They have at the back of their minds the fact that they have to regard the individual who stands in the dock, which is a comparatively modern idea. They have to make the punishment not only fit the crime, but the individual. The judge finally hears the man either plead guilty or be found guilty. What does he then do? He has to turn to the Regulation and instead of finding something perfectly simple with a maximum penalty like seven years' penal servitude or a maximum fine of £7,000, he discovers that he has to look up and pay attention to a complex Regulation and that he has to impose a minimum fine. I can assure the House that that is quite unnecessary.
2610
The whole desire of the justices of the peace or the court of assize or quarter session—and I am sure the Home Secretary will agree with me because he sat for several years in a most distinguished position—is to enforce the law. Having heard the police officer say what he has to say and having heard the pleas on the man's behalf, the courts of this country try to decide what is the right thing to do in the particular circumstances. On the whole, it is done extraordinarily well. We here tonight are satisfied that the administration of justice in this country is beyond reproach.
As far as the magistrates really following up the desires of the Government are concerned, there is no difficulty, and there are no complaints about it. There is no material to show that at all. When I say there is no material I do not want to exaggerate it. Of course, in individual cases a small penalty may be imposed which should be a lot larger. May I give an example of a case of receiving stolen goods? A small fine may be imposed whereas some people think that the man should go to gaol. On the whole, however, it has worked faithfully. With regard to Statutory Rules and Orders we find that a magistrate has to see whether, in fact, there is some minimum penalty, and then it is a considerable nuisance working out the minimum penalty. In Paragraph 1 (6B) we find
" The minimum and maximum amount of the fine referred to in paragraph (6A) of this Regulation shall, subject to the provisions of the three next following paragraphs, be as follows, that is to say—
(a) on summary conviction the minimum amount shall be the cost of execution of the operation, or the carrying out of the work…"
It should not be like a mathematical calculation trying to enforce the laws of Parliament. It is not a fine piece of needlework. It is a rather broader thing. When one finds one has to decide the exact amount of the cost of the execution of the operation or the carrying out of the work one feels that the House is out of touch. May I show what happens when, having heard what is the cost of the execution of the operation, or the carrying out of the work involved, the chairman of quarter sessions, or the judge of assize, looks at, or has his attention drawn to, a paragraph which says that he need not impose the fine.

2611
" unless, having regard to any special circumstances, the court thinks there is good reason for not imposing a fine or for imposing a fine of less amount."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) drew the attention to the difficulty of special circumstances in respect of an offence we all know and which we arc endeavouring to stop—being under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle. Those of us who have sat in the various courts and have looked up the Statutes already existing have found that there is no need to suspend a man's !icence for the automatic period of 12 months when there are special circumstances, but to find out what Parliament meant by special circumstances is extremely difficult. It is extraordinarily difficult to determine when circumstances are special. To say that a judge need not impose a fine if there are special circumstances is no help whatsoever. That is a bit of clever drafting; it is well drafted and I make no complaint of that. It is skilful drafting, but it does not help any of the conrts throughout the land in any shape or form. Let the House consider for one moment what happens. A judge tries to decide whether there are special circumstances for not imposing a fine. The judge or magistrate will remember that under the Summary Jurisdiction Act Parliaments that have gone before us have been extremely careful to see that penalties are not fixed as minimum penalties. In that connection I would draw attention to the customs' penalties. In the old days the customs people came down to the courts and demanded certain penalties, but in the Victorian days Parliament very sensibly and finally said, "No, we cannot have that; we will have the magistrates deciding the amount. We are not going to have a Government Department deciding the amount."
Recently that has been got round and no doubt it will be raised in this House at some future date. The weapon is being revived of a writ of Capias. The person concerned remains in gaol pending the decision of the Treasury to let him out. So far as taking proceedings against persons before a court of summary jurisdiction is concerned, the position until this war was almost invariably that no minimum penalty was laid down, but it 'vas really left to the magistrates to enforce
2612
the law and they did it well. To say to them that they must impose this or that amount is simply undermining the whole structure and asking magistrates to search in their minds to see if there are any special circumstances.
May I press the point about what is called the "drunk in charge case? In the case of a drunken motorist I believe that one of the most efficient ways which have been found of punishing him is by taking away his licence. Every now and again you will find that courts have taken away a man's licence for five years, often more. They have been experimenting, and watching their lists, to see how many cases of that kind have been brought before them. They have tried their hardest to see what is necessary, and no more. When anybody has been appointed to a judicial position in this country the Home Secretary used to send out—and, I fancy, still does—a circular saying, ' Do not send the man to prison unless you have made up your mind that it is really necessary." That 's the most useful bit of instruction I ever got from anybody.
I ask the House to look at the Regulation, and consider this: Supposing it had been drafted to say that the maximum penalty should be raised, on indictment, to seven years' penal servitude and a maximum fine of £5,000, who would mind? Nobody. But in order to do something clever, an extra bit has been put in about the minimum penalty, which gives justices and judges a power to mitigate a fine which they would have had already, if the whole matter was simply left to them. I speak with diffidence on this matter, because it is difficult, but if you know that at some future date that you will have to administer a particular law, you look at that law from the point of view of those who passed it, and wonder whether those who passed it really understood that what was being done was necessary.
I urge the House to say that this matter should be reconsidered, and the Regulation redrafted. Do not put in minimum penalties. Supposing you had a bench of justices, a body of hard-faced, tire some, magistrates—and I have no doubt that they exist, although not in Kingston, and places like that—who found it difficult to find special circumstances to enable them to mitigate the fine, who is in front of the court? Somebody who,

2613
you know quite well, has never been in trouble before, and who has never done any wrong at all. What happens? The magistrates are advised by the clerk that they must find special circumstances before they can mitigate the penalty, and there is then imposed on the wretched defendant a penalty that is far and away more than is necessary. That is the point I am pleading tonight. You must not set your courts to work imposing penalties that are more than necessary. Why is it thought that this is necessary? Why is it thought necessary to impose a minimum penalty? I honestly do not know why; I have not the slightest idea.
The sending to prison, which is provided for by the Regulation, is for three months on summary conviction, and the fine, on summary conviction, is £100. Is it sufficient? Who says it is not, and why not? There must be some reason to suppose that it is not. My own belief—and I say it in no uncertain terms—is that up till now it has been sufficient in the majority of cases which have been dealt with by the justices. If it is not, the case can be sent for trial. What do you find then? Something heavy. On indictment, there is liability for imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding £500, or both. I suggest that it is taking leave of one's senses to suppose that there are persons who are prepared to enter into building operations and face two years' imprisonment lightheartedly, that there are people who would willingly undertake this work in order to make money, and be prepared to undergo two years' imprisonment. If there is a Member who believes in such a thing then the reason, I think, may be this: There are, on both sides of the House, Members who have been and are anxious to ameliorate punishment in gaols. The belief has grown up that prisons arc really very comfortable, that there are lectures, that the inmates mess together and have separate bedrooms, and that they have the wireless turned on at mealtimes. [Laughter.] I have not mentioned anything which is not a fact. The belief has grown up that a prisoner is able to pass in and out of his cell with much greater freedom—
Mr. Kirkwood: Where is this prison? In the hon. and learned Member's imagination?
Mr. Maude: No. The hon. Member's recollection goes a long way back, I know, but things have changed. May I tell him, so that there is no doubt? Take the Exeter Gaol, which I know well, which I visit. After the first month of your imprisonment—I am sorry, when I said "your," I do not mean the hon. Member—which is a lone performance, although breakfast is delivered to your cell door, after that month there are midday and evening meals with the other prisoners—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and learned Member is getting very wide of the subject.
Mr. Maude:Well, perhaps the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will come and see me afterwards, when I will give him all the assistance which we on this side usually give to Members opposite. The Home Secretary would, no doubt, be able to give him the same information, but at any rate what I have said, as will be seen in HANSARD tomorrow, is not incorrect.
Mr. Messer: Two years would not be punishment.
Mr. Maude: Two beers?
Mr. Messer: No, two years.
Mr. Maude: If the House thinks that two years is not enough I can assure you that the deprivation of liberty for such a period, even on the most benevolent terms, means exactly what it says. There is no reason to suppose that it is not sufficient. There is no reason for not doing what I have urged on the House, namely, put up the maximum to seven years' imprisonment and a fine of £5,000, if you like, but leave it to the courts.
8.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harold Wilson): I can understand Members opposite raising this matter, because we are all aware that the repair or decoration, or adaptation and improvement, of business property is, in normal times, a perfectly lawful and highly desirable operation. This Order, which Members opposite are seeking to have annulled tonight, makes such building without a licence a serious criminal offence, and the House is certainly entitled to be told why we consider the Order to be necessary. I hope that when I have given an explanation

2615
those who have raised this matter, and others who may have been in doubt, will agree that it was absolutely necessary, and that any lesser measure would have been inadequate in the highly abnormal and difficult times in which we are now living.
The Order we are discussing piovides heavier penalties for a breach of Defence Regulation 56A, which came into force in October, 1940, and which prohibited all building work undertaken without authorisation or licence except within the financial limits prescribed by Order of the Minister of Works These limits are at present £10 on any single property in the current period of six months, plus £2 worth of work in each calendar month. At the outset, the financial limit was £500, but this was reduced in April, 1941, to £100 in any period of 12 months. Following the V-weapon attacks, it was further reduced to £100, first in London, and then in other areas of Southern England, and on 22nd March, 1945, the then Minister of Health in the Coalition Government—the right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) —announced that, in view of the need for concentrating the maximum possible force of labour and materials on house building and house repair, the limit was to be fixed at £ for the whole country.
The need for this strict control of relatively unessential building is, I am sure, fully recognised by most hon. Members, although perhaps, judging from the discussion which has taken place in the last half an hour, it is doubtful whether some hon. Members opposite are fully aware of the need for it. I want to indicate very briefly why we consider this necessary. In spite of the rapid expansion of the manpower of the building and civil engineering industry in the last few months, it is still impossible to meet all the demands that could be placed on it in a free market, and impossible to meet the priority requirements, without the strictest control of less essential work. It is not generally realised that the number of building trade operatives employed on repairs and maintenance, to housing alone, before the war, was as big as the number employed on new buildings. During the six wartime years, there was virtually no private building, and the arrears of maintenance are so great that if we did not control them they would be enough to employ a labour force equal
2616
to the whole present manpower of the industry for at least a year to come, without leaving anyone for housing or other essential work.
Mr. Bossom: Is it not a fact that there was a building force in prewar years of,000,000 or 1,250,000, and that the maximum number employed on maintenance was never more than 300,000, so that it could not he equal to the whole present manpower of the industry?
Mr. Wilson: I said that it would be equal to the number employed on the provision 'of new houses.
Mr. Bossom: Only about 300,000 were so employed before the war.
Mr. Wilson: I think the hon. Member will find that the figures are very close to what I have said. It is not only a question of manpower. As I think the House will realise, the pressure on available supplies of building materials is even more severe than the pressure of manpower. I take it that the need for the licensing system, and for pressing it right to the £10 limit, is accepted on all sides of the House. What I have been asked to explain by a number of hon. Members is why the existing powers under Regulation 56A are inadequate and why this new Order has been found necessary. It was necessary to tighten up our powers because there was and is a large and most malignant black market in unessential building—hundreds, if not thousands, of cases of building far in excess of the £10 limit, without any licence, or of building far in excess of licences which have been issued. I was fascinated by the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude), who proved, in a way I could not possibly disprove, because of the complexity of his argument, that with the penalties as they are today no one would think of doing any black market building. But the plain facts are that there is an enormous black market going on in spite of the hon. Member's proofs.
Mr. Maude: That was not my suggestion. In order to stop crime of that sort, one has to catch the people. If one catches them, one finds that the fine, or the two years' imprisonment, is quite enough. But it may not be possible to catch them. That is the trouble.
Mr. Wilson: I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. and learned Member's argument, which was a little difficult to follow. The point is that if we have a sufficiently heavy penalty, we hope we shall deter a very large number of those people whom the hon. and learned MemLer advises us to try to catch which is not always too easy. This black market is certainly going on, although much of the Debate this evening has taken place in almost happy ignorance of the fact that the black market is so serious. I do not think we can sufficiently strongly condemn this kind of conduct among those who are running the black market. It means that property owners are gratifying their desire for improvements in their house, or for changes in their place of business—a very large proportion of the cases which have been brought were night clubs, restaurants, and so on—on a scale sufficient to endanger the housing programme. Such property owners—I know they are a small minority—and the builders who collaborate with them, and often lead them on—again a small minority—tempted by the higher profits they can obtain, are not only deliberately flouting the law. Although they may not realise it, they are standing in the way of someone, with very much greater need than themselves, getting a house. We must make it quite clear that this sort of activity is not merely a technical offence; it is a selfish and an immoral course of action. Too many people have thought of black market building in the past as a fair game; they have thought of it rather in the way they have thought of defrauding the Customs. If they could get away with it, they were clever, and no harm was done But we must emphasise that great harm has been done, and the small minority of builders who have gone in for this sort of activity are most severely condemned by the great majority in the industry, who realise what it means.
Mr. Bossom: Could the hon. Gentleman give us any figures or an estimate of the numbers doing this? It is rather important to have an estimate, because we may be getting this entirely out of perspective.
Mr. Maude: How many prosecutions have there been?
Mr. Wilson: I am sure that no one will realise better than the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) that it is
2618
extremely difficult to form any estimate of the exact numbers employed in the black market—
Mr. Bossom: The approximate number would do.
Mr. Wilson: —because it is permissible to undertake building work up to the £10 limit. Unless it were possible to take returns from the builders in the black market it must be, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, quite impossible to say how many builders are engaged in black market operations and how many in legitimate maintenance.
Mr. Bossom rose—
Mr. Wilson: It is not possible to give even an approximate figure.
Mr. E. P. Smith: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how many prosecutions there have been?
Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, I am afraid I have not the figures with me. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question he will be given the information.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Can we have the number of cases of indictment?
Mr. Gallaeher: Not enough.
Mr. Wilson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will put down a Question it will be answered at the appropriate time. What I am telling the House, and what everyone on this side realises, is that whether we can give figures or not there is a very serious black market going on, and anyone who knows anything about the building industry today or is in touch with that industry will know that it is one of our biggest problems. It is not always necessary to put statistics to a problem to prove that it exists. The local authorities are particularly anxious, and only last week I was approached by the Chairman of a Housing Committee in the North who was greatly concerned about the amount of black market work in his city in spite of the previous Regulation. He was concerned about the extent to which it was likely to interfere with the housing scheme and he asked us for a promise to cooperate to the full under our new powers to stamp out that black market.
It is in those circumstances that increased powers have been sought and obtained by means of these two Orders, Numbers 371 and 372. I believe the right

2619
hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion relates only to No. 371. What is the effect of these powers? First, as hon. Members have said, they increase the maximum penalties which may be imposed, both on the building owner and on the contractors, from £100 fine and three months' imprisonment on summary conviction, or £500 fine and two years' imprisonment on indictment, to £500 or the cost of the work, whichever is the greater, and one year's imprisonment on summary conviction, or £5,000 fine or three times the cost of the works, whichever is the greater, and penal servitude for seven years on indictment.
Secondly—and I think this is the principal point to which the right hon. Gentleman has objected—for the first time in building regulations, minimum penalties are laid down: £50 or the cost of the work, whichever is the less, on summary conviction; £500 or the cost of the work, whichever is the less, on indictment. Before I come back to that point I should add that thirdly, S. R. & O. No. 372, which was made at the same time, amending Regulation 56 AB, provides that, if the court so recommends, the Minister can revoke or suspend the registration certificate of any contractor convicted of an offence against the licensing regulations, and of course, without being so registered, he cannot undertake any building work. I rather gather that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not protesting against that particular power given to the Ministry.
In view of what I have said about the inroads of the black market into the housing programme, new and more realistic penalties had become necessary before this Order was made.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would be of assistance if the Minister could tell the House of any particular case in which the existing penalties have been too light for the offence.
Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, I am not going into past cases but I think it will be understood that the need for this Regulation is to act as a deterrent to this kind of thing in the future.
Mr. Bossom rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member cannot intervene unless the Minister gives way.
Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman will let roe continue I think I can deal with this point. Before this Order was made the kind of penalties—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be better if the conduct of the House were left to the Chair.
Mr. Wilson: —the kind of penalties which could be imposed were not adequate. A rich and unpatriotic household —and there are some—to whom high building costs meant little would not be deterred by the addition to those costs of a moderate fine; a night club proprietor who was prepared to spend £1,000 or £1,500 on some building or decorative work—and I can give plenty of cases of those—and the builder who did it, would regard the previous penalty as merely a small addition to their working expenses. The new penalties, both maximum and minimum, are in line with those applicable in cases of conviction for operations in the food black market, where the fines are related to the money involved.
Hon. Gentlemen have complained about these minimum penalties as though they were an entirely new thing in this country. Let me remind them that minimum penalties in connection with the food black market were introduced by a Noble Lord whom hon. Members opposite never cease to praise, when the food situation became critical early in the war. Their introduction now shows the gravity with which the Government regard this particular black market, and the determination with which we are prepared to stamp it out.
I should like to refer to the question, upon which there was considerable discussion, of the misprint in the Order. It is, as my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, in answer to a question, a very regrettable thing to have occurred. My right hon. Friend did express his apologies for the fact that it had occurred. As I have explained tonight, and as he explained this afternoon, the original Order, as made, which I have myself seen, was perfectly correct. In view of the long discussion that went on about this matter, perhaps I should explain exactly what did occur. The original Order had been made, and the Stationery Office was preparing to start printing the copies for sale to the general public. A proof reader noticed that the word "or "

2621
in paragraph 613 (b) was rather faint. He asked the printers to bring it out more clearly. He did not realise that this would involve resetting the whole line, but that is what the printer did.
He returned the proof to the proof reader who, not being aware that the line had been reset, failed to observe the error. No proofs were sent to my Department, because this was purely a reprinting; so the error was not seen. I think I can say that it is the kind of mistake which would happen perhaps once in several thousand cases, and it is not likely to occur again. We have expressed our apology on behalf of the Stationery Office for what occurred.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: When was the error first seen?
Mr. Wilson: The day after the Order was laid, on the 25th or the 26th.
Mr. Reid: On a point of Order. This is really treating the House with the grossest disrespect. I have myself obtained from the Vote Office, days and weeks after those dates, uncorrected copies. Why did that happen?
Mr. Wilson: As soon as the error was discovered corrigendum slips were printed, and when they were available they were attached.
Mr. E. P. Smith rose—
Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of Order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members cannot speak unless the hon. Member addressing the House gives way.
Mr. Taylor: As this is a matter which falls within your jurisdiction, Sir, may I ask how many uncorrected copies of this Order went out from the Stationery Office?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a question that I cannot answer.
Mr. E. P. Smith: When the error was first discovered was the Select Committee's attention drawn to the matter?
Mr. Wilson: I am sorry I cannot give the figures but I am sure that very few went out to the general public that were not corrected. With regard to the Scrutiny Committee, I should say that this Order went through them last week with the corrigendum slip attached and
2622
that there was no comment and no discussion by any Member of the Scrutiny Committee.
Captain Crookshank: On a point of Order. By what authority has the Minister any right to tell the House what happened in a Select Committee? The proceedings of a Select Committee are known only to the Members of that Committee, until such time as a verbatim report is published. By what authority can the Minister make that statement?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the Minister's remarks would have been out of Order if he had prefaced his remarks with the words "So far as I know," the Select Committee had no comment to make.
Captain Crookshank: On that point of Order. The Minister has no means of knowing, unless it is by an improper disclosure by a Member of the Committee, and I ask him to withdraw the statement altogether.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be advisable if the Minister withdrew that statement.
Mr. Wilson: I will withdraw the statement. I have not seen any report of the Committee drawing attention to this, but if that statement is not in Order, I ask leave to withdraw it. I am not aware, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree, that there is anyone in this country who, because of this misprint, would have been induced to go in for any black market building that he would not otherwise have done. There has been a long discussion on the subject tonight which has been carried on without sufficient regard to the urgent needs of the housing situation, which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are always complaining is not being dealt with at sufficient speed. I want to re-emphasise that the Government building programme involves not merely maximum materials production and maximum build-up of manpower in the constructional industries but also the maximum possible deployment of men and materials on essential building materials and housing. We can learn a lesson from the end of the last war. The Government of that day, impatient to remove controls as soon is possible, revoked the regulations which controlled unessential building on 14th

2623
January, 1919, and that was one of the reasons why virtually no working class houses were built for a year or two after that. Plenty of building was done in 1919 and 1920, but far too large a proportion went into unnecessary luxury improvement and building for those with the longest purses, and the erection of great mansions for the war profiteers.
Sir William Darlinģ: Name one.
Mr. Wilson: The building programme of the present Government, under the controls which this House has authorised them to make, is not only far outstripping the achievements at the end of the last war, but is directed and concentrated on meeting the requirements of those in the greatest need for houses. It is because the Government want to emphasise the urgency of this problem and want to show the need for controlling this black market, that I hope this House is not going to be led into temptation on the matter of this Order which has been raised tonight.
An Hon. Member: No danger.
8.34 P.m.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid Bedford): We really cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with a lame explanation of that kind. At various stages throughout his rather rambling speech, he attempted to fasten on the Opposition a desire not to forward the building programme and to show indifference to the amount of unauthorised building that is taking place in various parts of the country. At the end of his speech, he made the astonishing statement that at the end of the last war palaces were being built for the well-to-do or lavish changes were being made in some people's houses. As no doubt even the back bench Members on the Government side know, the Minister responsible for housing at the end of the 1914–18 war was the present Secretary of State for the Dominions in the Socialist Government. It is true that he was sacked for incompetence by the then Prime Minister and that he had to wait for his political revival until the present Prime Minister felt that he was about the best person he could find to fill high office in another place.
The hon. Gentleman made a series of very wild and vague charges, and we are now beginning once more to see the careful build-up of the Socialist Party alibi. On almost every public issue, whenever
2624
there has been a Socialist Government, and never more so than now when, we are assured, for the first time they have real power, they are anxious to show that somebody else is really responsible for their failure to carry out their sweeping election promises. Now it is the surreptitious, illegal builders who are really sabotaging the building programme. The truth of the flatter is, of course, that at the General Election, in a desire to snatch a cheap Party advantage, they made a series of wild promises which now they find themselves hopelessly unable to implement. We watch from our historic seclusion in Opposition the birth of a new legend, and it is of very considerable interest to all of us to be in at the christening tonight.
One or two charges have been made, and one or two direct questions have been asked of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I really think he might give us an answer. If, in fact, there has been a widespread breaking of the law, why have there been so few prosecutions? Can he. give us chapter and verse? Can he tell us how many prosecutions there have been, and how many prosecutions were nearly made and then they found they were perhaps barking up the wrong tree? The Parliamentary Secretary tells us to put a Question down, yet this is a Debate on the subject, and since when has Parliamentary Question been a substitute for proper argument in the House of Commons when a formal Debate is taking place? I really believe that the defence put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary is about the lamest statement from the Government Front Bench we have had today, and that is saying a very great deal indeed.
Mr. Kirkwood: Remember the statements you used to make.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We object to this Order—
Mr. Scollan: Will the hon. Member give way? Was he trying to elucidate a point from the Parliamentary Secretary, or was he simply gloating over the inability of the Government to prosecute these people?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Not in the least. I was asking the Parliamentary Secretary—if he had got up instead of his stalwart champion, I would have sat down—how

2625
many cases of prosecution had taken place, and in how many cases they failed to prosecute when they felt there was aprima facie case to do so. If the hon. Gentleman will answer, I will willingly sit down; if he does not, then one can only imagine that he is not prepared to give the answer.
Mr. Wilson: I think the figure of prosecutions in the last six or seven months has been something like 75, but I am not quite certain.
Sir W. Darlinģ: Does that include Scotland?
Mr. Wilson: The number of cases where it might have been possible to prosecute, that is, the number of cases reported to us with prima facie evidence of black market building, were something like 200 times the number of cases in which proceedings were taken.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Then all I can say is that that is a pretty extraordinary reflection on the functioning of the Law Officers of the Crown. I shall be equally ready to give way for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General if he will tell the House why no action was taken in these several thousand cases. It would be extremely interesting to know. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman vouchsafe the House an answer?
Mr. Kirkwood: No.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd:We are getting more and more valuable information. A few minutes ago the Parliamentary Secretary told us that the whole of the Government building programme was being held up by illegal building activities; he now tells us that, with the full power of the State mobilised against these people whom, on all sides of the House, we deprecate, and whose actions we all want to stop, only 75 prosecutions have taken place. That is, 75 prosecutions have been holding up a building programme which, I believe, to quote the words of the Foreign Secretary at the last Election would give us 4,000,000 houses in double quick time. The Parliamentary Secretary, I think, will have to get another brief. We have had no answer to the real questions of principle which have been raised. If we do not get an answer—and the Law Officers are particularly involved
2626
—we shall be obliged to take this Prayer to a Division.
In how many cases was this Order without the corrigendum issued to the general public? Is it not a fact that private citizens in this country may be prosecuted for infringing the Order which, when they received it and read it, made absolute nonsense? If that is so, it is a pretty poor augury for the private subject when we are assured that government by Statutory Rules and Orders will rapidly replace government by Parliament. The House is entitled to an answer to that question. We want further information on this question of minimum penalties. I speak with hesitation here as a pure layman—as a layman, in deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman I will withdraw the adjective. As a layman, it seems to me that this certainly is breaking new ground. I understood as a layman that there were very few offences in which minimum and fixed penalties were imposed, murder and treason being the most obvious.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned food penalties. I was, for a brief period, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food and my recollection of Orders there was that the penalty was based on the amount of profit the man who broke the regulation had in fact made. If that is so, and I stand to be corrected, it is no parallel whatever for these quite fortuitous and sweeping penalties which this Order enforces. For 100 years we have been rapidly getting rid of fixed and minimum penalties in the law of England. I should be very interested to know what is the attitude of the Home Secretary to an order of this kind. Did this go before the Cabinet Committee? Has the Home Secretary expressed an opinion on it? He came in for a few minutes and, no doubt for the first time, saw the Order, and beat a very hasty and wise retreat. The Home Office has realised for more than a generation, indeed for many generations, that fixed and minimum penalties of this kind defeat the ends of justice, and judges and juries alike are reluctant to convict in such cases, where the fixed penalties are out of tune with the gravity of the offence committed. We are entitled to a proper explanation from the Attorney-General himself. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry indulged in a few prehistoric sentiments

2627
about these penal sentences preventing the commission of crime. I thought we had got past that long since.
This is an attempt by His Majesty's Government, by increasing penalties, to cover up their failure to provide houses. We notice with interest that joint action is to be taken, or action taken singly by the Minister or by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have a lively recollection of the collapse of the first Socialist Government because of a slight difference between their Front Bench and the Director of Public Prosecutions. We believe the collapse of this Administration, the first with full power, may come as a result of the complete failure of their housing programme. That is why it gives us certain ironical satisfaction to sec the marriage of the Minister and the Director of Public Prosecutions in this new Order. But our satisfaction is tempered by the fact that large numbers of our fellow citizens were in ignorance of the real purport of the Order and that, for the first time in my recollection, minimum and fixed penalties are to be imposed in defiance of the developments of the last 100 years.
8.45 P.m.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: We really cannot allow the Attorney-General [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is really quite monstrous. We have two Law Officers here. A matter of important legal principle was put forward. I challenged the Law Officers to deny my statement that all we got in reply was a long rambling statement which did not answer my points at all, because it had obviously been prepared before I spoke. We are entitled, on a matter raising important legal principles of this sort, to have an answer from a Law Officer of the Crown. If we do not, the reason is obvious. It is because the Law Officers dare not de— fend this Order, and I am not at all surprised. I knew that the Socialist Party were a good many years out of date, but I did not think they were about 200 years out of date. About 200 years ago it was thought that if penalties were increased that decreased crime. Accordingly, all kinds of things, from sheep-stealing downwards, were made capital offences. Not many offenders were caught, and crime flourished. It was only in the course of last century that we discovered that the right way to stop
2628
crime was not to increase penalties, but to catch more of the offenders.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that, in this matter, for every one caught there are 100 offenders. What is the good of asking for increased penalties in those circumstances? This Order will not enable the Department to catch one single additional offender. All it will do will be to increase the penalties of those who are caught. We are here back to the old days of making a thing a capital offence, of not bothering to tighten up the machinery of enforcement, and hoping that crime will stop. I counsel the hon. Gentleman to reduce the penalties, make better the enforcement machinery and prosecute the people who he says are offending. If he can only prosecute one in Too, the present administration must be beneath contempt.
8.48 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I would like to move the Adjournment of the Debate owing to the failure of either of the Law Officers, who have sat and heard the discussion, to give the House any advice on a question for which they are paid to give us advice. It is the duty of the Law Officers, when questions of law are raised, to answer them. We have no quarrel with the Minister. He is not here as one of our legal advisers His speech was adequate for the points with which he dealt, but if the Law Officers persist in not giving us any kind of advice, I wish to move that this Debate may be adjourned, in order that they can think out something to say when we resume it.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's Motion. I understand that the responsible Minister, admittedly a junior Minister, has replied at length. This has been a long Debate, and it seems to me that it is not a proper case in which I can exercise my discretion and accept an Adjournment Motion.
Captain Crookshank: Then may I ask what useful purpose is served by the Law Officers sitting here?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Gallacher: Many questions have been asked. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead

2629
(Mr. J. S. C. Reid) said that speakers on the other side were being treated with great disrespect. Do they ask honest men to treat them with anything else but disrespect when they are defending black marketeers? For people to get a little extra profit is no serious crime to them, but we see men, women and innocent children dying for the lack of homes. That is why we cannot have any respect
of any kind for those who try to defend the people who commit these offences.
Question put,
" That the Order in Council, dated 10th March, 1946, amending Regulation 56A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, and the Defence (Recovery of Fines) Regulations, 1942 (S.R. & O., 1946 No. 371), a copy of which was presented on 25th March, be annulled."
The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes, 282.

Division No. 130.]

AYES.

8.50 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Raikes, H. V.

Baldwin, A E.

Grimston, R. V.

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Barlow, Sir J.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Sanderson, Sir F.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Haughton, S. G.

Scott, Lord W.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Shepherd. Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)

Bossom, A. C

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Smith, E. P (Ashford)

Bower, N.

Hurd, A.

Snadden, W. M.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr, J. G.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Jennings, R.

Spence, Maj. H. R

Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Strauss, H G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Langford-Holt, J.

Studholme, H. G.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Sutcliffe, H.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H,

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Walker-Smith, D.

Davidson, Viscountess

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Whealley, Colonel M. J.

Drayson, Capt. G- B.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Drewe. C.

Maude, J. C.

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

Ecoles, D. M.

Medlicott, Brig. F

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Erroll, F. J.

Mellor, Sir J.

York, C.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Nicholson, G

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and

Gammans, Capt. L. D.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Mr. G. S. Taylor

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Prescott, Stanley

NOES.

Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

Brawn, T. J (Ince)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Adamson, Mrs. J. L

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Allen, A. C. Bosworth)

Buchanan, G.

Durbin E. F. M.

Anderson, A (Motherwell)

Burke, W. A.

Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Attewell, H. C.

Callaghan, James

Evans E. (Lowestoft)

Austin H L.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Awbery, S. S

Champion, A. J

Ewart, R.

Ayles, W H.

Chater, D.

Fairhurst, F

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Chetwynd, Capt G. R.

Farthing, W. J.

Bacon, Miss A.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Baird, Capt. J.

Cluse, W. S.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Balfour, A.

Cobb, F. A.

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Coldrick, W.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Barstow, P. G.

Collick, P.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Barton, C.

Collindridge, F.

Gallacher, W.

Battley, J. R.

Collins, V. J.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Becnervaise, A E

Colman, Miss G. M.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Belcher, J. W.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Gibson, C. W.

Benson, G.

Cook, T. F.

Gilzean, A.

Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)

Corvedale, Viscount

Gooch, E. G

Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)

Daggar, G.

Goodrich, H. E.

Bing, Capt G. H. C.

Daines, P.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Binns, J.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Grenfell, D. R.

Blenkinsop, Caot A

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Grey, C. F.

Blyton, W. R.

Davies Ernest (Enfield)

Grierson, E.

Boardman, H.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S W.)

Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)

Bottomley, A. G.

Deer, G

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

Bowen, R.

Delargy, Captain H. J.

Guy, W. H.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Diamond, J

Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Braddook, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

Dobbie, W.

Hale, Leslie

Braddook, T. (Mitcham)

Dodds, N. N

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Donovan, T.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hardy, E. A.

Harrison, J.

Medland, H. M.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Messer, F.

Solley, L. J

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Mikardo, Ian

Sorensen, R. W.

Herbison, Miss M.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Stamford, W.

Hobson, C. R.

Monslow, W.

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Holman, P.

Moody, A. S.

Stubbs, A. E.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Morley, R.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Horabin, T. L.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Symonds, Maj. A. L

House, G

Morris, P. (Swanrea, W.)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Hoy, J.

Mort; O. L

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Hubbard, T.

Murray, J. D.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Nally, W.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

O'Brien, T.

Thorneycroft, H

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Oldfield, W H.

Tiffany, S

Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

Oliver, G H.

Timmons, J.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Orbach, M.

Titterington, M. F.

John, W

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Ungoed-Thamas. L

Jones, P. Asterley, (Hitchin)

Pargiter, G. A.

Usborne, Henry

Kenyon, C.

Parkin, Fit.-Lieut. B. T.

Viant, S. P.

Key C. W.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Walker, G. H.

King, E. M.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Kinley, J.

Perrins, W.

Warbey, W. N.

Kirby, B. V.

Popplewell, E.

Watson, W. M.

Kirkwood, D.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Weitzman, D.

Lavers, S.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Wells, P L. (Faversham)

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Pritt, D. N.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Proctor, W. T.

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Pursey, Cmdr. H

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Leonard, W.

Ranger, J.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Leslie, J. R.

Rankin, J.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Levy, B. W.

Reeves, J.

Wigg, Col. G. E

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Rhodes, H.

Wilkins, W. A.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Logan, D. G.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Longden, F.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Williams, Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)

McAdam, W.

Sargood, R

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

McEntee, V. La T.

Scollan, T.

Williamson, T.

McKay, J. (Wallsand)

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Willis, E.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Sharp, Lt.-Col G. M.

Wills, Mrs. E A

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Wilson, J. H.

McLeavy, F

Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

Wise, Major F. J

MacMillan, M K

Shurtner, P.

Woodburn, A.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Silverman J. (Erdington)

Woods, G. S

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Simmons, C. J.

Yates, V. F.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Skinnard, F. W.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhitbe)

Younger, Hon. K. G

Marquand, H. A.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Zilliacus, K.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Mathers, G

Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

Mayhew, C. P.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Mr. Joseph Henderson and

Mr. Pearson.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES(TRANSITIONAL POWERS)(FOOD)
9.2 p.m.
Mr. Spence: I beg to move,
"That the Imported Cherries Order(S. R. & O., 1946, No. 472), dated 29th March 1946, a copy of which was presented on 4th April, be annulled."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I understand that it would be to the general convenience of the House if this Prayer and the following one, dealing with imported green vegetables, were taken together.
Mr. Spence: As it would be convenient for the House to do as you suggest, Mr.
2632
Deputy-Speaker, I shall ask your permission, if we go to a Division, to move the second Prayer formally.
My reason for asking for an annulment of this Order is based upon a point of substance, and I hope that hon. Members will not have the impression that this Prayer has been moved in a trivial way. I can produce practical evidence to show that these Orders operate unfairly in many parts of Scotland. They deal with imported cherries and green vegetables, and are the latest two arrivals in a long list of Orders which has preceded them. The Orders regulate the price of distributing and selling by retail vegetables and fruit all over the country. Their operation has, in the main, been

2633
perfectly equitable and fair, but in the north of Scotland, and especially in my own constituency, this is not so.
For the purposes of the Orders, the country is divided, roughly, into three parts. My complaint is based on the fact, especially in the case of Order No. 471, that the actual cost of import, plus the cost of porterage and transport, is more than the permitted selling price when the goods get to their destination. It is very natural, therefore. that traders prefer not to deal in goods which only bring them a loss. The more they bring in the more they lose and, therefore, the population in the parts affected are going without that variety in their diet which they ought to be having. In effect, at the moment there is a famine of green vegetables in Aberdeen.
Without going into a mass of detail regarding the Order, I want to trace the result of bringing cauliflowers to Aberdeen from London. The first hand price of cauliflowers on import is 21s. 3d. per cwt., and the permitted selling price for wholesalers in Aberdeen is 27s. 6d. But we find that we have to pay far more than that difference to get the cauliflowers to Aberdeen. Here are the figures. There is a commission agent's charge of 9d. per cwt. and a porterage charge from the docks to King's Cross of 1s. 4d., so that we get the cauliflowers at King's Cross for 23s. 4d. If we take those cauliflowers by passenger train to Aberdeen the cost is 11s. 7d. per cwt., which makes the price of cauliflowers in Aberdeen 34s. 11d. against a permitted selling price of 275. 6d. The net loss per cwt. is 7s. 5d. But one may decide to take the cauliflowers by goods train, and there is an objection to this method, to which I shall refer. The cost by goods train for a two ton lot is 87s. 3d. a ton, which works out at 4s. 4½d. per cwt., and, therefore, with the price of 23s. 4d. at King's Cross, the cost at Aberdeen is 27s. 8½d., making a net loss of 2½d. per cwt.
The actual loss is even greater because the wholesaler on selling cauliflowers in Aberdeen pays at the gross transit rate—that is, the cauliflower and the container—and is only allowed to reclaim at the rate of 3s. 4d. per cwt. on the net weight. The inequality may perhaps best be summed up by saying that a wholesaler in Aberdeen has to sell his green
2634
vegetables at the same price as the wholesaler in Durham or Middlesbrough, although he has got double the haul to get them there, and that is the burden of my main complaint in respect of this Order. The position as regards carriage is aggravated by the fact that these vegetables must be moved by train. The time by goods train from London to Aberdeen is six days, and it is not always as short as six days. I have seen 5 cwt. of cauliflowers being shovelled into a dustman's cart, a stinking mass, having just come off the train.
The remedy is simple; it is a slight rise in the retail price. If the present price were 7d. or 7½d. to cover the passenger train cost, the people of the North East would rather pay that price and get a cauliflower, than walk around with 6d. in their pockets and see a Ministry of Food notice in the window saying, "Cauliflowers 6d. each," but he unable to get one. It would be far more satisfying. Hon. Members feel that this matter ought to be settled by negotiation between the trade organisations concerned and the officials of the Ministry of Food. I would like to point out that efforts have repeatedly been made to bring this matter to the attention of Ministry of Food officials. This point with regard to the transit of vegetables to Aberdeen applies not only to imported but to home produced vegetables, but I cannot refer to that because it is not in the Order. There is a shortage of vegetables in Aberdeen. In praying for the annulment of this Order, I want to stress that one of the first duties of the Government is to consider the people. It is wrong that a large section of the community should be denied the variety and balance that they are entitled to have in their diet.
I would like to refer to Order No. 472 which deals with imported cherries. Here the case is not so bad, although it is not as it should be. Aberdeen comes in what we call the No. 2 area, and the maximum carriage allowance for cherries is 11s. 1d. from London to Aberdeen. All imported cherries coming from France and Italy, which are the main importing countries, come to London; therefore, we have to get them from London. Out of the allowance of 11s. 1d. for carriage there are a variety of charges to meet; 11s. 7d. per cwt. is the cost of transport. There are brokerage and porterage charges, which

2635
are permitted under Order at the rate of 3s. 6d. Therefore, in the end it is found that there is 11s. 1d. less 3s. 6d., in other words 75. 7d., to meet a rail charge of 11s. 7d. The result is that the wholesaler in Aberdeen has to subsidise the cost of transport out of his profits. In Area 2 in the case of Order No. 472, which deals with cherries, the wholesaler in Lerwick, Shetland, has to sell his cherries at the same price as the wholesaler in Middlesbrough or Durham. That is definitely wrong, and is due to lack of foresight and understanding in the arrangements made by the Ministry. The Shetland Food Control Committee have, in the past, protested most vigorously to the Aberdeen provision dealers on this matter in connection with the shortage of fruit.
While these impractical Orders remain in force the result for the country will be that 500,000 people who live in the Scottish Northern Food Division will not get the ration to which they are entitled. It is on their behalf that I ask for this annulment tonight. I would remind hon. Members that this is not a political matter. Food is a common denominator of all parties. I know I shall receive support from the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), who recently took the Ministry of Food to task in connection with vitamins in Aberdeen, when he drew attention to the position of green vegetables there. I hope the House generally will support this annulment, unless we can get a very great measure of reassurance from the Parliamentary Secretary as to the future intentions of the Ministry on this question.
9.13 p.m.
Lord William Scott: I beg to second the Motion.
The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) has very clearly indicated the reasons why he has moved this Motion. Those of us who put our names to it accept the fact that, for the time being, and probably for a considerable period in the future, it will be necessary to have price control for such articles of diet as imported green vegetables and imported cherries. The chief fault we find with these two Orders is that adequate provision has not been made for the considerable expense of long distance train conveyance from London to the distant selling areas in North Britain. The extra
2636
cost of rail transport has to be borne by the wholesaler. The difference between the price the wholesaler has to pay to the importer in London and the price he is permitted, by regulation, to charge the retailer in Scotland or elsewhere is regulated, and in many cases is insufficient to meet the extra cost of the rail transport over the greater distance.
The result of these Orders is that during the last few months there has been a surprising scarcity of green vegetables in Scotland. Not only has the quantity of imported green vegetables been negligible, but, as is normal at this time of the year, there is a scarcity of locally grown vegetables, and an almost complete failure for the conveyance and local distribution of green vegetables grown further South in England. The result has been that the people of Scotland have been deprived of green vegetables at that time of the year when they are in greatest need of them. We can anticipate that, for exactly the same reasons, namely, the cost of transport, when the time comes there will be a similar scarcity of imported cherries.
I think it as well to remind the House that in Scotland the soft fruit season occurs at a considerably later period in the year than it does in England. There is no doubt that imported cherries, for those who are able to afford them, will be appreciated even more in Scotland than in many areas in England. In any event, we Scottish Members believe that the people of Scotland are entitled to imported green vegetables and imported cherries every bit as much as the people of England.
We also believe that when Whitehall produces these regulations for the people of Britain they have to pay just as much attention to those living in Scotland as to those living in England and in London. We are entitled to our fair share of the imported luxuries—if you would call them so—or necessities, as the case may he. We are entitled to them, and at the present moment we are not getting them, and unless some alteration is made to the present Regulations we are not likely to get them in the future. It is because of that that my hon. Friends and I, Scots Members, have put our names to this Motion.
9.18 p.m.
Mr. Collins: I do not wish to follow the mover and seconder of this

2637
Motion in the remarks that they have made relative to Scotland, but I should like to bring the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, to one particular and to one general point. They apply to both these Orders. In both Orders there is reference to wicker containers, in which, it is expected, some of the produce will be imported. In the Order relating to cauliflowers it states that where trimmed cauliflowers are imported in wicker containers they should be sold at prices for trimmed, and that where they are imported in other containers they should he sold at prices for untrimmed. To my mind, the difference between these two prices, whether it be at the import stage or at the first hand stage or any other stage, appears to give a rough estimation of the value of these containers which, it is provided, shall afterwards be sold on the market. I notice that at the import stage the difference between the values varies from 7s. 3d. on 2nd June, to 8s. 3d. at 24th July, and 5s. 6d. at 29th September.
I do not want to labour the point that there cannot be a difference in values in these containers at different periods of the year, but I do want to point out most emphatically that the figures cannot in any way relate to the true values of these containers. They are related to one cwt. of produce. It is not possible to put into the container more than 28 lbs. of any cauliflowers or similar goods. It means there would have to be four bushel containers to take one cwt. of produce. Consider four bushel containers for 7s. 3d. when the price in this country cannot be less than 10s. each, and one can readily imagine what an appalling situation would be created in the basket industry when it is confronted with thousands of these containers being put on to the market at a price possibly a quarter or less than that for which they can be made.
The basket industry consists of some 7,000 workers scattered all over the country from Land's End to John o'Groats. In Scotland we are endeavouring, in the Isle of Skye and elsewhere, to build up Highland industries in willow-craft, and many of these containers can and should be made in the various basket shops throughout this country. There are included amongst the 7,000 workers in
2638
the basket industry some 3,000 blind workers. I suggest, and I feel quite sure my hon. Friend will agree, that it could not have been the intention to do anything which would injure these craftsmen and their possibilities of gaining a future livelihood. During the war they played an outstanding part and made an outstanding contribution to the war effort of this country, whether they were blind or disabled in any way or not. This argument applies equally to the cherries Order, although there is no specific difference there on which one can lay one's hand. But the containers have a very high value. They are immediately useful as soon as their contents are sold. They are a standard of package for containing apples or cauliflowers cm any other goods, and it does seem mistaken to price them at present under 10s. It may be argued that having done one journey they will be second hand; but they will be practically as good as new. Therefore, I do ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to take another look at this matter to see whether it is not possible to make some different arrangements relative to containers.
I mentioned that I was going to speak on a general point which covers both Orders. In my view, my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated in having in these two Orders drastically curtailed the margin between the importer and the seller as compared with the margins in other Orders, notably the one relating to tomatoes. The difference for retail prices for cherries is only 60 per cent. as compared with something like 111 per cent. I notice that the system of first hand sales is still continued. In my view this crystallises quite unnecessarily another class of middlemen. It arises out of the fact that there has been a change in the definition of first hand sales between 1941, when it was described as:
" First sale by OT on behalf of the importer. '' \
The definition in the present Order says:
" the first sale thereof, after importation into the United Kingdom, by a licensed wholesaler or through the agency of a licensed selling agent."
The effect of that is to change what was ordinary commercial practice before the war. Firms imported food and sold it as the wholesaler. or imported food and sold it ex-quay for other people to sell as

2639
the wholesaler. Now we have an importer, a first-hand salesman, a wholesaler and then a retailer. Another person has crept in. In the Order relating to tomatoes, my right hon. Friend has stated that 91 out of the 130 firms permitted to import tomatoes are, in addition, to be licensed wholesalers, and therefore qualify as first-hand salesmen and wholesalers, having the opportunity of making not one but three different profits.
It may be properly said by my right hon. Friend that these two Orders have taken good care of that situation by not allowing any separate margin; the first hand sale price is exactly the same as the wholesale price. If, in fact, there is to be no difference between the two prices, with which I thoroughly agree, then why perpetuate the fallacy that there are two different classes of traders when, in fact, they perform what is really one function. Another point is that the importer presumably can sell direct to the wholesaler, to the first hand salesman or wholesaler. In that event it would appear to me that under these two Orders the wholesaler would be getting a greatly enhanced profit. The import price is exactly the same in both cases, but it appears that there is nothing to stop him from getting a greatly enhanced profit. I ask the lion. Lady to make that point quite clear. In my view, although the margins have been most successfully cut and unnecessary profits have been eliminated, we are still perpetuating in these Orders the fallacy of the first hand salesman. Unless some drastic change is made in the Orders relating to wicker containers, a very grave blow, quite unintentionally, will be struck at the basket industry.
9.29 p.m.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The House has been greatly interested in the informed contribution of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins). If I do not follow him, it is not because I do not agree with almost all that he has said, particularly in regard to the point which he made so well and with such lucidity in regard to containers. I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, although I come from a part of the country not uninterested in this subject. I am tempted to do so, however, by the fact that I feel almost sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary who is in charge of the Government's case and is to reply to these Orders. She looks so charming
2640
and so worried that one is almost tempted to come to her rescue. I want to do so. At the end of what I have to say, I want to suggest a way in which, I think, we on this side of the House may help her out of her obvious difficulties. The object of the Ministry of Food, in these Orders, must be to secure equitable distribution of green vegetables and fruit throughout the country. The effect of the Order, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) and the Noble' Lord who seconded the Motion have shown, is not being obtained by the Order itself. In fact, under the Order, it is more profitable for the importer to send green vegetables to places nearer to London than to the North of Scotland, and the people in the North of Scotland are not getting their fair quota of this desirable commodity. Therefore, the whole object of the Ministry of Food is being defeated. The gratitude of 500,000 people in the North of Scotland will go out to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen for bringing forward this subject tonight; it is only right that it should be ventilated in the British House of Commons.
I said that I was going to do my best to help the hon. Lady. I am going to do it in this way. We have, of course, no other choice open to us but to pray for the annulment of the Order, but we want to get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Minister, that she will look at this matter again, bearing in mind the points which have been so forcibly and clearly put by hon. Members on this side of the House. If we could have her assurance that it would be withdrawn and replaced with something which would meet our views, I am quite certain that we would not wish to harass her further.
9.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine, Western (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) that it requires more than his ability to harass me. The mover of the Prayer was anxious to assure the House that he was not doing so for any trivial reasons. I am quite sure that the House realises that. I think that he has made a substantial point. I am convinced, listening to his presentation of the case, that the ability and capacity which he so obviously possesses

2641
indicate that Aberdeen is not short of vitamins. In fact, Scotland, I think, have put their case very well tonight.
Briefly, I would like to explain the purpose of these Orders. The discussion has been a little technical, and I feel that perhaps my Department has been represented as introducing Orders which are unnecessary. It is hoped that during 1946 the importation of a wider variety of fruit and vegetables will be available, and the two Orders which we are discussing bring under direct price control certain vegetables only—broccoli and cauliflowers—and, the only fruit—cherries.
These products have been prohibited since 1940. Having decided to import cherries, it became necessary to introduce a fresh price schedule, as the price schedule in the Order for home produced cherries and cauliflowers was not appropriate. The Order for home produced cherries prescribed the maximum prices chargeable by the grower and those chargeable by the purchasers from him. This classification was ineffective to deal with imported cherries and this also applies to imported green vegetables.
The differentiation, which has been discussed tonight, according to areas, is introduced to coincide with those in the home produced order, with which I think hon. Members are conversant. Imported cherries cannot be distinguished from home grown cherries for sale purposes. Many hon. Members probably do not realise that important point. Though they are imported cherries they cannot be distinguished by the purchaser. Therefore, this new Order deals with imported fruit and it must be related to the home produced. The differentiation of the areas in the Imported Cherries Order has been introduced for that reason, and, of course, in order that there shall be an equitable distribution of fruit and vegetables throughout the country. I think that, so far as the home produced order is concerned, hon. Members who are praying tonight will agree that that equitable distribution has achieved its purpose. The case for imported fruit and vegetables rests entirely on the shortage of supplies and the general desire, now that the war is over, to bring some variety into our diet. The total supplies of fruit in 1945 were considerably less than half the average
2642
supplies of the three years before the war. I am sure hon. Members will agree that these Orders are necessary if we are to supplement our present rather meagre rations of fruit.
I am anxious to deal with the other questions that have been raised. In order that the consumers and the traders should be treated equitably we decided to divide the country into three parts as far as the Second Schedule in the Order is concerned. If the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence), who moved the Prayer, will forgive me for saying it, there is a part of Scotland which is rather desolate and to which we give a special schedule. Apart from that schedule, we divided the rest of the country into two areas, the northern area and Great Britain. The distribution allowance for the traders in the Northern area is greater than in the Southern. It happens, that the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen represents a constituency which is at the tip of the northern area. He is in a difficult position. He reminds me of a question which was asked in the House some time ago whether the Ministry would divide the country into soft water areas and hard water areas, and that those people living in the hard water areas should get more soap than those who are living in the soft water areas. We always have to say it is impossible to define such areas, because there will always be people living on the boundary who will be dissatisfied. The hon. Member is one of the people who represent a constituency on the boundary of the northern area. The people in the south of the area are not supporting him tonight. They are satisfied.
Sir William Darlinģ: No: I was not allowed to get in.
Dr. Summerskill: I would not say the hon. Member represented a constituency in the extreme South of the Northern area by any means.
Sir W. Darlinģ: I represent Edinburgh, which is in the South-East part of Scotland.
Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, but if the hon. Member will read his Order carefully he will find there are many constituencies South of Edinburgh in the Northern area.
Sir W. Darlinģ: Is the hon. Lady at broccoli or cherries now?
Dr. Summerskill: There is something common to both Orders. I agree that the

2643
hon. Member for Central Aberdeen has a grievance, but he knows that we have tried to meet him and the traders. We have had meeting after meeting to thrash out the matter in order to try and arrive at an arrangement which would be acceptable to him. But the alternative he suggests is one we cannot accept. He said it would be simple to increase the price of cauliflowers. The Ministry of Food is primarily a consumers' Ministry. A very good case has been put up tonight for the trade, and I want to put the case for the consumer. It is unfair to increase the price of cauliflowers to consumers in any part of the country. We believe that there should be a uniform price. Furthermore—and I wonder whether this point has been thought of—if the price of cauliflowers is put up in Aberdeen then cauliflowers from the Lothians will find their way into Aberdeen in order that the trader should have an extra penny. That would be most unfortunate for every area in Scotland. Therefore, while the hon. Member may think that we are not playing fair with Aberdeen we are playing fair with those areas which are supplied with cauliflowers from the Lothians. It is for that reason that we cannot agree to negotiate once more, and that we cannot withdraw this Order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) referred to containers, and said it was impossible to obtain a sufficient supply. I shall bear in mind what he said about the black market in containers, and find out whether there is any possibility of that. My hon. Friend also referred to links in our chain of distribution. I agree that too many middlemen are certainly undesirable, but I would remind him that we have inherited the wartime machinery; that we are using it at the moment. We feel that it is most efficient to continue to do so until the time comes to reorganise our distribution. My lion. Friend also mentioned the price which first hand salesmen and wholesalers received in Area 1, under the Imported Cherries Order, and said he found it difficult to understand. In Area 1 there is only one wholesaler.
Mr. Collins: I think my hon. Friend referred to me as saying something about the black market. I do not remember making any remark of that kind. The industry has not yet been asked to supply
2644
containers, nor has it been given any orders, so it would hardly be fair to say that it cannot supply them. It would be most undesirable if thousands of imports were allowed to come in by the backdoor.
Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry if I have hurt my hon. Friend's feelings by saying that he said something about the black market, but I thought he suggested there would be undesirable firms who would be anxious to undercut the market. One tends to associate the black market with people who behave in an anti-social manner of that kind in commerce. I hope I have convinced the House that we have tried to deal equitably not only with the traders, but with the consumers. I assure hon. Members that it is very essential that we should not break faith with the consumers.
9.46 p.m.
Mr. Baldwin: When I entered the House this evening, I was not aware it would be in Order for me to talk about home-grown vegetables, but since the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food has mentioned them, I would like to say a few words on the subject, and I hope that someone who represents a vegetable district much more than I do may make a contribution to the Debate. I want to point out to the hon. Lady what has happened in my district during the last two seasons. I mention these facts in the hope that something may be done to give a better distribution of vegetables when they happen to be in surplus in a given area. For the last two years, in my area, at a certain period of the growing season, we have ploughed in crops of green peas because we could not get the cost of picking them. I have myself ploughed in 20 acres during the last two years.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will not be in Order if he pursues that matter.
Mr. Baldwin: As the hon. Lady mentioned home-grown vegetables, I thought I would be in Order in my remarks. I have mentioned these points because I think they are important to consumers of this country. Many people have suffered from the bad distribution of vegetables during the past two years, and the result has been that many are not growing all that they could grow this season. They have been bitten twice, and do not want to be bitten again. I ask the hon. Lady

2645
to give attention to this matter. If people North of the Border are short of green vegetables, I can assure them that we are in a position to supply them. Since imports are being allowed, I hope steps will be taken to see that those imports are directed to the North of England, where they will be wanted, rather than put on the Southern market, where they will still further depress our trade. In reply to a Question in the House a few days ago, the Minister of Food said that he did not intend to allow the consumers of this country to be stung to the extent of half-crown each for lettuces. The following day I visited Covent Garden to find out what were the facts. The market was rather swamped with imported Dutch lettuces. The Ministry should keep these things in mind when they allow imports of foreign fruit and vegetables. They should see that those imports are directed to that part of the country where they are wanted and not allowed to depress the market here.
9.49 P.m.
Mr. Baker White: I should be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary would give a further explanation of the figures in Part 7 of the Imported Green Vegetables Order. They refer to the period up to and including 2nd June, from 3rd June to 24th July, and from 25th July to 29th September, 1946. Nothing is said about maximum prices after the end of September, 1946. I raise the point because it seems to me that, as from that date, any sort of protection for the home grower will be removed. I am strengthened in that view by a letter from an association of growers in East Kent, in which they say that, although some measure of protection has been given in the case of cauliflowers and broccoli, this covers only the next two months, and that there will be no protection for the late autumn crop, as this will not be ready for sale until January, 1947. It seems that there will be no protection to the home grower after the end of September, 1946. I hope we can be given further explanation on that point and some sort of assurance that in spite of the need for imports there will be continual protection for the grower at home who has stimulated his production in response to the wartime requests of the Ministry of Agriculture.
9.51 p.m.
Mr. Murray: There is one point I should like to make. When I live in an area I do not like to be left out when any goods are going. What I am concerned about is whether the Minister is satisfied in her own mind that in the Northern part of Scotland, as has been stated, wholesalers cannot purchase the imported cauliflowers to sell retail at a profit. Is the hon. Lady satisfied that the North of Scotland shall continue to obtain cauliflowers under those conditions, or how does she propose to meet the situation? She definitely said that the Ministry of Food was a consumers' council. If that is so, what is the point of giving supplies to these particular people if the wholesalers are not going to stand the loss mentioned by the hon. Member opposite?
9.52 p.m.
Mr. Spence: May I express my very grave disappointment with the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food? I had hoped that we should receive some consideration If the claims of the 500,000 people in the North Eastern Food Division of Scotland. Instead, the Minister told us how equitable the distribution was and described the Ministry of Food as a consumers' Ministry. All I can say is that we do not get any green vegetables to consume in Aberdeen, and I cannot see why it should be impossible for the Ministry of Food to devise ways and means of seeing that we get these imported vegetables at a time when we need them. This need not interfere with the home-grown crop because we need the imported vegetables when they are not available from our own farms.
I express very great disappointment that I should have had such a harsh reply—for that is what it amounted to for the North of Scotland. I think the hon. Lady created the impression that I was in just a little corner of Scotland. I am not; I am right in the middle of the North-East of Scotland with cities with large populations who deserve the variety of diverse articles of diet which they are unable to buy because of these rigid regulations. It is this inelastic officialdom which is holding up the imports of these foodstuffs for Scotland today. The Orders to which my Prayers

2647
relate are very wide; they are symptomatic of all the Orders which are holding up the solution of the problem. I do not know whether hon. Members saw only last week in the newspapers that 20,000 tons of broccoli were brought out of Cornwall by 202 special trains, not tine of which went to Scotland, the fault being with the Ministry of Food. I take a very dim view of the reassurance given by the hon. Lady.
Dr. Summerskill: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the last point raised by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence). He says that none of the trains he mentioned went to Scotland, and he
is quite right. I made inquiries and I discovered that not one train went even as far as Edinburgh—where it is certainly possible to make a profit out of these cauliflowers—because the wholesalers there did not ask for cauliflowers and, therefore., the stationmaster said that a special train was not warranted.
Question put.
" That the Order in Council, dated 20th March, 1946, amending Regulation 56A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, and the Defence (Recovery of Fines) Regulations, 1942 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 371), a copy of which was presented on 25th March, be annulled."
The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 250.

Division No. 131.]

AYES.

[9.55 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Grimston, R. V.

Noble, Comdr. A H. P

Baldwin, A. E.

Hope, Lord J.

Prescott, Stanley

Barlow, Sir J.

Hurd, A.

Raikes, H. V.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Hutchison, Lt-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Sanderson, Sir F.

Bossom, A. C.

Jennings, R.

Scott, Lord W.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Keeling, E. H.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Spearman, A C. M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Studholme, H. G.

Crowder Capt. J. F. E.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Sutcliffe, H.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Davidson, Viscountess

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Walker-Smith, D.

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Drewe, C.

Maude, J. C.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Eccles, D. M.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Fletcher, W (Bury)

Mellor, Sir J.

York, C.

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Gammans, Capt. L. D.

Neven-Spence, Sir B

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Nicholson, G.

Mr. C S. Taylor and

Mr. Spence.

NOES.

Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

Brown, T J. (Ince)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

Bruce, Maj. D. W T

Dumpleton, C. W

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Buchanan, G

Durbin, E F. M

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Burden, T. W

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

Callaghan, James

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Attewell, H. C.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Austin, H. L.

Champion, A. J.

Ewart, R.

Awbery, S. S.

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

Fairhurst, F.

Ayles, W. H

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Farthing, W. J.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Cobb, F. A.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Bacon, Miss A.

Cocks, F. S.

Fraser, T (Hamilton)

Baird, Capt. J

Coldriek, W.

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Balfour, A.

Collindridge, F

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Barstow, P. G.

Colman, Miss G M.

Gaitskell, H. T. N

Barton, C.

Cook, T. F.

Gallachor, W.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well. N.W.)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Belcher, J. W.

Corvedale, Viscount

George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G Lloyd (P'ke)

Benson, G.

Daggar, G.

George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.

Daines, P.

Gibson, C. W

Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

Dolton, Rt. Hon. H.

Gilzean, A.

Binns, J.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Granville, J. E. (Consett)

Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Gooch, E. G.

Blyton, W. R.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Goodrich, H. E

Boardman, H.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancres, S.W.)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Bottomley, A. G.

Deer, G.

Grenfell, D. R.

Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Grey, C. F.

Bowen, R

Delargy, Captain H J.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

Diamond, J

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Braddock. Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Dobbie, W.

Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Dodds, N. N

Guy, W. H.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Donovan, T

Hale, Leslie

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Douglas, F. C. R.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Brown, George (Belper)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Hardy, E. A.

Mayhew, C. P.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Medland, H. M.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Haworth, J.

Messer, F.

Smith. T (Normanton)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Mikardo, Ian

Snow Capt. J. W.

Herbison, Miss M

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Stamford. W

Hobson, C. R.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Holman, P.

Monslow, W.

Stubbs, A. E.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Moody, A. S

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Horabin, T L.

Morley, R.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

House, G.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Hoy, J.

Morris, P (Swansea, W)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Hubbard. I

Mort, D. L.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Murray, J. D.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Nally, W.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)

Irving, W. J.

O'Brien, T.

Tiffany, S.

Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A.

Oldfield, W. H.

Timmons, J.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Oliver, G. H.

Titterington, M. F.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Orbach, M.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)

Usborne, Henry

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Kenyon, C.

Pargiter, G. A.

Warbey, W. N.

King, E. M.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Watson, W. M.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Perrins, W.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Kinley, J.

Popplewell, E.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Kirkwood, D.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Lavers, S.

Porter, G. (Leeds.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Pritt, D. N.

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Proctor, W. T.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Leonard, W.

Pursey Cmdr. H

Wilkins, W. A.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Ranger, J.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Rankin, J

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Reeves, J.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Logan, D. G.

Rhodes, H.

Williamson, T.

Longden, F.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Willis, E

McAdam, W.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

McEntee, V. La T.

Sargood, R.

Wise, Major F. J.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Scollan, T.

Woodburn, A.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Woods, G. S

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Yates, V. F.

McLeavy, F.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Shurmer, P.

Younger, Hon. K. G.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Zilliacus, K.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Simmons, G. J.

Marquand, H. A.

Skinnard, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)

Mr. Joseph Henderson and

Mathers, G.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Mr. Pearson.

Mr. Spence: I beg to move,
" That the Imported Green Vegetables Order (S.R. & O., 1946. No. 471) dated 29th March, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 4th April be annulled."
Lord William Scott: I beg to second the Motion.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 63, Noes, 249.

Division No. 132.]

AYES.

[10.8 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Baldwin A. E

Hope, Lord J.

Prescott, Stanley

Barlow, Sir J.

Hurd, A.

Raikes, H. V.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Sanderson, Sir F.

Bossom, A C.

Jennings, R.

Scott, Lord W.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Keeling, E. H.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Spearman, A. C. M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.

Studholme, H. G.

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Sutcliffe, H.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Davidson, Viscountess

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Walker-Smith, D.

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Drewe, C.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Eccles, D. M.

Maude, J. C.

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Mellor, Sir J.

York, C

Gammans, Capt. L. D.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grimston, R. V.

Nicholson, G.

Mr. C. S. Taylor and

Mr. Spence.

NOES.

Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Adamson, Mrs. J L

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Gibson, C. W.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Gilzean, A.

O'Brien, T.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Oldfield, W. H.

Attewell, H. C.

Gooch, E. G.

Oliver, G. H

Austin, H. L.

Goodrich, H. E.

Orbach, M.

Awbery, S. S.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Ayles, W. H.

Grenfell, D. R.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Grey, C. F.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Bacon, Miss A.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Pargiter, G. A.

Baird, Capt. J.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Peart, Capt. T. F

Balfour, A.

Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

Perrins, W.

Barstow, P. G

Guy, W. H

Popplewell, E.

Barton, C.

Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Bechervaise, A. E

Hale, Leslie

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Belcher, J. W.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Pritt, D. N

Benson, G

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Proctor, W. T.

Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

Hardy, E. A.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Ranger, J

Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

Haworth, J.

Rankin, J.

Binns, J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Reeves, J.

Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Reid, T (Swindon)

Blyton, W. R.

Hobson. C. R.

Rhodes, H

Boardman, H.

Holman, P.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Bottomley, A. G.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Sargood, R.

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Horabin, T. L.

Scollan T

Bowen, R.

House, G.

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hoy, J.

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

Hubbard, T.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Shurmer, P.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Simmons, C. J.

Brown, George (Belper)

Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Skinnard, F. W

Brown, T J. (Ince)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Irving, W. J.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Buchanan, G

Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Burden, T. W.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Callaghan, James

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Snow, Capt. J. W

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Jones, P. Asterley, (Hitchin)

Stamfurd, W.

Champion, A. J.

Keenan, W.

Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

Kenyon, C.

Stubbs, A. E.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

King, E. M.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Cobb, F. A.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Cocks, F. S.

Kinley, J.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Coldrick, W.

Kirkwood, D.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Collindridge, F.

Lavers, S.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Colman, Miss G. M.

Lee, F. (Hulmo)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Cook, T. F.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

Leonard, W.

Thomas, John R, (Dover)

Ccrvedale, Visoount

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

Daggar, G.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Thorneycroft, H.

Daines, P.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Tiffany, S.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Titterington, M. F.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Logan, D. G.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Longden, F.

Usborne, Henry

Davies Harold (Leek)

McAdam, W.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

McEntee, V. La T.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Deer, G.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Warbey, W. N.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Watson, W. M.

Delarey, Captain H. J.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Diamond, J.

McLeavy, F.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Dobbie, W.

MacMillan, M. K.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Dodds, N. N.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Donovan, T.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Douglas, F- C. R.

Marquand, H. A.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Wilkins, W. A.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Mathers, G.

Williams, D. J. (Nealh)

Dumpleton, C. W.

Mayhew, C. P.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Durbin E. F. M.

Medland, H. M.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Messer, F.

Williamson, T.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Willis, E.

Evans, E (Lowestoft)

Mikardo, Ian

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Wise, Major F. J.

Ewart R.

Mi'chison, Maj. G. R.

Woodburn, A.

Fairhurst, F.

Monslow, W.

Woods, G. S

Farthing, W. J.

Moody, A. S.

Yates, V. F.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Morley, R.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Younger, Hon. K. G

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Zilliacus, K.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mort, D. L.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Murray, J. D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gallacher, W.

Nally, W

Mr. Joseph Henderson and

Mr. Pearson.

Question put, and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES (CANCELLATION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
10.16 p.m.
Mr. Driberģ: I shall detain the House only for a moment or two. I wish to record an expression of regret that, for the second evening running, the subject which had been announced for Debate on the Adjournment has not been taken. My sole object in rising, Mr. Speaker—I make no criticism of my hon. Friends, who no doubt had good reasons for abandoning the Adjournments they had booked—is to ask you if you would be good enough to consider advising hon. Members, now that this Adjournment period has become so much more rigid than it used to be, that if they abandon the Adjournment they have booked, they should cause their name and the subject of their choice to be crossed off the list behind your Chair. It is a very small point, but it would be a matter of some convenience to the House, because the subjects for last night and tonight are of some importance and interest to a number of hon. Members, who may have waited to listen to the discussion. I would ask you, Sir, to consider that when you have time, and perhaps make an announcement about it. Above all, I would ask my hon. Friends to cherish this precious final half-hour of Private Members' time and not to allow any persons, however influential or however beguiling, to coax or to flagellate them into abandoning it.
Earl Winterton: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is putting d point of Order, or what he is endeavouring to do. I would like to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that a Standing Order is a Standing Order and cannot be relaxed. I cannot understand what the hon. Member means. Is he suggesting that the Standing Order should be altered in some way? What is the meaning of his statement?
Mr. Driberģ: I thought I had made my meaning tolerably clear, but for the benefit of the Noble Lord I will endeavour to make it even clearer. Within the last year there has grown up a practice of advance booking of this final half hour, which never used to obtain. The Adjournment period
2654
has become much more rigid than it used to be. Hon. Members now painfully and painstakingly ballot for it day after day, very often without success. The result of this crystallisation of the Adjournment is that the subjects are now announced in advance, as the Noble Lord knows, on the notice-board at the back of Mr. Speaker's Chair. My sole and very modest point is that when a Member decides, for his own good reasons, to abandon his Adjournment, and not endeavour to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, notice of that abandonment should be given to the House by the crossing-off that list of the Member's name and subject.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Dumpleton: As the Member who was successful in the ballot for the Adjournment this evening, I wish to say a word or two on this point. I say straight away that I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend in his disappointment at the loss of an opportunity. There is keen competition for opportunity to speak on the Adjournment. Of course, many hon. Members put down subjects which they wish to raise on the Adjournment, and about which they require more clear information. Perhaps they have been dissatisfied with the reply to a Question. If in the meantime, before the Adjournment is reached, information comes to them, however it may come, I think they have every right to withdraw, if they feel satisfied that there is no need to raise the matter. In withdrawing, I gave due notice to the Chair. I gave my notice to Mr. Deputy-Speaker who was in the Chair at the time, and I believed that I had fulfilled the responsibility attached to me, by so doing.
I think this raises the whole issue of the method of allotting this time. If I am not out of Order, I should like to submit that the question should be considered of whether time allotted by ballot is the most satisfactory method. We put down our names perhaps 20 or 30 times before we are successful in securing an Adjournment. Sometimes the matter we wish to raise has become very much out of date before the time is allotted. If some system of rota could be introduced, that perhaps would be more satisfactory. Then if a Member found he was in a position to withdraw, he could go to the next man on the list and tell him he was at liberty to take his Adjournment.

2655
In that way, an opportunity would not be wasted. I hope this suggestion may be considered, and that a new method may be adopted if at all practicable.
10.22 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: All I can say is that I am very grateful to hon. Members for any suggestions for improving the way in which we may discuss matters during the last half-hour. The original point raised by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) as to the opportunity lost when a Member gives up his rights to talk on the half-hour Adjournment, is a matter which I am quite prepared to consider at any time. I would, however, tell him that it does not seem to be very satisfactory if, at the last minute, a Member gives up his right and no Minister is warned, and, therefore, anyone who takes the place of the Member who first had the Adjournment is merely talking in the air. After all, the important thing is to get a reply, and not to talk in the air.
2656
I would make a further point—and in doing so I do not think I am making a breach of Privilege, because I think the evidence of the Committee has been reported to the House I suggested in my evidence to the Committee on Procedure that I thought if the time went to it o'clock, or 11.15, and the House was still sitting, then, automatically, the half-hour Adjournment Debate ought to lapse. I suggested that because there is the paint that the staff have to get home and I think we ought to consider them. I can assure the hon. Member that, as far as I am concerned, I will consult with any other hon. Members and I welcome any suggestions. If we can get a better system for arranging the half-hour Adjournment, I shall be only too pleased to do so.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Kensinģton Gardens (Closinģ)
  Kensinģton Gardens (Closinģ)
  National Buildinģs (Architects)
  National Buildinģs (Architects)
  Requisitioned Premises, Lancaster Place
  Requisitioned Premises, Lancaster Place
FUEL AND POWER
  Electricity Supply, Norfolk (Extension Schemes)
  Electricity Supply, Norfolk (Extension Schemes)
  Hire Cars (Mileaģe Limit)
  Hire Cars (Mileaģe Limit)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Mechanisation Schemes (Expenditure)
  Mechanisation Schemes (Expenditure)
  Coal Charģes Account
  Coal Charģes Account
  Mininģ Machinery
  Mininģ Machinery
  Underģround Gasification (Experiments)
  Underģround Gasification (Experiments)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Foreiģn Exchanģe (Officers' Wives)
  Foreiģn Exchanģe (Officers' Wives)
  Debt (Government Securities)
  Debt (Government Securities)
  United Kinģdom and Portuģal (Monetary Aģreement)
  United Kinģdom and Portuģal (Monetary Aģreement)
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
SCOTLAND
  Boat Slip, Fair Isle (Repair)
  Boat Slip, Fair Isle (Repair)
  Fishing Harbours (Dredģinģ)
  Fishing Harbours (Dredģinģ)
  Sheriffs Substitute (Salaries)
  Sheriffs Substitute (Salaries)
  Scottish Office (Leģal Branches)
  Scottish Office (Leģal Branches)
HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
  Glasģow
  Glasģow
  Bricklayinģ (Comparisons)
  Bricklayinģ (Comparisons)
  Edinburģh
  Edinburģh
  Unfit Houses, Muirkirk
  Unfit Houses, Muirkirk
  Private Enterprise Buildinģ
  Private Enterprise Buildinģ
BRITISH ARMY
  Shotover Hill
  Shotover Hill
  Nettlebed Villaģe Hall
  Nettlebed Villaģe Hall
  Entertainments (Separation of Ranks)
  Entertainments (Separation of Ranks)
  Primary Traininģ Centres (Arms Allocations)
  Primary Traininģ Centres (Arms Allocations)
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Education (Primary Traininģ Centres)
  Education (Primary Traininģ Centres)
  Stray Pets (Disposal)
  Stray Pets (Disposal)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Winchester Traininģ Colleģe
  Winchester Traininģ Colleģe
  Italians (Non-Fraternisation)
  Italians (Non-Fraternisation)
  Missinģ Men, Indonesia
  Missinģ Men, Indonesia
  Sick Personnel, India (Repatriation)
  Sick Personnel, India (Repatriation)
  Release Deferment
  Release Deferment
  Mutiny, Salerno
  Mutiny, Salerno
  Basuto Troops' Mutiny, Palestine
  Basuto Troops' Mutiny, Palestine
  Officer's Broadcast, Malaya
  Officer's Broadcast, Malaya
  Discharģchase
  Discharģchase
  Gold Coast
  Gold Coast
  Cadet March Past (Reģimental Precedence)
  Cadet March Past (Reģimental Precedence)
  Postinģ (Allotment System)
  Postinģ (Allotment System)
  Re-enlistment (Released Men)
  Re-enlistment (Released Men)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Beaches, Norfolk (Access)
  Beaches, Norfolk (Access)
  Soldiers' Wills
  Soldiers' Wills
  Laģos
  Laģos
  Ammunition Storaģe, Perthshire
  Ammunition Storaģe, Perthshire
  Cadet Camps (Cheap Fares)
  Cadet Camps (Cheap Fares)
  Middle East Troops (Artificial Limbs)
  Middle East Troops (Artificial Limbs)
  South Downs (Clearance)
  South Downs (Clearance)
  Soldiers' Families (Germany)
  Soldiers' Families (Germany)
  Java (Withdrawal of Troops)
  Java (Withdrawal of Troops)
  Markeaton Park, Derby
  Markeaton Park, Derby
  Cairo (Riots)
  Cairo (Riots)
  Privileģe Leave (B.A.O.R.)
  Privileģe Leave (B.A.O.R.)
  Greece (Mail Censorship)
  Greece (Mail Censorship)
  Defence Works (Removal)
  Defence Works (Removal)
  Retired Pay
  Retired Pay
  Wartime Buildings (Disposal)
  Wartime Buildings (Disposal)
  Officers (Education)
  Officers (Education)
  Absence (Pay Forfeiture)
  Absence (Pay Forfeiture)
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  DEMOBILISATION PROGRAMME (SHIPPING)
  DEMOBILISATION PROGRAMME (SHIPPING)
PRISONERS OF WAR
  Italians, Hampshire (Housinģ)
  Italians, Hampshire (Housinģ)
  Germans (Fraternisation)
  Germans (Fraternisation)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Scott Report (Recommendations)
  Scott Report (Recommendations)
  Freehold Sale, Camborne-Redruth
  Freehold Sale, Camborne-Redruth
  Compulsory Purchase, Jarrow
  Compulsory Purchase, Jarrow
  London Squares
  London Squares
  Green Belts (Aģricultural User)
  Green Belts (Aģricultural User)
  Major Expansions
  Major Expansions
ROADS
  Reconditioned Cars (Disabled Men)
  Reconditioned Cars (Disabled Men)
  War Prisoner Labour, Staffordshire
  War Prisoner Labour, Staffordshire
  Repairs, West Suffolk
  Repairs, West Suffolk
  RAILWAYS (SEATS RESERVATION)
  RAILWAYS (SEATS RESERVATION)
HOUSING
  Hornsea (Site)
  Hornsea (Site)
  War Damaģe Repairs (W.B.A. Priority)
  War Damaģe Repairs (W.B.A. Priority)
  Hostels, London
  Hostels, London
ROYAL NAVY
  Nissen Hut, Milford Haven
  Nissen Hut, Milford Haven
  Portsmouth Dockyard (Personnel)
  Portsmouth Dockyard (Personnel)
EMPLOYMENT
  Portsmouth
  Portsmouth
  Wallasey
  Wallasey
  HOME AID SERVICE
  HOME AID SERVICE
  VICTORY PARADE
  VICTORY PARADE
  EASTER ACT, 1928
  EASTER ACT, 1928
  AIR-RAID SHELTER, BURGESS HILL
  AIR-RAID SHELTER, BURGESS HILL
AGRICULTURE
  Red Squirrels
  Red Squirrels
  Tractors
  Tractors
  Councils of Aģriculture
  Councils of Aģriculture
PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  German Sanatoria, Switzerland
  German Sanatoria, Switzerland
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  VISITORS, UNITED KINGDOM (VISAS)
  VISITORS, UNITED KINGDOM (VISAS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Timber (Imports)
  Timber (Imports)
  Factory Sites, South Wales
  Factory Sites, South Wales
  DEMOBILISATION (BUILDING WORKERS)
  DEMOBILISATION (BUILDING WORKERS)
  INDIA (FOOD PARCELS)
  INDIA (FOOD PARCELS)
  CHARITY, STAUNTON-ON- WYE (INQUIRY)
  CHARITY, STAUNTON-ON- WYE (INQUIRY)

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

GOVERNMENTS OF INDIA AND BURMA ORDERS.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have the honour to present a Message from His Majesty the King, signed with his own hand. His Majesty's Message is as follows:
  "I have received your Addresses praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment) Order, 1946, the Government of Burma (Shan States Federal Fund) Order, 1946, the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1946, and the Government of Burma (Governor's Emergency Allowances, Repair of Furnishings) Order, 1946, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

  MID AND SOUTH EAST CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL, [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and send to the Commons.

  COWES GAS ORDER, 1946.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be now approved.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  HERRING INDUSTRY (AMENDING) SCHEME, 1946.
  2.38 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, the
  788
  Motion now before your Lordships relates to the Herring Industry (Amending) Scheme. This amending scheme is necessary because the Herring Industry Board exercises only such powers as are contained in the approved scheme governing its activities, and when it is desired to amend or extend the powers to be exercised by the Board it is necessary to amend the principal scheme. The principal scheme is the Herring Industry Scheme of 1935, which was made after the passing of the Herring Industry Act of that year. Since then statutory provisions have been made for further powers being conferred on the Board, and it is now proposed in the amending scheme to extend those powers in three respects. There are further powers which, under the Herring Industry Acts, could be included in the Herring Industry Scheme, but these involve matters of a somewhat controversial nature, and we have therefore chosen for the present scheme those powers which are most urgently required and about which there is general agreement. I may inform your Lordships that the industry has been consulted in accordance with the statutory requirements, about the proposed extension of the powers of the Board, and is entirely in its favour.
  The three additional powers are as follows: In the first place, the 1935 scheme empowers the Board to make loans in connexion with the construction, reconditioning and equipment of boats. The amending scheme, in paragraph (A) (1), substitutes in effect the word "provision" for the word "construction," as authorized by the Herring Industry Act, 1944. This will enable the Board to assist a man in buying an existing boat as well as in building a new one, and it will be of great value in these days, when many fishermen are hoping to purchase second-hand vessels which the Admiralty are now releasing. Secondly, paragraph (A) (2) of the amending scheme provides additional loan-making powers for the Board in accordance with the provision made in Section 6 (1) of the Herring Industry Act, 1938. The inclusion of this power in the Herring Industry Scheme will enable the Board to give assistance to societies or organizations formed for the purpose of acquiring nets and gear, fuel for boats, and other fishing requisites. Thirdly, Section 2 (a) of the

  789
  Herring Industry Act, 1944, provided that the Board might be given power to purchase boats and equipment for the purpose of chartering or hiring them to fishermen. The Amendment proposed in sub-paragraph (c) of the amending scheme will provide this additional power.
  The amending scheme has been considered by the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House, who have reported that the scheme does not raise important questions of policy and that the scheme can be passed by the House without special attention. Therefore, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships further in this matter, and I beg to move that this Special Order be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think I should at once rise to say that we welcome these proposals. I believe they follow what was being done by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the then Minister of Agriculture and myself in the days of the Coalition Government. I believe that these Amendments that are being made will help to put some of the herring fishermen back on their feet.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:

  COUNTY BOROUGH OF GATESHEAD ORDER.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
  Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section I of that Act to the County Borough of Gateshead, and laid before this House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  CITY OF LEEDS ORDER.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order also be approved.
  Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the City of Leeds, and laid before this House on
  790
  Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  GERMANY AND EUROPEAN SECURITY.
  2.46 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That the re-establishment of an over-centralized Germany is incompatible with European security. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on several occasions during the course of the war I urged that the Central Commissions of Control should not be set up in Berlin because I thought that might prove the thin end of the wedge and gradually conduce to the reestablishment of another over-Berlinized and over-centralized German Reich. I pointed out that decentralization is just as important as the destruction of war potential, because it was on over-centralization that the Germans fought this last war. I raised the matter in this House and I was assured that my apprehensions were unfounded. And so what I thought was an error was committed, and it was aggravated by another, which is the error of zoning Over the week-end I was going through some old notes of mine, and I came across the following, written in 1944:
  "Over-zoning would lead first to the wrong kind of decentralization, that is, by artificial partition, and so back again to the wrong kind of centralism."
  I submit to the House that that roughly is what is happening to-day.
  Anyhow, the Commissions started off in the evil old capital and in a disproportionately great Russian zone. I think the disproportion was another mistake. After that events took their inevitable course. What that course is began to be apparent at the beginning of this year and still more so in the course of the last month. Thus, in mid-March, Franz Dahlem, the German Communist leader, wrote the following:
  "At the root of this struggle"—

  791
  that is the struggle to force a fusion with the Communists upon the German Social Democrat Party—
  "lies the question whether Berlin shall again hold the leading political position in the new Reich."
  His colleague, Ulbricht, said exactly the same thing in almost exactly the same words. Simultaneously a Communist committee in the Russian zone put forth a declaration, saying:
  "Berlin and no other city must be the capital of the new Reich."
  Those are all manifestations in the course of the last month, and in the course of this month they have inclined to multiply. I will quote only one from a German paper, which runs:
  "Youth of Germany! Lift up your heads as if nothing had happened and create your new Reich."
  "As if nothing had happened!" "Create your new Reich!" I hope that no one to-day will tell me that my apprehensions were unfounded.
  Throughout the course of the Second World War I have always maintained that from the European point of view the only safe solution was the federal one. I say that again to-day. But I would add that it is not only in the interests of Europe, but in the interests of the German people themselves. Surely the one thing that we are all interested in is seeing that the head of some future central German Government does not become another Führer, whether imperially or democratically disguised. The simple way of preventing that is to prevent a central German Government from ever being considerable enough to give him the opportunity. In my writings I have gone into some detail as to how this federalism might work and should work. I do not propose to take your Lordships over all that detailed ground again to-day. Suffice it to say that I anticipated by a year or so the conclusions of Potsdam by recognizing that among the future departments left to the central Government should be those of Customs and Communications, thereby providing for the economic unity of Germany. Nearly all the other departments, I have pointed out, must fall to the province of the autonomous States, just in fact as they used to do. I am alluding to such important matters as education, police, social welfare and
  792
  health. I would remind your Lordships that it was only in Hitler's time that the control of education was seized by Berlin, and surely we should not be contemplating any new world based upon anything that was done in Hitler's time. Similarly with regard to the police; we should have learnt our bitter inter-war-period lesson, for during that period a centralized German police became an over-armed camouflaged branch of an illegal army. There again we must learn something from the past.
  Briefly, the argument may be resumed thus: If the Germans are to learn to govern themselves properly and decently, they must no longer be bossed by Berlin, as has been the case in the past, and as too many of them wish to be the case in the future. While, therefore, I have always recognized the eventual, although not the premature, necessity of a central German Government, I have always held it to be essential that its functions should be strictly limited and never exceeded. I would add, of course, that it would be preferable if the autonomous States could be firmly grounded before a central Government was erected; otherwise there is the danger that the former may be overrun by the latter, just as happened in the past. Now the drift of affairs is in the wrong direction and there is a danger that all the experience of the past may go by the board, and that we may again find ourselves drifting towards an all-pervading German Reich. Yet, at the end of the last war, those who know their business—and they were headed by Marshal Foch—pointed out that if all we did was to substitute an over-centralized German Republic for an over-centralized Kaiser Reich we might very possibly get the same result. Well, they were right. It cannot be too often impressed upon Parliament, public and Press, that in Germany centralism and nationalism go hand in hand.
  Now at the present moment Germany is full of ominous features. The danger is that they may be overlooked because of their very multiplicity in the same way as the features of a crowd may be blurred. But if there is one outstanding feature which has run throughout the German continuity, it is the cult of strength, which has always been the hyphen between the Right and the Left. At the present moment it happens that the most vocal exponents of this cult are the extreme Left,

  793
  the Communists. Of course, they are not alone in that; all the other old nationalist tendencies are there also. Since that is the case, it behoves us to cast a brief glance on their inter-war record. From our point of view it was a rather lamentable one. They were exceedingly hostile to Western democracy. I do not wish to dwell upon that to-day. The point that interests us all is that they found it necessary to compete in nationalism with the Nazis.
  There has not been much change in Germany in this respect. There has really not been much spiritual change in any respect, not even in the percentage of Nazism or in the prevalence of nationalism, which is very latent. I would remind your Lordships that as things now stand, nationalism is just as great a danger as Nazism for two reasons: first, it is the parent vice, and secondly, it is less easily detected and more easily condoned. These same men, the German Communists, together with cohorts of militarists, were in charge of the so-called Free German Committee in Moscow during the war. What was the link between them? It was this cult of strength. It was, very obvious in their propaganda, which I followed very closely. Its substance was roughly this: "Strength can serve Germany's ends. It may be needed later, so better give in now." I protested during the war against the tendency of this propaganda and I think your Lordships can understand now why, because we are reaping the consequences. These same people, as I think was obvious would be the case, are now in control of the Russian occupied zone, and it therefore behoves us also to cast a glance not only at the Party record but at the individual record.
  I take their two leaders, Pieck and Ulbricht. Ulbricht has always been exceedingly hostile to this country. In earlier years no Junker could have been more ardent for our defeat. Pieck got a position on the Comintern and opined that the future of Germany lay in the destruction of the West. At present the line is to work for a recovery of national strength through the unity of the workers. Well, the formula looks impeccable. What could be more laudable than the unity of the workers?—although I would remind the House that, the unity of the workers and the unity of the Fourth Reich are by no means the same thing. But if you look beneath the surface you find the formula
  794
  is not quite so impeccable; and sometimes that which is below the surface comes above it rather crudely, as, for example, in a mass meeting which took place in Berlin early this year. That mass meeting was attended by all the four Anti-Fascist Parties: the Socialists, the Communists, the Christian Democrats and the Liberal Democrats. I studied their speeches very carefully, and through them all ran a rather familiar strain: strength, unity, discipline and patriotism—in fact, many of the key words to which we all grew so accustomed during the Second and Third Reichs. The Social Democrat orator went so far as to say: "There is an indissoluble link between our patriotism and national patriotism." As for Herr Pieck, he worked himself up to a burning quotation from Schiller which says that strength is firmly rooted in the Fatherland.
  Strength was the motif. "We must have strength, and unity as the cause of creative strength. We are one people, and we must act as such." You may say, "What is wrong with that?" Only that those were the precise words that have preceded two wars. If you look at the formula a little more closely, it is only one word away from the Nazi slogan: "One folk, one Reich, one Fuehrer." The next speaker, the Christian Democrat, was as ardent as anybody for what he called the process of establishing a single central German State, a single, indivisible, German Republic. In other words, there were to be no local autonomies at all. The next speaker went further. He said: "The common Fatherland of all Germans is Germany." You may say that that is all right. Look at it again and you will notice he said "all Germans." In other words, we are getting back to something like the conception of the war mind doctrine of Herr Bohle, who somehow or other found himself in the witness box instead of the dock at Nuremberg.
  That that is no exaggerated interpretation emerges from another point in the course of this meeting, and that is that all the four Parties who were opting for this centralized dynamism used the word Gesamtdeutsch, which means the totality of Germans everywhere. But the point about that word is that it was popularized by Herr Otto Bauer, the leading apostle of the Anschluss, in order to cover the annexation of Austria: and vocabularies of that nature are really not compatible with

  795
  European tranquillity. It is further to be noticed that all four Parties damned federalism because it diminishes the driving force at the centre, and many of them still wish to be driven. That again is a most unhealthy tendency: "Down with debilitating autonomy and up with high-powered concentration!"
  Now from these and many other kindred phenomena there are some very useful lessons to be drawn. The first is that defeat has not destroyed the allure of German nationalism. The second is that we must therefore anticipate in due course, when the first numbness has passed, that we shall have to deal with a wave of that nationalism which will take for its assistance and its grievance, as it did in the inter-war years, all the legitimate precautions on the part of the Allies and any period of privation and unemployment. The third is that the idea that national strength and planned central economy go hand in hand has been deeply implanted in the German mind; and the fourth is that therefore at the present moment mass belief in Germany is being directed away from any form of decentralization, either political or economic.
  What we are in fact witnessing is the first stage of a new attempt to built up another single Totalitarian Party whose ideology will once again be nationalist. That has been stated very clearly by some of the Socialist Leaders in the Russian zone, notably by one Herr Grotewohl, whose Socialism is, I think, somewhat in doubt. At any rate, he has been greatly intimidated. He said quite openly, "We mean to have this one Party, and all others will shrink into insignificance" That is, I think, clear enough. It is the desire for this higher-powered dynamism which really lies behind this drive for enforced fusion of the Socialist and Communist Parties. That, I think, is what makes it so immensely important. Once again, as occurred during the inter-war period, the Socialist Party and the others will be obliterated in the single Party to which Herr Grotewohl referred. Those who have resisted it have had some very unpleasant experiences, and men like Grotewohl, Gniffke and Fechner have already given in. As to those who still stand out, the least they can expect is expulsion from their Party.
  I am not only referring to the Social Democrats; I am thinking of the
  796
  Christian Democrat leaders also. You saw what happened in regard to the referendum. The opponents of this fusion plucked up sufficient courage to insist on a referendum. It was duly held in the British, French and American zones, and there was a strong majority against it. In the Russian zone it was suppressed. If this fusion goes through elsewhere, I can tell you exactly what will happen. In fact, I think anybody can. Of the Socialist leaders, some will again be seduced by the nationalist appeal, exactly as happened in the inter-war period; recalcitrants will disappear and the conformists will be educated into parrotry.
  That is not the end of the story. The new totalitarian drive recognizes quite well that the old Parties, including the Social Democratic Party, cannot deliver the goods—the goods being the German people, who are still 75 per cent. Nazi at heart according to many authorities, including Field-Marshal Montgomery. Therefore a highly dangerous manœuvre is now being resorted to. The new totalitarians have said that they will open their ranks to the rank and file of the Nazi Party, who number anything from ten millions to thirteen millions. The world is not ripe for that yet. If you look at that policy again, you will see it is the old policy in reverse. In 1933 and 1934 the Communists were urged to join the Nazi Party. Now the position is the other way round. Those same tactics are, in fact, being used also in Hungary and Rumania, where members of the Arrow Cross and the Iron Guard have been admitted to the fold. It is also very much in line with the propaganda that was carried out during the war by the Free German Committee in Moscow. I venture to think it is a very dangerous line to take.
  It will be asked, "How is it that Russia should back this neo-nationalist over-centralization?" The answer has been given by people like Herr Grotewohl and his Communist colleagues. It comes to this. They tell us there is to be a mono-party; the other parties are to be eliminated. The fusion will result in the mono-party getting control of any Central Government we are unwise enough to set up in Berlin, unless we limit its powers very strictly; and having got control of the Central Government, it will be hoped that that will control the whole country

  797
  in time. Therefore, you will get the Eastern bloc extended to the Rhine. From the Russian point of view that may be considered to be a measure of security, but from our point of view it would be altogether an exaggerated measure of security. Indeed, the simple facts I have put before your Lordships this afternoon make it very difficult to reconcile a Russian search for security with what is actually happening. If they were really animated by a search for security, surely the last thing in the world they would do would be to support the beginning of this neo-nationalism centred in Berlin.
  I am afraid that, on the contrary, their policy is inspired by a certain over-confidence which may cost us all dear, including the Russians) themselves, because to my mind, and I think to that of most people in this House or in Europe, it is realized that to play with German nationalism, even in an embryonic form, is to play with fire. The Russians may end by burning their fingers and ours too. I hope that that may be amicably but clearly pointed out both in Berlin and in Moscow. In any case, I hope we shall allow none of these manæuvres in the British zone. I hope we shall allow no pressure, let alone intimidation, to be exercised upon those who are opposed to this fusion, because, as I have shown your Lordships to-day, a great deal more lies behind it than meets the eye. I think indeed it is time we had a mind and a will of our own in these matters.
  The German Social Democrats in Berlin have complained before now that they are in a position of manifest disadvantage, and that the purely negative attitude of the British and the Americans as regards German policy puts them at some disadvantage and takes the heart out of the really democratically minded. Let me point out that, quite naturally, the German Communists have the full and unstinted support of the Russians, but the Social Democrats are left to their own devices. I would not have this House think that I hold any brief for the German Social Democrats, whose record in international affairs has been a most disappointing one. Like all the parties in Germany throughout my life, they have been too accessible to militarist and nationalist influences. Moreover, I think it is highly important for all those in authority to realize that all the old parties
  798
  are to some extent discredited in Germany, and that there is on the whole less democratic leaning in that country than there was in 1919. That is an unpleasant fact, but it is probably better to recognize it. While the Social Democratic Party has had its failings, it has also had its virtues and I conceive it to be no part of the European tradition or interest that we should allow it to be dragooned into suicide.
  Therefore would be very grateful if the Government to-day could tell us a little more about where we stand in all these great matters. Have we got a long-term policy as regards Germany? If so, I confess I do not know what it is, and I do not think most people in Europe know either. I know it is very difficult to decide, but the war has been over for nearly a year, and I think we are bound to decide. I know quite well that there is a Zonal Advisory Council and that we are contemplating elections, at the level of Kreis and Gemeinde, but that is a short-term and not a long-term policy. In particular, I would like to know where we stand in regard to this important matter of federalism. There is plenty of support for it in Germany if we give a lead, but without a lead it will not go far. I noticed over the week-end there were two manifestations of some importance in its favour; one was in the Rhineland and the other was an utterance by the; Prime Minister of Bavaria, who has said that, to most Bavarians centralization is abhorrent because they regard it as the first step towards a new dictatorship. I think he was entirely right in saying that; it is an apprehension that is shared by a great many other people. He has also said something else, which is, I think, both intelligent and true, and that is, that if we ever get to the stage of a European federation, only a Federal Germany would be welcome in it. Many of us would fight the inclusion of any other kind of Germany; we have had some.
  I therefore ask for some! enlightenment to-day. I hope the Government will accept this Motion because I cannot conceive that anybody would wish to revert to the over-centralized Germany which has caused so much suffering in the past. I know there is this clamour going on for it; it is going on to a degree that is little realized in this country. I think the answer to that is:

  799
  "Howso great their clamour,
  Whatsoe'er their claim,
  Suffer not the old King,
  Under any name."
  That quotation comes rather appropriately from a poem called "The Old Issue." I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That the re-establishment of an over-centralized Germany is incompatible with European security.—(Lord Vansittart.)
  3.10 p.m.
  LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I have no objection to the Motion as it is worded, but I am afraid my whole attitude towards this profound issue is very different from that of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I definitely feel that any over-centralized Government is an easy prey to dictatorship, and I also feel that any dictatorship is a danger to world peace. I was fortunate enough to be on the top of the Zugspitze in 1937, and because we could not be heard by anybody out on the snow I had a very long and interesting talk with a German whom, of course, I had never met before. He said to me that in his opinion Hitler had lost a great deal of popularity during the last two years and he thought that he could only last another two years from 1937 onwards. I have often wondered if Hitler realized the decline in his own position and if that was one of the motives for his aggressive policy. It is well known that dictators do tend to engage in aggression in order to tie their own people to them. This German also told me that Hitler had so completely destroyed all the democratic institutions in Germany that even though the people wanted a change it was almost impossible to see how any sort of democratic régime could possibly be built up. He said: "I am not a Communist—in fact, to tell you the truth, I do not see very much difference between the Communists and the Nazis—but I am quite prepared now on this issue to support the Communists in order to get a change." He assured me that a very large part of the German people shared his opinion.
  I am, therefore, definitely in agreement with this Motion against an over-centralized Germany. I believe that what we have to do is to try and build up democracy in Germany, and I believe that that democracy can best be built up
  800
  in the local government. I believe that local government is not only the best school of democracy, but it is also the greatest strength of democracy. I understand that we have begun by setting up parish councils and urban district councils, though I believe most of the members are nominated at present. But it is by the building up of local government in Germany on a democratic basis that I believe we can best build democracy in Germany. I was going to say restore democracy, but that might be a controversial word, so I will say build up democracy in Germany. When all that has been said—and here I can see that I really do disagree profoundly with the noble Lord who has just sat down—Germany does need in my opinion a central Government—
  LORD VANSITTART: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a minute? I said explicitly that I did recognize the necessity for a central Government, and I defined very strictly its functions. I have never contested the need for a central Government.
  LORD DARWEN: Then we are in agreement on that point also. I think that the people of this country are profoundly disturbed about the food prospects in Europe as a whole, and in Germany as well as the rest of Europe. I think they were more profoundly disturbed when the announcement was made of the Berlin plan for reparations and the levels of German industry. I do not think there is any member of your Lordships' House who approaches this question with a deeper horror of Nazi philosophy—if you can call it philosophy—than I do, or with a greater determination to do all that I can to prevent another world war.
  I think I do understand something of the feeling of the martyred nations who suffered so much under the occupation of Germany, but I do want to say to your Lordships that hatred of wrong is not a wise counsellor. It is our responsibility to do the right thing. There were many people in this country who came to be convinced that there were many clauses of the Versailles Treaty which were morally wrong and economically foolish. It was because of our weak position as a result of that sense of moral wrong that we were unable to take any action when

  801
  Germany unilaterally broke the Versailles Treaty. That must not happen again, but it will happen again if the clauses of the Berlin Agreement are carried out.
  We all agree that German war production must be absolutely prevented; but the Berlin plan goes far beyond that. German industry is to be reduced to 50 or 55 per cent, of that of 1938. There will be something like 5,000,000 industrial workers unemployed. Sixty-five per cent, of Germany's exports before the war were in metals, engineering products and chemical goods, and she cannot possibly expand her manufacture and export of consumer goods in order to meet the needs of her essential food imports. It is recognized under the Berlin plan that German consumption is to be forced down to 1932 levels. We have realized already, I think, that you cannot destroy a competitor without destroying a customer, and the whole Potsdam Agreement was a restrictionist economic agreement. We are proposing to make Germany a slum in the midst of Europe. German economy has been to Europe—shall we say almost what London economy is to Britain? And we British have got to carry the heaviest burden of this Jolly and this wickedness. We have charge of the largest industrial area in Germany. We shall have to pour in food to feed the starving millions, and we shall have to pour in men to maintain order amidst all this starvation and misery.
  It is perfectly obvious that our Government do not approve of this agreement. It is perfectly obvious that the Foreign Secretary does not approve of this agreement. But it was the best agreement that could be reached at the time. It was based on certain conditions; first of all, on the condition that Germany must become an economic unit again, and that there must be no revision of western boundaries. It was agreed to on the assumption that the population will not exceed 66,500,000, and that there will be sufficient exports to pay for the necessary imports. I think that our Government are possibly right to have felt that any agreement was better than no agreement. But, as I have said before, we have got to carry the burden unless central control is instituted in Germany now, and central Government is built up in Germany in order that she may share the burden of this policy. I do feel most strongly that we should be doing
  802
  another very foolish thing indeed if we tried to break up Germany in any way, and to destroy her as an economic and, even, as a political unit.
  3.23 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, it falls to my lot to congratulate the noble Lord who has just spoken on an interesting maiden speech, even if his views will not be shared in all quarters of the House—and I do not think they will, perhaps, not even universally on the Benches immediately around him. But he has spoken with that clarity and that terseness which always make an appeal in this House. I would, if I might, venture to remind him of one thing. He said that hatred of wrong was a bad counsellor. I would venture to remind him that there is very high warrant for hating wrong though not hating the wrongdoer, and I think that we ought to be pretty clear that while we should not harbour unchristian thoughts and should strive to convert wrongdoers, we should always hate wrong, for it is to defeat wrong that we have twice fought and suffered.
  This is indeed a very important Motion, and it has been brought before us by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, in a characteristically interesting, informed, and cogent speech. And since he first tabled his Motion, a good deal has happened. We have had the Berlin plan, to which my noble friend Lord Darwen has referred, for the post-war limitation and regulation of German industry. I would like to put one question to the Government upon that plan. As your Lordships are aware, it sets the scale of German industry and directs that German industry shall be divided into four categories. But when the announcement was published in Berlin, the British spokesman said that the British Government had agreed on certain assumptions—fundamental assumptions, as he called them. The first basic assumption—I am quoting from the very full report published in The Times on March 28—was that Germany would be treated as an economic whole, and that her western frontier would not be revised. I would like to know exactly what is the implication of that fundamental assumption. I would venture to suggest that in order to decide what ought to be the future of Germany—whether unitary or federation or independent States—we must first determine

  803
  what are the conditions on which we ought to insist and, indeed, which are essential to us. In full agreement with the noble Lord who introduced the Motion, I would say that the first and foremost condition should be security. If it were true that a division of Germany into wholly independent States—and I appreciate that the noble Lord did not go as far as that in his Motion; indeed, he definitely dissented from such a proposition—was an essential to security, I believe that that would be an almost unanswerable argument. But, with the noble Lord, I do not take that view. I will return to that matter in a moment.
  The second condition on which I think we should, also, all agree, would be that Germany should be as nearly self-supporting as possible in civilian commodities which Germans must have. That means not merely that food and goods must be produced in some way in Germany in the aggregate, but that that food and those goods must be available in all parts of Germany where they are needed for the sustenance of the German population. Obviously, one of the difficulties of isolating the Rhineland and the Ruhr is that they are great industrial areas and extremely small producers of food. In passing I would observe that if it be our aim, as it should be, to get as much as possible of the food that is necessary to feed Germany produced in Germany, it would be very false economy not to permit Germany to have the necessary amount of fertilizers to ensure that the devastated soil in that country—and the soil must have been very much overworked during the five or six years of the war—shall produce as much food as that soil can produce.
  The third condition I would venture to put with confidence is that Germany should be able to export enough to pay for her necessary imports. I am not going nearly as far as the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, who said that if you destroy a competitor you destroy a customer. I believe that there is a great deal of economic nonsense—if he will forgive my saying so—in dogmatic statements of that kind. At that rate the best thing would be to restore the whole of Japanese sweated production. That would not be a good thing for the trade of this country, or for a policy of full employment, or for
  804
  the peace and happiness of the world. But Germany must be able to export enough to pay for her necessary imports.
  I put a fourth proposition with which I hope your Lordships will agree. By internal production and by export Germany should not only be able to feed herself but support and sustain the Armies of Occupation in Germany. It really is quite intolerable that we should be paying vast sums—I understand at the rate of £80,000,000 a year—in order to feed Germany, and to pay for the cost of the Army of Occupation. Really that means we are paying German reparations—and not Germany paying reparations. That is not sensible, to put it mildly. Of course there has always been a certain attraction in the idea of the Ruhr and the Rhine-land as a separate State under international trusteeship, ultimately occupying its place in the European comity. I think it may well be that a great opportunity was lost in the fluid and amorphous conditions obtaining at the time of the Congress of Vienna—an opportunity of creating a State along the Rhine whose prosperity would have been bound up with peace, and which would have been strong enough to resist attraction into the orbit of Prussia. But there are many difficulties to-day.
  Is a complete separation of constituent German States an essential to security? I do not believe it is, subject to certain provisos. In the first place, certain industries which are the backbone of a war-potential must be absolutely prohibited. I do not think even Lord Darwen would differ from the first of the conditions of the Berlin Declaration, that the production of things like aircraft, ships, heavy tractors, aluminium and synthetic rubber obviously must be absolutely prohibited. Other industries, less vital for war, must be curtailed. That is also in the plan, but is obviously a much more difficult thing. The absolute prohibition of certain well-known types of industry is fairly easy to achieve, with careful supervision. It is much more difficult to say that an industry must produce only 55 or 60 per cent, of a certain commodity. It is difficult to tell, when the commodity is produced in a large number of factories, whether the country is producing 55, 60 or even 65 per cent. On the other hand, it is no good criticizing things because they are difficult, and I do not see a better way of

  805
  dealing with the position than by saying that these products which are borderline products, shall be put on some quota system of that kind. Then, obviously I think, some special control must be exercised over the industries of the Ruhr.
  We must have a plan which will give security; but equally we must have a plan which will work. When one speaks on these matters to-day, in the uncertain and constantly changing situation, one can only speak with limited knowledge. Only those who are in the day-to-day work of government can have full information. But I would say that the essentials of security and of economics are not incompatible at all. The economics of Germany require a measure of economic unity, so that Germans may support themselves as far as possible in food and civilian manufactures. That implies—here I agree with my noble friend who moved the Motion—something in the nature of a Customs Union. It requires and implies a unified and co-ordinated transport system. But this economic co-ordination does not, as I see it, imply or require a unitary and centralized system over the whole field of legislative and administrative activities, where the essential economy of the country is not directly affected. For my own part, and I speak entirely for myself, I would be inclined to press the argument further. Viewed as an administrative problem, is not a wide measure of really effective decentralization most desirable? There is always the risk—Lord Vansittart spoke strongly, but I do not think too strongly, of it—that Germany may seek to revert to a totalitarian system. Not all Germans, but certainly Prussians, do like being driven. It is a most extraordinary characteristic, and it is going to be one of the hardest things to drive out. That is why they can become very good Communists, as well as very good Hitlerites.
  Totalitarianism involves intense centralization. It lives upon it. It is a condition of its existence, and decentralization is the best insurance against that risk. May I put another reason? Centralization is slow, cumbrous, and most wasteful of man-power. I am not going in this debate to be controversial, but I think even some of my noble friends opposite are beginning to find perhaps that over-centralization does lead to a, certain clogging of the
  806
  machine even though they have a great administrative staff at their disposal. Germany is very short of competent non-Nazi administrators, but, under proper supervision, Germany must run German administration, and run it on the right lines; and the German machine must get running as soon as possible. I do not think we can wait for this process of gradualness to which the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, referred. Through eons of time, we shall slowly build up from the parish council to the rural district council, and then after another process from the rural district council to the county council, and so in a decade or two, or a generation or two, there may be gradually built up a system of local government. It really will not wait fifty years. This must be done now. You must get the Germans running the local administration of Germany quickly and on the right lines. And it is much more than parish councils. By the "right lines" I mean two things. I mean the way of personal freedom and peace; I mean the way best suited to different German localities, and that certainly does not necessarily mean the same sealed pattern formed in every place. For all those reasons, the more chance that the Germans have in different German States to work out their own systems and methods on truly democratic lines the more I believe we shall enable the Germans to help themselves and the better I believe we shall safeguard European security and peace.
  3.41 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I also have the greatest pleasure in congratulating my noble friend Lord Darwen on what I think your Lordships will agree was a most effective maiden speech—all the more effective because it was not too long! I only regret that on the occasions on which he carried the banner of my Part in the constituencies he was not successful, because I would have liked to have heard that speech, especially in 1919, in the House of Commons. I made a somewhat similar speech myself in 1919 when I moved the rejection of, and voted against, the Treaty of Versailles on the ground that it was economically unworkable. And, if I may venture to agree with my noble friend Lord Darwen, I think—and this is what I missed in Lord Vansittart's speech—the great problem of Germany is not federalism or partition or

  807
  centralization, but whether that country can survive economically at all. The accounts I get and which no doubt your Lordships also get from our own British zone (where I must say I believe our administrators and military authorities have made the best of a very difficult job and have done marvellous things, in view of all the difficulties) are simply horrifying. The economic fabric of the country has been destroyed. If these things are allowed to go on the results will be appalling for the whole of Europe. That I suggest is the great problem which faces us.
  I was delighted to hear in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart (I am always delighted to hear him speak, anyhow) that he wants the economic unity of Germany. I do not see how you can avoid that at all. The much-hated Berlin—I always thought it was an atrocious city too, although some very fine artists flourish there—was an artificial capital, and because it was an artificial capital it was the focal point of the great German railway system and road system. You can have a political capital wherever you like. In New York State the commercial capital is the City of New York and the political capital is a night's journey away from it at Vermont. You can have your political capital anywhere else, if it is a good thing for Germany, but your economic capital I think is bound to be Berlin.
  The other great difficulty I see at the present time is the one that was referred to (and I was so glad to hear it) by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. That is that if you are to get increased production—of coal, for example, from the Ruhr—you must allow the workmen and miners to have enough to eat. That means drawing on the great food-producing provinces in the east which at present are practically cut off from the western industrial districts. That is why we are having to send in foodstuffs and maintain a very large army there; that is why we are, in effect, having to pay reparations to Germany instead of getting them. I can see that process going on for a long time. If I may make a prayer to the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, I wish he would devote his great talents and his tremendous knowledge to finding some way of solving those economic problems in Germany. We all know the dilemma.
  808
  For the sake of future security we have to avoid a militarily strong Germany, above all under a Government of dictatorship. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Darwen said there. That is the one danger to be avoided. On the other hand, you have to avoid a further weakening of the whole economic fabric of Europe, and for the economic fabric of Europe a working Germany, a producing Germany, and above all a coal-producing Germany, is absolutely essential. How are you to solve the difficulty presented by these two dilemmas? It can of course be done. In time it will be done. My fear is that in the meantime terrible loss and suffering will occur not only in Germany but among her neighbours, and our future generations will have to pay the price.
  The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, also spoke about its being time we had a will and mind of our own. I suppose he was talking about His Majesty's Government having a mind and will of their own. I do not think that is quite fair. In all our dealings with regard to Germany we have to work with our great Allies, and, if they do not see eye to eye with us, we cannot force them to accept our views. The noble Lord asked had we a long-term policy for Germany. I thought it had been explained time and time again during the war what was our long-term policy for Germany. It is perfectly clear to me that we have, at all costs, to prevent a recrudescence of German militarism, to ensure that there shall not again be a Nazi system or any other similar system of extreme nationalism. At the same time we have to give (as was made clear in our statements of war aims during the war) the German people a chance of working their own passage, as was given to the Italians, and eventually to restore their economic prosperity, and the prosperity of their neighbours. I do not see any difficulty with regard to that in the long run. It is in the short ran I see the problem.
  In a few days time the Foreign Ministers of what we call the Big Four, are, I understand, meeting in Paris. They are called for April 25. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, when he comes to reply to this debate—which I understand he is going to do—could inform your Lordships whether the big Peace Conference for May 1 is also going to meet in Paris—

  809
  that, is the conference of twenty-one nations—because, as far as I can make out from the newspapers, the French Government who are to be the hosts, of course, have not yet issued the invitations, because of certain difficulties that apparently face the Foreign Ministers of the Big Four. Apparently a certain amount of preparatory work must still be done before this conference of the twenty-one nations can meet. I was always told by those who were there that with regard to the Versailles Peace Conference' after the First World War the trouble was that there had not been sufficient preliminary preparation, that the great Powers and victors met too soon, before the ground had been properly prepared.
  There has now been a year in which to prepare; for this Peace Conference. I hope that these main troubles which still seem to afflict the Councils of the Big Four can be swept away. But I am a little optimistic. I must say, when I look back over history (which is an exercise I might respectfully recommend to the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart) I find we have had three world wars in what we may call modern historical times. There were the Napoleonic Wars. A new map of Europe was drawn after the conclusion of those wars, as Viscount Swinton has reminded us, at the Congress of Vienna. As a result of the arrangements which were made there, peace lasted for one hundred years. Then there was the First World War. Peace settlements were reached at this Paris conference to which I have referred, out of which came the Treaty of Versailles, and the settlement there lasted for twenty years. I am perfectly certain that the States who met together in Vienna to try to redraw the map of devastated and war-weary Europe after the terrible Napoleonic wars were faced with what seemed to be insuperable difficulties. But they succeeded fairly well on the whole.
  I do know this, that those men who met together in Versailles at the end of the First World War were faced with greater difficulties than the Foreign Ministers who will meet together in a few days in Paris, who will represent the Big Four. Consider the great difference now. In 1919 there was a great deal of fighting going on in Europe. Active intervention was in full swing against Russia and there was considerable fighting in other parts of the European Continent as well. To-day, in
  810
  Europe, whatever the difficulties, there is no actual righting by any organized Government forces. There may be disorders created by bandits, guerrillas, and so on, but there are no actual hostilities in progress, at any rate in Europe, whatever is going on in the Far East. That is a tremendous advantage. On the other hand, the economic system of Europe is far more intricate and complicated than in 1919, and infinitely more delicate and complicated than at the time of the Congress of Vienna. It is that economic fabric of Europe that has been so damaged by the modern weapons of wax, especially the air and ground forces, and by the disastrous results of modern campaigning. On balance, I believe that we can say that the difficulties should not be insuperable if only they can be grasped and understood, and I do submit to your Lordships that what is wrong in so man of the debates on this question—and especially those initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, if he will allow me to say so—is over-emphasis on the political aspects and under-emphasis on the economic aspects of Europe's problems.
  As to the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, about Prussians liking to be driven—I think those were his words—that, of course, is a popular fallacy that is not altogether true in all cases. Prussia, before the Nazis destroyed the other political parties, was the most socialistic of the German States. It was the stronghold of German social democracy, and the social democracy of Prussia was destroyed only by the most violent methods of the Nazis. I am not so hopeless as he is about a revival of Germany democracy as we knew it 150 years ago or in the middle of the last century. In the fifties German democracy was healthy and progressive, and great progress was being made. I do not see why it should take so long to re-establish the beginnings of real democracy in Germany. I did not understand that Lord Darwen suggested it would need generations to build up from the bottom. You will find the leaders in local government work in Germany, and eventually they can rise to higher positions of authority in Germany. But if they are faced with a despairing, hungry, hopeless population, I think we will be putting an impossible task upon them.

  811
  One word on this question of the western frontiers of Germany. I did not understand that Lord Swinton or Lord Vansittart proposed tearing away any of the western territories of Germany. The French claim, as I understand it, is that there should be a total separation of the Saar Valley, the Rhine Provinces and the Ruhr. I suppose a case could be made out for the Saar Valley and the Rhenish provinces on the question of mixed population, but the Ruhr Valley—one of the areas for which our unfortunate military governors and civil administrators are responsible in Germany—is, I believe, fairly homogeneous racially, and contains about 8,000,000 Germans. If you tear it away from Germany at the present time, you will create a terrible irridenta for the future.
  A much more important point is that the production of coal from the Ruhr is falling continuously, owing to the lack of food for the miners. When we increase the rations for the pit workers at the coal face it does not do much good because their families do not get extra rations and they absent themselves in order to find food for their families, and I do not see how you can blame them. If, in addition to this trouble in the Ruhr coalfields through lack of food—which is the principal reason for the falling of output now, with the disastrous results that will follow—you create a political disturbance by cutting off the Ruhr from the rest of Germany, permanently and definitely, what is going to be the effect on the minds of those miners who we hope will dig coal for the salvation of Germany, of France and of other countries? It is bound to have a still more unsettling effect. There are two things we cannot replace in Europe to-day; the Ruhr coal mines themselves and the Ruhr miners. There is a woeful lack of coal miners all over the world, including this country; and if the Ruhr miners are not doing their best and there is not an increase in the production of Ruhr coal, the economic recovery of Europe on which everything really depends will be still further delayed.
  May I draw attention to these sentences from The Times of this morning, in a very interesting column dealing with the whole question of the Ruhr mines? If I may, I would draw Lord Vansittart's
  812
  attention particularly to it. The correspondent writes from Essen on April 15 and speaks of the British delegation's point of view
  "that if Western Europe is to have lasting benefit from the Ruhr coal basin, the conservation of the capacity of the mines for the future must be balanced against the pressing demands for higher export allocations. Beyond this lies the broader problem"—
  and this is really the key to the whole matter—
  "that if Germany is to grow more food and thus relieve Britain of some of her present heavy occupation expenses"—
  and this was the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton's point—
  "adequate coal supplies must be provided for those industries producing fertilizers and agricultural machinery. The vicious chain of cause and effect from which the economic system is suffering, must be broken, and the key to the problem, the British delegation maintains, is food."
  Food in Germany is a greater problem than centralization, federalism, partition or anything else.
  I understand that there is no objection to the Motion itself, but the underlying arguments, I suggest, lost sight of that overriding and all-important fact. I believe His Majesty's Government to-day fully realize the economic problems underlying all these political difficulties in Europe, and in Asia, too, for that matter. I believe, from all I hear, and I repeat it, that our own Military and Civil Government in our own zone has done extraordinarily well. I believe His Majesty's Government have pressed these matters on our Allies, and I hope at this next meeting on the 26th of this month, our warnings and admonitions this time will be listened to.
  3.58 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I will not detain you more than a few minutes. It is usual that one who speaks last in a debate finds that most of his speech has gone in the other speeches, but I am glad to say I do not find that to be the case to-day. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, say that he thought the Prussians are not people rather of the military and Junker type. I should have thought that the whole of that very aggressive spirit in Germany really emanated from the Prussians. I will tell him a story of a Bavarian who was a friend of mine. After the last war he told me that that was the

  813
  case, and that if it had not been for the Prussian spirit throughout Germany, he did not think there would have been a war.
  With regard to Lord Darwen's speech, on which I congratulate him, I would point out that he mentioned that the thing to do was to do the right thing. I quite agree with him: but what is the right thing at this moment? I think this is an enormously important subject. The only part of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, with which I did not agree, was that we should hurry on. I believe that we should go slow at the moment, and I shall give my reasons for saying so. Our memories in this country are short; we forgive and we forget very easily. I say that, while we should do everything we can to forgive, we should never forget the evil that has been done. I see a tendency in certain places in this country to-day to try to smooth out the terrible tragedy we have been through, but as far as I can see, there is no repentance in the German mind. There have lately been many illustrations that there is none. The Nuremberg trial is still going on and evidence is produced every day of frightful atrocities; yet the youth of Germany to-day apparently does not realize that fact, or, if it does, it is not ashamed of it. Only yesterday or the day before that it was suggested that Irma Grese was to be held up as a martyr or a saint. Conceive the youth of a country with that mentality at the moment! It is quite appalling.
  This Hitler spirit will take a generation to die down and it therefore behoves us to be extremely careful in how we proceed at the present time in permitting Germany to guide her own affairs. This poison of totalitarianism has got its roots in a great many parts of the world. It is, as we all know, really terrorism. We are not quite free from it here, and I am very glad to see that the Home Secretary is going to watch very carefully the activities of the Union of Fascists here. The fear that we all have to look at in the future is interference with the ordinary rights of the citizen. Let us take care that there is no chance of a recurrence of this horrible nightmare which came to reality in Hitler's day and which nearly wrecked the world. I was reading a book the other day, which I dare say some of your Lordships have also read, by a lady called Bella Fromm, in which is demonstrated how easy it is to get that first little wedge in to disturb
  814
  the democratic or the better government of any country. It is usually said: "Yes, I know, but it will not happen here." It has, however, a very subtle method of infiltration. It is hardly visible at first. The first stage is, "Oh, it will hang itself"; the next stage is, "Don't let us have a row about it," and finally the real terror comes into the hearts of us all.
  Let me get back to Germany for a moment. I say that Germany must be held down until we are quite certain that there is definitely a new psychology throughout the whole of Germany and that its culture and the upbringing of its children are altered beyond anything that is likely to take place if Germany is going to be governed by the Germans who are in one's mind now.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, but I am sure he would not like to misrepresent or misunderstand me. There was nothing in my speech to suggest that we could reduce or slow down the occupation of Germany or the necessary supervision. It was concerned with Germans running German local government under proper supervision.
  LORD TEVIOT: I thank the noble Viscount for his interruption and I am very glad to hear that that is in his mind. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, mentioned a new dictatorship. Do not let us forget that a dictatorship need not necessarily be under one man; you can have a totalitarian government which is just as powerful and just as much a dictator as any government under one man. I shall look upon the future with a great deal of apprehension if we are going to be weak about this. We have had two doses of it and I say, "For goodness sake let us take a strong line and do what Mrs. Bella Fromm suggested—destroy it at the beginning ruthlessly, as it would destroy you."
  4.5 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, it is not always that I find myself in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Vansittart, but this time I most strongly support his plea for a federal Germany with a central Government of limited powers. It seems to me that a federal Germany is desirable, not only in the interests of security and peace in Europe in the future but also in the interests of Germany herself. You may

  815
  ask why I think it is in the interests of Germany herself. The reason I would like to give is that I hold it is only by a federal Germany that you can restore the Rhineland and the Ruhr politically to Germany. If you have what is likely to become a highly centralized Germany, with a totalitarian frame of mind, I believe it would be folly to hand back the Rhineland and the Ruhr to its political control. On the other hand, if you have a federal Germany the position is, I think, utterly different. A federal Germany does not mean the breaking up of Germany, and I am at a loss to understand how noble Lords can hold that view. I remember that 45 years ago I spent a great deal of time in Germany. I was in the various States and the people in those States were very proud of them. They had their separate police and their separate art studies. In fact, they were very devoted to their own States and did not like being dominated by others. Yet Germany at that time was economically prosperous. She was an economic unit and there was no trouble about communications. That is the kind of thing we want to encourage in the Germans—local patriotism rather than that terrible nationalism which has done so much harm in the past. On those grounds I am particularly anxious to support the noble Lord's Motion.
  4.8 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, we have had a most interesting discussion which has been distinguished by many remarkable speeches, by no means the least remarkable of which was the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Darwen. Some of the later speeches have ranged rather far, and on some of the topics which have been mentioned I think it would be inadvisable and inappropriate that I should make any very specific comment at the present time. The Motion we are discussing is in these terms:
  "That the re-establishment of an over-centralized Germany is incompatible with European security."
  Speaking on behalf of the Government, I have no hesitation whatever in accepting that Motion. I accept it without prefix or suffix. Were it not that certain observations have been made which make it perhaps desirable that I should say something further, I might have left it at that.
  816
  To those of us who think about this problem—and I have thought about it a great deal—there are two principles which we have always to bear in mind. In the first place, we should be fools if, after the experience of 1914–18 and 1939 onwards, we were once again to risk this thing happening. I think all the speeches have stressed the fact that our paramount duty to ourselves, to Europe, to civilization and to posterity is to see that this thing does not happen again. I am bound to say I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in what he says. I have asked, I think, everybody who is in a responsible position administering Germany to-day the very question which he propounded to your Lordships. I have asked this: Now that it has become known to the ordinary German that these terrible things have been done, do you find some feeling of regret, of repentance, of indignation that these things have been done by the German leaders? One and all, the answer has always been that there is not the slightest trace of any such feeling. I am bound to mention that to your Lordships because it is a fact we must bear in mind. I have got that from quarters and from officers who by no means are opposed to trying to do everything they can to help the Germans. We must be realists and we must face that fact.
  As expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, it is obvious to every one of us that if we are going to leave Germany as a kind of pariah State, as a slum as the noble Lord said, not utilizing her productive capacity and thereby impoverishing Europe and bringing unemployment upon ourselves, that in itself is a deplorable thing. The problem is therefore how without weakening we can do everything we can to restore some measure of prosperity to Germany, for without some measure of German prosperity it is difficult to see how we can get any European prosperity and, from our own point of view, it is very difficult to see how we can get paid anything, not only by way of reparations, but the cost of our administration.
  It was in addressing ourselves to that problem that certain principles were laid down at the Potsdam Conference. The first principle was that so far as practicable there was to be uniformity of treatment of the German population throughout Germany. The second principle was

  817
  that there was to be a decentralization of the political structure and a development of local responsibility, and to that end that no central German Government should for the time being be established; and thirdly, that we should allow certain German administrative departments, such for instance as transport, finance, trade and industry, to operate as far as possible throughout the whole of Germany, but of course under the control of the Control Council. Your Lordships will remember that France was not a party to the agreement at Potsdam. That was not our fault. The Foreign Secretary indicated quite plainly that these matters so plainly affected France that France ought to be a party, but France was not a party and these matters were discussed in the absence of French representatives. When we come to work out these agreements it is not to be wondered that you encounter some difficulty.
  There has been some discussion about the attitude of France to the Ruhr and the Rhineland. May I say just this? There are people living in France to-day who have seen their country devastated three times by the Germans and, speaking for myself, I think we must regard the French attitude and the French point of view with the very greatest sympathy. We have the right and they surely have the right to prevent this thing happening again. Though I am expressing no opinion on matters which are going to be the subject of consultation within the next few days, I am sure that the people of this country as a whole, entirely regardless of parties, do feel that France must be relieved of that burden and that care which has been upon her for so many years, France to whom we and to whom all European civilization owe so much.
  We have in consequence not got on very well. The Americans and the Russians brought great pressure to bear on the French and our own representatives that we should give separate consideration to the question of central administration and to that of the Western frontiers. The French, with some little support from ourselves, have said that these things cannot be separated, and that you must consider what the frontiers are going to be before you consider the question of central administration.
  May I, whilst I think of it, say this in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Swin-
  818
  ton, who asked the question about the Berlin agreement? Of course, you have to take some hypothesis, some basis on which to build. The reason of the cause—I have forgotten the exact terminology—was that if hereafter some decision should be reached to separate the Ruhr and the Rhineland then the figures have to be altered. They were figures arrived at on the basis that no such alteration would be made. With regard to the Ruhr and the Rhineland I shall say no more except to remind your Lordships of what the Foreign Secretary said on February 21, that we have not made up our minds and that he was not at that stage prepared to say anything about it.
  The main considerations which determine our policy towards this present drive for a strong unified central Government are as follows: We take the view that nothing which has happened recently should modify the attitude we took at Potsdam, namely, that no central Government should yet be established for Germany. In our zone we are doing what we can by means of political decentralization, by strengthening local authorities and local government, by creating independent local police forces, by breaking down the Prussian Civil Service hierarchy, and in every way we can encouraging local initiative. That is the remedy which the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, suggested, and so far as in us lies we are carrying out that policy to the full. Of course, we recognize the advantage to be gained in certain fields from the establishment of central administration, particularly in the field of finance. In economic matters generally the importance of treating Germany as a whole is very obvious. But, my Lords, that is a question which needs to be very carefully watched. These local administrations dealing with particular topics all too easily tend to slip into the position of being a central Government, at any rate in embryo, and therefore we realize that they must be very carefully watched. That is all the more necessary because centralization is now being made a catchword of party politics in Germany. The German Communist Party at the present time are beating the nationalist drum and proclaiming loudly its desire for the unit and centralization of Germany. The United Socialist party are not the least lagging behind, and I say quite frankly it would be a very poor consolation

  819
  to me if, instead of the doctrine of Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer, I had to accept Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Kommissar. We could not hope that measures of centralization of that sort, or that a party founded in that way, would be able to play a useful part in the future of Europe.
  I conclude in this way. We have all been accustomed to recommend each other to study history. I think we should probably all agree about this, that Germany in the past has been dangerous in proportion as the administration was centralized. That danger is fully recognized in the Potsdam agreement. It remains, without qualification, the policy of His Majesty's Government to carry out that agreement and to seek the middle road between excessive centralization, on the one hand, and the administrative disintegration with which we had to cope after our entry into Germany on the other. We hope that by these means—and it is not going to be a matter of weeks or months, it must be a matter of years and perhaps of many years of building up local government services by building upon the lines I have suggested—we may be able once more to get a Germany which can play a useful part among the countries of Europe and the politics of Europe, without at the same time being a menace to her neighbours or others around her.
  4.23 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I feel that I should make an apology to my noble friend Lord Darwen. He began his speech with so much assurance that I had no idea that it was a maiden effort, and, therefore, I was betrayed into an interruption which I sincerely regret. In the course of his remarks, the noble Lord diverged a little to matters like the Treaty of Versailles, and in view of the late hour I do not think that I can follow him into that terrain now, because it is not strictly related to my Motion. But he seemed to think that I was bent upon what he called "breaking up Germany". I would like to remind him that the distinguished draftsman of the Weimar Constitution, Hugo Preuss, was very keen on this matter of decentralization, and he went so far as to provide for decentralization into units which should not fall below
  820
  2,000,000. I am not prepared to go as far as that. In my speech I mentioned the Rhineland, which was or is the largest and most populous province of Prussia, and Bavaria, which is the second largest German State. I would go a considerable way towards the Preuss definition, which was a minimum.
  I am exceedingly obliged to those noble Lords who have been good enough to support me in a debate which I feel to have been of great importance. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, with whose remarks I find myself in such general agreement, said a great deal about the Ruhr and the Rhineland that I think is related to the debate. Very clearly, it is also a subject in itself, and if I were to embark on that to any extent, we should be having another sitting, and, as your Lordships know, there is another Motion to be considered after mine. I would like to say—I think it bears very much on what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said—that I rather believe that if from the start it had been recognized that our policy was one of a loose federalism with very strictly limited power for the central Government, that conception plus prolonged occupation and economic control would have gone very far to have satisfied the French and, therefore, to have avoided some of our present difficulties. I think that that was much in the noble Earl's mind when he spoke.
  Lord Strabolgi also tried to tempt me with the half-volley of the Treaty of Versailles, but I am not coming out of my ground for that. He said that in his mind the great problem was whether Germany should survive at all. Even that does not dispense you from the necessity of trying to think out in advance in what form you wish Germany to survive. The noble Lord found fault with me a little saying that it was time that we should have a will of our own. I think it is always time that we should. I believe that phrase applies particularly to making up our minds as to what is going to be our attitude in our zone on this question of enforced fusion. Since the noble Lord challenges me, I will say again that I am not quite sure what a long-term policy is. I know what a short-term policy is. In my view, we cannot very well make up our minds as to what our long-term policy is until we have made up our minds on the issue of federalism.

  821
  The noble Lord also invited me to expand my reading of history. I think he failed to observe that I had already accepted his hospitality, in the sense that I indulged in quite a lot of it in my speech. When I accept people's hospitality I never go out of my way to make it unduly expensive by indulging to excess. Therefore, I shall refrain from following the noble Lord back quite as far as Napoleon. Lord Strabolgi also adjured me to pay some attention to a long extract from The Times. I can assure him that on these matters I frequently take The Times as an informant, but somewhat less frequently as a guide. I particularly welcome what Lord Teviot said. One of the things that we have got to be particularly careful about is not to have dictatorship cliques. This is just as unpleasant a prospect as dictatorship by one fairly efficient man—indeed a clique may even have somewhat fewer intuitions, and that would not be to our advantage.
  And now as to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I need not tell him with what gratification I learnt that His Majesty's Government were willing to accept my Motion. I have always felt that it is the duty of this House to use its accumulated experience to give a moral lead in Europe. I think that we have gone some distance in that direction to-day. I was also particularly glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord said about France. I think that is very timely. What he said has also gone some distance in clearing up the apparent contradiction in the Potsdam findings because superficially they face both ways. They recommended both, centralization and decentralization. But as a result of to-day's debate we know better where we stand. I was very glad to hear the noble and learned Lord's resistance to the formula: "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Kommissar" One of the reasons why I brought forward this Motion to-day is quite explicitly that if we were to allow the present drift to continue, this country and the world at large would within measurable time be confronted with National Communism substituted for National Socialism, and that is a prospect to which no one could look forward with equanimity. It remains for me again to thank those noble Lords who have supported me. I believe
  822
  that we have done a good day's work today, and again I think the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for having accepted the Motion.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  HEALTH SERVICES: FUTURE OF HOSPITALS.
  4.29 p.m.
  LORD MORAN LORD MORAN rose to call attention to the Government White Paper Cmd. 6761, and to move to resolve, That this House, while regretting any measures which might impair the efficiency of the general practitioner's service, welcomes proposals for the better co-ordination of the hospital services of the country. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is difficult for a doctor who has been nurtured in the voluntary system to speak of its extinction with detachment. My working years have been spent in a great voluntary hospital every stone and turning of which is associated with some incident in my youth. But a scientific training would be lost on us if, when our feelings are stirred, we allowed mere sentiment to oust that passion for exactitude which is the ultimate reward of the scientific way of life.
  There are three questions which I think we ought to begin by trying to answer. The first is: Is a drastic reorganization of the hospital system of the country necessary? The answer to that question is to be found in the surveys made for the Ministry of Health during the war by physicians and surgeons. Those surveys are a measured statement of facts, amounting at times to an indictment. I shall not attempt a summary of the surveys. I merely wish to direct your Lordships' attention to them. But I would like to say this. One third of the 93,000 beds in the 1,059 voluntary hospitals in England and Wales are in voluntary hospitals, of which each has fewer than 100 beds. There is no doubt that here and there gifted men overcome difficulties inherent in such a situation, but generally speaking these hospitals; are much too small to fulfil the functions of a first-class hospital. In many of them—too many of them—major surgery is performed by men without surgical training, and the duties of physicians are usurped by those who have not had the training of a

  823
  physician. This practice of medicine without the aids of modern science results in patients being deprived of the benefits of these aids.
  Passing to the municipal hospitals, a more disturbing situation is found, because of the 152,000 beds in these municipal hospitals in England and Wales, 78,000 are general beds—not for infectious diseases or things of that kind. Then of this 78,000, 29,000 or more than one-third—three-eighths to be exact—are in public assistance institutions. Noble Lords may have read in The Times a few days ago a shocking account of one particular public assistance institution. That, I am sure, is not typical but these institutions provide little but food and shelter. Many of them might have stepped straight out of a reforming novel of Charles Dickens. That is a state of affairs which is disturbing, and it is reinforced by the financial circumstances in which voluntary hospitals now find themselves. I am sure that, generally speaking, voluntary hospitals will have greater difficulty in balancing their budgets in the future, owing to the greatly increased cost of maintenance. What is more to the point, they cannot begin to meet the capital expenditure which is called for by six or more years in which nothing has been spent in building and equipment, and by the effect of bombing. That means we shall have to call upon the Government or the Treasury for the money—and it is a very considerable sum indeed—for the hospitals. I think if there is to be public expenditure on this scale, your Lordships will admit that it probably means some measure of public control.
  I think I have said enough to explain, perhaps, why the vast majority of consultants and specialists who work in the hospitals are convinced that a drastic reorganization of the hospital system of the country is overdue. That brings me to my second point. If this large sum is to be given by the Government, and if it does mean public control, who is to exercise that control? Is it to be the local authorities, or is it to be the Minister working through the regions? I do not want to say anything which could possibly be called provocative, but one must recognize that local authorities have behaved with great patriotism in accepting the proposals of the Minister in the White Paper, which must be very unpalatable
  824
  to them. I think your Lordships ought to know certain facts, however. Every discussion among consultants and specialists who work in these hospitals has been dominated in the last few years by one fact, by one fear, that the hospitals would come under the control of the local authorities. It is because this White Paper appears to lift that menace from the profession that so many consultants and specialists are reconciled to the passing of the voluntary system. It is that dread which on the whole makes them prefer the proposals of the present Minister of Health to those of his predecessor, which handed us over, bound hand and foot, to the local authorities.
  The Minister of Health has, I think, shown great political courage—courage not always shown in the past—in facing the realities of the situation, and in recognizing that there is this general feeling throughout the profession that it will be impossible and unthinkable to put hospitals under local authorities. I think I might be asked, justifiably, why do doctors dread being put under local authorities? It is a difficult question to answer. I have made man inquiries in the past year of those who practise clinical medicine in these services. You find rather a sense of frustration, due to the fact that the doctor has so little to say in the services, and owing to the greater delays which take place in getting anything done. You are bound to get difficulties of that kind in any large service. Even in the R.A.M.C. during the war, when they had a very able Director-General, and when that service was stimulated by the interest of the people of this country, you found quite often that the rigidity of a great service interfered with research. I will give you only one example. There was a large outbreak of diphtheria at Alexandria. It was necessary to trace the carriers, and for that purpose guinea-pigs were necessary. There was no money to buy them, no Imprest Account, and so they had to be obtained as Red Cross Comforts.
  It would be quite unfair to isolate a few striking aspects of the service and not give the other side of the picture. It is absolutely true that doctors are working perfectly happily under municipal administrators, under the Middlesex and Surrey County Councils, and I think that proves that there is nothing inherent in the municipal

  825
  system which would make doctors discontented. But I think we must also accept the position that the present view is such that no statesman would dream of putting doctors and hospitals under local authorities. If hospitals are not to be controlled by local authorities, they must be controlled by the Minister. Up to this point, I think, there is agreement between the great majority of consultants and specialists. But when we proceed to ask the Minister who exercises this control whether it implies the transfer of ownership of hospitals, agreement ceases and there is great difference of opinion in the profession on this particular point.
  I would make it perfectly clear that I am speaking personally, and not for my colleagues. I would explain to your Lordships the two different views. One is that local interest and local spirit around hospitals are so very, very important, and attachment to these institutions of those who were in them is so great, that it would be a great disaster if that were lost. They would like to see the Minister give a block grant to the region. The block grant could then be used for sanctions, so that any local hospital in that region which remained backward and did not come into line could be made to do so. That, I think, fairly represents what one section of those who work in the hospitals feel should be done. Other sections take the view—and it is one to which I subscribe—that although such a procedure would meet with our wishes a region in these circumstances would not possibly work. You have to picture a region applying these sanctions to a powerful local authority to get something done, and I think the local authority would not tolerate that. It would immediately begin to agitate for an alteration in the composition of the Regional Board, and presently we should end up with a local authority majority on that Regional Board—the very thing the profession wants to avoid.
  It is very difficult to be certain of, these things, but, generally speaking, I think there was another argument which to my mind was conclusive. Every day I am meeting doctors from provincial towns, who say they will never have a proper hospital service in their town until their municipal hospital and voluntary hospital unite so that there is one first-class hospital instead of two second-rate hospitals. Obviously such a hospital could not be under two ownerships; it
  826
  must be under one. I do not want to see the region beginning its troubled life with the power of a big local authority on its flank. This question of ownership is after all the question that stirs all the consultants and the specialists. If this change of ownership did not occur the hospital proposals would be much more popular. We: have to ask: Supposing this change of ownership takes place, what do we gain and what do we lose? We gain the co-ordination of hospitals, which has long been overdue. We gain financial peace. We shall not find progress handicapped by poverty at every tarn, as occurred so often in the past. We gain freedom from the menace that the hospitals will be put under the local authorities in their present condition. Further, the Minister of Health has refused to blunt the growing edge of medicine, for the teaching hospitals are left alone. The non-teaching hospitals are put under a region with real power—the very thing we asked in vain from the Minister's predecessor.
  What do we lose? We lose the voluntary system. Why has the name of the voluntary system gone over the world? It is because the ablest men in our profession, for as long as men can remember, have deliberately chosen when qualified to work within the walls of these institutions, so that almost every addition to knowledge has come from, these institutions. But not every voluntary hospital is a centre of learning. Nearly all these advances in the past have come from the teaching hospitals, and since they are left intact, this, the very essence of the voluntary system, is preserved by the proposals in this White Paper.
  We may ask just for one moment, why did these men choose to work within these hospitals. The answer is that there they, found intellectual freedom. May I bring those words to life just for a moment? In my early days as dean of a medical school it fell to my lot to take inspectors from the University of London and the University Grants Committee round my hospital and school. The school had a progressive policy. Our grants rose year by year. As we went round words of encouragement and praise were common, until we came to the door of the Pathological Institute. There their faces fell and their interest seemed to have gone. Sir Almroth Wright's provocative personality had temporarily alienated the official

  827
  world. If he had been in a service I think he would have had a very thin time. Yet it is from that laboratory that penicillin came, the greatest discovery of my working days. Most of the advances in medicine have been met by professional and lay incredulity. We want to give the man of initiative his head, however angular a man he may be.
  The voluntary hospital has made another gift to the country. Every hospital is a very human affair. It has a personality of its own which stirs up around it a spirit of service, and that spirit of service not only inspires the toil of the working day but it contributes to the efficiency of the hospital. Now if we lost this local interest we should lose something of great value not only to the hospital but to the community. But is it necessary that we should lose it? Letters have recently appeared in The Times from Sir William Goodenough and the Secretaries of the King's Fund which explain in detail how this local interest can be preserved within the fabric of the proposals of this White Paper. Briefly, what is proposed is that all these hospitals should have a larger measure of autonomy and that they should have some control over their finances. I think that everybody will be in sympathy with these aims. I believe the Minister of Health will go very carefully into the detailed suggestions in those letters coming as they do from people with authority to speak on these problems, while not forgetting that the more the local management committee gains in power the less is the influence of the university; and after all it was to get the influence of the university throughout the country that was the whole object, or the chief object, of putting up the regions.
  Nevertheless I would not like your Lordships to think for a moment that I underrate the immense importance of preserving this local interest. In wartime you got an outpouring of unselfishness both in the front line and at home, and this spirit of altruism, flowering in two wars, has by its fragrance done something to wash out of men's nostrils the stench of war. When peace comes we tend to revert to our own selfish selves. But the work of the voluntary hospitals has been the expression in peace of the altruism of war. But whenever you find a resolution or proposals such
  828
  as are contained in this White Paper they inevitably end with a qualification. It may approve the principles set out in the White Paper but always at the end there is the proviso: "Provided the composition of the Regional Boards is satisfactory." Why? These regions are going to have great power. Not only will they be able to say whether a hospital expands and adds beds and adds departments, but they will be able to take away departments. They will be able to say: "You can no longer have a thoracic centre or a head centre, or a tuberculosis centre," and send that centre to some other hospital. These powers in the professional world are a matter of life and death. Therefore doctors from the very first were immensely interested in the composition of these Regional Boards. They have asked the Minister repeatedly to reveal the composition, and although he has done so for other committees he has refused up to date to give that information.
  I would ask the Minister who is going to reply if he would be good enough to give us information on this particular point, that is the composition of the Regional Boards. I do not myself share the suspicions that, having shut out the local authorities from the front door, he is going to let them in by the back door and give them control of these Regional Boards. I believe he has learnt from the experience of the Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust, who found quite definitely that the only way to make those boards work was to hand-pick those who worked on them, that it was quite hopeless to say: "Here are 5,000 local authority beds, and here are 2,000 voluntary hospital beds, therefore the representation on this board must be five to two." That would lead nowhere. We must hand-pick the men. There is a very great deal of information gathered by the Nuffield Trust as to who has the time and ability for this particular work, and I think he may very well have in his mind determined to put that into effect later. I am no politician but I can imagine at this particular moment it would be perhaps difficult to make any further proposals that are unpalatable to the local authorities.
  The critic of these proposals concentrates on what is being done with the endowments of hospitals, and I do not

  829
  think that any of us have been happy about that. But the position at the present time is very different from what it was. The £18,000,000 which belonged to the teaching hospitals are left intact. £32,000,000 that belong to the non-teaching hospitals are to be used, not for one hospital but for more than one. To me that 'implies some departure from the donors' intentions, but I do not think it merits the word "confiscation." After all, is it altogether reasonable that if the Minister takes all the liabilities and the debts of those hospitals—and they are considerable—and makes himself responsible for their maintenance in the future, he should be deprived of their assets? I do not think in the business world that that would apply. Moreover, I think this proposal did not come from the Ministry of Health but from our side of the table.
  Let me say this. The hospitals are important to the country because they train the doctors of the future; because we look to them for additions to knowledge, and because nowadays they are responsible for the treatment of most forms of acute disease. But the well-being of any profession depends upon the conditions under which the rank and file work and on their contentment. What does, the general practitioner think of the proposals in the White Paper? Now I think it is very difficult to answer that question. There are thousands of practitioners throughout the land who never go near a meeting of any association. They correspond to the silent vote in politics; we really do not know what they think. There were 17,000 doctors in the Armed Forces, most of whom will be presently demobilized or have already been so. They have been living in a whole-time service under conditions different from any we know. Has that experience reconciled them to whole-time service or has it confirmed their doubts? That is the question which it is extremely difficult to answer. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that there is a fairly general disquiet among practitioners about the future. The remarkable thing is that there is one reason, and only one reason, for this disquiet, and that is the dread that these proposals may lead to a whole-time service. Now you will find the general practitioners critical of many things in the White Paper. They will be critical of health centres and of the
  830
  abolition of the buying and selling of practices; but when you analyse why they are against these things you will find it is only because they regard them as a first step towards a whole-time service. Therefore one has to ask straight away: Is a whole-time service good for the profession and good for the public?
  I have spent twenty-five years of my life as dean of a medical school, and almost every day I ask myself, under what conditions will these boys work and live when they go out into the world? Even now I am unable to say definitely what will be the effect of a whole-time service on the practice of medicine. I can only envy the Minister in his ready assurance, gained in the few hours he can take off from housing, that by turning a profession upside down he will necessarily provide a better service for the people. One thing is quite clear, and that is that if you have a whole-time medical service without an adequate incentive, you will have a bad service. Now I think the Minister of Health has recognized this very clearly by providing that those who work at the health centres will be paid by a capitation fee. That is to say, their income will be governed, at any rate in part, by what is thought of their skill by those who surround that health centre. That will be something, perhaps, to keep them on their toes. But it is not only financial incentive that matters; it is the conditions under which men work and whether it is interesting or stimulating.
  We have to realize perfectly clearly that the life of a general practitioner of recent years has lost something of its colour. He has seen the treatment of serious disease pass into hospitals and out of his hands. When a case of pneumonia becomes interesting to him clinically it is taken out of his hands and put under somebody else in a hospital, and presently we are almost certain to see a sharp division between consultants; and general practitioners on the ground that if a man practises a speciality he should be trained for such. But this sharp division is going to take the milder degree of specialization out of the general practitioner's hands, and therefore deprive his life of interest. If you make the general practitioner's life duller and duller, it will inevitably have an effect on the men who enter that profession. Now this can be overcome in many ways

  831
  but it is very important that it should be recognized, and I am sure noble Lords will not feel that I am dwelling too much on the importance of the incentive. Why? Because, as I hear from people who should know, in almost every craft and calling in this country there is at present some loss of pride of craftmanship which may, in the long run, threaten the recovery of our export trade. Now in medicine if you lose the pride of craftmanship there is nothing left.
  There is just one thing upon which I would like to digress before I end because I think it is of some importance. It concerns the machinery by which these White Papers are brought up. There are two questions that have dominated every professional negotiation for the last few years: on the part of the hospitals it is the dread of being put under the local authority, and on the part of general practitioners it is the fear of this whole-time service. Yet I have never once, in all these years, heard a really good discussion on these points, but only a perfunctory mention. It is not lack of time for such a discussion, because, as I have said, all these discussions have been going on for years. They have become part of our life. We shall rather miss them. And the cast is always the same: the same general practitioners and the same consultants negotiating with the same civil servants. Only the Minister of Health comes and goes. I have myself assisted at the obsequies of half a dozen of the present Minister's predecessors, and I want very much not to stand once more at the open sepulchre of another Minister's hopes and aspirations.
  Why is it that these two crucial questions have not been adequately discussed when there has been plenty of time? I think the answer is best given if one looks over forty years of listening to debates and discussions on medical education and medical services. In all that time one document only has survived—the Report of the Royal Commission of 1913 on University Education in London. That has survived. Why? Because it was the product of the hard thought of Morant, Milner and Haldane. They never, for one moment, allowed details to obscure their central purpose, which was to provide an academic career in medicine. If
  832
  we get into this habit of very large committees meeting the Minister, in hours off from busy lives, we shall miss that hard thought which is absolutely essential if we are going to put up a fabric which will last. I think it may be said that the doctor lives for his work at the present time, and he lives laborious days. Will that be true in ten years' time? Will the conditions set forth in this White Paper attract in the future the same kind of man who in the past has won the regard of the public? I have no answers to these questions, but they will determine whether we are now merely doodling on scraps of paper which will be torn up by those who will come after, or whether we are working wisely for the betterment of the whole profession and for the good of the country. I beg to move the Motion in my name.
  Moved to resolve, That this House, while regretting any measures which might impair the efficiency of the general practitioner's service, welcomes proposals for the better co-ordination of the hospital services of the country.—(Lord Moran.)
  5.0 p.m.
  LORD INMAN: My Lords, I recall something that I heard M. Maisky say when he was Russian Ambassador. On his desk he had a large card with the words printed on it, "This also will pass." He told me that when faced with any ordeal those words never failed to give him confidence. I confess to a feeling of trepidation in rising to address your Lordships' House for the first time, but I am encouraged by the knowledge that this experience will pass and by the knowledge that your Lordships are traditionally generous to the beginner—ready to overlook his weaknesses and to forgive his shortcomings. I venture to intervene in this debate to-day because I am really batting on my own ground. If I may be allowed to explain, I should like to say that for over thirty years I have been actively engaged in hospital work—for twenty-five of those years at a well-known London hospital and for the last eleven as chairman of its governing body. I think, therefore, I can claim to know something of the work and the difficulties, and of the strength and the weaknesses of our present hospital system.
  The White Paper to which the noble Lord has drawn attention summarizes the provisions of the new National Health Service

  833
  Bill introduced in another place. It is a long and of necessity complicated measure which will, I assume, come before your Lordships' House for examination clause by clause in due course. I do not, therefore, intend to deal in any detail with the proposals; I would rather content myself with saying a few words on general lines, knowing that if the groundwork is fundamentally sound its detailed application can be worked out afterwards, and that, on the other hand, if the groundwork is fundamentally unsound no amount of manipulation later on can possibly justify the changes proposed. Is the groundwork, then, fundamentally sound? I do not propose to cover the ground already covered by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, but to answer that question it is necessary to glance at the past.
  The voluntary hospitals of this country have had a long and, in many respects, glorious history. They stand witness to the fact that men and women are by nature merciful and will not willingly allow their fellows to be stricken with suffering without collectively making an effort to find a means of helping them. It was on the great Christian principle of bearing one another's burdens that our hospitals were built, and funds provided by generous-hearted people maintained them. For many centuries the voluntary hospitals held the field, but in more recent years the municipal and county authorities have provided hospital accommodation. At one time these places were looked upon, as the noble Lord said, as cold and heartless institutions, tainted with the stigma of the Poor Law. There are still black spots in the country, but in a large number of cases these Poor Law infirmaries have been upgraded and there are cases where they are now acknowledged to be amongst the best hospitals in the country.
  But this development in our hospital system has not had the advantages it might have had; there has been a complete lack of co-ordination between the voluntary and the municipal hospitals. In many cases they have been serving the same areas and this has led to overlapping, competition and, I regret to say, rivalry. The noble Lord who has just spoken will agree with me when I say that the anomalies have been most serious. There have been cases where hospitals have had long waiting lists of patients seeking ad-
  834
  mission, whilst close by there have been hundreds of empty beds. I will not weary your Lordships by going into other weaknesses in our present hospital system to which reference has already been made—the difficulties in the cottage hospitals, the movement of population from the centres to the: edges of our cities and towns, and so on. No one who has studied this question can entertain any reasonable doubt that changes of a radical character must be made, and these changes are introduced in the new measure. I believe its broad purpose to be the establishment of a nation-wide, all embracing service that will bring within the reach of everybody, irrespective of means, the best medical advice and treatment; and because I think that is its broad conception I shall give this measure my support, whilst reserving the right to comment upon some of the proposals.
  With your Lordships' permission, I would like to state my views very briefly on one or two of the main issues. I believe that the scheme of co-ordination on a regional basis is sound. I believe that it will remove some of the evils of our present system, that it will eliminate waste, competition and rivalry, and that it will lead to that unified planning which is so much to be desired. But I venture to hope that in the transfer of the local institutions to Regional Boards care will be taken to preserve the local interest, the enthusiasm and the readiness to serve which the local institution has attracted to itself. I feel that in the interests of the patients that personal and human touch must be preserved. I should also like to feel, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, that endowments for specific purposes might be retained by the hospitals concerned.
  I am a voluntary hospital man; I have gloried in its great traditions and I have already paid tribute to its fine record of service. How, then, will the proposals in this measure affect that service? I would emphasize what the noble Lord said about the voluntary system. It really falls into two parts—voluntary service and voluntary support. So far as lay voluntary support is concerned, I do not see any reason why it should not continue. In fact, this measure makes provision for its continuance. It is to be found in membership of the governing bodies of the teaching hospitals, of the Regional Boards and of the management and house

  835
  committees. All this work is to be unpaid and it will afford plenty of opportunities for voluntary service.
  Now let me say a word on the vexed question of finance. I see around me to-day those who have served the voluntary hospitals for years. They will, I think, support my contention that the voluntary hospital in the past has had to cut its coat according to its cloth; its work has had to be regulated by its income. When that income has declined, retrenchment has had to take place; wards have had to be closed, and waiting lists extended. The late Lord Knutsford once told me, quite seriously, that so short were their funds that at one time they actually contemplated putting a board outside the London Hospital with the words "This building to let." If that is regarded as an extravagance, let me mention that some years ago at our own hospital we had six wards closed, and we had not sufficient money in the bank to pay the wages at the end of the week.
  I submit that financial stringency ought to be removed from our voluntary hospitals, that we ought to be relieved of the scraping from hand to mouth. If the life of a loved one is at stake we say "Spare no expense," and yet cost has far too often been the deciding factor in hospital life. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, had to say on the voluntary side of the financial aspect of hospital work. On a future occasion—I will not keep your Lordships any further to-day—I would like to deal with some of the other questions involved. It is quite likely that developments may take place as the Bill passes through its various stages to your Lordships' House, and as this is in the nature of a preliminary run for this measure may I be allowed to close on a note which was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Moran?
  In thinking of our plans for the future, I am sure we shall not forget the great debt we owe to the past. In contemplating this new National Health Service Bill, it is fitting that we remember with gratitude the pioneers of yesterday, the devoted labours of countless physicians, surgeons, nurses, administrators and the generous-hearted. Their work has been beyond all telling; their benefits to mankind incalculable. Yet, as we all know, the world moves on; nothing ever stands
  836
  still; human endeavour is for ever reaching forwards; knowledge and experience are always widening; the potentialities of medical science are indeed tremendous and the possibilities of human health and happiness never greater than to-day. If those of old saw visions and lived up to them, we must dream dreams and translate them into deeds. It is in that faith that I look ahead, and I see emerging the health service of to-morrow, comprehensive, co-ordinated, efficient, available for everybody and above all, I hope, human, a health service that will be worthy of our people.
  5.15 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inman, on the excellent speech he has made. Those of us who are interested in the hospital world are familiar with many of his speeches but I think we may congratulate ourselves that in future we shall hear his speeches and not have to read reports of them elsewhere. Your Lordships are in one little difficulty to-day, and I should like to pay my tribute to the ability with which two speakers have avoided that difficulty. We are, of course, perfectly in order in referring to the White Paper which is before your Lordships, but we are not in the least in order in referring to a Bill which is before another place. Therefore quite wisely the two noble Lords who have spoken have avoided going into too much detail, and I hope to follow their example in the few remarks I intend to make.
  There is one thing in this scheme which appeals to me above all others, and that is that we are going to get rid of the division of our hospitals between two systems, the voluntary system and the municipal system. They are, as the noble Lord, Lord Inman, has just said, sometimes antagonistic, but they are totally different in their organization and I cannot believe therefore that they are both right. In the voluntary system you have government by the board elected by the supporters of the hospital, working in harmony with the medical committee, the committee of course meeting at the hospital. In the municipal system the governing body is the committee of the council which I fancy does not meet at the hospital but at the council hall. It works through the medical officer of health, and it works through a medical superintendent.

  837
  He may be the best fellow in the world, but I cannot believe a medical superintendent is a wise substitute for a medical committee, that is to say, a committee representing all the medical departments. I was interested to hear the other day that one of our important municipalities in the Midlands has actually abolished the post of medical superintendent and has substituted a medical committee in one of their hospitals. I think that is a very wise step, and I do not think that procedure is widespread enough.
  Under this new scheme, as I say, all hospitals will be hospitals—there will be no word before the word "hospital" and a great deal of the success of the scheme will depend I think upon the regional committees. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, reminded us we do not yet know who are going to serve on those regional committees, but it is tremendously important they should be the right people, people knowing about hospitals and people in touch with the medical profession. I do not think the medical profession would claim that they must run the show. I think they value the lay element with whom they have been partners for so many years past but, of course, the medical profession must be at the right hand of this regional committee and also of the governing bodies.
  You must remember—and I want to emphasize what the noble Lord said—the enormous value of the local interest in hospitals. The ordinary man in the street likes to point across the street to a hospital and say: "This is my hospital." That has been an invaluable element in the whole hospital system all over the country, chiefly, I am bound to say, in the voluntary hospitals, but I hope it will extend to the municipal hospitals when they lose the title "municipal." Take an example. One of the great anxieties at this moment in every hospital is to get nurses and to get domestic staff. You have got to recruit them, and the human element comes in at once. I have had a little experience of candidates, and as a rule a girl does not say: "I want to join the nursing service; I want to join the domestic staff of the medical world." She points across the street and says: "I want to join that hospital where my friends are already working." She takes a pride in that hospital for the rest of her life, wherever her training has been. We must
  838
  not lose that, whatever happens, and we have to trust to the regional bodies to preserve and make easy the continuance; of that attitude of mind in the rank and file of the people.
  For that reason I am a little frightened at this moment by something that has occurred within the last few days. An advertisement has appeared—the one copy of it which I possess is from that well-known newspaper The Hospital—in which the Ministry of Health invite applications for posts as what are called "Nursing Officers." Applicants are warned that they may have to live in one of the following places: London, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds, Liverpool (including Birkenhead) Manchester (including Salford), Newcastle (including Gateshead), or Sheffield What does this mean? These individuals are to be given salaries, and, obviously, they are to be important people. Their duties will include the inspection of nursing and staff establishments in general and especially at hospitals and other places for the training" of nurses. I want to know, at once, whether these people are going to work under the regional bodies or whether they are going to be: representatives of the Ministry of Health working independently of the regional bodies. I think this particular case is of importance. I want to know in what spirit this new system, if it goes through—as I presume it will do—is going to be worked.
  Are these new local authorities, the regional authorities, to be allowed to do their work, or are they going to be interfered with from headquarters? If that is going to be the case, your scheme will fail. I certainly hope to see the Minister of Health—for I fully recognize his tremendous keenness and enthusiasm—leading an army to success in the new hospital world, but I am certain that there will be failure unless he is a wise man and leads his army from behind, allowing the people in the localities to deal with all the details of the show. There is a great deal more arising out of the White Paper that I should like to say, but I think it has been agreed that we all want to confine our remarks to the hospital side of the new health scheme to-day. I agree with so much that has been said by both the noble Lords who have previously spoken, that I do not want to repeat anything. I shall look forward to the Bill reaching us and

  839
  then no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Inman, has intimated, we shall have quite a lot to say.
  5.23 p.m.
  LORD GEDDES: My Lords, your Lordships, I am sure, will all agree that we have listened to three very remarkable speeches. They were extraordinarily interesting, extraordinarily clear, and very much to the point. I started the study of this White Paper just as I studied the earlier pronouncements on the subject, from the point of view that we are going to have a health service. Why do not our successive Ministers of Health declare it to be a means of promoting health? This is a medical service that is proposed, and it is designed to deal with those who have lost health. Primarily, of course, the research work that goes on in the voluntary hospitals—the teaching hospitals as they are to be called in the future, and indeed as some of them are called now—is work aimed towards health. But this service that is proposed in this White Paper is entirely concerned with dealing with those who have lost health.
  There have been two great examples of big operations to secure health. The first one was the great operation conducted by General Gorgas to secure sufficiently healthy conditions to allow the Panama Canal to be built. The other great operation—which was modelled on Gorgas's work—was designed to secure sufficient conditions of health in Northern Rhodesia to allow the copper belt development to proceed for the safety and welfare of this country. We have got in this country not a tropical jungle but a jungle of conditions all of which are working against health. It is quite true that we have got housing going forward as well as it may be in these difficult days, and we have got the question of food being looked after as well as it may be in this very difficult period. But here we are dealing with what I wish profoundly had been called a "National Medical Service Bill", for words are important and it may well be that if people think that this is the way to health we shall get the real health services of the country distorted.
  That is by the way. It is an objection to the title which has been adopted, and I do not suppose that my objecting to it will have any effect on anybody. But it
  840
  is really a matter of importance to make these medical services not only real services but a complete health service. In those medical services there are two great parts — the hospital service and the general practitioner service. Your Lordships have heard three speeches dealing primarily with the hospital service. On that I can only add my plea to those that have already been made that, before things have gone too far, the whole country should know what is to be the composition of the Regional Hospital Boards (I think that is the correct title) for on that composition, I am absolutely certain, the well-being of the general treatment hospital service will turn. If those boards are wisely chosen this thing will go. If they do not inspire confidence in the minds of the men and of the profession that have to do the work the hospitals will not work well or properly or for the benefit of the sick. That, I think, is the most important thing on the hospital side. Given proper Regional Hospital Boards and adequate finance, it is fairly certain that the hospitals will be got on to a proper basis and that that co-ordination will be obtained which all of us, for a generation, have known to be necessary, to bring the hospital service up to a proper standard. It has I been a piecemeal thing, built up higgledy-piggledy—some hospitals extraordinarily good, some of them not so good, and every here and there a really bad one.
  Then we have the other side, the practitioner service. I have spoken to your Lordships on this subject before, and it is one on which I personally feel very strongly. The general practitioner, with his knowledge of the families who build up his area of practice, is a friend. He is able, if he is a really good practitioner, to deal with the extraordinarily complex background of disease, and of disorder and disease that is constituted by family relations, harmonious or inharmonious, and by conditions in the locality. I am well aware that many general practitioners fall far short of the ideal. They are overworked, and in the last few years especially cruelly overworked. They have not the time or the opportunity to stop and think. But it has seemed to me that it is in connexion with the practitioner service that these proposals are most likely to break down.
  I do not think that these polyclinics which are to be established, which in the

  841
  Paper are called health centres, are going to make for confidence between the patient and the doctor. In the first place there will be a secretarial service provided at these centres. It will be provided, as I understand the proposals, by the authority responsible for the centre. If the people who attend at that centre are to be looked after pioperiy throughout the years there must be records of the various diseases and disorders from which they suffer. Such records of course we all know exist today in every private general practitioner's or consultant's library of case records. But picture the difference when you have these records available at centres controlled and run by local authorities—because that is what is to happen—with the servants of the local authorities keeping the records. I can we'll imagine a man or woman being very unwilling to go to such a centre, merely because there was a greater chance—under present circumstances there is almost no chance at all—of some malady from which he had suffered being recorded on some bit of paper which would pass through the hands of some not-very-resporsible clerk, possibly a girl, possibly a man.
  It is not easy to get people to go to see those best qualified to treat them. In connexion with health, I suppose there are nearly as many whimsies as there are in connexion with any other aspect of human life. People seem to have a special desire to respond to diagnosis by advertisement, and to receive the advice of the local dispensing chemist; or they like to go to some quack or to adopt some other form—perhaps some mystic form—of treatment. If you have at the centre where these men and women are to be treated something in the organization which makes them feel it is not quite safe to go, I think you are going to do harm to the general practitioner service. You will do harm also to the health of the country. There is a great deal in the health of nearly everyone of us that we should not like to have broadcast or known to certain people. That fear, to my certain knowledge, has often kept men and women away from the actual place where they should have gone to be treated.
  Therefore it seems to me that from the point of view of the patient the idea of bringing the practitioners halfway into the medical service—because that is what this proposal means if it means anything
  842
  —is going to work against the efficiency of the medical services. And it would work even more against it if they went brought the whole way. It is not possible torn a mass of individual doctors to provide all the equipment that is necessary to-day for diagnosis. Is it not possible to provide instead of these places called health centres, diagnostic centres, where there will be experts to do X-ray work, what is called side-room work, laboratory investigation, and so on, for the general practitioners? Such centres would keep that essential personal bond which exists in the best type of general practice between the patient and the: doctor, without the interloping of anybody who is not immediately concerned with the patient and the doctor as to the nature, course and treatment of the disease.
  That is where I think these proposals on the practitioner sick are weak, from the point of view of the patient. I think they are also weak from the point of view of the doctors—for this reason. You are going 10 have patients running after the very best men, and some of the men in the districts are very popular. They will have largo numbers of people on their lists and they will receive less and less remuneration per patient for every patient over a certain number. At a certain point the remuneration comes to a dead stop. What will be the effect of 'that on the mind of the; person who wishes to be treated by that doctor? Will he return to the doctor from whom he has tried to get away, and trust him? Will the doctor from whom he has fried to get away welcome him and treat him as a willing patient? It is in that most intimate relationship between; practitioner and patient that very often the whole problem of health recovery turns. And that is where I am convinced there is a profound weakness in he practitioner's side of the proposals which are sketched in the White Paper under discussion to-day.
  What is the remedy? It is not easy to answer. It is very difficult to bring the whole of the general practitioner work of the country up to the best levels. The Minister is undertaking to spend a great deal of money, which in turn means human energy, because it is all to be used to a higher service. I believe it would be still possible to improve the Minister's proposals which, frankly, I think

  843
  in many parts contain an extraordinary number of good points. The one point I am laying emphasis upon—as I think a weak point—is that they will not make for the relations that should exist between patient and practitioner, and which do exist to-day in the best type of private practice. Throughout a very wide field of private practice you will find that best type, although I agree in connexion with some of the panel patients it does not exist very obviously—at any rate to one like myself who is an outside observer. That, it seems to me, is what we should aim at. I fear that where you are going to have centralized clerical records you will have a counter-force working against the general principle of the Bill. I end on the note on which I began. I do hope that, before this series of proposals, sketched as they are in the White Paper, pass through the necessary stages which would enable them to become the law of the land, it will be found we are dealing with a medical service in this case and not with a thing miscalled a health service
  5.41 p.m.
  LORD PIERCY: My Lords, I should like to pay my tribute to the lucidity and sympathy with which the mover of this Motion set forth his case; one might almost say the great charm with which he set forth his case. I want to say a few words on the second part of it, that dealing with the general practitioner service. I need not say I am highly tempted to follow the last speaker who raised so many issues familiar to us on the general controversy on this subject, but to-day I think it is more proper to devote the little time I propose to take to the arguments that were put forward by the mover of the Motion. I think we are all grateful to him that he did with great candour admit that the mind of the doctor, the doctor in this country and the doctor who will shortly be demobilized from the Forces, is to a large extent unknown territory. I think we are indebted to Lord Moran for candidly admitting that. We are equally grateful to him, I fancy, for having left on one side so many of the slogans with which this discussion is bedevilled.
  So I will address myself, if I may, to the arguments which he actually put forward. He stated that, in his opinion, the whole of the difficulty which the general
  844
  practitioner feels with regard to these proposals, so far as his mind is known, centres upon this idea of a whole-time service, and that the other questions that have been raised are merely secondary or subsidiary to that. I think that wants looking at rather carefully. I feel there is a danger there possibly of another slogan. A doctor, I imagine, whether he is dealing with public patients or private patients, expects to do a full day's work. There is no question of that. His service will be full time service in that sense. I suppose if you analyse it, it really comes down to this, a fear that, if his remuneration comes from public sources, there may be something in the conditions of service which will make the life irksome to him as compared with the more individual life of being a free lance in the field of providing medical services. And indeed Lord Moran's two subsidiary points rather bore that out.
  There is first of all the question of pay. Well, it is quite clear, of course, that in any publicly-provided service the pay must be confined within narrower parallels than the existing remuneration of the medical profession as disclosed, for example, by Income Tax returns. It is a perfectly valid point, although Lord Moran did not make too much of it, that there should be in the provisions some reasonable measure of economic incentive as well as other incentives. But, as he pointed out, there is an attempt to provide that, within reasonable limits, in the proposals, under which the pay will be partly a fixed payment, which can be varied according to local or individual circumstances, and partly related to the number of patients dealt with. And again, there is the possibility that in a given health centre there could be some pooling, so that still greater differentiation could be made according to experience or knowledge. It may be that that would fully meet that point. I think one must put this on the other side of it, that although security and incentive are not the same things, still in a negative kind of way security can be a form of incentive. By that I mean that no doctor is going to do his best work if he has anxiety about his own health or his own future, and very, very many members of the medical profession, as I have known in the past, are beset by such anxiety. There is the advantage from a publicly provided service that there will be security for the

  845
  future, and the kind of security of tenure that will safely carry the medical man over periods of ill-health or misfortune.
  Then the conditions must be interesting and stimulating. With regard to that, one might justly make two points. There is no suggestion, I think, that in the new service a doctor will be ruled by detailed regulations laid down toy a local authority or any other obnoxious authority as to the conduct of his professional work. It is true he will make a contract of service with the local executive committee, but bear in mind that 50 per cent, of that executive committee will consist of professional members with a chairman appointed by the Minister of Health. Bear in mind, too, that these professional members will be selected by the doctor's own local representative committees. Then again in certain matters, such as the distribution of doctors locally, any attempt to modify that so as to produce a more even spread is protected by the fact that it will be done by a Medical Practices Committee, and finally the Minister is to be guided by a Central Health Services Council which has the duty and the right of advising him, and whose annual report, normally speaking, will be published. So it seems to me that, so far as conditions of service in that respect are concerned, under this scheme—of course one mast see how they work out—a doctor is adequately protected from being caught in an administrative machine which will unduly limit him in the exercise of his professional functions and in his relations with the patients.
  Look at the other side of it. I know the medical profession holds out many glittering prizes. It contains many highly distinguished men. But the majority of the members of the medical profession are just like ourselves; they are just ordinary men. At the far end of the scale there are no doubt a number of men who are not fully up to the average of the profession. In existing circumstances a large part of the profession lead a rather lonely and isolated life in their profession, and it is in that state that the anxieties to which I have alluded can come upon them. Suppose there are health centres, either of the pattern sketched in the White Paper or one of the many other patterns which have been suggested—and so far as I know there is no reason why a health centre should be on one single pattern. In a health centre the general practitioner
  846
  first of all is relieved of a good deal of drudgery; he has a secretary, a nurse and probably a dispenser. Secondly, he has aids to diagnosis, and I really believe, and have seen in many cases, that the doctor who has his profession at heart would very often like the assistance of aids to diagnosis which ordinarily he cannot afford. I feel he would rather be able to use them under his own control at a health centre than go to a kind of diagnostic centre such as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes.
  Moreover, in such a centre he has the the society of other men. That again is stimulating professionally. The experience of medical partnerships at work in this country, and still more in America, leads the to think that a partnership of medical men can be a stimulating professional thing. Again, remember that in this kind of setting the doctor who has proper rest pauses, holidays and a reasonable working day, is a better doctor than many of those in the lower half of the general practitioner's profession as it now exists. I therefore suggest that it is at least possible—and this can best be judged by professional people—that under the new conditions, should they materialize, the life of the ordinary doctor will be more interesting and stimulating than it commonly is now.
  At the present time, if you take the mass of the population—not the 10 or 15 per cent, who enjoy all the benefits and privileges of the doctor-patient relationship so eloquently expounded to us—the people have to choose between very inferior doctoring and the out-patient departments of hospitals. The doctoring is inferior and perfunctory because it is under the panel system. I am not making a general indictment of the panel system, but I am only saying that very often it is unsatisfactory and perfunctory, and the people have to choose beween that and the out-patients department. Is it not possible that the process of the hospital and the specialist taking away the most interesting work from the general practitioner may, at least in part, be reversed, if the doctor has the proper means of diagnosis available to his hands, and is able to consult with partners on the subject and to offer these facilities? Will he not, at one and the same time, get a little back from the experts and a good deal back from the out-patients' department of the hospital?

  847
  I do not wish to dwell too long on that, but to summarize it by saying that I think the medical practitioner should be led by his advisers to look the proposed terms in the eye. It would be worth while putting some really fundamental thought into the question of whether or not, on the whole, his life will not be more stimulating, longer, and more useful under these new conditions than it could be under the condition of private entrepreneurship where, if he is an able and fortunate man, he is able to rise to a considerable level of remuneration, or if he is a commercially minded man he builds up a practice which is too large and uses assistants whose professional qualifications are less good, or where his future becomes clouded by a certain amount of anxiety.
  The background of this whole question is a very large matter of public policy. I believe it must be conceded by everybody that the population as a whole is under-doctored, both in quantity and in quality. I think there are many economic reasons, which, mark you, are the counterpart of this system of private entrepreneurship, which prevent the poor and ignorant person from getting proper medical attention and which at the same time concentrate our rather scarce means of giving proper medical attention upon a limited section of the public. It is highly essential that we should provide the best doctoring that is within our capacity for the whole of the population, and I think myself there is no other way than by making the whole thing a public service, with the cost seated upon society as a whole. If we do that, it is inevitable that changes must take place in the present structure of the medical profession. It is quite likely that those necessary changes will involve some disturbance of conventional habits and modes of thought on the part of the profession.
  I yield to nobody in my respect for the medical profession, but, after all, medicine is like religion; the layman is so deeply concerned in it that he cannot, with equanimity, leave it entirely to the profession; he must have a say in it. On one side of the profession the doctor is bound to become, if I may use the expression, socialized. We have had two attempts to bring about something like a measure of general medical provision for the public as a whole. One of them
  848
  was the great experiment under the National Health Act some thirty odd years ago, which resulted in the panel system. I do not believe there is any layman in this House who knows the facts at first hand, or any professional member of this House, who would say that the panel system was a good or desirable social institution. It must go. That phase has ended. We now have the chance once more to introduce a general system of medical attention in which there shall be one single standard of attention and doctoring, the same for everybody. At present it is like Bismarck's celebrated case of three men trying to cover themselves with a blanket big enough for two. Mathematically it is not as bad as that—perhaps we have 90 per cent, or 85 per cent, of the blanket, but still it is not 100 percent, and in the attempt to make it stretch over the whole of society, that class which had expensive doctoring in the past may not get quite so much of it. On the whole, however, that will be a social benefit.
  I suggest that it is very much to the common interest of all of us in this House and of people generally that we should try to make this experiment succeed and really, to borrow a thought from the noble Lord who opened this debate, that we should try to look through the superficial elements of this discussion, do a little fundamental thinking and see where the interest of the community really lies.
  6.0 p.m.
  LORD LUKE: My Lords, at this late hour I will try to be as brief as possible. To start with I should like to pay tribute in particular to my noble friend Lord Moran as well as to Lord Inman, who made such an excellent maiden speech. I think it can be said that the level of this debate has been extraordinarily high and may have helped to blow away some of the great clouds of controversy that have been rather cancelling each other out during the last few weeks since the Bill and the White Paper were issued. I do not know what the attitude of His Majesty's Government may be to what may come out of this debate, but I hope that what has been said will not be taken just as pleading from some vague vested interests but as pleading from those who have knowledge and experience of these matters, and who have the care of patients very much at heart.

  849
  I realize that there is very strong Government criticism of the present voluntary hospitals system, or, shall I say, of the lack of system. I think this comprehensive scheme is possibly the answer. While there are many of us who feel that it is altogether too big and that it is going to develop into too much of a machine, we are, at and rate, all agreed that there must be some co-ordination of tine health services. I hope every effort in the way of co-operation and partnership will be made to help those who have got to work something which is, after all, a great endeavour in the art of healing. What we want to see is the treatment of illness regarded as a personal and a human thing, because illness itself is a personal and a human thing. Doctors and nurses in hospitals of all types will try to contribute to that end, but they have different ways of doing it. Here I would query whether it is wise completely to standardize when at the present moment we have variety I query very much the unqualified success of public hospitals, and I think my noble friend the Earl of Donoughmore queried that himself. If there is standardization and the removal of all variety I think it will be to the detriment of the scheme as a whole.
  Not very long ago we had a great Education Act and we heard a good deal then about standardization and variety. I would remind your Lordships that in that Act the matter of the voluntary schools was dealt with in a very happy way; the churches paid a half and the local education authorities paid the other half. I am wondering why the voluntary hospitals cannot be dealt with rather on the same lines. I throw that out as a suggestion that might possibly find favour with His Majesty's Government. Then again we had very recently in this House the Police Bill, with its voluntary amalgamations, and there we had suggestions as to how the scheme could be worked by co-operation from the bottom rather than by having something else pushed down from the top. I am perfectly well aware of the imperfections and shortcomings of the voluntary hospitals, but there is in them a wealth of experience and of good will and readiness to make an effort. The people in them have that precious thing—the voluntary spirit. That is present in our national character regardless of our station in life; it is the prerogative of none. I think
  850
  The Times correspondence to which reference has been made was very valuable in that it brought to light the spirit which prevails in this country. We do need to preserve the energy that is derived from people who, of their own free will, put work into a thing, and I believe that voluntary work is of greater value than that which is forced from above. That is particularly true of our national interpretation of practical Christianity—generosity in service and in giving money for good causes.
  It has been stressed that we should preserve local interest and pride, but I feel that the proposals in the White Paper are aiming to legislate that great thing out of our country. The White Paper itself is rather at pains to deny it, but I think the effect is to squeeze it out. And for what? For the sake of tidiness in a great scheme and for the sake of very remote control. This may sound to your Lordships sentimental rubbish, but I maintain that in this question of disease and its treatment there is something ethical; it is very intangible and something that cannot very easily be put in black and white or put into a law. We have heard to-day of lack of co-operation between public and voluntary hospitals. In that connexion I should like to instance my own county where there is very good and friendly co-operation between the two types of hospitals. I see no reason why, with good will on both sides, that sort of co-operation should not grow and develop under the Regional Boards.
  The state of the voluntary hospitals and their buildings is not good in a great number of cases. There are of course new buildings, and very fine ones; but there are old ones and ones that have suffered a great deal from the war. The point I want to make is that we have heard a lot about the endowments that are going to be taken over from the hospitals—I think the figure mentioned is £32,000,000—but we have not heard so much about the buildings, the equipment and the land which are also being taken over. I would like your Lordships to remember that the total value of what is being taken over from the voluntary hospitals is more in the nature of £250,000,000 than £32,000,000.
  There is a controversy about appeals to, and the method of approaching, the public. I do not propose to go very far into that; I only propose to say that the test of whether people wish to contribute

  851
  in a voluntary manner is their willingness to give. I would like to tell your Lordships that in the last year voluntary gifts to hospitals totalled £7,575,000, excluding what was paid by patients and what was received in the way of public money. I wish to interject here something which will, I hope, receive support from all quarters of the House. The voluntary hospitals have got to exist for another two years as they are; the legislation will not come into effect until 1948. I hope that as much publicity as possible will be given to that fact throughout the country because people are beginning now to think "That is all right; that is all over; we need not give to the hospitals any more." That is not fair because the hospitals have got to exist; their work has to go on. I make that appeal to your Lordships; we have got this interim period during which the hospitals have got to live.
  There is a principle, and a right one, that where public money is used to assist in the running of any organization public representation must follow. Of course, that is so now. When the hospitals are taken over and run by public money, representation must go to the proper channels. But I would recall the figure I have just given to your Lordships and I would ask: Does not that representation work the other way? If the voluntary hospitals are giving to the Government £250,000,000 or £300,000,000, should there not be adequate representation the other way? I hope I have made that point, and that I may have some answer to that from the Government side. I should be very chary of saying anything about confiscation of funds. I have been warned on many occasions not to do so, but of course it does smack of taking the funds away, and I would query here whether it is not possible to leave funds to the hospitals themselves and use the great amount of Government money for pooling and for distribution where it is necessary.
  Before I finish speaking I wish to make an appeal to the Minister that he will trust the hospitals to play the game. The scheme is going to be quite unworkable without them, and they are going to do their best, but I do ask him to give them a fair chance and not to take advantage of the position. I feel that a Government Bill should be framed to encourage all
  852
  that is best in the existing structure, and not to destroy everything and start from scratch with a lot of disgruntled people. I notice that this Motion before us welcomes proposals. I notice that it does not necessarily welcome these proposals. I do not know whether that is grammatical or not, but while I would welcome proposals I do not necessarily welcome these particular proposals, so I hope the House will not accept with full approval this Motion which is before us to-day.
  6.13 p.m.
  LORD HORDER: My Lords, not only because of the lateness of the hour, but for the reason that I think that this Motion is somewhat premature in your Lordships' House, I am not going to take up very much of your Lordships' time. First of all may I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Luke's reference to the wording of the Motion. With the wording of the Motion as it stands I take it the whole of my profession would associate itself, and I think that everyone who has the interests of the medical services at heart would do the same. But the noble Lord who moved this Motion expanded somewhat the wording of it and welcomed certain proposals which are not stated in the Motion. I hope it is clear that if this Motion is accepted it is accepted exactly as it stands, namely, "That this House welcomes proposals," the nature of which are unspecified.
  In one particular direction the mover of the Motion did expand these proposals, and that was in the direction of the transfer of ownership of the hospitals to the Minister. I am very glad that my noble friend made it quite clear that he was speaking for himself and not for the medical profession. The noble Lord's advocacy would have been weakened no doubt if he had informed your Lordships that during last week the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Obstetricians dissociated themselves very definitely from any approval of the transfer of ownership of the voluntary hospitals. Yesterday this matter came under discussion in the College of Physicians, but we have a by-law which secures secreta collegii, and I may not therefore reveal the result of the voting, but it may not be without significance that the mover of the Motion made no reference to the

  853
  opinions of the College over which he so honourably presides. Had the question been central direction of 'general policy, I have no doubt that there would have been as great approval of that principle as there was dissent from the principle of transfer of ownership.
  Now I should be less than helpful if I did not tell your Lordships, as against that negative view of the Royal Colleges, what is the positive view at this present moment of three bodies which claim surely to have even more concern in the question of ownership of hospitals than we doctors have. We doctors are very interested in the ownership of hospitals, and particularly in the control and administration of hospitals. King Edward's Hospital Fund, in which my noble friend the Earl of Donoughmore played such an active part as chairman of the management committee, has, of course, great prestige. It is a very trusted medium of public funds, which it disburses with great care under the guidance of very experienced men, and it has also made a great contribution in maintaining the standard of the hospitals of this country. From its latest pronouncement, which was only a few days ago, I want to select a very short extract to quote:
  "We are in full agreement with the broad conception of the development of hospital services on a regional basis. Great stress, indeed, has been laid upon this need by the Fund and by other bodies associated with the voluntary hospitals… The regional conception was, however, adumbrated and developed against a background of independence in the individual hospitals, and the retention of local initiative. We believe that, so far as the hospital services are concerned, the success of the Bill will largely depend on retaining local interest and spreading this interest over all the units composing the new service … in the view of the Fund, amendments are essential to provide for a real measure of independence for the Hospital Management Committees."
  Then the British Hospitals Association last week stated its position quite clearly:
  "The voluntary hospitals support the objective of the Bill in providing a national comprehensive health and hospital service free of charge…. The provisions of the Bill relating to hospital service are not in the best interests of the patient and the community because they eliminate all local interest in hospitals and local autonomy in their management, and extinguish the voluntary hospitals. The proposed transfer of ownership of all hospitals to the Minister, the confiscation of their property and the establishment of a complex scheme of administration, substitutes remote control and impersonalization for direct management and personal interest."
  854
  Then in the current issue of the British Medical Journal I quote from a leader entitled "The Hospitals":
  "With the introduction of a comprehensive National Health Service, it is clear that all hospitals will have to obtain the bulk of their money from central funds. It is clear, too, that both voluntary and municipal hospitals will have to sacrifice some of their local sovereignty to fit in with the over-all hospital strategic plan. But for this to happen is it necessary for them all to pass into the ownership of one man—the Minister of Health, whose power ' to make regulations shall, it the Treasury so direct, not be exercizable except in conjunction with the Treasury'? The nationalization of the hospitals would cut short at one blow one of the most stimulating forces in English life—the blending of voluntary and official effort in promoting the public welfare ….
  Reforms are needed in both voluntary and council hospitals. But to effect these, there is no need to turn them into State institutions and so perpetuate on a bigger and permanent scale the evils of officialdom that the great majority of medical men see and fear in the hospital controlled by the local authority."
  I quote these opinions from these three representative groups because they are positive statements of the position of those groups—namely, the King's Fund, the British Hospitals Association and the British Medical Association. I have already told your Lordships of the view of the Royal Colleges as to the transfer of the ownership of hospitals not being in the national—that is to say the patient's—interest. That is all I propose to say at this time, but, such is the importance of the proposals sketched by the White Paper that I take it for granted that there will be opportunity for getting the best possible Bill—if I may use that word—before legislation is actually enacted.
  6.23 p.m.
  LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate for a very brief time. I do so because I want to bring out one point that none of your Lordships who have spoken before me has touched upon—that is, the question of the ambulance service. I find in this White Paper that it is only when you get to page 16, paragraph 87, that you find any mention of the ambulance service. Now you may have a most wonderful hospital, but unless you can get the patient to the hospital you do not achieve anything. It seems to me that this is a very important consideration, and yet only five and a quarter lines are given

  855
  to it in the White Paper. In the first place, I would like to bring to the notice of your Lordships that, to the best of my knowledge, 93 per cent. of all ambulance cases are carried by the St. John Ambulance Brigade, a voluntary organization. I would like to ask the noble Earl who is going to reply for the Government whether the Ministry of Health will expect the greater part of the voluntary ambulance service still to serve the hospitals under the terms of the White Paper, or whether they expect the St. John Ambulance Brigade to maintain its ambulances from voluntary contributions.
  I know of one case where a county organization has already written to the authorities of the St. John Ambulance Brigade asking what it should do as it feels that donors to its fund are falling away because they do not know where they are and what to expect. We all know how grateful everybody is to the St. John Ambulance Brigade for its voluntary work. We often see members of it at football matches. I do not think many people realize that the St. John Ambulance men do not get paid for the time that they put in. I know that they may get a front seat at a football match now and then, but they give up a lot of time to their training. Besides the ambulance service, there is the service known as the Hospital Car Service, which was brought into being at the request of the Ministry of Health and the Hospital Almoners Society in August, 1945, to replace the voluntary car pool. The Hospital Car Service, as I am sure your Lordships know, is organized by the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the British Red Cross Society and the Women's Voluntary Services. It is rather astonishing to realize that between 18,000 and 20,000 cases a month are carried by this service. These cases, of course, are patients who are not sick enough to go by ambulance, who yet, owing to their debility, have to have transport, and who, owing to their lack of means, cannot engage a taxicab or a hire car.
  I know that in January last there was a meeting at the Ministry of Health under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Rucker, and representatives of the organizations which I have mentioned discussed the future of the car service. I have been informed that Sir Arthur Rucker at that time could not give an
  856
  answer to the question whether the new scheme would supply a block grant for the continuation of this car service. I also know that the St. John organization and the Red Cross and the W.V.S. feel that by October they will have run out of funds for the maintenance of this very valuable service. They do not know yet what is going to happen. I suggest that we should pay a good deal of attention to this matter. As I have said, you can have the best hospital in the world but unless you can get the patient there you are not able to do very much. I would be very glad of any information which the noble Earl can give me upon this subject.
  6.28 p.m.
  LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I feel that I am in very much the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Horder, who spoke a few minutes ago. The form of this Resolution is such that it could be interpreted in perfectly general terms—almost as general as saying that we all of us want an improvement in the health services. But it is linked, at the same time, with a reference to the Government White Paper, so if it were agreed in this form, it would be said, so far as I can understand, that one part of the White Paper was approved and the other part was disapproved. That seems to me what I believe logicians call "the fallacy of the double question." If the noble Lord who moved the Motion had put it down in the form of a Motion for Papers we could have debated this without any further commitment. But if we are to proceed by way of Resolution, then my friends on these Benches propose to take no part at all. The Bill, I understand, will one of these days appear in this House. It may be altered from its present form, or it may not. But there will be ample opportunity then for it to be debated clause by clause and those parts of which the House, or various members of the House, may disapprove, can be discussed one by one.
  It does seem unprofitable, to say the least, at this stage, to try to settle the thing out of hand and to pass a Resolution which is not approved, so far as I can make out, by any of the Royal Colleges or the British Medical Council or, at any rate, is not approved by many of the great medical associations. I know that when doctors disagree something

  857
  happens—I am not quite sure what—but I do not think that it means we ought to pass a Resolution in favour of the motion of the doctors. Therefore I hope that this Resolution as it stands will not be passed, but that on a future occasion when the Bill comes before the House we shall be able to discuss the various aspects of it.
  6.31 p.m.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I think you will agree that we have had an interesting and thoughtful debate, during which many experts on public health have contributed their judgment to the common pool without any gladiatorial displays between opposing political Parties. For that very reason I think this debate will have been especially profitable to the Government. I should like first of all to deal with the point that was just made by the noble Lord, Lord Waleran. I think I can satisfy him, at any rate to the extent of giving him quite a lot of information. The duty to provide an ambulance service under the White Paper is laid upon the local health authority, but of course the local health authority can carry out their duties either themselves or by making arrangements with voluntary organizations such as the St. John Ambulance Brigade. These arrangements may either be without any financial transaction between the two, or they may be paid for. But, as the noble Lord will see, provision is made for the St. John Ambulance Brigade to play its proper part in the new hospital service.
  I am sure that all noble Lords who heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inman, will wish me to express our very warm congratulations on his first effort in this House. He spoke to us as a leading authority on hospital services, to which he has devoted so many years of his working life. And this, combined with a modest and becoming brevity, is always the best way of breaking the ice in your Lordships House. I hope—and I am sure I am speaking for other noble Lords when I say this—that we shall hear him again on many future occasions when we are discussing issues of public health.
  I believe your Lordships will agree that this is not the right moment for a full statement of the Government case on a national health service. The White
  858
  Paper Cmd. NO. 6761 to which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has directed our attention in his Resolution, is not, like many White Papers which your Lordships have debated in recent months, a declaration of policy accompanied by the usual powerful battery of reasons and arguments to support it. This White Paper is a much less pretentious affair. It describes itself modestly and straightforwardly as "a factual summary, omitting comment or argument," of the National Health Service Bill which is now before Parliament. It is related far more closely to the explanatory memorandum which often appears on the outside of Bills than to those more frequent publications of the Stationery Office, clothed in the appropriate garb of innocence, in which the Government set out to give a full explanation of some important decision of policy.
  The case for a comprehensive health service, as set out in the National Health Service Bill, is no doubt present in the minds of Ministers, but it has not yet been published or disclosed to Parliament. I feel sure that the proper occasion for the Government to submit their case, and to defend it in face of their critics, is during the Second Reading debate on this Bill in another place, and subsequently when that stage is reached in your Lordships' House. I believe that Lord Moran accepts that view, and I take it that the view is shared by both the principal Opposition Parties, as neither has put up an official spokesman in this debate. I think it will also be of advantage to your Lordships to discuss this subject again later in the Session, because by then the facts will be more fully available and criticism will be more easily directed at the centre of the right target. A curtain-raising debate, if I may so describe it, of the kind we have had this afternoon, may be of real value to the Government as an expression of informed opinion. I can assure the House it has been of real value to the Government, and I will do my best as a textual commentator to make it of some small use to your Lordships.
  There are in this House many noble Lords whose views on the subject of public health will always be heard with peculiar interest because of their special experience from a long connexion with many different fields of public health. The former Ministers of Health in this House are, fortunately, divided equally

  859
  between the Government and the Opposition. If they cancel one another out there will be all the more scope for those noble Lords who at one time or another have represented the Ministry of Health in this House, and acted as its spokesmen in debate. Then we have also noble Lords of great eminence in the medical profession, and other noble Lords who speak with outstanding authority from long personal experience of the administration of voluntary hospitals. The Government welcome the opportunity, whether it comes now or later, of "picking" so large a number of expert brains. Our only source of regret is that the late Viscount Dawson of Penn and the late Lord Moynihan, two noble Lords whom the House will always remember for their keen sense of the social responsibilities of the medical profession, were not spared to offer us their advice at this turning point in the history of British medicine.
  For my own part, speaking within the limitations imposed by the circumstances of the debate this afternoon, I shall confine my remarks to an explanation and clarification of certain of the Government's intentions, as described in the White Paper and embodied in the Bill. Such explanations as I shall try to give will be based on what I hope may have been an intelligent anticipation of some at least of the points which noble Lords have already raised in debate. First of all, I should like to explain the exact position of the Regional Hospital Boards, to which several allusions have been made by different speakers this afternoon. These boards are to administer all the hospitals, voluntary and public alike, with the exception of the teaching hospitals, in the separate regions into which the country will be divided. It would be a serious mistake for the Government to lay down in advance the exact constitution for these boards. Their size and composition must obviously vary according to the needs of the area in which they will function and according to the services which they will be expected to provide. But the principle according to which the Minister will choose the members of these boards, and the procedure governing their appointment, are made unmistakeably clear in the White Paper and the Bill.
  The Regional Boards will consist of people chosen for their individual suita-
  860
  bility —those are the governing words—as experts with intimate knowledge and experience of hospitals, and not as delegates or even representatives of different and possibly conflicting interests in the area. Before making his choice the Minister must consult the people concerned. That is an obligation. They will include any university with a medical school in the region, the representatives of the medical profession and the local health authorities, and in setting up the original boards those connected with the voluntary hospitals as well. The only rigid element in the composition of the new boards will be the inclusion on each board of at least two experts on mental health; otherwise the composition of these boards must be left flexible. The principle of individual suitability for each appointment, combined with the consultative machinery for making this principle effective in practice, show clearly that the Government's intentions are to set up boards whose decisions will be shaped by a balanced and informed committee judgment based upon the particular experience and varied points of view of their individual members.
  It is extremely unlikely that on any board constituted in this way any one element or interest, whether the local authority members or any other distinctive group, would obtain a clear majority by outnumbering all the others. This assurance I can safely and certainly give to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and to the other noble Lords who have expressed doubts on this point in the course of the debate.
  The second proposal I should like to deal with relates to the degree of independence of the management committees that will run the hospitals under the new health scheme. Some letters have recently appeared in The Times suggesting a larger measure of independence for these committees in their relations with the Regional Boards, and the names of the signatories of these letters, all of them distinguished authorities on the voluntary hospitals, are bound to command respect and careful consideration for their views. The first object of the Government's proposals for the future administration of the hospitals is the maximum amount of devolution and local independence obtainable within the regional framework. Decentralization is itself the goal, and no more central control is wanted than an efficient and co-ordinated service necessitates.

  861
  There will be, for example, a wide field of financial autonomy. Both the Regional Boards and the management committees will have unfettered financial freedom within the limits of their annual budget. There will be no question of Treasury interference in the detailed allocation they make of this, their main source of revenue. The Regional Boards will also have moneys available from the Hospitals Endowment Fund, and any gifts received from future donors, to spend in the same way at their own discretion. Again—and this is another example of decentralization—it Is provided in the Bill that all hospital staff will be employed by the Regional Boards and not by the Minister. It is intended that the management committees will carry out the day-to-day running of the hospitals, a function that will neither be hampered in any degree by the regional authorities nor at any point cut across the planning, co-ordination and general supervision properly exercised by the Regional Boards.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I ask the noble Earl, for the sake of elucidation and to prevent possible misunderstanding, when he said these local committees would have full control over their finances within the link of their annual budget; did he mean the total of the budgets, or the budget as divided into a number of specific heads?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can answer the noble Viscount immediately on that point. I was referring to the total budget and not to any particular allocation made within the whole budget. In the view of the Government these proposals strike a fair balance (and that is what we all want) between central and local responsibilities in the future administration of the hospitals. But it should be remembered that one of the main objects of the new Bill is to provide a carefully planned and well co-ordinated hospital and specialist service, and that this object would be entirely defeated if the new services were broken up into isolated and disconnected units, which would merely reproduce some of the most serious defects in the present system, defects which are admitted, on all hands, to be regrettable.
  It has sometimes been suggested that the proposed health service will deprive the medical profession of much of its independence, by turning its members into employees of local authorities. This sug-
  862
  gestion arises from a complete misunderstanding of the Government's intentions. The specialist and consultant will be employed by the Regional Board, or in the case of a teaching hospital, by the Board of Governors. The general practitioner will be in contract with one or more Executive Councils, new bodies composed half of professional men, such as doctors, dentists and chemists, chosen by their own representative bodies, and half of lay member, acting in the capacity of representatives of the patient. One-third of these lay members will be chosen by the Minister, and the remaining two-thirds by the appropriate local health authority. Even in health centres general practitioners and dentists carrying on their practice in groups from the centres will, not be employed by the local health authorities, but will be in contract with the Executive Councils exactly on the same footing as other practitioners working independently from their own consulting rooms.
  Another common misunderstanding relates to the powers of the proposed Medical Practices Committee, which has sometimes been regarded as a coercive body for "directing" the general practitioner into a particular practice. This committee will have no such powers, and doctors need have no fear that they will its subject to the sort of direction for which the Ministry of Labour was made responsible during the war. But the need for a body of some sort to control the distribution of doctors, so as to spread: them evenly throughout the country, is essential to any health service that sets out to cover the needs of the whole population. This was recognized as long ago as the beginning of 1944, in the White Paper published at that time by the Coalition Government. For so long as the distribution of doctors is mainly governed by financial considerations, there will be too many practising in wealthy areas and too few in the poorer parts of the country.
  The guarantee of payment for every patient, which is incorporated in the Bill, and the variation in the scale of salaries so as to bring doctors into poor districts, will do something to direct the flow of medical skill to the real needs of ordinary people. But these inducements will not suffice in themselves to attract doctors to the places where they are needed most

  863
  urgently. Hence the Government's proposal to set up a Medical Practices Committee whose consent will be necessary, once the service has begun, to the filling of vacant practices and for the starting of new practices within the service. It is interesting to note that this function was precisely the function assigned to the Central Medical Board, as it was then called, by the Coalition White Paper, so that the necessity of a body of this kind with these powers has already been accepted by all political parties.
  What will actually happen is that the doctor wishing to start up a practice for the first time, or to move away from his existing practice to a different area, will have to seek the committee's consent. The consent of the committee to this application will only be refused if they consider that the area to which the doctor wants to go has already enough doctors, compared with other areas, or of course if the number of applicants exceeds the number of vacancies. But under no circumstances will the committee be able to tell an applicant that he must go to a particular area. The function discharged by these committees is essentially negative rather than positive. It is a power to refuse a doctor admittance as a practitioner to certain parts of the country, but not a power to assert positively that a doctor must go anywhere in particular.
  This procedure can surely no more be described as "direction" than when a specialist goes to one hospital, because there is a vacancy on the staff of that hospital, but not of another hospital at which, possibly for reasons of proximity to his home, he might have preferred to work. The Medical Practices Committee will in fact be performing the functions of an appointments board or employment agency, keeping a record of vacancies and helping applicants to find suitable openings in the service. A further safeguard to the doctor whose application is refused is the right of appeal to the Minister. So much on a number of detailed points. Whatever differences there may be about the machinery of the proposed national health service, I believe that the principles on which it stands do appeal to the great majority of our fellow countrymen. Most people accept the view that health should now become, like education or defence, a collective responsibility of the
  864
  entire community, and furthermore that this responsibility should be extended to cover the whole population, so that every citizen, regardless of his means, will receive the best medical treatment the country can afford to provide.
  The noble Lord, Lord Moran, initiated this extremely valuable and instructive debate, and I hope that, considering the excellent service he has rendered, he will be willing to withdraw his Resolution. On the matter of procedure, I agree entirely with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. For the House to vote on the Resolution now would be to anticipate the decision that the House will be called upon to take when the National Health Service Bill is considered. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, considers, on one interpretation of his Motion, that our proposals are good in part. There may be other noble Lords who maintain that they are wholly bad. We shall hope to show that they are, in the main, satisfactory. We have not had an opportunity of presenting our case, the other political parties have not presented their case, and I hope very much that, in view of the danger of precipitating a premature decision, the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his Resolution.
  6.54 p.m.
  LORD MORAN: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships at this late hour for more than a moment. I should like to begin by associating myself with all that has been said about the noble Lord, Lord Inman's maiden speech. His great experience lends weight to everything he says and he will be very valuable to this House. In my profession we look upon the Earl of Donoughmore as really one of ourselves; he has such a tremendously intimate knowledge of everything that concerns hospitals that whenever he talks one recognizes his right. He said a thing this afternoon which we really ought to underline because it is so important. He said that you must trust the Regional Board and not interfere. That is the whole crux of the matter: if the Regional Board is trusted and is a really good board, the whole thing will work. If, on the other hand, there is interference, it will not work at all. He also mentioned medical committees. Every hospital should have a medical committee, so that whoever manages the hospital should be advised at first hand technically, by the

  865
  medical people there. That is the essential difference between the voluntary hospital and the municipal hospital where one medical superintendent is supposed to have in his head the knowledge that covers 700 patients.
  I am an unrepentant advocate of health centres. To send a man out from the discipline of a teaching school, to practice for twenty or thirty years by himself, is one of the things I most regretted when dealing with medical schools. There are certain dangers, such as that you lose personal touch with patients, but surely that depends on two things: on the doctor himself, which is a matter that cannot be explained, and upon the time he can give to his patients. There are two things to be done in examining a patient: one is to find out what is wrong, and the second is to put his mind at peace and to explain to him what it all means. That is a thing that takes a great deal of time, and it is one of the great regrets of those who work in hospitals that there is not more time to give to that matter. The only remedy is the provision of more doctors.
  The noble Lord, Lord Horder, has referred to this Motion as premature. The reason it was brought forward is simply this. Meetings are being held all over the country, and they are having put before them not the considered views of people who have been following this think on negotiating committees, but in many cases just slogans, and great harm is being done. It was imperative that at an early date somebody should try and rescue this question from slogans and bring it on to a level of fact and of the policy of the profession.
  The noble Lord made some remarks about myself and the Royal College of Physicians. I shall not make any reference to those remarks. He did make one statement, however, which I must answer at once, when he spoke of mentioning secreta collegii, and then he proceeded to tell us what happened at the meeting. Therefore I have not the slightest hesitation in reading the actual resolution which was passed, as sent up by the proposer of the Motion. You will see that the words he used and my Resolution are exactly applicable and the whole profession could easily subscribe to it. The resolution is:
  866
  "That the College approves the central direction and co-ordination of the general policy of hospitals provided the composition of Regional Boards is satisfactory."
  I do not think that in not revealing that before I was really hiding any important secrets. That is an innocuous motion. I think it would be perfectly frank to say to this House, however, that there is a great difference of opinion on this subject, and I thought I made it clear that I was speaking as an individual.
  In regard to the other point, that opinion is divided, I think the noble Lord tried to make out that opinion is unanimous. He quoted quite rightly a resolution that had been passed, but he did not quote resolutions worded the other way. The most representative body is the Consultant Service Committee. It has ninety-four members, thirteen from the Royal Colleges, twenty-two from the eleven universities in England and Northern Wales, twenty-five from non-teaching hospitals, twenty from the British Medical Association, and three from the Association of Municipal Specialists. Therefore the universities and non-teaching hospitals are all represented. With four dissentients, they passed a motion of which the noble Lord did not approve. Representatives of the staffs of the non-teaching hospitals of England met the same morning and unanimously passed this resolution which approved co-ordination, very much as in my Motion. It was entirely concerned with hospitals. We could go on quoting against each other bodies which have done this or that. Is it not fair to say that opinion is much divided? I think it is inevitable, and I do not believe we could get far by quoting people who have passed this or passed that.
  I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply which, though it does not altogether satisfy me or my Motion, has given the House a very large amount of information, particularly on the composition of the Regional Boards, which is causing us grave anxiety. I am sure it will be very useful and we appreciate it. I do not propose to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division on this matter. I think the debate has served a very useful purpose, and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935: MADRAS PROCLAMATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the object of the Resolution standing in my name is to enable the Governor of Madras to prolong his personal powers beyond April 29 in case a Government has not been formed by the Madras Provincial Legislature by that date. I beg to move the Resolution.
  Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on 30th October, 1939, and of his Proclamations varying the same issued on 15th February, 1943, and 29th September, 1945, copies of which were presented to this House on 28th November, 1939, 16th March, 1943, and 16th October, 1945, respectively.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the Gas Light and Coke Company ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill: Read and agreed to.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the Leicester Corporation Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision: Read and agreed to.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL, [H.L.]
  Presented (pursuant to leave given this day) and read 1a.
  NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) CORPORATION BILL.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill had been complied with. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
  INDIA AND BURMA (BURMA MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.

  STIRLING GAS ORDER, 1946.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at seven o'clock.