Sitting of 14 February 1946

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTLAKE CREMATORIUM BOARD) BILL
Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  Mr. Moodyasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the small number concerned, he will now consider raising the time limit to 15 years to bring into full benefit disablement pensioners of the 1914–18 war.
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) on 31st January which gives the Government's reasons for introducing a ten years limit. The position of pensioners of both world wars was borne in mind when fixing the limit.
  Mr. Zilliaeus: asked the Minister of Pensions what are the special features in the position of unpaid volunteer part-time CD. workers as distinguished from whole- time paid CD. personnel, that justify his Department making ex gratia awards to part-time personnel injured on their way to or from their post of duty, while with holding such awards from whole-time personnel injured in the same circumstances.
  Mr. Wilfred Paling: There are no grounds for giving different treatment to
  504
  the whole-time paid Civil Defences worker who is injured going to or from his normal duty than would be given to any other person injured when going to or from his work. The ground for making an ex gratia payment to the unpaid part-time volunteer injured going to or from duty is that the journey would not have been undertaken except for the purpose of his. duty as a Civil Defence volunteer as distinct from the purpose of his employment or business.
  Mr. Zilliaeus: Is it not a fact that the journey would not be undertaken by the whole-time paid personnel unless they were going to or from their duty, and, if that is the case, why are they not compensated for injures sustained in the course of their duty?
  Mr. Paling: He is going to his duty like an ordinary workman. However, if this particular man were answering an emergency call and sustained an accident on his way to or from work, he would get compensation.
  Captain Crowderasked the Minister of Pensions if, when a disability pension is awarded, he will take into account the earning capacity of the applicant, as well as comparing the condition of the disabled member of the Forces with that of a normal healthy person of the same age, when the disability adversely affects the earning capacity of the applicant.
  Mr. Wilfred Paling: Earning capacity has proved an unsatisfactory basis for assessing a disablement pension, and for that reason the Royal Warrant specifically requires that disablement due to War service shall be assessed by a comparison between the disabled person and a normal healthy person of the same age, without taking into account earning capacity in any specific trade or occupation. But, as indicated in the recent White Paper, provision is now made in certain cases for granting a special allowance to pensioners whose disablement renders them permanently incapable of resuming their regular occupations and of following any other occupation of equivalent standard.

  HOUSING

    Progress
    Major Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he will state the number of tenders for the build-

    505
    ing of permanent houses submitted to his Department by the local authorities for approval since 31st July, 1945; the number of these approved by his Department; and the number of permanent houses on which work, in accordance with these tenders, has actually been begun;
    (2) whether his Department now has any information as to the number of houses completed in England and Wales during the six months ended 31st December, 1945.
    Commander Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of houses in Cornwall in the course of construction on 1st January, 1946.
    Squadron-Leader Segalasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of permanent and temporary houses which have been completed in the municipal borough of Pudsey since VJ-Day; how many are in the process of building; and how many licences to build have been issued,up to 31st December, 1945.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I would refer the hon. and gallant Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) on 24th January. The progress report will be available in two or three weeks time and as the extraction of information relating to individual areas holds up work on the preparation of the report, I would ask hon. Members to await publication of the report itself.
    Major Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask the Minister to answer Question 15, which is as to whether he has that information?
    Mr. Bevan: I have not the information at the moment. It is intended that when the report is issued it shall contain the information up to the end of January. As there are in England and Wales alone 1,469 authorities involved, and information has to be collated and analysed, obviously some little time will elapse. I think that whatever complaint hon. Members may have, it will not be on account of lack of information.
    Earl Winterton: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this will be made in the form of a statement issued by his Department or a White Paper?
    Mr.Bevan: A White paper.

    Middlesex (Sites)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health, in view of the housing problem in many Middlesex municipal boroughs and their inability through shortage of suitable land to develop adequate housing schemes within their own boundaries, whether he will take steps to give powers to the Middlesex County Council to acquire land within the county boundary to promote housing schemes jointly with the municipal boroughs concerned; and in view of the growing shortage of land suitable for housing development, if he will take steps to prevent the L.C.C. from appropriating any more land in Middlesex.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. Local housing authorities have power to acquire land outside their own boundaries and where this is necessary they should seek agreement with other local authorities in the county for this purpose. I will, of course, bear in mind the needs of Middlesex local authorities when considering proposals for the acquisition of land by the London County Council.

    Design
    Flight-Lieutenant Haireasked. the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the houses now being planned, or in course of erection, by local authorities, are of such design as to include central heating as well as fire-places, refrigeration, etc.; and whether he is prepared to grant licences only where these have been included.
    Mr. Bevan: Advice on these matters has been given to local authorities in the Housing Manual 1944, and any proposals received from local authorities are considered with these recommendations in mind.
    Flight-Lieutenant Haire: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the standard of design of houses being erected or planned by local authorities is up-to-date, and is he satisfied that the architects are in every case of sufficiently good standing?
    Mr. Bevan: It often happens that some of the complaints of delay by the Ministry of Health in approving proposals are due to the fact that it is necessary to bring housing designs up to the standard of the Housing Manual.

    Spare Accommodation Appeal
    Wing-Commander Cooperasked the Minister of Health if he is able to say what the response is in various parts of the country to the request for sharing accommodation in houses with returning Servicemen and their families; and does he contemplate making further public appeals or any inducements, in order to increase the response.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Wycombe (Flight-Lieutenant Haire), on 7th February, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Wing-Commander Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in receipt of old age pensions are sometimes discouraged from letting accommodation in their homes because of the means test, and is there any step he could take to alter the regulations to enable them to let?
    Mr. Bevan: I understand that the Assistance Board interprets the Regulations in these case.; very generously, but it is extremely difficult to make a distinction between an old age pensioner who has taken people in after the appeal, and old age pensioners who took in people before the appeal. The administrative complexities involved are almost insuperable.

    Repairs Order, Chelsea
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Health what action he intends to take against the landlord of 24, Lamont Road, Chelsea who failed to carry out the repairs to floorboards and roof at these premises, as ordered by several sanitary notices issued by the Chelsea Corporation, in view of the injuries caused by rat-bites to seven-weeks-old Bernard Cheeseman.
    Mr. Bevan: The council have requisitioned this property and the families have been rehoused elsewhere. I may add that the statutory notice served in this case was under the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, and I have no power to take proceedings. The full report of the case is being presented by the town clerk to the Chelsea Metropolitan Borough Council.
    Mr. Lewis:Is the Minister aware that many. progressive Labour-controlled
    508
    councils, such as West Ham, do prosecute in such instances as this?
    Mr. Bevan: As I say, I myself have no direct powers.

    Subsidies (Private Builders)
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider giving 50 per cent. of the present subsidies allocated to the local authorities towards houses built by them to private builders, as an experiment to test public control as against private enterprise.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir; the great majority of the houses built for local authorities are in fact being built by private builders under contract with the local authority; the letting of these houses to tenants by a public authority makes them available to families in the most urgent need, a result which would not be secured by the proposal of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his refusal to consider this suggestion is due to the fact that he is afraid to accept. the challenge implicit in the Question?
    Mr. Bevan: When the hon. Gentleman reads the report which I am preparing, he will find that the figures there presented are a complete refutation of his insinuation.

    Rent Restriction
    Mr. Turner-Samuelsasked the Minister. of Health whether he proposes to amend the Housing Act, 1936, so as to make the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts, as regards rent, apply to the dwelling houses provided by public authorities under the Act of 1936.
    Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend's suggestion accords with a minority recommendation from the Ridley Committee, and will fall to be considered by this House when legislation is introduced to give effect to the Committee's report. It is not practicable to consider particular issues apart from, or in advance of, the report as a whole.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the local authority-is itself the body which prosecutes landlords for charging increased rents, and will he, therefore, take the earliest opportunity to introduce legislation which would prevent the local authorities from doing the same thing themselves?
    Mr. Bevan: Every Department is always anxious to introduce legislation, but as hon. and right hon. Members with experience of administration know, unfortunately they cannot persuade their colleagues of the urgency of their legislation.

    Revenue Accounts (Local Authorities)
    Mr. Turner-Samuelsasked the Minister of Health whether his Department has any machinery for supervising the housing revenue accounts required to be kept by local authorities under the Housing Act, 1936; and whether, in cases where these accounts show a steady yearly surplus. he requires the local authority with such a surplus to review and revise its rents accordingly, where it has failed to do so within a reasonable time.
    Mr. Bevan: A local authority's housing revenue account is audited, and each year a copy is submitted to my Department. Disposal of surpluses is governed by statutory provisions and I could not give a direction which would conflict with these provisions or with the provisions relating to the determination of rents by the local authority.

    Empty Houses and Flats
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health how many of the 606 unoccupied houses and flats in St. Marylebone, 2,007 in Paddington, 3,069 in Kensington, 350 in Chelsea and 677 in Westminster, have been requisitioned for housing purposes by the London boroughs concerned.
    Mr. Bevan:Very few of these houses have been requisitioned. The total number of premises held on requisition by the Councils of these boroughs is 672 in St. Marylebone, 186 in Paddington, 629 in Kensington, 445 in Chelsea, 507 in Westminster; and requisitioning will be extended to other houses as and when the councils are in a position to deal with them.
    Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the date of my first Question on this matter, in one particular area a number of requisitioning notices have appeared on some of these vacant premises, and may I ask him if he can follow this matter up in order to see that the maximum number of these unoccupied dwellings are requisitioned by the local authorities where possible?
    Mr. Bevan: The first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question directs attention to the value of this House. With regard to the second part, there is often some difficulty on the part of the local authority in requisitioning because it always has to prepare plans for adaptation, and therefore these gaps—which are sometimes headlined in the less responsible sections of the Press—are unavoidable.
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health if he is. aware that Mayfair estate agents have more than 2,000 empty houses on their books, most of which could be converted into flats and that the Westminster City Council, in whose area the empty houses are situated, have a list of 1,500 applicants for housing accommodation; and what steps he is taking to see that this empty accommodation is made available to the families needing it.
    Mr. Bevan: I understand that the 2,000 empty houses are not all situated in Westminster. The Westminster City Council is itself carrying out works of adaptation and repair to houses in their area to the extent of the labour available for this purpose and my officers will discuss with them what more can be done.
    Captain Bairdasked the Minister of Health why the house at 145, Stubly Lane, Wednesfield, Staffordshire, has been allowed to stand vacant for five months.
    Mr. Bevan: I understand that the local authority considered requisitioning this house early in October when it first came to their notice, but decided not to do so as it was in a very bad state of repair. They are, however, to review the question at an early date.
    Captain Baird: Does the Minister realise that the owner of the house is holding the public to ransom by asking an excessive price over and above what it is worth?
    Mr. Bevan: I will make inquiries about that.

    Building Societies (Funds)
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Minister of Health what is his estimate of the total amount of funds in the hands of the building societies of Great Britain immediately available to finance the building

    511
    of new houses; and what steps he is taking to encourage the utilisation of
    these funds to further the erection of houses.
    Mr. Bevan: At the end of 1944 the total investments and other assets, apart from advances or. mortgages to registered building societies, was£234,000,000, but it is for the individual societies to say how far these funds are to be regarded as immediately available to finance the building of new houses. As regards the utilisation of these funds, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberden and Kincardine (Major Spence) on 7th February about the number of new dwelling houses which have been licensed for erection by private builders without subsidy.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say that he has no prejudice against building societies as such?
    Mr. Bevan: On the contrary, I think it will be found when the figures are published that so far from having a prejudice against private building—
    Mr. Lipson: Building societies.
    Mr. Bevan:—building societies merely build private buildings—the number of licences issued for private building in my view is now in excess of the labour and materials available, and building societies can take advantage of these licences when they need. The limiting factor on building today is not money but labour and materials.

    Enfield (A.A. Site).
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Health whether the War Office has yet agreed to release the Bullsmoor Lane A.A. site, Enfield, to enable it to be used as a permanent housing site, for which purpose it was originally acquired by the Enfield Urban District Council.
    Mr. Bevan: The War Office have agreed to release the greater part of the area under requisition.
    Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for the action he has taken in this case, may I ask whether he can urge on the Secretary of State for War that action should be taken to release the A.A. sites which are still in his possession where they are required for the erection of
    512
    permanent houses without waiting until representations are made by hon. Members, as had to be done in this case?
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will direct my attention to any particular instance, I will certainly expedite derequisitioning.

    Conversion
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Minister of Health whether he has given consideration to the Report of the subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee on the conversion of existing houses; and whether he is proposing to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report.
    Mr. Bevan: This Report is still under consideration. It will be appreciated that several of the recommendations would require legislation.
    Mr. Chamberlain: While I appreciate the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend refers, will he have in mind the tremendous scope and possibilities of this kind of work and impress upon his colleagues the desirability of just a little Bill being squeezed in?
    Mr. Bevan: I am afraid these little Bills lead to very large Debates and this particular Bill would be extremely complicated. This sort of work uses up skilled building labour, which is in short supply. I am very anxious that the building workers should have an opportunity for straightforward work. They have been involved in war damage repairs so much that a good straight job would be very good for the morale of the building industry.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Has my right hon. Friend read pages 26 and 27 of the report, where it is clearly set out that this form of work is economical of materials and labour?
    Mr. Bevan: I have read the whole of the report and I would point out that there are very considerable limits to the extent to which we can economically use the material and labour available.

    Northern Ireland
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Health the number of prefabricated houses delivered to Northern Ireland up to the present, in response to the request already made for these houses.
    Mr. Bevan: No temporary houses have yet been delivered to Northern Ireland, but by arrangement with the Government of Northern Ireland, deliveries will, I hope, begin very shortly.
    Dr. Little: Can the Minister give us some date for the delivery of these houses? The foundations and sites are ready and people are waiting for the houses to be built.
    Mr. Bevan: I resent the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the contrary, Northern Ireland delayed its own provision of temporary houses by refusing an allocation of temporary houses in the first place, and I added to our temporary housing programme in order to allow them to have temporary houses. There are a number of building sites available in England and Wales and houses are not available for them yet.

    Allotments (Alternative Land)
    Major Wiseasked the Minister of Health if he will give instructions to county and local authorities that when allotments are required for the erection of houses of any description. arrangements should be made by the authorities concerned, in the interests of food production, for alternative land to be acquired or made available for allotment purposes.
    Mr. Bevan:The interests of food production are safeguarded not only by statutory limitation on the acquisition of allotment land for housing but also by the arrangement under which the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has to be obtained in the acquisition of housing sites on agricultural land. Further, local authorities have been asked to give most careful consideration to the interests of cultivators of temporary allotments on housing sites.

    PUBLIC HEALTH

      Nursing Service
      Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take official action to implement the recommendation of the recent conference of nurses' organisations and employing authorities that licensing authorities should not impose maximum scales for nurses' earnings; and what action he proposes to take.
      Mr. Bevan: The recommendations of the conference have already been sent to the local authority associations for circulation to licensing authorities.
      Sir J. Mellor: But will the Minister answer my Question and say what action he proposes to take to prevent maximum scales being imposed?
      Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member must realise that up till now I have not been a direct employer in this matter. I may be before very long, but up till now all I can do is by inducement, and that is what I am doing.

    Sewerage Scheme, Chippenham
    Mr. David Ecclesasked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to speed up the proposed enlargement of the Chippenham Town Council's sewage disposal works at West-mead; and by what date he considers the work will be put in hand.
    Mr. Bevan: The town council were advised in October, 1944, to prepare details of the scheme for the full reconstruction of their sewage disposal works at Westmead and submitted their plans on the 31st May, 1045. Certain amendments of design were called for in the following month and the amended plans were received on 28th January, 1946. Minor engineering points remain to be settled. The council will then be invited to call for tenders and the Government priority organisation will be asked to fix a starting date for the approved tender.
    Mr. Eccles: Is the Minister aware that the River Avon stinks horribly and is at times a real danger to public health?
    Mr. Bevan:I appreciate the stink from the River Avon. It has been stinking for a good many years.

    Mental Hospitals
    Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health how many mental hospitals during the war were diverted to other uses; how many of these are again being used for their original purpose; and how many patients from the others still remain in the overcrowded hospitals to which they were transferred.
    Mr. Bevan: Eight of the 101 county and county borough mental hospitals were wholly or mainly diverted to other

    515
    uses during the war and so were parts of many others. Of the eight, one has been completely released and small parts of two others have been released. I regret that I am unable without special inquiry to state the precise present numbers of patients who remain transferred from the diverted hospitals.
    Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that there is terrible overcrowding and distress, will the Minister see that at least the original hospitals are made available?
    Mr. Bevan: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having called attention to the matter and I am asking for an urgent investigation.

    REQUISITIONED PROPERTIES (STANDARD RENTS)
    Mr. Channonasked the Minister of Health whether, now that hostilities have ceased, he will take steps to secure the payment of standard rents for all requisitioned properties.
    Mr. Bevan: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of Circular 224/45 which sets out the present policy.

    EDUCATION

      Books and Stationery
      Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education if she is now in a position to state what improvement there has been in the supply of books and stationery to schools under her jurisdiction.
      Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of Education what proportion of the prewar supplies of text books, atlases and note books, respectively, is now available for the use of schools; and what steps are being taken to augment the heavy shortages that still exist in most areas.
      The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): I regret that I have no precise information regarding the improvement in the supply of school books and stationery, or the proportion of prewar supplies now available for the use of schools. I understand, however, that in the next licensing period, the paper quota for books will be at least 70 per cent. of the 1939 figure, and with the continued use of wartime economy standards in
      516
      printing this quantity of paper should enable a very high proportion of the prewar supplies of books to be produced. Educational book publishers also have the opportunity of sharing in a special reserve of paper, earmarked for the printing of important books which they cannot produce from their ordinary quota. Further, I understand that 750 printers are to be offered release under the Class B scheme. I hope, therefore, that there will soon be an appreciable improvement in the supply position.
      Mr. Morley: Can my right hon. Friend say if a proper proportion of the printing trade operatives recently released under Scheme B is being allocated for the purpose of producing school books?
      Miss Wilkinson: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: When are the Government going to tackle this problem with determination, which they have not done so far? The schools are simply bereft of the books required for the minimum of instruction.
      Miss Wilkinson: If the hon. and gallant Member had listened to my answer he would have seen that we have tackled it with determination.

    Emergency Training
    Flying-Officer Bowdenasked the Minister of Education if she is aware of the delay in paying grants to student teachers; that this delay is causing hardship; and will she take steps to expedite the payment of these grants.
    Miss Wilkinson: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend's Question refers to students in training at emergency training colleges. Payment of grants to such students is treated as an urgent matter in this Department. Payment cannot be made at the beginning of a term until a college has furnished a certificate that the students are in attendance. Subject to this, and to the limitations imposed by shortage of staff, I believe that there is no undue delay in making payment.
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Education how many students are now in training at the Wrexham Emergency Training College; and when she proposes to open a similar college a Llandrindod Wells.
    Miss Wilkinson: Two hundred and twenty-nine students are in training at Wrexham Training College. I cannot give a date for the opening of a college at Llandrindod Wells, but I hope that this will take place in a few months' time.

    Young Fanners' Clubs
    Lady Noel-Buxtonasked the Minister of Education if she will state the number of county federations of young farmers' clubs who are receiving, or have been promised, grants from their local education authorities.
    Miss Wilkinson: I regret that the information asked for is not readily available. A considerable number of local education authorities are giving support and encouragement to the work of young farmers' clubs, and I hope that in the next financial year still more authorities will feel able to provide contributions toward the funds of the county federations.

    School Meals
    Flight-Lieutenant Beswickasked the Minister of Education if she is aware that school meals at the Oak Farm School, Hillingdon, and the Swakeleys Senior School, Ickenham, are to be cut down; and, in so far as this is in order to relieve present overwork of teaching staff, what steps have been taken to secure part-time supervisory staff.
    Miss Wilkinson: Owing to the increasing demand for meals at the four schools served by the Oak Farm central kitchen, it has become necessary to give priority to the children whose needs for meals is greatest. I am assured that this step is due solely to the great overloading of the kitchen and that the total number of meals supplied will not be cut down The number of meals cannot, however, be increased until the proposals which the authority are now preparing have been carried out. The appointment of part-time supervisory staff would not enable any greater number of children to be supplied with meals
    Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: If the facts are proved to my right hon. Friend that school meals are being cut down from 400-odd to 152, will she undertake to look into the question again?
    Miss Wilkinson: Of course, but as things are I doubt my hon. and gallant Friend's figures. I will look into them.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Education what is the percentage of pupils in schools under her jurisdiction having school dinners; and what further steps she is taking to increase it in view of the present food position
    Miss Wilkinson: On the day of the return in October last 39.5 per cent. of pupils present in grant-aided primary and secondary schools had school dinners. Every effort is being made to expedite proposals for new canteens and kitchens.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say to what extent this unsatisfactory percentage is due to the fact that there are not enough facilities for school dinners?
    Miss Wilkinson: 1 can assure the hon. Gentleman that 39.5 per cent. is a very good percentage indeed, considering the appalling difficulties of wartime equipment.

    SCIENCE MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Education when the Science Museum at South Kensington will be reopened to the public.
    Miss Wilkinson: About one-third of the museum was reopened this morning. The children's gallery and the locomotive gallery are now open and special exhibitions have been arranged on atomic energy, X-rays and their application; and the quartz crystal clock. The original Wright aeroplane will be on view and the aeronautics gallery will be reopened as soon as plate glass can be obtained to reglaze a number of damaged cases. Part of the museum has been placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Aircraft Production for a display of German aeronautical developments. The exhibits include a VI and V2, a number of types of aircraft and a piloted flying bomb. This exhibition is also opening today.

    POST OFFICE

      Food Parcels
      Sir Stanley Reedasked the Assistant Postmaster General if he will give an assurance that, when any food parcels received from overseas are detained, the General Post Office will communicate with the addressees.
      The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): All parcels sent to this country from overseas have to be produced to the Customs for examination, and I am advised that whenever a food parcel is detained by the Customs Department as not complying with Import restrictions a notification is sent to the addressee by that Department.
      Sir S. Reed: What becomes of the parcels which are sent and disappear without any notification to the addressee?
      Mr. Burke: I presume that if an address is on the parcel the addressee is notified. If they are not addressed, they should be returned to the Lost Parcels Department of the Post Office.
      Sir Ralph Glyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that parcels sent from British Dominions and Colonies containing food disappear, and the only knowledge the intended recipients have is a letter from their relatives to say that they have been sent? Can some inquiries be made as to what is happening to those parcels?
      Mr. Burke: We will always be glad to inquire into any case.

    Post and Telegraph Delays(Far East)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the delay in mails and telegrams to the services in the East, including one of a delay of 28 days to deliver a telegram from the United Kingdom to Batavia and 14 days for one from Poona, evidence and other details of which have been sent to him; and what further steps he is taking as a result of this evidence.
    Mr. Burke: As regards letters, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer on this subject given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to the hon Members for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and Uxbridge (Flight-Lieutenant Beswick) on 22nd January. As regards telegrams, my reply to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) on 6th February about the recent delay to greetings telegrams to the Services in Ceylon applies equally to other places in the East. Apart from this, I am not aware of any general delays in the telegraph service, but if further particulars can be provided I shall "be glad to ask Cable and Wireless Ltd. to make
    520
    detailed inquiry. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the answers to which I have referred.
    Mr. Freeman: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have given him two instances of considerable delay? Could not inquiries be made into them?
    Mr. Burke: No, Sir. My hon. Friend has sent me a letter which contains nothing more of the details of these cases than the Question. It does not contain the name of the addressee or the date or place of origin. It simply says "A telegram from the United Kingdom."
    Mr. Freeman: If I give my hon. Friend information will he look into those cases?
    Mr. Burke: Yes, Sir, certainly.

    Postal Rates
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will be able in the near future to reduce the cost of letter and postcard post in this country; and when does he expect to be able to reduce the cost of parcel post.
    Mr. Burke: I regret that I am still not in a position to make a statement on this subject.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it costs more to send a copy of HANSARD to any address in this country than to the United States of America, and that this increased postage charge was imposed to stop, not to encourage, the sending of letters? When can we expect the hon. Gentleman to be able to give an answer?
    Mr. Burke: I am afraid I must not anticipate.

    Family Allowances (Payment)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what arrangements are being made to ensure that the payment of family allowances does not add to the congestion and queueing now prevalent in many post offices.
    Mr. Burke: By the time that family allowances become payable 'as from 6th August next, the work arising from allowances payable to the dependants of men in the Forces will have been reduced through demobilisation by an amount exceeding that arising from the new family allowances. Taking this into

    521
    account and the improvement in the staffing position due to the return of skilled counter clerks after service in the Forces, I do not think that the payment of family allowances will add to congestion at post office counters.

    M.P.s' COMPLAINTS (DEPARTMENTAL REPLIES)
    Mr. Skinnard: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that in cases taken up with Departments by Members of this House on behalf of their constituents, the decisions arrived at are frequently communicated to the constituents in advance of notification to the hon. Members concerned; and if he will give instructions that the information shall be available to hon. Members either in advance of, or simultaneously with, the notification to the constituents.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I think that this is a matter which hon. Members might take up with the Minister concerned in any case in which they are dissatisfied with what has been done. Speedy settlement of individual cases will often justify direct communication between Departments and constituents, but hon. Members will be kept informed of what has been done.

    EX-MINISTERS(AUTHORSHIP EARNINGS,TAXATION)
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation giving authority to the State to claim 50 per cent. of all earnings of former Ministers of the Crown derived from the publication of books or newspaper articles based on official document'; collected during their term of office.
    Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. Such earnings are already subject to Income Tax and, in appropriate cases, to Surtax also.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is grossly offensive to a great section of the community that documents which are documents of State should be converted into biographies and used in newspaper articles for personal gain by former Ministers? Is it not a fact,
    522
    in view of what has taken place recently, that it is quite obvious they are being sold to the highest bidder, whether they are publishers in this country or not?
    Mr. Speaker: There is an imputation there against an hon. Member, which I think the hon. Member should withdraw.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. McKinlay: I want to give hon. Members an opportunity to recover. If there is anything I have said that conveys the impression which apparently it has conveyed, I unreservedly withdraw it but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not the height of vulgarity that these things should be bandied about in the Press for gain?
    Mr. Morrison: Of course, I am not quite sure what is being referred to though I could have a good and intelligent guess, but if it is the publication of certain speeches of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), they were not State documents.
    Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. I think I have tried to make the point clear. I was not referring to any particular person. I submit through "you, Mr. Speaker, that I am raising a question of vital principle affecting State documents in this country.
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will see that is the difficulty we get into. If there is a particular document or a particular person concerned, and if my hon. Friend will put a Question down, I will do my best to answer it but, unless there is, we are arguing in the dark as to whether a document is a State document or not.

    EMPIRE FOOD SUPPLIES
    Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the India Office, Burma Office, Colonial Office and other Departments concerned, to prevent famine among the many millions of citizens of the British Commonwealth and Empire in the East whose staple diet is rice, whose food supplies have already been diminished seriously and whose welfare is the concern of this House; and what substitute foods are to be provided for them instead of their normal diet.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Along with other responsible authorities in the East, His Majesty's Government are taking all possible steps to overcome the difficulties arising from the world shortage of rice. So far as practicable within the rice-growing areas, efforts are being made to increase production and improve methods of collection. For example, teams of experts have been sent to Burma, Siam, Egypt and Brazil, and for Burma and Siam special supplies of consumption goods are being organised. But where crops have failed owing to prolonged drought, as in parts of India, little can be done along these lines, and elsewhere immediate results cannot be expected. In the areas where the staple diet is rice, local food production is being stimulated, and rationing and other arrangements extended to ensure effective distribution of available supplies.
    As regards Europe, the Combined Food Board has agreed at the instance of His Majesty's Government that, except in special cases, no rice shall be provided during 1946.
    Despite these and other measures, the rice available is certain to be far below needs. On behalf of the London Food Council, representations have been made to the Combined Food Board as to the need for additional supplies for the East. Up to the present, allocations have been made only for the first quarter of1946 and further decisions await more precise information as to the quantities of rice available. Since supplies of rice are woefully inadequate, some additional wheat has been secured to help to make up the deficiency and efforts are being made to obtain further supplies of cereals. In view of the present wheat situation, however, the quantities available are bound to be insufficient to meet needs.
    Major Wyatt: Can my right hon. Friend say what active steps are being taking to procure rice for India from Siam, where there is reported to be a surplus, and what the results of those efforts have been?
    Mr. Morrison: All possible steps are being taken to get rice from Siam and one of the purposes of this team of experts is to follow that matter up. We are very conscious of the needs of India and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentle-
    524
    man we are doing our best to meet the position.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: May I ask whether the shipping of soya beans from Vladivostok to India is being considered to take the place of rice?
    Mr. Morrison: I could not say. Vladivostok is a place that is not under the control of the British Government, but we will take note of the point.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Do the Government recognise that their responsibility for preventing famine in India is equal to their responsibility for preventing famine in this country?
    Mr. Morrison:The problems are somewhat different. Of course we recognise the direct and particular responsibility to do the very best we can for India. I should not have thought there was any doubt in any quarter of the House about that.

    HEARING AIDS (REPORT)
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Lord President of the Council when the committee set up by the Medical Research Council two years ago, to investigate questions relating to the deaf, is likely to issue its report.
    Mr. H. Morrison:The report of the Electro-Acoustics Committee on Hearing Aids is in course of preparation and it is hoped that publication may take place in the near future.

    ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH
    Dr. Stephen Taylorasked the Lord President of the Council if the Government will establish a social research council on similar lines to the Medical Re search Council, in view of the difficulties under which social scientists have laboured in this country in the past.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that the committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Clapham which is, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, examining the adequacy of the existing provision for research into economic and social questions, has given considerable attention

    525
    to this point, and 1 would prefer to wait and see any observations on it that may be made in their Report before reaching any conclusion.

    GERMANY

      Control Commission Staff (Religion)
      Mr. Warbeyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why applicants for the post of legal assistants to the Control Commission in Germany are asked to state their religion on the official application forms for these posts; and whether he will take steps to eliminate this question from any application forms used by his Department in the future.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): All applicants for appointment with the British element of the Control Commission for Germany are asked to state their religion so that the military authorities in Germany can provide chaplaincy services as necessary. As the information is necessary for that purpose and is not used for any other, I can see no object in dispensing with it.
      Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister publish a list of the religions in their order of priority so that the applicants may choose the one that is most likely to get them the job?

    Nazi Appointments
    Mr. Prittasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether he is aware that of some 70 schoolteachers in Duderstadt, who were shown by the Nazi party files to be Nazis and were accordingly recommended for removal, only two have so far been removed; that one of these two was replaced by a Nazi in the automatic arrest category; and whether he will clear up this situation before all the schoolchildren are made into Nazis;
    (2) whether he is aware that within a week of the Duderstadt Town Council having been permitted to elect as mayor a social democrat of good standing and record the Military Government dismissed him and put in his place a Nazi factory owner who had made all his workmen join the Nazi party; and whether he will at once remove this Nazi and thus cure the unrest caused by this incident.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Reports on the incidents referred to are being obtained from Germany and as soon as they are received I will communicate with the hon. and learned Member.

    GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (PRIVATE PROPERTY)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to whom inquiries by refugees as to their properties, factories and machinery in Germany or Austria should be addressed; and what steps may such refugees take to obtain the removal of valuable machinery to this country.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The nature and scope of the restitution and compensation which it may be possible to afford, from German and Austrian resources, to people in Germany and Austria, as well as refugees from those countries, who were dispossessed by the Nazis, is a matter for agreement between the occupying Powers. We shall shortly be putting proposals to our Allies and an announcement will be made if and when quadripartite agreement is reached. Meanwhile no good purpose would be served by addressing inquiries to London departments about individual cases.
    Mr. P. Freeman: Might I ask if the result will be that some facilities will be granted to enable these refugees to go and inspect them or make some inquiries in the meantime?
    Mr. Hynd: At the moment there are no such facilities. The number of people who are anxious to visit Germany, British, United Nations and ex-enemy nationals, for this purpose would tax the very small resources of the Control Commission beyond their present capacity.

    EMPLOYMENT

      Building Workers
      Commander Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of men employed in the building industry in Cornwall on 1st January, 1946.
      The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Building industry figures for Cornwall based on the annual exchange of U.I.

      527
      books are only available each July. I am informed by my hon. Friend the Minister of Works that it is not possible at present to give employment figures for any later date.
      Mr. Stokes: Might I ask my right hon. Friend if he is satisfied that unnecessary labour is not being used for the construction of an aerodrome in Cornwall that will not be used until the next war?
      Captain Bairdasked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East, about the number of building trade workers employed by a certain factory in Wolverhampton; and will he release some of these workers for the municipal housing programme.
      Mr. Isaacs: As soon as my inquiries are complete I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.
      Captain Baird: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he realises that, according to previous answers on this question, out of a total labour force in Wolverhampton of 2,000 men, only some 600 are employed in municipal building, and will he consider taking a census of the building industry in Wolverhampton with a view to finding out where the labour is going?
      Mr. Isaacs: It is precisely because we are doing that that I ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the result of the inquiries.

    Workers' Suspension, Wolverhampton
    Captain Bairdasked the Minister of Labour on what grounds were 80 men employed by Ever Ready, Perks Lane, Wolverhampton, suspended from work for one week.
    Mr. Isaacs: My information is that 27 men, not 80, were suspended by the management for absenting themselves from work for half a day on the occasion of a football match. Only three days' suspension, in each case, were, I understand, without pay.
    Captain Baird: While thanking the Minister for that reply, and while realising the seriousness of the crime at the present time, may I ask him if he considers whether the punishment really fitted the crime, since the result was that
    528
    work was held back for an even longer period? Would he not reconsider the whole question?
    Mr. Isaacs:So far as the Question on the Order Paper is concerned, I would like to point out that this firm suspended these men for a week without pay, and, on being told that it was a breach of the Essential Work Order, they gave the men three days' pay without their having to work for it.

    Nursing and Domestic Service
    Flight-Lieutenant Haireasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the shortage of nursing and domestic staff in public assistance institutions and emergency hospitals in Buckinghamshire; and what steps he proposes to take to overcome the deficiency.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of the need of these hospitals for nursing and domestic staff. My officers are giving them all possible assistance in obtaining staff and have filled a number of vacancies during recent months. The shortage is part of a wider problem affecting many hospitals to which the various measures taken by the Government to encourage further recruitment into the hospital services are being directed.
    Flight-Lieutenant Haire: In doing what he can, will the right hon. Gentleman help by bringing into this country, if possible, foreign domestic assistance, because, in the case of Buckinghamshire, some 514 beds have had to be closed down owing to lack of staff, and something like 150 persons have gone in the last six months without replacement?
    Mr. Isaacs: Unfortunately, that situation is much too common. The question of bringing in foreign domestic servants for this kind of job and for private domestic service is now under consideration.
    Mr. Moyle: Is it not a fact that recruitment is handicapped by the policy of the authorities in their failure to pay reasonable rates of wages?
    Mr. Isaacs:That may have been so in the past, but it is now very considerably overcome, because the authorities have established joint industrial councils and have agreed upon conditions which are much more satisfactory.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Labour if he is now able to indicate his proposals for dealing with the problem of domestic service.
    Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 7th February to the hon. Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be able to announce that some definite scheme will be put into operation?
    Mr. Isaacs: Not at the moment.

    Directed Scottish Workers
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Minister of Labour whether any Scottish men and women who were directed to work in England during the war and whose original work there is now completed, are being redirected to further work in England; and whether, on such second direction, they are classed as English labour for all future purposes.
    Mr. Isaacs: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise.

    Mine Ballotees
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Labour how many young men conscripted for the Forces have served one, two, three or more sentences of imprisonment for refusing to work in the mines, respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information cannot be obtained without detailed inquiry into the subsequent history of every man who has been sentenced to imprisonment for refusing to work in the mines.
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Labour if it is still the intention of His Majesty's Government to compel young men, conscripted for national service, to work in the mines.
    Mr. Isaacs: Since the end of hostilities in Europe, young men becoming available for calling up have been sent to work in ':he mines only when they voluntarily choose such work as an alternative to service in the Forces. Young men who, before the end of hostilities in Europe, were sent com
    530
    pulsorily to the mines after selection by ballot must remain there until they are eligible for release on the basis described in my statement of the 29th November, 1945, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derby (Mr. H. White).
    Mr. Hastings: Does the Minister realise what a bad thing it is for industry to have unwilling labour forced upon it?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is a matter of opinion. I am not expressing mine.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. John Patonasked the Minister of Labour how many adult workers, men and women, respectively, were registered as unemployed at Norwich labour exchange, at the latest convenient date; and how many of them had been continuously registered as unemployed for three weeks or longer.
    Mr. Isaacs: At 14th January, the numbers of unemployed insured men and women aged 18 years and over, suitable for ordinary employment, on the registers of Norwich Employment Exchange were 463 and 75 respectively. The number of these who had been unemployed for more than three weeks is not known, but 285 men and 57 women had been on the register for more than two weeks.

    DEMOBILISATION

      Service Personnel (Civilian Employment)
      Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Labour whether men on W.T. Reserve, employed in coalmines, will be permitted to obtain other employment when they cease to be liable for recall to the Armed Forces.
      Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 18th December last to the hon. Members for South Islington (Mr. Cluse) and Bewdley (Major Conant), a copy of which I am sending him.
      Sir J. Mellor: Does the Minister recognise that many of these men, before they volunteered for W.T. Reserve, were not coal miners and it is a great hardship on them still to be prevented from returning to their normal employment?
      Mr. Isaacs: I would like the hon. Gentleman to look at the full replies.
      Sir J. Mellon: Having looked at them many times—
      Mr. Speaker: This is not yesterday. Today we are getting on with Questions.

      Rural Trades
      Flight-Lieutenant Haireasked the Minister of Labour, if he will give consideration to the release of men in the Services with experience of rural trades, such as smithing, saddlery, thatching, etc., in Class B.
      Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply of nth February to the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe), a copy of which I am sending him.
      Flight-Lieutenant Haire: Might I ask, once again, whether the Minister is aware of the amount of work, particularly repair work, which is waiting to be done in some village workshops, and whether he realises that it is a contribution they could make to our agricultural policy?
      Mr. Isaacs: If my hon. and gallant Friend was also aware of the terms of the answer I have made, he would know he had complete satisfaction.

      Individual Nominations(Class B)
      Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that individual specialists and nominated men released in December under Class B amounted to less than one-sixth of those released under the block release method, he will take steps to improve the machinery for individual applications.
      Mr. Isaacs: Selection for release in Class B by nomination is permitted only where the normal "block" release method would not enable the right men to be identified. It is, therefore, to be expected that the numbers released on nomination, whether individual specialists or not, should form only a small proportion of the total of Class B releases.
      Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware that that does not answer my Question? What objection can there be to giving the men greater scope to start their own businesses and to claim release in Class B on the ground that their services are important from the community point of view? Will the right hon. Gentleman
      532
      make an attempt to deal with men as human beings and not as digits?
      Mr. Isaacs: It is most interesting to hear that from the other side of the House, and to be asked not to deal with men as digits. I have a firm recollection of men being referred to as "hands," and now we come to "digits." If the Noble Lord will look at the answer I have given, I think he will find that I have replied to the Question on the Order Paper.

      Personal Case
      Mr. John Whiteasked the Minister of Labour on what grounds a Class B release was refused in the case of 1627737 L.A.C. T. G. Gill, urgently required to take up a managerial post in connection with food production, whose application was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, the Kent W.A.E.C. and the, N.F.U.
      Mr. Isaacs: On the information given, it was not considered that this young man, who was only 19 when he joined the Forces, could be regarded as a key specialist whose services were personally indispensable for urgent and essential work of a managerial nature.
      Mr. White: Is the Minister aware that this young man is needed in connection with the management of one of the biggest poultry breeding farms in the country, in order to release his father to give more time to national work in the poultry breeding industry?
      Mr. Isaacs: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that was taken fully into consideration, but we have to be careful that we do not create more unfairness by such releases.

      Women
      Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Labour how many women released under Class B are now in the employment for which they were released.
      Mr. Isaacs: The number of women released from the Services in Class B up to mid-January was 2,120. I understand that the great majority of these women have taken up the employment for which they were released except for those who are still taking their 21 days release leave.
      Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the Minister aware that laundries complain that

      533
      these women are unobtainable, and in view of the growing tendency to wash so much dirty linen in public by the other side of the House—
      Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

      Rural Trades
      Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to expedite the release from the Forces under Class B of men who have experience of rural trades, such as smithing, saddlery, thatching of farm buildings, etc., as these men are urgently needed in rural districts for the repair and maintenance of farm machinery.
      Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radcliffe) on 12th February, a copy of which I am sending him.

      Progress
      Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that owing to the slowness of demobilisation, there are still men in the Forces who have served since 3rd September, 1939; and if he will guarantee that no man or woman of whatever rank or trade who have served since 3rd September, 1939, will have their release deferred.
      Mr. Isaacs: I do not agree that demobilisation has been slow, but as the release scheme takes account of age as well as service, some of the younger men who have served since 3rd September, 1939 have not yet been released. I cannot give the assurance asked for in the second part of the Question.

      Teachers
      Major Symondsasked the Minister of Labour why Class B releases are not made equally available to intending women teachers as they are to intending men teachers.
      Mr. Isaacs: If the university training department or training college will submit to the Ministry of Education or Scottish Education Department as appropriate, the name of any woman who fulfils the conditions for release of partly trained male teachers, steps will be taken to secure her release provided that the university or training college concerned is able to admit her immediately on release.

      MILITARY SERVICE

        Apprentices and Students
        Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Labour how many apprentices and students taking scholarship examinations have been granted deferment of call up for military service on the ground of exceptional hardship; and how many applications have been refused during the past three months.
        Mr. Isaacs: During the past three months 1,764 men were granted postponement of call-up by the local statutory authorities to complete their apprenticeship or to take scholarship and other important examinations, while 1,281 men were refused postponement during the same period.
        Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that in some cases real hardship is being caused to apprentices and students by his refusal to allow even two months for them to take their final examinations?
        Mr. Isaacs: All acceptances or refusals of applications for postponement are made with those considerations in mind.

      Miners
      Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Labour how many miners are now serving in His Majesty's Forces.
      Mr. Isaacs:The number of former underground coalminers now serving in H.M. Forces is estimated to be approximately 16,500. Release in Class B is offered to all underground coalminers in H.M. Forces nominated by the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

      NATIONAL FINANCE

        Northern Ireland (Imperial Contribution)
        Dr. Littleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the sums paid from the money raised in Northern Ireland by the Imperial Government during the past year towards health, housing and education, respectively, in that State, which are much below the standard of the same services in Great Britain.
        The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir. The hon. Member should ask the Government of Northern Ireland, who are responsible for expenditure on these services.
        Dr. Little: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider it would be an act of fair justice that, out of the balance of£34,500,000 paid last year to the Treasury, Northern Ireland should get a substantial amount to meet this charge?
        Mr. Stokes: Might not all this difficulty be swept aside if a separate and independent election were held in Northern Ireland?

      U.S. Loan (International Monetary Fund)
      Mr. Norman Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to conserve our resources of hard currency for the payment of essential food imports, he will withhold payment of our gold subscription to the International Monetary Fund until he is sure of getting the U.S. loan.
      Mr. Dalton: I made it clear, in my speech on the Anglo-American Loan Agreement on 12th December last, that if the loan does not go through we shall have to leave the Fund, and shall be entitled to get back what we have paid.

      National Investment Council (Trade Union Representative)
      Mr. Williamsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to announce the name of the trade union leader who has been invited to be a member of the National Investment Council.
      Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. In have invited Mr. George Gibson, an ex-Chairman of the General Council of the T.U.C., General Secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and Vice-Chairman of the National Savings Committee, to join the Council, and I am glad to say that he has accepted my invitation.

      Gold and Dollar Expenditure (Armed Forces Abroad)
      Mr. Zilliacusasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate monthly expenditure of gold and dollars on the maintenance of our Forces abroad; and what are the approximate amounts spent in Italy, Greece, the Middle East and Indonesia, respectively.
      Mr. Dalton: It is difficult to estimate separately expenditure in gold and dollars and expenditure in other
      536
      currencies, and to distribute the total between different theatres. But the estimated average monthly total of military expenditure overseas during 1946 is approximately£25 millions.
      Mr. Zilliacus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nearly half a million dollars were recently seized in Poland on the persons of agents of General Anders' Army bearing British Army identity cards, and is it not. a fact that these dollars originally came from the Treasury and were paid out to General Anders' Army?
      Mr. Dalton: I could not say.

      UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (ACCOMMODATION)
      Flight-Lieutenant Beswickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the number of students taking a science degree in physiology is seriously restricted because of present limited facilities of the medical faculty of University College, London; and what steps he is taking to secure the release of all the buildings of that university for their proper purpose.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I understand that alternative accommodation has been secured and that as soon as repairs and adaptations have been carried out, University College will be vacated.

      NATIONAL INSURANCE

        Ministers of Religion
        Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Minister of National Insurance (I) what is the position of ministers of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational and Baptist churches, respectively, under the National Insurance Bill; and by whom the employer's contribution in respect of them is to be paid in each case;
        (2) What is the position of clergy of the Church of England under the National Insurance Bill; and by whom the employer's contribution in respect of them is to be paid.
        The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I am advised that ministers of religion as such are not in

        537
        general employed under contract of service. In so far as they are gainfully occupied, therefore, they would normally fall to be dealt with as self-employed persons. In some circumstances they may be employed persons, as for example, where they are employed on the teaching staff of a school, and employed persons' contributions would then be payable in respect of them by their employers.
        Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister further elaborate that in so far as they are gainfully employed?

      Self-Employed Persons
      Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of National Insurance how many self-employed persons are at present voluntary contributors to existing health and pensions insurance; and what proportion this number bears to the total of self-employed persons in this country.
      Mr. J. Griffiths: There are about one million voluntary contributors who may be people who have retired, or whose remuneration has passed over the£420 limit, or who have taken up work on their own account. It would not be possible to give the particulars asked for without detailed inquiry of voluntary contributors themselves.

      GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (AVAILABILITY)
      Dr. Stephen Taylorasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he will take further steps to overcome the difficulties which retail booksellers are still experiencing in obtaining supplies of Bills, White Papers and other H.M.S.O. publications, particularly in view of the interest which the public is showing in these publications.
      Mr. Glenvil Hall: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will look further into the matter.

      JUVENILE OFFENDERS (PUNISHMENT)
      Mr. P. Freemanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the amendment of the punishment allowed to be inflicted on very young children by the order of a magistrate.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): If my hon. Friend will kindly send me particulars of the way in which he thinks the present law needs amendment, I will see that his suggestions receive careful consideration.
      Mr. Freeman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent case in which a child of nine was ordered punishment by the magistrate, and does he consider such punishment reasonable?
      Mr. Ede: There is a Question on this point on the Order Paper today.

      UNLICENSED FIREARMS (SURRENDER)
      The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
      Mr. Austin.To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider an appeal to the public for the surrender of all unlicensed firearms, such surrender to be made on a basis of no penalty for improper possession.
      At the end of Questions—
      Mr. Ede: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer Question No. 98.
      I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the serious risks to the public arising from the existence of large numbers of firearms and quantities of ammunition which there is reason to believe are being held without firearm certificates issued by the police. It is an offence punishable by heavy penalties to hold a firearm or ammunition without a firearm certificate.
      With a view to reducing this risk and providing an opportunity for the surrender of firearms or ammunition which are unlawfully held, I have asked chief officers of police in England and Wales, with whom the enforcement of the Firearms Act, 1937, rests, to arrange that proceedings are not taken against anyone who surrenders firearms or ammunition so held by 31st March. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate has agreed that proceedings will not be taken in Scotland against anyone who surrenders by that date firearms or ammunition unlawfully held.

      539
      The Government appeal to all concerned to take advantage of this arrangement and so help to put an end to a situation which has already resulted in a number of tragic accidents. Firearms and ammunition may be handed in at any police station.
      Mr. Austin: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his long answer, may I ask whether he will give the greatest possible publicity to this statement in the Press, through the cinema and over the radio?
      Mr. Ede: I have already had a Press conference on this matter with, I think, quite satisfactory results, judging by the information that has been given. A statement will be made on the radio this evening, and I will consider whether there are other means of giving publicity to this statement which we regard as being of urgent importance.
      Mr. McGovern: As a considerable number of people are in possession of firearms which have been stolen, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when the firearms are handed in, any inquiries will be made and proceedings taken against the people in unlawful possession?
      Mr. Ede: If anyone will hand in firearms, the promise is that no proceedings will be taken.
      Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Will this concession cover people who wish to keep firearms which they illegally hold if they license them?
      Mr. Ede: If a person desires to hold a firearm, he has to prove that he has some special ground for having it, and this cannot be regarded as an opportunity for people to cover up past delinquencies by getting a firearm certificate for the future.
      Sir J. Mellor: To avoid any possible confusion, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that that does not apply to shot-guns?
      Mr. Ede: It does not apply to smooth bore rifles of a barrel length greater than 20inches.
      Mr. Garry Allighan: Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing more severe penalties than exist at present for the un-lawful possession of firearms, after 31st March?
      Mr. Ede: I think the penalties are quite clear, and people who run the risk of keeping firearms after 31st March must take the consequences.

      PERSIA (BRITISH TROOPS, WITHDRAWAL)
      Mr. Eden(By Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British troops, if any, have recently been sent to Tehran; and Whether it is still the intention of His Majesty's Government to withdraw all British troops from Persia by the agreed date.
      The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The answer to the first part of the Question is "None." In reply to the second part of the Question, orders have been given for all British troops to be withdrawn from Persia by 2nd March, 1946, in accordance with our obligations under the Treaty of 1942.

      PERSONAL STATEMENT
      Mr. C. S. Taylor: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully point out that in the Official Report of 12th February this year, in column 342, there is a speech attributed to myself which 1 did not make? Although one does not mind being responsible for one's own speeches, one hesitates to accept responsibility for those of other hon. Members, and may I ask that this mistake may be corrected in the next HANSARD?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us about the Business for next week?
Mr. H. Morrison: The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday and Tuesday, 18th and 19th February—Report stage of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill. I may say that a White Paper explaining the principal Amendments to be moved by the Government which relate to death benefits will be available in the Vote Office this evening.
Wednesday and Thursday, 20th and 21st February—A Debate on Foreign Affairs and Palestine will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday, 22nd February—Third Reading of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill.
During the week we shall ask the House to take Motions to approve the Double Taxation Relief Orders and the Electoral Registration Regulations, 1946.
Mr. Eden: With regard to the Debate on Foreign Affairs on Wednesday and Thursday, has the Leader of the House any proposals in his mind to canalise that Debate as between Foreign Affairs and Palestine? I think the House would feel a little unhappy if the two were muddled together, and if the time were divided, in any proportion thought fit, it would perhaps be a better arrangement.
Mr. Morrison: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I have understood all along that the House wishes these two subjects to be divided if possible. Therefore, the arrangement which I hope will commend itself to the House—taking the view of what I think is the right proportion between the general Debate on Foreign Affairs, which must be extensive, and Palestine, which is somewhat more limited—is that the general Debate on Foreign Affairs, without prejudice possibly to whatever may be said in the opening speech for the Government on the general issue, should be on Wednesday and on Thursday up to 6.30 p.m., and that we should suspend the Rule for an hour on Thursday so that, therefore, the Debate on Palestine could proceed from 6.30 until 10.15 on Thursday.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Could the Leader of the House indicate if tomorrow's Debate on agriculture and the Government statement will refer to the United Kingdom agricultural policy, and. if so, in view of the peculiar conditions involved, whether a Scottish Minister will take part in the Debate?
Mr. Morrison: Naturally we would wish to meet the convenience of the House, but the arrangement was that the Minister of Agriculture would open the Debate and the Parliamentary Secretary would conclude. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would raise that question in the appropriate quarter, and we will see, if it is necessary, whether an adjustment can be made, but, as preparations have been made on the basis which I have
542
indicated, they may be a little difficult to adjust.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is because representations have been made and have not succeeded, that I deliberately put the question to him publicly this afternoon? Can we have an assurance that since Scottish agriculture is involved, a Scottish Minister will take part in the Debate?
Mr. Morrison: It depends on what is convenient to the House and to the Ministers. If it means a third Ministerial speech I do not think the House would be very pleased. It just depends on whether it would be right in the first place, and whether it would be convenient in the second place, to switch one of the English Ministers and to replace him by a Scottish Minister. We will see.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Reverting to the Debate next week on Palestine, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that most of us consider that, in the circumstances as they have now developed, the suggestion he has made is an admirable one and amply fulfils the pledge he gave? May I at the same time ask him whether it is intended that there shall be a separate reply on the Palestine Debate at the end of the day? Will the general Foreign Affairs Debate be summed up or be replied to by the Minister before 6.30, and will there then be a separate Governmental answer on Palestine?
Mr. Morrison: I will certainly do my best to meet that reasonable request, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is, on the whole, satisfied with the arrangements proposed.
Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will take the Civil Aviation Bill?
Mr. Morrison: I cannot say.
Mr. McAllister: Would the Leader of the House give an assurance that, in view of the growing concern at the failure of the Government's policy on town and country planning and the location of industry, and the danger of their being swamped by the Government's very praiseworthy housing programme, he will find facilities for a Debate on that subject?
Mr. Morrison: That can easily be provided for by the House itself by taking a Supply Day on that subject. The only trouble is that 1 am afraid it might get into the field of legislation. As my hon. Friend knows, there was a statement in the King's Speech to the effect that there would be legislation on the subject this Session. I still hope there will be.
Mr. Snadden: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when we are to have a Debate on forest policy?
Mr. Morrison: The idea was that that would be one of the subjects for one of the Supply Days which are now not very far off.
Mr. Stokes: Reverting to the question of the Debate on Foreign Affairs next week, may I ask the Leader of the House whether we are to understand from what he said with regard to that section of the Debate which will refer to Palestine, that the Government's reference to Palestine policy will be contained in the Foreign Secretary's opening statement, and that there will not be an additional Front Bench speech? Otherwise it will shut everybody out.
Mr. Morrison: I am not quite sure about that, but we will certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
Colonel Ropner: Are we to understand that forestry will be excluded altogether from the statement on agriculture which will be made tomorrow?
Mr. Morrison: I understood that the Government's statement would be in relation to the declaration on long-term agricultural policy that was made by the Minister of Agriculture. The Debate will be on a Motion to approve that statement. It will be a question for Mr. Speaker to decide, but I would have thought it would be bound to be confined to the pronouncement by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture.
Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us have been pressing successive Governments for years to have full day's Debate on forestry, and we hope we shall get it?
Mr. Morrison: It is still a free country, and it is not for me to teach the father of the House the rules of Parliamentary Business, but he has only to persuade
544
his Whips to find a Supply Day on which forestry can be debated, and he is well away.
Mr. Eden: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is not being quite fair. When this Business was rearranged we did forgo a second agricultural day and it was understood that some opportunity— naturally when it could be fitted in—for a second day would be given for the discussion of forestry.
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that is true. 1 understood, and was very glad to understand, that a second opportunity might be given in relation to a Supply Day. What are Supply Days for if they are not to discuss things of this kind. That is eminently what they are for, and I do not think it is unreasonable to say that forestry might be discussed on a Supply Day.
Mr. Eden: That is all right if the right hon. Gentleman realises it is impossible to discuss forestry in the light of the proposals of the Government without discussing legislation, which cannot be discussed on a Supply Day.
Mr. Morrison: Even that difficulty can be got over without prejudice to that principle. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would see that a consultation takes place through the usual channels and we, as ever, will do our best to meet his convenience.
Mr. Driberg: With regard to the Foreign Affairs Debate, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the last Foreign Affairs Debate there was practically no mention of the Far East? There was one speech on Japan, and five, I think, on Jugoslavia. Would it be convenient to consider allocating a few hours ' of one of the two days to discuss the Far East?
Mr. Morrison: I think we have gone as far as we dare in the direction of regionalisation. If we start carving the world up in relation to Departments of the Foreign Office in this Debate we shall get into difficulties.
Major Tufton Beamish: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to set aside a day for the postwar code of pay, allowances, Service pensions and gratuities of members of the Forces? The White Paper on this matter was issued

545
some eight or nine weeks ago. This is a most important subject of great interest to a large number of men
Mr. Morrison: The White Paper has been published some time and I have not gathered that there has been any widespread unhappiness about it. I must be careful about accepting the view that if the Government publish a White Paper there is to be a Debate. The net result of that would be that there would be no more White Papers, if we are not careful. There will be a Debate on defence policy, which is being discussed, and the matter could come into that Debate.
Mr. Chamberlain: Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether dates have been fixed for the Second Reading of the two new Housing Bills?
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. They have not actually been fixed but they will not be long.
Mr. De la Bère: Are there two new houses?
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Reverting for a moment to the question of the Debate on agriculture tomorrow from the point of view of Scotland, I think the answer of the Minister is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I think we are entitled to have the Minister for Scotland replying in connection with Scottish agriculture. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will re
546
consider that. I think it is our right, not a matter of convenience.
Mr. Morrison: I will see what I can do about it. Scottish Members must be a little quicker in the uptake about this. It was announced some little time ago, and this is the first I have heard about it.
Earl Winterton: Last week.
Mr. Morrison: I know, but it really is not so easy when pressure is brought the day before. If I had known before it would have been easier.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: We did it before.
Mr. Morrison: There will no doubt be Debates on Scottish agriculture. I will look into the matter, and naturally if it is possible at this late stage to meet the wishes of Scottish Members I will do so.
Major Cecil Poole: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if we are to have Ministers making opening and closing speeches for every country in the British Isles back benchers will never have a chance of making a speech?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to,—
Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL,
" to make further provision as to the appointment of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund and for other purposes relating to local loans," presented by Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for One hour after a quarter past Nine o'clock.— [The Prime Minister.]

WORLD FOOD SHORTAGE
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Whitely.]
3.37 p.m.
Mr. Eden:I should like to assure the House and the Government at the outset of the remarks I want to make, that we on this side of the House understand very well that this Debate raises issues of the gravest national and international consequence. It is, therefore, in no spirit of partisanship that we approach this question this afternoon. At the same time, we have certain questions to ask, we have certain criticisms to make, we have certain suggestions to put forward, and I think it my duty to voice those at the outset of the Debate, so that Ministers may have the fullest opportunity to reply. I do not think any Member, wherever he or she may sit in the House, will dispute that the two statements made last week by the Minister of Food and his colleague the Minister of Agriculture caused the gravest concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and outside in the country also. I am bound to say I think that concern was, in a considerable measure, the fault of the Government themselves. I want to tell them as clearly as I can, why I think so.
It does not seem to us that the Government took the proper steps to inform and
548
warn the House and the country of what was impending. On the contrary, until the Government statements were made last week—certainly for those of us who had no inside information, and I know it is difficult for the Government to understand that those who have not inside information do not always see things as the Government do, because I have been a member of a Government myself—sofar as I am concerned, and I think as far as hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned, the general trend of Government pronouncements, admittedly against a dark background, had seemed to us to be, on the whole, reassuring. Of course, we knew that the overall position was anxious and difficult, but I must remind the Government of their own recent statements, if only to explain to them why what they said came to us, and to others, as a shock. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food before he left for Washington made a statement which was quoted in "The Times." He said:
" During 1946 I shall continue to do my utmost to provide more variety in our diet. We can look forward to some improvements at any rate."
On his return from Washington he certainly said nothing that I have seen to give any contrary impression. Moreover, the Prime Minister in a letter—if I may say so, an admirable letter in the circumstances—to Mr. Gollancz, which he may remember was written on the day after the Minister of Food returned from Washington, said this, on 25th January, less than three weeks ago:
" On the basis of what is practicable, however, there is little prospect of any substantial increase in the level of human consumption while world supplies are short, as they are now. This does not mean, however, that the Government are ready to undertake that in no circumstances will there be any general increase of rations. It may be found necessary to provide some variation of the present monotonous and unexciting diet in order to secure increased production at home, and thereby build up the export trade on which our future depends."
Very sound, wise sentiments, but there is not the slightest indication in that statement that further important and substantial cuts of existing rations were at that time impending. I do not want to overdraw the picture, I only want to show the right hon. Gentleman how it struck us. I am suggesting that that statement by the right hon. Gentleman, while it certainly did not foretell any improvement, at the same time did not prepare

549
anybody for the reduction which came so shortly afterwards. So I would say to the Lord President of the Council, that I do not think there was any justification at all for the attack he was good enough to make upon us on this side of the House, at Peckham the other night, when he said that we ought to contribute constructive suggestions in these difficult times—I think I have got it right—" constructive suggestions to a solution of the food problem." How in the world are we supposed to do that, if Ministers do not take us into their confidence, or even take the trouble to tell us that there is an acute problem impending?
Mr. Stokes: Another secret agreement.
Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is on that again. 1 should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman would have perceived that there is a difference between revealing a military agreement at the expense of your Ally, which would betray your Ally to the enemy, and telling the public what is happening about dried eggs.
Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. He knows perfectly well that the treaties to which I referred and which he denied, were secret agreements which had nothing whatever to do with military arrangements. They were purely political, and he knows it
Mr. Eden: I am very sorry, I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, I was merely taking the Question he asked the Foreign Secretary yesterday, which was about that. If he will look at his own Question on yesterday's Paper, he will see that it was about the Far Eastern agreement. If he does not mean that, all right, but then what does he mean? In any event, I say that an agreement of that kind is not comparable with telling the country what their domestic food provision is.
Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman deceived the country.
Mr. Eden: I am quite ready to meet that charge at any time.
Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity yesterday, but did not.
Mr. Eden: I am not a Minister of the Crown. The hon. Member has done his best to see to that, and he really must not complain.
Perhaps I may now go back to the food question. When the two right hon. Gentlemen made that statement, I consulted at once with Lord Woolton and one or two others of our colleagues, who have been closely concerned with this business for a very long period, and I found that none of them had any information at all of the situation which was about to develop. I do not want to embarrass the Government in any way, especially in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but it is a fact that, from time to time, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are good enough to consult those of us who have had some experience of office in these war years, about the problems which are arising. I may say to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food that I hope he will take this as a friendly tip—if I were in his place, having such a predecessor as Lord Woolton, I would get a bit of advice on the quiet from him. At any rate, I simply say to the Leader of the House that I do not think it is right, or worthy of him, to complain that we do not make constructive suggestions, when he does not give us any information on which to base those suggestions. Despite that provocation, however, I promise not to go further down that road.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): That was not a speech of provocation at all, it was a consequence of provocation.
Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman is a pretty good master of provocation. I leave him to settle with his own conscience whether he started it or not. I am not going any further along that way; on the contrary.
I want to put to the Government a number of questions which are, I think, judging from my letter bag, the kind of questions which the country is asking itself now. I also want to make certain suggestions of a constructive nature, which 1 hope the Government may be able to take to meet a situation which is gravely troubling us all. We must, none of us, underrate the seriousness of this position for the British people, especially for the women of this country. Our people have

551
endured six long years of rationing—and in that, let me add, they differ from the people of some countries in Europe, notably Germany, which, so far as my information goes, until the very hour of victory, lived very well on the spoils of the conquered territories. Now, at the end of this long time, our people have been called upon to make further sacrifices.
The first question I ask the right hon. Gentleman is Whether, in fact, the Government have paid the close and constant attention to the developing world food situation which that situation clearly demanded. Have Ministers, individually and collectively, made the decisions and taken all the steps that were necessary, and above all, did they take those steps soon enough? Are they now doing all that is humanly possible to alleviate the situation? Of course, we do not blame. the Government for crop failures in far-distant lands, we do not blame them for the bad weather that affects the whaling fleet, but we do say that it was the duty of the Government, as those disasters and difficulties became known, to take urgent steps to meet them, and to apprise this House and the general public of their implications upon the rations available for the British people.
The Minister of Food told the House last week, quite rightly, about crop failures in Australia, in the Argentine, and in North Africa. I would like him to tell us today how long he has known about those failures. Was it not months ago? He knew of them in fact before Christmas, by his own admission in this House in his statement last Tuesday. He then added the further news of crop failures in India and South Africa, which he said did not arrive until he got back from Washington. He said it was not until a few weeks ago that it was possible to assess fully the effect of all those disasters on the world food position. All right, we accept that, but was it really necessary to wait for precise knowledge of the full facts of all those calamities before any action could be put in train, or any information or warning issued to the country as a whole? Was it not apparent long since to the Government, with their information—so much greater than ours—that something of this nature was going to
552
arise, even if they could not give the exact figure?
Let us take the position of India—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. As I understand it, the failure of the South West monsoon in India in the late summer and autumn was followed in October by a disastrous cyclone in the Province of Madras; and then on top of that came a failure of the Christmas rains in Northern India. But long before that, it must have been apparent that serious shortages were inevitably going to arise in India. The major part of that damage was done by last autumn, and by November I am told, though I do not now whether it is right or not, it was known in India, in the grain trade, that disaster had overtaken the crops for this year—a disaster, it is quite true, whose magnitude could not finally be ascertained until the failure of the Christmas rains, but it must have been visible many weeks before that. Now I come to why we have, if you like, misunderstood the situation. On 10th December last a Question was asked about the position in India—I was in the House at the time—by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), who referred to the failure of these very rains about which we now hear so much. He asked about them, and he was told by the Under-Secretary of State for India that the Government of this country:
" sees no cause for apprehension of famine, whether in Bengal or elsewhere in India."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1946; Vol. 417, c. 26.]
I simply cannot understand that answer, in relation to what has happened since.
Now about South Africa. South Africa is a grain-importing country, but I doubt whether her requirements today are large enough to make a difference to the total world demand. But I should like to know what those South African requirements are. For instance, there has been a widespread drought in that country, following the failure of the rains last year, and I should like to ask the Minister if he can tell us when it was that the Union Government's appreciation of the crop position foreshadowed a shortage. Again, I do not ask for exact figures, but for a reasonable estimate of the likely size of the deficit now impending there. We must see the overall position.
I turn to the various items of food that are affected. First, and most important,

553
of course, are food grains. On this subject I should like to ask the Government two questions. First, what steps have they taken to increase production at home; and, secondly, what steps have they taken to increase imports from overseas producing countries? About the position at home, surely, it must have been evident to the Government from what they have now told us, that these failures of grain crops throughout the world were piling up. That must have been evident to them months ago from what they now tell us, and even if full details of the position were not known until the beginning of the year, at any rate, it was apparent to the Government before Christmas, I think, that there must be a substantial deficit on the world's wheat account. There is no dispute on that. If that was so, surely it was then the duty of the Government to take all possible steps to increase at that time the production of food grains in this country. Did they do it? On Tuesday— I ask the House to note this—on Tuesday of last week the Minister of Agriculture said that he had that day despatched a letter to the county committees. Why on that day? Why not weeks before? We are now told that the storm had been gathering for months.
Hon. Members: Where is the Minister of Agriculture?
The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): My right hon. Friend is to speak in tomorrow's Debate.
Mr. Eden: With all respect, he is very much interested today, too. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to appear himself whenever he can. I am not making a complaint. I want to put these issues, and so long as they are replied to by somebody—and I must ask for some reply—I make no complaint.
I go back to the domestic food position, and what we are doing here. Why was action left so late? It is quite true that the Coalition Government decided early last year that compulsory directions would not be issued to farmers to sow wheat this season. I remember very well that decision being taken. That was at a time when, by general admission, the present world wheat shortage was not foreseen. I do not think there is any dispute on that. That was early last year. Yet, on 5th December—I ask the House to note that date, and how near
554
it is to the present time, when we are now told the storm clouds were gathering and that we ought to have seen them—on that date, the Minister of Agriculture told the farmers that it was not the intention of the Government to issue such compulsory directions. It is only now, at the last moment, now when it can only be done at great inconvenience, with considerable loss of efficiency, that he appeals to farmers to sow the maximum acreage of Spring wheat this year. And even now he has not issued directions, neither has he restored the acreage payment. We are entitled to ask the Government for some explanation of this strange state of affairs. If it was known by Christmas that the wheat shortage would be so serious this year, why did not the Minister of Agriculture then make his appeal to the farmers, and tell the country at the same time what the position was?
I come to the question of labour. It is only too well known that agricultural labour is sadly short. In answer to a Question of mine on Wednesday last week, the Prime Minister said that the Government had decided to defer the call-up—mark you, Mr. Speaker, it had been announced only in January after this cloud was gathering—of 8,000 agricultural workers until after the 1946 harvest. Why was that decision not taken weeks ago? I am bound to point out to the Government that on the very day before the Prime Minister made his statement announcing this deferment of the call-up, the Minister of Labour had given an entirely contradictory answer in this House. A few hours after the announcement of the position in this House, and after the public reaction, the Government's policy was changed. Surely, this shows not only a lack of foresight, but also a lack of coordination between Government Departments, and a lack of timely action.
I pass now to the question of imports. Are the Government satisfied that they have now explored every possible source of food grain imports? We all know that the most serious effect of the raising of the extraction rate, which the Government now, as I think, rightly propose in the circumstances—it might have been proposed long ago when this situation was arising; I am coming to that in a minute—isloss of feeding stuffs for pigs and poultry. What action are the Government taking

555
to find alternatives? May I here make a suggestion which may or may not be of value? What are they doing about maize which, I understand, will shortly be available in considerable quantities in South America, particularly in the Argentine? I know from previous discussions which we have had on this matter, that the difficulty in the past of obtaining that maize has been, in part, shortage of shipping for the long run to the Plate, and, in part, because the United States were unwilling to supply the Argentine with the fuel oil for the railways to enable the maize to be moved. I understand, however, that that problem was resolved some time ago, and my impression is that the particular problem of fuel was resolved as long ago as last May. There are, I understand, to be supplies available in about two months' time. Are the Government taking any steps to secure some portion of that valuable crop for this country, as a most useful substitute, and if they are not, will they tell us the reasons why that cannot be done?
Finally, on the question of wheat, I would say a word about consumption. Here, I would ask the Government why the steps which they are now taking were not taken long before. Many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite remember very well that, during the war and during the height of the U-boat menace, Lord Woolton and his successor raised the rate of extraction always to safeguard against a dangerous fall in the levels of our stocks. In other words, that step was taken well in advance, and Lord Woolton always kept his picture a certain period ahead. I think that it is true to say that never, even at the worst period of the U-boat menace, did we allow our reserves of wheat and flour to fall below something in excess of three months' supply. That was because my noble friend, who is a real master of this subject, always budgeted three months in advance.
Mr. McAllister: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his laudatory references to Lord Woolton as a master of this subject of food, recollects that Lord Woolton persistently and continuously, throughout his term of office as Minister of Food, resisted the raising of the extraction rate of wheat, per
556
sistently defended a white bread policy and the introduction of synthetic vitamins. He even abandoned the synthetic plan which would have been of great value during the war and now to the nation. [Hon. Members: "Speech."] The public's objection to all wheat bread was entirely due to the fact that Lord Woolton would not stand by a decent bread nutrition policy.
Mr. Eden: I do not think that the hon Gentleman is correct in his statement. Certainly, the rate of extraction was raised during Lord Woolton's time. I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing this with Lord Woolton's known dislike of bread rationing. I have often heard him express his view on that. I am not trying to make out a case for Lord Woolton; I am merely pointing out that this practice was pursued of taking steps in advance of the time. I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman has not done that. I do not know. I am not a Member of the Government, but I say that the impression given to the public is that he has not done so. Not until we have come up against a crisis apparently has he taken the steps that Lord Woolton was careful to take in advance of the event. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman has an explanation of that he will, no doubt, give it to us. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessors at the Ministry of Food always made it part of their policy to keep the public fully informed on the food situation and to ask for their co-operation at the earliest moment. Yet, it is only now, at this late date, that the public are given the facts about the wheat situation, and an appeal is made to them to save bread. Why could not they have been told before and that appeal made before? There have, it is true, been references—I want to be fair about this—to world shortages, but in statements which responsible Ministers made up to the last moment there was nothing whatever to warn the public of the imminence of this grave situation.
I want to say a word on the question of fats The cut in the fat ration from eight to seven ounces, I regard as one of the most serious features of this whole unhappy situation. It is a grave threat to our standard of living, and to the health of our already overstrained population. I do not want to refer to Lord Woolton again, in view of the intervention

557
made just now, but, perhaps, I may say that my colleagues of the late Government will remember the number of occasions on which we were advised of the capital importance of maintaining the level of this fat ration. I ask the Government what alternative they have in mind and what alternative sources they have examined.
May I tell the right hon. Gentleman— he will correct me if I am wrong—my impression of what the position was recently? When Lord Llewellin examined the oils and fats position in conjunction with the United States last spring in Washington, it was apparent then, that there would not be sufficient edible oils and fats available to us in this country to maintain the eight ounce ration rate through the winter, and the following summer until June, 1946. That became evident last spring. I was in Washington at the time and my Noble Friend told me about the position. What did we do? Lord Llewellin decided, with the approval of the Coalition Cabinet, that a cut had to be made, and that it would be made during the warm summer months; and so, in May, 1945—not a very happy date for us, the "Caretaker" Government, just before the General Election—Lord Llewellin cut the ration from eight ounces to seven. While I have no desire to introduce a purely party political note into this Debate, I think that I must observe that he thereby no doubt contributed in large measure to his own defeat in his own constituency. I ask hon. Gentlemen to ask themselves how many of them referred to cuts in the food ration in their election speeches.
Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: In view of the reference which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I would like to correct his impression. In the course of that election campaign, in which I, as it happened, opposed the noble Lord mentioned, not one mention of the food rationing system was made by me, and so far as I am aware. no vote was cast for me because of the food position.
Mr. Eden: The hon. and gallant Gentleman need not take that too much to heart. I was making no charge against him. All I say is, that it is a remarkable fact if this cut was not noticed by a single elector in his constituency—
Flight-Lieutenant Beswick:There were many other important factors at that. election besides the cut in food.
Mr. Eden:Whatever the consequences of the cut, the reason for it I would remind the House was to reduce the rations during the summer months in order that the ration might be restored to 8 0zs. in the winter days and to maintain the 8 0zs. until the end of June, 1946. The ration was restored and rightly restored, but now it is cut again to 7 0zs., and we have still some of the worst, and maybe some of the coldest and wettest months of the year ahead of us. The main reason that the Minister of Food gave for the cut in fat ration is the retention by the Government of India of a substantial quantity of ground nuts consequent on the failure of the crop in India. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman this. My impression was that at that time, to get over the later restoration, Lord Llewellin made a bargain with the Government of India to exchange a substantial tonnage of wheat for the ground nuts which India was to supply to us to maintain our fat ration. I want to know, if there was such an arrangement, what happened to it. Was the wheat not delivered, and if it was not delivered why not? I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for an immediate reply, but I think if he makes an investigation in his Department, he will find that that is the position. I do ask the Government, most earnestly, to give the utmost thought to this problem of restoring the fat ration. No one can blame the Government, and no one seeks to blame them for a natural disaster, but it is our duty to demand from them the fullest possible account of the measures they have taken to find an alternative.
I wish to deal briefly now with the question of dried egg. The Minister of Food has explained that the reason for stopping the supply of dried egg was the shortage of dollars. It was a decision which, as he told us, was taken immediately after the ending of Lend-Lease; taken, in fact, in the Autumn of last year. Although this decision was taken many months ago, and although the Minister and the Cabinet presumably have known for some time that the supply of dried egg would cease in the first months of 1946, the right hon. Gentleman did nothing whatever to tell the public. Why did he conceal this information? Why was the public not told? Why were the housewives not given an opportunity of expressing their opinion to the Government

559
before they were presented with a fait accompli? We are told that the problem was shortage of dollars, and yet, at that time, we continued to spend dollars on American films and tobacco and are still doing so. The Government may tell us that the reason for the cut in dried egg is that fresh eggs are to be given—or perhaps I ought to say shell eggs. If that is so, should they not have explained that to the people long before this decision was taken? I shall be glad to hear, of course, the explanation, but I would say to the Government that this is a very small additional supply of shell egg. After all, if my arithmetic is correct, it is only 14 eggs extra per person per four months. If that is right, I must say it would never replace dried egg, and for those purposes for which dried egg is used it is quite inadequate. Moreover, are the Government still absolutely certain that they will be able to maintain the supply even of this small additional quantity of shell eggs? We would like to be reassured on this point, because, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so we have had one or two disappointments in the past.
I have put to the Government a number of questions. I want to make to them another appeal, to end all this secrecy.
Mr. Stokes: Hear, hear.
Mr. Eden: I see I get support from the hon. Gentleman. I know how natural it is for all Government Departments to keep as much information as they possibly can to themselves. They think, "The more we tell, the more Questions our Minister is going to be asked in the House, and the more trouble we shall have. We are already overworked so let us keep it to ourselves as much as we can." It is a perfectly natural temptation, but it is also, especially in a subject of this kind, a very grave error, because the more you conceal, the more angry eventually the people are when they find out their position. I must remind the Government in that connection, to give one example, that the details of our stocks were last given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in March while we were still at war with Germany and Japan Since then, the figures were not given until the other day, when they were
560
accompanied by the double shock presented to the House by the two Ministers. I know appeals were made by several Members in this House for more information, and surely it is clear that it would have been wise to give that information. We all admit there may be good reason or what seems to us good reason for secrecy sometimes in wartime, but there is absolutely no reason for secrecy here as far as I can see. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am not at all impressed by his argument that he could not reveal the position of our stocks because he was trying to buy in a sellers' market? I think it is pretty clear that the sellers knew all about it. The only people who did not know were the people in this House and in this country. They were placed at a disadvantage, but I should like very much to see any evidence of any advantage the right hon. Gentleman obtained by that.
In conclusion I say this to the Government. I am afraid we are by no means at the end of our troubles in these matters. What I would urge the Government to do, is to tell the people the truth, and keep on telling them the truth. Above all I say, Do please try to warn them well in advance of what is coming. Our people have had many hardships to bear. The announcement last week of these further hardships reveals that unhappily far from our troubles being at an end, they are going to be increased. The least the Government can do, and the least the Government must do, is to take our people into their confidence so long as the responsibility rests with them. If they do so and keep the House informed— for they have not kept the House informed—1 can tell them with all sincerity we will do all we can, in a joint effort, to meet what we know is, if not a desperate, at least a very serious national need. We believe in and wish for nothing else but such an effort.
4.19 p.m.
The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): From the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman it is obvious that a good deal of the information which he has addressed to the House today has been culled from speeches I have made in this House. I welcome the opportunity which this Debate affords me of giving the House a detailed exposition of the serious food problems in this country and of the world I know of no fairer tribunal than the

561
House of Commons, and I am confident that the House will hear me and give me a full opportunity to state my case. I particularly welcome this Debate, as it affords me an opportunity to rebut the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the Opposition has just made, namely, that this House has been left in the dark. If that were true, the House would have good cause for complaint, but, as I hope to show, that statement was not only untrue, but was unfair
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that my predecessor was always careful to keep the public in his confidence on food matters. But I would remind the House that both the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Woolton frequently found it necessary to maintain a discreet silence, not only from the point of view of denying information to the enemy, but also of avoiding discussion when delicate negotiations regarding food supplies were in progress. The first of these causes, fortunately, no longer exists, and so far as this Government is concerned the second applies with even greater force than it did to my predecessor. For all varieties of food—and I repeat it to the right hon. Gentleman opposite—for all varieties of food, we are now on a sellers' market, and he knows, and any business man knows, that were I to reveal stocks, as I have been requested to do, it would afford a great opportunity to gentlemen to raise prices against this House. It is a sad commentary that such a thing could happen, in a world in which many countries are suffering from semi-starvation, a sad commentary on what has to be done on the altar of profit.
The difficulty during the terms of office of my predecessors was to find ships to carry the food. Moreover—and this is important—we were getting a substantial part of our food on Lend-Lease, and the dollar question did not arise. If it. was found necessary, in the past, to be discreet how much more must I be discreet now? I cannot undertake to conduct delicate negotiations, which are necessary to procure our national food supplies, in the full glare of publicity.
Here I think I might remind the House that this country has not the last word in the disposal of world food supplies. We are only one of many claimants. There is an international machine for planning the allocation of all the main foods among
562
the nations of the world, namely, the Combined Food Board, which was set up in 1942 by the Governments of this country, the United States of America and Canada. That Board has since been extended to include on its commodity committees, most of the main producing and consuming countries. It is the duty of this organisation to take stock of the total supply and requirement position for the foods with which hit deals, and to recommend to the Governments concerned the allocation between the various claimant countries. This country, as a party to the Combined Food Board, has to present its demands and make out its case in support of those demands. But the final recommendation as to each country's share, is made by the Board, and we as parties to it, must abide by its decision. It is either this system of planned distribution or a wild scramble for supplies, with prices soaring and no security of supply for every one.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to a number of occasions during recent months in which I, or other Members of the Government, have called the attention of the House to the food situation that was developing, particularly as regards wheat. I would like to refer to the Debate which took place in the House on 26th October last, on the Motion for the Adjournment, when attention was called to conditions in Europe. If Members read the Official Report of that Debate they will see that enough was said on that occasion by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself, to impress upon everyone the seriousness of the world situation. The Foreign Secretary spoke, as ever, frankly, of the serious conditions in Europe, and drew attention to the grave situation that would arise, unless action was taken by the great wheat producing countries to maximise their contribution for export. Among other things, my right hon. Friend said:
" Additional supplies, on a scale sufficient to bring any widespread relief, must be organised on an international basis, with the cooperation, in particular, of the exporting countries. We must look to them to make a much bigger contribution. For instance, I should like to see much less wheat being fed to livestock in North America, and more maize and other foodstuffs shipped from South America."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1946; Vol. 414, c. 2380.]

563
That was said for those who were here to hear, and can be read by those who have eyes to see. It is in the Official Report, and it was a warning. During that Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) said he thought there was plenty of wheat in the world which could be used for relief to Europe.
Sir Arthur Salter:In the context, it is quite clear that what I said was that on the information I had while I was in office, up to August, there seemed to be enough wheat for the essential needs of the world, if there was proper organisation of distribution. The right hon. Gentleman himself summed up by saying that if steps were taken to avoid waste, he hoped and believed that there was enough wheat to meet, in full, the essential needs of the world. I have been without access to official information since August, and that Debate was in October last. Can the right hon. Gentleman complain if, at the end of October, with his full official information, he con-. firmed precisely the opinion I had formed several months earlier?
Sir B. Smith: We are at no variance on this point, as I shall prove. I say, quite truthfully, that when the right hon. Gentleman spoke in that Debate it was on the basis that there was—and he now agrees—plenty of wheat in the world to meet the requirements. [Hon. Members: "Does the Minister agree? "] If you wait a little you will see whether I agreed. Of course I agreed at that date. I replied that I only wished I could have endorsed what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University had said, and I went on:
" I am at this moment particularly concerned with the world wheat position. The only hope of avoiding further serious hardship and famine conditions in certain parts of Europe this winter and next spring is by maintaining an adequate flow of wheat imports, and we must clearly devote all our efforts to securing this objective." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 2379-2447.]
Sir A. Salter Sir A. Salter rose—
Sir B. Smith:Let me continue. I went on to point out that until recently wheat was one of the few foods of which there was no shortage—and this is where I say there is no variance between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford
564
University and myself—and that— [An HON. MEMBER: "Read on. It is the next line."] You are very brilliant, but if you have the decency to be quiet—
Earl Winterton:On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said, "You are very brilliant "? Is he addressing the Chair, or the House?
Mr. Speaker: I took it as a nice compliment to myself.
Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order, is it not in accord with the traditions of this House for over 200 years. that a Minister should address the Chair, and not hon. Gentlemen opposite?
Mr. Speaker: That is right. If an hon Member says, "You," it means me.
Sir B. Smith: The situation had been completely changed by the exceptionally heavy demand arising from the liberation of Europe, coinciding with poor crops resulting from adverse weather conditions in many areas. I said:
"It is not yet possible to make a final assessment of the position, but it is clear that it will call for very careful and prudent management of world wheat supplies during the next nine months, and the utilisation of all stocks in excess of minimum requirements which must be carried over into the next season."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 2447-48.]
I drew attention to the necessity for the maximum utilisation of home-grown bread grain, for direct human consumption, and stressed the importance of giving human consumption full priority over the feeding of animals. In the course of the same Debate I was pressed by hon. Members to make further reductions in our stocks or to reduce our own consumption in order to make more food available for other countries. I resisted that pressure. In so doing, I incurred the displeasure of a considerable number of hon.Members on both sides of the House. I pointed out that we had already gone as far as we could safely go in reducing our stocks, and firmly refused to make any further cuts in our rations.
What has happened since has, I think, fully confirmed the view I then expressed, that we could not risk any further reduction in our stocks. Moreover, the reactions of the public to my announcement on 5th February fully bears out the

565
view which I expressed last October, that the people of this country should not be asked to bear any further cuts in consumption, if it were possible to avoid it. Unfortunately, this has not been possible. The situation in Central Europe was again debated on 5th December last, on the Motion of the Archbishop of Canter bury, in another place. The Under-Secretary of State for War, referring to a statement made by the Bishop of Chichester to the effect that, whilst there were shortages of many commodities, there was no world shortage of wheat, said, "I could not allow that statement—"
Mr. Turton:Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for the right hon. Member to quote from a Debate in another place?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think the Minister was not quoting but merely making a reference to the Debate.
Sir B. Smith: Surely, it was a Ministerial statement and I am entitled to make reference to it.
Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order in quoting from a Ministerial statement in another place?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The recent practice, on occasions, has been to admit it.
Sir B. Smith:The Under-Secretary said he could not allow that statement to pass without correction, because the plain fact was that the situation as to wheat was one of the most serious preoccupations of those who have to deal with food problems. On 7th December, I again referred to the difficult wheat situation in replying to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)on the Motion for the Adjournment when he pressed for the depletion of our stocks in order that food might go to the relief of Europe. I said quite plainly that there was a world shortage of wheat. On 17th January, my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, in a speech at the General Assembly of U.N.O. said:
"There is one problem which is not confined to countries needing U.N.R.R.A.'s help but is common to nearly the whole world, namely, that of food. A common effort by all peoples is necessary to deal with this pending the return of good harvests."
Finally, when I arrived at Southampton on 23rd January, I warned the Press that the situation regarding the world
566
shortage of wheat and rice was not promising, though I said as little as I could to them. Surely this in itself is a sufficient refutation of the statement by the acting Leader of the Opposition. [Hon. Members: "No."] Are hon. Members opposite so ill-informed that they are ignorant of what has been well known to anyone who cared to inquire? The general facts of the position have been well known for a long time. This is recognised, at least, by two weeklies that are not noted for their Labour sympathies, "The Economist" and "The Spectator." Both of these papers in their current issues emphasise that many warnings have been given.
What are the circumstances which led to the present position? [An Hon. Member: "Lack of planning."] If the House will bear with me, I will first deal with wheat. There are other problems such as rice, fats, etc., but all of them are accentuated by the fact that the great stand-by of the world, an abundant supply of wheat, is no longer available. I do not intend to repeat what I said to the House on 5th February. I will only remind the House of the outstanding fact that against world import requirements of more than 17,000,000 tons in the first six months of 1946, less, and I am afraid much less, than 12,000,000 tons will be available in the world. Many millions of people in Europe and the Far East will face hunger and starvation. 125,000,000 people in Europe will have to subsist on less than 2,000 calories a day and, in some areas, large numbers will receive as little as 1,000 calories per day.
I have never been under any illusion about the difficulties which were inevitable after the end of the war. My predecessors constantly warned the House and the public that food shortage would not only continue long after the war came to an end, but would be accentuated by the enormous demand which would arise from liberated countries. In 1943 the British Delegation to the Hot Springs Conference was responsible for getting on record resolutions recording the view that supplies of essential foodstuffs would be inadequate to meet the basic requirements for several years after the cessation of. hostilities. They urged all countries to utilise their agricultural resources to the full to bring about a rapid improvement

567
in food production by increasing their acreage under crops for direct human consumption.
But it was not until the results of the harvests of 1945 were known that it was possible to measure the deterioration in wheat supplies. In July, 1943, stocks in the four main exporting countries amounted to over 46,000,000 tons. From that time stocks fell rapidly because of the greatly increased demand for livestock products. This led to a heavy usage of wheat for feeding livestock in exporting countries. I remember, while in Washington, that, in one bite, 174,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat were shipped to America for the purpose of feeding livestock. Even so, there were still more than 30,000,000 tons of wheat in the four main exporting countries on D-Day.
In the spring of 1945 the wheat situation was still thought to be satisfactory. The former Minister of Production and my predecessor in office went to Washington to discuss with the American and Canadian Governments the action to be taken to meet the great world shortage of many foods. As a result, drasic cuts had to be made in our rations, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Even then, however, the conclusion reached by the Canadian and United States Governments was that wheat supplies were assured. The only problem then was whether transport and port facilities would be available to handle the wheat. So secure did the supply position seem to the Coalition Government that they considered they would be justified in gradually changing over British agriculture from maximum production of human food crops to increased animal production.
They felt that we could afford some reduction in our wheat acreage. Therefore, the Coalition Government decided to reduce the acreage subsidy on wheat for the 1946 crop by£2 an acre. This decision was made in February, 1945, because farmers have to make plans in advance. There has been a great deal of criticism of this action, but, in my view, it was a reasonable decision having regard to the wheat situation as it then appeared.
Hon. Members opposite may suggest that this Government should have reversed that decision, but as I hope to show, the full gravity of the position was
568
not revealed until late in the autumn. It was too late then to affect the acreage of autumn sown wheat. As a further illustration of the optimistic estimate of cereal supplies, I would remind the House that last spring the former Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), announced an ascending scale of rations for pigs and poultry. Again, I find no fault with the announcement, but I doubt whether it was a wise decision in the light of events. The right hon. Gentleman took a chance, and it did not materialise. As a result, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announced on 5th February that we should find it impossible to fulfil the programme of rations increases which was then decided upon. It was not until the results of the 1945 world wheat harvest were known that a full measure of the deterioration of the world wheat situation could be taken.
One of the first things I did when I became Minister of Food was to make a survey of the world food position. It was a pretty gloomy picture. For the first time there was considerable danger of an actual shortage of wheat. It was clear that it was no longer a transport problem. The total stocks in the four main exporting countries had fallen from 46,000,000 tons in July, 1943, to 22,000,000 tons. Serious droughts had affected Australia, the Argentine, French North Africa and other countries. The European harvest, which before the war yielded 45,000,000 tons, fell to 23,000,000 tons. It was clear that the wheat budget could not be made to balance unless every effort was made in producing countries to see that as much wheat as possible was conserved for human consumption. As a result of that report, the Cabinet decided to press upon the Governments of the four main exporting countries the necessity of restricting the use of wheat for animal feeding stuffs and to allow their stocks—that is the minimum end of season stocks under the International Wheat Agreement—to be reduced to provide sufficient wheat for export to meet all the needs of the world. At the same time, through the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe, European Governments were warned of the expected wheat shortage and urged to take all practicable steps to make the fullest use of their own cereal crops for human rather than for animal feeding. It was felt that, if action

569
were taken on those lines, we should probably get through, although it was realised that our own stocks would have to be reduced to the minimum level consistent with safety. But the full seriousness of the position did not finally emerge until the middle of December.
Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the date of the action to which he referred a moment ago?
Sir B. Smith: I am sorry I have not the date, but it was at the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe, I think in October or November. In the middle of December, I received the latest estimates from the Combined Food Board, which is the international body to which I have referred, as to the world supplies and requirements in wheat. Throughout the autumn and early winter months the demands of importing countries had been continually increasing. A new factor in the situation was the increasing demands of the Far Eastern countries for wheat because of the acute shortage of rice. There were immense demands from India, as a result of the failure of the rice crop in many areas through drought, and also the loss of a large quantity of cereals due to damage by tidal wave in Madras. I think the figure was 740,000 tons, a terrific figure, to which I will refer again. The figures which I received from the Combined Food Board showed a deficiency between supplies and requirements of anything between 5 million and 7 million tons.
It was at this point the Government decided that I should go to Washington to discuss the whole position with the American Government and see what measures could be taken to meet the world demands. It was clear that substantial sacrifices would have to be made by this country,but for obvious reasons, it was not desirable to make an official statement on the position until the conclusion of my negotiations. In dealing with wheat, care had to be taken to avoid undermining the confidence of holders of wheat and other cereals. I refer to those holding it for a rise in price because of famine conditions. In dealing with wheat, we had. to take care that we did not undermine confidence. In most countries cereals are grown by a multitude of comparatively small growers. Fears of a worldwide scarcity would have encouraged those peasant farmers to hold their grain. This would have made matters
570
worse. From the point of view of the consumers in this country, any announcement in advance of an impending shortage would clearly have invited a run upon our flour stocks. As a result of the examination which the United States Secretary of Agriculture and I made in Washington, it was clear that the world was short of a minimum 5,500,000 tons of wheat, or approximately one-third of the total requirements. Cuts had to be made in allocations all round. Having received the agreement of my colleagues, I accepted a cut in our allocation of about a quarter of a million tons. This necessitated an increase in the extraction rate, and a consequential reduction in the supply of animal feeding stuffs.
Since my return from Washington, the position has still further worsened. Even while discussions were in progress, information reached me of a serious state of affairs in India and South Africa. May I say, with regard to South Africa, that I have had to meet two Ministers from the South African Government? A very distressing experience it was. They assured me that, by the end of March, not one bushel of wheat would be in store in South Africa. Whether I did right or wrong, I diverted a ship at once to try to assist them in that situation. Their original demand on the Combined Food Board was about 50,000 tons. In the allocations made in Washington, they received 44,000 tons. It is since that date, owing to the drought, that their demand now upon the world for wheat is 323,000 tons for the full calendar year 1946, of which 225,000 tons is wanted up to the end of June, 1946. As I said, we had allocated 52,000 tons. I had sent this ship, for some easement of the present situation. May I say on maize, that the demand, which was about 220,000 tons to the end of May, 1946, owing to the drought is now 700,000 tons to October, 1946, to April 1947? The. tragedy of it, as Mr. Waterston told me, is that their next harvest looks like going also, because the drought is still with them and the ground is still too hard. "We cannot prepare for the next harvest," he said.
That is the sort of problem that is brought to me. A delegation arrived from India yesterday. I shall be seeing them shortly. A demand that Lord Wavell put to me, supported on the following day by Mr. Casey, was for 1,000,000 tons of wheat or rice this year

571
for India and Bengal. Today, that demand is 2,250,000 tons, and is rising. I cannot see where we can find wheat or other grains in substitution for rice which will even approximately meet those claims.
At the very moment when I was discussing this matter with my colleagues -in the Cabinet, a telegram was brought to me from Washington stating that the United States Government had overestimated their stocks of wheat by 61 million bushels, or 1,750,000 tons, by which they were short on the estimated stocks. It was arising out of that that the President determined, at the request of myself and Mr. Clinton Anderson, that he would increase their extraction rate from 72 per cent. to 80 per cent. Let us not be under any illusion. That fact will not give back the 1,750,000 tons. If all the economies are effective, the total saving we will get will be 1,200,000 tons.
Perhaps I might now revert to India. On second thoughts I will leave it, as I may have said enough about India— [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—to show the House that those demands are so excessive that it is practically impossible to meet them. I am not one to spread despair and despondency. I am not of that nature. I do not look that type. Nevertheless, in my position, I have to face facts, and the facts are as I have stated them to the House.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask that the Minister will not withhold from the House all the facts about India?
Sir B. Smith: I will do my best. I was trying to shorten a very long speech. [Hon. Members: "Go on."] Very good. I repeat, in the case of India, that it was from the middle of December onwards that we began to receive reports from various parts of that country of the partial failure, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said, of the monsoon. On 3rd January, while I was still at Washington, I received a cable about the partial failure of the monsoon in Bengal, which is the principal rice-exporting area.
Mr. Nicholson: Rice producing area.
Sir B. Smith: Producing, yes, and exporting, too. On 17th January, a further cable referred to a serious deterioration of
572
the food supply position because of the cyclone in Madras, Bombay, Mysore and other areas in Southern and Western India. On 25th January, we were informed that a conference had been called on 22nd January of representatives of the main surplus and deficit Provinces, at which it had been revealed that in Madras, owing to the continued drought—the rainfall in December being 83 per cent. below normal—the loss of rice and millet was estimated at more than 1,500,000 tons, while in Mysore, for similar reasons, the loss was estimated at more than 300,000 tons. Thus, an additional deterioration in the position of more than 1,000,000 tons was indicated, compared with estimates received in December for those two Provinces alone.
Immediately after I had reported to my colleagues on my return from Washington in the middle of January, the Prime Minister sent an urgent message to the President of the United States and to the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia, appealing to them to take all possible steps to increase the quantity of food they could make available for export. There has been an immediate response. It must be borne in mind that the Dominions were already doing their very utmost to make food available, so that we had no right to expect any substantial additional supplies to be put at our disposal. Nevertheless, Canada has already decided to reduce her butter ration in order to divert milk to the production of cheese and milk powder for export, while the Government of Australia has promised to divert 125,000 tons of wheat from feeding livestock so that it may be exported, and they are looking to the possibility of making coarse grains also available. That is a proud record. On a mere call from the Mother Country they are willing to extend themselves, even at this moment, to the cutting of many of their own rations.
Since I spoke to the House on 5th February, we have had news that the Government of the United States have taken prompt action to meet the situation. President Truman has announced a nine-point programme. The flour extraction rate is to be increased to 80 per cent.; the use of wheat for the production of alcohol is to be discontinued; the use of other grains for that purpose is to be reduced; steps are to be taken to reduce the feeding of grain to livestock—which

573
will probably mean the premature slaughter of large numbers of livestock and poultry. Remember that every time we move in this matter, something goes down, and there is a shortage to be faced later on. A vigorous economy campaign is to be instituted, and various measures are to be taken to facilitate the rail movement and shipment of wheat and flour. Only the great exporting countries are in a position to make any substantial contribution to the solution of the wheat supply problem.
This action of the President will be of inestimable value. I am quite sure it is a fine reply to the Prime Minister, who was the first to initiate these telegrams in his effort to get the world alive to the seriousness of the situation. We must not try to deceive ourselves into thinking that this will solve all our difficulties. It is estimated that the measures taken by the United States will save 45,000,000 bushels, or 1,200,000 tons. But it must not be thought that this quantity will reduce the gap between supplies and requirements to which I have referred. These measures are necessary to enable the United States to make their contribution to the supplies required for export. If these measures were not taken, the situation would be just that much more serious. There are still doubtful factors in the situation, and many possibilities of further deterioration. It is only right to warn the House that, before we are through, we in this country may have to make still further sacrifices. We might have to raise our extraction rate still higher, or use coarse grains as diluents in our bread; I hope, however, that I shall be able to avoid that.
I now come to rice. It is not necessary for me to say that in all Eastern countries rice is interchangeable with wheat, for flour is acceptable by the Pacific Islands, which means wheat in exchange for rice. That fact is obvious, but quite a lot of people are not aware of it. It was always foreseen that a problem of The utmost gravity would arise if the rice consuming countries of the East were liberated before production in the rice exporting countries was restored. That is exactly the position which has arisen, because of the sudden collapse of Japan. During the Japanese occupation the great rice-producing areas of Burma, Siam, and French Indo-China tended to limit production to their own requirements.
574
They had no means of disposing of any surplus. Production therefore fell and liberation did not take place soon enough to increase the production from the 1945 crops. In other Eastern countries, such as China, Java, and the Philippines, production has fallen off as a result of war devastation. I have already referred to the misfortunes which have overtaken India through the failure of the monsoon. The magnitude of the problem will be appreciated when it is realised that in 1946, exports of less than 1,500,000 tons are expected from Burma, Siam and Indo-China, compared with an average pre-war export of about 6,000,000 tons. In Siam, where I understand there is 1,500,000 tons of rice, the problem is that of getting it out. The quantity available for export during 1946 for all sources, therefore, is, at most, 3,000,000 tons, whereas the world requirements are 6,000,000 tons, leaving a deficit of 3,000,000 tons.
We are doing what we can in countries to which we have access, such as Burma and Siam, to get maximum supplies ex ported. The main hope lies in Siam. After the cessation of hostilities I immediately despatched to Siam a special rice unit, composed of persons with an intimate knowledge of the pre-war rice trade. Unfortunately, the leader was killed shortly after his arrival in an aero plane accident. Their task was to take all possible steps to facilitate the procurement of rice, transport it to port, and arrange shipment to other countries. The main difficulty in Siam, however, is that the Siamese growers are loath to part with their rice, owing to the lack of confidence in their currency. They are holding on to it as a tangible asset Another problem is to give them sufficient incentive to sell their goods; they are not very willing to sell unless their is something to buy with their money. We are therefore giving Siam high priority in the supply of consumer goods such as agricultural tools, textiles and so forth. I now come to oils and fats—
Mr. Nicholson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of rice, will he be good enough to give us the figures as to the allocation of the Siamese rice between various countries?
Sir B. Smith: We have not yet obtained the Siamese rice to allocate. I cannot

575
make any promises at the moment, because it is an operation of the Combined Food Board. It has to go from the exporting countries to the Combined Food Board who make their allocations in the light of world demands, of which I am ultimately notified.
Mr. Nicholson: Is it a fact or not, that 6o,ooo tons have been allocated to Cuba, which refuses to ration rice?
Sir B. Smith: I am not sure, but there is an allocation to Cuba. I do not want to be brought into a discussion which criticises another country, and I would beg the hon. Member not to press that point further.
I now turn to oils and fats. The grave food situation in India and the difficulty of importing sufficient cereals to meet their needs, naturally makes the Indian Government reluctant to part with ground nuts. During the past two years they have permitted the export of 500,000 tons, and last summer the prospects were such that we had every reason to suppose that we would get more this summer. In fact, on 15th December we were informed by the Government of India that the quantity would probably be 554,000 tons. This was subject to review during this month, February. On 31st January we heard from our agent in India that, owing to crop damage in Madras, the Madras Province were threatening to reduce the export quota; a week later the Government of India informed me of the serious damage to millet and rice to which I have already referred. In view of this, it would seem that we shall not get more than 300,000 tons of ground nuts, instead of 554,000 tons which had been provisionally promised and the 600,000 tons allocated by the Combined Food Board. This represents 130,000 tons less oil than the Combined Food Board expected.
It is a sad story which I have to tell the House, but we had a further misfortune. One of the first steps which the Government took at the end of the war in Europe was to send a whaling expedition to the Antarctic. As this was the first expedition since before the war, it was expected that, in the interval, the whales would have remained unmolested and that there would have been an exceptionally large catch. Unfortunately, the achievement falls short of expectations. In the first
576
place, owing to the inevitable delay in fitting out the expedition, many of the vessels arrived late on the fishing grounds. We are taking all possible steps to extend the whaling season, but this is regulated by an international convention. In practice the approach of winter darkness, and the freezing of the seas, will limit the possibility of any profitable extension. It is unfortunate that this expedition has met with the most atrocious weather. Finally, and contrary to all expectations, the yield of oil per whale has been far below average. I estimate that we are unlikely to get more than 100,000 tons of whale oil, as against our expectation of 135,000 tons.
As a result of all these circumstances, in 1946 we shall be short of our total oil supply by well over 100,000 tons. The cut of one ounce in the cooking fat ration will go some way to meet this position but not all the way. I shall endeavour to find means of replacing some of this deficiency this winter. I shall aim at getting more from American hogs, for example, for if hogs are to be killed in America owing to shortage of foodstuffs, there should be more lard. But I warn the House that it is another dollar proposition. There is a very real risk that we may have to make further cuts later in the year. I will do my best to avoid this also.
A friend of mine with prophetic foresight, when I left New York to come home, handed me a book and said, "Ben, I think this will amuse you on the way home." The title of the book was "The Egg and I." He was certainly prophetic. I promised the House that I would deal more fully in the course of this Debate with the question of dried eggs. Housewives rightly attach great importance to this commodity and the provision of these supplies, I think it will be agreed, has been one of the most welcome steps taken by my Department under food control. I suppose my Department has done more to popularise dried egg than any other body that exists in the country. It is perhaps not generally realised, however, that in the past by no means all have taken up their full entitlement. In last August when the entitlement was one packet for every four weeks, the offtake was only half of the entitlement.
In the early summer of last year it became doubtful whether the United

577
States would be able to maintain exports of dried egg to this country on the then existing levels. By the time the present Government took office, the stocks position and supplies in sight were such that 1 had to reduce the issue of one packet to every eight weeks. Immediately afterwards Lend-Lease came to an end—it is important to remember that—and, apart from the small quantity in the pipeline, shipments of dried egg ceased. Moreover, it was made clear that unless we gave firm orders for the whole of our 1946 requirements, many of the plants would be converted to other purposes, and, indeed some of them were. We had to make up our minds how much of our limited dollar resources we could afford to spend on this commodity. It was not an easy matter to settle. We did not know how much of the reduced ration would be taken up; we had good reason to expect a considerable increase in shell egg supplies in the spring; we had to spend our limited supplies of dollars to the best advantage, and dried egg is a very expensive food. The House will not expect me to quote the actual price per ton, but I would refer hon. Members to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question in this House on 7th February, when he pointed out that the quantity of dried egg which was imported in the last financial year, if it had to be paid for at the current American price, would cost£35,000,000. There are a good many foods which give us better value for our money. For example, at the price at which we used to buy American meat, we could obtain five tons of meat for every ton of dried egg.
Dried egg is also expensive to the Exchequer. It is being sold at present at the retail price of is. 3d. per packet. The actual retail value, if it were to be sold without loss, is 2s. 7d a packet. The total cost of the subsidy involved, if we were to continue importing at a rate sufficient to maintain the recent rate of distribution, is£16,000,000. Weighing up these factors I could not contemplate spending dollars to enable supplies to come here in anything like the quantities under Lend-Lease. Then, too, the egg position was such that I could not get any dried egg to arrive during the first four months of 1946, so I had to face a reduced issue or a gap in the issue.
578
Taking all these considerations into account, I decided to buy enough to continue issuing one packet every eight weeks when shell eggs were scarce, to have the gap when supplies of shell eggs were greatest in the Spring, and then to resume issues of dried egg. Under the plan I had in mind there would have been about the same number of eggs in one form or another as in 1945, but more of them would have been shell eggs. I regret the necessity for a temporary break in these allocations of dried egg, but I expect to be able to issue 40 shell eggs per ration book in the period February to May inclusive. During the same months last year the figure was 26. I think that answers my right hon. Friend's point. The dried egg taken up, during that period last year represented 18 eggs per head, making 44 altogether, so that there is very little change in quantity. It is four eggs, and not the figure of the right hon. Gentleman, and this year the whole of this quantity is in its natural condition.
It was never my intention to discontinue the issue of dried egg permanently. The Press notice which I issued made that clear. Let me read the last paragraph— I do not wish to weary the House with the body of the note:
"It is hoped, however, that satisfactory arrangements will be made later in the year which will enable the shell egg distribution to be supplemented once again with supplies of domestic pack dried eggs."
That was not telling people that they were not likely to get it back. Unfortunately, I regret to say, many of the Press omitted to put in that paragraph; many of them omitted the last sentence. The question has been asked whether we could not use for ordinary civilian consumption some of the bulk supplies of dried egg which we hold for allocation to the bakery trade and caterers. The total quantity taken up by those caterers represents less than four allocations for domestic consumption. Of this, 75 per cent. is allocated to the bakery trade, and I should be very loath to reduce the issues to that trade. I do not think it would be good policy from the consumer's point of view. It would reduce substantially the quantity and quality of cakes and flour confectionery. So far as the small quantity issued to caterers is concerned, it amounts to less than one domestic allocation. Its withdrawal would have an adverse effect

579
on the quality of meals provided in catering establishments including the many industrial canteens throughout the country.
I have dealt now with those foods which have been most in the public eye during the past few days. I don't want to leave the impression that all is well. [Laughter.] I will come to that if hon. Members will wait a minute. It is not as bad as hon. Members opposite think. The world sugar position is precarious. It does not need me to tell the House why. There are greater demands coming from ex-enemy and liberated countries; demands are increasing almost every day. The beet sugar production in Europe in the season which has just finished is estimated to be 4,000,000 tons less than prewar. The production in the Philippines, which used to export 1,000,000 tons a year, is only a few thousand tons this year. There were reports of a stock of 1,000,000 tons of sugar in Java, but such stocks as there are are inaccessible under present conditions. The war is still going on there—or rather, there is trouble in that country. There have been disappointing crops in most of the Empire sugar producing countries. Meanwhile world requirements are constantly increasing. I was planning to increase the bacon ration as soon as possible but, owing to a fall in the expected supplies from Canada and Denmark—each of them, 40,000 tons for next year—and the United Kingdom, this is not possible. I will do all I can to maintain the ration as at present. Cheese and starch are causing me anxiety. Much depends on whether we get the Loan from the United States. That is by no means certain, but I must warn the House, especially hon. Members who were so vociferous in their opposition to its acceptance, that failure to get it will cause further difficulties. They should have little to grumble about.
So much for the bad side of the balance sheet. I would not like to leave the impression that there are no bright spots. Attention has already been drawn to some statements made recently by members of the Government—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington has called attention today to them—which may have encouraged the public to expect some improvement in the variety of their diet. The Prime Minister,
580
for example, on 25th January, in reply to the sponsors of the "Save Europe Now "campaign, said:
" It may be shown to be necessary to provide some variation in the present monotonous and unexciting diet in order to secure increased production at home and thereby build up our export trade."
This is not inconsistent with the picture I painted, although it might appear so at first sight. We must distinguish between the staple foods which form the basis of our diet—wheat, sugar and fats, about which warnings have been repeatedly. given—and what I call extras, which provide variety. So far as these foods are concerned, there are favourable prospects. Improvements have been promised and delivered. Bananas have begun to come back, citrus fruit, oranges, lemons, and grapefruit have been made available in increasing quantities. I intend to take every opportunity to augment our supplies of vegetables and fruit by imports as far as this is consistent with undertakings to home producers, although the tight position of refrigerated tonnage is very difficult. If I could have another 10 refrigerator ships, I could make a good deal of change very quickly in this country, but, unfortunately, I have not got them. Table jellies are to be restored supplies of canned fruits are to be put on points, there have been improvements too in one or two of the basic foods. Milk supplies are decidedly better this winter than last. We have raised the entitlement to two and a half pints a week, a month earlier than last year. Fish supplies in 1946 will be back to, and even in excess of, prewar. Even the diminished fat ration includes three ounces of butter instead of two, which was the amount when I took office. There are more shell eggs and the potato position this year, I am glad to say, is quite satisfactory.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that fish supplies will be better than they were in 1939. Is that really so?
Sir B. Smith: I am hoping so. [Hon. Members: "Is it?"] It is quite obvious I cannot say specifically that it will be so, but, judging from the number of ships and the number of trawlers coming back into the service, and the fact that I am taking imports of white fish wherever I can get them, I still feel optimistic.
Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the part of the fishing community which I represent has lost more than half the boats we had before the war, that we have never got the boats back, and that half the men are idle?
Sir B. Smith: Nevertheless, 30 ships a month are coming back into the service.
Sir David Robertson: Will the Minister say a word on this point in regard to the prophecy he has made? These ships are lying all round the coasts awaiting repair. Over 150 trawlers are awaiting repair. Is he not also aware that the demands are very much greater than they were in 1939 because of the appalling deficiency in other foods?
Sir B. Smith: Nevertheless, there are 200 trawlers now under repair and we are getting them out just as fast as we can. After all, we did not injure the trawlers or damage them; our job is to repair them and we have 200 under repair. It is our job to get them back into work.
I think I have said enough to the House on the general position in regard to food in this country and the world in general. I would like to thank the House and particularly the Opposition for the tolerance with which they have listened to me. It has been a long, gloomy, story and no doubt was very wearisome to many hon. Members, but the facts are what they are. This is not a time for developing a partisan spirit when the world is more or less hungry. This is a time when we should do, as we have done so often before in the country's interest, the best we can for our people, not forgetting our responsibilities to the world at large.
5.26 p.m.
Mr. David Eccles: When we come to look back on these discussions, I am certain we shall regard this Debate as a turning point in the hitherto ecstatic career of this Government. Listening to the two opening speeches, especially the melancholy catalogue of the Minister of' Food, we realise that the Government's honeymoon is over. Now begin the drab details of domestic life. What with coal last week, and food this week, the start is unpromising It is all the more un-happy because the Government have not succeeded in telling the facts of domestic life to the parties concerned. We now know that Ministers have been aware for months of the impending world famine
582
and we must suppose that they could relate our own position to the storm which they saw gathering and we know that they have used these facts to explain to Europe why we could not make more contributions to their food problem.
On the other side of the Atlantic, our American friends tell us that when the British delegation presented the case for the dollar credit they gave the fullest details of our stocks and prospective supplies. But the House of Commons have never had these vital statistics. The people have never understood what was happening. Housewives do not read the HANSARD of another place nor do they read the "Economist." These things have to be explained to them in a modern manner.
Major Cecil Poole: By Lord Beaverbrook.
Mr. Eccles: By not consulting this nation the Government have debased the coinage of democracy, and they are now reaping the results all over the country of not taking the people into their confidence. It is not very easy to know why the Government pursued this policy of secrecy towards our own people. No doubt the habit of saying only pleasant things to win votes is hard to break. On this side of the House we have watched with interest the endeavours of the right hon. Gentlemen to switch over from the popular fun and games of electioneering to the unpopular task of governing a country which is still in a state of emergency.
Major Poole: After you had had it for over 20 years.
Mr. Eccles: This food Debate, and the crisis behind it, is one more proof that what the people of this country really wanted from their Government were first-aid repairs in a state of emergency, and not a revolutionary unheaval in their economic system. The British economy is now like a blitzed house. The roof is leaking, the door will not shut and the cupboards are bare. This is no time to start pulling down the main staircase or rebuilding the top storey. The people are crying out for first-aid repairs, for enough to eat, and for somewhere dry to live, but the Government have not heard those cries. They have got their priorities all wrong, and, as I hope to show the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is largely responsible for those

583
wrong priorities. The right hon. Gentleman has the unenviable task, through the power of the purse, of deciding a great many priorities. What is it he puts first in his list? We have listened to the right hon. Gentleman for six months, and it is hard to deny that he gives pride of place to banging the Box at the Second Reading of Socialist Bills. He prefers long-term excursions into Socialism to practical remedies for the troubles on the doorstep of every British family.
I ask the House to contrast this Socialist set of priorities with another very different set, one to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) put his name—food, work and homes. I know hon. Members opposite are in the habit of saying that my right hon. Friend is a splendid war leader but knows nothing of the domestic aims and needs of the British people.
5.32 p.m.

ROYAL ASSENT
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and having returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946.

2. India (Proclamations of Emergency) Act, 1946.

3. Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1946.

4. Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1946.

5. Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946.

6. Bank of England Act, 1946.

WORLD FOOD SHORTAGE
Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
5.42 p.m.
Mr. Eccles: I was referring to a practical, as opposed to a Socialist set of priorities—food, work and homes. I was saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford with great prescience put food first. What emerges from this present crisis is that this Government have never given food a high priority at all. It is very curious that the
584
Chancellor of the Exchequer should have tolerated so expensive an error. Years ago when I did my best to look up to the right hon. Gentleman he seemed to me to be a most able economist. I would, therefore, have expected him to draw the right conclusions from three salient features of our postwar economy.
First, we are a debtor nation on a colossal scale; secondly, as all the experts told as away back in the summer, the world is in for a food famine for several years; and thirdly, in a period of full employment, the dirty jobs like farming only get done if the pay and conditions of masters and men are more or less on a level with other industries. These are obvious facts but they do not seem to have had any effect upon the Chancellor. He does not seem to have been stirred either by a desire to save foreign exchange, or by a desire to make the maximum contribution from these islands to the food situation in Europe and Asia, or by a desire to put the finances of British agriculture upon a healthy basis.
These are all serious criticisms but I hope to show the House they are all equally valid. I must begin by asking the Chancellor a question about imports. Obviously, if we could easily obtain more food from abroad it would be wrong to divert exceptional resources to increasing the production of food at home. During the war the Coalition Government kept the United Kingdom import programme under continual review. When I was a servant of the then Minister of Production, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), I had a hand in framing the import programme. I well remember that Lord Woolton's minimum demands for food had absolute priority over everything else. Raw materials and munitions, which were the concern of my Minister, had to wait their turn. Food came first. Now, I want the Chancellor to tell us what sort of import programme has been worked out for 1946 and, inside that programme, what priority has been given to food.
Major Poole: How does the hon. Gentleman substantiate his statement that food was of a higher priority than munitions, when men were recruited from the land to work in munition factories and mines?
Mr. Eccles:The hon. and gallant Gentleman perhaps did not follow me. 1 was talking about the import programme of the United Kingdom. Shipping being short, we had to allocate the tonnage available. One cannot allocate anything which is short without a system of priority. The minimum demands of food came before anything else. [Interruption.] But I am not talking about production. Has food the same priority now in the import programme which it had during the war? This is a very proper question to ask the Chancellor, because, as the House well knows, the limiting factor on the total amount of the United Kingdom imports today is no longer shipping but foreign exchange. The Treasury are now the masters of the import programme.
We must know the answer to this question in order to see upon which horn of the dilemma the Chancellor is hooked. This is the dilemma. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that food has not the highest priority inside the import programme and that if he so chose to use his foreign exchange resources, we could have bought more food, then why has he gone on importing the same quantities of tobacco, films and other articles which are secondary to the health of the people? If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman says food has the very highest priority and not for love or money can we secure any more, then he must tell us why the Government have done nothing, absolutely nothing, all through the autumn to stimulate food production at home. There will not be much argument that the Government have failed in their duty in not stimulating British agriculture. It is a more difficult matter to decide whether films and tobacco should give way to additional food from the United States of America.
Here again the Treasury are the villains of the piece. The right hon. Gentleman will have been advised that the vast sums which the British public spend upon films and tobacco, and, I may add, upon beer, are twice blessed: first, they bring in a lot of revenue; second, they mop up huge amounts of purchasing power against a comparatively small expenditure. of labour. These three taxes, films, tobacco and beer, are the three pin-up girls of the Board of Inland Revenue. The Commissioners dote on them. They will not have a word said against them. We are now in
586
a state of emergency. With the American credit hanging in the balance, is the Chancellor right to forswear any considerable saving in foreign exchange simply because he has not got a ready made alternative for gathering in the taxes or for keeping inflation at bay?
Is he right to put tax-gathering ahead of the health of the people? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has also been advised that the difficulties of rationing tobacco, films and beer are beyond solution. We have heard that sort of advice before. The tired and overworked civil servants are quite right to use that as the opening gambit upon their Minister, but is the House right to tolerate administrative convenience at the expense of the people's food? Because that is what is happening, and on that we must have a clear answer from the Chancellor.
I turn to the production of food at home. This Government have done nothing serious to stimulate food production since they came into office. Other hon. Members will go into further details on this point. We, on this side of the House, have continually told the Government that if they did not make an all-; out drive for rural housing, which they have not done, if they did not look urgently at village amenities, which they have not done, if they did not restore the wheat payments,which we asked them to do and which they have not done, and, above all, if they did not settle the labour crisis on the land, not only would our farms not produce the same amount of food as last year but production would sharply decline.
For 100 years, the towns of this country have looked to the fields for a new supply of labour. Now, suddenly, in 1946, the position is exactly reversed. Unless the fields can attract from the towns sufficient workers, nothing can stop a decline in the production of British food. I have told the House more than once that agriculture is in a unique position. It is the only great industry which has to expect that, as demobilisation proceeds, its labour force will be reduced. The prisoners of war and the Women's Land Army will go, and the men coming out of the Forces will not make good the loss. That has been common knowledge for months, but the Government have done nothing at all about it until last week, when, at our request, they cancelled the

587
call-up of the 8,000 young men. All through last autumn we pressed the Minister to widen Class B releases to agriculture. These releases were confined to an absurdly narrow range of specialists. In spite of all the efforts of the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut. -Colonel Corbett) and others, at the end of January, only a fortnight ago, only 1,200 men had been released to agriculture under Class B. Let the House compare this figure of 1,200 with the number released to the building industry. I ask the House to consider why there should be a scheme, which we heard about today, for miners to come out of the Forces at once if they are willing to go back into the pits? Why is there no such scheme for agriculture? Is food in the stomach any less needed than coal in the scuttle?
Right hon. Gentlemen opposite hardly ever give us any facts or figures of importance, and I venture to tell the House what is the position in regard to men in the Services who before they joined up were registered as workers on the land. All through the war,the number of farmers and farm workers in the Services was about 120,000. There are in the Forces today about 90,000, and, if the present demobilisation time-table is adhered to, there will still be, at the end of June next, well over 40,000 farmers and farm workers in the Forces. That is a disgraceful fact. Ministers have no right to go on the wireless in the evening and make high moral appeals to the people to make sacrifices when their own Government are doing nothing to produce more food. It simply does not square to ask the housewife and her family to go on tightening their belts while the common sense remedies for the situation in our own agriculture have not been tried.
One more point about wheat, and I put it now because it has something to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am certain that, knowing, as the Ministers of Food and Agriculture did, that the cereal situation was getting worse all over the world, they must have pressed the Cabinet to restore the wheat subsidy from£2 to£4 and that the Chancellor must have turned it down. In February last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), who was then Minister of Agriculture, made a bargain with the farmers. On his side, he took off the cropping directions; on
588
their side, they accepted a 50 per cent. cut in the wheat payment. The result of that bargain was that, last autumn, very much less wheat was sown than previously, and—and this is the important point—farmers put into operation long-term plans to turn back from cereals to livestock and dairy production. The Minister of Food said that the decision of my right hon. Friend was right when he made it.
Sir B. Smith: When he made it.
Mr. Eccles: Yes, but I would remind the right hon.Gentleman that we, on this side, as soon as the House reassembled after the Summer Recess, knew that his decision, in the changed circumstances, was wrong, although we never had the information which the right hon. Gentleman had, and we frequently said so.
Mr. Sydney Silverman:Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he and his friends, as long ago as the first assembling of this Parliament, in the changed circumstances, would have restored that subsidy, and, if so, do they still claim that they were kept in the dark?
Mr. Eccles: The hon. Member can read it all in HANSARD.
Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member knew the changed circumstances.
Sir B. Smith: Whom did the hon. Gentleman mean when he said his decision was wrong?
Mr. Eccles: My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport. If the Minister will read Hansard for 2nd November, 1945, he will find it in the Debate on the Adjournment. We are now asked, in February, 1946, and I speak for the farmers, to plough up as much as we can. The point I would put to the Minister is this. If a farmer ploughs up now, he is not just going to make a loss, if there is a loss, on the spring cereals crop; he is certain of interference with his long-term plan to turn back to livestock, which he put in hand as the result of a bargain with the former Minister of Agriculture. I have dwelt on this point because when, last Tuesday, I asked the Minister of Agriculture to restore the deficiency payments, he gave me a most unreasonable answer, and said that farmers should do

589
it out of loyalty. Would he go to any other industry and ask them to upset their plans and work longer for less pay? It is just possible that, if he were dealing with one large firm, the Minister could get hold of the managing director, and might make an arrangement whereby he adjusted his production programme, but nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with one large firm, but with 200,000 farmers. He must use methods that are suited to such a wide range of temperaments and financial circumstances.
I have one further point to make to the Chancellor. When Lend-Lease stopped, the right hon Gentleman came to the House and made a most serious statement in which he said the food subsidies would have to go up by something like£100 million; he was not sure of the exact sum, but it was a very large sum of money. That was the red light Surely, any ordinary man at that time would have seen that his foreign exchange resources were going to be strained and would have pressed his colleagues to do something to stimulate food production at home? But nothing has been done. Here we are in a crisis of national and international proportions. The Government have failed in their duty; they have landed us in a predicament, and it will be difficult to get out of it because the time has gone by when we might have made satisfactory arrangements.
Hon. Members will agree that we must all do our best to help get the food. I can only speak for myself. I know my farmers and farm workers, and I think they will pay attention to what I say. I will go back to Wiltshire this weekend; I will ask them to plough up as much as they can and to cast on one side their long term plans. But upon one condition—the Government must swallow a large slice of the only food that will always be unrationed. Ministers must eat humble pie. They must admit the long catalogue of their errors and omissions. They must go all out for rural housing and village amenities. They must restore the wheat subsidy; they must settle the wages. issue on the basis of a fair minimum and rates substantially above that minimum for men of different skills. If they do that, I am certain, speaking for my own constituents, that the farmers, farm workers and their women folk will respond, and the Government will get the food. I hope they will
590
get more food from the Empire as well, and many more tons of dried egg, but I must tell right hon. Gentlemen opposite that, whatever they do, they will not be able to put Humpty Dumpty back on his wall, and they will not be able to reconstitute the right hon Gentleman the Minister of Food.
6.3 p.m.
Mrs. Jean Mann:I am amazed to hear, for the first time, the anxiety of hon. Members opposite at the food situation. I imagine that every black disaster that faces this country, through storm and hail, will be blamed on the advent of the Labour Government. The newspapers which represent hon. Members opposite have been telling us that it is impossible to exaggerate the disasters that are going to occur in this country because of the Labour Government. It may be impossible, but no one can deny that hon. Members opposite have been doing their best. War is usually followed by famine and pestilence. After the last war we had pestilence. We thought we might have it this time, but "it looks as if we are having famine instead. That is so unusual that no one could have expected it or predicted it. The harvests have always been plentiful. The people of this country have always known that the earth yielded up her increase, that bountiful Nature provided amply for the children of men, and the people of this country have always wondered why there was never sufficient food for their children. It was in 1840 that the great Carlyle said:
" Parliament will absolutely, and with whatever effect, have to uplift itself out of the deep rut of ' do nothing doctrine ' and learn to say something more edifying than ' laissez faire.' If Parliament cannot learn this what is to become of Parliament? "
Eight years after the passing of the Reform Act, Parliament went on the down grade for one hundred years—not merely laissez faire, but putting the screw on the working classes and depriving them of the means of life itself.
Mr. E.' P. Smith: If the hon. Lady would allow me to interrupt, may I ask her whether it is not a fact that food was cheaper in this country in the year 1900 than it had ever been? [HON. MEMBERS: "Wages were low."]
Mrs. Mann: I am probably the only person in this House who has had handed

591
to her by Parliament one shilling a week for each of her boys. After the last war we were told there would be homes for heroes. When my husband came home after the last war I had three sons. At that time we were getting 2S. for each of them; the unemployed were getting 2s. on which to bring up each of their children. I think in the Elizabethan period, 2s. was the amount for an illegitimate child. Nevertheless, the 2s. was considered too much by Parliament at that time. After the last war the harvests were plentiful. We sent our children to church and to Sunday school to sing the harvest thanksgiving hymn:
" Come, ye thankful people, come,
All is safely garnered in.
God our. Maker doth provide
For our wants to be supplied.
Come, ye thankful people, come,
Join this song of harvest home."
What did we see? We saw the deliberate restriction schemes being imposed at home and abroad. We saw the Stevenston restriction scheme. We saw one restriction scheme after another. It made us wonder, and it made us doubt even if our religion was not wrong.
" I have been young and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken."
But surely the righteous were forsaken when the mothers were given one shilling. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) says that his only concern is work, food and homes. In those days he was the Member for Dundee. When it was proposed to reduce the 2s. to Is., the people of Dundee wrote to him. There was no reply. They wrote again, but still there was no reply. They gathered together a deputation and came to Westminster to meet him, but he did not see them. How could we bring up the boys of El Alamein and the 51st Division on is. a week? Hon. Members opposite must surely be talking with their tongues in their cheeks today. I have often wondered how I should manage on my 26s. a week with three children. We could not afford it. Yet at the very time that Parliament so decreed we should have 26s. for a man, wife and three children, a White Russian refugee officer with a wife and three children was getting£3 14s. 4½d
I do not know how far housewives think the Minister is to blame. Personally, I. have every confidence that wherever food is to be found, the Minister will find it
592
and distribute it. I can recall the Minister reducing the fat ration a few months ago. There was no outcry about that He gave it back to us again. He lacked the Woolton technique. If he had studied the Woolton technique, he might have said to us, "My dears, it is wrong of me to withdraw dried egg, but I shall restore it and you must trust me. I am going to withdraw dried egg, but I shall give you shell eggs in its place." There is so much to be said for technique in approaching women. There is the man who, tiring of a woman and not wishing to keep on with the engagement, says to her: "I am tired of you, you bore me stiff, I do not want anything more to do with you." There is the other type who approaches her in. a different way and says: "My dear, I could never be worthy of you." It is just the same. It does not put a single packet of dried egg in the larder, and the women of this country know it. The women of this country are rather different now from what they were when Lord Woolton was handling them. I do wish hon. Members would realise that the days when a woman was expected to be "a ministering angel "have passed. They are not now dealing with women who, "in our hours of ease," are "uncertain, coy and hard to please." The days are changing and their mood is changing, and the Minister has to meet that situation.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: Could the hon. Lady indicate when these "hours of ease" to which she refers occur?
Mrs. Mann: I wish I could reply to that. So many people in this country said, "If we could only get over the bloodshed, we would not care if we went on half rations and starved ourselves." Let the women remember what they said when the bombs were falling. On the question of dried egg, Members have different opinions. Personally, I hate the stuff,. and those who buy it in restaurants must inevitably hate it because, cooked in bulk, it is very objectionable. But it is altogether wrong for my right hon. Friend to think that if he withdraws dried egg and gives us the 40 shell eggs he has equalised things. That is why I would like to take my right hon. Friend into my kitchen. With Is. 2d. worth of butcher meat, what are we to do? With dried egg we can make an omelette and chips. There is one meal a week.

593
No one would dream of putting shell eggs into a Yorkshire pudding, yet the. Yorkshire pudding helps the meat ration and makes it very attractive. That again requires dried egg. Stodgy puddings like semolina are greatly improved by the dried egg. We have to make dishes bright, attractive and imaginative, because so many people revolt at stodgy dishes. With lack of appetite, resistance to disease is lessened. Macaroni is in plentiful supply now, and with dried egg and grated cheese there is another meal. If fish is in short supply, and one is forced to take the less tempting variety of fish, it can be flaked with dried egg and flour and there is another meal.
My right hon. Friend told us that he was going to supply dried egg in bulk to the bakers. I often wonder if the. bakers ever put dried egg, or any other kind of egg, into the stuff they sell-the hard sawdusty things that are sold as pastry. Raisins, currants and sultanas are coming on the market, and with dried egg. the housewife has a whole armful of resources. My right hon. Friend also exaggerates the importance of containers, because I know that in my co-operative society, dried egg was on the counter in a 14I6. biscuit tin with a small scoop, and I could have eight ounces or only four ounces, just as I wanted. I am certain the housewife would be glad if my right hon. Friend could arrange for that.
I am going to waste bread. That is a dreadful statement to make, but I have to waste bread. I hate having to do it. I was brought up from infancy to realise that to throw away a crust was a wicked crime. Yet I have to waste bread because the bread arrives rough-handled. I do not know in whose hands it has been; generally it is dirty, and I have to slice off the dirt before I can use the bread. If my right hon. Friend could give us wrapped bread I could say sincerely that there would be no likelihood of it being wasted. Better still, if he could give us wrapped, sliced bread there would not be any likelihood of wastage, because so much is wasted by those who do not know how to slice bread properly. I have illustrated the variety that we can get into dull, wartime diet from dried egg.
Mr. Boothby: Before the hon. Lady leaves her kitchen, may I ask whether she
594
has already forgotten the old diet which built up Scotland, of oatmeal, tatties and herbs?
Mrs. Mann: I would like to tell the hon. Gentleman we cannot even get oatmeal porridge, because we have not milk at our meal tables for the oatmeal. We are hoping to get a little extra milk which will enable us to put porridge on the menu again. If I had to choose between variety in diet and variety in films, I do not think there would be any hesitation on my part, or the part of the British housewives, as to the choice. I am really a film fan myself. I like to go at least once a week, if I can, to see good films. But in my constituency, the picture houses have to keep open six nights per week, and they have to provide variety. Here is some of the menu. Before I read it I would like to tell hon. Members there are grand people in my constituency, schoolteachers and others, who are very anxious that the youth shall be brought up to enjoy leisure as they ought. This is what the picture houses are serving up:
"Rollicking Civvy Street comic giving a series of crazy incidents pivotting on an ex-Home Guard father of quadruplets, who, notwithstanding his own staggering domestic responsibilities, successfully acts as match maker to the chequered love affair of his pompous boss's only son and a pretty evacuee."
" ' Lady on a Train.' Gay, crime-comedy-melodrama, telling the adventures of a glamorous blonde addict who, after seeing a brutal murder, becomes a detective, and in face of stiff opposition apprehends the ruthless killer."
I had better finish with this one:
" Psychological murder mystery, concerns. a subtle wife-killer in love with the younger sister of his wife, and to get her he disposes of his wife on their fifth wedding anniversary. Everything points to them being an ideally married couple and he remains unsuspected. There is an enthralling climax when, suspecting his own sanity, he goes back to the scene of the crime to make sure she is dead."
[Laughter.] I cannot say I am amused that the children of my constituency should have that rubbish served up to them. If picture-house managers and cinema promoters have to fill in six nights, I think it would be much better if they handed over one night to some of the youth organisations, who could introduce our young people to good literature, starting with, say, the children from seven to ten years of age, introducing them to "Alice in Wonderland," Kingsley's "Water Babies," and as they get older,

595
if they want romance and adventure, what is wrong with Conrad, or Sir Walter Scott? I would prefer to see that than to see us sending money to America on the returns of this sort of thing. We ought to tell them to keep that sort of stuff, and to keep their boogie-woogie and let us have dried egg. I do not think the women of this country will object when the situation is presented to them. When they know the situation no one will stand by the nation more than the mothers. It is the mothers who have met this struggle all through these years when the harvests were plentiful and when the harvests have failed. I am quite certain they will respond now, and help the nation through again.
I would just add a word to my right hon. Friend. It may be better for him to adopt the cooing, dovelike notes of the radio doctor, or the technique of Lord Woolton—it will not make any difference which it is. We just do not like a left hook, or whatever it is an ex-boxer gives one. We do not like to be told, "As for dried egg, you have had it." That is not the way to woo the women of this country. I again emphasise that we have every faith in the right hon.Gentleman. We know it would not make a bit of difference how he said it, for his sincerity is not in doubt. I only think the technique might be altered. I am sure the women of this country will stand behind the Minister until we see this thing through.
6.28 p.m.
Sir Arthur Salter: In a serious situation, and sympathising, as all of us do, with the very real difficulties of the Government at this time, no one of us would wish to make any captious criticism. I can certainly assure the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann), if I may refer to the earlier parts of her speech in which she made some reference to food, I do not propose to blame the Government for drought anywhere in the world any more than I propose to praise them for the absence, so far, of any serious world epidemic. Some hon. Members have particular points of criticism of the Government policy, and I shall have a few proposals to make myself in a few minutes. I think, however, that the main charge of the country, as of the Leader of the Opposition, against the Government is that they failed before last week to give adequate and early enough
596
information of the situation which was developing. It is mainly on that I wish to speak this evening.
I have listened with care to what the Minister of Food has just said, and I am bound to say that I do not think he has been able to give a sufficient answer to that charge. He said, in effect, three things. He said, "We have given 'warnings, and the intelligent public will have known that the situation was becoming grave for some months past." By diligently selecting from the past issues of HANSARD and, with the generous permission of the Chair, by delving into the records of another place, he was able to quote some cases in which he or his colleagues had indicated that there were bad features in the situation. True. But it is also true that a number of things were said and done over the same period that pointed rather in the opposite direction.
If we take the net result of all that Government representatives had said in the last four or five months, it is certainly true that the British Government have not led us to expect a situation such as was disclosed on Tuesday of last week. I have one comment. The Members of this House are not less intelligent than the public generally, but I would ask the House to recall the bewildered dismay with which we all heard the statement of the Minister of Food on Tuesday of last week. It is quite clear that this dismay was not confined to the back benches. It was obvious that the news had taken the Leader of the Opposition quite as much by surprise. It was obvious that it was not confined to people on this side of the House; the dismay of supporters of the Government was, if anything, even more obvious. Indeed, along the Treasury Bench itself, there were visible signs of disturbance. In fact, I would like to know how many days it was before even the Minister of Agriculture had been fully informed of what the Minister of Food was going to disclose. I spoke of the net result. of all the statements that have been made. Reference has already been made to the letter of the Prime Minister of 25th January— that is, after the Minister of Food had returned from Washington, where the whole world cereal situation had been reviewed. The "Observer "— not a paper which is normally unfriendly

597
to the Government— remarked on that letter that its general tenor was, "No more sacrifices by the British public. Perhaps some increase of rations." It really is not fair to say that the country as a whole, or this House, had had real warning of the grave degeneration in the situation that had been taking place for some time.
The second thing the Minister of Food said this afternoon was that he could not tell us more because he was buying in a sellers' market. That, really, will not quite do. He has, last week and this, given us some very serious figures about the position in regard to wheat—of which he is an important buyer. As to our stocks—the disclosure of which he has, until last week, consistently resisted—a global figure might have been given just as well some months ago. It would not have prejudiced his purchases of individual commodities, as indeed is proved by the fact that last Tuesday and Wednesday the figures for which we had long been asking were given, as the corresponding figures had been given by the late Prime Minister as far back as March, when we were still engaged in two wars. If the Government had only given us, month by month, information of precisely the kind which they have given in the last fortnight, the whole situation would have been immensely clarified and the public would have been less surprised.
The third thing the Minister did was to give a list of his recent difficulties. Here I must confess that he did recite a number of very unfortunate disasters for which he is not responsible. Indeed, the scene on Tuesday of last week, which has been to some extent re-enacted this evening, was astonishingly like the first chapter of the Book of Job. There was the good man in adversity, afflicted by an incredible succession of unmerited misfortunes. He was surrounded by his friends—true Job's comforters—who were obviously discouraged and, it seemed, rather obviously asking themselves whether Job was really quite such a good man as they had thought. He told us of the succession of messengers of woe, each treading on the heels of the other—
" and while he yet spake there came also another."
He told us about droughts in North Africa and South Africa, droughts in the Argentine and Australia, miscalculations
598
of stocks in North America, bad weather in the South Pacific, monsoons and cyclones. All perfectly true. That was the picture presented to us as told in quick succession by the heralds of misfortune, just as in the case of Job. But were these disasters really so sudden, so simultaneous, so unpredictable, so unrelieved by any gleam of good fortune? I think not. Since last August the world has had pieces of good fortune, as well as bad. The early end of the war with Japan, and the consequent release of considerable resources; the discovery of unexpected stocks of sugar—
Sir B. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where that sugar is?
Sir A. Salter: The sugar to which 1 refer, which is considerable in quantity as the Minister knows, is in Java. There are at this moment difficulties about shipping it, but when it comes to a calculation of future world prospects, that sugar is properly countable. The world has had a rather exceptionally mild winter, which, in several ways, helps the food situation. And in the Autumn, America found that she had a good deal more meat supplies than she had earlier expected. She was able to make available for civilian consumption meat calculated officially at that time to be equivalent to something like 40 lbs. per head per annum more than the full peace-time consumption. Those were pieces of good fortune. Against them must, of course, be set the very real pieces of bad fortune which the Minister recounted to us. But neither the good fortune nor the bad came all in a lump. The truth is that there has been, for some time past, a deteriorating world food position. Why were we not told about it? Why was it not until the inescapable week of accounting came, when the hour of doom was struck—by Big Ben—that we were at last told what the real facts were? I think the Minister has shown that he does not quite understand what most of us mean when we say we want adequate information.
Sir B. Smith: I am not so dull.
Sir A. Salter: It is not enough to give us occasional sentences in speeches, whether of gloom or of hope, either unsupported by facts, or supported by a few selected facts, and unrelated to any accessible body of information in which the whole position is fairly and compre-

599
hensively set out. The British public is not unintelligent; it knows that when a British Government—any British Government—publishes a White Paper summarising the main facts of a world position, it is authoritative and accurate within the limits of human error. Had we had a White Paper in which all the main facts were stated by which we could test and judge what has been said, it would have been most valuable. That is what we want, and that is what some of us, including myself, have been asking for for over four months. We have been persistently but vainly pressing the Government to publish a White Paper giving all the main facts of the world food situation.
Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? Supposing it had been possible to arrange for a weekly or daily situation report of the Ministry to be published, what practical effect would that have had on the food situation?
Sir A. Salter: I will come to that. I am saying that I and others have been, for four months, pressing that there should be a publication of such facts as the Government had, comprehensive and brought up to date as the situation developed. When I first asked for that I was told "No." Then I was told "I will reconsider it" Then, to cite only a few of the many procrastinations, I was told "The possibility is not excluded." Then I was told "Preparations are being made for consultation with other Governments." At last, only last week, when the hour of reckoning had come, were we promised the report of the Emergency European Economic Committee. Information did then begin to come in, but not until 4th February onwards. The hon. and gallant Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Captain F. Noel-Baker) asked me what practical effect it would have had. First, it would have prevented the British public from being shocked as they have been.
Mrs. Braddock: Would it have helped production?
Sir A. Salter: I am about to answer the question already asked me by the hon. and gallant Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Captain Noel-Baker). The second effect it would have had
600
is that it would have revealed to America, the Dominions and the British public the gravity of the situation. The facts of the situation already grave ought to have been made available to the world, and had a White Paper been published they would have been made known through the hundreds of able journalists and broadcasters and commentators to the public of both hemispheres. Hon. Members have been told, and have been delighted to hear, what America is now doing, and the Dominions of Australia and Canada too. They know that President Truman has even talked of the reimposition of rationing, though it is much harder to reimpose rations than to retain existing ones. Is it not likely that if America had fully realised the position the American rationing would have been kept on longer with the important con-sequence in saving both meat and grain.
Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that all the information held back was the exclusive possession of the Government?
Sir A. Salter: No, Sir. What 1 am saying is that if action of that kind had been taken instead of merely sending private notes to the Dominion Governments and to the American Government, who had that information in their files, people everywhere would have better understood the situation that was developing. We in this part of the world are in a better position to provide such publicity than any other country, because of our central position and because of the reputation and prestige of British White Papers. That reputation has been maintained through every Government Administration. It is such that had we published fully and candidly the facts of the situation they would have been taken account of throughout the world. No one can state certainly, but I think it is extremely probable that international action of the kind now being taken might have been taken a good deal earlier with very great advantages to the whole world.
Mr. Michael Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the facts now made available, should have been made available at the time when America gave up rationing?
Sir A. Salter: The whole of the facts as they were known at the time. The situation was already grave before. All Governments and, perhaps, above all

601
the two great Anglo-Saxon Governments act more vigorously and quickly if they are acting in the environment of an interested and informed public opinion. Had the facts been published and known at the time to which I refer, although I do not say all the action that is being taken in the now graver situation would have been taken, I think there is a great probability that some measures would have been taken which would have made the position much easier. The right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday last made personal reference to myself which left certain hon. Members with the impression I had been asking him to reduce British rations—
Sir B. Smith: I never said such a thing, and you know it.
Sir A. Salter: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of suggestions about reducing British stocks for the sake of sending British supplies to Germany, and he mentioned my name in that connection. May I say, in the first place, that I have never spoken of sending supplies to Germany, as distinct from Europe as a whole? In the second place, and this is really the point to which I would direct his attention, I have never asked him ever to reduce British rations or to reduce stocks so as to endanger those rations. Indeed, I will say this categorically, if His Majesty's Government had accepted in full every proposal I have ever made, British supplies would not be less at this moment by a pound. I would ask the Minister to quote me any instance to 'he contrary. I have suggested that lorries should be sent from Army bases, but that would have helped Europe and not hurt us. I asked him, when it came to the question of increasing British rations, to consider the needs of Europe. Increase of rations, unhappily, is not the question now—
Sir B. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that he asked me to send wheat to Germany?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Speaker: How can the right hon. Gentleman answer if hon. Members on both sides will not allow him the opportunity?
Sir A. Salter: I have never asked that wheat or anything else should be sent to Germany at the expense of our rations or
602
at the expense of any danger to the stocks of this country.
Sir B. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that he pressed upon me that I had much too great stocks in this country and that I could release wheat for Germany?
Sir A. Salter: No, Sir. On the contrary, after refraining from making any request—in this House, I went to the right hon. Gentleman afterwards and said to him in private—" I have refrained from asking you at this moment to draw from our stocks for this purpose because, as I well know, in the uncertainty and irregularity of our imports, you must have a larger margin than at normal times."
Sir B. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? He came to my office with the late Miss Rathbone and said it there.
Sir A. Salter: No, Sir. I have no recollection of making any statement inconsistent with what I. have just said. I suggested that it might be possible to withdraw some supplies, without interfering with the' ordinary rationing system, from Army reserves. I asked him to try to get his colleagues to send some army lorries, and so on. I can quite specifically state that every time I have spoken in this House or elsewhere, I have said that I was against any reduction of British rations and any such reduction of our stocks as would endanger them.
1 am completely unconvinced by the reasons given by the Government for not publishing more fully and more candidly the information for which we have long asked I entirely agreed with the acting Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the well-known reluctance of Whitehall to give more information, as a possible basis for criticism, than they are obliged to. I have been acquainted with Whitehall for 40 years, sometimes as a civil servant and sometimes as a Minister, I know that there is this very natural disinclination to give information; I know that it is a recurring danger after a war, after a period of years when, obviously, information of vital public importance cannot be disclosed, and that it demands special efforts on the part of Parliament and Ministers to overcome habits and traditions of secrecy that grow at that time. I do not think that all Ministers have that habit of secrecy in the same

603
degree. I think that there is a difference between some and others.
It is a matter of great importance to us, as we go on from month to month and see all the things that we are not getting, to know whether, at least, we are going to have the facts about them. I said that there were differences. The Minister of Fuel is not getting his coal, but he is giving us the facts; the Minister of Health has, at least, promised to tell us about the houses he is not building; the President of the Board of Trade will, I am confident, tell us about the exports he is not getting—even with a certain relish. I do earnestly suggest that this is a matter of the utmost importance to this Parliament, not only in relation to food. The central treasure and main weapon of a free Parliament is its right to obtain information on everything of vital public interest of which no genuine public interest forbids disclosure. There are two things that would destroy this Parliament as surely as any Reichstag fire. One would be if Ministers came to believe that any reason or none for the policy they are pursuing, could be given to the House, because they have a disciplined and docile majority behind them. The other is that Parliament should ever relinquish this central principle, this fundamental right, to get information on anything of public interest except when public interest forbids. There have been some, if only occasional, signs recently of dangers in both those respects.
I well remember, when I was a young man, a colleague of mine writing a very reticent and rather evasive draft answer to a Question asked by a certain Captain Craig. A note which he wrote for a possible supplementary to the effect that there was more information but to give it might only stimulate Captain Craig to further inquiries was, through a clerical mistake, printed with the answer. Parliament was very much interested. The placards of London newspapers bore the words "Stimulating Captain Craig." I earnestly hope that if any. such danger recurs of the withholding of information, because it is likely to supply the ammunition that may be used against a Department, Parliament will be properly vigilant.
I come now to policy. There is little I have to suggest in the way of changes
604
in policy at this late hour, and I know the narrow limits in which any Government can move in a situation as grave as this, and in circumstances such as confront this country at the moment. There have been suggestions of one kind and another. On the larger issue, I do not regard it as to the discredit—I regard it as to the credit of this Government— of the three successive Governments—that British stocks were called upon to the extent of an average of about 200,000 tons a month, from March to December, very largely in Europe's and in the world's interest.
Sir B. Smith:One and a quarter million tons, to be exact.
Sir A. Salter: I was taking the figures from two answers given last week. I agree with the Minister of Food that, in the present circumstances, with the uncertainties of finance, strikes and other difficulties, the present stocks, as given last week, are getting near the danger point. I do not dissent from that. I also congratulate the Government on taking every international means they can at this moment, such as bringing forward their resolution before U.N.O.; contemplating, as I think they do, a food conference, and on trying, in every way to see that every country with anything to spare is dealing with this not as a national problem, or British problem only, but as a world problem. I would say with great seriousness that I do sincerely trust that, grave as our position is, we shall not concentrate solely on the position in this country. We are facing scarcity; other countries in Europe and other parts of the world are facing not scarcity but starvation There are regions and industrial centres in Europe—Germany, Austria, Budapest, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Western Russia—where the food is hardly more than half ours at present, and where supplies, even to maintain that low level, are in danger. I trust that all the way through the anxious months immediately before us, that will not be forgotten.
Mr. Keenan: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we should go back to the position he advised some months ago, and give some of our meagre rations for the people in Germany?
Sir A. Salter: At no time in the last year have I ever suggested anything of the sort.
Mr. Keenan: What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest?
Sir A. Salter: What I have suggested is that I welcome the action of the British Government in joining with other countries in getting this treated as a world problem, so that the needs of other countries as well as our own will be considered.
I conclude with a few practical suggestions. I have already advocated that further allocation of food should be distributed in Europe by means of Army lorries. I believe that both in American and British camps there are lorries available, and in many of the worst regions transport is half the difficulty. I think the Government should go a little further in that direction and in searching military reserves. I know it has been done to some extent, and beyond this I will say no more at this moment. Next I was rather surprised that the Minister was so optimistic about fish. I think the present action is inadequate. But I believe that more fish could be obtained if priority is given not only in the release of more trawlers but reconditioning others, and to the manufacture of the apparatus that they require, such as nets.
Mr. Boothby: This is a most important point. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Government have stopped issuing permits for the purchase of nets?
Sir A. Salter: That reinforces what I am trying to say. 1 feel that more could be done by the Government in this respect. What could better compensate for the restricted supply of meat than an extra supply of fish? After six years of reduced fishing the seas around our coasts are teeming with fish. The men are available, given the physical facilities of trawlers and nets.
Next I am going to suggest that the Government should do everything they. can to encourage a greater importation of Continental fruit and vegetables. I am told that the importers of say tomatoes from the Canaries, are anxious to import more, and are prepared to take the risks involved in importing them and selling them within the retail price fixed by the Government. I do not know what it is that is causing the Government to restrict imports, but a very disturbing reflection occurred to me as I listened in this House on Monday to an hon. Member, a sup
606
porter of the Government, asking the Minister of Agriculture whether he would take careful account of the interests of the home producer in controlling the importation of market produce. I expected the Minister to say that whatever he would do for the home producer it would not be forcing up prices through scarcity, but what was the answer? It was that licences are required, and before they are given, there is a consultation between the Import Licensing Department and the Ministries of Food and Agriculture at which account is taken of the home producer before a licence is recommended.
In the past, members of the present Government and their supporters have bitterly accused the Members of the present Opposition of trying to cure a glut by creating a relative scarcity through restrictions. But is it not worse to aggravate a scarcity by doubling it? Why does the Minister of Agriculture think only of the interests of the home producer and not of those of the housewife? Does he think that prices are so dangerously low, that there is such a glut of food, that it is time for him to help the home producer by creating scarcity? I am surprised if he thinks anything of the sort.
The last among my immediate proposals is again to press for a White Paper of the kind I have been asking for for over four months. As I have spoken of that often before I will not press that suggestion further at the moment. I turn now to my final point.— [Hon. Members: "Lastly."]—I said lastly amongst my immediate proposals, but I am now looking beyond the immediate emergency. This winter emergency is still with us. During that emergency we shall have to do everything we can by whatever machinery already exists. But in time the winter will pass. Many will have died who need not have died, but the majority will still live and the problem of rebuilding the world is a problem not of months but of years. I again suggest, as I have often suggested before, with very considerable support, that there should be an improvement in the international machinery of planning publicity and co-ordination. A Supreme Economic Council, by which I mean a body more or less like the Combined Food Board in the countries composing it but with wider scope and greater

607
authority, should be brought into existence. The governments of the different countries of the world must not again be taken by surprise. If better arrangements are not made between now and next winter we shall again have a tragedy on a great scale which can still be prevented. I believe that if this Government and the other Governments mainly concerned, would improve their methods and their international machinery it will still be possible to shorten and reduce the human misery and the extra danger to world peace, that are otherwise inevitable.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) claims that the Government withhold information, but, as far as I have been able to observe since I have been in this House, that is inclined to be a habit with Governments. The Government of which the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was a Member withheld far more vital information from this country during the war, with the excuse that it was of military importance and must be kept secret. I continually sought information and the reply which I got was simply not true, because my right hon. Friend knows that the information I sought was not a war secret of vital importance and had nothing to do with the Army. I had every right to be given that information in public and not in private. That is a point which I may develop on another day. The right hon. Member for Oxford University disappointed me very greatly. I had hoped he would have developed much further the theme which he has so often developed in this House, sometimes supported by myself, on the food situation, particularly in Europe, but, apart from touching upon it, he did not impress the real facts of the situation upon the House.
I have listened, with some puzzlement, to practically every speech which has been made from the opposite side of the House. Members have complained that everything has been kept in the dark, and that there has not been sufficient information from the Government. Having said that, they went on to explain how they, individually, seemed to have many more facts than I ever knew, and were well informed on the
608
subject. The fact is that this has been another dishonest campaign of trying to discredit this Government. [Hon. Members: "No."] Certainly. Look at the Tory Press, and the ridiculous frame-ups which have been occurring in their columns every morning. I am not a person who suffers from no publicity. I have far too great a fan mail. The barometer of what is going on is revealed quickly in my post bag, and I can honestly say that except for half a dozen people, who write to me anonymously whenever anything happens, and blame it all on me, I have not had a single protest from anybody about the recent announcement of the Minister of Food. The whole campaign from the opposite side of the House is being made with the object of trying to create as much "stink" as possible.
Sir A. Salter: The hon. Gentleman has referred especially to me, and to a campaign from this side of the House. I suppose he refers to the campaign during the last nine days. He will do me the justice of remembering that not for the last nine days, but for the last four months, at least, I have been asking for information which I have not had, which the House has not had, and which the country has not had.
Mr. Stokes: Certainly, I will grant my right hon. Friend that; what is more, I supported him in asking for it, and it seems that we have had some of it today. But that is not what all the row is about in the Press. The arguments in the Press are based on quite different grounds, but I think the country has seen through them, and that the whole thing has gone off like a damp squib—
Colonel Erroll: I would like to inform the hon. Member that it is not a damp squib, as he ought to know from housewives.
Mr. Stokes: It is a matter of opinion whether the squib is damp, dry or wet, but at any rate the whole thing has gone completely flat. I was astonished at my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University taking up the point of the Prime Minister's letter of 25th January. Both he and another Member tried to imply that into that letter could be read a promise that everybody would have better rations this year.
Sir A. Salter: I did not do any such thing.
Mr. Stokes: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) not to go away.
Sir A. Salter: The Minister of Food said that Government warnings had been such that the country knew that the situation was very serious. On 25th January the impression made on the "Observer" was that there would, perhaps, be a little increase in the rations.
Mr. Stokes: All I can say to my right hon. Friend is that the acting Leader of the Opposition, opening the Debate today, referred to that same letter, and admitted that there was no right to read into it any promise of increased rations.
Mr. Eden: I have no wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I was complaining that the Government had not warned us of an impending reduction.
Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no right to read the implication I have just mentioned into that letter, but those behind him took the exact opposite view. That is a matter of opinion. As one of those who was responsible for causing the Prime Minister to make that statement, I can only say that, while we accepted it with some disappointment, none of us thought there would be any increase in rations, but only that there might be a different variety of food for the people. Great play was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, and another Member behind him, about the apparent representations they made to the Government about the importance of not calling up young men from the farms. I do not know whether they made representations or not, and I have not the slightest idea whether the Government took the action they did only because the right hon. Gentleman and his friends made representations. But I do think the Prime Minister acted with commendable promptitude in deferring those calling-up notices. Compare that with the representations made by some of us, in secret and in public, when we were in Opposition, to the then Prime Minister, that men 'should not be taken from the mines because it would lead us to disaster. Nothing at all was done then. If notice had been taken of our advice at
610
that time, the country would not have been in such a desperate position in regard to coal as it is today. I therefore congratulate the Government on the promptitude with which they acted in this matter. It is not often that I congratulate the Government about anything. I am particularly anxious not to take up more time than usual—
Earl Winterton: I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us all three acts of the farce.
Mr. Stokes: There is at least some merit in being entertaining. The main reason why I rose was to point out that the whole of this campaign has really obscured the main issue, the main tragedy, which is in front of us. I refer to the situation outside this country. While we are thinking about ourselves I want to remind the House of the facts. A very important document was printed the other day, which came from the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe, and of which the Press took practically no notice. It was published an full in only one paper, the "Manchester Guardian," and trivially referred to in other newspapers, while all this "blah "was going on about dried egg. The report said that during the next six months or more 140,000,000 people in Europe would have a ration of a calorific value of less than 2,000 per day, that 100,000,000 people would have less than 1,500 calories, that there were groups of people who would have as few. as 800 calories, and that over 40,000,000 would have between 1,500 and 2,000 calories per day.
In my travels the other day I picked up a prisoner of war, a British officer who had been incarcerated in Germany for three and a half years. He said that he had had Red Cross parcels until the early days of 1945. Then the parcels failed to arrive, and his rations also failed to arrive to a considerable extent, and he told me that he reckoned that the calorific value of the food in his camp went as low as 1,500 per day. He said, "I got so weak that I went to bed, and stayed there until we were relieved later in the year by the entry of British Forces." I want to impress upon the House the situation which is facing 100,000,000 people at the present time, while we are squabbling about a bit of dried egg. That Committee's report went on to state that there are only four countries where the

611
calorific value of the daily ration will be above 2,500—Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The ration here, I believe, is of the order of 2,800 calories per day.
That is very nearly twice as much as 100,000,000 people in Europe have to survive on, and even the cuts in March will leave us better off than we were for six months after VE-Day. I have not heard any hon. Member opposite refer to the improvements that have been made. It is all very well to say that the cuts have horrified people; that is only because they have been presented the wrong way by the national Press. Nobody has mentioned the fact that suet is now obtainable on points, which makes a very considerable difference. Nobody has mentioned the increased milk ration, which gives more to adults earlier this year than last year. Nobody has referred to the fact that this crisis has at least brought us good bread and done down the millers' combine, which is most satisfactory.
Mr. Boothby: Does not the hon. Member mean bad bread?
Mr. Stokes: No; I mean that we have got back to where we were before the percentage extracted was reduced from 85 to 80. One day I would like to tell the House the story of how it was decreased from 85 to 80, quite contrary to the recommendations of all those who had anything to do with giving advice on nutrition to the Government. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) argued about conserving our dollar resources. I agree with him. I hope the Chancellor will take note of these remarks, because while they do not have any immediate bearing on the Debate, they have some bearing on the dollar exchange. The hon. Member talked about tobacco, a matter on which I have put questions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend does not impose a restriction on the importation of American tobacco. I know his argument is that everybody likes the stuff the Americans send over here, but that is all a matter of education. No self-respecting American ever smokes a Virginian cigarette; he smokes a blended cigarette. America imports from Turkey something in the order of£10 million
612
worth of tobacco a year. No doubt they put some of it into their own tobacco and send it here, and we pay dollars for it. America never takes goods from us in any quantity worth speaking about. I have customers in Turkey who wish to buy machinery, and I cannot sell them machinery because they have no money. Why should not the Chancellor arrange this business in an orderly fashion so that we take£10 million worth of tobacco from Turkey and send Turkey£10 million worth of engineering supplies? Surely, that would be common sense. The Chancellor now has a magnificent opportunity, because we are now in the brave situation in which the country will take anything within reason, especially when people realise that it will be to our permanent good in establishing yet another important export market.
I wish the Minister of Food were here— it does not really matter. That remark was perhaps a little unfortunate. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food is present. I wish to refer to stocks, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University referred. I have been with him in pressing for knowledge of the figures. I should be most interested to know what stocks of food there were in this country on 31st December, 1938. We have been told that on 31st December, 1939, they were 3,000,000 tons. That was at a moment when we were expecting the war and the U-boat campaign, and our stocks had been presumably built up. On 31st December, 1945. the stocks had sunk from 6,000,000 tons, the figure on 25th March, 1945, to 4,200,000 tons, an amount still nearly 50 per cent.in excess of the stocks which we were holding at a time when we were expecting the war and the U-boat campaign. I would hazard a guess that in 1938 and before, the stocks were probably not more than 1,000,000 tons or 1,500,000 tons.
The probability is that we are now holding in the larder three times as much in reserve as we normally would in peacetime conditions. If that be so, I ask the Chancellor and the Parliamentary Secretary how in their own consciences they can justify hoarding this food when there are millions of people starving in Europe? There is no reason for it whatever. I understand the grain position. 1 am not speaking specifically of any particular type of food, but of the general stocks

613
which, the Prime Minister said, amount to 4,200,000 tons. 1 claim that we are holding in the larder nearly three times as much as we did in ordinary peacetime conditions. We have no right—and the British public, if they knew it, would not stand for it for one moment—to store that up against a rainy day when millions of our brothers and sisters across the' water are dying of hunger. I ask that that matter be looked into at once.
I hope that something more will be done to extend, and establish over a longer period ahead, the very fine work that is being done by U.N.R.R.A. all over Europe. That work is vital, and I do not think the House realises how insecure the whole of the U.N.R.R.A. organisation is. The funds will run out in about three months' time. The American contribution has not yet been re-voted to cover the period to the end of the year.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): We have paid our bit.
Mr. Stokes:Yes, I know, but I am ventilating this matter because it is important. Even so far as our bit is concerned, there is no certainty that U.N.R.R.A. will continue to function in Europe after 31st December of this year. From what I have seen, and I am sure from what every hon. Member who has been abroad has seen, it is obvious that the necessity for the work of U.N.R.R.A. in Europe will last for two or three years to come. It is impossible for the organisation to establish itself properly if it does not know how long it is to last and cannot plan ahead. I urge the Government to make the maximum possible representations to all the leading Governments concerned to put U.N.R.R.A. on a firm footing until at least the end of 1947, between now and which time we shall have an opportunity of looking round. U.N.R.R.A. is doing magnificent work and that work will be very greatly helped, and salvation brought into the hearts and lives of mil lions of people, if we ease the lock on our larder- door and let out some of the hoard of stuff which we are holding quite unnecessarily.
7.28 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Hare: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling on me in this most important Debate, and
614
I ask the House for its customary kindly indulgence to a Member about to undergo the ordeal of making a maiden speech. My only claim to fame, perhaps, is that geographically I surround the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). I would like to congratulate him on the fact that he is having no troubles in his constituency in the way of reactions as to what has happened in the present food crisis. Next door to his constituency there is considerable agitation on this subject.
I do not propose to express any opinion as to where the blame lies for our present grave food situation or to stress, as others have rightly done, the grave anxiety which the nation feels at the sudden and unexpected fashion in which these new hardships have been imposed upon it. This ugly situation is upon us, and whether we like it or not, we must accept it, and do our best to find constructive and practical ways out of it. I hope the Government will answer what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). We on this side are not approaching this matter in a partisan spirit. We are making a number of constructive suggestions, and I hope the Government will be prepared to accept these suggestions in the spirit in which they are offered, and take prompt action to make them effective.
Since the increase of food supplies from abroad must be, for some considerable. time, limited by the fact that supplies are scarce and our own financial position very adverse, I feel that the important thing we should do in this Debate is to satisfy ourselves that we are really taking all possible steps to produce the maximum amount of food that we can secure from the resources of these islands. The Prime Minister has called his new campaign "The Battle for Bread," and I consider that is a very fair and sound name. If that battle for bread is to be conducted efficiently it must be conducted with no less zeal than any military operation of the war. That means that higher priorities should be placed in the hands of the Ministries of Food and Agriculture than they possessed even perhaps during the war years.
I want to put four points to the House. Three of them have been touched on and will probably be developed further during the Debate. The fourth I shall dwell upon.

615
for rather longer. The success or failure of this drive for increased food production must depend ultimately upon the farmer. and one thing which I would stress is that the farmer is an individualist and very much of a human being He requires to be told what is needed of him and he needs considerable notice of what he has to produce. Anything more fatal than changing an agricultural policy halfway through a farming year, and expecting to get good results from a farming community, cannot be imagined. But that, I am afraid, is what has happened owing to the fact that the decision of the Government this autumn that extra wheat was not required has been followed, because of the grave situation which has come upon us so unexpectedly, by this last-minute, frantic appeal that the farmers throughout the country should grow as much wheat as possible. Secondly, it is obvious that if we wish to produce a particular commodity in agriculture, in greater quantities than other commodities, we must do what we can to make it attractive to grow that particular commodity. The failure of the Government to re-introduce the wheat subsidy of£4 an acre when they made this last recent appeal has, I think, been most unfortunate.
Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has said, anybody who has any connection with agriculture realises that the gravest threat to the industry is shortage of labour. Men are not coming back from the Forces in the numbers that we expected; new blood is not being recruited rapidly. There is a variety of reasons for that, but far and away the most important is that the countryside requires more modern cottages with modern amenities, and it requiries those cottages as quickly and as urgently as possible. I feel that one should acknowledge with appreciation the announcement that was made in another place that the Government are earmarking 4,000 building and engineering specialists for agricultural buildings. What I would like to ask the Government is whether they are prepared, at the same time, to release more building material, and to speed up the granting of the hundred and one licences which are necessary before any large-scale construction of country cottages can even begin. I am certain that if the Government really axe determined to ask for more food and to press
616
this food production campaign, they must take active steps to give the building of agricultural cottages considerable priority in their new housing programme.
Fourthly, and this is my main point, I want to ask the House whether it is satisfied that we are in fact making the maximum use of land that could be made available for food production. I think, if the question is examined even for a moment, that the answer is emphatically, "No." I maintain that there are thousands of acres of valuable agricultural land at the moment that are not being used for the purpose of growing food, and if the case I am making is borne out by the facts, I would appeal to the Government to make arrangements whereby the Ministry of Agriculture should be asked to absorb the large areas of surplus land that are at the moment held by the Ser-vice Ministries.
Let me take the War Office first. On 10th December last, the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, in answer to a Question which I put to him, stated that the War Office held some 5,000,000 acres of land for training purposes. Of that 5,000,000 acres, 1,000,000 was retained because of the presence on it of unexploded missiles, which had to be cleared before this land could be safely handed back for agricultural purposes. Another 1,000,000 acres was slowly being made available for release. The remaining 3,000,000 acres was being retained for current training purposes. The Secretary of State for War continued by saying that this figure of 3,000,000 acres, would be gradually reduced from time to time, as and when he was in a position to decide what the eventual training requirements of the new Army would be.
Here is a vast potential addition to the nation's agricultural holding, yet the process of handing over, despite the urgency of the limes, has been painfully slow, and perhaps the House will allow me to give one detailed example of the kind of thing that is happening. The Orford battle area in East Suffolk, which I happen to know well, was requisitioned in 1942. It consisted of 7,500 acres of land, over 70 per cent. of which was either in arable cultivation or under grass when taken over. It is typical of many similar areas throughout the country. From it, at very short notice, 480 men, women and children were evacuated. They were

617
evacuated from 150 habitable houses and, in passing, I would emphasise that those 150 habitable houses represent a very valuable housing asset today, especially when one reads that the London County Council, the greatest housing authority in these islands, has announced that up to the end of last week they have succeeded in producing only four new permanent houses since V.E. Day. Despite definite promises made to these good people by representatives of both the War Office and the Regional Commissioner that immediately the war was over they would be allowed to return to their homes, the War Office still retain the land, giving as their excuse the same reason given to me by the Secretary of State of War, namely, that the Government do not yet know what the final training requirements of the new Army are going to be.
I submit that such indecision in these urgent times of threatened starvation are indefensible, and I do not think that it can be upheld. I suggest that there are alternatives which can be easily gone into; that in this country there is sufficient moor and heath land that could be made available for Army training, and that provision for this could profitably be made at the expense of the grouse and stags which now inhabit these areas. In addition, in Germany, where our Occupation Forces must remain for some considerable time, large new training areas could be provided at no expense to the food production of this nation.
So much for the War Office. I now turn to the Air Ministry. I understand that that Ministry last year held 240,000 acres of land suitable for food production. This figure excluded all land on which buildings, perimeter tracks and runways have been constructed. At the end of November last year, out of these 240,000 acres, 40,000 acres, or one-sixth of the total, have been let for limited farming purposes, entirely for grazing. Since then, a further 25,000 acres, comprising 43 grass airfields and some 60 concrete runway aerodromes, may, I understand, be released for agricultural use. In other words, we shall see 65,000 of these 240,000 acres being farmed in some fashion by the summer of 1946. I suggest that the acreage which has been released is not adequate. We should remember that last year these Air Ministry holdings of agricultural land
618
were providing for the needs of our own Royal Air Force at the height of its striking strength. In addition to this; it was providing for thousands of United States' Air Force heavy bombers and fighters, which were based on this country. I submit that a far greater acreage could have been made available than is, in fact, now proposed. In addition, there are two hampering restrictions on the land which is handed over. I must worry the House for a few minutes by mentioning what these restrictions are. They apply to concrete-runwayed airfields. The first is that, if the airfield is let for grazing, it is the responsibility of the farmer who takes the grazing rights of the air-field to erect fencing to prevent any animal wandering on to any concreted or tarmac surface. The official mind has decided that manure is damaging to concreted or tarmac surfaces.
The effect "of the restriction, when worked out, is that about 15 miles of fencing would be required for an average airfield. Such a position is ridiculous. Owing to lack of labour and material the farmer cannot undertake such a task, and the result is that the maximum use is not being made of these airfields. [Laughter.] The Lord President of the Council may laugh, but this is a fact that I have discovered, and the figures are accurate. It is not a laughing matter. I would like to appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially those who have seen airfields in this country and overseas severely damaged by air attack. They will have seen gaping craters right across the runways, but yet with efficient organisation and hard work those airfields have been repaired overnight and made serviceable. The official mind ought not to allow the fact that cow dung corrodes concrete surfaces, to prevent the unfortunate British housewife being given more milk, beef and mutton.
The second restriction which applies to these large, runwayed airfields is that when the land is to be. ploughed a 75 yard interval must be left on each side of every runway, and a 75 foot gap must be left adjacent to every perimeter track or dispersal. The effect of that is that, when ploughing takes place, out of the total quantity of land which could be ploughed, a proportion varying from 90 to 50 per cent. is rendered completely sterile and is not used. The reason given is that top

619
soil, drainage difficulties and so on, make it necessary to impose a restriction, should the aerodrome need to be reclaimed at short notice for flying purposes. I am informed by responsible farming opinion that this is totally untrue. In actual fact, the majority of this type of airfield are probably better drained than the average agricultural holding.
I have tried, I am afraid very inexpertly and with far too much nervousness, to make one or two helpful points. I have tried also to show the Government that there are certain ways in which they could definitely help us now in this drive for more food. I have attempted to show that there is red tape and lack of direction in certain quarters which is holding up the maximum use of our agricultural land. It all boils down to the principle which my party is always trying to impress upon hon. Members on the Government side, that they should put first things first. I humbly submit that the status of the Ministries of Food and of Agriculture should be raised, in the Government's scheme of things. The Government have very great responsibility in this matter to the long-suffering and hard-pressed people of this country. They can do much to help, and I am sure that in any practical measures which they are prepared to take to that end they will receive the wholehearted co-operation of Members on this side of the House.
7.49 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Byers: It is my very pleasant task to offer the congratulations of this House to the hon. and gallant Member for Woodbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Hare) upon the very excellent, able and constructive maiden speech which he has-just made. He referred to nervousness. I can assure him, as one who made his maiden speech nearly seven months ago, that if he suffers no more nervousness than he showed tonight, he will not have very much difficulty in the future. I do offer him the congratulations of this House on a most experienced, constructive and commanding speech.
Before he departed for dinner, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) referred to a dishonest campaign which had been carried on regarding the question of the world food shortage. I speak as a Liberal in this House, and I dissociate myself from
620
any such dishonest campaign, if indeed it exists; I am not sure that it does. We Liberals have the self-imposed task of attempting to take a balanced view of occurrences in the political field, and we will continue to do so. It is a very difficult job, but I think that hon. Members opposite will agree that we have carried out the pledge which we made at the beginning of this Session, that we would support the Government on all matters where we considered that they were working in the best interests of the community, and that where we criticised, our criticism would be constructive. I think that on the whole we have been friendly to the Government but I also feel that certain valid criticisms were made both by the Leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), which have not, in the main, been entirely refuted from the Government Bench. As far as the world is concerned, there is a food crisis, but as far as this country is concerned, there is more than that—there is, in our opinion, a crisis over the machinery of government. I feel that that must be recognised by hon. Members opposite. We do not seek to apportion the blame, but we do ask Members opposite to draw the lesson.
I do not doubt that the immediate problem of the food shortage can to some extent be solved by a series of hectic and unpleasant improvisations, or indeed by sacrifices on the part of the long-suffering British people and others. Many of those sacrifices would undoubtedly have been necessary, regardless of what had or had not been done by the Government. But I think that a case could be made that in the time at their disposal the Government could have done more to have prevented the seriousness of the food situation as it affects this country and other countries for which we are responsible. The question really is one of guilty or not guilty? Of what are the Government not guilty? I am quite definite about it; first of all, they are obviously not guilty with regard to the world food shortage. Everybody will agree with that. I do not think they are guilty of failure to issue general warnings to this House and to the country, but they have not always been given in the right way or with the right emphasis. We have not had the specific information which we require, though I fully appreciate that some

621
of the vital specific information only very recently became available. I fully appreciate the extraordinary difficulties, both economic and administrative, with which the Government have been faced by the abrupt end of lend-lease, and the dreadful possibility of even further delay in the ratification of the American loan. That is a very difficult problem. Apart from anything else, there is the uncertainty of knowing when the loan is to be ratified, and that is a psychological factor which must be taken into consideration.
On the other hand, the Government must accept responsibility for serious failure to co-ordinate certain important Government Departments. I put this forward in the hope that the lesson will be learned, not only on the question of food, but with regard to other matters. There is a failure to establish a flexible type of machinery which could act quickly, in order to keep pace with events, instead of lagging behind. I deplore the tendency of the Government to think that they can run planned economy with the old Conservative machinery which they inherited from 20 years of Conservative rule. I do not believe it can be done; henceforth much more attention must be paid to the machinery of government. That is why I said there is a lesson to be learned. There is a lesson in this very crisis.
I also believe that to some extent there has been a very serious mishandling of the public. As the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) said, "there are many ways in which one woos the opposite sex." There is also the attitude which Ministers in general adopt towards the public, and in that I think there is need for improvement. The public have put this Government into power, I do not argue the question of a mandate, but they elected the Government not as their masters but as their servants, and they do not expect a dictatorial attitude on the part of Ministers who say, "I have given you this, I have sent a ship here, I have done this." I acquit the. Minister of any desire whatever to be a dictator, but it is the impression which is created, and there is a great need for improvement in the relationship between the Government and the people. It seems a very odd thing to say of the Labour Party, but it is true.
622
There are many examples of lack of co-ordination. I would like to deal with one or two of them; some have already been mentioned. We have had repeated warnings, by the Lord President of the Council, the Minister of Food, and many others, that there was an impending world food shortage. I well remember those warnings, but we have not had specific information. With all those general warnings, issued from mid-1945 onwards, we have had the Minister of Agriculture taking at that Box what I would call a complacent attitude towards food production. That complacency is typified by the answer which he gave on 15th October, about the reduction of the wheat acreage payment from£4 to£2. This is very interesting when it is considered that the Minister of Food himself said that the gravity of the wheat position was not known until the autumn. It could not have been too late last autumn to do anything about the Spring sowing, but even so, on 15th October the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a question said:
"I am anxious that all suitable land coining in turn for wheat should be so planted, and I should like to see the 1945 acreage maintained. But the growing of wheat on unsuitable land... would no longer be justifiable."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 703.]
That is what I call a complacent attitude which could only have been due to one of two things, either ignorance or stupidity. Now the Minister of Agriculture is not a stupid man, therefore he must have been kept in ignorance. I can see no other reason. If he had known the facts about the food situation surely, in answer to this question, he would have given those facts and would have said, "Despite those facts, we are still convinced that our policy is' right." He did not, he merely said, "We are perfectly satisfied with the 1945 acreage." He had no right to be satisfied with it, and something should have been done about it.
Here I would like to deal with the lack of co-ordination between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture when there is a shortage of food, as there will be for some time in this country, because we cannot produce all the food we want. In those circumstances of food scarcity, the Minister of Agriculture is really the factory manager for the Minister of Food. We have not had that co-ordination which, to my mind, is vital between

623
the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture. I still think it is fantastic that we should find in the Cabinet the factory manager, but the boss himself is excluded from it. Therefore, I say, there is a serious lack of co-ordination. In fact, if hon. Members should get 'flu, it would be a very good thing to read through HANSARD while they are in bed and see, through a period of four or five months, the lack of co-ordination exemplified by the different answers which are given from different Ministries that should pull together.
I would like to turn to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Labour. They are two Departments very much interrelated at the present time. They must be co-ordinated, but I do not believe they have been. We have had continual complaints from all sides of the House that sufficient priority has not been given to the release of agricultural workers from the Forces. Yet it was only after considerable pressure that in December agricultural workers were included in the Class B scheme. The cream was knocked off that by calling up 8,000 of the existing workers. I think I am right in saying that agriculture has lost 100,000men during the war, and to call up 8,000 at a time when the country is being generally warned of a food shortage shows either a very bad decision or a tremendous lack of co-ordination. About a fortnight ago, on 23rd January, we had. the news from the Minister of Agriculture in answer to a Question that only 490 men had been released under Class B individual specialist arrangements up to 31st December. He went on to say that the ordinary block release system had not had time to operate. Only 490 men had been released under the individual specialist system, and all hon. Members know the continual demands coming to them to assist in getting men to get land into production to employ more men to get more food. I do not say this was a wrong decision, but I do not believe that there had been sufficient co-ordination before that decision to allow only 490 men out of the Forces had been reached.
I want to deal with the Prime Minister's deferment of 8,000 men. The Government have a case to answer there, that that should have been done when the Minister of Food knew that there was to be a shortage of food and on his own
624
showing he knew that at the end of last year. I do not know whether he advised the Minister of Labour, but it does not look like it to us or to the public, and we have a right to know. I think probably the best example of lack of co-ordination was displayed by the Minister of Labour himself on 5th February, which was the day on which the food statement was made Half an hour before statements were made by the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Labour announced in this House, in answer to a Question, that only 1,529 of the 18,000 agricultural workers had been released under the block system by 15th January. He then said that he did not think the block release scheme was going too slowly, and that every effort was being made to push it along. But, surely, if he had been in the confidence of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food, he should have realised that it was going along too slowly—too slowly compared with the other events which were taking place. I do not believe the Minister of Labour could have given that answer if he really knew the facts, and, therefore, to us it appears as if there is a very serious lack of co-ordination between the various Government Departments.
I do not want to labour the question of the Treasury and dried egg, but I will say that the decision as to how dollars are to be spent is one which is far above the responsibility of the Treasury alone. We must ensure, particularly if we get this loan, that our dollar expenditure is very carefully co-ordinated, and that the decisions which are made as to how the dollars should be expended are taken after the most careful consideration and co-ordination. Furthermore, I think that, after what the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge said about films, there is a case for a serious revision of the present dollar expenditure to see if we cannot get more value for the meagre dollars that we have.
1 do not want to labour the question of the Prime Minister's letter. That has been dealt with, and it seems to have had a different effect upon different people. I think the Government can morally be acquitted, when one reads that letter, of having misled the people in that particular respect, but I do say that there is lack of efficient co-ordination and planning, and that insufficient attention has been paid to the needs of agriculture, so that

625
the farmer and the farm worker will now be called upon to make additional sacrifices. They are bound to, they will do it, but why have we to ask them merely because we do not get the co-ordination and the flexible machinery to keep pace with events in a modern world? It will call for hectic improvisation in many fields. Today, instead of having an orderly system to deal with these problems—in so far as we can deal with them we are not asking for miracles—we shall have a series of improvisations throughout the country.
I want to say this to hon. Members opposite—I am afraid they will not like it. I do not want to make party capital out of it, I merely want to try and draw the lesson of this crisis as it affects this country. I believe that the key to government in a modern State is comprehensive planning, with the emphasis on the word "comprehensive." I believe that we, as Liberals, approach planning from a different standpoint from hon. Members on the other side of the House. Planning to us does not just mean nationalisation and the day-to-day interference with Government Departments in the lives of the people. We do not call that planning. We support a great deal of nationalisation and public ownership, but we do not make the mistake of thinking that nationalisation is planning. It is not. Nationalisation is just one of many methods which are used to develop a comprehensive plan. I am not advocating the Conservative argument of putting nationalisation before everything else—I do not think that holds water for a minute—but I do say this: You can do two things at once, but if you are going to give the people of this country the sort of economic and social wellbeing they want—and that means food and houses and employment—then you must, first of all, have the comprehensive plan into which your nationalisation and your other methods fit properly.
It is the comprehensive plan that we are lacking at the moment. It is most important that we should not think, every time we pass a Bill nationalising something, that that means planning. It does not at all. We have not the framework yet, and it is the framework that we want. I believe it is on the comprehensive planning side that this Government at present are lamentably weak. There is a lack of breadth of vision which is desperately required to meet the problems of the modern
626
State. I am not suggesting that the Conservative Party would have done better. I am not even suggesting at the moment that we would have done better. I am merely pointing to the fact that there is this lack of breadth of vision which would be required from anybody occupying the Government Front Bench
Comprehensive planning means accepting full responsibility for ensuring the economic and social wellbeing of the people and giving them food, housing, employment and proper social services. And it means taking the people into the Government's confidence and telling them what the plan is. This is where I believe the Government have gone wrong, because they have told the people they are going to nationalise certain things—and have got a good cheer—but they have not given them a lead in the direction which they require. They have not told them what the whole plan is. That is where there is a very great weakness to which we have continually drawn attention. This comprehensive plan has never been developed and thought out for the simple reason that this country is being governed today by a Cabinet of Ministers who are over-burdened with departmental duties. It is like trying to run an army with a host of over-worked staff captains and no chief-of-staff. Nobody is doing the thinking. There are plenty of people doing the acting, plenty of people putting in long hours, and doing it extremely well and working as hard as they can. But who, while all this action is taking place, is thinking ahead? Where everything is in the hands of a Cabinet of Ministers who are over-burdened and over-worked and there is no one thinking ahead, rigidity is the rule and no longer is there a flexible machine which can deal with the various changes which take place and which have to be made as the exigencies of the situation arise. There is not the co-ordination which is necessary in order to plan the affairs of the country for the future.
We have continually drawn attention to the fact that there must be instituted—and this is really a most serious point— in the machinery of the Government, a small inner Cabinet of Ministers free from departmental duties and charged with the task of making a comprehensive plan, and of establishing machinery for coordinating the various Government Departments. They should have executive

627
responsibility for developing that plan, and, above all, for explaining to the people how the plan is to be developed. We have not got that at the present moment, and there is no one today who is doing the thinking. There is no one who is free from departmental responsibility. In times of scarcity the first essential is to have someone looking ahead and laying down the priorities. I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to the tremendous weaknesses which have been shown to exist in our national machinery not only for dealing with food, but with full employment. We are going to have a catastrophe from which the country will not recover for years, with no one sitting down and thinking and planning and too many people dashing about. I do not mind them dashing about, providing someone else is doing the thinking. That is vital if we are to play our part in any world organisation dealing with food, full employment, or the improvement of the standards of living of the people. They are the people who will know what is happening. They will have the large co-ordinated picture before them and be able to speak with authority in the various organisations to which I hope we shall commit ourselves. I am not going to deal now with the international side of the danger, but I would say to the Minister and the Members of the Government, that I hope they will learn from the mistakes which they are making. I believe that if they do that they will prove to be the most experienced Government we have ever had.
8.17 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Webb: The hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers) suggested that we on these benches might not like certain observations he was about to make on the need for economic planning. We found them quite acceptable, and in no sense did we dislike them. It is indeed accepted on these benches, and, I hope, understood on the benches opposite, that, nationalisation is only an element in a comprehensive economic plan. But his speech raised points of some substance and he made certain statements with which I hope to deal before I sit down.
I want to deal with certain points made, by the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). He is a man of
628
tremendous experience and quite considerable ability, to whom the House pays serious attention. But I am bound to say that on this occasion I felt he was less than just to his own high reputation. I just could not accept his thesis that in some magical way the comprehensive issue of information would have eased the problem of the lack of food. He based his supposition on the belief that President Truman evidently did not know what the Minister of Food in this country knew. One can hardly accept that. One must assume that the Government of the United States of America have at least as much information of trends and tendencies in these matters as our own Government.
The Senior Burgess for Oxford, I thought too, was unfair in comparing the Minister of Fuel and Power with the Minister of Food, to the disadvantage of the Minister of Food, in the matter of supplying information. He overlooked the fact that they are dealing in entirely different fields. The production and supply of coal are an entirely domestic matter. The Minister of Food has to deal with a situation which is international in all its aspects and consequences, and I thought it unfair of the Senior Burgess for Oxford to make that comparison, and wholly unconvincing.
Sir D. Robertson: Is the hon. Member being quite fair to the Senior Burgess for Oxford University? Surely he said that the Anglo-Saxon countries acted under the pressure of public opinion, much more so than at any other time. He made it quite clear to me that if this House, the American Congress and our people had known through the Press and the B.B.C., pressure would have been brought to bear for action to be taken. That is what he said.
Mr. Webb: I recollect that quite well, but that was only part of his case. The answer I am making is that even if that had been so," and I do not accept it as necessarily being so, it would not have grown one grain more wheat. That is the answer to the point made by the Senior Burgess.
I do not want to develop that argument. I want to congratulate the Opposition on their rather belated discovery that the State has some responsibility for feeding the people. It would have been better had they made the' discovery in the lean years between the wars, when the people

629
of this country were, as they are now, without sufficient food. Not for the same reason, not because food was not there, but because they had not the purchasing power to acquire that food. It is true that many millions of people in those years were without food, as they are now, but I have no recollection of any great agitation in the Conservative Party to remedy that. It is a matter of great encouragement to us to find that at this late hour they have discovered that the community, through the responsibility of Government, carries some degree of responsibility for the adequate feeding of the people.
I have no great complaint against the spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) addressed himself to this problem. On this side of the House we appreciated the concession he made that this had to be approached in a non-partisan spirit. I am bound to say that his attitude was in stark contrast to the attitude adopted by many sections of his party, and many newspapers supporting his party, since this matter became a public issue in recent weeks. Some people seem to have seized on this situation as nothing more than a useful chance to "smear "the Government. I am a newspaper man, or was, and I hesitate to criticise newspaper policy, but in this business I feel that certain newspapers have been guilty of disreputable conduct for partisan ends. They have been seeking to exaggerate the situation for the purpose of bringing the Government into disrepute. I think their conduct in the matter is deplorable and brings our profession into great disrepute.
I have listened carefully to the whole of this Debate, and for the most part the complaint against the Government is that there has not been sufficient warning by the Government, that the Government have failed to provide adequate information of these tendencies. But I repeat what has surely already been made clear from this side of the House, that repeated warnings have been given, warnings that any person of normal intelligence could well comprehend, warnings that could easily have been seen by anybody but the deliberately blind. In August last, when the Foreign Secretary made his first speech in this House, he said that we were on the eve of a great world crisis in food.
630
It is complained that the language adopted by Ministers in these matters has not been blunt enough. I cannot think how the Foreign Secretary could have been more blunt in making a declaration of that kind. A month later he repeated his warning, and appealed to the Allies for concerted action to deal with this problem. Another month later the Foreign Secretary repeated his warning in quite unmistakable terms. The Prime Minister, on 16th August, in our first Debate in this House, said:
" It must be realised there is a world shortage of these "—
meat, fats and sugar—
" due to a number of different causes."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th August, 1945; Vol. 413, c. 103.]
The Minister of Food himself, as I think he has shown, has clearly acquitted himself of the charge that he failed to give the House a comprehensive general warning of the kind of situation that was developing.
Even if these warnings had not been given it does not, in my judgment, lie with the Opposition to bring charges of failure -to speak the truth, because we have had in recent weeks repeated attacks from that side of the House against the alleged gloom of Ministerial statements. Repeatedly we have had Ministers condemned because they were not giving the people that kind of scintillating and exciting oratory which Members on that side of the House believe to be necessary. They have pressed unceasingly for some relaxation of our Spartan standards. Their newspapers have excelled themselves in demanding a lessening or a relaxation of austerity. In view of statements made repeatedly from those benches, they should be the last to condemn any failure to make the warnings even more precise than they have been. The truth is that austerity is the product of inescapable and grave circumstances. It was not devised in the Cabinet room. It was and is compelled by 'the grim facts of a disturbed world, as we now clearly see. If certain hon. and right hon. Members opposite recollect now some of the statements they have made in recent months in this House they should hesitate to intervene in this Debate with any complaint against the Government.
But the problem before us is not to attribute responsibility. It is to find

631
remedies, to find solutions so far as they can be found. If the Opposition are, as they claim to be, the patriotic party, they will now apply themselves to that task rather than to the meaner task of making partisan points. It is necessary that we should get this matter in perspective so far as this country is concerned. It is true that our conditions are harsh. After six years of war it is a great burden—our housewives in particular find it a great burden—to face the daily irksome job of trying to get fresh meals and varied food. Yet we must remember we are better off than many millions of people scattered round the world. Over 130,000,000 people in Europe exist on two-thirds of our ration, and about half that number on about half our rations. We cannot dismiss these circumstances as irrelevant; we have to take them into account. Both honour and self-interest require that we in this country give them attention—honour because many of these people fought with us during the war, and self-interest, because clearly we cannot escape the consequences of pestilence if that were to follow famine. In our own Empire, for which we must take responsibility, there is a grave situation. As the Minister pointed out earlier today, the facts regarding India are almost staggering. It is to the credit of this Government that while not neglecting every opportunity to safeguard the rights of our own people, they have sought, in the true tradition of our democratic politics, to take the lead in securing concerted action. Even if others are more tardy, if others are not so forthcoming in these matters, it seems to me unthinkable that we in this country should sit back and say that we wash our hands entirely of what is going on in Europe and other countries.
On this matter of the overseas food position I would like to ask the Government one or two things. First, could we be told how far the Government have contributed to finding some solution of the transport problem in Europe? I understand they have done something, but so far information has not been available. It would be interesting and useful to have some facts on that point. Another question I would like to ask the Chancellor, who I understand is going to reply to this Debate, is whether there is
632
real equality in the distribution of supplies among the various European nations. Reports conflict on this point. There is some suggestion that some countries are far better off than others. So far there has been no authentic information, and if it could be supplied I, for one, would be obliged.
I want to turn briefly to our home problems. Like many hon. Members opposite, I wonder whether the Government's arrangements for the co-ordination of the work of the various Departments are adequate. I would not exaggerate the importance of co-ordination. I am sure we can have far too much co-ordination of Government Departments. Ministers are often far too busy being coordinated instead of being at work in their Departments. But it does appear on some aspects of the Government's work that it would be possible to improve the machinery of co-ordination. It would be possible in the light of experience to strengthen it and make it more flexible. We understand that a food committee of Ministers has been sitting with the Prime Minister at its head. It may be. that that food committee has been in existence for a long time, but we did not know. If it has been in existence for a long time it would perhaps have been better if we had known. If it were possible for that food committee to become a permanent feature, or at least for a long period, of the machinery of government it would, I think, be an advantage.
But I think that there is an even deeper problem here. Food is only part of the general economic problem. It is related, as we know, to currency, manpower, and to the general system of priorities. I am inclined to think that the Government will have a recurrence of certain troubles unless they set up some form of adequate economic general staff. There is machinery for economic co-ordination in Whitehall, but I am not at all sure—I may be wrong and I would like the Chancellor to answer this point if I am wrong—that the Cabinet has adequate and up-to-date economic information in all fields when certain decisions are taken. I may be wrong about that, but I am inclined to think if we had something in the nature of an economic general staff, comparable in status and size with the Imperial General Staff with which we conducted war operations, there would be some improvement in the work of the

633
Government. I would like to hear from the Chancellor what his views are about that and, if it is possible, some information of the extent to which such machinery does exist.
There are many other points that I wanted to raise but they have been gone over very fully by other speakers and I will not detain the House much longer. There is one last point I must make. I would urge the Minister of Food to make quite sure he has got in this country the maximum equality in the enjoyment of such food as is available. I agree that there is some exaggeration of the amount of luxury eating in this country. It is also true that if all luxury eating were cut down the amount of food thus made available would make very little difference spread over the whole country. But that is not the point. In a situation like this no section of the community should be seen to have any kind of physical advantage at all. In a situation like this it is important that the great mass of the people who are deprived of necessities, who have not got sufficient food, should not, even mistakenly, have the view that some privileged class is getting more food than that to which they are entitled. I understand that cuts are being made in factory and workshop canteens. That may not be so, and if the Chancellor can give reassuring news on that point I shall be obliged. I would ask the Minister of Food to try, if he can, to ensure more effective control over the distribution of non-rationed food so as to make quite sure there is a minimum of inequality and we all share what is going.
I will conclude with this general submission to the Minister of Food, that if he can find any device, if he can develop any means at all, if he can show any resource, any initiative, to secure as rapidly as possible some improvement of this situation, he can rely on the full, enthusiastic and confident support of the people on these benches. I feel, speaking for myself, that his speech today was a reassuring speech— [Interruption.] It was a reassuring speech in so far as his conduct is in question. No speech that is dealing with a great world situation of this kind can possibly be reassuring; of course it cannot; but so far as the Minister's handling of the situation was in question, I say that, so far as I am concerned, his speech was reassuring. If in
634
that spirit he can continue with his work he can count on the loyal co-operation of his colleagues on the back benches.
8.37 p.m.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: In spite of the grave words which have been uttered this afternoon by the Minister and others, I wonder even now whether Members of this House and the general public outside are adequately aware of the gravity of the situation in India, and of the responsibility that attaches to His Majesty's Government, and, indeed, to the whole House, in that connection. A few days ago, with nine other Members from both Houses, I came back from India, having had the honour to form part of a Parliamentary delegation. As the House knows, Parliamentary delegations of that sort are seldom unanimous upon political matters, but upon the question of the food situation in India we were indeed unanimous. I know I speak for the whole delegation when I say we all feel ourselves under an obligation to direct, as far as we can, the attention of this House, and of the Government, to the situation out there.
In India they are not worrying about dried eggs and jellies. I felt a certain air of unreality about the Debate today. In India it is a question of death by starvation. I do not wish to exaggerate or to try and frighten the House, but it is a question of death by starvation, possibly for very large numbers of people. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food spoke about the grain shortage in India. I think he under-estimated it. The latest information last month was that the grain shortage was something approaching 3,000,000 tons. That is not all, because the situation is daily getting worse with the lack of rain in certain parts of the country. There are no reserves held by the Government and there is no carryover from past years.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the news of this situation in India was of relatively recent date as far as he was concerned. I do not wish to make party capital out of it, but I think it will be found as early as last July— [Interruption]. I am not trying to make party capital out of it; I am only pointing out that as early as last July the shortage was stated to be 1,500,000 tons, since when the situation has deteriorated. One

635
may speak of millions of tons of grain deficiency. I think in order to bring it home to the people of this country it should be translated into other terms. Rationing takes place in India in the towns at present, and until quite recently the ration in most towns was I lb. per head per day. That is 365 lbs. per year. At that rate, every million tons of grain represents, if my arithmetic is correct, the annual ration for something like 6.3 million people, so that a deficiency of 3,000,000 tons of grain means that the rations for three times 6.3 millions, that is just under 19,000,000 people, are deficient. I see that, according to the evening papers, the ration in India, in the towns, has been reduced to 12 ounces per head, which brings the deficiency up to rations for about 24,000,000 people. The House will therefore see that the situation is indeed grave
At present, so far as rations in the towns are concerned, India is completely dependent on imports, and on imports for something far more important, that is, for the maintenance of public confidence. Without public confidence, there can be no procurement, because, in a country composed entirely of peasant farmers, as soon as confidence breaks down they hold on to their stocks and procurement ceases. I feel that anyone speaking on the Indian food situation has a heavy responsibility, because it is clearly one's duty not to create feelings of panic when unnecessary. It is equally one's duty to impress the gravity of the situation upon the House, and I hope that what I have said will be considered adequate. India has no assured imports of grain supplies. India does not know what she is going to be sent. She has been made various half-promises by His Majesty's Government, but nothing is assured and definite, and the first thing I ask on behalf of India is that she should know where she stands. The Minister of Food has said that, tomorrow or in the next few days, he would be engaged in talks with the Indian Food Mission. I want to let him know that those of us who have been to India on this delegation regard the situation as extremely serious and that we shall not leave him alone about it.
What are the Government going to do about rice? I intervened in the Minister's speech to ask a question about the allocation of Siamese rice. I have looked up
636
the figures and find that on the first alloaction of Siamese rice, Cuba gets 60,000 tons, and yet Cuba refuses to ration rice. It is alleged that all the South-East Asia Command area, excluding India, has been given preference over India so far as rice is concerned. These statements may or may not be true, and I do not vouch for them, but there are rumours going round and I ask the Chancellor to deny or confirm them. It would be an ugly thing if there is a food famine in India. We had one in Bengal in 1943, and we do not want it repeated this year in Madras, Mysore, Bombay and possibly elsewhere. We ought not to contemplate with equanimity famine over such wide areas. There is a political argument which also applies. It is not betraying any secret when I say that, in the next few months, India will be going through a very difficult political time—a time the gravity of which can hardly be exaggerated. If to these grave political difficulties are added conditions of famine in many parts of the country, the situation will hardly bear contemplation.
I want now to come to the question of responsibility. It is no good concealing the fact that His Majesty's Government are primarily responsible for food policy in India. We hope that very soon there will be Provincial Governments operating, but, under the present dispensation, the form of Government at the Centre, owing to the failure to arrive at Federation before the war, is the same form of Government as that which was laid down under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, and it can scarcely be said that, so far as central food policy is concerned, India has self-government. Indian representatives on international food conferences are not chosen by the elected representatives of the Indian people. They are, in effect, nominated by the Indian Government, which means that their nomination is subject to the veto of Whitehall. We have in this House a direct responsibility for the food policy of the Indian Government. I urge upon the Government that this is not a party question. I shall not attempt to make party capital out of it. I urge the Government to face the fact that the gravest aspect of this food problem is the Indian one. I feel extraordinarily uneasy and anxious about it. The time has come when the most Herculean efforts must be undertaken to satisfy Indian needs. The organisation

637
is there and all that is needed are the grain supplies from the rest of the world. I most earnestly beg the Government to take the necessary action.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Macpherson: I think I must be one of the last of the new Members of this Parliament to make my maiden speech. Up to now, I have been rather influenced by Disraeli's advice to a new Member who sought his views about addressing this House. Said Disraeli: "It is better the House wonder why you do not speak, than why you do." I feel I cannot rely on that subterfuge any longer, and so must ask for the sympathy and indulgence of the House in addressing it for the first time.
The disquieting news about the world food position, and particularly the inadequate cereal harvest, comes at a very unfortunate moment in our affairs. After the privations and hardships of the war years, our people, and the people of other countries too, were beginning to feel that they were just about due for a break. But, from the statement made to us today, it is obvious that that will not come about just yet. In fact, surveying the world food position, I am reminded of an old Scottish grace before meat:
" O, Lord, look o'er us a'
There's four of us, but only meat for twa,
And ane could eat it a'."
I want to find out just what is the complaint or charge against the Minister of Food and the Government. I heard some complaint about delay in making a statement soon enough, about the world food position, but that was very satisfactorily answered, I thought, by the Minister himself during his speech. If the complaint relates to a shortage of wheat and rice as a result of recent news about world crop failures, then I think the Government have no charge to meet. It has been said, and on this side of the House as well, that the Government are at fault for the reduction of the wheat acreage in this country.
But arrangements for the British 1946 wheat crop were made in the early part of last year, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) was Minister of Agriculture. The bulk of the wheat grown in this country is winter wheat and was actually sown during September, October and November of last year. So it should be obvious to the House that the arrangements for
638
this year's wheat crop were made before the present Government took Office. I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport was wrong in the arrangements he made. Personally, I thought at the time that the decision to ease up on cereal crops and encourage a bigger production of meat, pork, poultry and eggs was a good one, and I would probably have done the same myself. But the point is that any criticism of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, or of the Government, because of our domestic wheat policy is quite unjustified. The wheat shortage is a world shortage and affects every country, but one would have thought from a perusal of the Tory Press this last week or two, and from speeches made in this House this afternoon, that the reason we have a wheat shortage is because we have a Labour Government. It is nothing of the sort; it is a world problem. I cannot read anywhere that the Government of the United States of America or the Government of Canada, France or any other country in the world—all of whom are affected—are today being arraigned on a charge of neglect and incompetence.
I have often heard it said by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is the duty of the Opposition to criticise. I am going to suggest that it is the prerogative of those of us on the Government benches to advise, especially when we have some specialised knowledge and experience of the subject to put before the House. It so happens that I have a lifetime's experience of the food business in a variety of directions, and I have one or two suggestions which I would like to press on the attention of the Government. First of all, in my view, the food problem has not hitherto had a high enough priority in the counsels of our Government. As a result of what has happened during the last week or two, Ministers should realise that this question of food and the feeding of the people of this country is the most important domestic question today. Just to give some idea of the magnitude of the food problem, may I remind the House that in prewar days we imported into this country 1,000,000 tons of meat per annum, 500,000 tons of butter, 400,000tons of bacon and 5,000,000 tons of wheat. That was the position before the war when, as Sir John Boyd-Orr has reminded us, 60 per cent. of the people of this country were not getting enough

639
to eat. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) amid the cheers of his comrades—if that is the correct word—was chipping the Government about our failure to give priority to the question of food. In those prewar days, when we had a Tory Government, 60 per cent. of the people of this country could not get enough to eat. So much for the Tory Party's idea of food priority. Any comparison with prewar figures will be quite invidious. Our imports and home production of foodstuffs for the future must be in very much greater volume than we have been accustomed to think about in the past. Despite the most intensive drive for home-produced food, our higher standard of living will be dependent, not upon the same imports as prewar, but a greatly increased tonnage and variety.
I agree, as has been said, that we have to give this food question a proper priority in the counsels of this Government and, indeed, any Government. As a first step towards putting food in its right perspective, I recommend that the Minister of Food should be a member of the Cabinet. I find that it is a surprise to most people that the Minister of Food is not today a member of the Cabinet. Also, I am not completely convinced that the immediate food problem is entirely one of currency and harvests. I think transport, handling and flexibility of policy are important factors. Handling and transport are vital. The Minister of Food should sit in the highest councils of the Government and, across the Cabinet Table, should press for the necessary currency, transport and manpower in order, effectively and satisfactorily, to feed the people of this country. I know that the Minister of Food and the Government are just as keen as I am, or anyone else in this House, to increase the present food supplies, but I would beg of them to re-examine their arrangements and to endeavour, at the earliest possible moment, to try and obtain greater quantities of food for the people.
This Government are out to obtain a higher standard of living for the people. Our plans to achieve this aim by the socialisation of basic industries and services in the national interest instead of in the interest of private profit are excellent, but it will be some time—in some cases a year or two—before the effect of these
640
policies will be felt in this country. In the meantime, we are faced with an immediate problem of doing something about the standard of living now. It should not be beyond the wit of this Government, in collaboration with the food trade of this country, to effect some improvement in the early future. The successful handling of this matter can play a great part in other directions in our national life and help to solve some of the problems which are baffling us today.
From several quarters we get reports about disappointing productive effort, absenteeism, lack of incentive and lack of interest. My right hon. Friend the. Minister of Fuel and Power, speaking last weekend in connection with the output of coal, used these words:
"It is alleged that men are tired, that they are not getting sufficient food, and that they do not get sufficient opportunity to spend what they earn on consumer goods."
But we are warned that there can be no increase in consumer goods until there is greater production and a bigger volume of exports. On the one hand the workers say, "Give us more food and more consumable goods, and we will be able to give better work and produce more." On the other hand, we are told there can be no more consumable goods until people work harder and produce more. It is a kind of vicious circle. This vicious circle goes on, and it must be broken. The fact is that, as a result of conditions inherited by this Government, life today in this country is too drab, and I beg of the Government to make renewed efforts and concentrate upon endeavouring to increase the supply and the variety of food so that we can get this greater productive effort that we want.
In conclusion, may I say that 1 know from my personal acquaintance with the Minister of Food, and from my experience of him since he took office, that he took on this job imbued with a keen desire to obtain every ounce of food of every kind and from every quarter, in order to try to relieve the position of the long suffering and hard-pressed housewives of this country. I beg of him that, in carrying out that policy, if he is in difficulties or finds any frustration, let him come to this House and take us and the country into his confidence. Whatever the difficulty may be, I am sure that we in this House and the people in the country too will be behind him in helping him to solve those

641
difficulties in carrying out the great job he is doing in feeding the people of this country.
9.3 p.m.
Mrs. Braddock: Having heard that only one woman was to be asked to speak in this Debate, I am glad, even at this late hour, to have the opportunity of making a few comments. Before I do so, I would like to take the opportunity of complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) on his maiden speech. We on these benches know that in the party which has come into power in this country, there are many people who know their subject well and know how to express their views upon it. My hon. Friend has expressed his knowledge of the subject on which he was speaking, in a way that we all appreciate, and I know this House will look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.
My comments tonight on this matter in the short time at my disposal may become somewhat controversial, but, first, I want to say how pleased are the working class of this country that in a crisis of this sort a Labour Government are in control of the situation. I remember that in 1920 and 1921, when I took part in unemployment demonstrations, and, with thousands of other unemployed people in Liverpool, received the batons of the police in demonstrations against unemployment and hunger, when men who had fought in the1914–18 war were prepared to sell the medals they had won in. order to buy food, a Conservative Government had promised all sorts of things in order to gain a majority. They did gain it, and they never kept one of the promises they made.
I am delighted that in a crisis of this sort those of us who know the economics of our own people, those of us who understand what our own people have had to put up with, are in control of the situation and know exactly what they are going to do in relation to it. I am not going to say I am sorry that the whole of the facts were not given to us in the way the Opposition wanted. My people, the working class, do not understand when you talk of millions of tons, millions of bushels and millions of pounds They are only used to understanding an ordinary week's wages, which they are able to get from the employing class in order to obtain
642
such food as they are able to buy. I am not at all sorry that a lot of facts were not given. During the last 25 years corners have been established in markets, in order to put up the price of the foodstuff that was in short supply. The Government that we now have appreciate that position. I hope they will continue to keep the confidence of the people of this country by making certain no corners are established in any foodstuffs of the people.
I have here menus of some of the hotels in various towns, menus which show no shortage of any sort of foodstuff at all. In these places, if you can pay for it, you can get anything you want, and any amount you want. The people of this country are concerned about that aspect too, and they are wondering if the position is going to be similar to that which arose when fish was thrown back into' the sea because it was. caught in too large quantities for the middlemen to get the price they wanted. That is the sort of thing this Government have got to watch, never mind what effect it has upon those who have always had plenty and who, because they have the money at their disposal, will always be able to get plenty. As a Labour Government we have to see—and I am confident that the Government will see to it—that there is proper distribution of every type of food, and that when a certain type of food is in short supply, another type of food is transferred in order to meet the shortage. Had it not been that the hour is late, and that there are others who want to take part in the discussion, I would have read these menus. They would have looked very nice in HANSARD.
I did hope that I would have the opportunity, earlier in the Debate, of being able to speak at very much greater length than I am permitted to do at the moment. AH I want to do now is to draw a distinction between the types of food that people who have the money can get, and the types of food that people who belong to the working class have to put up with, because of their inability to put their hands into their pockets when they want to, in order to take their wives and families out to a restaurant. I want to draw attention—as I am entitled to do, representing an area where there is poverty—to the position in which for years working-class people have been

643
denied the night to work. 1 never heard any questions from the Opposition with regard to that position, when, in 1926, miners were locked out for six months, because they would not accept less money. They starved. In this country, at the moment, nobody is starving, and there will not be anybody starving because this side of the House controls the position. Had the position been the other way 1 do not know what the situation would have been at the present moment. I have some idea of this, because I went through the whole of the struggle of the unemployed, in Liverpool, between 1920 and 1921 and onwards. All I am asking is that this Government of ours should pay particular attention to the fact that the people of this country want to know that a watch is being kept upon all food supplies, irrespective of what they are, and that they will not be left without when other people have got too much. That is the sort of thing the workers of this country want to know.
I compliment the Government on their handling of this very difficult position, because it is not something that has been created by the advent of a Labour Government, as was suggested from the other side of the House. It is a world situation and must be handled carefully. It must be handled by people who understand what the workers of this country, and of other countries, require. They must watch carefully that no little pockets of private interests are created, that food is not drawn into a centre and controlled by separate interests, who, when a shortage arises, will demand whatever price they want for it. The workers of this country want to know positively that food is being controlled by this Government, that the only shortages there will be will be shortages applicable to everybody. I know the working class, being one of them and living among them, and they will be able to accept any shortage if they know that it is absolutely unavoidable. May I say in conclusion that I hope that all these movements which have been created within the last two or three days by the Conservative Party for their own political benefit will go out of existence, and that the situation will be judged on the facts as they have been given by the Minister of Food, namely, that there is a world shortage. The people of this country are assured that their own people
644
are in control, and they can be certain that every possible effort will be made to see that the shortage does not go any further.
9.13 p.m.
Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should like, first, to add my personal congratulations to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) on his maiden speech. He quoted a maxim of Disraeli to us, and in the light of that,-and of his own words, I am sure that, if he keeps silence too obstinately in future, we shall all wonder what is the cause of it. I would also like to say how much I appreciated the maiden speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Hare)—a most noteworthy contribution to our Debate I am sure we shall all look forward to hearing him again in the future.
I think this has been a very useful day, and I do not think anyone, in any part of the House, can complain at the temperate tone in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) introduced this topic. It is quite obvious that we are facing a grave situation in regard to our food supplies, and it is not a matter which any of us would like to exploit for party reasons. Though I must say that I was a little tempted by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) to reply in the same vein as that in which she addressed us, I do not think that that would be quite the right way to handle it, and there is quite enough to say in my limited time to render that sort of speech unnecessary.
If this Debate has had one result that is clear to me, it is this: The Government must be under no illusion about the fact that co-operation in Parliament between the parties on matters of national importance must be founded upon the full disclosure 0f information. It really is not possible for us, or for any party, to give wise counsel without information, and what has clearly emerged today is that there has been a perhaps natural hangover, on the part of the Ministry of Food, from the war, when stocks were highly secret and were not disclosed as freely as peacetime conditions render both practicable and, I think, wise. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food takes that lesson away

645
from this Debate, the Debate will have served a useful purpose.
In spite of some of the speeches, and looking at the matter objectively, I think Ministers and, indeed, the whole House must realise that beyond doubt they are facing a very sharp explosion of indignation on the part of the housewives of this country at the present moment. The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) said he was fortunate' enough not to get any letters on this subject. [Hon. Members: "No."] I do not know, but, perhaps, they are very fortunate in his part of the world. But many people and many housewives—and this is not a party point—are feeling a strain after six years of rationing and of deprivation, not only of food but of household linen and of coal; and each new reduction, however necessary, however inevitable, is a matter for resentment. But I think it is fair to say that for the sharpness of that explosion hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have, in some part, themselves to blame. The suddenness with which the announcement was made last week created a painful impression. When that was combined with—I do not say any very definite promises of social amelioration in the matter of food—a general expectation that was. aroused throughout the country that the advent of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to power would see an immediate improvement in all sorts of conditions, including food, it made the shock rather a painful one. As to that suddenness, a good deal of our time has been taken up today in discussion of what was and what was not said in the early autumn of last year and the early months of this. In the minds of the ordinary housewives, at least, the shock came as a complete revelation. The cat was in the bag too long. It is not a thing to be surprised at, that when it emerged it was inclined both to scratch and to spit.
I confess I listened with the utmost sympathy—having been in that position myself—as well as care to what the right hon. Gentleman said about this matter. It did seem to me, and it seems to me still, not altogether free from obscurity, because the right hon. Gentleman advanced two arguments at the same time. First of all, he said he had given a general warning in sufficiently clear and explicit terms to leave no one in any doubt that we were facing a serious situation. At
646
the same time, he excused himself from more explicit utterances by saying he was afraid of creating a sellers' market and, also, of inducing people to hoard grain. The two things seem to me to march very oddly together. If he were anxious to avoid by any utterance of his creating a sellers' market, then it would be understandable if he had given us no warning at all. But the more explicit he claims his warning to have been, the less value there is in his argument about the sellers' market. It must be clear to all of us that whatever he said on the matter the whole world knows it is a sellers' market, and he was doing nothing by any utterance of his to put prices up a cent a bushel against him. But I should like to make it clear that, for my part, I think he has given us a very careful speech today. He has given us a lot of information of which we had not possession previously
It would be a great mistake if thi9 Debate were to run away on the idea of what the right hon. Gentleman said at that time. The real point with which we are concerned is, What did the Government do? We ask ourselves, "When was it apparent that there was going to be this shortage at this time of the year? "It seems to me to be clear that the Ministry of Food, unless it has changed very much, must have had very clear indications of this in August or September. The real pity from the nation's point of view is that, when that shortage became apparent, steps were not taken to provide for the winter sowing of wheat in this country. It is true—I want to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman—that he could say, "I did not know the full effect until quite recently." It was not necessary to get a White Paper with every ton and bushel of wheat accurately computed in order to come to a decision. I should have thought that the general omens of wheat supplies in the spring and summer were by August and September sufficiently ominous for action being taken then, which is now being belatedly taken of diverting the call-up of men and urging an increase in the wheat acreage.
Mr. Tiffany: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that there was not much time to give warning, inasmuch as we were using 40 per cent. of English wheat in the mill grist during June of this year? When was there time to give warning?
Mr. W. S. Morrison:I do not think that is at all relevant. It seems to me that the more wheat we can grow in this 'country, the better our position will be. I would make it clear to the House, as some hon. Members may not be aware of our practice of agriculture to the same extent as others, their ways of life not having lain in these pastures, that it is the winter sown crop of wheat in this country that is the important one. Spring wheat is always regarded, in normal times, as rather a "chancy" crop. If you take 15 per cent. as the average for spring sowing and 85 per cent. for winter sowing, you have about a fair proportion. Nothing that has been said today has cleared my mind of the doubt that, if this action had been taken in the autumn, we should have got a good deal of winter wheat sown, and our position would have been to that extent improved. It does seem strange that the Minister of Agriculture should have written to county chairmen on this matter only last week. What has happened between the two Ministries for action to be so tardy and belated? I say nothing more about promises, and what has been or what has not been done. I would point out in passing, however, that it does show that the mere change of a system inside this Government according to some theoretical or doctrinal conception of Socialism is a very feeble instrument in the face of the world affairs through which we are passing today. I have now had the chance of sitting in the Opposition to two Labour Governments, and it is a curious thing that on both occasions I have had this same experience of a great deal of talk about what Socialism can do during an election and when the Socialists are in power they talk not of that, but of world causes. Leaving that alone, the Government today, with their disclosures, remind me of what someone once said was the function of a politician, namely, "Trying to explain to a sceptical and bewildered electorate the defects of an inscrutable Providence."
It would be a good thing if hon. Members opposite would remember this humbling fact, that even the weighty schemes of Socialism do require through Ministers to be supplemented by a good deal of practical wisdom and forethought if they are to be of any use to anyone at all. In making a fair summary of what we have been discussing today, it
648
does appear to me that something has gone wrong in the way that this matter has been handled, and I put it no higher than that, which is high enough for my purpose. Let us diagnose the complaint from which the right hon. Gentlemen are suffering. It is like being called to the bedside of a child who cannot describe the symptoms with coherence and clarity, and one must do one's best by calling on one's medical experience and knowledge of similar cases. It does seem to be a very remarkable state of affairs. I should like, first of all, to say a word about the Ministry of Food. I was honoured at one time by being connected with that Department. In fact, I was in charge of it from April, 1939, to April, 1940, and I left it with good stocks and a competent organisation. Under the inspiring leadership of my Noble Friend Lord Woolton it improved in organisation and in efficiency and rendered very great service to the nation in a time of stress. I cannot believe that this machine has suddenly lost its efficiency.
Sir B. Smith: It has not.
Mr. Morrison:I do not believe it has. It has now had nearly seven years to run itself in, and its main task in life is to forecast all supplies. I cannot believe that that machine failed to forecast the situation at this time and much earlier than we have been told. Therefore, I think that the information might have been in the hands of the Government in plenty of time for them to take those steps such as I have suggested, namely, seeing more winter wheat was being planted, restoring the acreage payment, and looking after the manpower in agriculture, all of which would have made a big difference at the present time. Neither do I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would for one moment withhold any information of that sort from us. I know him too well. I think the trouble lies in the Government as a whole, and in the way in which they are concentrating at the present time on Party issues, while neglecting the practical interests of the people.
The Minister of Food in the course of his speech today gave us an account of his missions at various times in connection with these matters, and my right hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford' University (Sir A. Salter) compared him to a Biblical character, namely, Job. He

649
seemed to me in his own account to be like blind Samson, eyeless at Gaza. There he was and he did his best, no doubt, but what were his colleagues doing? [An HON. MEMBER: "Cutting his hair."] I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's "thatch" suffered in the process in any way.
I want the House seriously to consider what is the position of the Ministry of Food. There is no Minister in any Government who needs so much collaboration from his colleagues as the Minister of Food. His Department touches our national life at every point. For example, he needs to collaborate closely with the Minister of Agriculture and we have seen a rather lamentable divergence of functions in this matter today. Only last week were instructions sent to the county war agricultural committees, when this thing has been hanging over our heads for three or four months. He needs also to collaborate very closely with the Minister of Labour. He needs manpower for his own task, if flour mills are to be repaired and managed, while if the queues in the shops are to be lessened there needs to be more assistance, and if the call-up of agricultural manpower is to be diverted or mitigated the Ministry of Labour has to assist. He needs transport for all his activities all over the world.
He needs, also, collaboration from the Foreign Office, and on that matter I would like to say a word or two on the question of stocks going to Europe. I think it is our duty to do what we can for people who are in a bad condition, but I think we should do it with our eyes open, measuring at the same time our own need, and our duty to our own people, and the extent of any amelioration in the position that any gift from us can practically bring about. I do not say that in any unselfish spirit. I believe that the recovery of Europe today depends on the recovery of this country. But it would be great folly not only to ourselves, but to the recovery of Europe as a whole, if we were to suffer our own population to lose their spirit and health in a vain endeavour to mitigate, in some fractional and mathematical proportion, the great tragedy- overseas.
More than anything, the Minister of Food requires the collaboration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We hope to hear from the Chancellor something about
650
the great controversy as to how it is best to use dollars—on dried egg, films or tobacco. For all these reasons the Minister of Food requires to be at the very heart of affairs, and I support wholeheartedly what was said earlier in the Debate by the hon. Member for Rom-ford (Mr. T. Macpherson), that he ought to be a member of the Cabinet. It is a very large Cabinet, and it is not at all exclusive. The right hon. Gentleman, whose task at the present time has acquired tremendous importance, should be in the closest touch with his colleagues. In this country we are fed and supplied by a vast, intricate organisation, whether by private enterprise before the war, or by the Ministry of Food during the war, and food has come so easily to the breakfast tables of the vast majority of the people that they think it gets there without effort. But it does not, and this has shown how small a matter can upset our supplies.
We should not take too light a view of the importance of food to our economy. I think it most important that we should improve our food supplies. We had a speech the other day from the Minister of Fuel and Power—I heard it myself on the wireless—in which he gave an adequate, if sombre, exhortation to the miners, and to the mining industrial in general, to get more coal. He said it was useless to talk of more food until more coal was produced. Personally, I do not think you will get more coal until you get more food as well. The melancholy position at the moment is that we are getting less food and less coal. Something must be done to break the vicious circle, and to re-stimulate the energies of the population. It is a task of the highest importance, but one which is well worth achieving. What is required is a greater incentive for the natural energies of men. They ought to get more real wealth. It is no good wages going up if those wages cannot purchase what is required. It is by the provision of amenities, comforts and more health and strength that the people of the country can be rewarded at a time when they are being called upon to help with the reconstruction of our beloved country.
This analysis leads me to the conclusion that Ministers ought to have known about this shortage in ample time to have taken more effective steps than they have

651
taken. Half the trouble is the tremendous pressure upon Ministers, pressure which they are largely responsible for creating. Ministers are tied up in Standing Committees when they ought to be attending to the heavy tasks of reconstruction which await us. We are also overburdened with legislation of a contentious character. I would like to know, if an answer can be given—I do not suppose it can—how many hours the Cabinet has spent in discussing food reports and how many hours discussing the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act or the nationalisation of coal. When Ministers take upon themselves the burden of this contentious legislation, it is no wonder they cannot pay attention to the warnings of the Minister of Food. Not only Ministers, but the people, are affected by this contentious legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council reminds me, when I gaze at him, of the desire he expressed recently for first-class rows in Parliament. We have had some this week, and what good have they done the people of the country? The country is facing a very difficult time in this food situation, and my lament is that we are not facing it with the unity, with the subservience of all sectional interests to national interests, that we had when the lead was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). We are not getting the right lead, and I regard this whole bungle about the food disclosures as evidence that the country in its need is not getting the lead which it requires. I ask the Government, in the days that remain to them, whether they cannot concentrate more on practical measures for the relief of necessity in the country and less on doctrinaire disputes.
9.37 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I will at once answer the last question put by the right hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). He asked me to reveal a Cabinet secret by saying whether the Cabinet had spent more time in consideration of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill or the food situation. The answer is simple. We have spent more time on the latter subject. The Cabinet did not need to linger long over the very simple act of justice
652
which it is seeking to perform and which was abundantly approved by the House last night. Food is more complicated. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food dealt in great, but not, I think the House will agree, in too great, detail, at considerable, but I think the House will agree, not too great, length, with his stewardship. He gave a sturdy account of his stewardship, and he dealt with the affairs of his Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. M Webb, who made a very interesting speech later in the Debate, said—and the House approved him when he said—that on the whole he considered that, in spite of the manifold difficulties, not of my right hon. Friend's making nor of anybody's making, but of Nature's making, an act of God and so on, the speech of my right hon. Friend was reassuring.
There are two subjects which need to be very sharply and clearly distinguished. There is, on the one side, the international problem, the world food shortage. And there is another problem linked with it in practice, but yet quite separate—our own national position, not only as regards supplies but as regards finance, dollar reserves, and the like. On the international problem I propose to say relatively little, but to concentrate princi-. pally on the other problem, on which several hon. Members have asked me a number of questions which it is proper I should do my best to answer. On the international side we have a long series of terrible and unforeseen postwar calamities. I do not speak now of any of the shocking impacts of the war, of the acts of the enemy upon our friends and of the devastation of one country after another. I speak of this series of shortages, droughts, failures of the monsoon, and the like, which, I repeat, are nobody's fault. No human agency is responsible but they do constitute the world problem against which my right hon. Friend has been battling and of which he has been speaking today.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) has just come back from India. He is not now here, I think, but he appealed in an earlier speech—a very moving speech—that we should do our best to assure the greatest aid which we could render to the Indian peoples threatened, through no fault of their own, with calamitous famine. I say

653
without any hesitation that His Majesty's Government will, of course, do all in their power to endeavour to stave off this shocking calamity now overwhelming the peoples of India. I hasten to add that even our utmost may, against this background, be terribly small. None the less we shall do our utmost, using to the full for this purpose the machinery, on the one hand, of the Combined Food Boards, and, on the other hand, of the recently set up and very hopeful new international organisation, the Food and Agricultural Organisation, to which we are deeply committed and of which a very distinguished Member from this House, the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd Orr) is now the Chairman. We shall do our utmost. And let me say in passing, by way of linking this topic with the national aspect, that as regards India the problem is wholly one of physical supplies and of shipping to carry them, and sources from which they can be drawn. It is in no respect a financial problem. -There is no lack of capacity to pay in terms of money in India. On the contrary they have a vast sterling balance. It is a question of supply and we shall do our best to assist them.
I would like to turn at this point to deal with our own national affairs and to answer some of the points put by hon. Members on the other side of the House. I should like to speak of some of these financial questions connected with the general exchange position which must concern us in this country, and me in particular holding the Office that I now do. I would like also to say a word in reply to several Members as to how we are organising our import programmes, and on what principles they are compiled and executed.
One word on the American loan. On 13th December last this House carried, by a very large majority, 345 votes to 98, a Motion which I moved on behalf of the Government approving the proposed financial arrangements between the United States Government and His Majesty's Government. Discussions regarding these arrangements are now just beginning in Congress, where there are supporters of this arrangement and opponents. Until Congress has reached a decision neither I, nor any other spokesman of His Majesty's Government, nor, I am sure, of
654
the Front Opposition Bench, nor, I would hope, any other responsible Member of the House, would make speeches or say things which would in any degree influence the decision of Congress on this matter adversely to the desire of the great majority in this House. The House will, therefore, appreciate that at certain points I must bear that consideration in mind and exercise a certain reserve. I may not be able to speak with the completest frankness although on broad grounds, I agree that we should give the very fullest information to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) asked me some questions as to our import programmes and how we operate them, to which I will reply specifically in a moment. But what I am about to say relates to the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers). I did not hear his speech—I was taking a little light refreshment at the time—but I have been told the substance of what he said. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford referred to the same matter. I would like, briefly, to give the House an account of how this import programming is worked; and I will lift a little the veil which we generally keep discreetly drawn over the workings of the machinery of Government. It will do no harm in this case, and, indeed, I think it will be of interest to the House to know just how we carry out this work. This import programming began with the war, and it has been going on for years. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were Members of the Coalition Government, took part in it, and are aware, in general, how the thing works. They started working it in detail. The various Departments for which they were responsible carried out, at the beginning of the war, a system of import programming, primarily because there was a great shortage of shipping as a result of destruction by enemy action; and, secondly, because the needs of the war effort had to take precedence over the private profit priorities which ruled in this field before the war. We had to set private profit aside, and substitute public interest and victory in the great struggle. Therefore, we had to plan, instead of letting people do what they liked.
This programming was introduced even before the Coalition Government, in the

655
early days of what we called the "phoney" stages of the war. Import programming began even then. What happened? The available shipping space, which was the primary determinant of these arrangements, was shared out among various Departments who were interested in the matter. The Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Supply, who were responsible for raw materials, and other Departments concerned, put in their claims for tonnage. These were all reviewed and brought together. What was thought to be less essential was set aside. It is very remarkable to recall that, although, before the war, we used to require 55,000,000 tons of imports a year, we were able to maintain the national life and the war effort during the war, under a plan of this kind, with only 25,000,000 tons a. year, less than half the prewar requirement. We suffered restriction, of course.
Sir A. Salter: Dry cargo, other than oil.
Mr. Dalton: Yes, dry cargo. These are the figures, other than oil. The right hon. Gentleman took a very vigorous and creditable part in that planning, so he knows about it. Anyhow, we cut out half. That is my point. Planning succeeded in cutting this pre-war programme by more than half, yet we maintained the national life and won the war. We had to weigh one alternative against another. That planning process has gone on. The great change has been that, when the war ended, and when Lend-Lease ended—this point is important from that aspect—the programming went on, but the bottleneck was no longer shipping. It became finance instead. The question no longer was, "Can we find ships?" but, "Can we find money?" and in particular, "Can we find dollars, or the equivalent of dollars?" We have continued the same practice, subject to this new criterion since the war ended. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. D. Eccles) asked me a question. He also was mixed up most creditably with these matters during the war. He helped to administer this machine. He asked me whether some priorities still prevailed now, as then, in respect of food and other commodities. The answer to him is "Yes." They do, provided—I know he knows too much about the matter to go wrong on this
656
point, although some people outside might—we do not use the word "priority "in too absolute a sense. There was no total, absolute priority for food over tobacco, even during the war. We still were able to smoke. It would have been possible, no doubt, to have brought in less tobacco during the war and rather more food. That was not the decision of the War Cabinet or of the Government. I do not think there was disagreement.
Mr. Eccles: The Ministry of Food bid for tobacco supplies during the war; it was considered as a food.
Mr. Dalton: If my hon. Friend calls tobacco a food, there is of course plenty of priority for food; but I was speaking of food as distinct from tobacco, and in that sense food was not given the total and absolute all-along-the-line priority over tobacco, any more than it had a priority over manufactured goods or raw materials. What we really determined during the war, and are still determining, is not so much priority in an absolute sense, as proportions—the due and proper proportions of imports. We are now following, in substance, the same principle as we were following then. Food, and certain other very necessary raw materials, etc., the basic requirements in terms of food and raw materials, are given—I do not want to use the word "priority," which is a little misleading— but a very high place in our import programming, along with certain other things, to make up the total which we can bring in.
I would like to establish the right perspective in which to consider this programming. I will give some figures in a moment, but, before I do so, I think that the perspective is rightly given when I say that, owing to uncertainties of the American Loan and other factors, such as the whole world situation and the general shortage, it would be very unwise, and the Government have not committed that act of unwisdom, to fix our programmes too far ahead. We have, however, made programmes for the first six months of the year; and I will give figures presently. On the basis of the first half of this year, in the programme which we contemplate, imports of food will be larger in tonnage than they were in the later war years. As to the composition of the tonnage, the diet to be provided will be definitely better in some respects than it,

657
was in the later war years, though it will be worse in others. There will be less meat, and less fats than in 1944, but more milk, tea, fruit and fish—more of the variety foods. We are doing our best, as my right hon. Friend has said, to give greater variety and greater tonnage. That of course is additional to what will be procured from home production. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will speak tomorrow. I have had a few words with him, and he is aware of the points which have been put today; it would be a mistake and a duplication if I were to attempt to answer now questions which are addressed to him. But I emphasise—
Mr. Eden:I do not object to that arrangement, but no doubt the Government will bear in mind that hitherto there was to have been a Motion tomorrow which would have made this discussion quite out of Order.
Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. It may cramp the style a bit, but it may be possible to get some of the points in. It is a fair point, as we are discussing long-term policy.
Mr. Dalton: There are great resources in the British Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman must not be downcast by technicalities of procedure. The Minister of Agriculture is desirous of answering a number of points which have been raised. I cannot answer points in detail which have been raised by his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison).
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I only want to point out that the original arrangement was that we should have two days to discuss agriculture, and specifically the new policy, which is extremely important. I am not objecting, I am only entering a caveat now that in so far as tomorrow is to be taken up with something wholly irrelevant to the subject we are supposed to be discussing, it will give us a claim for asking for more than a day at a later date.
Mr. Dalton: My right hon. Friend the Lord President is always very friendly towards any suggestion put forward by the Opposition to make the best use of the available time of the House. Perhaps we can leave it there for the moment, and see how tomorrow goes; and, if it is not
658
sufficient, perhaps the matter can be taken up again.
May I say a few words as to the machinery by which this import programming works? My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford, whose ears have perhaps burned outside at things I have said of him—
Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: May I ask a question?
Mr. Dalton: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will get better value if he leaves me alone. I really want to go on. It may be that I shall say what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to know. The arrangement is this: The various Departments first put forward their own requirements. My experience at the Treasury is long enough to know that they always overplay their hand to begin with. They all put forward their requirements, which add up, of course, to an impossible total, from a practical point of view. It is well known by everybody who has been in this show. They all come along, and put in their requirements, which cover—I am speaking of the present situation—both requirements for purchases on public account and requirements for private importers as well. These are all scrutinised by the Treasury; it is one of the things the Treasury is there to do. There is a high level inter-Departmental committee of officials, which meets not just once in a while but very frequently, and endeavours to bring all these requirements together, with a little peaceful persuasion, and to compile them into a total which is within the bounds of the possible.
The next step having got the requirements for imports a little compressed and reduced to a reasonable-looking total, is to look at the other side of the account and to consider—I have pointed out that the bottle neck is now finance—how much we can reasonably undertake to pay for in this postwar and post-Lend-Lease period. There, we have to look at the level of exports, to see how they are going on, and what other forms of receipts we are getting in. We also have to look—though the Treasury keep this information to themselves and I do not reveal it to my colleagues who are discreet enough not to ask me for it—at what is happening to our gold and dollar reserves, about which I shall say another word be-

659
fore I sit down. All these things have to be looked at, in order to consider how much we can reasonably spring for the import programme. There is a Committee on this Balance of Payments, balancing the demand for imports by the Departments, on the one hand, against the possibility of payment. This again is a high level committee of officials, doing this special job under the chairmanship of a senior Treasury official, with the permanent heads of the other Civil Service Departments concerned entitled to attend. It is, therefore, as high level a committee as the Civil Service can furnish. It is the duty of that committee to make recommendations direct to Ministers, and it is the responsibility of the Government, on that recommendation, to take it or leave it or change it. The Cabinet is the final court of appeal in these matters, and takes responsibility for the allocation as finally agreed.
That is the mechanism. I have referred to two official committees having their separate functions, and I repeat that these committees are constantly meeting. The thing is a continuing process. I would go on to say—
Mr. Molson: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman say that his colleagues did not ask him what his gold and dollar reserves are?
Mr. Dalton: I did not exactly say that; what I said was that this was not a matter I was often asked to reveal; and I should have hesitation in revealing it in this House, indeed I would not do it. I also said that some of my colleagues had enough discretion not to ask too often what the figures are, Ministers have discretion in dealing one with another, and there are some things which are relatively secret. There are sometimes leakages, and we want to keep them to a minimum. We have to be very careful sometimes.
The serious point I want to make is that, were it not for the influence of the Treasury in these matters, the whole economic programme and economic life of the country would soon be completely "haywire," because every Department would seek to ask for very much more than it could possibly have. I have been describing this programming in detail, because I wish
660
the House to see just how it works. My hon. Friend the Member for The Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Brad-dock) said what a fortunate thing it is that we are not a doctrinaire Government, wedded to fatal theories of decontrol for its own sake, nurtured by the German theorists recently landed in this country like Professor Friedrich August von Hayek. We draw on the springs of British commonsense in the practical handling of these complicated problems and we have maintained, and intend to maintain, this control of imports, which has served the country very well in peace as it did in war. To depart from it now, would be a gross error which this Government would not commit.
May I give some figures of how this import programme actually works out now? The House cannot expect me to break up the figures—or as the rather horrible modern phrase has it, break them down—into special commodities, because that would be giving information which might be misinterpreted in our commercial dealings. But I think the House will be interested if I give the main elements in this import programme, expressing them in terms of prospective rates of consumption. These are the figures for the first part of 1946, as approved by the Government, following the procedure I have described: food and agricultural products£300 millions; raw materials,£180 millions; tobacco,£23 millions; manufactured goods,£23 millions; films,£9 millions; other items negligible. The percentages are: food and agricultural products, 56 per cent, in value of the total imports; raw materials 33½ per cent.— between them, therefore, that is 89 per cent., which does not leave very much outside—tobacco 4½ per cent; manufactured goods 4½per cent.; films 1½ per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dried eggs? "] Dried eggs are food. [Hon. Members: "They were."]
There are those who say that we should have no tobacco and no films. I say that His Majesty's Government, having looked at these figures carefully and the possibilities behind them, have decided that as things are now—if we do not get the American loan all sorts of things would have to happen, all sorts of things would have to change, all sorts of things would have to be cut—this is not an excessive provision to enable people to smoke, or. if they wish, to go to the

661
pictures. In the maintenance of public morale both smoking and pictures are important to many millions. It is all very well for the Conservative Party to try to plan people's lives without consulting them. We believe in reasonable liberty to the consumer. If a man wants to take his wife, or anybody else, to the pictures, why should he not do so? We say that these proportions are so small, and the essential value of them is so large, that we are not prepared, in these conditions, to crush the people into any doctrinaire mould.
A word about our exports. I indicated earlier that, in considering how much we can import, we must take account of how our exports are going. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has authorised me to make public, a few days before he would have announced them, the figures for exports in January. The figures for November, December and January were respectively,£30,000,000,£43,500,000 and£57,000,000. The trend is up, in spite of all those who try to spread alarm and despondency in industry, and in spite of the fact that there was a dock strike in November, which left some goods lying on the quays rather too long, and is reflected in the December and January figures. The upsurge has now asserted itself, and I hope that before long we shall be able to point to even higher figures. I do not want to overestimate the importance of this but it is a movement, a relatively rapid movement, in the direction we shall all desire.
One word on the gold and dollar reserve. We had to announce, for the purposes of Bretton Woods, that at the end of last October our net gold and dollar reserves stood at£450,000,000. That was not, I said then, an excessive figure in all the conditions of the time, having regard to the many potential claims that might accrue against us, particularly if anything went wrong with the American loan negotiations. Through some queer trick of figures, we were represented as owing£3,500,000,000 to a miscellaneous crowd of people, some of whom are our very good friends and some—never mind. I must conserve these gold and dollar reserves; I must keep a watchful eye on them. The House will not expect me to say how much they are today, and if I were to do so the House would not expect to hear that they stood
662
at the same figure as last October. I must keep a watchful eye on them. If the Treasury intervenes, as it must sometimes do to restrain other Departments, it is purely in order that these reserves shall not be ran down at a dangerous rate.
I want in conclusion to say, and I think this is the sort of thing which I think it is proper for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, that I must warn the House—I am now on our national problems and not on the international side—that there must be great restraint in the circumstances in which we stand in continually practising generosity at the expense of our own people, even in very good causes. Many great demands are made upon us, and we make our contribution. I think we have made an exceptionally fine contribution to these world causes. Take U.N.R.R.A. for example. We shall have contributed soon£155 million to U.N.R.R.A., nearly half the amount at which our gold and dollar reserve stood last October.
Many others make claims upon us. The claim of India, as I have said, is not a monetary one. The Indians have plenty of money with which to pay; it is supplies they want. So far as money is concerned, claims are made upon us for loans, political and commercial, long term credits and all the rest of it; and we must go reasonably slowly in meeting these demands. We cannot meet them all. The general rule must be—there will be exceptions—we must get prompt payment for British services rendered, to whomsoever we render them. It is no good talking about long term grants.
It is, therefore, my duty to say to the House, and I think the House will agree with me, that although each particular item in a programme of generosity to others, taken in isolation,. will have its passionate advocates and a great case may be made for it, yet if accepted in the aggregate they would sink us; and we do not intend to sink. Therefore, there must be a strict limit from now on.
In conclusion, I would say this House has debated this matter in a non-partisan spirit and we appreciate the tone of the speeches made— [Interruption.] Well, I am thinking of the more important speeches. We appreciate the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who led off. After all, we stand here at this short interval after the war, not bowed down but

663
confronted with great problems and great difficulties. The British housewife has played her part magnificently right through the war. She has sacrificed, she has endured, and she has struggled and starved herself for the sake of her man and her children. To her all our sympathy goes out, and all our desire to do our very best to see that of whatever we can gather together in the way of food supplies she shall have her fair share. There will be no guzzling by a small number. How that is prevented is a matter for the Minister of Food to look after. He has got to deal with it. He has got to prevent it.
This House will, I believe, support the Government tonight in its decision that
664
we shall endeavour so to organise our food supplies that we get the best opportunities we can out of the limited facilities at present at our disposal, the best opportunities we can for a proper standard of life for our own people, while making our due contribution to this great international problem to which reference has been made. We shall continue, I believe, to show in peace, as in war, that, serene courage that carried us through in the face of many difficulties, though they are of a different sort which confront us now.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes past Ten" o'Clock.

  VIVISECTION
  VIVISECTION
  PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES
  PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES
  POLITICAL PROPAGANDA (PAY PACKETS)
  POLITICAL PROPAGANDA (PAY PACKETS)
  PRISON SERVICE (OFFICERS, APPOINTMENT)
  PRISON SERVICE (OFFICERS, APPOINTMENT)
ALIENS
  Distressed Persons, Germany and Austria (Visas)
  Distressed Persons, Germany and Austria (Visas)
  Naturalisation Procedure
  Naturalisation Procedure
  Russian and Pole (Sentences)
  Russian and Pole (Sentences)
  Foreign Performers
  Foreign Performers
  FASCIST ACTIVITIES (GREAT BRITAIN)
  FASCIST ACTIVITIES (GREAT BRITAIN)
  BLACK MARKET (PENALTY)
  BLACK MARKET (PENALTY)
  JUVENILE OFFENDER (PUNISHMENT)
  JUVENILE OFFENDER (PUNISHMENT)
  BUSINESS VOTE
  BUSINESS VOTE
  N.F.S. (SURPLUS MOTOR VEHICLES)
  N.F.S. (SURPLUS MOTOR VEHICLES)
HOUSING
  Compulsory Land Purchase, Wembley
  Compulsory Land Purchase, Wembley
  Progress
  Progress
  Licences
  Licences
  Temporary Programme
  Temporary Programme
  Sherborne
  Sherborne
  Eviction Order, Canewdon
  Eviction Order, Canewdon
  Lichfield
  Lichfield
  Oxford
  Oxford
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Water Schemes (Horncastle and Spilsby)
  Water Schemes (Horncastle and Spilsby)
  Resident Dentist, Chadderton
  Resident Dentist, Chadderton
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Ministry of Health (Staff)
  Ministry of Health (Staff)
  Civil Staffs
  Civil Staffs
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wireless Licences (Tax Relief)
  Wireless Licences (Tax Relief)
  P.A.Y.E.
  P.A.Y.E.
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
AGRICULTURE
  Manpower (Cornwall)
  Manpower (Cornwall)
  Spring Sown Corn
  Spring Sown Corn
  Prisoners-of-War Labour
  Prisoners-of-War Labour
  LOCAL ELECTION ORDERS
  LOCAL ELECTION ORDERS
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Whale Meat
  Whale Meat
  Banquets
  Banquets
  Milk (Ex-Internees)
  Milk (Ex-Internees)
POST OFFICE
  Telegram Delays
  Telegram Delays
  Sub-Office, Oldham
  Sub-Office, Oldham
  Empire Air-mail
  Empire Air-mail
  Food Parcels
  Food Parcels
  Postal Services (Europe)
  Postal Services (Europe)
EMPLOYMENT
  War Material
  War Material
  Reinstatement
  Reinstatement
  Resettlement
  Resettlement
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Service Personnel (War Releases)
  Service Personnel (War Releases)
EDUCATION
  Teachers (Demobilisation)
  Teachers (Demobilisation)
  Milk in Schools
  Milk in Schools
  Emergency Training
  Emergency Training
  Council School, New Mills
  Council School, New Mills
  DEMOBILISATION
    Provisional Programme, January-June
    Provisional Programme, January-June
    Class B Releases (Young Men)
    Class B Releases (Young Men)
    Students
    Students
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Divorced Women
  Divorced Women
  Pensioners (Rent)
  Pensioners (Rent)
  R.A.F. (COMPLAINTS, EASTERN STATIONS)
  R.A.F. (COMPLAINTS, EASTERN STATIONS)
  STREET NAME PLATES
  STREET NAME PLATES
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  X-RAY APPARATUS (SHORTAGE)
  X-RAY APPARATUS (SHORTAGE)
SCOTLAND
  Diphtheria
  Diphtheria
  Rural Housing
  Rural Housing
  GAMBIA (AIRFIELD)
  GAMBIA (AIRFIELD)
  BRITISH GUIANA (U.S. LEASE)
  BRITISH GUIANA (U.S. LEASE)
  AFRICAN COLONIES (FOOD POSITION)
  AFRICAN COLONIES (FOOD POSITION)
  MALAYA (EX-INTERNEES COMPENSATION)
  MALAYA (EX-INTERNEES COMPENSATION)
BRITISH ARMY
  Italy (Travel Conditions)
  Italy (Travel Conditions)
  2nd Division, India (Complaints)
  2nd Division, India (Complaints)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Medical Officers (Refresher Courses)
  Medical Officers (Refresher Courses)
  SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER AND RESOURCES(COMMITTEE)
  SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER AND RESOURCES(COMMITTEE)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Swanshurst Park, Birmingham
  Swanshurst Park, Birmingham
  Tarran House
  Tarran House
  Bricklaying (Daily Rate)
  Bricklaying (Daily Rate)
  Fire Extinguishers (Disposal)
  Fire Extinguishers (Disposal)
  Temporary Houses (Electric Wiring)
  Temporary Houses (Electric Wiring)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN STAFF)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN STAFF)
  B.B.C. (EXPENDITURE)
  B.B.C. (EXPENDITURE)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Middleton—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion for the Third Reading of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, before we start upon the business standing on the Order Paper to-day, it may perhaps be for the general convenience of the House if I remind your Lordships that our first sitting for public business next week will be on Monday, 18th February, at 4 o'clock, and that this sitting will be in addition to our normal meetings on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The principal business on Monday next will be the Notices in the names of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on the steps proposed to be taken to meet the increased burden of work and responsibility imposed upon the Civil Service by current and immediately prospective legislation, and on the recent Report of the Committee on Legal Aid and Legal Advice for Poor Persons, respectively. Let me repeat that the hour of meeting will be 4 o'clock, at the close of the Judicial Sitting that afternoon.

INDIA (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATURE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.5 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, with respect to the qualifications of members of the Governor-General's Executive Council, to extend temporarily the powers of the Indian Legislature to make laws, to amend subsection (4) of Section 102 of the said Act as to the effect of laws passed by virtue of a Proclamation of Emergency, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
There are two matters principally dealt with in this Bill; the reason for introducing it to your Lordships arises from two separate causes. Your Lordships will remember that in September last an announcement was made by the Viceroy with regard to certain intentions of His Majesty's Government after the holding of the provincial elections. One of those related to the reformation of his own Executive Council; he hoped to base that Council upon the political Parties in India and to be in accordance with the leaders of Indian opinion. Clause 1 of this Bill is designed to meet a situation with regard to that which may arise. Under the present law, which is contained in Section 36 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1919, as it is continued by Schedule 9 of the Government of India Act, 1935, there is a provision requiring that three members of the Governor-General's Executive Council shall be persons who have been ten years in the service of the Crown in India, and that one member thereof shall be a barrister, an advocate or a pleader.
This existing state of the law imposes a limitation on the Viceroy which it may be desirable—I emphasize the word "may"—to be without in the event of the Government of the Viceroy altering the character of the Executive Council. The purpose of Clause 1 of this Bill is to remove that limitation. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is only permissive. It does not say that the Viceroy shall in fact have an Executive Council which does not fulfil those requirements, it only removes from him the limitation which compels him to have a Council with those limitations. In view of the importance of the discussions which are to be held in India at a

557
very early date, I recommend this clause to your Lordships in order to get out of the way an obstacle which might result in an unsatisfactory conclusion to those discussions. So much for Clause 1, which really stands in a category of its own.
I now come to the other clause in the Bill, which arises out of a different set of circumstances. I think it is possibly known to your Lordships that it is the intention of the Governor-General to revoke the Proclamation of the Emergency, which he issued in 1939, on April 1 next. As a result, the Government of India will lose from that date their executive powers in the provincial field. Central legislation in the provincial field will lapse six months later, that is, on October 1, 1946. This involves certain consequences which seem to the Governor-General undesirable unless amended, as we propose, according to the clauses of this Bill. Much the most important question is that of food, but food does not stand alone. There are also other matters of trade set out in Clause 2 which the Viceroy would, unless the present Bill be enacted, lose the power to co-ordinate. He would be unable to co-ordinate the distribution of commodities in short supply on an All-India basis. In view of the facts which have just come to light about the grave shortage of food in certain parts of India, I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate the necessity to continue the central power to make this distribution on an All-India basis.
Clause 2 of the Bill enables the Viceroy to do this for the period which is set out in Clause 4—to which I propose to make subsequent reference. Clause 3 deals with the matter of requisitioned land. Your Lordships will no doubt remember that not very long ago—I think it was during the life of the Coalition Government, and, therefore, it was done with the consent of all Parties—we, in this country, decided that it was necessary to make provision for the retention of land which had been requisitioned and not to restore it immediately to the owner directly the powers under the Emergency ceased, and that we did in an Act of Parliament.
Precisely the same set of circumstances arises in India. There is land which has been requisitioned and which the Government in India will have either to acquire or to return to its original owners, but,
558
after consideration of the matter, it seems to the Government of India that the period that would be allowed, if no amending legislation were passed, would be too short to enable satisfactory arrangements to be made. Therefore, in Clause 3 of the Bill, it is proposed to retain under requisition lands and buildings until the Government of India have had adequate time to decide the ultimate fate of those lands and buildings and to complete the necessary negotiations. I would emphasize to your Lordships that this Clause 3 of this Bill does not give the Government of India power to requisition or acquire any land or buildings which are not already under requisition. It only deals with land or buildings which are at present under requisition, and enables the Government to retain them under requisition until it seems appropriate to acquire them or hand them back, under terms, to the owners.
Clause 4 deals with the period of time during which these powers are given to the Government of India. In the first place they run for one year only beginning with the date on which the Proclamation of the Emergency in force at the passing of this Act ceases to operate. But the Governor-General, by public notification, can extend the period up to two years beginning with that date. That is an extension of a further year, and, provided that a Resolution approving the extension be carried in both Houses of Parliament, the period can be extended for a further period up to, finally, five years from the date on which the Proclamation ceases to operate.
And now just a few words about a rather complicated clause—Clause 5. This clause has been included in order to remove a doubt arising under Section 102 (4) of the Government of India Act, 1935. When, during the Emergency, central legislation has been enacted, part of it has sometimes been in exercise of powers which the centre permanently possessed, part of it sometimes in exercise of the temporary powers in the provincial field. When these temporary powers lapse, it might be a matter of doubt whether the legislation which is imposed lapses so far as both parts of those provisions are concerned, and the object of Clause 5 is to say that any legislation passed shall not lapse so far as it deals with powers which could always be carried out by the Government of India, and

559
that it shall only lapse in regard to powers which are only conferred upon it during the Emergency.
I think that those are the principal points of the Bill as it appears before you. But I think that your Lordships would wish me to add one word. Since the Bill was drafted, it has been discovered that Clause 3, in the precise form in which it appears in the printed Bill, does not entirely cover the points with which it was intended to deal, and I shall have to ask your Lordships when the Bill reaches the Committee stage to make certain changes in the drafting of Clause 3. But nothing in those Amendments will affect the principles which I have described to your Lordships in my efforts to explain that third clause of the Bill. That is a brief and, I hope, fair description of the powers which it is sought to take under this Bill, and I move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
4.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships are grateful to the Secretary of State for explaining the meaning and effect of the clauses of this Bill. They are, in some respects, inevitably a little complicated. He pointed out at the beginning—and it was important to observe it—that really the Bill deals with two distinct classes of subject. Clause 1 stands by itself, and involves a constitutional change of some consequence. The other clauses—Clauses 2, 3 and the following clauses—are really temporary provisions and adjustments which it is felt necessary to make in view of the situation now existing and consequent upon the time of the war.
Perhaps I might make an observation on my own account about the second of those two groups. The thing which I think your Lordships would wish to notice is that they are governed by Clause 4 which shows that the change they make is intended to be temporary. But the change so made will last, in the first instance, for two years from the date indicated—which I gather is not very far off—and even if there be a desire to continue this temporary situation for a little longer there is a positive limit. It is laid down that the matter shall not continue for more than five years from the date
560
on which the Proclamation of Emergency ceases to operate. These provisions are, in their nature, temporary.
If I may presume to say so—it is within the knowledge of those who know this very complicated subject—they seem to me to be thoroughly justified. The one which is of considerable general interest to all those in this country who follow this complicated Indian problem as closely as they can, is the one which confers upon the Central Legislature certain powers which in normal times would belong, I think, only to the Provincial Legislatures. The necessity for them in recent times has been quite evident. If the food situation in India which has been so critical was to be dealt with effectively, it was, as I understand it, felt by the authorities—and I think we should be all disposed to agree—that it must be within central hands.
Otherwise a particular Province would have the exclusive right of dealing with the food situation within its own boundaries, and distances are so great and indeed the interests of different Provinces are so varied, that unless the Central Legislature and Central Government have also got the power of dealing with foodstuffs (which rather oddly are put in the middle of the list of things), unquestionably the terribly difficult task which has assailed the Indian authorities in the matter of the food crisis could not have been with equal efficiency surmounted. I think I am right in saying that this does not take away any power; it merely says that the Central Legislature also has the power. It will follow that if both the Central and Provincial Legislatures passed enactments about exactly the same matter and if they happened to be in any sort of conflict the Central Legislature would prevail. I think the Secretary of State said that the provision was to enable the Viceroy to make these arrangements. That may, in substance, be right but the actual provision is an extension of the Legislative powers and I presume the legislature will pass, perhaps at the Viceroy's suggestion, some law which will confer on the Viceroy those powers which are needed. All that seems to me to be completely justified and I do not imagine that your Lordship in any part of the House will have any adverse comment to make.
The same thing is true of the clauses which follow. Clause 5, the little clause which looks so very difficult, becomes

561
quite simple if one takes the trouble to look at Section 102 of the Government of India Act. When one looks at it one sees that whether deliberately or perhaps by the chance of drafting, whereas subsection (2) of Section 102 contains words to the effect that the Central Law shall prevail over the Provincial Law and the Provincial Law shall "to the extent of the repugnancy" be void, the subsection immediately following it does not contain any words to that effect. On that, all that Clause 5 does here is to put those words in, very sensibly so.
I return to the first clause, which I think is far the most important part of this Bill, if we regard it as a constitutional or political provision, and it is a provision of very considerable importance indeed. Up to the present, and certainly going back to the Montagu Reforms if not before, there has been as part of the Constitution of British India the provision that the Governor-General's Council, whatever its numbers and however else composed, must contain three members at least who have the qualification of having served for at least ten years in the service of the Crown in India. That, of course, does not mean Englishmen, Scotsmen or Irishmen as against Indians. It has nothing to do with the subject of Indianisation. The test is not that but: whether these individuals have served for ten years in the service of the Crown in India or as Indian civil servants. That Service used in the past to be a very great Service, and includes some most accomplished Indians as well as people who come from this country. But the fact was that certain members of the Governor-General's Council—the Minister of Finance (and the Finance of India is no small matter) was one, the Home Member was another, were necessarily people who had been trained in the administrative service of India under the Crown.
That is the provision that this first clause seeks now to remove leaving it, as the Secretary of State said, not as a matter of course but of discretion that individuals might be appointed who had not had that experience. I know that is one of the changes, one of the greater facilities which the Viceroy has had in mind, and indeed that idea has been one which has been in the minds of many of us. The difference is, I think, this—I mention it so that your Lordships may
562
have it in mind—that as the proposal had been regarded in the recent past, from the time when I was in the Government and took a special interest in these things, as for instance when Sir Stafford Cripps went out with his Mission, the idea was to appeal to the great communities in India to come together to devise for themselves and for India a new and advanced system of Government, with the assurance that we would ourselves in the British Parliament gladly take it and put it into law. I think the idea was that this sort of change, abolishing the necessity of having anyone in the Executive who was trained in the Service of the Crown, should come about at the same time as the working out of the new Constitution. I must confess that for myself—I speak only for myself in this matter although I am most deeply interested in the progress of the Indian Constitution—although some may question whether we have been wise in the past in making what may be regarded as quite minor concessions piece-meal, I think there was a good deal to be said for the view that it would be more effective and would add to the Viceroy's authority, if when a change came a number of things went with it at the same time. I doubt if these piecemeal concessions have had all the recognition they deserve. All the same, the Secretary of State is no doubt himself satisfied. He is responsible in these matters to the House and not the Viceroy at all. The Viceroy has not to come here to tell us that this or that should be done. His Majesty's Government are responsible. I think, if that is so, your Lordships will probably take the view that this is a clause which so submitted ought to be accepted and passed by Parliament.
I notice that the Secretary of State more than once in his speech spoke as if the Viceroy made these appointments. I would most respectfully venture to offer a correction. Those appointments are not made by the Viceroy at all. Members of the Governor-General's Executive Council are appointed by His Majesty, by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual. While, of course, every appointment and every change of appointment in the Governor General's Council is made as a result of consultation between the Governor General and the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Cabinet, as things are, it is not a correct constitutional statement

563
to say that it is the Viceroy who makes these appointments. Things would change very much if the progress in constitutional reform which so many of us would like to see can be brought about. What the position of the Viceroy would be in such a situation is indeed one of the great questions involved, but I hope it may fall into place with some new and agreed constitution, for which we most fervently pray.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for making these remarks, which have been made in the most sympathetic spirit. Nobody can have spent such a long time as I have in trying to understand the Indian situation and endeavouring to contribute what little I could to it without being profoundly interested in anything which affects the future of that great country.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I do not propose to make any observations with regard to the latter clauses of the Bill, but I would like to say a few words in support of the first clause, to which the noble and learned Viscount, who has just spoken, has directed his principal observations.
As to the general policy to be pursued in India, in this country all Parties and both Houses of Parliament are agreed. Ever since the Cripps Mission to India, and the offer that was then made, this country has definitely and irrevocably stated that it favours the fullest measure of Indian self-government, and the only delay that has been caused has been due to the fact that it was hoped the principal forces in Indian politics might agree on some form of Constitution to replace the present Constitution, or at least agree upon some Constitution-making authority which could draft such a Constitution. Meanwhile there is a state of transition or one might say of suspense.
When these matters have been discussed in your Lordships' House on two or three occasions, I have ventured to urge that the status of the Viceroy should be altered, and, instead of being both Viceroy and Prime Minister, he should be constituted rather as a representative of the Sovereign, as performing the functions of a constitutional Sovereign, and that he should be assisted by a Prime Minister, who should himself
564
be an Indian, together with an All-Indian Cabinet. Whether that is practicable or not I do not know, but there certainly ought to be no statutory barrier to his Cabinet—the Governor-General's Council—being wholly Indianized. There is such a barrier in practice now in that there exists a statutory right for the Indian Civil Service to hold two posts in the Council together with a third post which is to be given to a person with certain legal qualifications. It is quite true these members of the Indian Civil Service need not necessarily be of British birth. They may themselves be Indians.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that this provision, which has been inherited from a previous era of Indian politics, does hamper the full freedom of the Viceroy in constituting a Cabinet which shall be fully representative of India and of the political forces of that country. Consequently, it is highly desirable that this provision should be removed. I confess I do not share the view which has been expressed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. He is of the opinion that this change would better be held over until there is a general settlement, and should form one item in that settlement. I am afraid that would be regarded by the Indian politicians as merely continuing an existing provision of the law which is generally agreed not to be a desirable one for the sake of having a bargaining point when conferences are going on as to the establishment of a new Indian Constitution. I do not think myself that that is desirable. We had much better approach the matter frankly and without arrière pensée and say that this particular provision, which comes from a comparatively remote time in Indian history, should now be repealed, and, for my own part, thinking that this change is right in itself, I am also of the opinion that the sooner it is done the better. Accordingly, I cordially support the first clause of the Bill.
4.40 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I only want to add two or three words to what has fallen from the lips of my noble and learned friend, Viscount Simon, with regard to this Bill. We welcome and support this Bill. With regard to Clause 1, however, I am bound to say personally I share some of his doubts upon the

565
advisability of making these piecemeal changes in very vital points of the constitution of the Government of India, and, while I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Viscount Samuel, has said, it does seem to me difficult to speak in terms of an Indian Prime Minister when you are dealing with an Executive Council which is not responsible to a Legislature, but responsible, as the Constitution at present stands, solely to the Viceroy, and it seems to me that the whole idea of the appointment of an Indian Prime Minister—which we hope will be realised in the near future—means going much further in the development of Parliamentary Government than has yet proved possible owing to the division of opinion between the two great religions. We hope to see that division healed at the earliest possible date, but until that time comes, and until the Council or the Cabinet is responsible to the Legislature, it does not seem to me to be desirable to make important changes in the Constitution. I have no doubt the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, has made this change in close consultation with the Viceroy.
We all know the Viceroy has to face a most difficult and delicate task in the next few months, and for my part I grudge him no extension of his power, and no limitation of his discretion, which he himself thinks will help him in the terribly trying months which no doubt lie ahead. So much with regard to Clause 1. With regard to the rest of the Bill, I am sure that in every quarter of the House the very deepest distress is felt at the main reason which has made this prolongation of central legislative powers necessary. That is the failure of the northeastern monsoon and the famine with which India is threatened. All we can do as to that—for there is a world shortage, as we know—is to wish all the servants of the King, the Viceroy, the Ministers, the Governors and the public servants of all kinds, God-speed in the task of dealing with this scourge. It is terrible that once again such a spectre should be stalking across the Indian scene, when so many other difficulties and troubles are about. Let us give our unreserved support to the Viceroy in anything he believes to be necessary in order to deal with that spectre.
There is only one question I wish to ask about the later clauses of the Bill.
566
Clause 6, to which my noble friend the Secretary of State for India did not refer, speaks about the functions which the Governor-General under this Act is required to exercise at his own discretion. I shall be glad to be informed whether under this Bill we are extending in any way the powers which the Governor-General has to exercise at his own personal discretion. I do not question that this clause refers to anything except the public notification required for the extension period under Clause 4. But the phraseology of Clause 6 seems to be a little vague, and I shall be very grateful it the Secretary of State can explain the point as to whether that gives the Governor-General discretionary powers beyond what is required under Clause 4.
4.45 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give a categoric answer to the noble Lord on the spur of the moment, but I will endeavour to get such answer before I sit down. I should like to thank the two noble Viscounts and the noble Lord who has just sat down for their very sympathetic reception of this Bill, and, in particular, the noble Lord for his feeling remarks with regard to the grave disasters which make any of us who have any special relationship with India very sad at the present time. I want, more particularly, to refer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said with regard to what I said on Clause 2. Naturally, your Lordships will appreciate that the noble Viscount always speaks with great accuracy, and if I made the mistake which he attributed to me—and very likely I did—in using the word "Viceroy" instead of "Legislature" in regard to Clause 2, I accept his correction with appreciation. Perhaps I had better read out the opening words of Clause 2. They are:
"Notwithstanding anything in the Government of India Act, the Indian Legislature shall, during the period mentioned in Section 4 of this Act, have powers to make laws …"
etc.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I imagine they authorize the Viceroy.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Therefore, if I fell into error over that, I apologize to the House. It was my desire not to read a brief, but to explain the thing in a straightforward fashion. Technically, also, the noble and learned

567
Viscount is quite right in what he said at the end, although, in practice, the Executive Council is appointed by the Viceroy. With regard to Clause 6, the answer to the noble Lord is that it refers to the notification mentioned in Clause 4 and the previous sanction mentioned in Clause 2 (3). I think that is the real purpose of Clause 6, and I trust that that explanation makes the matter clear. If the noble Lord wishes to raise the matter again in Committee I will endeavour to give him a more intelligible reply.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Bill read 3a according to Order and passed.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Inventions and designs made in Germany or Japan.
4.—(1) An application for a patent or for the registration of a design may be refused by the Comptroller at any stage of the proceedings on the ground that the invention or design was, during the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, and ending with the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five, invented or designed in Germany or Japan or invented or designed by a German national in any territory which was then enemy territory.
(2) The ground mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be an additional ground for opposing under section eleven of the principal Act an application for a patent, or for revoking a patent under section twenty-five or section twenty-six of the principal Act or for cancelling the registration of a design under section fifty-eight of the principal Act or (by way of rectification of the register) under section seventy-two of the principal Act, and shall also, on infringement proceedings, be an additional ground of defence or for a counterclaim for the revocation of a patent or the cancellation of the registration of a design.
(3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in any case where—

(a) the applicant, patentee, or proprietor of a registered design, as the case may be, proves that the invention or design was invented or designed in Germany before the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, or was invented or designed in Japan before the seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and has at no time since the said third day of September or, as the case may be, the said seventh day of December, been beneficially owned in whole or in part by a German or Japanese national or a German or Japanese company; or

(b) the applicant, patentee, or proprietor of the design, as the case may be, proves that, before the invention or design was invented or designed in Germany or Japan or, as the case may be, was invented or designed by a German national in enemy territory, it was independently invented or designed outside Germany and Japan by a person, other than a German or Japanese national, through whom the applicant, patentee or proprietor claims.

(4) An appeal shall lie from any decision of the Comptroller under this section to the Appeal Tribunal, and the provisions of the principal Act relating to appeals to the Appeal Tribunal shall apply to appeals under this section.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert
"(1) An applicant for a patent or for the registration of a design may be refused by the Comptroller at any stage of the proceedings on the ground that before the date of the application the applicant had access to information that the invention was, during the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, and ending with the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five, in use or known in Germany or Japan or invented or designed in Germany or Japan or invented or designed by a German or Japanese national in any territory, which was then enemy territory."
The noble Viscount said: The Amendment standing in my name and the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, are both intended, I think, to deal with the same matter. On the Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that, under the Bill as drafted, a British subject who had made an independent invention during the war and who might have applied already for a patent, the grant of his patent having been postponed for reasons of secrecy, would be—surely, this is an error in drafting—precluded from obtaining a patent in this country if it subsequently transpired that during the war a German or a Japanese (because the provisions

569
apply equally to Japan) had made a similar invention, although the British inventor did not and could not possibly have known anything about the discovery.
That, I am sure, is a fault we should all wish to remedy. The purpose of my Amendment is really to put—as I understand the law—the rights of an applicant for a patent exactly where they would be under the patent law of this country as it stands. If he knew about the German invention, or indeed, if he had means of knowing by publication in some scientific journal or otherwise, then, under the ordinary law, an applicant for a patent would not be entitled to get a patent in this country because he could, should or might have known about it. But what we want to safeguard is the position of a man who did not know and really could not have known what was happening in Germany and who made an independent invention on his own. That is what my Amendment seeks to do, and the noble Lord's Amendment also. On looking more closely at my own Amendment in conjunction with his, I am not sure whether if my Amendment were accepted, we should not have to put further consequential Amendments in the clause later on.
I should like two assurances from the noble Lord, if it is convenient to the Lord Chairman to discuss the two Amendments together. The first is that if we accept his Amendment, the British applicant will be protected, quite irrespective of the date when the invention was made in Germany. If he could not know about it, it does not make the least difference whether the German made his invention before or after the British subject made his invention. I want to be quite clear about that. The British subject ought to be protected, whatever time he made his invention. The second point is concerned with proof. I think under my Amendment the onus of proof would be upon the Comptroller and not upon the applicant: that is to say, it would be up to the Comptroller to show that a man had knowledge or could have had knowledge. I think that might be a variant of the 'ordinary law and I do not press it provided this is understood: that very strict proof by the applicant will not be required.
Quite obviously, if somebody was guilty of misrepresentation, then nobody
570
would wish to defend him at all on the matter of the patent, and the Comptroller ought out of hand to turn him down or to invite the Court so to do. I take it, however, if the noble Lord's form of Amendment is taken, that if the applicant produced the particulars about his patent and filed an affidavit that it was original and that he had no knowledge of it from any corrupt enemy source, then that would be accepted, and he would not be put to any special proof to show that he did not or could not have known what was happening in Germany. With those remarks I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Leave out sub-section (1) and insert the proposed new subsection.—[Viscount Swinton.]
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add a word or two on this clause, which really does raise some very curious and, as I think, rather difficult points? If I may express the opinion, my noble friend Viscount Swinton has good ground for his proposed Amendment, and for this amongst other reasons: that unless some such Amendment is put in—and now I am referring rather to the second Amendment under his name—an invention or a design made, we will say, by a British prisoner of war in Germany, would be open to objection. I dare say there are not many such inventions, but I know that during the long years that some unfortunate people were imprisoned in Germany they had lots of time to make designs, if they were people with arty skill in designs. It is not, of course, intended by Clause 4 of the Bill to prevent such a person getting protection for his design in this country.
There are, however, inure points than that, which I invite the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill to consider. Take one, the simplest of all: the one that rests on the words "within enemy territory," which my noble friend Viscount Swinton has adopted in his Amendment. I do not know whether those words have ever been used before in any Act of Parliament, but I cannot remember their being in use. I know in popular phraseology it is intended to include, and perhaps intended only to include, territories which were in enemy occupation. I am not quite certain whether the words will not lead to litigation, to find out precisely if that is all they mean or whether there should

571
be some other qualification. Take the case of France, for instance.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble Viscount, with great deference, to refer him to the clause concerning definitions—Clause 7—where a definition is provided of "enemy territory"? I do not know whether it satisfies him, but there is a definition there. I thought that would help the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am afraid I had not noticed that point, and I must apologize to the House if I have raised a subject which is not necessary. Which is the clause?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is at the top of page 6.
LORD PAKENHAM: The definition of "enemy territory" is given there. There are three kinds.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I must apologize; I had not noticed it. Then I need not trouble further with that. The other point I wanted to refer to was this. The second Amendment refers to a case where a patentee, or the proprietor of a design, or the applicant, proves that the invention or design was invented or designed by him while he was a prisoner of war. I am not quite sure whether my noble friend Viscount Swinton has gone quite so far as he wished to go.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was not really dealing with that. I had not come to that Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Are you not dealing with that too?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, I was dealing with the first Amendment in my name and the Amendment in the name of Lord Pakenham, which did not touch the prisoner of war point but was intended to protect the man who was in this country and made an invention in this country although a German may have made a similar invention in Germany. I am going to move my other Amendment later.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: When you said you were referring to the second Amendment, I was not sure that it was not yours with which you were dealing.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, Lord Pakenham's. I am sorry.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: In that case I will not say anything more on that at the moment. I will only add this. I am not quite sure that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has explained to us why the last words in Clause 4 (1) are confined to German nationals. The inventions or designs that we are dealing with here are inventions and designs in Germany or Japan in the first instance, and then it goes on to relate to inventions or designs by "a German national in any territory which was then enemy territory." I humbly apologize for what I said about enemy territory. But why only a German national? Why does it not include the Japanese? I am not sure that it should not include an Italian, because the territories which were then enemy territories will include Italy, Japan, and, I presume, France at one period, and a number of other countries in Europe, because there were thirteen of them which were in the hands of the Axis powers, particularly in the hands of the Germans. I assume, therefore, that they are enemy territories within the meaning of Section 15 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939.
At any rate, that is my very clear recollection, and, if so, ought not the end of the clause which we are now discussing in Committee to be somewhat extended, so that it will cover these other cases? It would be curious if inventions or designs by German nationals were excluded but those by Japanese, Italians and others were not. However, I have not got an Amendment down on the paper with regard to this matter. All I can ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is to consider this point and see whether it does not need Be dealt with. In the meantime, I support my noble friend Viscount Swinton in his first Amendment.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I first of all reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham? Certainly the point he has just raised will be considered. I know there was some question of including a reference to Japanese inventions in enemy territory outside Japan, but it was thought hardly worth placing in the Bill. The other issues he raises under that same heading are rather wider, but since he has raised them, I will convey them to the authorities to see whether there is any disposition to widen the scope of the Bill. I should imagine not, in view of the fact that this Bill is intended to deal with German and Japanese inventions.

573
Coming to the first Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I certainly feel it would be only proper to acknowledge with gratitude the part he has played in bringing this important question to light. Of course he is an old President of the Board of Trade, so he understands things from the inside. I have heard of poachers turning game-keepers, but here we have got a game-keeper turning poacher, and a very formidable phenomenon it is. We are all agreed in the broad objective that we are seeking under Clause 4; we are trying to make sure that German and Japanese inventions made during the war shall not be made the subject of patents in this country. We are, to put it in another way, trying to make freely available to British industry the fruits of German and Japanese war-. time inventions. That is the very broad object, but there is a second object which is, I think, very much clearer in our minds after the points made on the subject the other day by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. The object which he is seeking to realize by his Amendment and the object which we are seeking to realize by our Amendment—he will forgive me if I say that we prefer ours—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: You have got a skilled draftsman and I have only got myself.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount has had a lot of experience in this field. We are trying to secure the same object, and I can give him straight away those broad assurances that he asked for in his speech. Although I do not know that I can promise that an affidavit will be accepted in all cases as sufficient proof, I am told it will be accepted in the case of any reputable citizen. If there is any reason to doubt the word of a citizen, further evidence might be required, hut, broadly speaking, in the case of any reputable citizen an affidavit will be sufficient. So we can give him those two assurances without any difficulty, and indeed
LORD SWINTON: At any date?
LORD PAKENHAM: The application has got to be made before January r, 1946. As far as German and British inventions are concerned, it does not matter which was made first during the war period. The British inventor is protected. Now that we are clear about our
574
main objective, and what I might call our subsidiary objective, I think it only remains, on the subject of these two alternative Amendments, to deal with the question of proof. As the noble Viscount has said, it might be rather difficult under his Amendment. In fact, I am told it would be extremely difficult, and might well be impossible, for the Comptroller to prove that the British invention was derived from the German invention. I am sure the noble Viscount will take it from us that it will be much more convenient administratively, and will work very much better if the onus is put on the applicant, providing always that in all normal cases an affidavit will be sufficient to establish proof to the satisfaction of the Comptroller. I do not think at this stage I need say any more, except again to cypress thanks to the noble Viscount for raising the matter and to say I hope very much he will accept our Amendment as giving effect, perhaps more effectively and efficiently, to the purposes we both have in mind.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and to the Government. I am perfectly prepared to accept their Amendment. I know that when the Government get down to a thing they are much more likely to draft it in the right way. I imagine that the date January r, 1946, is right. I am not quite sure that I am in order in raising it on this. Obviously, we do not want to give any chance to people after the German knowledge has once become available to the world, because they aright pick it up and bring it back. On the other hand, there might be somebody who had made a perfectly genuine invention which he could show was invented before V Day, but who, for some reason or other—he might have been ill or he might have been out of the country—had not made his application formally before this date. That man ought not to be prejudiced.
I quite see that you have got to have some broad date laid down because otherwise you might have anyone picking up inventions and bringing them along. I do not ask the noble Lord to deal with this now, because I ought to have raised it in the form of an Amendment, but I would be grateful if he and the Board of Trade would look at this between now and the next stage, and see whether it would

575
not be fair to all parties to put in some proviso to the effect that if a man was out of time through no fault of his own, and if he established with very definite evidence that he had not profited by and knew nothing about, and really could know nothing about, a German or Japanese invention, and if he absolutely established that he had made his inventions before V Day, there ought to be locus penitentiae for him.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I will certainly look into that. It is a point I have heard discussed, but no doubt he will give us time to have a further look at it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (3), at the beginning of paragraph (b), to insert
"the application for the patent or for the registration of the design was made before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-six, and".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, at beginning insert ("the application for -the patent or for the registration of the design was made before the first day of January nineteen hundred and forty-six, and").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out
"before the invention or design was invented or designed in Germany or Japan or, as the case may be, was invented or designed by a German national in enemy territory."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. It is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, leave out from ("that") to ("it") in line 28.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert
"or (c) the applicant, patentee, or proprietor of a design, as the case may be, proves that the invention or design was invented or designed by him while he was a prisoner of war in Germany, Japan, or any territory which was then enemy territory."
576
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment to which the noble and learned Viscount below the gangway was good enough to give his support when he spoke. I do not suppose there will be many cases of this kind, but if there is one man who, above all others, we should want to protect if he had a real case, it would be the man who was a prisoner of war. Supposing a prisoner of war did invent a patentable article or a design while he was in a prison camp in Germany or occupied territory, he would, under the Bill as drafted, be precluded from applying for or getting his patent because the invention would have been made in enemy territory—where he had no desire to be, and where he certainly had no access to German secret processes. I know that in all probability certain further work would have to be done when he got back; he probably would have to get his experiments done, and so on, and he might have done that. There is another possibility which really reinforces the point the noble Lord said he would look at about the possibility of locus penetentiae. One thing which kept up the morale of our prisoners more than anything else was the amazing work in which they kept themselves occupied. They did, for all I know, design work. It might very well be that a prisoner of war had got a design practically all complete in his hands when his imprisonment ended and that he put the finishing touches to it after his release. Such a man is obviously the sort of man we would all want to protect and it is in his interests that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, at end, to insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My noble friend has put his case about prisoners of war so clearly that I really do not think I need add anything to it. I would only say that of course you can work out an invention without any experiments if you really know your job. A skilled designer could develop an invention for, say, a new form of motor car engine entirely on paper, and make all the necessary drawings so that his invention might be complete at the end of the four or five years that he was a prisoner of war. So this clause really should cover invention and designs. As my noble friend has said, it is easier to do it in relation to designs than it is in relation to patent inventions. But I want to go a little bit

577
further—that is unless I have come upon another mare's nest. I hope I have not. It would certainly be something new for me to discover two in the course of one afternoon.
What I desire to point out is that the same thing could happen not only with regard to inventions or designs by prisoners of war but also with regard to inventions and designs by internees who are British subjects. I know that there were large numbers of internees in some of these countries, and an internee inventor should not be exposed to this risk to which my noble friend Viscount Swinton has drawn attention. If the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill accepts this Amendment, I would venture to suggest that he should also seek to make arrangements to cover the case of internees. There is one thing more which I would like to add although it is not perhaps quite so likely to be useful. This relates to prisoners of war who managed to escape. I have known of cases of gallant soldiers who have been for months at large in enemy occupied territory, supported by inhabitants of that territory who were willing to help them. They, I think, could not be regarded as being prisoners of war any longer in those circumstances. I think that a person is only a prisoner of war from the point of view of legal phraseology while he is with in the prison walls. When he ceases to be within those walls lie automatically ceases to be within the category of a prisoner of war. Perhaps, therefore, Lord Pakenham would take the trouble to see in making a perfect Amendment so as to cover these people who ought not to be deprived of any of their rights that it covers people whom he really does not intend to affect adversely by the substantive provisions of Clause 4.
LORD PAKENHAM: The principle stated by my noble friend Viscount Swinton and somewhat expanded by Viscount Maugham is not unacceptable to us. I would say, however, that cases such as those which they have described are regarded as very improbable indeed. After all, if a man has invented something as a prisoner of war in Germany and he comes back here and applies for a patent, the Comptroller is not going to try to stop him getting one, and there is only just a possibility that a friend might intervene and say, "Oh, but that
578
was published during the war." If, in fact, it was conceived in the man's head during that period he was not under any statutory obligation to disclose the fact immediately he came back here. So such cases are considered to be very unlikely. But, as I say, we admit the principle, and like both the noble Viscounts who have spoken on this Amendment we are most anxious not only to do no injustice but also to be quite clear before the world as doing no injustice to prisoners of war. Viscount Maugham has mentioned one or two other possible cases. Without exhausting my own intellectual resources I think that I could mention several more myself, but I will not inflict them upon the Committee this afternoon. I can assure the Committee that we do accept the principle while not necessarily accepting the precise words. With the permission of the House we will bring forward something to meet this at the next stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged, for I think that something ought certainly to be put into the Bill in this connexion. Lord Pakenham has said that the Comptroller's attitude would naturally be friendly towards a man putting forward an invention or design in circumstances such as have been outlined. But may I suggest that we have got to be very careful about this. In this connexion, the Comptroller does not act as an administrative officer but as a judicial officer. When an applicant for a patent goes before him he has got to exercise the wide powers which are given to him in a strictly judicial capacity. It may be satisfactory as a matter of administration to say: "This is the way I am going to administer it," but the noble Lord cannot give any undertaking on the Comptroller's behalf as to the manner in which he will act in his judicial capacity. The Comptroller is bound to interpret the law with complete accuracy, so far as he can, and the applicant is bound to put all his cards on the table.
LORD PAKENHAM: No, I understand not. I have been into that point.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think he is. But here we will assume we are dealing with a thing which has been invented and there may be cases in which there is a German invention like it. The onus of

579
proof is on the inventor to show that he did not know anything about that. I would have thought that in putting his case absolutely frankly to the Court of the Comptroller he would have to say in his affidavit: "I did invent this thing when I was a prisoner of war"—or an internee as the case may be. I agree that internees should be included in this—"in Germany." He would further say "I was able to put the whole thing on paper, and I have put in my application as soon as I returned here." The Comptroller, kind hearted as one can assume that he will be and anxious as he undoubtedly will be to give the man the benefit of the doubt, will be strictly bound by the words in the Act. So I hope that this will be looked at and that something will be done to ensure that we may be perfectly certain that provision is made in accurate legal phraseology to protect these people.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will not attempt, to bandy arguments with the noble Viscount on matters of legal knowledge but I assure him that we shall do our best to give expression to the principle which he is upholding. I would reiterate, however, that we think that cases of this kind are very unlikely to occur—in fact, we very much doubt if any such case ever will occur.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word because I do not want the noble Lord to brush this aside when he comes to consider this clause? I have been told that at the beginning of the war the Germans captured many people of great scientific attainments and they would not let them leave Germany. Those people, therefore, have been in Germany throughout the five-and-a-half years or more that the war has continued. What they have produced in the way of inventions or designs I cannot say, but it might be that, in this connexion, there are one or two rather important matters which would come within the scope of Viscount Swinton's Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: There is a further point on this. There have been, as I know personally, a large number of inventions, particularly in the line of cooking stoves, evolved both in German and Japanese prison camps. In many instances the design of these stoves reveals
580
great ingenuity, and, indubitably, some of them are going to be patented in this country. Similar things may well exist elsewhere, and I think that this is a consideration which the Government might take into account also.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (WAR-TIME CONTRAVENTIONS) BILL.
5.20 p.m.
Amendments reported according to order.
Clause 2:
Power to sanction war-time non-compliance with building laws or planning control.
(3) Where the authority determine that works or a use fail to comply as aforesaid they shall further determine whether the works or use notwithstanding the failure, be deemed so to comply, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as to the time for which the works or use may be continued, the carrying out of alterations, or other matters, as the authority think expedient.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (3), after "whether," to insert "having regard to all relevant circumstances." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment will give effect to the objection explained by the noble and learned Viscount Lord Maugham, in the Committee stage of the Bill when he moved a longer Amendment. As I stated at the time, the Bill as it stands will empower the local authority or the Minister on appeal to reach a decision having regard to all relevant circumstances. As your Lordships will remember, my assurance did not remove all doubt. The noble and learned Viscount and other noble Lords remained of the opinion that there would be advantage if the Government were to insert in the Bill words such as those which are now proposed to be included. The noble and learned Viscount also urged that the matter should be reconsidered, and although I gave no pledge at the time I felt it was only right that the matter should be reconsidered. The reset is this Amendment and the two later Amendments on the Paper. I will

581
only add that I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to regard the insertion of these words as a reasonably satisfactory response to his appeal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 40, after ("whether") insert ("having regard to all relevant circumstances").—(Lord Henderson.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord very sincerely for having taken almost the last possible opportunity for putting words into the Bill which substantially I think, carry out my object. We have got to remember that this is a very singular measure, due to war that we hope will not occur again in our lifetime, and it has had the result that buildings and works of great importance have been put up in various parts of the country with some disregard of provisions which would have been remembered in peace time, and that the time for objecting to these works has gone by. I am not for one moment suggesting, at any rate now, that the Bill was unnecessary, but I think it is necessary, and I told your Lordships on the previous occasion that I felt it was very important, that before serious orders were made with regard to works and buildings and the use of land by authorities responsible for enforcing by-laws or planning control, the fullest possible consideration should be given in particular to the circumstances in which the buildings were erected or in which that use was begun. Of course, being only human I prefer my form of Amendment to that which the noble Lord has accepted, but I think that the noble Lord's words would carry out the desire which I have in mind and I have great pleasure in saying that so far as I am concerned, I am satisfied.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, after ("proper") insert ("having regard to all relevant circumstances")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
582
Page 4, line 21, at end insert ("having regard to all relevant circumstances").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Supplementary provisions as to enforcement.
(4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of Section one of this Act and of the last foregoing subsection, the time within which a notice of irregularity may be served under subsection (2) of Section eighty-nine of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, in respect of works carried out during the war period shall be the expiration of twelve months from the end of that period or the time limited by the said subsection (2), whichever is the later.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "last foregoing subsection"and insert" two last foregoing subsections."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the next Amendment is to repair a drafting oversight. Subsection (4) should obviously be subject to the provisions not only of subsection (3) but of subsection (2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, leave out ("last foregoing subsection") and insert ("two last foregoing subsections").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.29 p.m.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment).

India (Proclamations of Emergencies).

Local Government (Financial Provisions).

Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland).

Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions).

Bank of England.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
Clause 5:
Statutory Instruments which are subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
5.—(1) Where by this Act or any Act passed after the commencement of this Act, it is provided that any statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament, the instrument shall be laid before Parliament after being made and the provisions of the last foregoing section shall apply thereto accordingly, and if either House, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which a copy thereof is laid before it, resolves that the instrument be annulled it shall thenceforth become void but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under or to the making of a new statutory instrument.
(2) Where any Act passed before the date of the commencement of this Act contains provisions requiring that any Order in Council or other document made in exercise of any power conferred by that or any other Act shall be laid before Parliament after being made and shall cease to be in force or may be annulled, as the case may be, if within a specified period either House presents an address to His Majesty or passes a resolution to that effect, then, subject to the provisions of any Order in Council made under this Act, any statutory instrument made in exercise of the said power shall by virtue of this Act be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament and the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection shall apply thereto accordingly in substitution for any such provisions as aforesaid contained in the Act passed before the said date.
5.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "by" where that word occurs for the second time, and insert "in pursuance of a." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I can explain the effect of this Amendment; it really brings in the whole question of the later Amendments too. Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, raised a rather interesting point which I promised to look into. This Amendment and the succeeding ones are the result of the consideration which followed that promise and are really, therefore, due to the vigilance of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. The original proposal was that where the House resolved against any Order, whether an Order in Council or a Ministerial Order, that should
584
automatically put an end to the Order. That has been the practice since the war started, but, although that was the legislative enactment, in fact the old procedure has been followed, and either House wishing to strike out an Order has done so by means of the machinery of a Prayer.
The noble Lord pointed out that now that we were out of the war there was a good deal to be said for going back to the old constitutional way, by means of the Prayer, not mainly because it seemed to be more polite to the Sovereign, but for the practical reason that if you did it by means of a Prayer and the Prayer was then given effect to by an Order in Council, then you would have both Orders in Council in the same book or series of books. Every year there is a book called the Statutory Rules and Orders. You will find an Order in Council promulgated in that book, and if either House moves its Resolution and there is a Prayer, and that Prayer is given effect to by another Order in Council, that second Order in Council will also be in the book, if in the same year, or in the succeeding volume if it comes the year afterwards.
Therefore, there is a practical reason why we should adopt this course. Obviously, there should be no interval of time after either House has passed its Resolution during which the Order continues to be effective. It should, without prejudice to what has been done under it beforehand, from that moment of time cease to be operative. I think that by the Amendment which stands in my name we have achieved that result. This Amendment I am now moving is, since the Resolution of the House is in itself going to put an end to the Order, going to strike out the words "by Resolution of either House" and insert the words "in pursuance of a Resolution of either House." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of a").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.48 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as the Lord Chancellor has taken the convenient course of dealing with his sequence of Amendments under this one, perhaps your Lordships will allow me also to say what I have to say on this one, too,

585
I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for the way he has met the points I made. My Amendment—which is also on the Order Paper—sought to achieve this change in a somewhat different manner. The two main differences between my Amendment and the Amendments in the name of the Lord Chancellor are, first, that my Amendment would, as it stood, have allowed action to go on being taken under an Order after one House of Parliament had passed a Resolution seeking to have it annulled. I certainly agree that the Lord Chancellor's proposal is the better one and once that Resolution has been passed by either House, a Minister should cease to operate under the Order against which the House has successfully prayed.
The second point is that I made a slight distinction between the Order in Council and the Statutory Instrument made by a Minister. In the case of the second, I sought- to have it revoked by the same Minister who made it, but it scorns to me that there is little distinction in that because all these Orders in Council are in the same volume. Whether the Minister's Order is revoked by Order in Council or by the Minister, there is not that practical objection that there is if you have to seek through the pages of Hansard to see whether a Resolution has been passed or not. I do not wish to keep your Lordships any longer except to say how grateful I am to the Lord Chancellor for the way he has dealt with this matter, and to intimate at the same time that I have no intention of moving any of my Amendments on the Order Paper.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, as I took part in the previous debate on this matter, perhaps I may be allowed to express the thanks I feel to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for having so fully met the desires that were expressed on that occasion. It is another example of the readiness with which the Lord Chancellor meets requests that are made from the body of the House whenever he thinks that they have some reason and merit in them. Our thanks are also due and ought to be rendered to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, to whom we are indebted for the fact that this matter was brought to the notice of the House at all. Although it deals with a minor point, it has some constitutional importance, particularly from the point of view of precedent,
586
and the House ought to express its thanks. The noble Lord has also earned the thanks of posterity for having, by his vigilance, detected this somewhat recondite matter, and we should express our gratitude to him for the service that he has thereby rendered.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the instrument be annulled it shall thenceforth become void but" and to insert:
"an Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the instrument he annulled, no further proceedings shall be taken thereunder after the date of the resolution, and His Majesty may by Order in Council revoke the instrument, so, however, that any such resolution and revocation shall be."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I need not say anything about this: this follows from what I have already said.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out from (" that ") to (" without ") in line 26 and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My - Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("thereunder") and insert ("under the instrument").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of a").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Regulations.
(2) Every statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is a consequential Amendment on this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved:
Line 43, leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of a").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SCOTTISH AIR LINES.
5.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW THE EARL OF GLASGOW rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that unless immediate assurances are given to Scotland for freedom to form a Scottish Public Utility Corporation to own, operate and develop Prestwick Airport and a similar Corporation to operate Scottish Air Lines with opportunity equal to Scottish shipping, the country is faced with the prospect of a strong separatist movement; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, since the last debate on Civil Aviation in your Lordships' House, the Government have thrown two sops to Scotland: a repetition of a previous promise to designate Prestwick as an international airport, and a promise that amongst the regional organizations which are to be set up there should be one for Scotland. Here may I say that we have not yet heard that Prestwick had actually been designated. While we are grateful for the promise of Prestwick, nothing yet has been conceded which will allow Scottish enterprise the same chances in the air and the same opportunities of competition on world air routes as other countries. During the debate in another place, when the Parliamentary Secretary was explaining about the Regional Boards, a Scottish Member asked: "But what about the control of Scottish Air Services?" The reply was: "That is another question." It is this question of the control of Scottish Air Services which is the crux of the matter and which the Scottish people are united and determined to have settled in their favour.
On November 9 I ventured to draw the attention of the Government to the Scottish point of view in civil aviation. I said then that opposition to that policy would grow to formidable dimensions unless assurance was given on one fundamental point: a measure of control for Scottish interests and Scottish enterprise. In spite of the concessions which I have mentioned, no such assurance has been given. You will appreciate that we have a shipping point of view. When, through the enterprise of Scotsmen, the first practical steamship, the Comet, was launched on the Clyde, Scottish shipping firms seized on this entirely new idea of the steam age and developed it in a way which has been beneficial not only to Scotland but to the whole nation. Our industry, prosperity
588
and employment have, for generations, been tied to the overseas carrying trade.
Now again, something has come into being—the air age—and Scotland looks on air commerce as the biggest single opportunity which has offered itself since the inception of the first steamship. Such an opportunity has taken hold of the minds and hearts of Scotsmen, and they have no intention whatever of having such a splendid chance reduced any further by the restricted outlook of Whitehall officials, who apparently cannot see any further than the outskirts of the capital. I ask your Lordships to imagine what would have resulted if, at the outset, the management of Scottish shipping had been put into the hands of Cockneys who had no interest in it and were determined to prevent its growth, and if Scottish shipping firms had been prohibited from being formed.
Those of your Lordships who have studied Scottish history—I do not know how many there are who have done so—will recall the story of the Friar of Tong-land, near Kirkcudbright in Galloway, the first Scottish pioneer of aviation, who, in the 15th Century, tried to take off from the top of a tower with a pair of home made wings. There was nothing wrong with the Friar's spirit but there was something wrong with the wings, so he fell ignominiously to earth. To-day, both in spirit and in technique, Scottish aviation is in the forefront, but the present Government is prepared to see it fall like the poor Friar of Tongland, and are content to see it lie. That is what has been happening in Scottish aviation to-day. I do not want to be unnecessarily rude, but I must say that, by their practice and stupid policy, the Government are manufacturing Scottish nationalists.
Not for hundreds of years has the feeling of Scotsmen of all parties and all classes, I will not say about Englishmen but about English interference with and neglect of Scottish interest, been so strong. I was informed by one of the Scottish Nationalist organizations that during the last few months recruits have been coming in steadily and that most of those joining had had no opportunity of studying the propaganda but were just coming in because they thought Scotsmen had not had a fair deal. Your Lordships have very little knowledge of the strong feeling which has swept through Scotland

589
during the last few months on this question of aviation. Why should you? Your Lordships never read the Scottish papers, or very few of you do, which have so magnificently, time and time again, backed up the national aspirations. I believe the English Press did mention the meeting of the so-called Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, but the significance of it was quite overlooked. At that meeting a resolution, moved by the Scottish Council of Industry, was passed, the gist of which was that Scotland demanded devolution in all matters pertaining to civil aviation. There have been other gatherings of representative bodies throughout the country in which resolutions on the same lines have been passed.
The Scottish people are united on one thing, devolution in these matters, which would include the operation of their own air services, internal and overseas, the control and enlargement of Scottish airfields, the right to make aero engines for ourselves and the world, and the repair of aircraft. We want to be able to do these things free from obstruction and interference from London officials, who know little of, and, I. think, care less for, our interests. We have got the ability, the enterprise, and the men to make a great success of it. We do not wish to depart from the Government's principle of Government ownership, but we want that ownership to be Scottish and not English.
May I strike a personal note? I am not a Scottish Nationalist; I do not want to repeal the Union; I am not a fanatic of any kind. Nevertheless, I hope your Lordships do not think that all men North of the Border should speak and act exactly like Englishmen, because, of course, there is a difference between the two countries, in law and history, for instance. Therefore, if some people in Scotland think nationally, it does not mean that they think parochially, or that they wish to sever relations. One of my reasons for putting this question is to warn the Government against separatism or a strong desire for devolution, which I, as well as many Scotsmen, would greatly deplore. One of our main charges against the Government—a charge made by Lord Selkirk the other day in Glasgow, which I repeat here—is that the Government's policy is a policy of concentration in London, which is now recognized as contrary to the public interest in
590
this island. The Barlow Report states that the continued trend of the industrial population to London and the Home Counties constitutes social, economic and strategical problems which demand immediate attention. It further says that leadership is becoming increasingly centred in London, to the disadvantage of the social, cultural and civic life of the provinces. I would remind your Lordships that the findings 'of this Committee are not questioned by any political Party. In my humble opinion, the Government should make a clean-cut statement as to whether nationalization means centralization. It is right and proper that Scotland should be told what she is to expect in this matter.
The characteristic feature of the White Papers is that they lay down implicitly that Scotland is to have no contact with the outside world except through London. This will have much the same effect as the Navigation Laws of the eighteenth century by which English merchants had the monopoly of trading with the Colonies and the Plantations. It was the economic powers to which those laws gave rise which, more than anything else, forced the Act of Union of 1707 on Scotland. It is interesting to note that when the Parliamentary Secretary was explaining with pride the commencement of the new air services, he dealt exclusively with those in or out of London. I believe that by excluding Scottish subjects from full freedom to control their own commerce, the Government is infringing the Act of Union. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows. I know I am not a lawyer, and I shall probably be taken up on this, but I think it is a point which is worth mentioning.
"That all the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall, from and after the Union, have full freedom and intercourse of trade and navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom, and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging; and that there be a communication of all other rights, privileges and advantages, which do or may belong to the subjects of either Kingdom."
If that means anything, it means that the Scottish people have the same rights of trade and navigation in the air as the English, as indeed they have in the sea for their shipping, and should be accorded permission by the Government in London to shape their policy to that effect.
If that argument has any legal flaws—and I shall probably be told by noble and

591
learned Lords that it may have—there is another aspect. If the wording of the section is intended to appy only to individuals, the implication surely is that if Scotsmen are to have the same intercourse, together with rights, privileges and advantages as English subjects, then there should be representatives from Scotland on the Scottish Aviation Board in London in order to protect Scottish interests. I put that point and I hope some noble and learned Lord will take me up and give his opinion. As a working woman in Paisley wrote to me, "We are not the scullery maid of England, fit only to pick up the crumbs which fall from her table." That is quite true. We are not a province of England; we are a nation, the other kingdom of this island.
I do solemnly warn the Government to expect a strong separatist movement or a movement towards devolution in the near future unless an assurance is given to Scotland that its main international airport, Prestwick, which we look upon as the equivalent to the River Clyde, will be owned and managed by a Scottish Public Utility Board under Scottish direction, which will be able to develop it to its fullest extent, and further, unless full freedom is given to a similar Board to operate Scottish airlines on the world air-routes, with every bit as much opportunity and freedom to face the commercial competition of other countries, including England, as has been enjoyed, for the benefit of the whole of Great Britain, by Scottish shipping. I shall be told that a Scottish Board for the control of Scottish aerodromes has already been conceded. That is just a gesture; such a Board may be Scottish in composition, but it will have to take its orders from London.
Scotland has no intention of being dragged down by the bungling of English officials, however well intentioned. They know little of our needs and interests, and if they did know anything about them, they would probably do nothing to safeguard them. Therefore it may be worth while to ask the Minister if he appreciates the possibilities of Scottish opinion, and if he realizes that the only industry, apart from shipping, which is big enough to justify a separatist movement is aviation, and that Eire has, in aviation alone, justified her freedom from the ineptitudes of British air policy. Immediate freedom
592
for these Scottish Boards or Corporations to enter world commerce is the only alternative I can offer for avoiding drastic separatist action from a strongly determined people who are being frustrated and exasperated to a grievous extent. I am asking my noble friend this question on an auspicious date; to-day all the birds get friendly with each other. Is it too much to hope that the noble Lord will use his influence on the Government in such a way as to grant the Scottish people what they so ardently desire, and in that way bring back that friendly and good neighbourly feeling which has existed between the two kingdoms for so long a period? I beg to move for Papers.
6.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, perhaps a mere Englishman may be allowed for a moment or two to intervene, if only to express some sympathy. I do not hesitate to do that, and indeed, to venture some suggestions, because I think the noble Earl will agree that the proposals which were made during the lifetime of the last Government, after very careful consultation between the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, represented proposals which were at the same time practical and also fair and consonant with Scottish interests and Scottish, desires. Certainly I found a great deal of concurrence upon that in many quarters in Scotland—not by any means all in one Party.
Scotland's interest in aviation is perfectly natural. It is not only that she desires to have her share, her rightful share, in all developments, but, I think, she has a particular interest in aviation. Communications are difficult in Scotland, and, therefore, she has a great interest in aviation both internal and external. I do not think that it is too much to say that internal communications, intersected by waterways and mountains, are so difficult that you are, in fact, able to-day to accomplish, by air, journeys in matters of minutes which would take almost an equivalent number of hours if you attempted to do them by road, rail and water—and you probably might find that you had to do them by a combination of all three.
Then Scotland is rightly interested in external air services. She is interested because of her great business interests and

593
also by reason of the beauty of her country which is an attraction that draws many people from other lands. Her interest is not merely to be well served, her interest is also to develop services for herself as well and not to be dependent entirely upon outside concerns. I do think it would be profoundly unfortunate if the air which ought to unite nations by bringing them closer together became something which divided this kingdom. And indeed—I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me in this—Scotland realises to the full that she cannot be separatist in this matter, that she depends on these links and desires these links. But—and this I hope is what the Minister is going to deal with in his answer—she rightly claims that Scottish enterprise and Scottish experience should be able to play its full part. I stress both. There is no lack of enterprise and no lack of experience in Scotland. Actually to-day, and for years past, the Scottish air services, Scottish Airways and Scottish Allied Airways—another one, I think, has come into being and is actually flying, very sportingly, some planes now—have been conducted by Scottish boards whose members know very well the local conditions of Scotland and the local needs. The boards of Scottish Airways and Scottish Allied Airways have seen what the services are that are needed in Scotland, and I believe that, within their limitations, they are giving good service.
In passing, I would observe that the aviation adventure on the part of a friar whose name I did not quite catch will not be regarded as a prototype of civil aviation in Scotland. They want, in Scotland, to have a fair chance, and we had proposed to reserve for Scottish enterprises certain services even of those which would start at once. But I want to put this most sincerely to the Minister—we wish to have an entirely independent tribunal to which anybody who wished to conduct a new airline along a new route could go for the purpose of satisfying that tribunal that he was competent, technically and financially competent, and that he would comply with the essential conditions such as treating his pilots properly and so on.
We regard that as essential—and may I say that I am not trying to make a Party point of this. I feel sure that the noble Lord who is going to reply will appreciate that I feel far too keenly about this to make it a Party matter. The
594
noble Lord has made an agreement now with America. It all depends on whether we can be efficient as to whether or not the agreement is going to be any good. To-day, you cannot tell what opportunities are going to develop. You cannot tell it with regard to passenger routes and certainly not with regard to freight. There will be innumerable ways in which air transport will develop—certainly in Scotland and for the use of Scotland. So long as you have an independent tribunal to which people can complain—and not only, or primarily, to which people can complain—
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: On the American model—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly, on the American model—but it must be independent. The tribunal should be one to which people can go and say: "I want to establish an air service. I am prepared to do that and there is a need." I do not think Scotland is asking for any undue preference in this matter. I believe that the Scottish Peers who are here would say that if they could be given a fair chance and a fair hearing and if the tribunal held that there was a better enterprise that would give Scotland better service, they would take their beating and consent to be cut out. But they say: "Give us a fair chance. Give us a fair field—an opportunity to make our case before an independent tribunal."
I want to ask the Minister how under this system, which I understand he is bound to carry through, of just nationalizing everything and letting no new enterprise come in, is Scotland—or England indeed for that matter—going to have a chance of making her complaint. This is a two-fold point. If you are not allowed to serve yourselves—as I think you should be—how are you going to get good service provided for you, and what powers is this body going to have to say that these services are fairly demanded and that they shall run?
I do not wish to add more than a sentence or two about airfields. Scotland developed Prestwick, it is true, with a good deal of help from the Government. But that was so in the case of a great many other airfields all over the country. And I want to put this to the Minister with what, I hope, he will consider sweet

595
reasonableness—if Scottish interests, a Scottish public utility company, wishes to operate Prestwick and develop it then really for the sake of uniformity need it all be put in a straight waistcoat of nationalization or cannot they have the chance of running their own airfield with their own public utility?
6.21 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I rise to support the plea of my noble and gallant friend the Earl of Glasgow in favour of retaining control of Prestwick Airport and also the development of Scottish airlines in Scottish hands. I do so naturally having been an ardent worker for Scottish devolution (which is retaining control of our Scottish affairs in our own hands) for many years and therefore I support the noble Lord's plea. But I think he might have based his plea on better grounds. I resent the statement that he based his plea on the ground that there is a strong separatist movement in Scotland to-day. There is no such movement in Scotland to-day. Nobody is asking for separation in Scotland to-day.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: The noble Duke is suffering from a travesty of inexactitude.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I think what the noble Earl has in mind is the Scottish nationalist movement. Twenty years ago I was a leader on behalf of the Scottish Nationalist Party and I know that after a very short time we found there were people in the Party who were working for separation. I fought it with all the strength I could. I would not have separation, but I could not get my way and so I left the Party. When I left nearly everyone else left too. Some of them came into the Liberal Party which had sponsored devolution for 27 years, some went into the Labour Party and some into the Tory Party. The only few left were irreconcilables who called themselves Nationalists. Anyone who has been in politics for any length of time knows the bugbear that extremists are. I was very foolish. I let myself in three times for fighting as a Tory candidate, and I know that my greatest bugbear was the dyed-in-the-wool Tory. So I know perfectly well
596
what damage an extremist can do but nowadays I think devolution is making progress.
The Labour Government have pledged themselves to bring in a Bill on the lines of self-government in domestic affairs. As regards the Tory Party a candidate who was returned to Parliament only yesterday said that Prestwick must continue as a number one international airport under Scottish control and that this great Scottish airport must be maintained in preference to the bureaucratic dictatorship from Whitehall. He said that he stood for unity, that he favoured Scottish control over their own affairs and that the grip by Whitehall must be loosened. That is what a Tory candidate who was returned to Parliament yesterday with a majority of over four thousand votes, thanks very largely to his devolutional programme, has said. The Liberals have supported it for 27 years, and I feel devolution is now making progress.
Prestwick and the development of our airlines is only one matter. We have questions concerning the Forth Road Bridge, the Tay Bridge and the West Coast ports, the hydro-electric scheme and the nationalization of water and of land. If devolution was necessary in days gone past it is doubly necessary now if we are going to have nationalization of our air, nationalization of our land and nationalization of our water supply. As for authority in Scotland, is it going to be subject to long distance control in Whitehall nearly 400 miles outside our borders? Your Lordships will realize that in the British Isles there are five or six different forms of government. There is a Government in Westminster dealing with English affairs. There is one for Scotland through St. Andrew's House with a Secretary of State in charge of eighteen Departments, in charge of Scottish affairs. In Ulster there is a democratic Parliament dealing with Irish affairs and in the Isle of Man there is one of the oldest Parliaments in existence. Then there are the legislative Courts dealing with the Channel Islands affairs and the system in control of the affairs of Southern Ireland. There are six different forms of government in the British Isles but Scotland is the only country of the whole lot except England whose affairs are managed by a bureaucracy in Whitehall, by a single man, a Secretary of State who

597
has the power of a dictator, and who can and does issue orders which have the force of an Act of Parliament. Every other State in the British Isles can deal with things within their own borders, but Scotland cannot, and I say that as regards our important interests and in view of the tremendously hard work here in Westminster and of the tremendous pressure of work in Westminster, the time has come when devolution must seriously be considered. I think myself that we should begin by getting control of our airlines at Prestwick. We are told that the date for the introduction of a change of management is to be April the first. April 1 is All Fool's Day.
6.28 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a few moments and to remind your Lordships that I have had to answer questions on this particular subject of Prestwick airport in three debates in six years and as my noble friend knows, in the files of the Air Ministry I have put many things on paper dealing with this particular airport. There may be a danger of some confusion between very right national sentiments and hard commercial -and technical facts as regards the future of the airport. Prestwick Airport fulfils, broadly speaking, a dual function. It is what is called a designated airport. What benefits are conferred on an airport which bears the label "designated" I have not found out.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: It has not been designated yet. That is the point I wanted to make.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: It is to be -designated. It is -a most valuable relief landing ground to the main centre of the Empire, London, and we shall need probably two large relief landing grounds, if not three, in addition to the main one in London and probably one in South Wales and one in Cornwall and undoubtedly at Prestwick. Then the second role of Prestwick is as a main traffic centre, and here is where I think there is some danger of confusion. Prestwick is a good airport made mainly by Exchequer money as a necessary wartime work. There is a good deal of nonsense talked about the wonderful weather there. It was mentioned only recently, in another place, that a particular member tried to get into
598
Prestwick and three times out of four he was fogged. Prestwick has good weather.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I am sorry to interrupt, but I really must protest. As a matter of fact, there were only seven days (hiring the last year, or one year, on which there was fog at Prestwick. The unfortunate thing, however, was that the late Secretary of State for Air arrived there to open a road in a fog, and that has undoubtedly gone down to posterity.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Seven days? I think if the noble Lord will check other places, he will find that they have not had appreciably more than seven days' fog. It is true that Sir Archibald Sinclair arrived in a fog. I can remember a most unpleasant half-hour after crossing the Atlantic in a Liberator when we did not know whether we were going to get in or not, because we did not know whether the fog would clear from Prestwick in time. That was my own personal experience.
The runways at Prestwick are good, but unless an enormous amount of money is spent, including the moving of a railway, they are never going to be as good as Heath Row. However, having said that, le me say at once from considerable experience that Prestwick is a first-class airport. But as to whether Prestwick Airport should be operated by a Scottish Utility Corporation or by money from the British taxpayer, depends on whether Prestwick is going to attract enough traffic to make it worth while for transatlantic and transworld aircraft to stop at that airport. If Scotland and the Northern cities south of the Border can produce enough traffic to make it attractive to operators to land there, then undoubtedly they will.
If, on the other hand, sufficient in-and-out traffic is not offered, I think it is only right that Prestwick should be by-passed or overflown unless there is a proposition that stoppages at Prestwick should be compulsory in order to fulfil national Scottish aspirations, and the extra cost of diversion of such stops should be borne by the operator concerned. I do not think we are entitled to go further and advocate a wide extension of Prestwick, and at all times say that it should be a first-class international airport. We are entitled to know: Do they advocate that all or some aircraft flying from the United

599
States should compulsorily stop at Prestwick? The second question I would ask is: Do they advocate that some services crossing the Atlantic should compulsorily be stopped at Prestwick irrespective of the wish of the passenger to get to another destination as quickly as possible, with the minimum number of landings?
If it is argued that Scottish traffic needs are the test, then let it be so. Whether this airport be operated by a Scottish Utility Corporation or by the Air Ministry—and I have great sympathy for the method of operating by a Scottish Utility Corporation—if the traffic needs of Scotland is to be the yardstick, then let it be so. It does not matter under which system that airport is operated, there will be a constant stream of aircraft in and out. But if, on the other hand, noble Lords ask for a Government decision to develop Prestwick and compulsorily make aircraft stop there on national and political grounds, then indeed I believe they will be encouraging a very considerable separatist movement south of the Border.
6.38 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not think I shall take up your time for very long. I am approaching this matter from a different angle. Only two days ago in this House I heard the noble Marquess of Aberdeen tell His Majesty's Government that there were only two subjects on which the whole Scottish nation was united, one was the Forth Bridge, and the other was Prestwick Airport. If I say a thing like that, it is merely the expression of opinion of a humble member of your Lordships' House. But when my noble friend the Marquess of Aberdeen says that, I would like to say that there is no man who, by his character, by his ability, and by his wide acquaintance with every class of Scottish society, is better able to speak for a very large portion of Scotland than the noble Marquess of Aberdeen.
Therefore I do ask His Majesty's Government to weigh very carefully what he said last Tuesday on that subject, although it was merely thrown out in the course of a speech. This question is part of a very much larger question, one into which my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has dived somewhat deeply. Not very long ago I heard the noble
600
Leader of the House say that in a very short time frontiers would be as obsolete as bows and arrows, and he deplored all these questions which aroused irritations between peoples. I should be very sorry indeed if anything should occur to weaken the intimate and close union between England and Scotland into one Great Britain, because if you put a rope between two persons or two animals, or two of anything, they are going to pull on it, and how far they pull no man can tell in advance.
How far they have pulled in the case of this once United Kingdom your Lordships may know when you consider those of our people who were lost in the Battle of the Atlantic. I feel very strongly on this question, and if His Majesty's Government, really as the noble Duke hints, have got any prospect of definitely lessening the tie between England and Scotland, I think they will be quite definitely false to the opinion and the principles expressed by the noble Leader of the House in that debate the other day. It will certainly be an indication to me that the ideas which I have cherished all my life have passed away from the world.
The point I am trying to make is this. You have got this intense feeling in Scotland on these questions. Nobody should know better than His Majesty's Government what tremendous effects might be wrought by intense feeling on any particular subject, and I do feel that that feeling has got to be allayed in some way or other. I do not know how the noble Lord, who is going to answer this, proposes to allay it, but I do urge upon His Majesty's Government and upon him that something must be done. When speaking on a subject cognate to this in my hearing, he said His Majesty's Government in this matter were not going to make the mistakes of our ancestors. I read into that statement, the implication that His Majesty's Government were not going to make mistakes at all! But I do urge them at any rate not to make a mistake on this particular point, and that something must be done to allay the present very violent state of feeling in Scotland on this matter.
6.39 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I rise to join your Lordships who have already spoken in supporting the Motion raised by my noble friend the Earl of Glasgow. I

601
would like to ask the Minister for Civil Aviation if in his reply he would clear up one point. In the White Paper recently issued it reads that—" Until Heath Row is ready, Hum, near Bournemouth, Prestwick in Scotland, and possibly one other airport will be designated as transoceanic airports." This gives the impression that when Heath Row is ready, all trans-oceanic air traffic will flow to and from this designated airport—Heath Row. If this is in fact to be the case, presumably the Minister feels that Heath Row, when finished, will be able to carry all the traffic that is being divided until it is ready between three other airports. Perhaps he will be able to clear up this point. I support the suggestion for the establishment of a Corporation in Scotland which has been recommended by all noble Lords who have spoken. Surely Scotland has every claim to organize and control her own air transport through a State Corporation similar in general set-up to the three that the Minister has already set up. Scotland has certainly earned her place in the air-world by virtue of the fact that in these islands the first corporate entity to be set up was the Blair Atholl Syndicate, established in the very early days to design, build and fly aircraft.
In addition to that, the work of the late Lord Kelvin of Glasgow has had a profound effect on the development of instruments for aircraft purposes. But the other pioneers, those of to-day, have played a great part in the development of air transport as, for example, Mr. John Sword, Captain Fresson, Mr. George Nicholson, and the honourable Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I hope the Minister may be able to give some indication as to what is going to happen to the services organized by different companies. Take the example of Allied Airways. I think the development costs of Allied Airways run to something in the neighbourhood of £30,000. Is a scheme of fair compensation to be arranged?
In connexion with the airport at Aberdeen, established by Allied Airways, there are other organizations there such as a flying club and a social club. Could not they be released so that their amenities might be made available? Perhaps the Minister could indicate as to whether, and if so, how, it is intended to utilize the services of these pioneers. For example,
602
would the honourable Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who has pioneered Air Transport in Scotland, be eligible to sit on the board of a Scottish airways corporation, assuming that one is to be set up by His Majesty's Government:? With these few words, as the time is getting late, I would like to end and say how warmly I support the noble Earl's Motion, and that I hope that when my noble friend, also a Scot, comes to reply, he will give sympathetic consideration to these developments in Scotland.
6.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER FOR CIVIL AVIATION (LORD WINSTER): My Lords, this debate has ranged very wide indeed, and far away from the subject of the Motion. We have touched upon an enormous number of subjects which have not the remotest connexion with civil aviation whatsoever. Civil aviation matters and policies have to be decided, as has been said by one noble Lord this afternoon, very much upon a basis of extremely hard facts, and to the best of my recollection the only attempt to introduce really hard facts and arguments into this debate was made by an Englishman who apologized for intervening in it£the noble Viscount Lord Swinton. I must, in fairness to Scotland, point out that the arguments which he advanced were, in large part, demolished by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. The Motion asks me to set up a Scottish corporation to administer Prestwick, and another corporation to operate Scottish airlines. Both proposals are contrary to the declared policy of the Government and, therefore, I regret that I am unable to accept them.
I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for his kindness in informing me what he proposed to say to-day; I appreciated his courtesy in that respect. Therefore, I hope he will not take offence at my saying that I thought he supported his argument with very many extravagant remarks of an extremely nationalist nature and introduced practically no factual arguments whatever in support of his Motion. I remember, in particular, one remark which the noble Earl made. He said there was nothing in our policy which would allow Scottish enterprise the same opportunities of competition on world air routes as other countries. I wish the noble Earl would think in terms of the United Kingdom, as I do, and not in terms of

603
Scotland and England. What are those other countries—America, or what?
LORD SALTOUN: Does the noble Lord mean Great Britain or the United Kingdom?
LORD WINSTER: Let us say Great Britain, if that will give more pleasure.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: If I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, I would explain that all Scotland wants is to run its own air services and its own airfields—in fact, to run its own show, separate from England.
LORD WINSTER: The meaning of those words, so far as I can see, is that the noble Earl would wish Scotland to be treated as a completely separate country in the operation of airlines, and, therefore, at complete liberty to run in competition with the airlines of England. I do not think that is a proposal which will commend itself to the good sense of your Lordships, and it was remarks such as that which led me to say I thought the noble Earl's speech contained many extravagant statements. I wish to say nothing whatever in this debate to exacerbate feelings, but will address my remarks to arguments which I think are based upon more good sense than that. I am not actuated, nor is any member of the Government, by any prejudice in this or anything else to do with Scottish aspirations. On the contrary, as my remarks will show, I have given most careful thought to considering how Scottish aims can be substantially met. I think I may fairly claim that the very many Scottish deputations which I have received on these matters have recognized this attitude on my part and have gone away satisfied that I wish well to Prestwick and to all connected with aviation in Scotland, even if I have not been able to grant all their demands.
I feel it necessary to say something about the history of Prestwick aerodrome, but not at any very great length. The aerodrome was formed in July, 1937, by Scottish Aviation, Limited, who undertook an Air Ministry contract for an elementary civilian flying school. In November, 1939, the aerodrome was requisitioned by the Air Ministry and became a Royal Air Force station. The station's services, however, continued to be carried on by Scottish Aviation,
604
Limited, under the terms of the contract with the Air Ministry. It is agreed that Scottish Aviation carried our their contract efficiently. The expenditure, however, was heavy, and, as has been mentioned by several speakers, the company's task was greatly facilitated by the fact that Government money was available.
Scottish enterprise was certainly in evidence in the development of Prestwick, but the Government in all contributed some£2,000,000. Now the Scottish Aviation Company have been notified by the Air Ministry that the contract will terminate on March 31, on which date an airport manager, representing the Ministry of Civil Aviation, will take over the management of the aerodrome. We have, however, informed Scottish Aviation that we are willing to consider letting them carry out a few of the aerodrome services on an agency basis, and they will also be free to enter into commercial arrangements with operators for the repair of aircraft. The details involved are still under discussion and my Department has had a representative at Prestwick since the beginning of January in order to discuss these matters.
The idea of a Scottish Utility Corporation to run Prestwick is one which was put forward long ago. It is said that such a corporation could pay its way, and in support of that statement I have seen a scale of landing fees. Those fees are, in my opinion, very high indeed, and I think would have the effect of driving traffic away. In any case, the method of assessing such landing fees will be agreed on an international basis, and a Scottish corporation would not, therefore, be able to increase its revenue to any material extent.
I consider that the creation of a Scottish corporation would be a backward step. Aerodromes ought to serve the nation as a whole and not local interests. If a separate corporation were formed for Prestwick, similar demands would come from other places inevitably, and the whole of the Government policy for the nationalization of transport aerodromes would break down. There is no fear whatever of local needs at Prestwick being overlooked, because the intention is to administer aerodromes on a regional basis, which will ensure that my Department is fully kept in touch with local interests.

605
Careful investigations which have been made show that such a Scottish corporation would have to be very heavily subsidised in view of the heavy cost of running a big aerodrome with hard runways. If the State is to meet such deficiencies, it must have control over the expenditure. Again, the aerodrome's position, which is an extremely complicated one, will of necessity be fluid for a considerable number of years yet, and very close co-ordination between various Government Departments will be necessary to ensure that the interests of the various Service Departments, agriculture, roads, and so on, are reconciled. Again, the building programme has got to be very carefully phased in view of the labour shortages, and this co-ordination can obviously only be done by a Government Department. Again, the radio and meteorological services have to be provided by the State. If you formed a separate corporation for Prestwick it would have to recruit various technical advisers, and it would therefore duplicate many of the functions of the Ministry of Aviation and would prove much more costly than direct administration by my Department. Such are some of the hard facts to which I have referred and some of the good reasons why the appeal made for a separate corporation has to be rejected.
Something has been said today about the merits and demerits of Prestwick. The weather there is good. I regret to hear that on one occasion a V.I.P. made three attempts to get in and was unable to do so, but I agree that that is exceptional and that the weather at Prestwick is good. Prestwick is peculiarly suitable as a bad weather alternative for Heath Row because the records show that there is very little chance of the two places being blacked out at the same time. Prestwick is well equipped with radio aids also.
As regards runways, there are two. The main runway, 2,200 yards, is fairly good, but the subsidiary runway of 1,500 yards is of little use. It is undulating, it is badly constructed and the approaches are bad. That subsidiary runway is no longer used by B.O.A.C., although it can still be used by small aircraft. It is contended that only two runways at Prestwick are necessary in order to give almost 100 per cent. regularity. Well, there are differences of opinion about this, but it
606
can be said that with two runways—that is, the existing main runway plus a new subsidiary runway—a very high degree of regularity could be maintained. A three runway system is out of the question because of the constructional difficulties which are involved. There is only one possible line for a new second runway, and unfortunately it passes across the fringe of a new housing estate in the vicinity of Heathfield Aerodrome, where the drains and some of the roads have already been constructed.
Compensation would be demanded if the housing estate had to be abandoned or modified, and the Council would also want an alternative site, which is difficult to find. But again that is a matter which is being gone into, and a meeting to consider it is being held on the site this week between all the parties concerned. The main runway at Prestwick could be extended in either an easterly or westerly direction, but again there are formidable difficulties. Extension westerly would involve the tunnelling or diversion of the main road, and if extended beyond 700 yards it would involve the tunnelling or the diversion of the railway.
I think it will be seen from these facts that there are many difficult and complicated matters to consider in these arguments about Prestwick, and matters which really cannot be solved by appeals to national sentiment. Care, however, is being taken and a detailed works survey is, being carried out by my Department immediately, so that the various schemes proposed for Prestwick can be assessed and accurate estimates of costs prepared. But I warn your Lordships that a new second runway will undoubtedly be very expensive as it involves the cutting of a mineral railway and a considerable amount of levelling.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Could you give any estimate of the Cost?
LORD WINSTER: I regret I cannot. That is one of the objects of the survey and investigations which are being carried out, in order that we may get reliable statistics in these matters. But the construction of a second runway would demand consideration of the value received for the money which would be expended; and traffic conditions and the degree of regularity' which would be obtained would all have to come into the picture. Now

607
about the transatlantic services, a question which involves also consideration of the aerodrome at Rineanna—the Shannon airport. To fly from Heath Row to New York via Rineanna is nine miles longer and via Prestwick ninety-eight miles longer than flying direct. It is argued, however, that although the great circle distance is eighty-nine miles longer than via Rineanna, the head winds on the westerly crossing are less severe in a northerly direction and this compensates for the extra distance.
I think there is some evidence for this, but records would have to be taken over a very long time and related to various altitudes before definite conclusions could be drawn. But even if it is found that that argument is correct, Rineanna still has the advantage of being the mast westerly point, and the stage from Rineanna to Gander or Prestwick to Gander is the governing one as regards payload in transatlantic operations. It has been stated that we favoured Rineanna by running shuttle services there. B.O.A.C. did, of course, run a shuttle service to Rineanna to connect with the flying boats at Foyne, but the R.A.F. have also run a service between London and Prestwick to connect with transatlantic services, and plans are at this moment in hand to run a civil service between London and Prestwick when that R.A.F. service is withdrawn.
Scottish aviation contends that if we made Prestwick attractive, and advertised it sufficiently, American services would use it to a large extent, particularly on the route to the countries of Northern Europe. But operators have to carry passengers to where the passengers wish to go; that is the essential thing to remember in this question of air operations. You cannot take the passengers to somewhere you wish them to go, and where they do not wish to go; you must take the passengers to where they wish to go. I have no power to tell American operators which of the designated aerodromes they shall use; all I can do is to see that proper facilities are available if the American operators wish to use Prestwick, and that I will do.
Now about the comparison with Heath Row. It is said we are spending £25,000,000 on Heath Row, and are unwilling to spend anything on Prestwick. I
608
will always give careful consideration to the needs of Prestwick, but the need for a transatlantic terminus near London is obvious. The two sites are, of course, not comparable. As already stated, Prestwick can never have anything but two runways, whereas at the carefully selected site of Heath Row, we have plenty of room and are planning nine, three of which can be used simultaneously. Nevertheless, let me again make it clear that I have more than once categorically stated that Prestwick will be designated permanently as an international airport, open to all international air services which choose to use it. The United States schedule of routes agreed upon at the recent conference at Bermuda includes calls at Prestwick. Further than that, plans have been made for British international services to be operated via Prestwick in accordance with traffic requirements. Certain B.O.A.C. services will operate via Prestwick, even after Heath Row is in use. I will give very careful consideration to the development of Prestwick in the light of traffic demands. In other words, we are committed to the use of Prestwick in the long-term as well as in the short-term future.
On a review of all the facts which have been brought to my notice—and I know of no subject which has occupied more of my time since I have been at the Ministry than these questions connected with aviation in Scotland—I confidently believe there will be sufficient air traffic to justify the provision of an international airport in Scotland. Certainly there is no site other than Prestwick available in relation to the populous southern Scottish cities. The development of Prestwick, if there is scope for such development, is obviously more economical than new construction. I wish to stress a very important point, and that is that I have to find out if the existing runways are adequate to bear Constellations and Boeing 377s. I have this under investigation at the moment as a matter of urgency. If the answer is that they are adequate, then immediate extension is not necessary, since we know what the projected types, British and American, are which will be able to use Prestwick for the next few years.
Much misconception has arisen over the decline in activity at Prestwick. The dense traffic during the war was all military

609
traffic and was due to the strategic situation of Prestwick as well as to its good weather record. That that is the main cause of the decline in activity at Prestwick is a matter which is often overlooked. That is why the activity has lessened, and not because of any hostility or prejudice towards Prestwick on the part of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I must stress one other point very briefly. When one is considering developments at Prestwick, it is necessary to have regard to the labour situation. There are other aerodromes in Scotland which also require development, and new sites must be developed in the Highlands and in the Islands.
As regards the proposals for a separate Corporation to operate Scottish air lines, it is desirable that Scottish air lines should be operated within the British European Corporation for many reasons, of which I will only quote one or two. Pilots and aircraft are interchangeable, and by operating from a common pool the size of the pool is reduced. You get one main maintenance and overhaul organization, and a common system of training, all of which reduces overheads. By having one operating organization instead of two, you certainly achieve a reduction in fixed overheads. Then Scotland is bound to have a number of un-remunerative services—the geographical features which have been referred to in this debate show that—which it is necessary, or at least desirable, to operate in the public interest, and deficiencies on those services must be spread over as many remunerative services as possible. That is another very potent argument why one corporation instead of two is necessary.
Although I have had to make certain points and advance certain arguments against what has been proposed in the Motion, nevertheless the Government have always been anxious that Scotland should take its part in the operation of air services. I have, therefore, been giving consideration to the possibility of forming a Scottish Airways Division as part of the proposed British-European Airways Corporation. Such a Division would make provision for local management to meet the special circumstances of services of interest to Scotland, and, while forming part of the main Corporation, would at the same time ensure that
610
there was the most economic use of aircraft and other resources so that the services would be operated in the most economical manner. Do let me stress this point. In the years which lie immediately ahead, when we shall have, through no fault of our own, to face very severe American competition, one of our main hopes of standing up to that competition lies in the efficient and economic operation of our airlines. That must be the paramount consideration.
In order to ensure that such a Division as I have mentioned will be an effective component of the Corporation, and that the needs of Scotland are properly interpreted, I am also considering that a Scottish Advisory Committee should be set, up to advise the European Corporation. I have been looking through my papers in preparation for this debate, and I find tint last September 1 minuted in the following words: "Scotland must have a fair deal. We wish to give Scotland the same good service that we intend to give the rest of the United Kingdom. We must work on the assumption that the industrial area of Scotland will attract international traffic."
Those were the words of my minute last September, and in view of those words, written at a time when the problems in connexion with aviation in Scotland were first coming to my notice, I think that there is a clear indication that far from there being any prejudice in my mind, of the kind indicated in the noble Earl's speech, it has, from the first, been my endeavour to meet the needs of Scotland, in harmony with the general policy of the. Government, as expressed by my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council in the debate on civil aviation in another place quite recently.
I think that, in these remarks, I have answered most of the questions which have been put by noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. If I have omitted to deal with any, I hope that my attention will be called to them. I am always most anxious to answer points which are put to me. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I noticed, expressed a certain amount of sympathy for the terms of the Motion, and lie, very naturally, referred to certain proposals for Scotland made by himself when he held my office. I have not got those proposals before me at this moment, but I do not recollect

611
that his "practical and fair" proposals for Scotland included two Corporations such as it is the object of the Motion to establish.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will read those proposals. Undoubtedly it was the intention that Scottish air services were to be run by Scottish interests. They are being so run today and that would continue if the Government did not change things. Two Corporations are run by Scotsmen and it was our intention to maintain that arrangement. Scotland was to have the chance of everything running out of Prestwick, and certain services to Scandinavia, including Denmark, were to be reserved for Scottish companies. A tribunal was to be set up to which anybody could go. The noble Lord has said that my proposals did not offer a square deal. He admitted that he had not read them, or, perhaps, I should say, that he had not refreshed his memory with them. May I now tell him what the proposals were and leave them to the judgment of the Scottish Peers?
LORD WINSTER: I will also leave something to the judgment of the House. I did not say that the noble Viscount's proposals did not provide for giving a fair deal to Scotland. I said that I had not got those proposals in front of me at the present moment. It is absurd to say that I have not read them or that I am not acquainted with them. But I said that, to the best of my recollection, they did not include the setting up of two such Corporations as is proposed in the Motion. Those were my words. The noble Viscount has attributed language and words to me which I most certainly did not use.
Now as regards what he said about a tribunal. He proposed the establishment of a tribunal to whom an operator could apply for the right to run an air service or air services, and he said that our proposals will not include anything of that nature. That, quite naturally, is so because the policy of the Government is that scheduled air services shall be run under a system of public ownership. Therefore, it would be the height of folly to set up a tribunal to which people might go to apply for the right to controvert the declared policy of the Government. What we are going to do is to set up a tribunal to which the public will have access in
612
order to make their complaints if what they regard as necessary services are not established or if existing services do not, in their opinion, meet the public need. A tribunal of that sort is to be established so that the public will have the right to make their complaints.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Will the noble Lord consider having Scottish representation in the Ministry in London to safeguard the interests of Scotland?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Before the noble Lord leaves the subject of the tribunal may I say this? In my speech, as he will see when he reads the report of it, I asked him what the rights of this tribunal will be. Will the Minister be bound, by its decisions?
LORD WINSTER: The nature of the tribunal, its powers and its machinery will all be defined in the Air Transport Bill which is to be presented to Parliament. As regards the question put by the noble Earl, I have told your Lordships of the proposals that I have under consideration for making sure that Scottish needs and interests are represented, and I really think that they adequately cover the point which he has raised.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Representation in the Scottish Division do you mean?
LORD WINSTER: And on an advisory committee. I think what I have said about those proposals amply covers the noble Earl's point. Lord Balfour of Inchrye asked: "What is meant by designation?" No doubt it has slipped his memory, but he must have been very familiar with the term. Under the Two Freedoms Agreement, a Government has the right to designate the airports in its territory which shall be used for second freedom purposes. Lord Sempill put to me what I am bound to say appeared to me a very extraordinary question. He spoke of a gentleman by name and he asked me if I am prepared to put him on the board of a Corporation which is not yet formed, and which there is no intention of forming under the Government policy. I do not wish to set myself up as a judge in these matters, but I think it will make debates in your Lordships' House very difficult if advocacy of a gentleman's claims to a position is to be made in this

613
way, the gentleman's name being given. Of course, I could not possibly deal with a question of that sort.
LORD SEMPILL: May I tell the noble Lord that I wished to discover if a pioneer in aviation who is a member of another place was eligible for such a position, paid or unpaid.
LORD WINSTER: I wish the question had been put in that way. But advocacy was made of a certain gentleman's qualities in regard to aviation, and I was asked if that specific gentleman would be eligible for a position on the Corporation. As regards the general question, I may say that Members of Parliament are not eligible.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Members of the House of Commons.
LORD WINSTER: I am sorry. Yes, of course, I should have said Members of the House of Commons. They are not eligible for seats on these Corporations. Well, my Lords, on this St. Valentine's Day I think that we have had a very pleasant debate. Very contentious subjects have been in issue, about which, I know, feelings very properly run very strongly indeed, but on the whole I would say that the little birds in their nests have agreed fairly well to-day. The noble Earl's Motion will have accomplished a good purpose if this debate has served, as I hope it may have, to dispel misunderstandings. We shall get on quicker in meeting the aviation needs of Scotland if we lay aside, once and for all, the suspicions and animosities which I was so sorry to find played a certain part in the noble Earl's speech. I say let us go forward in a sensible broad-minded way with mutual understanding and common sense. We shall get on better that way.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, for the information of your Lordships, I should like to say that what the noble Lord has said about the Scottish Division is exactly what I hoped.
7.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord for his courteous reply and I have to assure him that although my speech sounded rather in the way he described just now, there was really no animosity about it at all. The noble Lord also took me to task for
614
not being factual., but I had to put the point of view of the whole of the nation of Scotland to him and it is not so much a point of view as a sentiment which is animating the people of Scotland to-day. I will not make a long speech in reply, but with regard to the development of Prestwick, I think if we had been permitted to, we could well have developed Prestwick ourselves. The noble Lord knows quite well than. I have nothing to do with the aviation company. I am speaking entirely as a Scotsman looking at this from the outside but I have seen the plan for the development of Prestwick and I am quite sure the money could be found for the development of the airport. If Scotland had control I think we could overcome these difficulties.
The noble Lord spoke about the shuttle service from Ireland to Prestwick. Why should Prestwick airport be designated now? Why should it not have been designated six months before the Irish got their chance? What a chance for Scotland if only we had a treaty with America which got our planes to Prestwick without having to go to Rineanna. It is rather hard luck on us that this treaty has been made between Ireland and America and that they got the line there. If the Government—if I may say so with respect—had been awake, surely we should have had Prestwick designated long ago, so that these aircraft would have had to go to Prestwick instead of Rineanna.
LORD WINSTER: If American operators had indicated that they wished to schedule their routes through Prestwick the facilities would have been given them but the American operators go to the Civil Aeronautics Board and get their licences for the route they wish to operate.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Surely that is the explanation. We were so slow in getting off the mark. We all know that American airmen prefer Prestwick to any other airport in this country.
LORD WINSTER: I cannot compel the American operators to come to Prestwick unless they wish to do so and had they expressed the wish to do so they would have been able to go to Prestwick.
EARL OF GLASGOW: I ant quite sure that we shall appreciate what the noble Lord said with regard to the various arrangements he has got in mind. I am

615
not quite sure about the Divisional Board. Is it for operating Scottish Air Services?
LORD WINSTER: I think it is rather late for me to repeat my speech. May I suggest that the noble Earl looks at my remarks in Hansard to-morrow? However, what I said was that I was giving consideration to the possibility of farming a Scottish Airways Division as part of the proposed European Air Corporation.
EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I have nothing more to say, and I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WEST AFRICAN COCOA INDUSTRY.
7.24 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government if they can now, or in the near future, make any statement on future marketing policy for the West African Cocoa industry.]
LORD AMMON: My Lords, consultations are being held with the various parties interested in this question and consideration is being given to points raised in the course of those consultations. I am not yet in a position to say when it will be possible to make a statement of His Majesty's Government's policy in the matter but the noble Lord can be assured that in accordance with the undertaking given in another place by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies on March 29, 1945, the funds already provided for the establishment of marketing organizations in West Africa will not be drawn on for that purpose until a detailed scheme has been laid before Parliament.

PRICES AND SERVICES CONTROL.
7.25 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON rose to ask His Majesty's Government why it is necessary to take Powers under S.R.O.
616
1945, No. 1611, para. 1. 55 A.B. (1) to control prices and services in respect of any particular person or undertaking.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the question standing in my name I presume that the effect of this Order is to stop profiteering in essential and non-essential goods, for the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in the debate on Clause 2 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill under which this Order exists, said:
"At the present time we are in a difficulty, and any Government would be in a difficulty, with regard to price fixing, and for this reason: that under Clause 1 we have got powers to fix the prices for essential goods and services but not for non-essential goods and services; while under the Price Control Acts of 1939 to 1943 we have powers to fix the prices for non-essential goods but only in general categories and not with reference to the prices charged by particular manufacturers. The object of this clause briefly is to stop a gap, to enable us to fix prices, if required, for nonessential goods and services, and if necessary to fix the particular prices charged by manufacturers supplying such goods and services."
The noble Lord did not give an explanation why His Majesty's Government require the power to fix prices with regard to a particular manufacturer and in connexion with that I should be most grateful if he could bear these two points in mind. First of all, the powers under this Order give power to discriminate in price fixing between manufacturers and individuals in the same class of business; and to make it a little clearer perhaps I should read exactly what the powers are:
"A competent authority may by order provide for controlling the prices to be charged for goods of any description or the charges to be made for services of any description, and for any incidental and supplementary matters for which the competent authority thinks it expedient for the purposes of the order to provide; and any such order may prevent the doing of anything regulated by the order except under the authority of a licence granted by such authority or person as may be specified in the order and may be made so as to apply either to persons or to undertakings generally or to any particular person or undertaking or class of persons or undertakings, and either to the whole or any part of any undertaking, and so as to have effect either generally or in any particular area."
I should like to give an example of what these powers mean. It means that under them it is possible to discriminate between one manufacturer and another or one shop and another engaged in manufacturing or selling the same class of commodity. I will take as an example the same quality ladies' pig-skin handbags.

617
That is a purely hypothetical example to try to make myself more specific. The second point is that whether one person or many are concerned in a class of business, it is still a class of business irrespective of the numbers engaged in it, and surely the term "class of business" is enough to cover all eventualities. To make myself a little clearer there, what I mean to say is that whether one person or persons or one manufacturer or many manufacturers are the sole manufacturers of a certain article or class of goods, that particular class of goods and those engaged in it comprise the whole sum of people engaged in that same class of business. In conclusion, if the term "class of goods of any description" is sufficient to cover the purpose for which this Order exists, would it not be better to change the Order accordingly instead of giving perhaps assurances which are not the law? The only thing that is the law is the Order.
7.31 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, may I at this very late hour just intervene for one moment? I am bound to say I regret it is so late, and that the House is so small. In fact, I regret that the noble Lord has merely asked a question, because he has raised in that very brie: speech, complicated as it was by having to read Orders in Council—which are dreadful things to read anyway—quite a fundamental point to which perhaps the noble Lord who is going to reply will allow me to direct attention. The point is this. As a result of the Order in Council empowering the Board of Trade, I think it is, or the Ministry of Supply, whichever it may be—
LORD PAKENHAM: It is the Board of Trade.
LORD WOOLTON: The Board of Trade is empowered to make specific decisions regarding the products of individual businesses. I know that the whole object of this thing is to prevent profiteering. But do you realize what it does? Different manufacturers produce articles of almost equal value. In the old days that we used to know, they were in the habit of selling them in the open market; they got substantially the same price, and the public paid the same price. That no longer happens.
618
It no longer happens because as a direct result of the power to which the noble Lord has referred, you have all sorts of different prices—I agree comparatively near—for articles of equal value, but produced at unequal cost because of the productive capacity of the individual firms. The result is that we are all getting cluttered up, and it would indeed be a very useful thing if the noble Lord would be good enough to direct the attention of the President of the Board of Trade—who I am sure is most anxious to get efficiency into industry—to the way in which this clause is being operated, and would ask him if he would be content to withdraw the particular clause which enables him to direct individual firms instead of dealing with classes of merchandise. I am sorry to have detained the House, but the noble Lord has raised a point of some importance. I thought it was worth while intervening to thank him for having raised it, and I am sure the noble Lord who is going to reply will also be grateful.
7.34 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have just addressed us I, too, regret that the hour is so late, and that the House is inevitably so small, and therefore we cannot, in the nature of things, give the attention which is proper to these issues that have been raised this evening. May I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fair-fax, for quoting me in this House? I have never been quoted in this House before. Perhaps I shall not be again. I was once quoted in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, who was then Under-Secretary of State for War, and he lost his post within a week. That is the only time I was quoted. I hope no such fate will overtake the noble Lord!
Perhaps I should clear up a misconception which lies behind the question as drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, and which is not, I think, behind anything which he mentioned in his speech. I am sure he will not think me pettifogging if I point out that Statutory Rule and Order 1611 and the relevant passage of Statutory Rule and Order 1613 are both concerned with price fixing. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that his question as drafted would scent to read rather greater powers into the Orders in question

619
than actually exist. May I further remind the noble Lord, and indeed the whole House, that these important issues that have been raised to-night have been thoroughly explored in this House within recent times, namely, at the various stages of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill. You may recall that certain apprehensions were expressed, particularly from the constitutional aspect, at the early stages of that Bill's passage, but I should like to think it is true to say these misapprehensions were largely dispelled, perhaps altogether dispelled, by the explanation given by the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor.
If the noble Lord was not in the House on these occasions, I would refer him to Hansard for November 8 and November 15, where these various issues were gone into at some considerable length. I will be brief, and give a specific answer to the specific question. The reason why the Government require these powers is quite simple, namely, that they are an essential part of the—technique of price-fixing, with whose general objects of preventing profiteering and inflation I feel sure the whole House is in sympathy. That is the short answer. I do not know whether the House wishes me to elaborate the point at any greater length. I will just say, before sitting down, that in particular there are three sets of circumstances where it has been found essential during the war to fix the prices of articles provided by particular undertakings. The three cases are these. Firstly, where a particular article is made by one particular firm and by one alone. I believe I am right in saying—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that all the clothing worn by male ballet dancers is made by one particular firm. You will appreciate that does not represent a tremendous output.
LORD WOOLTON: It is most important and often paying!
LORD PAKENHAM: That is one case where it is all made by one firm. Secondly, there are cases where, under a programme arrived at in agreement between the Board of Trade and the manufacturers, it has been found mutually convenient to allocate certain styles of production to certain firms, and at the same time to fix their prices. Thirdly, where there are wide
620
variations between high cost and low cost producers of the same product, it is essential to fix a different price for the high cost producer from the one fixed for the low cost producer. Otherwise, if you were going to keep the high cost producer in being at all, you would have prices fixed which would give the most efficient producer far too big a profit. It is, therefore, essential in that case to vary the prices.
There are a good many other points, particularly on the constitutional side, into which I might go, but I think from what I have said it will be plain that this is not a new power. Powers of this character were used during the war fairly widely with reference to essential goods, and now it is being found necessary as the nonessential goods come more into production to extend the war-time power slightly so as to cover non-essential goods. I am afraid I have not dealt with this matter as fully as the subject and the speech of the noble Lord really warrant, but perhaps you will forgive me in the circumstances.
LORD SALTOUN: I would like to ask the noble Lord if efficiency of production is not the Government's object?
LORD PAKENHAM: If I said anything to give any other impression, I must have failed altogether in my rather rapid exposition. As I feel sure the noble Lord knows as well as I do, this Government or any Government which is ever likely to be returned in this country is dedicated to efficiency of production.
LORD SALTOUN: I understood him to say he fixed a high price for non-efficient production of the same goods.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONwho had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government why it is necessary to take power to give direction to a particular business under S.R.O. 1945, No. 1613, said: My Lords, arising out of the second question standing in my name, I have very little further to add to what I said before as the principle is the same in both cases, the only difference being that in the second case the powers are not quite so wide. I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for the lucid explanation he gave to my question.
LORD PAKENHAM: Was there a particular point the noble Lord wished answered?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: Nothing further than in the previous question.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Borough of Ilford:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

STOKE-ON-TRENT GAS ORDER, 1946.

  MARCH GAS ORDER, 1946.
  Report from the Special Orders. Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it
  622
  necessary to call the attention of the House.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTORAL REGISTRATION REGULATIONS, 1946.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise no important questions of policy or principle other than those which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Parliamentary Electors (War Time Registration) Act, 1943, the Representation of the People Act, 1945, and the Elections and Jurors Act, 1945, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the House without special attention; and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.