Sitting of 6 March 1946

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

  LAND REGISTRY
  Brigadier Medlicottasked the Attorney-General if he is aware that the work of the Land Registry and the Land Charges Department is still in arrear; and if he will give any indication as to when these Departments will be in a position to deal with their work at a normal pace.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) on 22nd January, when I explained that there were admittedly some delays due to shortage of staff. What I said then applies to the Land Charges Department as well as to the Land Registry, except that the delay in the former is less serious and may be expected to disappear within a few months
  Brigadier Medlicottasked the Attorney-General how many men and women are employed in the Land Registry and the Land Charges Department at the present time; and how many were so employed in March, 1939.
  The Attorney-General: The number of men and women at present employed in the Land Registry and the Land Charges Department is 404: the corresponding number in March, 1939, was 1,055.
  Brigadier Medlicott: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman hold out any hope of an early increase in the experienced members of this staff, because these
  308
  registries do play an essential part in the transfer of property which has a small, but definite, bearing on the housing problem? Delays at the present moment are very considerable.
  The Attorney-General: I appreciate the importance of the matter, and we are doing our utmost to improve it as quickly as may be.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does not the Attorney-General think it time that the Government should now reach a definite decision that the time has come to nationalise the land in order that they may get on with the housing?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Dutch East Indies, Evacuation (Medical Personnel)
    Lieut.-Colonel Mackesonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that medical personnel of the R.A.F. have been flying long hours in connection with the evacuation of military and civilian casualties in the Dutch East Indies; if they receive pay in recognition of their services similar to those of other R.A.F. personnel; and if he will make a statement recognising the excellent work which has been and is being carried out.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): Yes, Sir. I am glad to have this opportunity of paying a tribute to all those whose efforts made it possible for nearly 4,000 sick and wounded to be flown out of Java up to the beginning of February. We are still evacuating as many sick and wounded as we can. All members of the Royal Air Force have a general liability to go into the air when required. Men who are not in one of the ordinary flying trades receive crew pay if they are filling established aircrew posts and this applies to the R.A.F. nursing orderlies who are established as air ambulance orderlies and who are helping with the work of evacuation.

    Airmen, Paris (Tax Concession)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is now able to arrange for British air men in Paris the same financial advantages which accrue to U.S. servicemen.
    Mr. Strachey: So far as I know, the only special financial advantage for members of the United States forces in France is now the refund of tax on articles which they buy to send out of the country. This concession now applies to members of the British Forces as well. The earlier grant of francs to the American forces was stopped on 26th December last, when the franc was devalued.

    Squadron Strengths
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Under secretary of State for Air whether he will give details of the composition of Bomber Command and Fighter Command, respectively, including the number of squadrons, and the types of aircraft.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that it is not in the public interest to give this information.
    Mr. Boothby: Can the hon. Gentleman say what justification there is for withholding this information from the House of Commons in times of peace?
    Mr. Strachey: I must refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to the Leader of the Opposition on an earlier occasion.

    Long-Distance Training Flights
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the success of the Aries flight to South Africa, similar flights are contemplated elsewhere; and will he consider the making of similar flights by several air craft instead of only one as a routine exercise.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. We are already arranging a series of long-distance training flights to the Dominions, to India, to the Mediterranean and Middle East, and to the Far East. Several aircraft may take part in some of these flights.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the great satisfaction with which this decision will be received, in view of the value of these flights, the interest taken in them, and the very favourable impression caused by the bearing of the crew and appearance of the aircraft at the destination?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, we believe that these are flights of very good value

    Sunderland Aircraft (Scrapping)
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Undersecretary of State for Air why seven Sunderland aircraft serviced for return to England were flown out to sea and sunk off the coast of Africa about September, 1945.
    Mr. Strachey: Out of 59 Sunderlands in West Africa at the end of the war, 23 of the oldest were scuttled after useful equipment had been taken out of them. This was done with the full agreement of the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I should warn the House that numbers of obsolescent combat aircraft have been scrapped or may have to be scrapped, if we are to avoid quite an intolerable waste of manpower in maintenance.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Undersecretary aware of the great indignation caused throughout Africa because of this action? Why was not full publicity given to the reasons for so doing?
    Mr. Strachey: I think the action was entirely justified, but it may have been that sufficient explanation was not given. If so, I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me this opportunity.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Will the Undersecretary see that the fullest possible publicity is given to the reply?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, and I will take special steps to see that when scrappings of this kind take place full publicity is given.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Undersecretary aware that military Sunderlands have been sold to South America as commercial aircraft and would it not be possible to convert some of them so that they could earn dollars for us?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Sunderlands are being used on our own civil air lines, but these particular Sunderlands were very near the end of their useful life, and I fear that no commercial air line would have cared to take them on.

    Aircraft Inspection
    Dr. Littleasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the popular feeling at the numerous accidents to aeroplanes, with great loss of life,

    311
    he will give instructions that all aeroplanes are examined and certified to be in perfect order before leaving aerodromes.
    Mr. Strachey: Every R.A.F. aircraft is inspected, tested and certified as serviceable before take-off. The inspection holds good for 24 hours only. If the aircraft takes off more than once in the 24 hours between-flight inspections are added.
    Dr. Little: May I take it that the hon. Gentleman gives the assurance to the public that everything possible will be done to avoid these terrible accidents?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, but I would be very sorry if the impression was abroad that in the Royal Air Force generally there was a high rate of accidents at the present time. That is not so.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Undersecretary aware that the proportion of accidents on the roads is infinitely greater than the proportion in the air, taking into consideration the number of aeroplanes flown and the number of motor cars driven on the roads?

    Azores
    Mr. Dribergasked the Undersecretary of State for Air if he will outline the duties to be performed by the 500 or so airmen who expect to remain at the R.A.F. station, Azores, after mid-March, with particular reference to their relationship with B.O.A.C.
    Mr. Strachey: The members of the R.A.F. left in the Azores after the completion of the major cut to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend on 30th January, will provide the necessary facilities for American, British and Canadian air traffic, which is predominantly military. These facilities include airfield and flying control, aircraft homing, and navigational aids, including a Long Range Cathode Ray Direction Finding Station. There are also wireless stations to be manned, both for general communications and for sending out meteorological information. All this work, and the normal operation of the base, is still an allied requirement which must continue to be met until peacetime civilian arrangements can be made. The only use to which Lagens airfield is put by B.O.A.C. is as an occasional stop when operating the return ferry service between U.K. and Canada.
    Mr. Driberg: Is it not the fact that the military traffic has already been cut down to a very small proportion indeed? While fully appreciating the importance of civil aviation, may I ask if it is really the job of airmen in the Royal Air Force at Service rates of pay to service civil air liners?
    Mr. Strachey: This is predominantly a military requirement, and military traffic is much more considerable, but on the general question of helping B.O.A.C. and civil aviation generally to get up speed, I think this is a justifiable task for the Royal Air Force.
    Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: As Canadian and American air lines also use this airport, should they not bear part of the cost of upkeep? Could arrangements be made to share the cost of maintaining it?
    Mr. Strachey: The traffic I have referred to is not Canadian and American air lines but Canadian and American military planes. I do not say air lines never use the Azores; that is a different matter.

    Demobilisation
    Mr. Dribergasked the Undersecretary of State for Air if he is aware that equipment assistants, in Group 26, are still retained in 351 M.U., R.A.F., C.M.F., although some men of the same trade and in the same group serving in the United Kingdom have been released; and if he will take action to repair this breach and prevent similar breaches of the undertaking, that men serving overseas will be brought home in time to be released in their groups.
    Mr. Strachey: Equipment assistants in Group 26 are due for release between 1st and 31st of the present month irrespective of where they may be serving. The command concerned has stated that airmen in this group will be on their way home from No. 351 Maintenance Unit next week and there is every reason to believe that they will be released on time. No equipment assistants in Group 26 at home were released before 1st March. I shall be grateful for my hon. Friend's assistance in scotching these persistent and entirely unwarranted rumours of uneven release as between home and abroad.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will

    313
    rescind the order that there shall be no release of accounting clerks in March, in view of the fact that a promise was given to release Groups 24 and 25 this month.
    Mr. Strachey: There has been no Order cancelling the release of accounting clerks in March. Those in Groups 24 and 25 will be released this month as already announced.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this information is given to the men concerned, because from correspondence I have received there is obviously some misunderstanding about this?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I have tried to trace how the rumour could have originated. Apparently there was a faulty teleprinter transmission of a "demob" form, but that is the only trace we can find. It did not actually say that even there, but it might have been read that way.

    Serving Members of Parliament
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will publish a list of Members of Parliament who are still in the R.A.F.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, I am circulating a list in the Official Report.
    The following are at present employed on Air Force duties:

    Flight-Lieutenant A. M. Crawley (Buckingham).

    Flight-Lieutenant J. E. Haire (Wycombe).

    Squadron-Leader E. O. Roberts (Merioneth).

    Wing-Commander E. A. A. Shackle-ton (Preston).

    Palestine Disturbances
    Mr. Keelingasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether there has been any recurrence of the attacks made by Jews last week on R.A.F. stations in Palestine.
    Mr. Strachey: There have been no further reports of attacks on R.A.F. stations in Palestine.

    Service Cars (Use)
    Sir G. Foxasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air for what purpose, on 25th February, 1946, at 23.00 hours, three R.A.F. vehicles Nos. 42196,69761,
    314
    of M.A.P., and 167895, entered Palace Yard; whether these three vehicles had Form 658; and how these forms were made out.
    Mr. Strachey: These cars took home three Ministers, including myself, from a late Sitting of the House. The appropriate form for authorising these journeys was carried and made out correctly in each case.
    Sir G. Fox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the driver of No. 42196 said he had come for the Chief Whip? Is the Chief Whip entitled to travel in a Service car? Would it not be much better to use other transport? Is it not a gross misuse of Service personnel, and if airmen were not so misemployed would not demobilisation be quicker?
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member should look towards me. I myself was standing for some time.
    Earl Winterton: Could the hon. Gentleman explain what are the Regulations regarding the use of these vehicles for hon. Members of this House?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, certainly. Two of the cars in question were part of a pool run by the Ministry of Aircraft Production—my own car was from the Air Ministry—and were only lent by the R.A.F. for that purpose. The rules governing the matter are that Ministers can draw on these pools on these occasions, and I think it is a fit and proper rule, if I may say so.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that Service vehicles were used by Conservative Ministers in the last Government, not only for special purposes like this, after late Sittings, but to go shopping?
    Sir G. Fox: Is overcrowding of these cars permitted? In the R.A.F. only three passengers and the driver are allowed. I have seen four Members of Parliament and the driver get into these and similar cars.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret, then, that I shall not be able to give the hon. and gallant Member a lift.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is not the whole basis of the Question a lot of cheapjack nonsense?
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the hon. Member aware that the only complaint Members of Parliament have on this subject is that we were not included?

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Prestwick
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis try of Civil Aviation when he expects to be able to designate Prestwick as an inter national airport.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): Prestwick will be formally designated as an airport for international air services with effect from 1st April, 1946.

    Heathrow
    . Sir P. Macdonaldasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will arrange for a visit of Members of Parliament to Heathrow to view the airport and, if possible, to see the new types of civil aircraft.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: I will gladly arrange for Members of Parliament to visit Heathrow. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and Aircraft Production whether he can arrange a demonstration of new types of aircraft on the occasion of the visit.

    Flying Boats (Withdrawal)
    . Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why B.O.A.C. has had to suspend its flying-boat service between this country and Baltimore; and what steps are being taken to prevent this happening in future.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: The three Boeing flying-boats, which have each flown over 1,000,000 miles, are nearing the end of their useful life, and it was decided some months ago to take them out of service this year. The date of withdrawal has been advanced in order to release engineers and experienced aircrews for training on Constellation landplanes, in order to ensure the earliest possible introduction of an improved trans-Atlantic service with this new type of aircraft.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the cancel-
    316
    lation of the services has caused great concern throughout the country in aviation circles, and in view of the knowledge he had that these aircraft, which have given very good service, were to be taken off could not engineers have been sent out earlier? There are hundreds of engineers free, looking for jobs.
    Mr. Thomas: It is more a question of the crews, perhaps, than the engineers.
    Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend make quite sure that these craft are taken out of service before they reach the end of their useful life?
    Mr. Thomas: That is one of the reasons which have animated us. They will be used for a few months more between Baltimore and Bermuda and will then be taken out of service.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say what is meant by "useful life"? So long as they are fit and safe to fly, cannot they continue to be used?
    Mr. Thomas: There was an accident with one of these aircraft last week. I think that safety must be the paramount consideration.

    Aerodrome Staffs (Housing)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will take steps to see that men who have been employed by the R.A.F. as civilians on the control, meteorological and radio staff, who are now being posted for duty to such airports as Heathrow and Prestwick, are given priority for houses.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Applications for houses made to local authorities by the staff of outstations are sponsored by my Department, but I am not in a position to single out for special treatment the persons in questions.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that these men have been posted to different jobs in the last ten years and have no priority on paper? As they are now going to fill positions at new civil airports, would he give them special consideration?
    Mr. Thomas: There is no special consideration I can give them. If we have houses in our possession, we allocate them to the staff in question.

  KENYA (LAND CULTIVATION)
  Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in allotting land in the White Highlands of Kenya for leasing to the Kamba tribe, the strictest conditions will be imposed to secure that it is properly farmed and that shifting cultivation and over-stocking, which have been consistently practised by the tribe to the detriment of their own Reserve, will be prohibited.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): No arrangement has been made for the lease referred to, although the matter has recently been the subject of public discussion in Kenya. The Kenya White Paper on Land Utilisation and Settlement published last November makes it clear, in dealing with African settlement schemes generally, that proper control by Government over the methods of cultivation, etc., is essential. It may therefore be assumed that in the case of any such schemes this control would be exercised.

  JAMAICA

    Cigar Industry
    Sir P. Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the negotiations to take place on Imperial Preference, special consideration will be given to the position of the Jamaican cigar industry, which is becoming of considerable economic importance to that Colony.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The interests of Colonial producers of all classes of goods will be considered before any decision is taken on margins of Imperial Preference which affect them.

    Disturbances
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any legal action has been taken respecting the perpetrators responsible for the beating to death of a Mr. Nicholls in Kingston, Jamaica, on 16th February; and whether he now has further particulars of the behaviour of the crowd surrounding the victim and the disturbance on that and other days.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have as yet no detailed information on this matter and I have asked the Governor for a report.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this matter is causing considerable anxiety among friends of Jamaica in this country and will he make inquiries and report to this House?
    Mr. Creech Jones: We have asked for a very urgent reply to our telegram, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when the information comes in.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: As this matter interests everybody in this House, would the hon. Gentleman circulate it in the Official Report when it comes?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly, Sir.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE TOBACCO
  Dr Stephen Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has taken, or contemplates taking, to increase the production of tobacco within the Colonial Empire and the export of tobacco to this country.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The agricultural authorities in the Colonies are giving active encouragement to the production of tobacco wherever conditions are suitable, but it has generally been thought desirable during the war years and in present circumstances to concentrate more on the production of food and other crops of vital importance. Practically all tobacco exported from the Colonies to this country comes from Nyasaland and the contiguous areas of Northern Rhodesia and the possibility of increasing sales was explained by a delegation from these territories last autumn. The Government of Nyasaland is also considering research proposals with a view to producing the type of leaf which would command increasing sales in this country.
  Dr. Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say what he means by "active encouragement"?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The most careful consideration has been given to the representations from the delegation which came here, and in the Colonial Office itself there is active consideration—

  319
  [Laughter.] — obviously, active consideration must be given to proposals regarding negotiations before negotiations are actually engaged in.

  CIVILIAN INTERNEES, FAR EAST (PAY)
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement as to the pay, during internment, of the CD. workers captured by the Japanese in the Far East; and whether they will now be treated in the same way as the Armed Volunteer Forces captured under similar conditions.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Members of the Civil Defence Services of Hong Kong and Malaya are now eligible for ex gratia payments in respect of periods of internment, representing, in general, treatment on lines similar to that accorded to members of the Volunteer Forces.
  Sir J. Lucas: Am I to understand that instead of getting three months ex gratia payment they now get the full payment?
  Mr. Creech Jones: It will be equivalent to the approved pay for the period of their internment, subject to some small deduction.
  Sir J. Lucas: Thank you very much.

  GIBRALTAR EVACUEES, NORTHERN IRELAND
  Sir Ronald Rossasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there are still exiles from Gibraltar in Northern Ireland and that the situation is unsatisfactory for all concerned; and what arrangements he is making for their return to Gibraltar or removal to a more appropriate place than Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Creech Jones: My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the fact that some 2,700 Gibraltarian evacuees remain in Northern Ireland. With regard to their return to Gibraltar I would refer the hon. Member of the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on 24th October last. The possibility of moving them back to this country was carefully reviewed
  320
  recently in consultation with the Ministry of Health, but was found to be precluded by the housing situation. I regret that for the present, there is no suitable alter native arrangement but the question has my constant attention.
  Sir R. Ross: Is the Under-Secretary aware that it was understood they were coming for only a couple of months and they seem to have been nearly a lifetime, and Northern Ireland, except as regards strategic matters, is very unlike Gibraltar?
  Mr. Creech Jones: One is conscious that the climatic conditions are very different, but the problem of bringing these people back to Gibraltar is one of great difficulty because of housing and health problems in Gibraltar.
  Mr. Stanley: Might I ask whether it was found impossible, as a result of inquiries, to do anything in the way of temporary settlement in the Tangier area?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The most careful consideration was given to that proposition, but the difficulties were such that we could not proceed with it.

  AFRICAN COLONIES (FILM CENSORSHIP)
  Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements exist throughout the African colonies for the censorship on licensing of films imported from any outside source; and whether he will satisfy himself, after consultation with the various governments, that existing arrangements are adequate.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Film censorship boards have been established by legislation in all African territories, with power to prohibit the exhibition of films. The supply of films to Colonial territories generally is engaging my right hon. Friend's attention and the question of the adequacy of the existing censorship arrangements will be borne in mind in his consultations with Colonial Governments.
  Squadron-Leader Donner: Is the Undersecretary aware that many of the films now being shown in Africa are wholly unsuitable, and will he look into that?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir; it is a matter which is engaging, again, our active attention.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the Undersecretary endeavour to see that these American films, which portray a perfectly wrong set of values for people like the Africans to look at, are excluded from being shown in that part of the world?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I answered that question; local Governments have power of censorship

  COLONIAL CIVIL SERVANTS (MEDICAL TREATMENT)
  Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether members of the Colonial Civil Service, who are invalided home or have to undergo medical treatment while on leave, can obtain financial assistance towards the cost of treatment, when this is necessitated as a result of injury or disease contracted by the official in the course of his duties in the colony in which he is serving.
  Mr. Creech Jones: It is the practice for Colonial Governments to pay the fee for an examination by a consulting physician together with any expenses incurred in the diagnosis of the officer's complaint. Except for those on very low salaries, Colonial civil servants are not entitled to free treatment in this country, but they can get treatment, including operations, at special rates under arrangements made with the Seamen's Hospital Society and the Royal Infirmary, Liverpool. Colonial Governments are usually willing to give sympathetic consideration to applications for assistance from officers whose medical expenses are unduly burdensome.
  Squadron-Leader Donner: Surely, the whole cost ought to be borne by the Crown?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I will look into that point.

  MALAYA

    Sultan of Kedah
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the course of the recent negotiations with Malayan rulers, the Sultan of Kedah was threatened with deposition if he refused to sign the agreement presented to him by the British
    322
    representative; and under what powers such action was taken.
    Mr. Pickthornasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Sultan of Kedah is being detained in Malaya; whether he is aware that any threat of deposition was made; whether he has considered the petition from the Sultan of Kedah; and if he has any further statement to make.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I would invite attention to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) on 27th February. It will be seen from the latter part of paragraph 13 and from paragraph 20 of Sir Harold MacMichael's report, in which he gives an objective statement of his discussions with the Sultan of Kedah, that no threat of deposition was used. Nor is it a fact that His Highness is being detained in Malaya. I am aware of his desire to visit this country and I am communicating with the authorities in Malaya as regards the grant of facilities for him to do so. I have received several communications from His Highness, and these are now receiving my consideration.
    Mr. Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have a copy of a letter from the Sultan of Kedah in which he states explicitly that he was given a verbal ultimatum and that if he did not sign the Agreement within the time limit, someone else who would sign it would be appointed in his place? Is that not very largely confirmed by the statement of Sir Harold MacMichael that the Sultan signed because he saw no practical alternative?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I must give an emphatic denial to the serious allegation in the first part of the supplementary question. There was no time limit, nor was there a threat in regard to deposition or that someone else would be appointed in place of the Sultan.
    Mr. Pickthorn: When the hon. Gentle man tells us that the Sultan is not being detained, does that cover advice? Is he or is he not being strongly advised to stay where he is? On the third part of my original Question, may we have an answer? Is the petition from the Sultan of Kedah being considered, or has it been considered, and is there any statement to make on it?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Regarding the latter part of the supplementary question, the petition involves a series of representations to His Majesty's Government. Those matters are under active consideration at the present moment. I hope that in the Debate on Friday it may be possible to make a statement on the matter.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Can I have an answer to the first part of my supplementary question?
    Mr. Creech Jones: What was that?
    Mr. Pickthorn: Whether, when it is said that the Sultan is not being detained, what is meant is that he is not being forcibly detained, or whether it is true that he is being held there by strong advice?
    Mr. Creech Jones: To my knowledge he is not being held there by strong advice. In point of fact, we are in communication with the authorities there in order to help his visit over here.
    Mr. Harris: Could my hon. Friend state on what authority he says that there was not a threat? The Sultan, who, after all, was a party to the conversation, has stated in more than one letter to friends in this country that there was a definite threat.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I would point out that in some of the communications which we have seen, there are certain misrepresentations of fact in regard to the question of being held up. The alleged fact that a time limit was placed on the negotiations, for instance, is completely untrue. Further, the suggestion that there would be a successor to the Regent, as he then was, is another untrue assertion.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Might I ask the Minister whether he really wishes to stick to the words he has just used and whether in this very important matter, which is under such very active negotiation, he really wish is to describe what one side says as containing misrepresentations of fact and what the other side says as being objective? Does he really mean to stick to those words at this stage?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I most emphatically do.

    Residents (Nationality)
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is proposed that in the future, residents in
    324
    Malaya who acquire a Malayan Union citizenship, will not be British subjects; and what is to be the nationality of those residents in parts of Malaya who before the war were British subjects.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Those acquiring Malayan Union citizenship in the future will not thereby become British subjects, though they will be British protected persons. Nobody in Malaya, however, who was previously a British subject will lose that status, and persons born in the Settlements of Penang and Malacca in the future will, as in the past, be British subjects.
    Mr. Reid: Can the Minister give an assurance that it is his intention to throw open Malayan citizenship to all bona fide residents in Malaya irrespective of race?
    Mr. Creech Jones: There must be certain qualifications. The House will have the opportunity on Friday of expressing its views on this matter.
    Mr. Gammans: Does this mean that people who are not British subjects and who continue to pay allegiance to a foreign Power can, in fact, acquire Malayan citizenship and enjoy equal rights with British subjects?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is one of the points which will be dealt with in the Order in Council and on which the House will have the opportunity of expressing its views on Friday.

  PALESTINE (CITRUS CROP)
  Major Wyattasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what total quantity of oranges is at present available for export from Palestine to this country over and above the quantity actually being exported.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The Palestine citrus crop this season has exceeded previous estimates and 300,000 cases of citrus are at present available for export above the quantity already ordered, and a further quantity of 200,000 cases could be made available if timber could be procured in time for the containers. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food regarding the possibility of further sales to this country.
  Major Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend undertake to make every effort to obtain the surplus quantity of oranges from Palestine so that we can stop importing them from Spain?
  Mrs. Leah Manning: Would my hon. Friend tell me if this includes marmalade oranges? If so, would he tell me where I can buy them so that I can make my marmalade?

  BRITISH COLONIES (CALORIFIC STANDARDS)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the approximate calorific standard of foodstuffs now enjoyed in the four West African colonies and in Jamaica and Trinidad.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The figure for Trinidad for 1944 was 2,582 calories per head per day. The figure for Jamaica in 1942 was 2,092 calories per head per day. The latter is the latest figure available, but is not regarded as entirely reliable. I regret that the information is not available in respect of the four West African Colonies.
  Mr. Sorensen:Could the hon. Gentleman say whether efforts are being made to secure information on this important point, and whether he is satisfied that the standard is going to be maintained or whether the population is likely to suffer?
  Mr. Creech Jones: We are taking steps, in the case of the West Indies, to improve the nutrition standard. In the case of West Africa, the problem of collecting relevant statistics is much more difficult, but, again, some new nutritional work is about to start.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it that a statement will be made about calorific standards?
  Mr. Creech Jones: It presents some little difficulty in regard to West Africa, but we are watching the problem.

  WEST AFRICA

    Students (Oversea Education)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of West African students now taking educational courses in this country; how many applications for study here
    326
    have been refused; the estimated number of prospective students in this country during the next three years; and, approximately, the number or percentage of overseas students who have gone to countries other than Britain for their studies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: West African students now taking educational courses in this country number about 500, of which 200 are scholarship holders. I have no record of the numbers of applications for study which have been refused by universities and colleges. It is estimated that the numbers of West African students will possibly increase by 100–200 a year during the next three years. There are 25 West African students in the U.S.A. The number in other non-British countries is negligible.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that everything is being done to provide facilities for West African students to come here rather than go to America?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Obviously, but there are difficulties with our own university colleges.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say, when such applications are made, on what basis they are refused?
    Mr. Creech Jones: We have no precise information why applications are refused, but I think that, broadly speaking, it is because the applicants do not reach the standard for admission to the college which is set by the college authorities.

    Cocoa Marketing
    Dr. Santo Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can indicate a date for the publication of the promised White Paper on West Africa.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the further White Paper which it is proposed to issue on the subject of marketing of West African cocoa. I regret that my right hon. Friend's consultations on the details of the future organisation are not yet complete, and it is not yet possible to say when a further statement can be made.

  SPAIN (ALLIED JOINT STATEMENT)
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further

  327
  action he proposes to take, following the U.S. Note to His Majesty's Government suggesting a joint démarche with France to the Government of General Franco.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin):The hon. Member will now have seen the text of the joint statement on Spain which has been issued by His Majesty's Government in conjunction with the Governments of the United States of America and France.
  Mr. Cocks:In view of the fact that its terms have not been published in Spain, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have it broadcast in the Spanish language to the Spanish people?
  Mr. Bevin: I understood that it had gone over the B.B.C.
  Colonel Erroll: Has His Majesty's Minister in Madrid sent a copy to the Spanish Government?
  Mr. Bevin: Certainly, Sir.
  Mr. Warbey: Has the right hon. Gentleman come to any conclusion on the matter being referred to the Security Council?
  Mr. Bevin: I am very doubtful whether it comes within the Charter at all.

  BRITISH CLAIMS (U.S. SUBJECTS)
  Flying-Officer Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any arrangement has been made with the U.S. authorities whereby a British subject can secure payment of damages awarded in the British courts against a U.S. subject, who is no longer resident in this country.
  Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.
  Flying-Officer Bowden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is real hardship caused by the lack of such arrangements, and that, in a recent case brought to my notice, a man used his gratuity and brought proceedings, and now finds that he has lost his gratuity, his awarded damages and his wife?
  Mr. Bevin: I can only express sympathy with him in regard to the latter. The difficulty with the United States is
  328
  that there are 48 different jurisdictions, and it is very difficult to deal with the matter in the way in which we can deal with things in this country.
  Earl Winterton:In view of the promise, given in the Debate which I inaugurated on the subject of the nonfulfilment of affiliation orders against persons who are not British subjects, that the Government would give the most sympathetic consideration to the case, and that negotiations with both Dominion and foreign Governments would take place, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what progress those negotiations have made?
  Mr. Bevin: I would like notice of that question.

  PERSIA
  Brigadier Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding Persia.
  Mr. Bevin:I should prefer not to make a statement until their is some further development in the situation to report. At present, we are awaiting the reply of the Soviet Government to the inquiry which we have put to them. I shall, of course, keep the House fully informed.

  CHINA (JAPANESE ASSETS)
  Mr. Clement Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what treaty or agreement to which His Majesty's Government are parties, or by what right is plant and machinery being removed from Chinese territory by any government other than the Chinese Government.
  Mr. Bevin: I am not aware of any treaty or agreement which would confer any such right. In so far as Japanese owned plant and machinery may be in question, it is the view of His Majesty's Government that the disposal of Japanese assets is a matter for discussion and settlement between the Allied nations having claims to Japanese reparations. Pending an agreement reached in this matter, His Majesty's Government consider it appropriate that the State in whose territory the assets are located should retain them on a custodian basis

  YUGOSLAVIA (REFUGEES)
  Major Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the Yugoslav refugees arriving in Trieste; and, in particular, as to their numbers and where they are coming from.
  Mr. Bevin: I would refer the hon. Member to the written reply which was given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 5th March.
  Major Macpherson: As that answer did not deal in any way with the second part of this Question, which concerns their numbers and where they are coming from, can the Foreign Secretary give an answer to that?
  Mr. Bevin: I would like the hon. and gallant Member to put that question down separately.
  Major Macpherson: It is on the Paper already.

  ARMED FORCES (OFFICERS' PAY AND ALLOWANCES)
  Mr. Grimstonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now state the date on which the new financial conditions for service officers will be announced.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. The Government's decisions on the postwar code of pay, allowances, retired pay and Service gratuities for commissioned officers of the Armed Forces are being embodied in a White Paper, of which copies will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.

  AUSTRIA (DOCTORS)
  Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many doctors there are per thousand of the population in the British zone in Austria; and how many doctors there are in Vienna compared with a prewar date.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): In the British Zone of Austria, the average works out at .934 per thousand of the population, as compared with 816 before the War. In the city of Vienna, there are today some 2,800 doctors, as compared with 4,100 before the war, but, taking into account
  330
  the decrease in population, the proportion of doctors has only been slightly reduced.
  Colonel Stoddart-Scott: May I ask the Minister how he accounts for the answer he gave last week when he said there was no shortage and no diminution of doctors? Will he not do everything possible to encourage those Austrian doctors practising in this country to go back to their own country, where they are so very much needed?
  Mr. Hynd: In the reply I gave last week, I said nothing about a diminution of doctors. I said there was no general shortage, and the figures I have given, I think, bear that out. The comparative position, which will be of interest to the hon. and gallant Member, is that in 1946 in the British zone the percentage of doctors is .9 per thousand, while in prewar years it was .8. In Vienna, the figure is 1.9 per thousand today, against 2.1 per thousand prewar. The comparative figures for this country are very much lower.
  Captain Crookshank: Would it not be much simpler if the figures were given the other way round—one doctor to so many people? I find it hard to envisage what .9 means.
  Mr. Hynd: It is a question of comparing .8 against .9, which I should have thought was fairly simple. The figures for the prewar period were one doctor per 1,225 of the population, and, today, one doctor per 1,070 of the population, and, in Vienna, one doctor for every 468 of the population, prewar, and, today, one doctor to every 521 of the population.
  Mr. Peter Freeman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great need for doctors in Vienna, where there is a high mortality rate among children under one year of age?
  Mr. Hynd: May I quote the figures? In Vienna today, the doctors represent one per 521 of the population and in this country one per 1,234.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Frozen Fish, Iceland
    Sir David Robertsonasked the Minister of Food if he proposes to renew his department's contracts with Iceland for high-grade frozen fish.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): My Department is at present negotiating with Canada and Newfoundland for substantial purchases of frozen fish. Until the outcome of these negotiations is known our policy in regard to purchases from Iceland cannot be finalised.
    Sir D. Robertson: As the hon. Lady's answer indicates dollar purchases, will she ask her right hon. Friend to renew the contracts which stood us in such good stead during the war, at a time when our food situation was better than it is today?
    Dr. Summerskill: We shall certainly consider that.

    Tomatoes
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food what is the present price of tomatoes in the Canary Islands and in this country; what allowance of profit is provided under the 1945 Maximum Prices Order for the exporter, importer, wholesaler, salesman and retailer; and whether he is satisfied with the method of handling this fruit.
    Dr. Summerskill: So far as the information at my disposal goes it shows that the authorised selling price of tomatoes for export to the United Kingdom from the Canary Islands is 21 pesetas per 12 kilograms net. The maximum prices prescribed by the Imported Tomatoes (Maximum Prices) Order, 1945, on sales within the United Kingdom, other than sales by retail, vary according to the type of package used. For the type "B" package, containing an average of 27 1b. of tomatoes, these prices provide for a margin of 3s. 1d. on an import sale, 1s. 5d. on a first-hand sale, 2s. 3d. on a sale by wholesale, and 13s. 4d. on a sale by retail. I have no information about any allowance of profit available to the exporter. The reply to the last part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Freeman: Does this method mean that very often fruit is being sold to other countries and that it results in high prices? Could better methods for handling this fruit be arranged?
    Dr. Summerskill: This is a highly perishable commodity, and the hon. Gentleman will agree that we are not in a strong position today to bargain.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Will the hon. Lady explain what "B" type packages are?
    Dr. Summerskill: The packages are classified according to the number of pounds of tomatoes. Package "B" contains 27 lb.
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Minister of Food how many pounds of tomatoes have been landed in this country during the past two months and been re-shipped to Eire; and why this was done.
    Dr. Summerskill: During December, 1945, and January, 1946, no tomatoes landed in this country were re-shipped to Eire. Figures for February are not yet available.
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Food how the 7,200 tons of tomatoes were disposed of during the last six months; if he will state the district allocations in each case; and whether such allocations were for the retail trade.
    Dr. Summerskill: During the period of full control, i.e., up to the end of October, 1945, some 6,700 tons of the tomatoes imported from the Channel Islands to which my hon. Friend refers, were distributed to the public through the machinery of the tomato distribution scheme which makes use of the normal channels of trade. These supplies were sent in varying quantities to some 52 destinations in South Wales, the west Midlands and the south-west and north-west of England. After that period the small remaining supplies were directed to certain deficiency areas. The reply to the last part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Murray: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling in the county of Durham that they are always last? Is she further aware that they only received some bananas last week, and now there is no sign of tomatoes?
    Dr. Summerskill: I promise my hon. Friend that I shall bear Durham in mind next time we have some tomatoes.
    Mr. McGovern: Would the hon. Lady arrange for samples to be placed in the Library?
    Professor Savory: Will the hon. Lady see that Northern Ireland gets her fair share, in view of the immense supplies she is sending to this country—three-quarters of her eggs, to mention only one commodity?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he goes over the border he can buy unlimited supplies?

    Exports, Denmark
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Food why 1,300 tons of food was exported between 1st August, 1945, and 1st February, 1946, from the United Kingdom to Denmark; and if he will state the types of food exported.
    Dr. Summerskill: In order to restore our trade connections with Denmark, 700 tons of cocoa products, 400 tons of tea and 200 tons of miscellaneous foods were exported to Denmark between 1st August, 1945, and 1st February, 1946.

    Dried Bananas
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Food if he will consider the importation of dried or dehydrated bananas, since these could be imported without special shipping and provide a concentrated and valuable food stuff.
    Dr. Summerskill: One thousand two hundred tons of dried bananas were imported in 1945, and arrangements have already been made to import a quantity in the current year.
    Mr. Shepherd: Can the hon. Lady say what the quantity is for the current year?
    Dr. Summerskill: Arrangements have been made to import 600 tons of dried bananas from the British Cameroons.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does not the hon. Lady think that that quantity is absolutely inadequate, and will she see that it is increased?
    Dr. Summerskill: If there is an increased demand for this commodity in spite of our imports of fresh bananas, we shall certainly consider it.

    Poultry Feeding Stuffs
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the decrease in poultry rations pro posed by His Majesty's Government would mean a drop in home production of about one-third, and, as feeding stuffs are cheaper to buy from abroad than shell eggs, if he will consider leaving the poultry ration as at present and reducing the number of imported shell eggs.
    Dr. Summerskill: With regard to the first part of the Question, my right hon. Friend hopes that the drop in the home production of eggs will, in practice, be less than one-third. As regards the second part. Of the Question, it is impossible for him to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion since feeding stuffs are not available for purchase abroad.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Will the Minister agree to an increase in the price of eggs to compensate for a reduction in turnover, and is she aware that, in consequence of the resultant reduction in egg production, it will be impossible to rear sufficient chicks to effect any increase in laying stock this year?
    Dr. Summerskill: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is "No," and to the second part that we will consider it.

    Ministry of Food (Temporary Officers)
    Mr. Sidney Marshallasked the Minister of Food how many persons are acting as directors of departments in his Department who still retain their private trade interests; and whether he will take early steps to replace them by independent officials.
    Dr. Summerskill: With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend circulated on 21st February, 1946. With regard to the second part, this is not a time when the country can afford to lose the services which these experts have rendered so ungrudgingly.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the hon. Lady aware of the grave concern felt by food manufacturers in this country at the retention of their trade competitors in official positions in the Ministry of Food?
    Dr. Summerskill: In my opinion, it is not wise to swap horses in mid-stream.
    Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Does the hon. Lady realise that there is dissatisfaction on this subject, not only among the interested parties, but also on this side of the House?
    Dr. Summerskill: Of course, I cannot say what we shall do when we reach the shore.

    Imports
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Food the total tonnage of food imported n the United Kingdom for human consumption during the year ended 31st December, 1938.
    Dr. Summerskill: Total imports of food and feeding stuffs into the United Kingdom in the calendar year 1938, as recorded in the published annual statement of trade of the U.K., amounted to 23 million tons. I regret it is not possible to say precisely how much of this total was used for human consumption.

    Table Jellies
    Mr. McGovernasked the Minister of Food the names of firms that have been granted an allocation of sugar for 1946 for making table jellies and the amount granted in each case.
    Dr. Summerskill: Allocations of sugar for making table jellies have been made to 125 firms for 1946 at the rate of 60 per cent. of their sugar usage in the datum year. It is not usual to publish the names of firms in receipt of allocations of raw materials, but if the hon. Member has any question to raise with regard to individual firms or the amount of their allocation, I should be glad to have particulars.
    Mr. McGovern: May I ask the hon. Lady whether any of those firms who received substantial allocations of sugar are advisers to the Ministry of Food?
    Dr. Summerskill: I could not answer that without notice.
    Mr. McKinlay: Could the hon. Lady say what method is adopted to check up in order to see that the sugar allocated for that purpose is really used by the manufacturers for that purpose?
    Dr. Summerskill: The answer is that we have an efficient inspectorate.

    Food Parcels
    Major John Morrisonasked the Minister of Food what are the restrictions, at present in force, on the sending of parcels of food to friends and relatives in this country by residents in Dominions, Colonies and other countries abroad; and whether, in view of the present food situation, he proposes to modify or abolish such restrictions.
    Dr. Summerskill: With regard to the first part of the Question, individuals in this country may receive gifts of food from abroad provided that the gifts are not solicited, are not received more frequently than once a month, and provided that the weight of foodstuffs in any one parcel does not exceed 7 lb., of which not more than 2 lb. may consist of one commodity. With regard to the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend does not consider that any modification of these restrictions would be in the national interest at the present time.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: In regard to the last statement in the hon. Lady's answer, will she say whether that applies equally to Australia where they are now endeavouring, with very little success, to send greater quantities of food to this country?
    Dr. Summerskill: Our policy has always been to give equal shares to all, and we feel that if we modified our policy now it would mean that many very poor people in this country would never receive a parcel.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: The greatest misery for the greatest numbers.

    British Restaurants (Old Age Pensioners)
    Colonel Errollasked the Minister of Food whether he contemplates providing special communal feeding facilities for old age pensioners who cannot afford to buy meals at restaurants.
    Dr. Summerskill: Local authorities operating British Restaurants may allow old age pensioners price concessions so long as the restaurant undertaking is fully self-supporting, and the prices charged are not less than the approximate cost of the raw food provided in the meal. Many local authorities provide British Restaurant meals at special prices for old age pensioners. My right hon. Friend does not contemplate providing further special facilities
    Mr. S. Marshall: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are no British Restaurants in the country which work on a profit basis?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed; that is not so.

    Fats Ration
    Major Peter Robertsasked the Minister of Food what action he proposes to take with regard to the petition against the reduction of the fats ration, which was presented to him on behalf of 19,000 housewives of Sheffield.
    Dr. Summerskill: This petition emphasises what we already know, that the reduction in the fat ration is a serious blow to housewives. I have received a deputation representing the housewives of Sheffield and have every sympathy with them. I need hardly add that the cut would not have been imposed had it not been quite inescapable in view of the supply position.
    Major Roberts: Can we have something a little more definite than that? Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us an assurance that this matter will be rectified within three months?
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does my hon. Friend agree that while millions throughout the world are on the verge of starvation, it is disgraceful that hon. Members opposite should incite their supporters to work up feeling on the food situation?
    Mr. Speaker: Questions really should be directed for the purpose of obtaining information.
    Major Roberts: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member opposite to impute to me —
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. William Shepherd.

    Milk Distribution (Stirling)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Food under what regulations the food office in Stirling required applicants, transferring their custom from the firm of J. Miller and Company, to sign a form stating that they were not members of a co-operative society.
    Dr. Summerskill: In areas where milk deliveries have been rationalised it is necessary to restrict the consumer's choice of dairyman when a retail milk business is sold. We do not, however, compel those who may object in principle to cooperative trading to transfer to a cooperative society which may buy a milk round from a private trader. In such
    338
    circumstances we allow those who are not members of a co-operative society to transfer to a private trader.
    When Stirling Co-operative Society, Limited, purchased the retail milk business of Messrs. J. Miller and Company, the food executive officer for Stirling prepared a simplified form of application for the benefit of those who desired to change their registration for milk, containing the information required to enable him to give effect to that provision.
    Colonel Hutchison: Is the hon. Lady aware that the form which I have here is a direct bias in favour of the co-operative societies? I have asked her whether her Ministry approves such action being taken by one of her food officers, and I have not had an answer.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am very surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement. I interpreted the form as being a direct bias against the cooperative societies.

    Imported Fruit (Illicit Trading)
    Mrs. Ayrton Gouldasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that illicit trading in oranges and lemons from barrows still continues in London and other parts of the country; and that, meanwhile, licensed retailers receive such small allocations that they are unable to supply a large number of their regular customers; and, as imported fruitis bought by the Government before it comes to Britain and is controlled by his Department at every stage, will he tighten up this control so that no imported fruit gets into the black market.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is aware that there is a certain amount of illicit trading in imported fruit and he is doing his best to put a stop to it For instance, during the last seven months of 1945 there were 143 prosecutions of street traders in the Westminster Food Control Committee Area. The police co-operate with my Department in initiating proceedings. My hon. Friend should however remember that most of the trading from barrows is perfectly legitimate and the amount of fruit dealt with by illicit traders is a very small part of the total.
    Mrs. Ayrton Gould: While thanking my hon. Friend for her co-operation, may I ask if she is aware that these street

    339
    hawkers seem to have access to an amazing amount of fruit compared with the amount that retailers in the ordinary way get in the way of allocations for their customers, and that it is causing grave dissatisfaction?
    Dr. Summerskill: The amount of fruit these hawkers get is related to the amount they received during a certain period. Many of these men have been hawking for many years before the war, and one cannot regard them all as being suspects.

  WINES & SPIRITS (PRICES)
  Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Food if he will consider controlling the retail prices of wines, spirits, etc., based upon a maximum price per gill or some other convenient measure.
  Dr. Summerskill:In view of the widely differing amenities provided in public houses, hotels, restaurants, etc., and of the very great variety of wines and spirits, my right hon. Friend does not think it practicable to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Shepherd:Does that mean that gross overcharges for wines and spirits are to be permitted in restaurants, whereas small shopkeepers are to be prosecuted for mild infringements of the regulations?
  Dr. Summerskill: I think the consumer has the answer in his own hands. The answer is not to drink it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will be good enough to tell us what are the Government's intentions about Business tonight, in the event of the Motion on the Paper being approved?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. Discussions have taken place through the usual channels, and it was thought that the
340
House would like a little extra time in which to discuss the Housing Bill. Therefore, it has been agreed—and I hope the House will concur—that the Debate on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill shall continue until 10.15, and that thereafter the Financial Resolution shall be taken. We trust that the Debate on that Resolution will not take unduly long. That is the purpose of the Suspension of the Rule, and I hope the arrangement will meet with the general approval of the House.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Would the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of what he means by "not unduly long "?
Mr. Morrison: I would not like to do that, Sir. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a most reasonable person, and I am sure he can place a reasonable interpretation on those words.

MEMBERS' EXPENSES
Report from the Select Committee (with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices), brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 93.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to—
Agricultural Development (Ploughing Up of Land) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the City and County of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to provide trolley vehicle services in the said City and elsewhere; to authorise the Corporation to construct a new road; and for other purposes."— [Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords]
  Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House). — [The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.20 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. There is no greater social problem facing the people of this country today than that of housing, and at no time have there been placed before the House financial proposals for tackling that problem more generous in amount, more consistent in principle, or more complete in character than those embodied in this Bill. For 25 years I have tried to play my part in local government in tackling this problem. From very wide contact with my fellow councillors and aldermen up and down the country, I know they welcome these proposals as being in excess not only of their widest expectations, but even of their highest hopes. Their acceptance by the House will provide an added impetus to the building programmes of those local governing authorities, whose activities will furnish by far the larger part of the accommodation that is necessary to satisfy our great housing needs.
  In giving consideration to these financial proposals, we had to take into account a number of factors of real importance. The first of these was the standard of housing provided for our people. This we say must be improved, not merely above that of the jerrybuilt boxes normally provided by private industry for the poor but above that, too, which was provided by local authorities in the period between the wars. Not only must the quality of appurtenances and amenities be made higher but the overall area of the accommodation must be increased. The day has gone by when
  342
  working people will remain content with the cribbed and cabined quarters of the past. Our new homes must be reflective of as well as conducive to that wider vision, that deeper and broader outlook of which our people have recently given such positive proof.
  Secondly, these better homes must be obtainable by our people at rents which they can afford to pay. Greater living space, better bathrooms, and more up-to-date kitchens must not be secured at the cost of a reduced standard of food and clothing and common comforts. How often have we seen in the past families struggling to pay the increased rent and the increased cost of travel to and from their work which new homes so often involve, only to have to abandon the struggle in the end. There are many sorrowful stories which, from my own limited experience, I could tell of housewives who denied themselves adequate food and clothing, ran into debt with tradesmen, fell into bad health through worry and care in the vain hope of retaining for their men and their children the better homes they so much deserve, and then, broken in health and heart, have been forced to return to the bad old overcrowded conditions from which they longed so much to be free. Our rents must be such as will allow our people not merely to exist in our new houses, straggling against hunger, debt and worry, but really to live in them, comfortable and content.
  Our third problem—if we are wise and sufficiently determined—will, though a big one now, be but temporary. It is that of the high cost of building these new and better homes. High cost must not prevent us from building now, but costs must not be allowed to remain so high as to frustrate the fulfilment of our task: the building of better homes at reasonable rents for the poorest of our people. Costs must come down; high subsidies must not be an incentive to maintaining high costs, and, since we are determined that high costs shall be temporary, high subsidies must be temporary too. These exceptional conditions must be accepted at present, but, as I have indicated, can be accepted only as a temporary phase. Their removal must be secured quickly by improved organisation and output in the building industry and the building materials industry. These results can most effectively be secured by the production of

  343
  houses, and the Minister looks, therefore, to local authorities to go ahead with their building as quickly as possible. For this reason I wish to make it quite clear that the subsidies now proposed—and this applies to the rates of contributions as well as to the Exchequer contributions—are maxima, and it is the intention of the Government that they shall be reduced at the earliest opportunity.
  I therefore draw special attention to the provision made in Clause 16 of this Bill for a review of the contributions. This provision is that, immediately after the beginning of December of this year the Minister of Health is to consider whether it is expedient that he should make an Order, the draft of which is to be laid before the House, providing for a reduction of those contributions in relation to new houses completed after a date to be named in the Order, which will not be earlier than 30th June, 1947. The Minister, therefore, proposes to open negotiations with the associations of local authorities later in the year with a view to seeing that for houses completed after June, 1947, subsidies shall be at lower rates than those included in this Bill. Following six years of war, during which house building has been stopped in this country, and large numbers of houses have been destroyed by enemy action, the need for houses is acute and urgent. We face this need at a time when both the house building industry and the building materials industry are below their normal strength. Until these industries are restored to full strength, and until the first most urgent need has been met, our primary concentration must be to ensure that the greatest possible number of new separate homes of permanent construction find their way to those whose needs are most urgent. That means a primary concentration on the building of houses for letting by public authorities, who can most effectively discriminate between the housing needs of various applicants without regard to the length of their purse. That is why the Government have already announced that they look primarily to the local authorities, who have and have long had statutory responsibilities for housing and experience in the building and management of houses.
  Let me get back to the three factors which I mentioned earlier, that we have to take into account as the basis of our
  344
  calculations. First, so far as the character of the accommodation is concerned, we have taken as our average standard that of the three-bedroom house with modern equipment in bathroom, closet and kitchen, and with an overall living area of 900 square feet, plus 50 square feet for out-houses, which compares with 750 square feet in the Act of 1938. So far as the standard flat is concerned, the overall area is 800 square feet.
  Then as to rents. For the standard house the assumed average net rent—i.e., rent less rates—is 10s. a week in urban areas and 7s. 6d. in agricultural areas. For flats it is 12s. This does not mean that every house shall be let at these figures, but, taking the country as a whole, it is regarded as a reasonable average to charge for the higher standard of accommodation that is to be provided. So far as cost is concerned, we have taken a figure which experience in approving tenders in the last six months has shown us was about the mean of tender prices for the country as a whole. These prices however we regard as temporary, and therefore the subsidies have been worked out on a temporary and not a permanent basis.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he inform the House what is the average figure for tenders?
  Mr. Key: No, Sir, because as soon as we do that, all other tenders which we receive will go up to that figure.
  First as to that standard house of 900 square feet to be let at a net rent of 10s. a week. We estimate the annual deficit on such a house—on a 60 years basis—to be £22. This we propose to divide between national and local funds—not on the old prewar proportion of 2 to 1; but on the basis of 3 to 1, that is, £16 10s.from national funds and £5 10s.from the rates. This compares with the existing subsidy of £5 10s from national funds and £2 15s.from the rates. This general standard contribution is likely to be applicable to the great majority of the houses built under the Bill. But there are special provisions in the Bill to deal with six particular types of exceptional case. First there are houses provided for the agricultural population. Here, as I have said, the average net rent—and I wish again to emphasise that it is only an estimated

  345
  average, not a fixed determined figure—is 7s. 6d., instead of 10s. This 7s. 6d., by the by, was the figure which was advocated by the rural housing sub-committee of our Central Housing Advisory Committee as being particularly applicable to rural areas. To meet that reduction in rent, we propose that the subsidy should be increased from £22 to £28 10s., and because of the lower ability of rural authorities to meet housing expenditure from local rates the proportion of national to local subsidy is also to be increased. Of the £28 10s. £25 10s. is to be provided from national funds and the remaining £3 from the rates. One half of it, i.e., £1 10s., is to be levied on the particular county district concerned, and the other half provided from general county funds.
  When it is said—as is said in an Amendment on the Order Paper—that these proposals are no sufficient stimulus to the provision of housing for the agricultural industry, I would point out first that the £28 10s.in this Bill compares with the £12 in the Act of 1938 for which the authors of that Amendment were responsible. Secondly, I would point out that the national subsidy of £25 10s. over 60 years is more than four times as much as the national subsidy at £10 for 40 years. Thirdly I would point out also, that in this Bill the national subsidy is nine times the local subsidy, whereas in the Bill of 1938 it was only five times. Surely a stimulant that is so much above proof, must commend itself to the delicate and experienced palates of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Then there are county districts—both rural and urban—where the rent paying capacity of the tenants is abnormally low. To meet the problems of these areas the Bill provides in Clause 3 that where in those districts the average rent of the houses in the district occupied by working people is substantially less than that in other local government areas of the same category, and where the local rate expenditure on housing is such that further high expenditure would impose an undue burden upon the ratepayers, the subsidy regulations applicable to houses provided for the agricultural cottagers should be applicable to those areas. In other words, in such areas the standard national subsidy is increased by £9 from £16 10s. 0d. to £ 25 10s. 0d., whilst the rate subsidy is reduced from £5 10s. 0d. to £3, and even
  346
  that £3 is shared as to half by the district rate and half by the county.
  The third special category is that of flats in areas where it is necessary, because of high site costs, to erect flats instead of houses. Here the average standard flat which we have taken is of 800 square feet, with an estimated rent of 12s. a week, and an average density of 35 flats to the acre. Where the cost of the land is between £1,500 and £4,000 an acre the total subsidy will be £38, and will be divided in the proportion of three to one; that is £28 10s.from national funds and £9 10s.from local rates. This subsidy will be increased by £2 in total when the price of land is £4,000 to £5,000 an acre; and by another £2 in total if the price rises to between £5,000 and £6,000; and, thereafter, by an additional £2 of total subsidy for each increase of £2,000 per acre in the cost of the land; these increases being divided, as the general subsidy is divided, in the relation of three to one between national and local funds.
  Then there is another problem to which we have given attention. Somany of us in our poorest working-class areas have seen women toiling up endless stairs carrying their weekly shopping, lugging a perambulator or carrying the baby. We say that that ought to come to an end, and therefore, that in flats of four storeys or more, adequate and proper lifts should be provided. In order that these lifts may be provided, the subsidy per flat in these cases will be increased by £7 per flat from national funds and £3 10s.from local funds. There is, in this connection, one other point I ought to make. We do not want to see, unnecessarily, areas wholly occupied by big blocks of high storeyed flats. We want to see some sort of mixed and varied development. Therefore, in areas of mixed development, with high site costs, it has been decided that the appropriate flat subsidy shall apply to houses in that mixed development, on the understanding the accommodation provided by houses and flats together will be equal to what would have been provided by an overall average flat construction of three storey flats. In these cases the houses will get a very much higher subsidy than in the normal cases.
  The fourth class to which I wish to draw attention is quite a new one so far as housing legislation is concerned. It

  347
  is that of the houses that have to be provided in areas in which because of the risk of mining subsidence, it is necessary either to buy mineral support or increase expenditure on measures for safety. In such cases the subsidy will be increased by anything up to £2 per dwelling on the understanding that the rate subsidy is increased by an amount equal to half of the increase in the national subsidy.
  The next class for special attention is that of areas where, because of low rateable value, high rate expenditure, and a particularly serious housing problem, expenditure upon housing would be abnormally burdensome; and Clause 7 of the Bill, therefore, provides for a reduction in the rate contribution with a corresponding increase in the national contribution. The overall housing subsidy in those areas will remain what it is. It is a matter of the distribution of that subsidy between national and local funds. I want to emphasise that this provision is not intended to deal with the problem of highly rated areas, as such. That has to be dealt with on lines other than those of mere housing finance. This is a provision designed to enable those authorities to cope with their exceptional problem. In areas where the existing rate burden, for all purposes, is 25 per cent. or more above the average rate burden for local authorities of a comparable character— that is, comparing rural area with rural area, urban district with urban district, borough with borough—where the overall rate burden is 25 per cent. greater, and where, also, a particular rate levy for meeting housing expenditure is double the average for comparable areas, then, in those areas, the rate subsidy can be reduced by any amount up to half of the normal, the amount of reduction in rate subsidy being compensated by an increase in the national subsidy. Instead of the national subsidy being £16 10s. a£and the local subsidy being £5 10s. in such an area the local subsidy can be reduced to £2 15s. whilst the national subsidy will be increased to £19 5s.
  Now for the sixth class, which is that of houses built under approved schemes by non-traditional methods of construction when the cost is substantially higher than that of the traditional houses. Following research and experiment carried out with in the last year or two, the Government have arranged for the large-scale
  348
  production by two methods of construction, by which it is hoped to secure a substantial increase in the number of permanent houses which can be completed during the next 12 months without any material prejudice to the production of houses of traditional construction. These two systems are, first, what is known as the B.I.S.F. house. That is a house of steel construction designed by the British Iron and Steel Federation. A company known as British Steel Houses, Limited, has been formed for the manufacture of these houses, and a number of contractors associated with the company have guaranteed to undertake contracts for the erection of the houses. This house is specially suitable for erection in urban areas in groups of 50 or more. Secondly, there is the Airey House, a house of precast concrete construction. This type lends itself to a design suitable to rural areas, and the houses are to be built by local builders who will be supplied, at a fixed price, with the necessary wall and floor components. The Government are making arrangements for the production of these components at a number of centres throughout the country.
  It is expected, when this type of house has established itself on a large scale of production, that the cost will not be higher than that of traditional houses. At the outset this object cannot be secured, because it is just at the time when the supply of traditional houses is limited by the amount of labour available, that these additional houses can be obtained by the use of methods which make less call upon building labour. It is possible, in the initial stage, that the cost of these non-traditional houses will be higher than that of houses built on traditional lines. It is proposed in the Bill not only that the normal subsidy should apply to the non-traditional house, but that the Minister should be authorised to make a special additional grant, designed to keep the cost of the non-traditional house to the average of the traditional house in a particular locality. Advice to local authorities to enable detailed programmes to be worked out so as to relate their requirements to the productive capacity for the construction of these houses will, it is hoped, be issued in the next few days. That completes consideration of the six special classes, so far as the normal subsidy is concerned.

  349
  I come next to a number of cases in which undertakings have already been given to local authorities with regard to house construction. First there are those local authorities who, on Government instructions, erected houses during the war. There were, for instance, a number of such authorities who provided houses for transferred workers in factories engaged on war production. Some 2,400 houses were erected by local authorities in different parts of the country for that purpose. At the time when they were erected no subsidy was applicable to their construction, because the existing subsidy was for the purpose only of slum clearance or relief of overcrowding. The production departments, responsible for getting the houses constructed, made a contribution to the local authorities for the increased cost involved and the increased speed with which they were erected. In addition, an undertaking was given to local authorities that when the new subsidies became determined, those subsidies would be made applicable to the new houses which had been constructed. In Clause 10 of the Bill, the necessary provision for extending the normal subsidy to these houses has been made. Again, some 3,000 houses were erected for agricultural workers in agricultural areas. It is true that there existed a small subsidy for the erection of these cottages when the programme was undertaken in February, 1943, but the promise was also given that the wider subsidy should be made applicable when it was determined, and that is being done under Clause 10.
  In Clause 9 another promise has been carried out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was Minister of Health at the time when the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Bill was being considered, will remember that he gave a promise to the replies of the local authority associations, that the existing subsidy would be made applicable to all houses constructed from 4th August, 1944, and that when the subsidies came to be revised they would be made applicable as if the Act had been in operation at the time they were completed. Clause 9 extends to all those houses the appropriate subsidy provided under the Bill. There is one other class in this category, and that is the houses which were erected by the North-Eastern Housing Association, very much in the
  350
  same way as the local authority houses were erected for accommodation of transferred workers. In this category there were about 600, and Clause 11 extends to them the appropriate subsidy.
  These are the main financial proposals in the Bill. A goodly number of other housing administrative proposals are included, but I do not propose to worry the House by going through all these other Clauses. I would like, however, to draw attention to one. Clause 18 which provides for the setting up, in pursuance of arrangements made by the Minister, of one or more housing associations with power both to construct houses for local authorities—that means that the associations can act as contractors to the local authorities—or themselves provide houses, which the associations will own and manage. By this means, arrangements can be made to ensure that the needed provision of houses in any particular district does not fail by reason of the inability of the local authority to carry out this work to the fullest extent required. Such an association will be specially helpful to authorities whose administration and technical resources are inadequate to the urgent needs of the district, and in particular in the case of the provision of non-traditional houses. The houses so erected will receive the same subsidy from rates and taxes as is provided in the Bill for houses built by the local authorities. I wish to emphasise that the association is not for the purpose of supplanting the local authority, but for the purpose of supplementing the activities of the local authority, enabling them to carry out to the full the programme of house construction which is necessary in their areas.
  Mr. Lipson: Is it the Minister who will take the initiative in regard to these associations, or the local authorities?
  Mr. Key: It will be the Minister. As is provided in the Bill, the Minister will be able, through the money voted for the purpose, to loan to the association the necessary funds for the purpose of carrying out its operations.
  Mr. Scollan: Is it proposed that these associations should act as contractors for housing schemes, in areas where the Ministry or a council

  351
  is not building today? If that is the case, is it proposed that they shall enter into competition with the contractors and with local authorities, who carry out their own building, for plant and labour?
  Mr. Key: No, Sir. The purpose of this association is to supplement, not to supplant, the activities of the local authorities. The work will be done not in competition with the local authorities, but in agreement with the local authorities, when the need is there for it.
  I wish to make one or two comments upon an Amendment which appears on the Order Paper. To suggest, as is there suggested, that private industry and private enterprise are inhibited from taking a full part in the building programme shows, in my opinion, a complete misapprehension of the position. What private builders are asked to do is to build houses for local authorities, and every possible step will be taken to make it easy for the small private builder, who can show his capacity for house building, to join in the execution of that national programme. The Government have not precluded the erection of houses for sale, even in the present circumstances, as is evidenced by the number of houses for which licences have been issued. But it is, very definitely, the policy that the main emphasis shall be placed upon the provision of houses which can be let at reasonable rents to those who are in greatest need of shelter. The Government are confirmed in their view that the only effective way of securing that the great bulk of new houses built are for letting, is to concentrate on their provision through the local authorities. The need for houses to let is quantitatively much greater than the need for houses for sale. The experience of the 20 years between the wars, confirmed by our experience in licensing in the last six months, shows that the great majority of the houses provided by private enterprise are built for sale. A repetition of this primary concentration on provision for those who can afford to buy must be at the expense of houses for letting, and for that reason cannot be accepted by us.
  Lastly, this legislation deals only with the provision of new houses. It is the first object of policy to restart the house building industry, and to concentrate on new house building all the productive
  352
  capacity that can be attracted to it, in this year at any rate. That does not mean that this programme will not be supplemented later on by improved measures for securing reconditioning and conversion of houses, but it is deliberately intended to delay such action until new house building, on a sufficient scale, is under way, so as to avoid any risk of diverting productive capacity from its main task.
  Such, in broad outline, are the main proposals of this Bill. I repeat, in ending, what I said when I began. These financial proposals are the most generous, the most consistent, the most complete that have ever been placed before this House. I hope that the House will accept them as such and, by so doing, enable our people to go on, not only to prove themselves ever more worthy of the better homes that these proposals are designed to provide, but to prove also that through ever more wisely elected local governing bodies, they, amid many other serious problems, can themselves solve the greatest social problem of our day.
  4.6 p.m.
  Mr. Willink: This is an important occasion for we are dealing with something which every Member of this House knows is of the greatest concern to thousands in every constituency in the country. After very considerable delay, the Government have introduced their proposals with regard to the necessary finance in connection with our housing problem. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who moves with a sure foot, if I may say so, in all matters of local government, and who has expounded the technical details of the Bill with great clarity, has given the House the details of the Government's proposals. I think the most interesting passage in his speech was that in which he was able to inform the House that the Government had felt able to place orders on a large scale for two types of houses of non-traditional construction. Long have we been waiting—for 25 to 30 years—for the development of satisfactory houses of non-traditional construction. If these two types of houses are indeed successful, it will be a matter of great satisfaction to all of us. I hope that the Minister of Health, if he is replying, will be able to tell the House that there will be opportunities for all Members to see examples of these two developments.

  353
  Although the hon. Gentleman's exposition of the Bill was clear, that, I am afraid, does not mean that it was, in the eyes of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends on this side of the House, an exposition of proposals which are satisfactory or adequate to the needs of the day. Indeed, there was nothing novel in the principles which the hon. Gentleman described. They were what we expected, and they are of limited scope and marked by a political prejudice, in our view, which is going to limit the progress of housing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Limit the price."] These proposals are costly. They were, I think, bound to be costly in present circumstances. But that is not the burden of our criticism. The burden of our criticism is that the Government's proposals are deliberately designed on a plan which will not relieve the housing shortage, as we believe it could be relieved by a policy, more objective and more practical. That is their vice, and that is why I propose to deal with the question of what would be desirable in the way of housing finance, rather than with the details of local government financial proposals, on many of which we are in complete agreement, subject to examination in Committee stage.
  Before I come to the main points of criticism on the grounds of inadequacy, there are one or two broad points with regard to housing subsidies which I think should be stressed when we are asked to provide—and rightly asked to provide—for this short emergency period, very high subsidies at great cost. To make these two points satisfactorily, may I put the cost of these subsidies in another form, but I hope quite accurately, and compare them with the subsidies in force just before the war. Under a succession of Conservative Ministers of Health, in the four or five years before the war, housing had been making greater progress than at any time in the history of the country. I notice, at the moment, that a very large local authority is making great play with its progress during the years 1934–38 in connection with slum clearance. That was made possible by the legislation passed by the two National Governments between 1933 to 1938.
  In my view, a subsidy for housing is, at best, a necessary evil. It is not, in my view, a perfect method from the point of view of achieving justice as between man
  354
  and man. At that time, it was limited to certain fields—slum clearance, the abatement of overcrowding and certain features of rural housing. The standard urban subsidy just before the war amounted to about 3s. 5d. per week. Subsidies under this Bill are something like three times that amount, and quite properly, because it is not only special classes of the population but the whole population which is suffering from the housing shortage, they are for general needs. The general standard amount, as it is called, of £22 per house for 60 years amounts to a payment over 60 years, of no less than £1,320 per cottage. Its capitalised value at the present moment amounts to £594. The standard rural subsidy capitalised amounts to £768 per house. Where land is expensive, but not very expensive as things go in central urban areas, and flats with lifts are built, the corresponding figure goes up to £1,400 per flat or more for a flat of 750 or it may be 800 feet. Incidentally, may I say how wholeheartedly we on this side of the House agree that flats with four storeys or more should be provided with lifts. It is not only those described by the Parliamentary Secretary who have suffered from having to carry young children and heavy burdens to the fourth floor of a block of flats or chambers without a lift. If I may say so, I myself experienced that in the early years of my married life in the Temple.
  These figures are very high. No one can say they are other than alarming. That may be inevitable, I think, in this present period of general dislocation, but unless they can be brought down—and they can only be brought down by a fall in building costs—our housing programme is not going to make the progress it should. I was glad to hear the perfectly definite statement that it is the Government's intention to bring those costs down. The question is, are they going the right way to do it? We believe that the best way to bring down housing costs is not by the Minister of Health and his officials cutting off the frills, or rejecting tenders. We believe that the experience of the years between the wars, shows definitely that it is competitive enterprise which brings down housing costs.
  The second general reflection with regard to the housing subsidy, which I should like to put before the House is

  355
  this. The higher the figures, the more necessary it is to see that the benefits of these very large charges on the taxpayer and the ratepayer, reach the right people. I am very much afraid that under the Government's restrictive policy this will not be achieved. They are concentrating almost exclusively on municipal houses and flats. I believe that the result of this policy will be that a small number, and a lamentably small number during the first year of this affair, will get the benefit of these very large sums provided by the taxpayer and the ratepayer. Those who are not accepted as tenants by the local authority, will be carrying a heavy burden in respect of this particular programme. I am afraid that the restrictions of the Government, and the rate aid to this limited class, may cause a lot of ill feeling amongst those who are not fortunate in getting any of the very few houses that seem likely to be built on the programme as it is working out at present. This programme is for general needs and, owing to the Government's policy, large numbers of people are going to be driven to apply for municipal houses, thereby burdening the already enormous lists that all local authorities have, people who would never have been on the lists but for the restrictive character of the Government's policy.
  May I mention in passing a matter on which I have felt the greatest dissatisfaction? I have been seeking for two months to get from the Parliamentary Secretary or from the Minister of Health a reply to this question. All of us have found that local authorities are laying great stress on a long standing residential qualification, in dealing with the allocation of housing. It was on 27th December last year that I asked the Parliamentary Secretary what was the policy of the Ministry of Health with regard to those in equally great need but without a residential qualification. I gave an obvious example which has come to my notice half a dozen times already in my constituency—the case of the regular soldiers, sailors and airmen, who are being turned down, and given no priority whatever by local authorities, because they have no residential qualification. For over two months now I have waited for a reply.
  We have the advantage, in this Debate, that a week or two ago the Government
  356
  issued a paper called "Housing Return for England and Wales" The Minister of Health has presented this return and it gives us the setting in which he is presenting these financial proposals. I think it is useful to consider certain features in that report, because the House and the country have been given facts from which some useful and illuminating lessons can be drawn. I cannot think that even the Minister of Health is likely to claim that his White Paper has excited enthusiastic comment. It paints a very gloomy picture and, in my opinion, gives very little support to the theory that "Labour gets things done." Certainly, the secretiveness which the Minister has shown over the last seven months hasindicated a remarkable reluctance to let the people know what Labour is doing. It is in marked contrast to the free and full reports that were made during an earlier housing crisis, when the enemy was the foreign enemy, whereas today the enemy is the policy of the Minister of Health.
  However generous we may want to be on the point that it would be unreasonable to expect many houses to have been completed by 31st January, 1946, there are some danger signals in the report. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary stated the primary objective of the Government quite accurately when he said that they are limiting their efforts to permanent houses. Included in the primary objective of the Government should be the provision, at the earliest possible date, of 150,000 temporary houses. Local authorities are to be congratulated on their achievements in connection with the acquisition of sites for temporary houses. It is, clearly, very creditable to them that site development has been completed for 67,000 of these houses. On the other hand, it does not seem to speak very highly for any increase in drive from the Minister of Health that, whether one takes the beginning or completion of site development, rather less has been done during the time he has been in office, than was done during the time that we were at war.
  As regards temporary houses, there is far too wide a gap between the figures for slabbing completed and erection begun. On 31st January last slabbing had been completed for 40,361 houses, and the erection of only 25,625 houses had begun, and only 12,025 houses had been completed. It is only too clear that some-

  357
  thing is far from right in the progress in that part of the operations for which the Minister of Works is responsible. Indeed, yesterday the right hon. Gentleman, in a written reply to a Question, gave figures about the production of temporary houses which confirmed those of us who are anxious about the efficiency of closely centralised and nationalised production. Is it not extremely disappointing that whereas up to July last the weekly average number of completed temporary houses handed to local authorities was 150, six months later the figure had only gone up to 385? That is after six months of peacetime production. The whole country has noticed the difference between the number of houses completed by private enterprise to 31st January last, and the number completed by local authorities. More than three times the number have been completed by private enterprise, in spite of all the discouragement to which they have been subjected.
  A further matter in this Report which causes me some dismay is the small pro portion of the building industry which is engaged, nearly nine months after the end of the war with Germany, on the building of permanent houses. It will have been observed that this is no more than 28,000 out of 404,000. The principle of the Government — to give full and first priority to the building of permanent houses — is not giving much in the way of results. But to my mind perhaps the most significant figure of all those in this report is one to which not so much attention has been drawn. It is related to this dominant principle of the Government that all their confidence, with the exception of setting up some supplementary housing associations, is to be given to the local authorities in the country. On 31st January last, 148 local authorities, more than 10 per cent, of the whole, had not one site in their possession on which to build a house. On 31st January last, there were more than 25 per cent, of the local authorities who had not obtained authority to go to tender for one scheme or one house. There, one sees the sort of delay which will arise —
  Mr. Walkden: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House any idea of the political complexion of the authorities he is now quoting?
  Earl Winterton: That is a new one.
  Mr. Willink: The question put by the hon. Member opposite is quite irrelevant. If the local authorities I have in mind have a political complexion which can justifiably be suggested as making them unlikely to build houses, the Minister ought to get houses built by some other means.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)rose—
  Mr. Willink: It is impossible to expect houses to be built at the rate we need them, if, seven months after the war, 25 per cent. of the most important agency has made no progress.
  Mr. Bevan: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say "most important?"
  Mr. Willink: Yes. What sign of the housing drive we have been promised can be seen in this 25 per cent. of these authorities? This is a serious matter. We warned the Government, and we warn them again, that there are many local authorities which, this year, cannot possibly be equipped with personnel or experience to do the job which needs to be done. The main reason why we consider this Bill so unsatisfactory is that it is described as a Bill which the Government consider necessary:
  "… for the making of contributions, grants and loans in connection with the provision of housing accommodation: …"
  but that it makes no provision except to a limited extent in agricultural areas for the building of houses by private enterprise, which built four out of five of all the houses which were built before the war. It is, accordingly, unjust to those who wish to buy, or rent, houses for themselves.
  That is one of the grounds, but there are others to which I shall refer. A moment ago, I mentioned incidentally agricultural housing. The part of the Bill which deals with this is another part that is discriminatory and unfair. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) asked, more than a fortnight ago, a question to which he has as yet received no answer. Certainly he received none in the Debate on that occasion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will

  359
  answer that question at the end of this Debate. Why is there such an immense difference between the special standard amount of the rural subsidy, £ 28 10s. for 60 years to a local authority, and £ 15 for 40 years to anyone else building a comparable cottage to let in the countryside? The local authority is being given a subsidy nearly three times as big as anybody else who builds a comparable cottage to let is to receive under this Bill, and that in spite of the fact that the rent to be charged by the private person is pegged to the same limits as that charged by the local authority.
  Why, again, when all on the Ridley Committee, including members of the party opposite, agreed that there are circumstances in which the principle of the cottage occupied by virtue of service — what is sometimes called the tied cottage — is both necessary and reasonable, particularly in certain aspects of rural life, is it that, under this Bill, there is to be no subsidy for a farmer who wants to build houses for his men and their families? So far as the countryside is concerned, how much longer has the country got to wait before the Government restore the grants for reconditioning, much of which could now be going ahead, to such immense advantage? It has been said that the cottages to be built under this Bill will be let at a rent of 7s. 6d., and of course, if the 10s. is right, the 7s. 6d. is right; but I ask the Minister to give a more satisfactory reply than he gave yesterday as to the basis on which he estimates that it will be possible to achieve those rents. Incidentally, may I call the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister of Health quite gladly gave a Written Answer yesterday on the very point on which he refused to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) about 20 minutes ago. He was asked yesterday what was
  "the average cost of the typical three-bedroom permanent house approved by him and accepted by local authorities";
  and he gave the figure in these words:
  "The average cost of a permanent three-bedroom house in tenders submitted by local authorities and approved by me up to 31st January, 1946, is approximately £ 980."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1946; Vol. 420; c. 60.]
  What a fantastic example of forensic indignation of an entirely unreal kind —
  Mr. Key: May I point out that the question was addressed to me? I said I was not prepared to give the answer for which I was asked, and that was the figure that was taken as the basis for calculations for subsidy, and not the figure of the cost of the house.
  Mr. Willink: The House will recollect both the attitude indicated by the Minister of Health and the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford.
  There is another point in connection with the omissions from this Bill on which I would like to lay great emphasis. More than a year ago—in January of last year, to be precise—I suggested to the Central Housing Advisory Committee that it would be useful to have their advice on the place to be filled in the immediate post-war programme by the conversion and adaptation of existing houses. I felt certain, from what I had seen in London and Greater London particularly, that there was great scope for a very large addition to our housing resources at an early date by this means, and I suggested most, if not all, of the names for a special committee. They included the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Town and Country Planning, the hon. Gentleman who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, Sir George Burt, the City Architect of Liverpool, and many other most experienced and representative men and women —14 in number. The present Minister of Health had the advantage of their advice four weeks after his appointment. These ladies and gentlemen, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, advised in the clearest terms that there was a very substantial amount of accommodation to be thus made available in the immediate postwar period. They advised that this work should be given the same priority in respect of components and equipment as all other types of work. They advised that not only conversion, but — because of the urgency — adaptation, of housing should be done in this immediate period. They recommended unanimously — the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health included — and as they put it, without hesitation, that financial assistance should be given both to local authorities and to private owners for this purpose. Twenty minutes ago, we heard

  361
  the Parliamentary Secretary eating what some hon. Members no doubt did not realise were his own words.
  Six months after receiving this advice, on 14th February, the Minister of Health told the House, in answer to a question, that the report was still under consideration. This is gross delay. It is another example of a restrictive policy, because what the Minister wants to do is to get the greatest number of municipal cottages and municipal flats without regard, I dare to say, to the main question, which is the maximum increase in the number of good homes for the people. There would have been no difficulty in working out this advice given by a most experienced committee, and I feel certain that it has been rejected not on its merits, but because the advice involved assistance to private people for this most essential purpose, a policy against which the Minister has absolutely set his face, and has set his face in a manner which will do the greatest possible damage to all progress in this field.
  I do not propose to go into the details of this Bill. There are many good proposals in it so far also cal authority finance is concerned, but the restriction to local authorities already is showing the perils and dangers that we indicated it would. It is one more example of the failure of His Majesty's Government to deal with the practical tasks which are their responsibility, and we on this side cannot possibly take any sort of responsibility for a Bill so limited and so inadequate to the purpose with which it pretends to deal.
  4.38 p.m.
  Mr. Alpass: I intervene in this Debate because the provision of housing accommodation is of vital and urgent concern to the people whom I represent. It was a burning and dominant issue at the General Election, and I am sure that very large numbers of people were influenced to vote for the Labour Party candidates because they felt that only by pinning their faith and hopes in a Labour Government would it be possible for this great need of housing to be satisfied. I think that history is already beginning to prove that their faith was not misplaced. [Interruption.] It ill becomes Members of the Tory Party to laugh and chide our Government and
  362
  party. The country is, today, suffering from a legacy of neglect and callous indifference to this question by the Party opposite, which was in power for 25 years. I think that before hon. Members opposite sneer at hon. Members on this side, they should examine their own very unsatisfactory record in regard to housing. This problem is not confined, as is sometimes suggested, to the large towns and cities. It is not confined exclusively to industrial areas. It is, as many of us know from practical experience, just as acute and serious in country districts as it is in the large cities. In 1936, a survey was made of the housing conditions in the country districts. The facts disclosed showed that there were 42,000 families in country districts living in overcrowded conditions. This is no new problem. It is, as I have said, a legacy left to us by previous Tory Governments.
  A little while ago I addressed a questionnaire to the clerks of all the housing authorities in my Division — the district councils and the urban councils — and their replies all revealed the same shockingly serious and disgraceful conditions of housing in that part of the country. Very large numbers of people are living in conditions which are a disgrace to our boasted civilisation. In my own constituency the horses which are ridden to hounds — we have two packs — are immeasurably better housed than the men, women and children who live there. The authorities in the largest rural district have sent me information to the effect that the most recent survey of housing conditions in their area shows that only 20 per cent. of the houses were fit to live in, 35 per cent. required major repairs, while a very large proportion of the others were in such a dilapidated state as to be beyond repair, and had to be condemned. I have received, as no doubt many of my hon. Friends have received, the most piteous appeals revealing the tragic circumstances in which so many of our people have to exist. I have investigated some of these conditions personally, and if the House will allow me I will give two examples.
  In the middle of my constituency, in a very beautiful part of the country. there are houses on entering which one steps straight from the street into the only living room, on to a cold, hard floor. The sole domestic arrangement is a very small scullery, separated from this one living

  363
  room by a board partition. Going upstairs with great difficulty—the stairs are rickety and the walls are crumbling to pieces so that the sunlight can be seen outside—one finds only one bedroom. A mother, father, and four children, with another expected shortly live in one of these houses. The parents and two of the children sleep in one room, while the other two children sleep in a bed improvised on the landing. There is no sanitation whatever. That is one of the many so-called houses—I prefer to call them hovels—which have been condemned in my constituency for over 40 years. Let hon. Members on the other side of the House digest that fact.
  Again, I have received a letter from one of my constituents in which he says that his only living accommodation is one poor room upstairs. He and his wife and two children have to sleep in one bed, and in order to provide some kind of accommodation for the other two children they have had to put them into hammocks swung from one beam in the roof to another. Those are the conditions which have prevailed too widely and for too long. I submit that we have no right to tolerate them any longer and that they should be remedied as soon as is humanly possible. The urgent need is for well built houses with modern amenities and after the splendid and stimulating speech of the Parliamentary Secretary describing this Bill I believe that we are going to have well built houses and that the standard is to be improved. These houses must be built to be let under the subsidies suggested in the Bill at rents which the people can afford.
  Past experience has proved without a shadow of doubt that this can only be effected by entrusting the duty to our local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Very well, let us look at the facts. Great play was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) the former Minister of Health on the subject of what private builders have done. What did they do between the years 1920 and 1937? Of all the houses that were erected by private enterprise in that period only 15 per cent were built to let. Private builders are not in business for that purpose. They are in business to make a profit, and when one knows, as I do in
  364
  the city where I live, private builders who boast that they never think of building a house without obtaining at least £ 100 profit, and that they regard that as a small sum anyway, is it to be suggested that they are going to tackle this vitally important question of building houses to let? Private enterprise may have some virtues, but I do not think it is strong enough morally to approach the question from that standpoint, and past experience has shown that to rely upon it is to rely upon a broken reed. The Minister has not ruled out entirely the contribution which private builders canmake— the number of licences which have been issued proves that—but I suggest that he has acted very wisely indeed, in giving discretion on this matter to the local authorities who know the circumstances. They have full authority to issue licences when they are satisfied that it will not interfere with the development of the scheme as a whole.
  I would interpolate one point which, I feel, is pertinent to this question of housing. It is on the subject of water supply. In a very large part of my constituency no proper water supply has ever been provided. One local district council has gone to a great amount of trouble and expense to prepare a scheme in conjunction with the Gloucester corporation, who have decided to extend their mains so that houses can be erected. Hon. Members will appreciate that it is impossible to build houses unless there is a water supply. I put in a plea to the Minister of Health and to the Parliamentary Secretary that when the scheme is submitted to them on behalf of the district council, they will give it their most favourable and sympathetic consideration.
  Much has been said about the refusal of the Government to renew the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I very heartily commend their decision. As a member of my county council have had some little experience in administering that Act. When I was in the House of Commons in the 1929–1931 Parliament, I was accused by my predecessor of using my influence to prevent my county council operating that Act. My reply was that it was not true, and that, if it was true, it would have been a very great compliment to suggest that I was able to influence so many of my opponents on the county council. Under that Act, county councils had two alternatives. To assist private

  365
  persons to improve their property they could make a grant or gift, or they could do it by way of a loan. I always advocated that if any assistance were given to private individuals, it should be given by way of loan and not by way of gift. Who was among the first persons to apply in our district, not for assistance by way of loan but for a gift? The wife of the gentleman who used to be the Chief Whip of the Tory Party in the 1929 Parliament, reputed to be the third richest lady in this country. We made such a fuss about it and exposed it so, that she soon withdrew her application. She could not face the public music.
  We are entirely against assisting private individuals to put their property in order, out of public funds. We oppose it as a matter of principle and public policy. There has been too much of that kind of thing Our opponents were always decrying what they used to call "the dole," but they are never above holding out their hands for subsidies and grants, to enable them to carry out what is, after all, a legal and moral obligation. It has always been assumed that good estate management meant that the owner of the estate had to provide, out of his own resources, a sufficient number of cottages on his farms to enable those farms to be cultivated properly. Our opponents have failed in that duty; now they come to us, and ask us to find money to relieve them of an obligation which they have too long evaded. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but what I say is true, and they know it. As I understand the position, the main reason why the Minister has decided not to reintroduce the Act, is that all those houses, or a very large proportion of them, were owned by private landlords, and were not owner-occupied. As a matter of fact, out of the number of houses that we put into condition under the Act, fewer than one half —46 per cent. — were occupied by agricultural workers. The main reason why we objected to the Act was that it would perpetuate and intensify what we regarded as a pernicious evil, the tied cottage system.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon mentioned that expression. Let me tell him what happens. A fortnight ago I received a letter from one of my constituents saying that he
  366
  had been working on the land for 50 years. He had worked for one farmer for 30 years. In the course of the work, the horses ran away and his legs were broken. Before he was restored to health he received notice, and had to quit his cottage. We object to this system because it places in the hands of landlords unfair power over the lives of the workers. It condemns the workers to insecurity and destroys their freedom of action. It is sometimes stated that this arbitrary power is not used very often. Let me give the House figures which were supplied to me by the National Union of Agricultural Workers. They say:

  "The number of ejectment orders now being made is assuming the dimensions of a national scandal. The wives of prisoners of war at Singapore and elsewhere have been turned out of their cottages with nowhere else to go."
  I have known cases in which occupants of cottages were turned out on to the verge by the roadside, and had to live—or exist —under a tent. The statement goes on:
  "In recent months orders have been made in Norfolk in respect of a cottage occupied by a widower who was caring for his mother-in-law, aged over 90 years, and in respect of the cottage occupied by a woman alderman of 67 years of age, suffering from valvular disease of the heart who had occupied the cottage for 56 years. Cases of this kind could be multiplied. The problem of the ordinary farm tied cottage has been greatly worsened.'
  Do the landlords use this power often? The statement says:
  "Between 1930 and 1938 our Union handled more than 10,000 cases where possession of tied cottages was sought. In the last few months we have had cases in which farm workers, injured during the course of their employment, have been given notice to quit their cottages and in which widows of farm workers have been threatened with eviction."

  That is the evidence given in a report by the men's union. I hope that the Government will not be influenced by any kind of argument about preserving the beauty of these cottages. I have seen some very picturesque thatched cottages. I knew one in which, as the young fellows grew up to 20 and 21 years of age, they were stricken down with tuberculosis—the whole family. Some cottages are very pretty in the eyes of people who come out of the towns to look at them, but are disastrous to the health of those who have to live in them. .I was amazed to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak about cost. Every medical

  367
  authority would agree that bad housing conditions have a very deleterious effect upon the health of the people—nothingmore so. Which is cheaper, which is a better investment for the country, from every standpoint—to build good houses and healthy homes for the people, even if it costs us a bit, or to allow those evil conditions to continue and disease to develop, and then to spend tremendous sums of money upon hospitals to cure them? That is apart from the great loss involved to the nation.
  I am sorry to have taken so much of the time of the House on this matter, but it is one upon which I have felt very deeply eversince I became interested in politics. I have known cases, having lived among these people, of the most wretched and inhuman housing conditions. I shall be delighted to know that the first Labour Government has contributed materially to the improvement of these conditions. From the bottom of my heart I welcome this Bill and give it my warmest support. It provides, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, in introducing it, the largest financial assistance, the highest subsidy ever offered to local authorities. It should, and I feel will be, a real inducement to them to go forward with speed and determination, to discharge the important duty of providing our people with decent homes, with modern amenities in which they and their families can live in comfort and happiness.
  5.0 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hare: I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise the very great sincerity with which the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) has spoken. Sincerity is a quality we admire and respect in this House, but it is no use going into sentimental arguments as to the causes for the housing shortage. The business before us today is to discuss whether this Bill will actually provide us with the houses we so urgently need. Like other hon. Members on this side of the House, I view this Bill with grave misgivings, not because of what it contains, but because of what it omits. I think the provisions of this Bill are sound but I hope that in the Committee Stage we shall be able to make improvements.
  It is no use disguising the fact that the last six months on the housing front have
  368
  been full of disappointments. The high hopes the Government inspired both in their Election campaign and in statements made by responsible Ministers since the Election, have been dashed to the ground. During this initial period of six months, a great deal of work has been done in the way of bomb damage repair in the town areas, but in the country areas where the reconditioning of cottages and farm buildings is the greatest problem with which we are faced, there has been practically nothing done at all. The contribution that hundreds of small contractors throughout the country districts could have made towards a solution of this problem have been completely nullified by the repeal of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. It is no use the hon. Member for Thornbury producing letters from his constituents, because I could bore the House with an equal number of letters from constituents who have been prevented from putting their houses in order owing to the repeal of that Act. Meanwhile local authorities, urban and rural, have striven manfully to get their housing programmes under way, but at every turn they have had to face delay. Tenders are submitted for approval and passed from Government Department to Government Department. They are returned for some adjustment, they are then sent back, returned again for further readjustment, and the same interminable process of delay continues when the issue of the licence for materials is required for works which have at last been approved.
  It would not have been unreasonable for the people of this country to have expected a small stream of houses to have started flowing into production and completion by 31st January of this year. Instead, hon. Members opposite will agree, only a minute trickle has materialised. We are promised a flood in the spring and autumn; let us hope these promises will materialise. I think the production of 350 permanent houses by all the local authorities in England and Wales has come as a great shock to the hundreds of thousands of anxious families waiting for new homes. We have to face the fact that a bad start has been made, but I am sure hon. Members will agree that it is the duty of hon. Members on both sides of the House to contribute what they can to improve matters. We on this side

  369
  of the House feel that housing should be treated as a combined operation and that every possible agency should be employed to solve the problem. We suggest strongly that political prejudice should not be allowed to enter into the matter. In this Bill the Minister pins his whole faith to the local authorities, and turns his back on private enterprise. Why? He explained the reasons very clearly in his statement in October to this House. He blames private enterprise for what he describes as "the marzipan ribbon development" that took place after the last war. He accuses the speculative builder of a series of monstrous crimes against aesthetics. That is the background of his prejudice against the private building industry. Surely such arguments are not valid today. Of course there was shocking development after the 1914–18 war, but to condemn the whole of the building industry for the bad behaviour of a small section of its community, is carrying prejudice much too far. The Minister knows perfectly well that he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning have ample powers to make such a development impossible. He is merely begging the question by using arguments of this kind.
  In the Minister's decision that priority should be given to the construction of houses for the lower income groups, we on this side of the House fully concur. But our contention is that private enterprise, given a proper directive and adequate financial assistance from the Minister, can, in combination with the local authorities, make an enormous contribution to this very task.
  With building costs at their present level some subsidy is necessary to the private builder, but this Bill, with the exception of a very small and, in my opinion, inadequate concession to those who wish to build cottages for agricultural workers, does not provide any such subsidy. I am certain that once the flow of houses is started on a large scale the subsidies to private enterprise, if the Minister would change his mind, could be reduced gradually to nothing. We saw this happening after the last war and I am certain the efficiency of the industry, if given its head, under adequate control, would ensure the reduction of these costs very rapidly. It is this question of costs which is the Minister's greatest headache at the moment and only if he succeeds in
  370
  reducing costs will his building programme have any chance of succeeding. I hope he will tell us in some detail at the end of the Debate what steps he is taking in this respect. I understand that others far more qualified than I am are going to discuss this all-important question of costs and therefore I will leave it for the moment.
  There are several points aboutwhich I would be grateful for information from the Minister. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, the Minister can make a grant to a local authority towards the loan charges for the acquisition of bomb devastated sites. Will those who have received assistance towards the acquisition of these bombed area sites qualify for the grant under Clause 4 of this Act by which any local authority is entitled to extra Exchequer assistance for the erection of flats on sites costing more than £1,500 per acre? Can it be made quite clear than no grant made by the Exchequer will prejudice the actual cost which a local authority has incurred in purchasing such a site? This is an important point affecting large towns, such as London and Liverpool, which suffered severe enemy air attacks on their vital centres of industry and population.
  That brings me to my next point. If full advantage of the subsidies contained in this Bill is to be taken by local authorities, a statement from the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, is necessary, because these local authorities wish to know how far the Minister of Town and Country Planning is prepared to exercise his powers, under the 1944 Act, in giving assistance towards loan charges for the acquisition of these blitzed areas. Powers granted under this Bill enable the Minister to make a full contribution towards the loan charges for the acquisition of such a site for two years. He can extend that contribution for a further eight years, and, if he thinks fit, this contribution by the Exchequer towards the loan charges can be extended for a further five years, making a maximum period for Exchequer assistance of 15 years.
  I fear that many local authorities will hesitate to go ahead and develop sites of the type I have mentioned unless some clarification of what the Minister intends to do is made available at an early date.

  371
  In July last, the L.C.C. decided to approach the Minister of Town and Country Planning on this very point. It will be noted that the "Caretaker" Government was in power at that date. Unfortunately, in August certain undesirable events took place. The result of that was that Lord Latham, who leads the L.C.C, has not, in actual fact, approached the Minister of Town and Country Planning on the subject despite the fact that his Council had decided that this should be done. Presumably, he does not wish to embarrass his Socialist friends in Westminster. But clarification on that point would be of enormous assistance if the Minister is really anxious for local authorities to go ahead with their development plans, and make use of the powers which will be made available when this present Bill becomes law.
  Finally, I wish to deal with the desirability of the erection, by local authorities, of a greater proportion of new houses for sale rather than for rent. The normal man, whether he be rich or poor, wishes to own the house in which be lives Both sides of the House will be unanimous on that. The Minister himself last October said that the Government did not desire to prevent people from owning their own houses. According to his own statement, if his plans materialise and are successful, the future trend of the provision of houses will be for local authorities to provide four houses to every one house produced by private enterprise. As the number of houses available for sale will thus be considerably reduced, I hope that the Minister will undertake to stress to local authorities that they should exercise their existing powers, both to provide houses for sale, as they can do under the 1936 Housing Act, and to make loans at low rates of interest to those who are anxious to acquire them.
  There are two very strong arguments in favour of such a course. Firstly, wages have risen considerably since 1939, and it is true to say that the ranks of potential house owners have enormously swollen since that date. In highly socialised countries such as Sweden and Denmark, it is the universal practice for the municipality to provide houses for the lower paid workers for sale rather than for rent. Members who have had a chance to go to those countries will agree
  372
  that we have a lot to learn from them in regard to their lay-out of sites, and their development and technique in house construction. Secondly, the Minister has rightly said on many occasions that mixed development has been almost non-existent in the past. There has been almost a complete division between income groups. They live in separate colonies. I understand, from a statement which appeared in the Press as the result of a private conference which the Minister had in Newcastle last weekend, that there is a good chance that he will encourage the provision of homes for the higher income groups in new estate development. I hope he will take a leaf out of the Tory manifesto in the present L.C.C. Election.
  Mr. Bevan: I will take all the leaves out.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hare: If the right hon. Gentleman has had the good sense to read that manifesto he will have seen that we recommend that a proportion of all new large estates that are being developed shall be earmarked for these who wish to purchase and not to rent their homes. It will require a very strong lead from the Minister to persuade local authorities to alter customs to which they have been accustomed in the past. I hope that some assurance on that point will be forthcoming in the Debate.
  In conclusion, may I say that I know there is no one more sincerely devoted to his task than the Minister, or more anxious to deal with this housing problem? I regret that I do not believe he is going the right way about it I hope I am wrong. I trust that he will seriously consider the many points of criticism which will be raised in this Debate. Perhaps the experience of a fellow Socialist, Dr. Addison as he then was, who was confronted with almost this identical position after the last war, may be worth noting. Like the present Minister of Health, he started off by concentrating the whole of his housing programme through the local authorities by means of the 1919 Housing Act. Towards the end of that year he panicked—I hope the present Minister will not do so—and he gave private enterprise subsidies far greater than it need have had. The result of his efforts, as we know, was complete failure. It was not until 1923, when the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain became Minister of Health, that any real progress towards dealing

  373
  with the housing problem was begun— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. Whether hon. Members opposite like it or not the annual output of houses increased from that date, and that is a fact. I believe that the Minister is humble enough to realise that valuable lessons may be learned from the past. I hope that he can be persuaded to profit by them.
  5.19 p.m.
  Lady Megan Lloyd-George: I rise to support wholeheartedly the Bill which is before the House today. I would like to congratulate the Minister on it, and also the Parliamentary Secretary upon the sturdy and vigorous speech with which he introduced it. My only complaint of substance against the Bill is that I wish it had been introduced earlier because, quite frankly, I think that a great number of local authorities in the country have held back from drawing up their plans, because of the fact that they did not know what the rate of subsidy was to be. I believe this to be particularly so in rural areas where the dominating factor and the great stumbling block in the years before the war has been the lack of finance. May I say to the Minister, therefore, that I particularly welcome the section of the Bill which deals with the special Exchequer contribution to be made in rural areas and for the agricultural population? These proposals are taken, I am glad to think, lock, stock and barrel from the Hobhouse Report. As a member of that Committee, as is also my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), I would like to congratulate the Minister on showing, in this instance, his native shrewdness in knowing a good thing when he sees it.
  As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) earlier in the Debate, there are houses in some of the loveliest villages in every part of these islands which are as deplorable and as injurious to health as any house you could find in the worst slums in the great cities. There is no excuse for a slum anywhere. There is less excuse, somehow, for slums in country villages. It is in these very areas where it is most necessary to build new, modern houses, that the product of a penny rate is so low. Therefore, you get this vicious circle of poverty. I for one am thankful from my heart that this vicious circle is at last to be broken. I hope it is. If it is not, then
  374
  we shall have to take further measures to see that it is.
  At any rate, here is an attempt to break that circle. I would like to quote only one of many instances, of these hard-hit areas. This particular case is in my own constituency, where the product of a penny rate is under £700. When the Rural Housing Committee was considering this matter there were no statistics, no arguments, brought before them which were so convincing to their minds as a visit to Anglesey. It is very easy to condemn some of these smaller local authorities out of hand. Some of them are recalcitrant. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will whip them up. I hope he will use the powers he possesses. At the same time we must remember that the great majority of them have been up against circumstances which they could not overcome. How was it possible for them, with all the burdens that have heaped upon them in late years, and with their means so restricted, to face up to a great housing programme? I am very glad, as I say, that at least their special difficulties have been realised, and to some extent, met in this Bill.
  Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway set great store upon reconditioning cottages in rural areas. They say, "Why not revive the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, or substitute for it some similar provision?" Well, this matter again has been referred by the Minister to the Hobhouse Committee of which I am a member. That committee have produced an interim report. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Minister to publish that report. All that it would be proper for me to say at the moment is that I do believe that in the present critical housing shortage, all means should be used— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but should be used to increase suitable accommodation. That is a very important proviso. How much increased accommodation is going to be made available if we recondition? In many cases there would be no increase. Houses may be improved and that is a very desirable thing. But I believe that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway have always exaggerated the contribution that reconditioning can make.
  I believe that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was a very useful Act. I supported it, but I would point out that

  375
  even in the peak year, when its provisions were used most, only 1,800 houses were reconditioned. That was only in very limited parts of the country. There were some counties which never made any use of the Act at all. There were counties like Devon which had an extremely good record, but, taking the country by and large, it did not result in a very great increase in accommodation. I think that, whatever decision the Minister comes to on this matter, there are two conditions which must be observed. One is that, in the desire to recondition houses in rural areas, standards must not be allowed to be debased. I think there is a very real danger of that happening and of houses being brought into use that really ought to be condemned. The other condition is that labour should not be diverted for this purpose from the building of new permanent houses which, I think, should be a far more important consideration.
  I would like to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) in one or two things that he said about the setting in which we have to look at this Bill, and the means which are at our disposal to make it effective. I would ask the Minister one thing with regard to the progress reports that he is now going to publish from time to time. I do not know whether it would be possible, say at quarterly intervals, if not more often, to make available the number of applications for houses which are on the books of local authorities, so that we may be in a better position to measure, on one side, the problem, and on the other side to assess the progress that is being made in dealing with the housing shortage in various parts of the country.
  Mr. Bevan: May I answer that point now? I may not have time to deal with all these points later. It would be a very misleading figure. Numbers of people have their names on several lists, especially in crowded cities. The lists would be unduly swollen, and would not be an accurate representation of the position. Furthermore, a lot of people leave their names on the list even when they have obtained accommodation.
  Lady Megan Lloyd-George: I fully appreciate the difficulty, but I ask the Minister whether it would not be possible
  376
  for these local authorities to give, at any rate, an approximate figure as to the number of applications. After all, we must be able somehow to measure the problem. The right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon expressed this afternoon disappointment at the number of houses that have been built. He said what a miserable few they are. I would point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself has some responsibility in this matter. Before the war it was estimated, I think, that six months was a fair period between the time when the plans were approved, and in their final stages, and the completed house. Taking into consideration the difficulties of today, it would be fair to say, I suppose, that the period is now something like five or six months.
  So that, in fact, these figures which were produced by the Minister the other day are the result, very largely, of the plans left in the Ministry by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon himself. Certainly no one would say they are very impressive figures—352 houses completed and 17,000 begun, and, temporary houses, 12,000 erected and 25,000 begun. I would like to say, however, that that is not the whole of the picture given in the returns by any means. There is the very important fact that 113,000 families have been re-housed in 10 months. That is a big job, which had to be done, and let us not forget that that job has absorbed just under half the whole of the building labour available at this moment. I think myself it is too early to sit in judgment on the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does not that reflect very great credit on the plans of my right hon. and learned Friend?
  Lady Megan Lloyd-George: Really, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain about the appalling progress made and in the same breath take credit for the progress made under the plans of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Croydon. I would like to say that the Minister of Health has told us that we shall see the houses going up in the spring. By all accounts, spring will be a little late this year, but it is not to be wondered at. Let us be quite fair to the Minister. He has an immense task and immense difficulties to face. They

  377
  are just as formidable as the difficulties which faced us on the question of supply during the war. After all, the right hon. Gentleman came into office in August, with the war only just over, and when the active building season was practically at an end. Further, the switchover from war to peace production had not begun, and that is a very important consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) told this House that the conversion of British industry from peace to war required four years to reach its climax, and we are dealing here in this progress report with a period of only six months. I remember that, in those days, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was sometimes a little impatient, and I wonder, if the two Front Benches exchanged memories of those days, if it would induce in them a more tolerant frame of mind. I think the real test of the right hon. Gentleman is not what he has achieved in the last six months, but what he is going to achieve in the next six months. I think the real test is whether he is really organising production on a large enough scale, whether the machine is being properly geared up —
  5.35 p.m.

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

  1.Assurance Companies Act, 1946.

  2.Agriculture (Artificial Insemination) Act, 1946.

  3.Trunk Roads Act 1946.

  4.Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946.

  5. Agricultural Development (Ploughing Up of Land) Act, 1946.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUSPROVISIONS) BILL
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  5.43 p.m.
  Lady Megan Lloyd-George: As I was saying, I think the real test is not so
  378
  much what the right hon. Gentleman has achieved in the last six months, but whether production has been organised, whether the machine has been geared up and whether the policy he has framed is adequate to meet the needs of housing the people. The two main bottle necks which he will have to face, either in the carrying out of this Bill or any other part of his programme, are those of labour and material. I would like to ask two questions and I hope the Minister may be able to give us some information about them tonight. The figure of building labour employed before the war was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,070,000. It is now about 690,000 but, as I have already pointed out, half of that labour is still employed, according to the figures issued the other day, on bomb repairs. Could the right hon. Gentleman give us any estimate as to when these men will be released for permanent house-building? It is obvious that, while we have this enormous labour force locked up in bomb-repair work, it will be very difficult indeed to get on with the building of permanent houses on any scale. Could the Minister also tell us what the output per man is on bomb-repair work compared with work on other construction, and whether it is proposed to continue the cost-plus system? As everyone knows, this system has had a disastrous effect in slowing down progress.
  My third point is that temporary housing has been held up very considerably because of the delay in the delivery of fittings. Can the Minister tell the House what is the cause of this hold-up? Has there been any increase in the number of those working in the factories producing those fittings, and is full use being made of women workers in those factories? On the question of material, are we going to stick, in the main, to the old traditional methods of building? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has today told us— and I am sure the House was glad to hear it—that construction on the permanent steel house will be continued, and that there is to be a new concrete house in the rural areas. I must say that the building of concrete houses in the rural areas strikes rather a chill note to my heart. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us on this point and, perhaps, make available to the House the designs of the models he intends to build.

  379
  Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether these methods are to be used to any great extent? Otherwise we are going to find ourselves up against the most serious bottleneck of all. Take, for instance, the production of bricks. I think that the production of bricks before the war was at the rate of 8,000 millions a year. Compared with that figure, the production today is 1,300 millions. That is a very serious drop indeed. How is it proposed to make up the deficiency? The London Brick Co., which produced roughly a quarter of the country's bricks before the war, is now working at something like 10 per cent. of its normal production. The Minister told us some time ago that conditions in the industry are bad and that he was going to try to improve them. I see that the Minister of Works yesterday met representatives of the industry and discussed these matters with them. May I say I hope that that was not the first time such meetings have taken place, and that that is not the first stage reached yesterday. Otherwise, it is going to be a very long time indeed before we make up the deficiency.
  All these experiments have been carried on over a long period of time by the Ministry of Works. They were started in the days of the Coalition Government and were carried on by the "Caretaker" Government. I suggest that we have got past the experimental stage and that the Government should definitely have made up their minds about the types of houses to be built. After all, these experiments have been established in America, for the most part, for a number of years and have now become established building practice, so that we have got that experience to build on. I am perfectly certain that unless we make use of varied and alternative building materials, the right hon. Gentleman will be held up disastrously in this matter. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to give us a little more information on that point when he comes to reply to the Debate tonight. No task has ever offered a greater challenge to successive Governments, to local authorities, employers and workers in this country than this question of the provision of houses for the people. I believe that it can and will be solved if we tackle it with a far greater sense of urgency than we have shown to date. I believe it can be solved if we secure that co-operation
  380
  among all parties and sections of the nation for which the Prime Minister appealed in these critical peacetime days.
  5.51 p.m.
  Mr. McAllister: The House can congratulate itself on the fact that, up to the present, this Debate has been conducted with extreme moderation and with nothing but the most earnest desire to try to solve the desperate housing problem. I think the one departure from that state of mind was the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink), who repeated a statement which he had made several times in this House, namely, that private enterprise built four out of five houses in the period between the wars. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a former Minister of Health, ought to know his statistics just a little better than that. The facts are that 4,000,000 houses were built in England and Wales between 1919 and 1939. Of these, 2,500,000 were built by private enterprise and 1,500,000 were built by local authorities, a proportion not of four out of five, but five out of eight.
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman is challenging something that my right hon. and learned Friend said, but I must point out that the figures he gave are not the figures which he will find in the official document, "Private Enterprise Housing," Appendix 4, where he will see that the total number built by local authorities from 1st January, 1919, to 31st March, 1940—this is a Ministry of Health publication—is 1,162,939 and not 1,500,000 as he said. And under the heading of "Private enterprise" the total given is 3,029,765.
  Mr. McAllister: I am very grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his correction, but, even in the face of that document I cannot accept it because my figures are taken from the Ministry of Health statement of housing returns, published yearly up to the beginning of the war.
  Captain Crookshank: Can we then have an explanation of the discrepancy? This document that I have is an official document. It is the report of the private enterprise sub-committee af the Central Housing Committee, and it is published by the Ministry of Health. If the figures are entirely inaccurate, perhaps when the Minister replies he will tell us how the difference has arisen.
  Mr. McAllister: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will, at least, agree that it is not for me to explain the discrepancy. Of the 1,500,000 houses built between the two wars, 900,000 were built under Acts passed by Tory Governments, and 600,000 were built under Acts passed by the Labour Government. I would remind hon. Members opposite that they were in office for 18½ years and the Labour Party were in office for only two-and-a-half years. Therefore, the Labour Party built one-third of all the houses built by municipal authorities in the 20 years between the wars. They built one-third of the houses in one-eighth of the time and did it at one-fifth of the cost.
  Having said that, I would like to return to the Bill. I am sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon spent so much time dealing with the apparent misdeeds of the Labour Party in the past, and so little time dealing with the Bill itself. I join with the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on his clear and able explanation of the Bill, which was listened to with the greatest interest and pleasure by the whole House. He commended it as an instrument for solving the housing requirements of the great majority of the people in this country, and I freely admit that he made good his claim. If tomorrow all the houses and flats which this Bill is designed to create were, in fact, completed he would find eager tenants.
  The people are so desperately in need of houses that they are prepared to accept anything—any kind of shelter, from the substandard flat to the temporary house, Anything is better than life with the "in-laws"; anything is better than two women sharing the same kitchen, and anything is better than the horrible slums of my constituency—and of many other constituencies—where people suffering from tuberculosis sleep in the same bed as younger brothers and sisters, as yet unaffected. In circumstances such as these, the people are not asking for the best houses; they are asking simply for houses. But if it is the policy of His Majesty's Government—and I believe and hope it is—to provide the people with not only any kind of houses, but with homes, then I believe this Bill, in one important respect, falls very far short of the ideal.
  382
  The principle adopted in this Bill of paying subsidies for expensive sites was introduced into British housing legislation by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in the 1930 Housing Act, when housing subsidies were graded according to the cost of sites, and higher sums were paid for tenement houses than for houses with gardens. These subsidies were increased in 1935, and were again steepened in 1938 by the then Minister of Health, the late Sir Kingsley Wood. By that time a considerable change was apparent in informed quarters, where the steady deterioration in working class housing standards produced by a tenement building policy was causing considerable alarm. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who opened the Debate on that Bill for the Labour Party, went voluntarily into sackcloth and ashes and admitted his own responsibility for giving the housing subsidy policy a twist in the wrong direction; he told the Minister that the time had come to reconsider the whole position. The Lord Privy Seal prophesied that the Bill would result in a worsening of housing conditions. Eight years have passed since my right hon. Friend made that statement. In six of them, housing has been practically at a standstill. There has been time, and opportunity, to reconsider the policy. Yet, when we look at this Bill we find that, however good it is in other respects, the wrong principles of town development embodied in the 1930 and 1938 Housing Acts are to be perpetuated and intensified.
  I shall try to show to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that Clause 4 of this Bill is thoroughly bad economics, and I shall attempt to show him that sociologically it is even worse. Let us compare the costs of houses and flats under the Bill. A house of the standard recommended by the Dudley Committee costs roughly £1,000 today. Perhaps the Minister would tell me that I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary aright when I heard him say that the standard house was to be 900 square feet, and not the 950 square feet as recommended in the Dudley Report. A house of 950 square feet costs roughly £1,000 today. A flat of the same floor area would cost £1,750, assuming the cost of constructing a flat is 175 per cent. of the cost of building the equivalent house. That is a reasonable estimate, because the prewar

  383
  costs were 182 per cent. of house construction. The subsidy scale does not permit of building such spacious flats at 36 to 40 flats to an acre of land. It permits only of building much smaller flats—the Parliamentary Secretary says of 800 square feet floor area. Such a flat, at such a density, works out at £1,400 to £1,500 on land at any price at 35 flats to an acre.
  We are, therefore, faced with the fact that the Minister considers it to be good housing policy and good economics to provide people with inferior accommodation in fiats at a greatly increased cost per individual flat. He further considers it is good economics to pay a subsidy of £1,105 for a flat without a lift on land costing £5,000 to £6,000 an acre, or a subsidy of £1,267 on a flat on land costing £11,000 an acre, or a subsidy of £1,482 on land costing £20,000 an acre. At this level the discrepancy between the subsidy for a spacious modern house and an inadequate flat reaches the phenomenal figure of £888, the difference between the standard house subsidy of £594 and the £20,000 an acre subsidy of £1,482. If a lift is provided the discrepancy is even greater and the capitalised value of the subsidy goes up by a further £282. Therefore, such a flat, still costs with inferior accommodation, on land at £20,000 an acre in a combined Exchequer and local rate subsidy, an additional £1,170 as compared with a spacious family house and garden.
  If under the Bill 28,000 flats are provided on high cost land, say at £13,000 an acre in the centre of the city, they will cost the nation and local authorities in combined subsidies roughly £37 million. If the Bill were amended—and I hope careful consideration will be given to the possibility of its amendment—so that the high cost of land subsidy permitted of mixed development, say, roughly, one-third flats and two-thirds houses—I do not want him to tell me in reply that that is permitted in the Bill as it stands, because it is not—and 14,000 families were provided with accommodation at an overall density of 20 dwellings to the acre, and another 14,000 families were provided with spacious new houses in a fine modern new town, then the cost in building would go down from £51 million to £40 million and the cost of subsidies would be reduced
  384
  by almost £10 million. At the same time, the people so re housed would get more space inside their houses and outside their houses and would pay lower rents.
  The Bill does not allow that. Local authorities are not being persuaded by the eloquence of the Minister of Health to build flats rather than houses. I have so much admiration for the Celtic word wizardry of the Minister that I have no doubt he could persuade local authorities to build many more flats than they really want. However, they are not being persuaded. They are simply being told, "You must build flats on expensive sites, and nothing but flats on expensive sites." But I forget, there is one meager concession. The Bill says they may build a few houses on expensive sites provided the Minister is satisfied that the same accommodation could not have been provided on the same sites in blocks of three-storey flats. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be taking part in this Debate. If he is, I should like him to tell the House whether we are now such a wealthy country that we can afford, in rehousing 28,000 families, to throw away an additional £10 million in subsidies. If we are as wealthy as that, then this is the first indication that we have had from the Government that that is so.
  One wonders whether the Minister of Town and Country Planning has been consulted in the preparation of this Bill. whether he tendered advice, and if so, whether his advice was accepted. I hesitate to remind the Minister of Health of the pamphlet "Let Us Face The Future," the pamphlet on which he and I and all of us on these benches fought the General Election. In that manifesto we said there must be one Ministry for housing and planning. The Government changed their minds. The Government had a perfect right to change their minds, but that change of mind, I suggest, is only acceptable to the House and to the country if the Government are able to secure that close coordination between the Departments concerned that makes their amalgamation unnecessary. There is no sign of such co-ordination in this Bill. On the contrary. I should like to remind the Minister that it is the stated view of the Government that the decentralisation and dispersal of population and industry from our over-

  385
  crowded towns is one of the most urgent and necessary tasks of our generation. 1 should also like to remind him that it has always been the policy of the Labour Party to provide for increasing standards of living space for our people, and that the policy of the Labour Party, as decided at the Conference held in December, 1944, is completely at variance with the principle embodied in Clause 4 of this Bill. The Government have given repeated pledges that they will carry out the policy of decentralisation and dispersal recommended by the Barlow Commission. This Bill, as it stands, does not help that process one scrap. On the contrary, it takes us back to principles of city development which have been denounced by every enlightened authority for the last 50 years.
  I welcome the Government's announcement yesterday of their acceptance of the Abercrombie Plan for the Greater London area, which attempts, for the first time in history, to apply the principle of the limitation of the size of cities, coupled with decentralisation into garden cities and satellite towns. In the preamble the Abercrombie Report describes 100 persons per acre as the maximum desirable limit, but it accepted the fact that in special circumstances there would have to be a density of 136, and even in certain peculiar instances, a density of 200 persons to the acre. These higher instances were, however, accepted, reluctantly. In the Ministry of Health Housing Manual, the maximum density suggested for central areas of towns is 100 persons to the acre, and for central areas of very large towns the density suggested is 120 persons to the acre. In this Bill the rate of subsidies does not provide for 100 persons to the acre, or even 120 persons to the acre. It provides, at the very best, for a density of 130 to 160 persons to the acre. That is a density which if permitted at all, should be very exceptional, but it is a density which is a really intolerable and lamentable denial of living space for the ordinary wage earner, his wife and family.
  One is tempted to inquire if this Bill is the product of the combined operations of the Government, or whether it is solely the inspired view of the Minister of Health, who wishes to depart from the British tradition of the house and garden and substitute the proved Continental failure of the tenement flat. The Minister of
  386
  Health would dump his birth control barracks not only in the heart of our cities, but even in the English countryside. The Minister has always prided himself on being a revolutionary. Is this the first fruit of his revolutionary zeal? I can understand a Minister saying, "I shall not allow the high price of land in the centre of our cities to determine the living conditions of the people of this country." I could understand a Minister who said, "I shall not allow the rapaciousness of landlords to cut down in any way the living space, the elbow room, the sunlight and fresh air, the contact with grass, flowers and trees of the people of our cities." There, indeed, we should have had a revolutionary approach. But I cannot understand a Minister, and especially a Labour Minister, who says that because the nation has to pay vast sums to the landlords the people must put up with inferior living space. The Minister may say, however, that he is putting an end to suburban sprawl, and that by building high at the centre, he will be saving the countryside of Britain. If he says that, he is merely showing that he has not grasped the very elements of the problem he is trying to solve.
  Between the wars there were two things wrong with the way in which our towns and cities expanded. One was suburban sprawl, the other was increased vertical density in the centre. Why was it that in a decade a million people fled from the London county area to the suburbs of London? It was because they wanted fresh air, sunlight, more intimate contact with nature. They wanted to potter about in the garden, they wanted some sort of escape from the increased mechanisation of factory and city life. They were prepared to pay a very high price for those things in long and tedious journeys to and from their work. That is the intolerable choice that our great city civilisation places on the ordinary man and woman—the choice between a house and garden a long way from their work and a tenement flat near their work. This Bill does not present the lower paid worker with that choice at all. The workers of our great cities are to be told by this Bill that they must be warehoused, whether they like it or not.
  The hundreds of thousands of people who fled from the congested cities out to the suburbs to get better conditions before

  387
  the war were not wrong. The result was wrong, but they were not wrong. What was wrong was that there was no method of guiding the development which resulted so that the houses did not sprawl into a vast rash of red tiled bungalows and dormitory suburbs, but were grouped in compact towns related to industry, to town amenities and to the natural healthy recreations of an unspoilt countryside. Clause 4 of this Bill is a panic stricken Clause. Obsessed with the idea of the need to avoid suburban sprawl, the Minister is adopting a means which is no means and is forcing people to live in flats who want to live in houses. Although he imagines himself to be a revolutionary, the Minister is a conservative in his housing theory.
  Monumental planning may or may not have a place in democracy in our commercial and civic centres. It is an interesting and debatable point, which I will not go into now. But monumental planning has very little place in our residential areas. The ordinary people of this country have no need for the delusions of grandeur which huge-scale blocks of flats provide. The Karl Marx Hof of prewar Vienna provided living boxes of 400 square feet behind the facade of an imitation Hapsburg palace. Responsible Austrian architects now admit that those buildings were a fundamental mistake. They point out that they resulted in two things, the lowest birth-rate in Europe and the wholesale development of allotments and hutments on the outskirts of Vienna. We are told by the Minister that he weeps when he sees a woman having to carry her baby up four flights of stairs, but, surely, it is even worse to provide flat conditions of life which will certainly not arrest, but will rather accelerate, the decline in the birth-rate of this country? The Soviet Union—if the Minister thinks we are to look to Russia for an example—went in for a flat- building policy before the war. There, too, they have learnt their mistake. Professor Vladimir Witman, who might be called the Sir Patrick Abercrombie of the U.S.S.R., is planning 30 new towns for the Soviet Republic without providing a single building of more than two storeys in any one of them.
  The Minister may imagine that he is following the lead of the French architect
  388
  and planner, Le Corbusier. If he does he is profoundly mistaken. In his latest book, "The Three Foundations of a Humane Civilisation," Le Corbusier advocates decentralisation of population and industry, the creation of garden cities, and a low density housing policy. Le Corbusier has discovered, as the Minister will discover, that people will not consent to live in the clouds if land is available. The Bill can be described, in its most important Clause, as so much "flat-doodle." I would suggest to the Minister that he would be making a bad bargain if he attempts to fit out his brand new but still practically empty housing wardrobe with the cast offs from a mid-European jumble sale.
  Perhaps the Minister is of the opinion that the wishes of the people of this country should not be consulted. If that is his view, perhaps he is entitled to do it, but it does not square with my conception of Socialism, or with what I have always regarded as the outlook and policy of our great Labour Party. If the Minister thinks that the wishes of the people—even more than their wishes, their deepest desires and instinctive biological needs—should be consulted, then it is relevant to point out that Clause 4 ignores them all. During the war a great many surveys were taken to find out the kind of house in which people wanted to live. They all showed that 90 per cent. of the people of this country want to live in houses with gardens, and prefer them to flats.
  In the survey conducted by the Bournville Village Trust published in the book, "When we build again," 92.4 per cent. of the people wanted to live in houses with gardens, and of those who had no gardens, 78 1 per cent. wanted them. In the survey carried out by Mass Observation and published in the book, "People's Homes," in Dagenham, I ford, Fulham and Worcester, the people who preferred a house to a flat were from 75 to 95 per cent. in the areas covered, while, over all, only 8 per cent. of those interviewed would, by choice, inhabit a flat. In the survey carried out by the Womens' Housing Advisory Committee, 94 per cent. preferred a house to a flat. Among the Services, and particularly among the women's Services, there was an overwhelming preference for the house rather than the flat; 98 per cent. of

  389
  the men in the Forces, and 85 per cent. of the women, preferred a house to a flat. Mr. Arnold Whittick, who carried out a survey among Service people, the results of which were published in the pamphlet, "Civic design," said:
  "The voting was recorded after I had pointed out the different advantages of both types of dwelling, and had asked groups to vote on the assumption that they could live in an almost ideally developed estate of flats, with each living room facing south, with central heating, with a crêche and nursery school in each block, with a communal restaurant, club room, clinic, allotments and tennis courts, swimming pools and children's playground in each area."
  That is not the kind of thing proposed in this Bill, and yet, even then, 98 per cent. of the men, and 85 per cent. of the women in the Services preferred the house to the flat.
  In the survey conducted by the Association of Women House Property Managers, who must speak with peculiar authority on these matters, only three per cent. of those living in houses wanted to live in flats, while 79 per cent. of those living in L.C.C. flats wanted to live in houses. The Minister may urge that the people consulted did not know what a good flat looks like. My reply to that is that the advantages of flats are well known—central heating and constant hot water have very big attractions. So have labour-saving kitchens. Prewar houses were never so well equipped as prewar flats, and the flat, therefore, had an adventitious advantage in comparison with the house in that usually the flat was well equipped while the house was poorly equipped.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. While I understand it is the practice that an hon. Member may use fairly full notes, is it in Order for an hon. Member to read them in extensor?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The rule of the House is that hon. Members may not read their speeches, but they may refresh their memories. It is all a question of the degree of the refreshment.
  Mr. McAllister: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his point of Order. We are always grateful for instruction. The noble Lord is an expert on manners, no doubt, as well as on the rules of this House. I am perfectly capable of making
  390
  my speeches without even a reference to a note. I was merely trying to state a somewhat complicated and difficult case which did require that I should consult my notes rather more frequently than, perhaps, the noble Lord would have to do making a slightly less direct and pointed speech.
  I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to think again about Clause 4, and, if possible, to consider whether the Government might not introduce an Amendment to the Bill, with certain consequential Amendments which would leave it open to the local authorities to decide whether to have houses or flats or both, and in what proportion. I want to make it quite clear that I am not against flats. Flats have their use in society. They are desirable for certain sections of the community, for single persons, for older people, for young couples without children; but they are not desirable as family dwellings. I want the Minister to consider if he could amend this Clause by bringing in suitable Amendments. If he does that he will be satisfying the needs and the demands of the people in away in which the Bill, as it stands at present, does not.
  Finally, I should like to put to the Minister this simple point. When he or I or any ordinary citizen has to make up his mind about where to live, he has all sorts of things to take into consideration. He has to decide whether he will live in an expensive flat in the centre of, say, London or Manchester; or whether he will live in a suburb. If he decides on the expensive flat, he will have to pay an expensive rent. If he decides on a house in a suburb his rent will be a little less, but his daily travel charges must be added. I put this to the Minister. Suppose that he said to anyone, "Here is an expensive substandard 800 square feet flat in the centre of one of our great cities, and it is costing a minimum of £1,400 and a maximum, as far as one can gather that there is a maximum, of £1,800. You may live in this flat if you choose, but if you would prefer not to live in the flat then we will give you £1,400 or £1,800 in order that you may build and buy a house for yourself." I put it to the Minister of Health that the number of people who would, in those circumstances, prefer a flat to a house with a garden is such a small number as to be completely negligible.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Hurd: In his castigation of the Minister of Health, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) dubbed him as Conservative in his housing theories. We must disown the right hon. Gentleman. These notions which we see exemplified in this Bill are certainly not notions that we hold on these benches. The Minister is going ahead with his plan with, we think, too little regard for the practical considerations which will decide how many houses are to be put up in 1946 and how many will be put up in the years that immediately follow. I think that the Minister has undoubtedly learned something from the regional conferences he has been holding with the local authorities. We hope to see that wisdom reflected in Amendments to his preconceived notions as we go on.
  The Minister must know, as all hon. Members know, that there is a sense of frustration among local authorities at the moment. They have not been held up because they have not known the amount of the subsidies, but because of departmental red tape and the impossibility of getting started with their housing schemes. They have got their land and their plans all ready, but they are very slow in getting off the mark. In ray part of the country, Berkshire and Wiltshire, there are many small local firms of builders. They are getting back quite a number of their men from the Forces. I am afraid that too much of their enterprise and skill at the present time is being used for repair work and decorating rather than for building the new houses which we all want It is true that some small firms are overcoming the handicaps that lie in the road of their starting on their own account to put up houses. I saw a startling advertisement in my own local paper this week-end. Perhaps I may give it to the House. It says:
  "Ready early Summer. Semi-detached, six room houses Modern conveniences. Bath. Hot and cold. Main road frontage. £1,165. Freehold. Order now from the firm with a reputation for good house building. Building society terms arranged."
  There is a firm that is showing enterprise. I hope the enterprise will take the form of good houses, and if it does, I am certain that that little advertisement will have plenty of answers. How nice it would be if our local authorities, on whom the Minister is pinning all his faith, were in
  392
  the same happy position of being able to say to hundreds of applicants, "By early this summer we shall have six-roomed houses ready for you." This would be a better Bill if the Minister had remembered that in the rural areas, particularly, we have many thousands of old cottages, not too good to live in, and not too capacious. The living space is not sufficient to house a family decently. A great many of these cottages can be brought up to date and made into good houses. At the time they were built they were structurally sound. They are out of date. They can be made good for an expenditure in labour and materials of something like £400. Unfortunately, the Minister took delight in the autumn in stamping on the Housing (Rural Workers) Act.
  The Parliamentary Secretary today in his opening speech told us that they were deliberately delaying the reconditioning of these farm workers cottages. I hope that that deliberate delay will not go on too long because the need is very great, as the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) told us in his tale of the housing conditions in Gloucestershire. There are spots all over the country districts where the housing is bad. Happily, there are also many good cottages in the agricultural villages and on the farms. By all means let us have new cottages built by the local authorities in the villages and also by private enterprise. We need all we can get. I should like to ask the Minister of Health whether local authorities will be encouraged to put up some cottages for remote communities. The Minister of Town and Country Planning had recently given us the idea that some villages in his estimation are what he calls "disintegrating villages," where no new houses should be built. I do hope the local authorities will not be bound to concentrate entirely on the bigger villages. We have many villages of 300 or less people and they need just as good houses as the Government were hoping to provide in the bigger villages or in the towns. I would remind the Minister that many cottages in villages and on farms are service cottages, that is to say, they are held in connection with a man's occupation I know that that is anathema to hon. Members opposite. These cottages go with a man's job. They are occupied by cowmen, carters and so on, who are men with great responsibilities. Many of them prefer living on the

  393
  jab. By all means let these men have the choice of a cottage put up by a council or a cottage on the farm. Above all, let these men have good cottages.
  In Clause 13 of the Bill, the Minister shows decided political bias by excluding from subsidy new cottages which are built for service occupation. The leaders of the Agricultural Workers' Union make a great point of attacking tied cottages. I have no doubt that at their meetings strong things are said about tied cottages, but I do not think the ordinary farm worker really worries whether his cottage is tied or whether it is free, so long as it is a good cottage. I believe it to be a fantasy to imagine the cowman sitting down to his cows at 5.30 in the morning, grousing that he lives in a tied cottage; he is thankful his cottage is handy to his cows. I hope that soon we shall be able to tackle this problem of the service cottage with a rather more open mind.
  I want for a moment to look a gift horse in the mouth. This Bill provides special rates of subsidy for housing the agricultural population, classed with those of low rent-paying capacity. The Government hope, by an abstruse calculation, that the estimated average rent for agricultural cottages will be 7s. 6d. per week, as against 10s. per week for houses in the towns. That is a higher rent than for most agricultural cottages at the present time, but, in my view, it would not be a bad thing if farm cottage rents were fixed a little nearer to an economic figure. Indeed, the whole scale of farm cottage rents fixed by the Agricultural Wages Acts and the Rent Restrictions Acts, should now be reviewed. Like most hon. Members, during the election I referred to the desirability of bringing farm workers' earnings closer to the earnings of the men in the towns. In this Bill, we are perpetuating the idea of agriculture as a poor relation by giving special subsidies to agricultural houses over a period of 60 years. We all recognise that it is more expensive to build in the country than in the town, but I object to the idea of treating the farm worker as a poor relation for ever. I want to see the farm worker in a position of being able to pay a rent of 10s. a week for a good cottage, rather than having this special subsidy. Many of us are alarmed at the continuing tendency to subsidise agriculture directly or in-
  394
  directly. Subsidies do not breed confidence, nor, indeed, shall we have decent houses for farm workers until the men engaged in the industry are able to pay a decent rent for them.
  I should like to see the farm wage go up and an economic rent paid for farm cottages. Only in that way can we make sure that better houses are put up, and that the houses are properly maintained. At the moment rents of 3s. per week are being paid, which means £7 16s. a year to the farmer, which after rates are paid leaves only £2 or £3 to pay for repairs, to put new slates on the roof, and so on. Is it any wonder that many of our farm cottages are not as good as we should like to see them? This Bill does not help in any way to straighten out the problem. It gives generous subsidies, and I hope that it will help towards quicker building of the houses so urgently needed. We on this side of the House are not tied to any political notions. We want to see both free enterprise and local authorities getting on with the job. I hope the Minister will soon revise his ideas. He will have to revise them as the months go on.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mrs. Castle: I want wholeheartedly to endorse the eulogy given to this Bill by the Parliamentary Secretary, and the House will agree that I cannot give it any higher praise than that. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the Bill is generous in scope and sound in principle. I have been very interested to observe that the attack from hon. Members opposite has been very limp indeed. The only criticism which has been delivered with any note of conviction at all, was that from the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister). I believe that he misunderstands the purpose of the Bill and misjudges its effect. I have read the Bill very carefully and I do not see that it will lead to more flats going up where flats grew before or to flats going up in new places. However, I have to pay the hon. Member the tribute of obvious conviction. Hon. Members opposite are in a bit of a difficulty, because the only criticism which they can advance against the Bill—and the only criticism about which they feel strongly—is that it does not give public money to the speculative private builder. Hon. Members opposite

  395
  are having their last fling on the housing question. They know that we are set on the road to progressive expansion of housing through municipal channels which will leave them very shortly with no argument at all. Therefore, at this stage they are exploiting to the utmost the fact that in these early difficult months private enterprise has got off to an easy start. In case any speaker later in the Debate should feel like pressing this argument a little too far I would draw the attention of the House to the attitude of the "Economist" in regard to the figures of private enterprise housing to date. The "Economist" states:
  "One explanation of this is that the local authorities are mostly working on large schemes for which the initial preparation is greater, whereas private enterprise is building mostly in very small lots. This is borne out by the figures for housing under construction, which shows 16,000 for public, and between five and six thousand for private enterprise. Only 28.000 licences to private builders have yet been issued. It is, therefore, very improbable that private enterprise will maintain its lead for very long."
  Mr. Lipson: Will the hon. Lady allow me to remind her that "every mickle makes a muckle?"
  Mrs. Castle: I am prepared to wait on events and see how many of the private enterprise "mickles" there are when the municipal "muckle" really gets going. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have really only one conviction on this housing question—and the whole of their harking back to the history of housing between the wars goes to confirm this. They have staked their all on getting a subsidy for the private speculative builder; and they cannot get over their disappointment that that has not been achieved. I remember fighting my election campaign very substantially, so far as housing was concerned, on this point. I drew the attention of my constituents in Blackburn to the report of the Conservative Party housing committee, issued just before the General Election, in which one of the major suggestions for solving the housing problem was that a public subsidy of some £100 million should be paid to the speculative builder, in exchange for which he would very graciously submit to public control of his standards of building, and most kindly submit to rent control for a period of five years. I believe—and I have behind me the vote of the people of
  396
  Blackburn—that it is wrong to put £100 million of the taxpayers' hard earned money into private pockets in order to build houses which are privately owned and after five years subject to no control whatever.
  I have always been at a loss to understand why there should be this emphasis on the need for subsidising and giving a free rein to the speculative builder. Of, course, my right hon. Friend is not excluding private enterprise from his housing scheme. Local authorities are not going to build the majority of these houses by direct labour. They are going to build them with the aid of private builders and pay them a fair profit for doing their job. What then is this extra inducement which the speculative builder seeks in asking to be given a free hand? Is it that he seeks an unfair profit; because under municipal contracts he can get a fair profit in any case? I am strongly behind the Minister in the confidence he places in the municipal authorities in this question of housing. I was very interested to read an article on Sunday by Sir Miles Mitchell endorsing the Minister's view that the local authorities could and would carry this burden. It is, therefore, very important to know what are the reactions of the municipalities to this Bill. I think that it can be agreed that local authorities generally are pleasantly surprised by the concessions that have been made by the Minister. On three major points he has met them substantially and generously— the three to one ratio of Exchequer subsidy to rate contribution is a concession they appreciate; the fixing of a definite period for the operation of these subsidies as against the operation of a sliding scale is a concession they appreciate; the sixty year period is a concession they appreciate.
  There is one point, however, which I wish to take up with the Minister this evening. That is the argument which is going on between him and the local authorities as to what will be the actual size of the deficit which will remain to be met by subsidies. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his most moving and convincing speech, established it as a cardinal point of the Minister's policy that these houses should be let at rents averaging 10s. a week. I do not think that many of them are going to be let at less than that; therefore, it is a matter of primary concern that there should not be a large

  397
  number let at more than that figure. The big question mark in all these calculations is what is the present range of building costs, what should be the present range of building costs, and what will be the future range of building costs. In his housing policy the Minister's intentions are impeccable and his exhortations to local authorities most excellent. But on this aspect of policy he is putting a task on them which I do not think is a very feasible one.
  In November last, the Minister issued three directives to local authorities. In the first place, he told them to build and plan their new houses to the full Dudley standard, 900 square feet minimum area for a three bed roomed house. That, of course, they welcome, and we welcome. After all, we are building now for many years ahead, and we are building for the men who have been promised a great deal during this war, and it is only right and proper that we should start our great housing programme on a basis and to a standard which is adequate for our modern conceptions and ideals.
  Secondly, he asked the local authorities to get off to an early start with some portion of their housing programme in order that they should be ready to absorb the labour coming back from the Forces and not allow it to drain away in trivial repair work. Thirdly—this is the crux of the whole question—he asked the local authorities to take a strong line on the question of tenders and to turn their backs sternly on those which were unreasonably high, even if that meant a delay in carrying out their housing programme. That, undoubtedly, has meant a certain amount of delay. According to the Minister's own figure, up to January last some 10 per cent of local authority tenders were rejected on the grounds that they were unreasonably high, and some of these tenders have been reduced by cutting out what the Minister thinks are "frills"—but with that all of us may not agree.
  I suggest to the Minister that he is leaving the local authorities rather single-handed to fight this battle of building costs—one of the most serious battles which face us in the housing field. Is the deficit on these houses going to be £22, as the Minister visualises, or is it going to be £30, which the local. authorities visualise? If the Minister is wrong and
  398
  the local authorities are right then we are faced with this situation: Local authorities will have to take the rap. They will be left then with the decision as to whether they should put an extra burden, in addition to their statutory rate contributions, on the rates, or let these houses at more than 10s. a week rent; and that will mean in many cases that with rates included— and rates are going to be inflated by this housing programme—these houses will let at something nearer a gross rent of £1 a week. In my constituency three-bed-roomed houses completed just before the war were letting at a gross rent of 10s. 7d. a week. I admit that the postwar houses will be better houses; but are we always going to deny to the low income groups a share in our progress in housing development, because the rents move beyond their range?
  I agree with everything that the Parliamentary Secretary said about the importance of giving the low income groups a fair share in future of the good things that are coming in houses; but I am afraid that unless something drastic is done about building costs we shall find . the rents creeping up and up, and then these fine houses will move outside the range of the people who have as much right to them as anyone else. I know the Minister appreciates as much as any of us the importance of checking and controlling building costs. I ask him what is his mechanism of control? The only one I have been able to discover so far is the mechanism of stone-walling—of refusing to accept excessive tenders. That is a mechanism which is incompatible with the need for a tremendous stride forward in housing progress, at top speed, and it is also a mechanism which may interfere with the steady flow of production which would bring down building costs by increasing housing construction per man hour. I am sorry that the "Housing Return for England and Wales," which is so adequate in other respects, does not give full details on this issue of building costs. What is the main cause of these high prices? If we knew that, we could give the Minister our full support in combating whatever is the cause, and we could decide as a representative body what is the best way to meet the situation. I do suggest to him that he is being a bit canny about this question. He is not giving us the information and I believe he is thereby

  399
  weakening his own fight against whatever vested interests may be standing between us and the realisation of a democratic housing programme.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: I should like to begin by answering the general charges made by the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), which were really a repetition of what has been the gist of many speeches from the other side. He, and other hon. Members, referred to the 20 years between the wars as a period during which the Conservative Party were really in power and it is suggested that that party should not be proud of its record. I say that the record of house construction in this country during that 20 year period is without any precedent in any other country in the world. There were 8,000,000 houses in this country in 1919. In 20 years, another 4,000,000 houses were added. It is not a bad performance to add 50 per cent. to the number of houses in the country in a period of 20 years, and during a period when other things had to be done at the same time. There was the building of factories and the building of other industrial premises, and the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that today again the President of the Board of Trade is asking that there shall be, in the Development Areas, a good deal of labour diverted to the building of new factories
  As far as housing in this country was concerned, the Conservative Party put first things first. The first thing was to overtake the shortage of the number of separate dwellings and by about 1933 there were as many separate dwellings as there were families. In fact, by1933, the first problem had been overtaken—that of the shortage of housing—and not until then, did the Conservative Party turn its attention to slum clearance. That is exactly the situation in which the Minister of Health finds himself today. We hear from the hon. Member for Thornbury about the appalling conditions that exist in this country today, but the Minister is rightly saying exactly what the Conservative Party said 20 years ago—a Government cannot begin demolishing the slums until they have overtaken the acute housing shortage which exists in the country. It was under the regime of Sir Edward Hilton Young as he then was that subsidies for the building of new houses were
  400
  completely done away with, and it was under that legislation, that subsidies were limited to slum clearance All the slum clearance in London, for which we have heard the Socialist Members opposite take credit on behalf of the Socialist London County Council was done under the enabling legislation which was passed by the predominantly Conservative Parliament of 1931–35
  Mr. Bevan: Which was the first Slum Clearance Act?
  Mr. Molson: I am not talking about which was the first Slum Clearance Act. The first Slum Clearance Act was not conspicuously successful and when it was passed it was in charge of the present Lord Privy Seal.
  Mr. Bevan: Because it was not operated by the succeeding Governments.
  Mr. Molson: Really it is not a question of why it was not operated by a Tory Government, but rather of the extent to which it was operated by the local authorities. The proof of the pudding must be in the eating, and what happened was that an improved Slum Clearance Act was passed by Sir Edward Hilton Young when he was Minister of Health. I am perfectly willing to give such measure of credit as is appropriate to the Socialist majority of the London County Council, which carried out extensive slum clearance in London under legislation passed by a very distinguished and successful Conservative Minister of Health. That is the party's record, first of all, to provide the necessary number of houses; secondly, to pass the legislation enabling slum clearance to be undertaken. When that was well under way, we then passed legislation which made overcrowding in houses an offence. By the time the war broke out 4,000,000 additional houses had been added to the equipment of the country and there were subsidies only for slum clearance and also for the reduction of overcrowding.
  The hon. Member for Thornbury said that whatever might have been the performance of private enterprise—and he knows perfectly well that three out of four of all the houses built in this country during those 20 years were built by private enterprise—it was not a matter of any great interest to the working classes, because very few of those houses were built to let. Let us look at that statement.

  401
  It is quite true that before the Four Years' War the vast bulk of the houses that were built—90 per cent. to be accurate—were built for letting. Those were the days when the working classes of this country had so little purchasing power that a comparatively small proportion of them could afford to buy their own homes. It is a matter of immense satisfaction to us that the great development of building societies and the development of thrift in this country has enabled a large proportion of the houses that have been built during the 20 years' truce to be built for the owner-occupier, in spite of that, it is a fact that very nearly 500,000 houses were built by private enterprise for letting. I apologise for taking up so much of the time of the House, but I think it is about time that some of the facts and figures were stated, and in stating these facts quite plainly, we are not in the least nervous about being reminded about "homes for heroes." It took a very long time, but by the outbreak of the present war we were well on the way to the solution of the housing problem.
  As regards the Bill, I would begin by mentioning the points in it on which I am able to congratulate the Minister and to support him. The subsidies are very large and also very generous. The Treasury provides three-quarters instead of two-thirds for 60 years instead of for 40. I believe all that to be quite necessary, and extremely desirable. I also congratulate the Minister on having provided for an early review of the present figures of the subsidies. It is anybody's guess what building costs will be, and he is right and wise to ensure that he can at an early date review, in the light of experience, what the subsidy should be. I am also glad that the subsidies, if at all, now err on the generous side. I have already given a brief sketch of the history of housing during the past 20 years. On each occasion when subsidies were reduced there followed a reduction in the cost of building, and I hope that one effective way of reducing the cost of building will be a reduction in the subsidies. I would like to say one more kind word about the right hon. Gentleman before I come to my criticisms. He has always recognised the vital importance of reducing building costs. May I quote, not for the first time, a passage on this subject in the report of the rural
  402
  housing sub-committee on which, so far as I know, I was the only Conservative member, certainly the only Conservative Member of Parliament:
  "At present building costs are inflated by all sorts of factors, some of which should cease with the war, and the cost of the wartime agricultural cottages cannot, therefore, be taken as a guide. It is obvious to anyone, conscious of the limitations of the national resources, that it would be impossible to carry out the long term housing programme of 4,000,000 houses at the present level of building costs. To do so would involve locking up so large a share of the national resources in housing as to make it impossible to meet many other equally urgent social needs."
  Therefore, I hope we may hear from the right hon. Gentleman, when he winds up the Debate, what other steps, besides a progressive reduction in subsidies, he will take in order to reduce the cost of building. I also welcome Clause 17 of the Bill, the purpose of which is to encourage the development of new non-traditional methods of construction. I am also glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the general recommendation of the rural housing sub-committee for an especially large and generous subsidy to be paid in the case of rural houses. Their standard has fallen far behind that in the urban areas, and special assistance, in our view, was necessary.
  But from that point onward I fear I am unable any longer to agree with the Minister. Why has the assistance which has been given to local authorities in rural districts been so grudgingly given to private individuals? Why has it not been given at all in urban areas? Agricultural cottages fall into two classes. Either they are held by service tenancies, which are called tied cottages, or by contracts of tenancy, and come under the Rent Restriction Acts. Why are the Government at pains to exclude the tied cottages from the provisions of this Bill? The Government are asking for more intensive cultivation of the countryside; they are paying subsidies in order that more land shall be brought under the plough Yet they are fully aware that the greatest of all difficulties facing agriculture at the moment, is the shortage of housing, and its poor standard. Surely it would only be logical and consistent, if there were full and cordial co-operation between the Ministers of Health and Agriculture that when the Minister of Agriculture is paying subsidies, and doing all he can to encourage development of the countryside

  403
  —when he has said that to carry out his programme there must be 100,000 more agricultural labourers—the Minister of Health would not be unwilling to give assistance to landlords to provide the houses that are so needed.
  Are the terms of this Bill to be indicative of the spirit in which the Minister of Health will administer the law as it is at present? I would like to put before the Minister a case which was brought to my notice by a neighbour of mine in the country. He is a rather large landowner, and he went to the Ministry in August, 1945, and obtained a permit for the building of certain houses for agricultural workers. As from January this year, there was an increase in the wages of building operatives, and he consequently went back to the Ministry and asked for a permit to enable him to complete those houses at the additional cost, which directly arose out of the increase in building operatives wages. He was told that a permit could not be given, that the expectation was that with the higher rates of wages output would be so much greater from the building operatives that the problem would not arise. He said, "Am I to understand that my builder and I, who began building these houses under your plan in August, 1945, will not now be provided with a permit so that they can be completed?" He was refused, and he said that he and the builder would finish the houses and that, if necessary, both were prepared to go to gaol.
  What is the position? Is the Minister prepared to do all he can to encourage landowners, who are able and willing to do so, to provide houses, or is the general administration of his Department to be similar to the terms of this Bill? Will there be the same hidebound doctrinaire hostility to anything which is not Socialistic in its outlook? Why is it that whereas in the case of local authorities permits may be given them for building houses of more than 1,000 square feet in area, such permits will not be given to private enterprise?
  Now I come to the question of reconditioning. I would like to know how it is going on, and whether the Minister can tell us how his mind is working on this matter. For example, has he received any report on the subject and, if so, is he prepared to publish it? The right hon.
  404
  Gentleman will remember that at one time he plunged us into the depths of despair when we thought there would be no reconditioning. Then he aroused our hopes later by saying that, in good time, he would not only reintroduce reconditioning, but would provide a better Statute than the one which he found on the Statute Book. Would the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, be good enough to let us know how things are progressing in that respect? It is a matter of very great seriousness to people in the countryside.
  Reconditioning can be done, improvements can be carried out, under the Rent Restrictions Acts, and any improvement of that kind which is made can be charged to the tenant on the rent of 8 per cent. of the additional cost which has been provided out of the landowner's pocket. Therefore, the effect is that the tenants of rich men are able to have water supply, drainage, electricity, and so on, put in. It is those who are living in their own houses or on impoverished estates who are unable to obtain these benefits. Therefore, it seems to me extraordinary that the hon. Member for Thornbury should have denounced those Acts. I ask him to read the report of the rural housing sub-committee, which pointed out that "the conditions attached to the grant are designed to ensure that the whole benefit of the improvement goes to the tenant." I hope the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will tell us something more on the subject of reconditioning.
  I want to ask a further question about the position of a builder who builds for the local authorities as compared with one who builds for private enterprise, or for himself. Is it the case that many of the contracts which the right hon. Gentleman approves, and which are let by the local authorities, not only provide for the lump sum mentioned in the contract, but also provide that if there is an increase, for example, in the price of building materials or if there is an increase in wages, an additional payment may be made by the local authority? Is it the case that with those contracts the private builder who enters into them is, in point of fact, safeguarded against many of the hazards and risks which he has to carry if he is building for himself? Does the right hon. Gentleman try to take this into account when he considers the figure at which he is prepared to approve a tender

  405
  by a local authority? I understand that price is not rigidly fixed, although he has rigidly fixed the maximum price at which he is prepared to approve the building of a house by private enterprise.
  I ask him also to consider whether it is not the case that there is a great dislocation where a local authority asks for tenders for the undertaking of a large housing scheme. Perhaps 25 builders tender and only one tender is accepted, and in the case of the other 24, a great deal of work has gone into preparing the tenders and then, afterwards, the builders have to look around for other work, and an amount of labour has been accumulated, and is left without employment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with these points in his concluding speech. It is only in this way, hon. Members on this side believe, that the maximum production of houses can be obtained in this country—if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to reconsider the general principles of this Bill, and to use private enterprise as well as local authorities.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Smith: I must confess to a certain amount of surprise at the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). My surprise is not due to the circumstance that he, with a curiosity worthy of Rosa Dartle, addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health I do not know how how many questions—I lost count of them. My surprise arises from the fact that the hon. Member for The High Peak, whom I have always esteemed as a rather shrewd tactician in this House, should have allowed himself to be drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) into an exordium, which lasted ten minutes, and delayed the real content of his speech, with an unnecessary defence of the political record of the Conservative Party in the interwar period. I suggest that that is a closed chapter. It was closed last summer, when the political tide, sweeping through Derbyshire, swept away every Conservative Member, with the very distinguished exception of the hon. Member for The High Peak.
  I would like to bring the House back to the financial realities appertaining to this Bill. My hon. Friend the junior Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)
  406
  raised a point about the financial burdens which are imposed upon the country as a consequence of this Measure. She referred to the rises in rates which are a prospect under this Bill. This Bill inflicts heavy burdens on ratepayers and taxpayers alike by virtue of the subsidies, burdens which, in my opinion, are absolutely unnecessary and could be done without. I believe there is no need whatever for the subsidies. Let me take, as an instance, the normal house about which we have heard today, the house which is to cost about £1,100, and is to have a subsidy of £22 a year. It is not an accident that the interest, at the rate of 3⅛ per cent. per annum, on the £1,100 will in the first year give rise to a burden of some £34. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) have on the Order Paper an Amendment, the terms of which will be familiar to hon. Members, in the course of which we suggest that, instead of these burdensome subsidies, which will impose heavy burdens on the ratepayers and taxpayers alike, the Treasury should use its powers under the Bank of England Act to direct the clearing banks to create credits for local authorities' housing schemes at a rate not exceeding 1 per cent, per annum. If the rate of interest on £1,100 were 1 per cent. per annum, instead of 3⅛ per cent., the interest burden in the first year would be not £34 odd., but about £11.The saving would be some £23 In other words, the need for the subsidies would be completely wiped out.
  I am very disappointed that the Labour Government should have thought fit to perpetuate these subsidies, and for no better reason that I can conceive than to maintain the artificial practice of paying interest on these loans at what is more or less a market rate. The right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink), who opened the Debate for the Opposition, referred to certain burdens he had had to carry, burdens which, I believe, took the form of a baby, in the early days of his married life. I feel very strongly about another kind of burden I had to carry. When I was demobilised after the last war, having had four-and-a-half years in France, and desiring some domestic comfort, I chose to marry the girl of my choice. I decided to get married, and I wanted a house in which to put my bride. The only

  407
  money I had was the rather exiguous Army subsidy, which did not amount to very much; and in order to get a house for my wife, I had to go to a building society, which charged me 6½ per cent. per annum, which was the rate in those days. I thought then, and I think now, that that rate of interest was perfectly preposterous, utterly monstrous, and totally indefensible. Today, the building society rate is down to 4 per cent.; it is rather more than the 3⅛ per cent. at which local authorities can borrow.
  But I had been led to believe, by the speech of my right hon. Friend in the House last October, when he dealt with the housing programme, that he did not intend to expose local authorities to this burden of 3⅛ per cent. per annum. He made a very strong statement about building societies in which he used this very emphatic language:
  "The conflict will be—and I warn hon. Members of it—between public housing on the one hand and the moneylender on the other."—[Official Report, 17th October. 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1225.]
  He said he was not going to expose the people of this country to the danger of a whole lot of saved up money being let loose for lending to build houses at whatever rate of interest could be obtained. I was led to hope from that that we were not going to have to carry this burden of 3⅛ per cent. per annum. Is there such a great difference between 3⅛ per cent. and 4 per cent.? Four per cent, is the established building society rate; 3⅛ per cent. is the rate which the local authorities will have to pay. I submit that 3⅛ per cent. is a burden for this reason. It is generally known that money, after all, is created out of nothing by the banks. I use that phrase quite deliberately and very advisedly—"created out of nothing "—because I am perfectly well aware that once it seeps through into the consciousness of the man in the street—or better still, the man in the pub —that money is created out of nothing by the banks, then there will be the beginnings of a great change in public opinion which will have the effect of reducing very substantially the burdens on loans of this kind.
  After all, there is no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to help my right hon. Friend's housing programme, should not direct the clearing
  408
  banks to create the necessary money, however much is needed, and lend it to the local authorities at I per cent. per annum. It is useless for hon. Members to say to me, as some of them have since I put this Motion on the Order Paper, "Would you lend your own money at I per cent. per annum?" There is no comparison between the two sets of circumstances. I would invite the House to envisage the hypothetical condition of things in which I put my hand in my pocket to lend money to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. If I lent him £100, the condition would be that I should part with the £100 I lent him, and having put my hand in my pocket I should be entitled to claim some interest as the wages of abstinence. That is only fair. The banks, however, do not part with the money they lend; they create it. The authorities who corroborate that statement are so numerous and so respectable—names like the late Reginald McKenna and the late Hartley Withers —that I do not need to repeat them or quote them.
  I would remind the House that the process by which money is created is described with the most meticulous choice of language in Paragraphs 71 and 74 of the Report of the Macmillan Committee on Finance and Industry, 1931. The process is perfectly well known to hon. Members of this House who follow that kind of thing. The Bank of England begins by buying securities in the open market. The seller of the securities is paid with a draft on the Bank of England. He takes that draft to his own bank, which is one of the clearing banks; and, when he has put it in, the clearing bank finds itself with that much more bank cash and proceeds to erect upon it a pyramidal edifice of 10 times the amount in loans which it pays out, circulating £10 for £1. The £10 begin their existence as new money in the form of a book entry, and they continue their existence, circulating from one bank to the other, thanks to the accidental and purely fortuitious invention of the cheque-book.
  There is no need for these subsidies whatever when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is empowered, as he now is, to direct the money to be created at a rate of interest of 1 per cent. per annum, which would be more than sufficient to cover the Bank's administrative charges

  409
  and at the same time do away with the need for these burdensome subsidies. 1 know that things in this country go by precedent—I am always being told so— but happily in the short period during which I have been a Member of this House we have had a precedent sufficient for the purpose I am advocating now. Last October the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House how he had saved the taxpayers £32 million a year through conferring with the Governor of the Bank of England and the chairmen of the clearing banks, and then persuading the clearing banks to reduce from I per cent. to ½per cent. the interest on Treasury Bills and from 1¼ per cent. to five-eighths of I per cent, the interest on Treasury Deposit Receipts—reducing short-term interest in that way in a perfectly arbitrary fashion merely by going into a huddle with the bankers, even before the Bank of England Act was on the Statute Book. Thus my right hon. Friend saved the taxpayers £32 million a year, and he gloated about it in this House. I am all for it, but why not apply this precedent to the housing programme?
  It is useless for anyone to try to tell me that this would mean inflation. Every hon. Member knows perfectly well that somehow, somewhere, new money has to come into the system every year. In the ordinary course of peacetime existence there is and must be a steady increase of bank deposits merely to keep pace with the rising population and, much more important, with expanded business due to the constant impact of cumulatively improving technology which expands the output of consumer goods. It is necessary to increase the amount of money coming in from outside every year. In practice it comes in through the banks increasing their deposits. If I study the way in which that happened in peacetime before the war, I find that from 1934 to 1935 there was a quiet unobstrusive increase in bank deposits of 6 per cent. of the total. The following year that quiet, unobstrusive increase was 10 per cent., new money coming into existence as a debt owing to the banks, money they had created out of nothing but upon which they reckoned to charge interest at the market rate. If from 1935 to 1936 you could have the circulating currency of the country increased in that way by 10 per cent. behind everybody's back, coming into existence as a debt to the banks,
  410
  what would a 10 per cent. increase in bank deposits mean in the circumstances of 1946 when bank deposits are of the order of £4,000 million, about double what they were before the war? You would have in that way a fund at your disposal without burdening the ratepayers or taxpayers of £400 million per annum upon which you could draw without inflation. There is no trickery about it; it merely means that in the future the monetary circulation of the country, passing by cheque from one bank account to another, is going to be expanded without benefit of interest to moneylenders who secretly create that which they lend.
  I want to put it to the House that really the Labour Government—which makes what must appear to hon. Members opposite to be a fetish of wanting to socialise things—should not stop short at socialising credit; that it should adopt a really revolutionary techniq up which would benefit the poor without taking a way anything that is legitimately owned by those who are not poor. There is in this country a large and ever increasing public opinion in favour of the socialisation of credit, and I can imagine no more appropriate outlet for the application of this policy than to the housing programme, housing being one of the three primary needs of all human beings—food, shelter and clothing. Public opinion in favour of this technique is increasing rapidly not only in this country but also in the Dominions. My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are in favour of socialisation. Let them begin with the socialisation that matters more than any other. Let them take their courage into their hands and remove from the people of this country, the ratepayers and the taxpayers, the burden of these endless subsidies introduced for no other reason than to conform to the unnecessary orthodoxy to which this party—goodness knows why— appears to be committed. I beg my right hon. Friends to go ahead with it. They will carry the people with them, if only they will go to the microphone and explain what is going on. If they have not sufficient confidence to go to the "mike," then I. will go to it for them.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Baldwin: After listening to the very lucid and optimistic speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, I feel rather hesitant in getting up to make any

  411
  comment. The Noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd-George) encouraged me to think that houses were expected to spring up in the spring, even if it was the late spring. My own impression after hearing such optimism was that when I go down to the country this weekend and look around my farm I shall see houses springing up everywhere. In fact, I might even imagine that instead of the shortage we have been talking about, I shall see some of the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 houses which we were promised would be built "in very quick time" during the Election campaign.
  I do not propose to attack this Bill. This possibly may be a disappointment to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who suggested that we on this side take every opportunity to attack the Government whatever is brought forward. I think, from my own short experience in this House, that the contrary has been the position, and that when big Measures have been brought forward there has been a great deal of support from this side of the House. In this particular instance I am sure we shall do all we can to give the Government our assistance to see that the necessary houses will be built. In the few words I wish to utter I will comment on rural housing. I have heard a lot about the lack of rural houses from all parts of the House, and I want to warn the Government that they are plainly heading for a crisis in rural agricultural labour similar to the food crisis through which they are just going. We have been promised for the harvest of 1946 more prisoner-of-war labour than we had last year, I believe somewhere in the neighbourhood of 147,000. But in six months time we have got to plan for the harvest of 1947, and that is the problem we have to face. This country cannot for an indefinite period keep 147,000 prisoners of war, and we must take steps at once to replace these men.
  What I complain about is not what is in the Bill, but what has been omitted from it. Every step should be taken by every possible means to increase the number of houses, whether they are built by private owners or by council builders. We want the houses and we must have them. I suggest that we should get very many more houses if we allowed private enterprise the same opportunity as council building. Council houses are entitled to a
  412
  subsidy of ¢28 10s. for a period of 60 years. Why is not that same offer available to the private owner who wants to build? He is only. offered ¢15 for the period of 40 years. I ask the Minister whether the difference between the subsidy which is payable to the council houses and that payable to private enterprise is the measure of the difference of efficiency between council house building and private enterprise building. The dice are loaded against the private builder by more than the subsidy
  In Clause 13 (2, b) the rent which the private builder can charge for his own house can only be deduced by the average of the rent for the council built subsidised houses, which is another unfairness as far as the private builder is concerned. I want to know why the agriculturalist should be expected to pay something into the Exchequer for the subsidisation of houses in the rural districts and in the urban districts. I would illustrate the point by one which comes to my mind. A sanitary inspector is living in one of the council houses outside my own town. That man is getting a far better salary than a great many of the farmers living near the town and yet the farmers are paying some thing into the Exchequer to help build the house for a sanitary inspector to occupy That is not fair.
  I would like to say a word or two about the question of tied cottages. The hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) gave some figures with regard to the troubles which arise through tied cottages, and although I do not want to dispute them, I have had a good deal to do with tied cottages during the past 45 years, and I have very seldom come across these terrible hardships about which the hon. Member spoke. In my own case, if my man and I disagree about anything we part, and I have never had any trouble with him whether or not he wished to go out. The remedy for the tied cottages abuse, which it is claimed by hon. Members opposite exists, is to get on and build the council houses, and the men can then please themselves whether they go into a tied cottage or into a council house. Hon. Members opposite will find that when the council houses remain unoccupied our tied cottages will still be occupied.
  I notice that one reason given for building these cottages away from the farms is because of the amenities. I do not

  413
  agree. Amenities are necessary in the farm houses as well as in the cottages, and when these amenities are brought to the farm houses then they can be put into the cottages. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member below the gangway who made an attack upon flats, because I want to make an attack on the proposed building of these blocks of houses in villages away from the farms I do not think that the people of this country want to live in solid rows of houses; they want to live in a house with their own garden and their own orchard round the house, and I am quite sure that they want to live close to their own work. I have had letters from a number of districts where housing for the agricultural worker has recently taken place, and it is complained that these houses have been built somewhere near the village or the school, with the result that the labourers who are living in the cottages will not go on with a job which is some distance away. That is what is happening under the present system of building. If we put up these houses in the villages we shall not help the production of food in the outlying farms of the country. If a man is offered the chance of living near a village two miles away from his work or to live on the farm close to his work, he will prefer to take the latter choice. That is another disadvantage. It has always been a tradition of the countryside that our workmen, their wives and their children are part of the family. If there is any sickness or if there is a fresh arrival coming, it has been a tradition that the farmer's wife visits the woman to see if she can help in any way possible, and I want to see that tradition carried on.
  I want to see those people cared for in their own little communities. It is better than having them in a row of cottages in the village where they can hardly move without getting into trouble with the people next door. When they are put in cottages in the villages they are not able to keep a few fowls or a pig; I would like to see every farm labourer able to keep a few fowls and a pig.
  Another point which has been raised, and one which cannot be raised too often, is the question of doing away with the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I think that is a tragedy. The objection is that money would be spent on "wicked land-
  414
  lords' houses. "I know that slums exist in the country, as they do in the towns, but it was not the" wicked landlords "who were responsible, but the wicked industrial system which bled the country white. I want to see houses built to repopulale the countryside. In the last 90 years the parish in which I live has lost over 50 per cent. of its population, and I have seen cottage after cottage disappear. Only two cottages have been built in the parish in the last 50 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because it is not worth while, and the industrialist system drove the men away from the land.
  Mr. Norman Smith: The City of London drove the farmers out of business.
  Mr. Baldwin: Whether it was the capitalist or the working man, they wanted cheap food and did not care where it came from so long as they got it. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the question of reinstating some form of reconditioning country cottages. He promised in the first housing Debate that he would give the matter consideration. I would remind the hon. Member for Thornbury that it is not quite as he described it. If his county council are doing their job properly—and they are a very efficient county council—there is no reason why 46 per cent. of those reconditioned cottages are not occupied by farm workers I have done up 12 cottages for myself and clients—reconditioned them. One of the conditions is that I cannot let such a cottage at more than 4s. a week and I have to fill up a return each year giving the name of the man living in it, and what his job is, and send a fire insurance certificate. I have to tie myself down and cannot sell that cottage for 20 years. If anyone doubts whether the people in these cottages are reaping the benefit or not, they should go and ask them. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn said that it did not help the housing of the people, but it does; in several cases I have been able to turn a two bedroomed cottage into a three bedroom one.
  I appeal to the Minister of Health to reconsider this question of reconditioning the rural houses, and he can put on whatever conditions he likes, to see that we do not abuse the privilege he is giving us.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Dye: I follow the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) as a speaker from another agricultural district. The hon. Member for Leominster has spoken for the Southwestern part of the country; I would speak from my experience in the Eastern counties. I think the decision of the Minister to concentrate his first efforts on building new houses is the correct one. It is perfectly correct to provide additional houses to meet the urgent need at the present time. Reconditioning does not increase the number of houses to accommodate additional families. In many cases it consists of turning two old cottages into one, and therefore reduces the number of cottages available. I think the decision to concentrate on new houses is a very wise one. Not only is it wise to concentrate on new houses immediately, but people in the villages can make immediate use of them. We get far more letters from constituents on housing than on any other subject, and we must see to it that new houses are built as early as possible. I well remember the present Prime Minister broadcasting on New. Year's Eve, or New Year's Day, in 1945, to the effect that whatever Government came into office immediately following the war, they would not be able to alter existing arrangements for housing or any other matters relating to reconstruction. Those arrangements were being made by the Coalition Government. The numbers of houses now being built are the result of the planning that was made by the previous Government, and we are seeing some advantages of it.
  In the rural districts on the Eastern side of the country there is more activity in the building of new houses than I suppose there was in any area before the war. There were difficulties up to six months ago. Councils did not know what the new arrangements were in regard to town planning or Ministry of Health provisions. Having found out what those new arrangements are, they are going forward with building plans. In 'he county of Norfolk, for instance, the Minister of Health has already approved no less than 640 houses in the rural districts. Contracts have already been approved and many of the houses have been started. There is growing activity in new house building and at the same time a certain amount of preparation for adaptation of
  416
  either military buildings, or other buildings for houses. We feel the proposals in the Bill are quite adequate in their financial provisions to enable district councils to get on with building. So also are the arrangements for assisting private owners to build cottages if they are so inclined. In the eastern parts of England, a number of owners are building new cottages for their workers even under the existing arrangements whereby they are getting £10 per annum for 40 years. Under this Bill they are to get £15 per year for 40 years, provided the house is occupied by the owner or by a tenant. This is the first arrangement that has been made for a subsidy to assist the farm worker to have his own cottage, and the Government are to be congratulated on making that arrangement. So far as the provision of houses by landowners is concerned, the new arrangement whereby there must be a tenant or owner-occupier to get a subsidy is certainly a great advance.
  Hon. Members on the other side of the House have been speaking of the advantages of reconditioning and the subsidy that has been given in respect thereto, in cases in which the properties remain tied to the job. We have an entirely new conception of the home which the farm worker ought to have. Our conception is that he should be free in his own home to decide the course of life that his family should follow, that there should be no conditions attached to it, that if the man feels that he would like to work on a farm there should be no obligation on him to compel his children to work for the same person. That exists in many cases today. It is not freedom for the father of the family to tie his children, sons or daughters, to work for the same person by whom he is employed. We know by past experience that for various reasons people are turned out of '' tied'' cottages. They can be turned out in the case of old age, and we certainly ought not to subsidise a system which enables an owner to turn out a person from that cottage merely because of old age without there being proper alternative accommodation. Yet that is the kind of system which hon. Members opposite are asking a Socialist Government to subsidise
  Hon. Members opposite shake their heads, but only a few weeks ago 1 was in a police court before which two elderly widows—one was 77 years old and the

  417
  other 78—both of whom had been tenants of their respective cottages for 40 years, were taken on an application for an ejectment order. The cottages had not been "tied" to the farm, but the owner had applied to the war agricultural executive committee for a certificate to say that these cottages were now essential to the working of that particular farm, and on the strength of that applied for an ejectment order. It should be said, for the honour of the bench that tried the case, that they did not grant the application, on the ground that it would be a greater hardship on those old widows to be turned out than it was for the farmer not to have the use of it. Not satisfied with that, the owner has now taken further steps, and this time has applied to the county court, for an order for the ejectment of one of these old widows. Surely we, on this side of the House, cannot subsidise any system of housing in this country which gives to one person the power of denying to another person his home without adequate alternative accommodation being available.
  Colonel PonsonbyHow does the hon. Member think that a cowman will be able to look after calving cows if he lives half a mile or a mile away?
  Mr. Dye: I am at the moment talking not about the cowhouse, but about the home of the human being, and I shall always maintain that the human being comes before the cowhouse. I was actually born in a house with a cowhouse adjoining. I was brought up among cows, had to feed them, milk them, from my very earliest days. I am full of experience in dealing with cows and other animals on the farm. With all that experience. I, as a farmer, a small owner-occupier, employ men who live a mile away in a new council house, with all modern amenities, far better than those which I had. It can be done. Cows do not calve every minute of the day or of the night, and if they are properly attended to and looked after, by the vet. as well as the farmer, they do not get into difficulties at calving, neither do they have a great deal of trouble through ill health. Therefore, I do not think it necessary that there should be a subsidy for a system of tied cottages, just to have a man available at all hours for the occasion of calving.
  418
  We also have the trouble of people being ejected from "tied" cottages because of the death of the workman. The widow and the family have to go. We have cases of differences between the employer and the employee, and if there is such a difference, the employer has the whip hand. Not only can he deny the man work, but he can throw him out of his house. We can move into a system different from that. There are also other reasons. It has been brought to our notice, time after time, that men and their families have been turned out of their cottages for no other reason than the man joining a trade union, or voting for the Labour Party at a General Election or at a rural district council election. I was a candidate for a rural division, in which, in the 1935 General Election, one owner went to every house in the village which he owned, and said, "If you vote for that fellow Dye, the Socialist, I will turn you out." Having won a majority in the country, are we now to give way on this point, a political principle? It is a political principle to us, but not to hon. Members opposite, because for them it is holding on to the privileges they hold today, the privilege of determining who should work for them and who should live in a particular house.
  Captain Marples: Surely the ballot in this country is secret.
  Mr. Dye: The ballot is secret, and if landowners of the country respected the secrecy of the ballot, they would not go from door to door of their tenants' cottages, asking how they intend to vote or threatening them if they vote in the opposite way.
  Captain Marples: Will the hon. Member tell me how they are to find out which way a particular person has voted?
  Mr. Dye: They do not wait until after the election to try to fin 1 out how they voted. They actually intimidate them before they vote. In rural Britain that is still going on. I certainly hope that the Minister of Health will stand firm on this principle that in the houses we build, the houses we subsidise, there shall be freedom for the tenants, a tenancy that gives them protection against any landlord. Further than that, the great task now before us in rural Britain is to rebuild by far the greater quantity of the houses that now exist, or to pull them

  419
  down and build new ones. We must have new villages, with all the modern amenities. We cannot scatter our houses broadcast over the countryside. They must be gathered together, so that every cottage can be serviced with electricity, water and sewerage. That cannot be done if they are broadcast over the whole land.
  Therefore, we ask that the district council, as the housing authority, shall have full power to proceed rapidly with this great task of rebuilding rural Britain. We have now a far greater enthusiasm for housing in the countryside than we ever had before. One thing we find, so far as housing is concerned, is that our Conservative opponents get up an enthusiasm for it when they no longer have a majority in this House, or when they are in danger of losing their seats on the county and district councils. Then they are enthusiastic for building houses. That is where we want to keep them. We want to keep them enthusiastic and keep them in opposition so that they are not in a position to prevent the houses being built. I urge on the Minister to proceed with this scheme of financial assistance that will enable the greatest number of houses to be built in rural Britain that it is possible to build, within the next few years.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: It would be attractive to follow the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) in his arguments in regard to rural housing. I think that many of them, though eloquently put forward, are in fact misconceived. There is much that I might say, and would indeed like to say, in regard to rural housing generally, and to the question of the tied cottages in particular, but I shall resist that temptation. I shall resist it for the reason that I think it will be common ground in the House that the particular aspects of rural housing have received a very generous meed of attention in the course of this Debate. Though from my own point of view I would willingly send my bark up one of these interesting and attracting tributaries in pursuit of the hon. Member I feel I probably serve the interests of the Debate more if I come back into the general broad stream of housing in general in regard to this Bill.
  420
  I do not denounce this Bill by bell, book and candle. It is indeed a welcome change in that respect as regards Government legislation. This Bill is not as bad as some that we have had. I ask hon. Members opposite not to take too much comfort from that observation because I mean no more than this, that there are, after all, degrees of ineptitude and gradations of unwisdom. This is not a Bill of demonstrable futility, such as the nationalisation of the Bank of England Bill, nor is it a vicious and mercenary Bill, such as the Bill to repeal the Trade Disputes Act. Having said that much, I am bound to add that we on this side regard it as a most inadequate and incomplete contribution to the great problem of housing the people. There is no doubt that at this time the people of this country are disposed to look with a partial eye upon any measure which can in any way contribute to the solution of that problem. They are in the mood, too, to look much more to the question of the construction of houses than to the merely financial aspect. There is no doubt of that. It must not however on that account be thought that they are going to be other than grievously disappointed and annoyed if the results of this Bill fall short of their legitimate expectations and of the outlay that is involved.
  It is a matter of general agreement at this time that a subsidy is necessary for . the housing of the people. Let us be quite clear on this. It is a regrettable necessity. The payment of a subsidy of itself has never been a guarantee of the building of houses. It does not pave any royal road to house construction. If it were so, then the period of the Addison subsidy, which has already been referred to in sober yet challenging terms by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Hare), would have been the greatest period in the house building of this country; but it is well known that it was not so. The greatest period in the house building of this country was in fact the period of the least subsidy, the period from 1927 to 1939. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman will enjoy his little joke but he really must learn that it is impossible to laugh away figures.
  Mr. McKinlay: It is not a joke but a tragedy.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The principle of the Addison subsidy was carried to its furthest logical conclusion and, some would say, to a reductio ad absurdum, because the principle of the Addison subsidy was a complete indemnity to the local authorities for any expenditure above a penny rate. It was, therefore, a complete divorce of the responsibility for spending, on the one hand, and from the responsibility of meeting the bill, on the other hand. That was the principle of the Addison subsidy. It was catastrophic in its effect. In fact, it made the worst of both worlds. We got lamentably few houses even by the standards of the present Government. When I refer to the standards of the present Government, I mean of course their standards now they are in office, which are small. At the time of the General Election these standards were large. I can only think that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, who made play with such astonomical figures of housing at that time when seeking the confidence of the Electorate, must, when he went to the Foreign Office to lay his cards face uppermost on the table, have left the ace of trumps in regard to housing up his sleeve and forgotten to pass it over to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health.
  In fact, the figures were small for housing and we are still bearing the cost of the Addison subsidy today. We must get it out of our minds that we can solve the housing problem merely by swelling the figures of our housing subsidy. This subsidy does not repeat the unorthodoxy in principle of the Addison subsidy. It is orthodox in principle. It is not based on the theory of indemnity; but the amounts are large and the proportions are varied. The Exchequer will bear three-quarters of the rate fund and one-quarter of the subsidy, as compared with two-thirds and one-third respectively under the 1938 Act.
  We have to go back to the Wheatley Act to get a subsidy at all comparable. The Wheatley Act gave an annual subsidy of £ 13 10s. as compared with the £22 of the present subsidy. I would like to point out that, though the amount of the Wheatley subsidy was large, it differed in two important respects from that subsidy which we are asked to approve today. In the first place, it was strictly temporary in character. It was to carry over
  422
  only until 1927. In fact, the great bulk of the house building that was done between 1925 and 1939 had nothing whatever to do with the Wheatley subsidy. Secondly, the Wheatley subsidy, though Mr. Wheatley was a Socialist Minister of Health, did not exclude private enterprise from its benefits as does the Measure recommended by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, I say with confidence that we cannot regard the giving of this subsidy in itself as necessarily a very long step in the direction of the building of houses in this country.
  Let me put this specific question. Is the payment of this subsidy likely to do what is required of it? What is required of it is this—to give us houses of 10s. a week rental in the towns and of 7s. 6d. in the country I take the typical case of any one house. It is not difficult to assess, at any rate, in average and general terms, the cost of construction of a house today. I have not been assisted in this matter by the Parliamentary Secretary, who, for some reason which rests hidden in his own breast, saw fit to deny to the House this afternoon the information which his Department had given it yesterday. [Interruption.]The hon. Gentleman who interrupted and whose observations I must guess at because they are completely unintelligible, put this question—Why, if I knew the answer, did I ask the question? I will tell the hon. Gentleman now. That information was given in a written answer yesterday. It is common knowledge that not all hon. Members of the House bear in their minds the answer to every Written Question, and I thought it but right, when the Parliamentary Secretary referred to it, that he should share that knowledge with the House at the time of making his speech. Instead of that, he replied in a very controversial and prejudicial utterance indeed, which obviously had no substance since his Department had already given that information yesterday.
  Mr. Key: Let me say again that that is not the fact. The information that was given yesterday was the information of the average price of houses for which approval has been given. It was not the price which was the basis of the calculations on which the subsidy is put forward.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The question I asked was: What was the average tender

  423
  approved by his Department? Well, we shall see, but that is the question 1 asked and the one which he refuses to answer. It appears that, not only was he lacking in courtesy, at which, though I may be disappointed, I was wrong to be entirely surprised, but that he was also unfamiliar with the information given by his own Department in the written answer to a Question yesterday. I can well understand that the hon. Gentleman should shrink with some not altogether unnatural reluctance from reading the depressing information from his own Department. However, we have that figure—the average figure of 22s. per superficial foot for the approved tender, and we have the area of the house of 950 superficial feet. An easy mathematical sum enables us to see that it involves £1,050 as the average approved tender price of a house. To that figure, I add a sum of £150 as an average sum to include the cost of land, roads, sewers and professional fees. That is £1,200, and I am going to add a further £50 for the average excess of the final cost of the house over the tender price. The last thing I want to be in a Second Reading Debate is technical; but the House will appreciate that, in general, for building contracts, there are a large number, and an increasingly large number, of what are known as provisional cost sums and prime cost items. In respect of these, a notional figure is quoted, and the final price is the price of that item ruling on the market at that time. In nearly every case, that price is larger than the tender price. I take a very conservative estimate to account for that margin.
  There we get a figure of £1 250 as the average cost of a house. Of that £594 is to be provided from the subsidy, and that leaves £656 to be accounted for by local borrowing or by rent. The figure of £656 represents, in repayment for sinking fund and interest charges, the sum of £24 10s. a year, which is less than the £26 represented by a 10s. a week rent; but, of course, as the House will appreciate, that 10s. has to have certain deductions made from it in respect of repairs, maintenance, management, painting and voids. In respect of all these items, I take again a conservative estimate of 20 per cent., which leaves the rental at £20 16s. a year. Therefore, the outstanding sum on that typical case which I have taken is £3 14s. a year. Where is it to
  424
  come from? It must either be added to the rent or added to the rates If added to the rent, it will involve an increase of about Is. 6d. on the desired rent of 10s. a week. If, on the other hand it is added to the rates, it further increases the burden on the ratepayers.
  There has been an effort, in the Financial Memorandum to this Bill,' to try to brush aside the effect on the rates of these proposals. It is pointed out that 100,000 houses will only involve an increase of the rates by a halfpenny But why take only 100,000 houses, which represent one year's work by 100,000 building trade operatives? We already have 450,000 building trade operatives engaged in housebuilding in this country today, so that these figures should not represent at all the sort of target which the hon. Gentleman ought to have in mind. We must have a much bigger target. There are four million houses required to house the people of this country; and, if only three million are to be built at something approximating these rates, they are adding, not a halfpenny to the 'rates but Is. 3d. Every tenant of one of these houses will pay, in addition to the 10s. rent, plus is 6d. in regard to the gap for which I have already accounted in the normal way, rates of a sum roughly equivalent to one-third of his rental—a sum of about 33. 6d., which is based on an average rate able value of £15 and an average rate in the £ of 12s., which is again a conservative estimate. Taking all these things together, we get a total, above the rental to be paid, of anything up to 6s. on each house.
  These are the figures which, I submit, should be before the House rather than the more optimistic figures given to us; and it is not only the tenant whose interests I have in mind, but the ratepayers as a whole. Under this legislation, there will be many ratepayers economically less well off than the tenant whose rent they are subsidising and who will find their rates grossly inflated by reason of these proposals. I say, therefore, that it is an unsatisfactory situation, because it gives, not the certainty of the building of houses, but the certainty that large financial burdens will fall on those least qualified to bear them and which will be disproportionate to the result unless we get a much quicker and cheaper construction of houses.

  425
  In my submission, we will not get that cheaper and quicker construction of houses if we exclude private enterprise, and I believe that the most ominous feature of the Bill is that it seeks to set the seal on the exclusion of private enterprise. Though in normal times private enterprise does not seek a subsidy, and, under prewar conditions, built the largest number of houses without a subsidy, it is economically impossible at the present time to build without a subsidy.
  I would refer briefly to this document entitled "Housing Return" recently issued by the Ministry of Health, which is rather like a painting by Picasso. It is full of detail, but the most prominent features are not necessarily the most important. However, I will extract two points from page 4 of this document. The first is that, in spite of all the obstacles with which the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to fetter and shackle private enterprise—obstacles which make the "Pilgrim's Progress" look like a children's obstacle race—they are able to get quicker off the mark in house building than the local authorities who are favoured by the right hon. Gentleman. The second point is that the proportion of houses on which construction has begun to the number of licences issued in respect of private enterprise is smaller than the proportion of local authority houses on which construction has been begun to the number of tenders approved. Why is that? In my submission, it must be because the house builders are beginning to lose heart in face of the intransigence of the right hon. Gentleman, and find themselves unable, without any subsidy, to proceed with the construction of the houses for which licences have been approved.
  It would seem, if private enterprise is to be excluded, that we are forced in this great matter of housing to rely on the weaker partner—we are forced to rely on local authorities to the exclusion of private enterprise. In regard to that, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not bringing an unduly doctrinaire mind to bear on this eminently practical problem, and whether he is not resembling those German generals in the days of the Napoleonic war who preferred to lose the campaign according to their stale and outmoded tactical doctrines rather than emulate the freer and more elastic strategical plans of the man who won the victory over them. In a
  426
  recent speech, the right hon. Gentleman declared that the house-builders were unorganisable. One never knew, he said, what they were doing. It may be that in some moment of extreme indiscipline and unparallelediniquity they would be the sort of people who would sneak off and build some houses.
  I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that governmental methods in house-building have always been costly, and will always be costly. Whatever Government it is, that is bound to be so. Let me pray in aid the example of the prefabricated house. Originally its cost was estimated at £500, then at £600, and now it is about £1,500 or £1,600. All the new methods of construction are costing 5 to 10 per cent, more than the traditional methods and in cases of steel construction some 20 per cent. more. The cost is higher because there is rigidity about such building. The shortage of labour should be balanced with the shortage of materials, and the one should be switched to meet the other. This happens under private enterprise, but not with local authorities. We have to get a better synthesis and synchronisation of building operations such as have been achieved in the United States of America which enable them to produce houses more cheaply in spite of both higher labour costs and higher cost of materials.
  I can see just one little gleam of light, one small sign, at present no bigger than a man's hand, that the right hon. Gentleman is not bringing an entirely prefabricated mind to bear on this question. It is his recent declaration at Newcastle when he said, as I understand it, that he was willing to allow small private enterprise builders, with their knowledge of local conditions and circumstances, to build on local authority sites houses for sale to local authorities. That is the first instance we have really had that the right hon. Gentleman is facing up to the facts as they are at present. We hear a lot about facing the future, but I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is more important to face the present. He has been the great mañana Minister of this Government. It has always, in his view, been jam tomorrow; but the result has always been to leave us in a jam today
  Mr. Bevan: That is a good paragraph.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I accept the expert testimony of the right hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, would he allow me, on the strength perhaps, of an old personal friendship, to offer one piece of advice? At the time of the General Election the country performed a considerable act of absorption in swallowing the propaganda of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends which helped them to the seats of power. The custom of the country demands at least that he has the other half; and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should now perform, in the matter of reallowing private enterprise into the field, the difficult act of swallowing his pride. It will be a big and no doubt a bitter draught; but, if he does so, then we can, with some confidence in the success of our toast, join him in the pledge—success to the housing of the people of this country.
  8.28 p.m.
  Captain Baird: I am confident that everyone on this side of the House will welcome this Bill because we believe it will give added drive to the already considerable progress made in building houses. It will be doubly welcomed by those on this side of the House who have experienced and had to live in working-class housing conditions in the years before the last war. I am rather surprised when I hear hon. Members opposite talking about housing. What do they know about working class housing conditions? I was born in what we call in Scotland a "butt and ben," and until I was 23 years of age I never lived in a house with a bathroom. That may be a very minor point, but I believe we have to suffer those conditions before we have that desire and enthusiasm to build decent houses for the working class which is necessary if we are going to get on with the job. Because many hon. Members on this side of the House have experienced bad housing conditions we are going to make that drive. I especially welcome the elasticity which we find in the financial proposals in the Bill. I believe that a rigid Government subsidy would not have fulfilled the function we desire. In the present experimental period with fluctuating costs and with the need for experimentation we need elasticity in Government payments, and I therefore welcome that part of the Bill. I am
  428
  sorry, however, that the Minister has not gone further. In the 1919 Act, which some people have said was a failure— it may have been so in many ways, but I think it had something to commend it— there were fixed local charges but Government charges were fluid. The Government charge was such as to provide, as the Bill said, houses at rents comparable with other working-class houses in the district. I think that was right.
  In my constituency we have got on with the job of building houses and our progress is much above the average. As the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd-George) said, many authorities have held back from building because they did not know what the amount of the subsidy was going to be. In my constituency we got on with the job and did not worry about the subsidy. I believe that those authorities which started building early have been at a disadvantage, because since they accepted various tenders, approved costs have increased. In the City of Wolverhampton, which I represent, we are, at the present time, building some 400 permanent houses and some of those houses have already been completed and people are in them. When the tenders were accepted the estimated gross rent was 15s., but since then, on the advice of the Ministry, by building covered ways and outbuildings, we have increased the total super feet by another 116, which has increased the cost of the building. The cost of building materials has also increased considerably, as have wages in the building trade. Today, when people are going into the houses and we have to face the question of rent, we find that the cost of the houses varies, according to type, from £1,365 to £1,419. If we go into the question further, we find that the total annual charges per house amount to a sum, varying again according to type, from £50 10s. to £52 10s. If we add the cost of maintenance, which we have estimated at £8 8s. a year, it brings the total up to about 61 If we deduct the subsidy of £22 it still leaves a net rent of 15s., and if we add a comparable rate to that it brings the gross rent up to between 19s. 6d. and £10s. 6d.
  I, therefore, ask the Minister, what is going to happen to local authorities who, because they started building early and because the prices have since gone up, are faced with the problem of asking

  429
  working class people to pay a rent of £I a week? We believe—and we have a Labour majority on my council—that we cannot ask people to pay such a rent. How does the Minister suggest we can get out of that problem? I believe that at the present time we should leave the Government subsidy fairly flued. Let us fix a subsidy of —I6 10s. for one year hence, but for those houses which have been built during the experimental period the Government subsidy should be fluid to this extent, that we have a fixed local grant and the Government grant is such as will allow houses to be let at reasonable rents comparable with other working-class houses in the district. In that way we can get round the problem. Apart from those few remarks, I am confident that this Bill is a great step forward and will be enthusiastically supported by all Members on this side of the House.
  8.34 p.m.
  Sir Charles Edwards: I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I also listened to the late Minister of Health criticising the Bill. I think it required a lot of effrontery to criticise a Bill like this after the Bill which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself introduced. I am very pleased with this Bill. I am pleased to observe there is no reference to temporary housing, because I think that would be the most expensive thing we could have. A dozen of those temporary houses have been built where I live. I went to see them one day, and I was very disappointed. When I was there I felt that no good fanner would put up buildings like those to house his cattle. They are very poor and they make a very bad impression.
  I have one disappointment about this Bill. It does not deal with the leasehold question. I think the old leasehold principle might have been dealt with in this Bill, so that housing in the future might have been put upon a better basis than it has been hitherto. I believe the leasehold principle is a scandal. People pay ground rent for the whole term of the lease, which is often 99 years, either to the man who built the house or to his family, and when the time arrives, he has to put that house into repair and hand it back to the landlord again. I think that is a scandal which should be abolished. I would like to see in this
  430
  Bill a provision dealing with that question, so that the whole principle of leaseholds could have been done away with. I do not know whether it is possible to put such a provision in the Bill; I do not see why not. We are legislating for the future, and that is one point above all others which ought to be dealt with. If a man pays ground rent for 25 years the house ought to be his own property without reference to any landlord. Perhaps the Minister would consider that point, because it is one which is criticised, perhaps, more than any other in connection with housing.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Lipson: To my mind, the importance of this Bill does not lie in its financial proposals, because we are all agreed that in this matter finance is secondary and it is the provision of houses which really matters. This Bill is important in that it reflects Government policy, and the test that I want to try to apply to this Bill is this: Are the proposals in this Bill and the policy behind those proposals such that the country is likely to get all the houses it requires in the shortest possible time? Bearing in mind that test, I would say of this Bill that, so far as it goes, it is good, but it does not go far enough. The subsidy to local authorities is quite generous and adequate, though I wish my right hon. Friend had been able to say that local authorities could borrow their money at less than 3⅛per cent. I do not go so far as the hon. Member who asked that money should be loaned at 1 per cent., but I would have thought, in view of what the Government themselves are having to pay for money, that they might have found it possible to lend to local authorities at 2 per cent., which I think would have been a very valuable contribution to housing finance. If my right hon. Friend can reduce the rate of interest at some future time, if not immediately, I think he will render a great service to the housing problem.
  I speak as one who has been a member of two local authorities for a great many years. I know what they can do, and I also know their limitations. I know that although local authority machinery is efficient, of necessity, it works very slowly. I am convinced that the Government will not get the houses they require

  431
  in time, if they rely entirely on the local authorities to produce them. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to give further consideration to the suggestions which have been made, that there should be a subsidy to private enterprise to build houses. If the Government want to limit that subsidy to houses that are to be let, well and good. Let the Government make whatever conditions they like, but I am sure it is important to use every possible agency in order to obtain houses. I see that in the Bill provision exists by which, as far as agricultural areas are concerned, private enterprise can still receive a subsidy. The principle is accepted. If it is good enough so far as houses in rural areas are concerned, I do not see why it should not be extended to urban areas as well. In this matter one must not be too doctrinaire.
  I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give consideration to another matter. My own local authority has bought one large house and is proposing to buy some more for the purpose of conversion into flats to accommodate those who badly need better housing facilities. The one house that they have already bought will cost them, after conversion, something like £3,750. It will provide five good flats. Each flat will have a bathroom, and there will be proper accommodation. The local authority will receive no subsidy whatever on that house, yet in a very short time they are providing accommodation for five families. As far as the hostels which the Minister is handing over to local authorities are concerned, he is prepared to accept the principle of Government assistance. In the case of requisitioned property which the local authorities convert, the whole of the expenditure is borne by the Exchequer. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give consideration to allowing not necessarily the same subsidy, but a subsidy of some amount to local authorities who buy houses and then convert them into flats? There does not seem to me to be any reason why, on the principle he himself supports in the Bill, he should not agree to this, and I sincerely hope he will agree to do so.
  I regret, too, that he has decided to discontinue the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. A reason which has been put forward by one hon. Member is that it is
  432
  right for the Government to concentrate on new housing 1 think it is a mistake to say the two courses are opposed. In point of fact, the work that is done on reconditioned houses is usually done by small builders who do not tender for the larger building contracts. The two operations could go on side by side. Further, the improvement of the accommodation in these houses can be carried out quickly. The new building is bound to take a long time. In answer to the hon. Member who said that the operation of that Act was to reduce the number of houses, I would say that may be true, but it certainly improved the accommodation, because the only houses it dealt with were those that were not up to a decent standard, and its effect was to bring them up to a reasonable standard.
  It is a mistake that the right hon. Gentleman should pay so much attention to mere costs so far as building houses is concerned, and say that licences should not be given to private builders to build houses for more than £1,200. Surely, the important thing is to get the houses built. The way to bring down prices, not only of new houses, but also of existing ones, which are being sold at exorbitant figures, is to provide more houses. I am sure that that is die right policy. At present people are paying extravagant prices for houses because they must have the accommodation. I agree with the hon. Member for Thornbuiy (Mr. Alpass), that the country has paid a big price in sickness and in ill health for unsatisfactory conditions. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman also that the country is paying a bigger price for those unsatisfactory conditions today than ever before. It must be clear to all hon. Members that it is becoming extremely difficult for soldiers who have been serving overseas to come back to live under the present housing conditions. That is having a very unfortunate effect on many marriages. I do not believe we can estimate what the existing unsatisfactory housing position is really costing the country at this time. I believe it is much important to get the housing problem solved in the shortest possible time rather than to say that unless houses can be built at a certain price they shall not be built at all
  I do not agree that the right hon. Gentleman has always been able to get down tenders, so far as the local authorities are concerned, without sacrificing

  433
  anything that matters in the amenities of the house. I think if he examines how some of the tenders have been brought down he will find it is not just the frills that have been cut out, but that the house for which the tender has been accepted at the lower price is not really of so much value as if the original tender, somewhat higher, had gone forward, because something of real importance will have been sacrificed. I welcome this Bill so far as it goes, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could not be a little more flexible in his policy, and not regard the private builder as if he was doing something wrong in building houses, and not describe him contemptuously as a . "speculative builder."
  Mr. Bevan: I never used the term "speculative builder" contemptuously, but merely in relation to a certain type of builders.
  Mr. Lipson: I do not want to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is quite true to say that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) did refer contemptuously to the speculative builder and gave the impression that whilst she was very keen on getting houses built she was also very keen to kill private enterprise in building. She asked why the private builder required a subsidy. He requires it for the same reason that the local authority requires it, to enable him to let the houses at reasonable rents. When the right hon. Gentleman considers his housing policy I hope he will remember what this country did in 1940 when it required planes. It did not worry too much about cost; it did not worry too much about who made them. All kinds of people, and all kinds of factories, which had not made planes before were put on to it. The result was that the planes were delivered. There is just as great a need for houses today as there was for planes in 1940. I believe a great deal can be learned from the lesson of 1940 as to how we can solve the housing problem of 1946.
  8.49 p.m.
  Mr. Burden: As a friend and colleague of the Parliamentary Secretary—if he will allow me to say so—for some 40 years, and as one who has followed his career with admiration, I should like to tender my congratulations to him for his magnificent speech in introducing this Bill. I believe this Bill will
  434
  be welcomed by local authorities responsible for housing. In particular, I believe it will be welcomed by great cities like Sheffield, where there has been a forward policy so far as housing is concerned. The city council of Sheffield has been controlled by a Labour majority since 1926, with the exception of one year. The council has done a grand job of work in building housing estates in the outer fringes of the city. Much still remains to be done. I have been in houses in my constituency in Sheffield in which men and women ought not to be living, in which the landlords who are drawing rent from them would not stable their horses. The Sheffield Council, with a forward-looking policy, has estates ready for building. There is an urgent need for some 30,000 houses or more, and I believe that this Bill will make a very real contribution towards getting those houses under way at the earliest possible moment.
  May I, however, venture to direct the attention of the Minister to what may seem to him to be a relatively small problem compared with the many other big plans he has in hand? I refer to the position of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Commissioners are owners of considerable urban estates, in London in particular, and they have naturally been desirous of pursuing a forward policy in regard to housing. Unfortunately this policy has been held up by the war, but the Commissioners have been preparing for an active resumption as soon as possible. In particular, they have been in communication with the London County Council about their London estates, and I believe that the London County Council welcomes the co-operation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Commissioners have also had the advantage of advice and help from Sir Patrick Abercrombie, and their plans for the development of their estates have been so drawn up as to fit in with the County of London plan. But as I read this Bill, it may deprive the Commissioners of the essential financial assistance which has previously been received from the Government, and I feel bound to tell the Minister that, unless this financial assistance is forthcoming, the Commissioners will not be able to develop their estates and build houses for the wage-earning classes.
  I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that the Commissioners are not a

  435
  housing association, and that they cannot engage in housing work to the detriment of the work which they were set up by Parliament to perform, but their position, I suggest, is unique. They have been given the unified ownership of properties and have considered that they have a public responsibility to develop those properties in the interest of their tenants. They are content with the least economic return on expenditure, and the full benefit of the subsidy has been passed on to the tenants in reduced rents. The Commissioners would regret losing the opportunity for co-operation with the London County Council in housing work. I do not think it is extravagant to suggest that the co-operation of the Commissioners with the London County Council has been advantageous to both. The Commissioners' management practice has been followed by many local housing authorities and, after all, as older Members of this House will be aware, the Commissioners are a public body and peculiarly sensitive to criticism which, in the past, has been forthcoming fairly readily.
  Apart from these general considerations there will be particular cases of difficulty where comprehensive schemes were not completely carried out before the war began. For example, in Lambeth, in the Waterloo area, on a whole site containing three large tenement blocks only two, at each end, have been completed. The third and largest area is now clear. Plans are ready, and the whole should form a single scheme, with accommodation in all parts at comparable rents. Without the subsidy that is impossible. At Vauxhall, again, a similar difficulty will arise on completion of a scheme there. Then there is the further problem of so-called working class accommodation built in the 19th century which is wearing out, and is in need of replacement. This, unfortunately, is all in the inner areas of London, and I put it to the Minister that the Commissioners are in a better position to undertake this work, as part of a long-term policy, than anybody else, because, firstly, they have the land already; secondly, they accept the minimum return on expenditure, and, thirdly, the restriction to use their land for this purpose in full accord with the planning desires of the public authority will be self-imposed, and the Commissioners will not require compensation.
  436
  I have just one further point to put to the Minister, and I hope he will not regard it as too technical. The Minister, in this and other legislation, is putting a tremendous responsibility on local authorities. Local authorities are experiencing very great difficulty in getting technical and other staff to carry out the work, and one of the problems in connection with obtaining the requisite staff is that of housing accommodation. I know case after case where a man would be prepared to take up a post with a local authority, but is unable to find accommodation within a reasonable area. Under the Housing Act of 1936, Section 97, county councils and mental hospital boards can provide accommodation for their employees, and under the Public Health Act of 1936, Section 183, there is a somewhat similar provision. The technical point I would put to the Minister —and I apologise for putting it at this late hour—is this. Will houses built by a local authority and let to their employees —one is not asking for any specially . privileged position—attract the subsidy as laid down in this Bill, as will other houses?
  In conclusion, I want to congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on this Bill. I believe it is a tremendous step forward, and the criticisms which we have had from hon. Members on the other side will be belied as time goes on.
  9.0 p.m.
  Captain Marples: I had hoped to take part in this Debate a little earlier, and I had several points to make, some of which have been taken up by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) who has just sat down. I had intended to discuss the relative merits, from a technical point of view, of private enterprise and of the local authorities. As the time is late, I shall utter those famous last words, "I shall not detain the House very long." I should, however, like to say a word about the high cost of building. I have been a little astonished that in this Debate scarcely any Member on either side of the House has mentioned the present high cost of building. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who opened the Debate, said that the cost should not be allowed to remain so high as to frustrate

  437
  the provision of houses. But the real point is that he did not go on to say what action he and the Government propose to take to bring costs down. In another place, in November, 1945, it was stated that the cost per superficial foot in 1939 was 9s. 4|½ whereas at the present moment it was 20s. 11d. The same position arose after the last war, and the then Minister of Health instituted a departmental Committee to report on the high cost of building working class dwellings and to make recommendations to bring down the costs of building.
  This time all that has really happened is that people of two schools of thought have been touring the countryside; the first one has been ranting about price rings, and those of the other school of thought have been saying that the labour output is very low. I must call the attention of the House to what Mr. Wheatley said about price rings in 1924:
  "I started that period with a pledge from the associated brick manufacturers that they would keep to their prices. They have kept their word in the letter and in the spirit. I do not think the nation could get a more generous offer from any section of people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1924; Vol. 174, c. 1112-1113.]
  I think that that deals fairly adequately with the price rings, because they are just as good today as they were then. My view of the present high building costs is that they arise from a combination of circumstances. The flow of materials from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works is not really satisfactory at the moment, and I think he will agree with me. It causes disruption of the time and progress schedule on site. There is from the management point of view, rather bad site organisation in this country compared with that in America. I think site organisation could be greatly improved. One point which makes costs rather high is the altering of the specification of quantities, when these have been decided, by having additions and omissions which are rather extensive variations. Local authorities are rather prone to making that error. Another cause is, undoubtedly, the low output of building labour today, and that is a matter which has to be faced up to.
  I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Health to bring down building costs. I think a Committee should
  438
  be appointed to inquire into the higher costs of building and to make suitable recommendations for bringing them down. There has been far too much loose talk about the reasons for the high cost and I think it is time the public and this House, in particular, knew where they stood, and who is receiving the money. Let us have a comparison of the costs of the labour and the costs of materials. Let us give the Committee suitable terms of reference, so that they can make proper recommendations. In the meantime could not the right hon. Gentleman, pending receipt of the Committee's Report, let us have a detailed analysis of the cost of the houses which have already been built? Let the public have some definite information so that they may know on what they can base their criticisms. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to study Mr. Wheatley who, again in 1924, gave some of the figures for building. He said that land was responsible for 1½. a week, material 1s.10d. per week, labour is. 3d.2½ was taken by the bricklayer—and finance, and this will please the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), with interest at 5 per cent., was 6s. 6d. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some information about what is going on at the present moment? The searchlight of publicity should be turned on to the building costs of today.
  Another thing the right hon. Gentleman can do to bring down costs is to study carefully the report of the commission appointed by the Ministry of Works on the methods of building in the United States. On page 19 of this excellent report is a summary of recommendations. It states:
  "We are satisfied, from our observations in the United States, the following practices, if adopted, would reduce cost, and increase speed and efficiency."
  Surely all hon. Members want speed and efficiency increasing. Here are over a dozen recommendations, and, so far as I know, very few of them have been carried out. I suggest that a committee is appointed to study this question from a long-term point of view. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman immediately gives his costing figures for completed houses; and in addition that some of these recommendations are carried into effect straight away.

  439
  We all agree that the right hon. Gentleman has very many talents indeed. He has a very quick mind, and an even quicker tongue, but in all sincerity, I say that he has a very difficult job to do—I know he has from the technical point of view. There are two ways in which he can tackle this job. One is the doctrinaire and rather ideological way, and the other is the practical business-like and technical way, recognising the whole time that the key word is incentive. I hope for this country and the homes that it needs he will adopt the latter course.
  9.8 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add:
  "this House, while recognising the necessity for a subsidy to assist local authorities to provide houses to let at reasonable rents, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which makes no adequate provision for assisting the building of houses by private enterprise; gives no sufficient stimulus to the provision of houses for the agricultural industry; and make no provision for assisting the conversion or reconditioning of houses."
  In spite of our differences, and there are obviously many, we have all the same fundamental idea on the subject we are discussing today, and that is that we all want to see the greatest number of houses built, in the shortest possible time, at the cheapest cost of production, consistent with proper up-to-date standards. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will object to that. The trouble about this Bill is that those who sit on this side of the House do not think that it will achieve that supremely important purpose. I should like to preface my remarks by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for his very lucid explanation of these very technical and difficult financial problems which are dealt with in the Bill, and to note that when he left that side of the picture, the greater the emphasis with which he addressed us, the less substance there was in what he said.. We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for holding himself back—I am sure he has been straining at the leash all afternoon— to conclude the Debate, because that will enable him to deal with some of the points which have been raised with authority which the Parliamentary Secretary has not got. Of course, that is rather dangerous for a Minister, because he may be forced to say something which in other circum-
  440
  stances the Parliamentary Secretary would excuse himself from saying. However, it is good of the Minister to wind up, and we are very much obliged to him.
  It has been inevitable in a Debate like this, that discussion of the Bill has been mixed up to a certain extent with reference to the recently published housing report. After all, that is the background of the whole picture. This White Paper has long been awaited. I noticed that on the day it was published, "The Times" observed that this return was "well worth waiting for." That seemed to me to be a rather double-edged phrase. I do not know what "The Times"—that great friend of the Government—meant by "well worth waiting for." I looked at this return with great interest, and particularly at Appendix B, because that is the most revealing part of the picture. It certainly does justify some of the criticism that has been made about the output of houses in this country.
  I would be quite prepared to admit with the Minister that we are still in the early days of this development, but we are not in such early days that there ought not to be some figure in the columns called "number of tenders approved", let alone that called "number of houses under construction" . While it may be early to expect much completion, there may be quite a lot of tenders approved, and certainly there may be a great deal of preliminary development, because we know from the figures that it is not the shortage of sites, taking the country as a whole, which is holding up progress. But when I come to look at what is happening in my county of Lindsey, with a population of some 400,000, I find that there is no permanent house completed and only 34 temporary houses completed. [Interruption.] It is not any bad influence. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what the cause is because I went to some pains to find out. I understand that the two real difficulties which these local authorities are up against are, first, the bottleneck caused by the shortage of architects and staffs on the local authorities; and the second thing which affects this matter, I am told, is that the influence of the Minister of Town and Country Planning on this programme makes everything slow. I give the right

  441
  hon. Gentleman that as the explanation which I have been given.
  This Bill is to implement the Government's housing programme. Let us remember what they said about that:
  "Housing will be greatest and earliest test of the Government's determination to put the nation first. Labour's pledge is firm and direct. It will proceed at the maximum practical speed. Only the Labour Party is ready to take the necessary steps."
  I would re-echo, for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman, the words of Cardinal Newman, "One step enough for me." It is only the local authority step that he wishes to employ on his journey. The local authority is the chosen instrument. The figures show that the private builders given licences to go forward were quicker off the mark, whatever may happen in the long run. When the Government talk about the" maximum practical speed "I can only assume that the maximum speed is to be determined by the slower of the two horses. The right hon. Gentleman says that it does not matter what will happen in the first six or seven months; it is the first six or seven years that are going to count. We none of us know what his target is for the first six or seven months, or the first six or seven years. I do not see why he has not given himself a target. I should be glad to know.
  In the Debate last week on economic affairs, when the Prime Minister had a mere handful of his own supporters but fairly crowded benches on this side of the House, he made an important speech. The Prime Minister said this—and I do want to know why the Minister of Health will not have anything to do with it unless it is that, once again, as in war time he is at variance with the Prime Minister:
  "The right hon. Gentleman had something to say about plans and controls, but, although one may have to plan without having all the data, it is better than having no plan at all. We must make some kind of economic forecast. We cannot get certainties, but we can get targets to work to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 1964.]
  I find it very difficult to see why we cannot have some sort of target against which to assess the process—the "one step enough for me" process of the right hon. Gentleman.
  The object of the Bill is to help the Minister of Health to get these houses and, target or no target, we are told there is
  442
  to be a flood of these houses in the spring. I am not so sure about that flood, but we can hazard some guess of the limits of the water coming down the river by looking at the estimated number of houses where construction has begun. I suppose they might be finished -by the spring. Then there are those cases where tenders have been approved. With them it will be a case of late Summer rather than Spring. Next, there are a number of houses for which licences have been issued. I give this to the right hon. Gentleman. If those houses for which tenders have already been approved, those which were damaged during the war and are being rebuilt by local authorities, and those which are being built by private builders, all come along in the course of the year it will be quite a respectable total. But I do not think it is very likely that there will be a flood in the spring, considering that we are well into March. I should like to make this point about the Bill. It is largely a financial Bill, and, of course, we have all got to face the fact that the price of houses has increased enormously. We recognise that there has got to be a subsidy. Every one appreciates that because of the high costs whatever may be the reason for them. But what is involved? For the first time the subsidy is being given for 60 years. Hitherto the longest period was 40 years and that is a big difference.
  Secondly, there is the change in the proportion between the Exchequer grant and the rate grant. The Exchequer is now paying three times the rate payment instead of the normal figure. We have to bear in mind that that is going to come from the taxpayers pockets. One right hon. Gentleman put some pertinent questions with regard to the high cost of building. As a matter of fact the Minister of Works gave some information on 15th October last analysing prewar prices and prices today. The cost of material before the war was £274 out of £550 on the average, whereas the figure on the 1945 basis was £472 cut of an estimate of £1,200, which, of course, means in percentages that the materials have gone up 72 per cent. and other costs have gone up by no less than 164 per cent. It is to that that one Member invited the Government to direct their attention by inquiry if necessary, because we do not know what is the explanation for this increase. Perhaps the Minister will tell

  443
  us whether it is land, loans, labour, or whether it is a fact that the local authorities are doing the thing that has led to this very great increase in other costs.
  "Of course, it may be what is called an exorbitantly high price due mainly to the inefficiency of or to the absence of any force making for a high level of output in the industry. These conditions are partly the result of the physical shortage applied to labour and materials and, we need not deny it, they are aggravated by a slackness that pervades the entire industry. It cannot be attributed to war weariness alone."
  I do not know what the Minister will say to that. It is not my sentiment; it is a quotation from the "New Statesman" of last week, which says:
  "The trouble is the slackness pervading the entire industry."
  The "New Statesman" is certainly a supporter of the Minister. If that is their considered view about housing costs, perhaps it would be as well to have a committee, to see whether there is anything in it. 1 hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that. At any rate, it seems clear that a reduction in costs would in this, as in every other, direction be very desirable. We have not been able to find out what is the estimated cost of the average house, and perhaps the Minister can tell us. The Parliamentary Secretary has fenced on this. In a reply given yesterday, it was stated that the average cost of the tenders submitted was £980. We know that the mathematical equivalent of the subsidy, that is to say, £I6 10s. multiplied by 60, makes the figure of £990, and we have also seen in the "Economist,"in a learned disquisition on this matter, the estimated price of £960. I am sorry the Minister was not here when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) was dissecting certain figures. I know that he cannot be here all the time, and that he has been very good in listening to this Debate. But I hope he will study those figures, which I will not repeat now as it would be unseemly to do so after the expert has spoken. If the Minister does not feel free to tell us tonight, perhaps he will tell us some other time on what he bases his cost. After all, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and I— a funny combination, but there it is— think there is a grave risk of rents creeping up if there is a gap which is not covered by subsidy. That gap has to be made up somehow, either by a further
  444
  charge on the rate or on the rent. The hon. Lady was worried lest it would, in many cases, go on the rent, with the consequence that those for whom the houses are primarily designed would, in the long run, not be able to enjoy the amenities which the houses would afford. I would like to know, from the Minister, something about that gap.
  There are two other points on which 1 should like further information, if the right hon. Gentleman is in benevolent mood. I do not think the Minister was here, either, when we had an interesting "reading" as I think they call it in Scotland, from the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister). In connection with Clause 4 he raised the question of congestion and the relation of houses to flats. I think the Minister had better read what his hon. Friend said about this matter, because some or it was very un- complimentary. I think it is a true deduction which the hon. Member made, that most people prefer to live in a house if they can. But one has to remember that in great urban areas not everybody can live in a house. Thus, there is the question as to how far houses can be more mixed up with flats in the high site value areas. Perhaps the Minister would let us know his views about this. With regard to Clause 18. which deals with housing associations, what precisely are the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman where, in pursuance of arrangements made by him, housing associations can be formed? Is he going to press his unwilling intentions upon reluctant authorities? Does he intend to force them to have some kind of housing associations? If a local authority is desperately in need of help is there any real need for him to set up a housing association? Would it not be good time to let the ordinary builder come in, and do what he is ready and willing to do in every part of the country?
  I would like to sum up our objections to the Bill. We have pat them succinctly, I hope, in this reasoned Amendment. There are three elements in the criticisms that are made. To take them in the reverse order, there is the criticism that the Bill makes no provision for assisting the conversion of houses. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government intend to concentrate on new house building, but that that does not mean it will not be supplemented later on. I must

  445
  refer once again—although 1 know it is very awkward for the Minister—to the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee on the conversion of existing houses. The Parliamentary Secretary was one of the signatories to the Report, and the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Town and Country Planning was the chairman. They signed the Report on 31st August last, when they had already held office for some time. There were no reservations whatever, and they said, like their other distinguished colleagues:
  "We have no hesitation in recommending that assistance should be given to private owners by means of loans at lower rates of interest based on the total cost of conversion, including necessary repairs and making good dilapidations."
  They went on to say:
  "We have reviewed a number of suggestions, and dismissed them all except the following, namely, that a percentage of the approved costs of actual conversion should be payable to the owner up to a limited amount for dwellings provided."
  In their recommendations, they urged that all this should be done because
  "conversion will provide much needed additional housing accommodation, can be accomplished with less material in time of shortage than will be needed in the construction of new houses, and, where the cost does not exceed £500 per dwelling, with less skilled labour "—
  it seems almost too good to be true—
  "and social and other amenities are available without extra cost."
  Mr. Key Mr. Key indicated assent.
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman very properly nods his head in agreement that it is a very good plan. Then why not put it into operation? It could go on pari passu with the erection of new houses, particularly as it requires less material and less skilled labour. It is because there is nothing about that in the Bill that we take exception to it. Certainly there is nothing about reconditioning, and although that is a term used more with regard to the agricultural position, it does apply and is to some extent what is covered by conversion here. There is not sufficient stimulus for providing houses for the agricultural industry.
  We have had several very telling speeches on this subject during the Debate. The Noble Lady the Member
  446
  for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd-George) did not think that the Housing (Rural Workers) Act—which was so wantonly withdrawn by the present Government— had fully justified itself in the past, but it did, I understand, lead to the reconditioning of 35,000 houses in Scotland, and a great deal of work was done in different parts of the country, some in my own constituency during the war, I am happy to say. Where it was not brought fully into effect 1 dare say that was entirely due to members of local authorities of the political persuasions of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who thought, quite wrongly, that somehow or other it put money into the pockets of the landlords. Actually, it did nothing but provide much improved housing for the agricultural workers. We have heard a certain amount also about the tied cottage. I will not go into that because it is also an awkward subject for the Minister and for the Under-Secretary for Scotland with regard to the minority report which they signed on rent restriction where even they were constrained to admit that they could see no reason for a change relating to service cottages for stockmen.
  I do not see why the Minister has not taken powers to deal with reconditioning except that in the same way that he does not agree with what the Prime Minister has said about targets he apparently does not agree with what the Lord Privy Seal says should be done about reconditioning. We had a Debate on the Address during which, on 17th August, the Lord Privy Seal expatiated on this subject. He said:
  "We shall deal with the question of rural housing as part of the general housing campaign. I think it is better to fit it in that way. ... I am quite certain the Government will do nothing whatever to imperil the housing so badly needed by the people of the countryside. ... I agree about reconditioning "—
  That is not having it—
  "I am not turning it down at all "—
  This after having said that he did not want it—
  "It is vital, it is an immediate contribution. I agree about that. I say that we must take it in our stride as part of the general housing programme and housing campaign."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th August, 1945; Vol. 413, c. 256-7.]
  That is what the Lord Privy Seal said, but since then it has been eclipsed and apparently he has been eclipsed too for

  447
  we never see him about. 1 do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is so firm against reconditioning It seems a commonsense thing to do. It employs a certain number of people, who would not otherwise get work in the general housing programme at the moment—small people in the countryside—for comparatively little expense, and a great deal of improvement can be made to these cottages. If I may use the adjectives used by the late Lord Snowden in another connection, the policy of the Government on this matter is both grotesque and ridiculous.
  The third point about which we are anxious is, as mentioned in the Amendment, that there is no adequate provision for assisting the building of houses by private enterprise. This has been discussed throughout the day and indeed the right hon. Gentleman would have appreciated, even if we had not said it, that we would not have approved a Bill which gave so little assistance in the agricultural areas, although there is the very small provision in Clause 13 where the subsidy is put up to 10 guineas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fifteen guineas."] I am sorry, it goes up from 10 guineas to 15, but it is only given for 40 years instead of 60, and it is a smaller subsidy than that given to the local authorities so that in any case it is not very exciting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In the light of the high costs we have been discussing throughout the day. What really worries me is that we are passing a Bill which, on the financial side, is obviously going to be a charter for the next two years unless a review is made—and I hope it will not be amended in that time because if it is, it will probably have to be in a higher direction and I would not like that at all. This charter neglects the most potent solvent of the whole problem.
  There was last week's Debate, there was the Lord President's speech, there was the Prime Minister's speech and there was the Prime Minister's broadcast on Sunday. In all these, we were told that what we must do was to mobilise every effort, every endeavour, every agent, to get the country going again. All of this seems to have had an absolutely nil effect upon the right hon. Gentleman. What is he doing, to put forth every effort, to use every agent, to make every endeavour in securing this mobilisation? Housing is the key to the whole problem, and well we
  448
  know it, but the right hon. Gentleman is doing nothing of the sort because for purely doctrinal reasons he is pushing the private builders aside. After all, hon. Gentlemen opposite have quoted some figures, but they may have got them wrong, because they took them out of a Labour Party pamphlet, instead of the Minister of Health's own document, with regard to the building figures in the 20 years between the two wars. The fact remains that three out of every four of the houses built at that time were built by private enterprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "For sale and not to let."] I can deal with that interjection, but I go on to say that now the only permitted licences that are offered to private enterprise are of the ratio of one in five. The position then is that the private builder who put up three out of every four of the houses built in the years between the two wars, is now only being graciously allowed the chance of one in every five. If I may quote again what the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "If local authorities exercising these licences are too tardy in their housing schemes then I shall suspend the power to issue these licences for this purpose."
  That is to say, if a local authority cannot build the houses for which licences have been issued because it is inefficient then nobody else is going to build either. I must say that this is a most extraordinary plan, and I cannot understand why, in all these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman takes the contrary view. [Interruption.] I do not know what he does, but it does seem to me that unity can be achieved here. A great increase of housing could be developed if everyone were mobilised. Of course we did have unity during the war, but the right hon. Gentleman personally contracted out of it. Perhaps he is contracting out of it this time, or can it be that he only remembers the song known to many of us, "The more we are together the merrier we shall be "? That of course is the song of the Ancient Order of Froth-blowers, but not of statesmen.
  Let the right hon. Gentleman think again. Let him mobilise everyone, and we shall certainly see that everything possible is done in every direction in which we have any influence to help him in that job. [Interruption.] Yes, in our constituencies some of us still believe, as I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite do, that

  449
  we can speak for those whom we represent. If the Government do that I am perfectly certain that there will be a great surge forward. There is a great effort to be made throughout this country, but we see no sign of it in this Bill. It is for that reason that we move this reasoned Amendment.
  9.40 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I very much enjoyed the speech that has just been delivered by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), as, indeed, I am sure did every one in every part of the House. I enjoyed it rather more perhaps than many of my hon. Friends here because it is not the first time I have heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. When I first came to this House he was then in opposition. I knew at once that the Opposition were in considerable difficulties when I heard that they had asked him to wind up, because, as some of my hon. Friends will recollect, at that time he was known as "Stonewall Crookshank." Whenever the Opposition wished to prolong the Debate into complete sterility they always sent for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and I am bound to say he discharged his tasks manfully. However, he then became a Minister, with the change of Government, and passed into comparative obscurity. He led an almost clandestine, if not furtive, existence for some years. Now, however, he is out again and is one of the chief illustrations of the political embarrassments of the Party opposite. They now have to call upon, I admit, one of the most formidable adversaries in Parliamentary technique I know of and they are obviously going to use every single piece of knowledge they possess in order to put every obstacle in the way of the Government carrying out their programme. In fact, we have already had some experience of it.
  I have no reason to complain about the Debate to which we have listened today. It has for me been a very comfortable and agreeable time. I asked deliberately that the Second Reading of this Bill should be postponed until the progress reports were out in order that hon. Members in all parties might have an opportunity of discussing the virtues of the Bill in the context of the reports. The Opposition cannot say that we have
  450
  attempted at all to prevent them from having the fullest possible information. I stripped myself stark naked at the most disagreeable part of the year and I expected, after reading some of the newspapers in the last few weeks, that I should be the victim of a hurricane today. So far it has only been a gentle zephyr. I ask hon. Members to compare the speeches to which we have listened today with the headlines in the newspapers. The fact is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are much too sophisticated to accept the leadership of those who wish to impose their leadership upon them. They know very well that every attack made upon me at the moment on the number of houses, as the hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) pointed out—every attack made on the Government for the lack of finished houses is actually an attack on the late Government for not having started them. Everybody knows: the facts are there. Hon. Members opposite have been asking me not to be doctrinaire. I will be strictly practical and empirical. They know very well that traditional houses are not started in the autumn. They know that the only houses that could have been completed towards the end of the year and in the month of January must have been houses which were started last summer.
  Therefore, all this has been beside the point; all these attacks are entirely beside the mark. That is why today we have had speeches in a minor key, because they know very well that in attacking the Government for this progress report they are actually indicting themselves. I do not blame them. I am not suggesting that it was possible. But it applies both ways. I am not suggesting that it was possible for hon. Members, when they were in the Government, to have started houses when the war was in progress. Also, it was not possible for this Government to start a housing programme in the middle of winter. Therefore, we shall have to be judged, not by what has happened up to now, but by what will hap pen this year, and by that I am content to be judged, because I believe that the housing progress will fully justify the plans we have made.
  Let me ask hon. Members to consider the sort of task we have to face, and perhaps if they will look at it from the

  451
  point of view I am about to describe, they will get a little better perspective. A house is at the end of a production line, not at the beginning of it. It is the last product. All sorts of preparations have to be made before the houses appear on the site. Hon. Members opposite, both here and in the organs of public opinion which serve them, or do not serve them, lay emphasis all the while upon the one factor—the building contractor, the speculative builder, the building operatives. I wish to tell the House at once that the main anxiety is not the actual building force on the site. It is the provision of building materials in the background. If we stimulated, by every effort at our disposal, the actual building on the sites, what would happen? There would be no correspondence at all between the assembly of the building force on the sites and the preparation of building materials to supply that force,
  My difficulty is that—and I can explain here to hon. Members that the decision to rest the main responsibility for the provision of houses upon the local authorities was not a doctrinaire one at all. It is that, if we are to have any correspondence between the size of the building force on the sites and the actual provision of material coming forward to the sites from the industries, there must be some planning. If we are to plan we have to plan with plannable instruments, and the speculative builder, by his very nature, is not a plannable instrument. In fact, I cannot tell the House at the present time how many houses private enterprise is building. I do not know what they are doing, where they are doing it or how they are doing it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about licences?"] Because in fact, once they receive their licences, how they use them is entirely a matter for them. If the majority of houses were being put up at the present time by speculative builders, operating quite freely and under their own influence, it would be impossible for the Government to organise the provision of building materials. We would not know what they were doing. We rest the full weight of the housing programme upon the local authorities, because their programmes can be planned, because we know what they are doing, because in fact we can check them if we desire to, and we may have to. In fact, in very many instances the local authorities have pro-
  452
  grammes now going ahead of the provision of some building materials. Therefore, if we are not to have chaos, as we had at the end of the last war, it is necessary that we have some correspondence between what is happening on building sites and what is being done in the background.
  Hon. Members opposite have been reading some history. I have been reading it too. I can tell hon. Members the truth. I am a bit worried, because it looks as though I have failed, in a sense completely different from what hon. Members allege. At the end of the last war, for one year, one whole year, 124 houses were built. That was in one whole year. All were built by local authorities. During the second year, up to November, 1920, a further 16,643 houses were built, 10,998 by local authorities and 5,645 by private builders. During the third year, up to 30th September, 1921, a further 57,429 houses were built, 40,155 by local authorities, and 17,274 by private builders. In other words, at the end of the last war, when housing was at its most difficult, it was the local authorities that had to build houses, and not private enterprise.
  In fact, when references are made to what private enterprise did between the war years—and speech after speech from the benches opposite has mentioned it— the reference is to what private enterprise did 17 years afterwards. Are we to wait 17 years before we get the houses? When hon. Members opposite talk about the 4,000,000 houses when did they start to be built? They reached their peak in 1937–19 years afterwards. Those are the comparisons that have been made but, as I say, I failed in a sense which alarms me, because apparently I have been able to stimulate private enterprise, with no subsidy, more than they did it with a subsidy. For that success I may be taken to task on this side of the House, but hardly on that side.
  It has been suggested that the Government cannot claim credit for the houses built by speculative builders under licence. They say, "That is private enterprise; that is not public enterprise."Do hon. Members, therefore, suggest that I should make no provision either in manpower or building materials for private enterprise building?

  453
  Do they suggest that? If the Government are to make provision for building materials and labour for private enterprise, are not the Government entitled to take credit for the houses built in that way? Hon. Members cannot have it both ways, but they want it. [An HON. MEMBER: "They need it."] They want it. I am suggesting, therefore, that their analysis is completely wrong and that private enterprise is perfectly satisfied to build without the subsidy because it is building a lot more houses today without the subsidy than it built two years after the last war with a handsome subsidy.
  The fact is that the reason why we do not wish to stimulate the production of houses by private enterprise is because the Government have accepted a solemn obligation that we shall use our building materials and our labour first for the production of houses for those who need houses, and not for those who can buy them. Hon. Members opposite come forward with the old Tory clap-trap. The only remedy they have for every social problem is to enable private enterprise to suck at the teats of the State. That is the only kind of remedy they have —that we should pour out public money to private enterprise at the moment in order to build houses to sell. The Government believe that it would have been an act of gross betrayal to the men and women who have been fighting in the war to return home to find well-to-do people able to buy expensive houses while the majority of them wandered about the streets without a shelter. Therefore, we decided, and I should have thought:all hon. Members opposite would have approved it, that, when things are in short supply, we should do as we did during the war and make the things which are in short supply available, first of all, on grounds of equality, to those who need them, and so we are devoting most of our material and most of our labour at the present time to provide houses of that sort.
  If I accepted the logic which has been put forward from those Benches today, the consequence would be inflated housing prices. If all we did was to stimulate the building of houses by private enterprise, as was done at the end of the last war, so that anybody who thought he could build a house started to build it, we would have a vast number
  454
  of houses started all over the country, no houses completed and a whole crop of bankruptcies in the building industry— exactly what happened at the end of the last war. Housing prices went up, between 1919 and 1922, 200 per cent., because no controls of any sort were exercised over the building industry. Therefore, the Government have decided that they are not going to buy short term advantages at the price of long term disasters, and that they are going to start their housing programme as they intend to continue it.
  Criticism has been made today because I have said that, for every four houses built by the local authorities, one shall be built by private enterprise—one in five. Why did I say that? It certainly is not a figure based upon any strict statistical inquiry, because the facts are not available, but because it seems to me to bear the proper relationship to the social situation of most of our people, because four out of five in Great Britain need houses to let and cannot afford to buy them. In fact, one in five is a very generous provision. I want that to be a ceiling, and, where local authorities are able to absorb the whole of the local building force and the whole of the local building material in building their own houses, I hope they will not licence houses at all; because it is not desirable, in these circumstances, that individuals should be able to use things that are in short supply for the building of houses for well-to-do people.
  Something has been said this afternoon about the provision of rural houses. Hon. Members opposite ought to have some slight sense of shame. They ought not to say anything about rural housing. Their main contribution today is to ask me to pump in money in order to build tied cottages. I would like to say to the countryside beyond this House that they should judge hon. Members opposite, not only by their past—because they have been asking us to forget that, as every criminal does in the court—but by what they are doing now. The other day I introduced into this House a Land Acquisition Bill. I want that Bill very badly; I want the powers very badly because, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, in what I thought was a most distinguished speech, we are devising a special scheme for constructing houses of an untraditional type

  455
  in rural areas. We have a re-designed house in an approved system. We have searched for it, and we have found it. But if those houses are to be provided this year in rural England, Wales and Scotland, in the quantities we need, it is necessary that there should be ample site preparation. One of the difficulties about organising untraditional houses is that the sites must be got ahead of the system of construction, as, otherwise, the whole thing breaks down.
  If there is one class of authority in this country which does not possess land in sufficient quantity to go on building, it is the rural authority. When hon. Members opposite talk about the global figure of the number of sites owned, they are talking largely about the boroughs. But the rural authorities have not that land, and the Bill for its acquisition has already been upstairs seven days. Hon. Members opposite have been putting down one frivolous Amendment after another to the Bill. I warn their supporters in the rural countryside that every week that that Bill remains upstairs, it is costing thousands of rural houses this year.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I understood from a recent Ruling of yours that it was not in Order for an hon. Member to refer in this House to what was taking place upstairs.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to any details; he only referred to Amendments in general.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: He said they were "frivolous Amendments."
  Commander Galbraith: Further to that point of Order. Would it be in Order, Mr. Speaker, to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he has been doing about it?
  Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to ask a question.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Further to that point of Order. Unless I misheard the right hon. Gentleman, is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the word "frivolous" was mentioned? I agree that it is in Order to refer in a general way to what takes place upstairs, but, surely, the right hon. Gentleman is not
  456
  entitled to refer to "frivolous Amendments "as, otherwise, we should be entitled to take objection to that, as I do.
  Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must not disclose what happens in Committee.
  Mr. Bevan: The fact is that hon. Members opposite cannot take it. What they want to do is to give abstract lip service to housing and to try to block every Parliamentary Measure dealing with it. We need—and I would have hon. Members realise this—powers to acquire land very quickly at the present time because we have only two or three months at the outside in which to prepare the housing sites after we acquire the land. Rural authorities that have not large quantities of labour available need to have as much time as possible. Therefore, I beg hon. Members opposite to realise that every day they hold up these Measures costs houses.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: No one has any objection to hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, but is it relevant, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the acquisition of land with which this Bill is not concerned at all?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to discuss the general housing problem on the Second Reading.
  Mr. Bevan: Reference is made in the Bill to certain powers, which I ask the House to give, to finance the construction of untraditional housing schemes. That has a direct relationship with the acquisition of land for those houses, and unless we can have the powers, we cannot get on with the job of providing houses. Furthermore, it is"necessary that we have this Bill very shortly. [Interruption.] Hon. Members really must be fair. We really must have this Bill in a Committee of the House, but there are certain powers in this Bill which we must also have quickly. I am not asking that hon. Members of the Opposition should forgo their Parliamentary rights, but I am asking, if they are sincere and earnest in their intention to build houses, that they ought quickly to furnish the Government with the legislative instrument to get on with the job.
  Mr. Assheton: The right hon. Gentleman has not only accused hon. Members on this side of the House of moving frivolous Amendments, but has also cast a reflection on the Chair in Committee.
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman's mental processes are very slow. We left that point five minutes ago. The City of London does not seem to provide a sufficient stimulus to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope the House will give us this Measure very quickly, because these powers are necessary for us to get on with the job. As the monthly returns come out they provide us, and, I think, the country, with an excellent means for stimulating the local authorities into action. We are providing more information than any Government has ever given before. Appendix B gives the record of every local authority. Is that not a wonderful instrument of democratic emulation, when each local authority compares its own progress with the progress of its neighbour, when each local journal and newspaper points out the backwardness or forwardness of this or that particular local authority? Will that not, in the course of a year, produce friendly "competition among all the local authorities, stimulating them into activity in a most agreeable and democratic way? It seems to me that, so far from being criticised, the Government should be praised, because we are really sincerely trying to harness the forces of British democracy to the solution of this housing problem, and I beg hon. Members to believe that we are not riding prejudices. We are directing our resources to where they can in fact best be used.
  The Amendment deplores the fact that we are not going in for conversion. I will tell hon. Members why not. I have told the House before. War damage and cost-plus have had a most demoralising influence upon a section of the building industry, both workmen and employers. The progress that has been made during the last six months in the rehousing of people who suffered war damage, and especially towards the end of last year and the beginning of this year, is due to going over from cost-plus to firm prices. All that rehousing, or most of it, has been done in the last six months. When the war damage is over we want the building workers to go on to the straightforward clean job of building new houses. If you take them from war damage work and put them onto conversions again it does not satisfy the craftsmen's pride. It is dirty work; we will not be able to get from the building workers the result that we ought to get. We an go back to
  458
  conversions later. In the meantime, we can get a more wholesome building industry by putting the workers on to the straightforward clean job of building newhouses.
  I hope hon. Members in no part of the House will press me at this stage to implement that report. It will require legislation, and very complicated legislation at that. At the same time, it will use up skilled labour, which is in very short supply and which we need today on our new housing schemes. In the rural areas it is impossible for us at this moment to use any labour at all on reconditioning, because the rural workers want to see new houses going up. I have had deputation after deputation from the rural areas objecting to the use of labour and materials putting tied cottages in good repair when there is a shortage of housing accommodation. We are providing a subsidy. Objection has been taken to it. The only case of private subsidy under the Bill is the subsidy for the farmer to build a house for his stockman. It is suggested we ought to give exactly the same subsidy as that given to the local authority. Why? It will be private property. It will increase the capital value of the farm. Surely, the owner of the property ought to make some contribution. It is not reasonable to expect that the State should find the whole of the difference. These houses must be subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts, because I am not going to be responsible; as Minister of Health in this Government, for the provision of public money to tie agricultural workers, under the threat of eviction, to an employer they do not like.
  Mr. Molson: Doctrinaire prejudice.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member opposite can regard that as doctrinaire prejudice if he likes. The fact is when we try to take the local property off the shoulders of the people in those areas it is regarded as doctrinaire prejudice.
  Mr. Molson: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer to this question about reconditioning. Has he had any advice upon this matter, and if he has is he prepared to publish the report?
  Mr. Bevan: I will wait until I see the full report. The report out so far is a very terse document.
  Mr. Molson: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to publish it?
  Mr. Bevan: Certainly. There is no reason why it should not be published. Hon. Members can have all the information they wish. I do not desire to sit on any piece of information, and if the information we can provide will help them to bring forward better arguments than I have heard today, I shall be delighted. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope the House will reject the Amendment, because, if carried, it will have the effect of disorganising the
  whole housing programme of the Government. I am convinced that as the year develops the housing situation will show that the Government have the whole thing well in hand, and the people of Great Britain will realise that they have in office at the present time people who are really concerned about housing and not merely about making political capital out of it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 136.

  Division No 96.

  AYES

  10.15 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A

  Hardy E. A.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Daggar, G.

  Haworth, J.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Daines, P.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Allighan, Garry

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Alpass, J. H

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hobson, C. R

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hubbard, T.

  Attewell, H. C

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

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

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Austin, H. L.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ayles, W H.

  Deer, G.

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

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Delargy, Captain H. J

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Diamond, J

  Irving, W. J

  Balfour, A.

  Dobbie, W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Dodds, N. N.

  Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

  Barstow, P. G.

  Donovan, T.

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

  Barton, C

  Douglas, F. C R.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Battley, J. R.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Belcher, J. W.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Keenan, W.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Kenyon, C.

  Benson, G.

  Dye, S

  Key, C. W.

  Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  King, E. M.

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

  Edelman, M.

  Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

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

  Kinley, J.

  Binns, J

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Blackburn, Capt. A. R

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Kirkwood D.

  Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

  Evans, E (Lowestoft)

  Lang, G

  Blyton, W. R.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Lavers, S.

  Boardman, H.

  Ewart, R.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Leonard, W.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Bowen, R.

  Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Bowles, F G (Nuneaton)

  Follick, M.

  Lindgren, G. S.

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

  Foot, M. M.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Foster, W (Wigan)

  Logan, D. G

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Longden, F.

  Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  McAdam W.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Gaitskell, H T. N

  McAllister, G.

  Bruce, Maj. D W T

  Gallacher, W.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Buchanan, G.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  McGhee, H. G.

  Burden, T. W.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  McGovern, J

  Burke, W A.

  Gibbins, J.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

  Gilzean, A.

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

  Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  McKinlay, A S.

  Champion, A. J.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Chater D.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  McLeavy F.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G R.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Clitherow Dr. R.

  Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Cluse, W. S

  Grey, C. F.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Grierson E.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Cocks, F. S

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Lianelly)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Collick, P.

  Griffiths, Capt. W. D (Moss Side)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Collindridge, F.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Collins, V. J.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Mathers, G.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Guy, W. H.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Hale, Leslie

  Medland, H. M.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. .

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Middleton, Mrs L

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cove, W. G.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill

  Mitchison, Maj. G R.

  Montague, F.

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Moody, A. S.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Tolley, L.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Morley, R.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

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

  Scollan, T.

  Usborne, Henry

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

  Viant, S P.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A.

  Walkden, E.

  Mort, D. L.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Walker, G. H.

  Moyle, A.

  Shawcross, sir H. (St. Helens)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Murray, J. D.

  Shurmer, P.

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

  Nally, W.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Warbey, W. N

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Watson, W. M.

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

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Skinnard, F W.

  Weitzman, D.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

  Wells, W T. (Walsall)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

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

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Smith, H N (Nottingham, S.)

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

  Oliver, G. H.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Whiteley, Rt Hon. W.

  Paget, R. T.

  Smith, T (Normanton)

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Wilkes, Maj. L.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Parker, J.

  Sparks, J. A

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Stamford, W.

  Williams, W. R (Heston)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Steele, T.

  Williamson, T.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Willis, E.

  Perrins, W.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Swingler, Capt. S.

  Wilson, J. H.

  Popplewell, E.

  Symonds, Maj. A L.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Woodburn, A.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Woods, G. S.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Wyatt, Maj. W

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Yates, V. F. .

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Ranger, J.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Rankin, J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Tiffany, S.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

  Rhodes, H.

  Timmons, J.

  NOES.

  Agnew,, Cmdr. P. G.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Maude, J. C

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Grimston, R. V.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Assheton, Rt Hon R.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)

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

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Nicholson, G.

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

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

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

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

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Boothby, R.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Orr-Ewing, I L.

  Bower, N.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Peake, Rt Hon. O.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.

  Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.

  Peto, Brig. C H. M.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Carson, E.

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

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Channon, H.

  Hurd, A.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

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

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

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

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

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

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

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

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Ross, Sir R.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Scott, Lord W.

  De la Bère, R.

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

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  Digby, Maj. S. W.

  Linstead, H. N

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A V. G. (Penrith)

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

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

  Studholme, H. G.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Teeling, William

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

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

  Marples, Capt. A. E.

  Thomson Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Gammans, Capt L. D.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

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

  462

  463

  Touche, G. C.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  York, C.

  Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Sir Arthur Young and Mr. Drewe.

  Ward, Hon. G. R

  Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

  Mr. Drewe

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next. — [Mr. Mathers.]

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major Milner in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh arrangements for the making of contributions, grants and loans in connection with the provision of housing accommodation; to provide for matters subordinate to that purpose; to amend the enactments which relate to the making of contributions in respect of housing accommodation; to amend the law relating to the housing accounts of local authorities; and to facilitate the provision of housing accommodation in the Isles of Scilly, it is expedient—

  A. To authorise, subject to the limitation hereinafter mentioned, the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Health in making to a local authority in respect of each new house provided by the authority, not more than sixty annual contributions, each of them not to exceed:—

  (1)sixteen pounds ten shillings; or

  (2) in the case of a house provided for the agricultural population, or a house pro vided by or in the exercise of the powers of the council of a county district which fulfils the conditions laid down by the said Act of the present Session with reference both to the rents obtainable from houses in the district and to the financial resources of the district, twenty-five pounds ten shillings; or

  (3) in the case of a house on a site (that is to say, a site as determined in accordance with the said Act of the present Session) the cost of which as developed exceeds: fifteen hundred pounds per acre, a sum rising from twenty-eight pounds ten shi lings where that cost is not more than four thousand pounds to thirty-five pounds five shillings where that cost is not more than twelve thousand pounds, and then increasing by one pound ten shillings for each additional two thousand pounds or part thereof; or

  (4) in the case of a flat in a block of flats which, as to the whole or any part thereof, is at least four storeys high and
  464
  which has had a lift installed therein, a sum determined in accordance with the last preceding paragraph plus seven pounds; each of the said contributions to be capable of being increased —

  (a)in the case of a house the cost of which is increased by expenses attributable to the acquisition of rights of support, or otherwise attributable to measures taken for securing protection against the consequences of a subsidence of the site, by not more than two pounds;

  (b)if the authority by whom or in the exercise of whose powers the house is pro vided fulfils the conditions laid down in the said Act with reference to the high level of the general rate and the financial burden of the authority in respect of housing, by not more than one-half of the contribution which the authority would otherwise be liable to make under the said Act in respect of the house.

  The said limitation is that no such contribution shall be payable in respect of any such house unless the house has been approved by the Minister for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session or has, on or after the third day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-four, been approved by the Minister for the purposes of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, or, if not so approved, is a house completed after the end of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.

  B. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister in making, in respect of any house provided by a housing association other wise than in pursuance of arrangements made under section ninety-four of the Housing Act, 1936, being a house for the construction of which building operations began between the end of December, nineteen hundred and thirty- nine, and the passing of the said Act of the present Session —

  (a)the same contributions as would in the opinion of the Minister have been pay able by him if the house had been provided by the local authority of the area; and

  (b)in the case of a house likely to cause loss to the association, such"additional annual contributions as may be provided by the said Act of the present Session.

  C. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session —

  (1) relating to the provision of housing accommodation in government war buildings

  (2) increasing to fifteen pounds the contributions which may be paid by the Minister in respect of a house under section three of the said Act of 1938, and varying the conditions with which arrangements under that section are required to comply;

  465

  (3)empowering the Minister to make contributions in respect of houses which have become vested in local authorities;

  (4)providing for grants by the Minister in respect of houses constructed otherwise than by traditional methods;

  (5)providing for grants by the Minister to housing associations established in pursuance of arrangements made by the Minister; and

  (6)providing for the making of contributions by the Minister in respect of housing accommodation in the Isles of Scilly.

  D. To authorise the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of en abling the Minister to make loans to housing associations, so, however, that the total amount so issued, less any sums which have been repaid, shall not at any time exceed fifteen million pounds, and to extend the purposes for which advances may be made out of the said Fund under section one of the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945.

  E To authorise the Treasury, in order to provide money to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of enabling the Minister to make such loans as aforesaid, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, and for that purpose to create and issue securities which shall be deemed for all purposes to have been created and issued under that Act.

  F. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of all sums received by the Minister under the said Act of the present Session and any sums received by the Minister by way of interest on or repayment of any loan made out of money issued to him by the Treasury under the said Act, and to provide that any sums received by the Minister by way of interest on or repayment of any such loan and paid into the Exchequer shall be issued out of the Consolidated Fund at such times as the Treasury may direct and be applied, in so far as they represent principal, in redemption or repayment of debt, and, in so far as they represent interest, in the payment of interest which would otherwise be payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.

  In this Resolution the expression ' house ' includes any part of a building, being a part which is occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, and, in particular, includes a flat."— (King's Recommendation signified.)— [Mr. Aneurin Bevan.]
  The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
  In line II, after the first "Authority "insert:
  "or to some person other than a local authority."
  In line II, at end, insert
  "or by such person".
  In line 70, at end, insert:
  "(4) providing for grants by the Minister in respect of houses of a limited value or size provided by any person."
  10.30 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May I ask you, Major Milner, whether you intend to call any of the Amendments which are on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friends and myself?
  The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I do not propose to call any of the Amendments on the Order Paper. In my view, they are out of order.
  Captain Crookshank: I was going to ask you, Major Milner, on what you based your decision that they were out of order, if you would be good enough to say so.
  The Chairman: In my opinion the Amendments conflict with the King's Re-commendation, and it is for that reason that they are out of order.
  Captain Crookshank: The purpose of the Resolution is to make certain grants and contributions. If I may with respect suggest, Major Milner, that you read the first paragraph of the Resolution you will find these words:
  "to make fresh arrangements for the making of contributions grants and loans in connection with the provision of housing accommodation."
  That part is not limited at all and therefore the Amendments cannot have the effect of increasing charges, because there is no maximum put in the Resolution. I submit that it is in order to discuss the various uses to which the money can be put, within the purposes indicated by that part of the Resolution.
  The Chairman: Hon. Members will appreciate that these Amendments would widen the categories entitled to grants. It is for that reason that I have ruled them out of order.
  Captain Crookshank: How can they extend the category if there is no category stated?
  The Chairman: The Amendments propose to extend the grants to any other persons. Consequently that would ex-tend the categories, and might mean that there would have to be increases in the grants and hence an increased charge. This, of course, would be, as I have already said, in conflict with the King's Recommendation.
  Mr. McKinlay: May I ask for your guidance on a point of Order, Major Milner? Is it in Order to ask the Chairman to give a reason for his Ruling? If so, it is well that it should be known for the future, for the sake of those who have as yet had little experience here.
  The Chairman: The Committee will appreciate that it is not necessary for the Chairman to give reasons for his Rulings on points of Order, but reasons are given as a matter of courtesy.
  Mr. Driberg: Is it in Order for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to go on arguing with the Chairman, once a Ruling has been given, and once you, Major Milner, have stated your reason for it?
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: One reason why I thought I was fortunate to catch your eye, Major Milner, was that I could then speak on the main argument. I do not, however, wish to detain the Committee long. We have had a very friendly Debate today and there is no question on any side of causing unnecessary delay. But I would like to say how much I regret that this Money Resolution has been so closely drawn. I think many hon. Members feel strongly on this point. If the Money Resolution goes through in this form, many of those who are at present writing Amendments to the Bill will not be able to do anything about them. So long as we believe in free debate, I feel that it is important that these Money Resolutions should be framed in such a way as to give generous scope in debate to anyone who feels that he has a constructive contribution to make. I make no apology for repeating words used by the Prime Minister when in Opposition:
  "I deemed it to be my duty as Leader of the Opposition to call attention to what I consider to be the danger of Members losing their privilege in this House …It is found, when a Bill comes forward in which they are interested, that the whole matter is dealt with in the Financial Resolution … and they cannot get their Amendments called."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1937; Vol. 321, c. 815 and 820.]
  Hon. Members will appreciate they cannot expect to be the Government of the day for ever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] At any rate, if they expect it,
  468
  I am afraid that they are in for a very sickening awakening. When they are on this side of the House, they will find themselves just as keen as we are in supporting the protest that these Financial Resolutions should be drawn more widely. I would only say before I close that at the end of the Debate on the Money Resolution in connection with the Bank of England Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer used these words:
  "This is a hybrid Bill and therefore a new stage is interposed … Had no Select Committee stage been interposed, it might strongly and powerfully have been argued that the Money Resolution was. too narrowly drawn."…[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 541.]
  In this Bill there is no intermediate stage. There is no Select Committee stage and therefore that consideration does not apply. I deeply regret that we cannot put forward some of the constructive proposals we should like to submit.
  Major Peter Roberts: There is one very important point which I wish with all sincerity to put before the Committee, and I shall be as brief as possible. I want to draw attention first of all to line 9 of this Resolution . which is:
  "To authorise, subject to the limitation hereinafter mentioned."
  If we read further we see that the limitation is that no contribution shall be paid without the approval of the Minister. In my submission, that is far too wide. I consider that gives the Minister much too great a power indealing with these moneys. We are spending public-money. We are spending the money of my constituents and of other taxpayers and ratepayers and therefore I think that we are entitled to know how much that money is likely to be. I admit that it is very important and very necessary to spend the money, but that does not mean that we should do away with the normal custom of estimating what the cost is going to be. When I turn to the Memorandum on the Bill I find on page 4 the words:
  "It is not possible to give an estimate at the present time of the total cost of the proposals in the Bill "
  and it goes on further to state:
  "The number of new houses and flats which will attract Exchequer subsidy at the rates provided for in the Bill cannot yet be determined."
  In my opinion approximate estimates could and should be given before we con-

  469
  sider this Resolution. We have heard that the Socialists, when they get down to a problem of this sort, set out to make a plan. The Minister has said that he makes a plan with plannable material. If that is so, I see no reason why the estimates of the cost of this plan should not be put before the Committee on this Financial Resolution. It would enable the Committee and the country outside to criticise this expenditure. We have had other plans before the House — demobilisation was a good example — concerning which, as a result of discussion, a speed-up has been effected. A further point is that people who have no houses, and who want to plan ahead, would know when they are likely to get houses. I can see only one reason why the Minister does not give this estimate. It is that he would not be able to live up to it. The Minister said he would give all the information necessary. I ask him to live up to that promise now. Let him give us the information about the houses he is going to build over a number of years. I suggest that is necessary before we pass this Money Resolution. I suggest also that the right hon. Gentleman does not give it, because he has not the courage of his convictions. If he had, he would give us these figures. I submit that the Committee cannot accept the responsibility for a Financial Resolution of this kind, which is so widely drawn that it is almost a blank cheque. It is the same sort of thing that the Minister of Fuel and Power is trying to "get over "on the question of coal. I hope the Minister will consider this point
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): With regard to the speeches we have just heard, I think hon. Members opposite would be astonished if a Bill which is almost all money provisions, had a wider Financial Resolution than this. It is customary in Bills of this sort, which concern practically nothing else but money, to have the Financial Resolution narrowly drawn. In fact, if the Money Resolution had been more widely drawn, hon. Members opposite would have found it difficult, because they would not be able to move Amendments to increase the charge. This discussion is an ingenious way of trying to get a programme from me. I refuse, as I have already stated, to provide hon. Members with a programme. [HON. MEMBERS—"Why?"] Because a programme under such unpredictable circumstances,
  470

  would be no more reliable than the programmes produced by the last Government. I would rather have the houses on the ground than in the air, and if I did put an estimate in the Bill, the estimate would have to be the sky, because I should have to put it abnormally high. If I did not, and I exceeded the amount of money stated, I should have to come back for new powers; but the higher the figure in the Bill, the more houses we shall have. There is a direct relationship between the amount of money provided for in the Bill and the number of houses built. Therefore, so far from being apprehensive that they will be called upon to provide more money, hon. Members ought to be rather alarmed that perhaps they may not be asked to provide enough. It seems to me that hon. Members are getting themselves into a frightful tangle. There is no reason at all why an estimate should be put in. If I had put in an estimate — and one has never been put in a Bill of this sort before, because it is always impossible to know how many houses will be built and what sort—
  Major Roberts rose—
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: Let me finish my point. If the hon. Member will look at the provisions of the Bill more closely he will see, as my hon. Friend explained in his speech this afternoon, that it may happen that a particular group of authorities, who are entitled to attract higher subsidy than some other authorities, would build more houses than the other authorities. How can I estimate how much they would cost? For instance, rural authorities may build more or less, urban authorities more or less, authorities in the distressed areas more or less, and the areas attracting the additional £ 2 per year for subsidy more or less houses. How on earth is it possible, therefore, to make an estimate? Expensive sites, flats or no flats, how many fiats per acre — all these factors are actually, even within the structure of the Bill itself, independent of any programme and quite unpredictable. Therefore, hon. Members who are asking me to put an estimate in the Bill are asking me to do a lot of loose guesswork which would have no relationship at all to objective realities.
  Commander Galbraith rose—
  Mr. Bevan: I seem to act as a stimulant upon the hon. and gallant Member.
  Commander Galbraith: In view of the arguments the right hon. Gentleman has used, can he explain to the Committee how it comes about that the Secretary of State for Scotland in his Bill has managed to produce the very figures asked for, from this side of the Committee, which the Minister says he cannot give?
  Mr. Bevan: I have not seen that Bill at the moment, but the Scots have always a greater sense of exactitude than the Welsh. At any rate, as far as I am concerned, I am unable to produce figures,
  472
  because they would have no relationship to reality, and I do not want to put guesswork into the Bill.
  Commander Galbraith: I hope the Minister is not casting any aspersions on anyone.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Mathers.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

FOOD SUPPLIES
  Bananas
  Bananas
  Grain Allocations (Brewers and Distillers)
  Grain Allocations (Brewers and Distillers)
  Tomatoes
  Tomatoes
  Green Vegetables (Eastern Counties)
  Green Vegetables (Eastern Counties)
  Fish Prices
  Fish Prices
  Shipping Requirements (Priority)
  Shipping Requirements (Priority)
  Young Chickens (Maximum Prices)
  Young Chickens (Maximum Prices)
  Sweets (Loughborough)
  Sweets (Loughborough)
  Imported Supplies (Eire)
  Imported Supplies (Eire)
  Canteen Supplies (Factories)
  Canteen Supplies (Factories)
  Whaling Expedition (Catch)
  Whaling Expedition (Catch)
  Whale Oil
  Whale Oil
  Herring (Refrigeration Plants)
  Herring (Refrigeration Plants)
  Imported Fruit (Aberdeen)
  Imported Fruit (Aberdeen)
  Rations (Home Services and Miners)
  Rations (Home Services and Miners)
  Cheese (Special Ration)
  Cheese (Special Ration)
  Oranges (Imports)
  Oranges (Imports)
  Milk Distribution, Welbeck
  Milk Distribution, Welbeck
  Ministry's Purchases (Negotiations)
  Ministry's Purchases (Negotiations)
  Combined Food Board
  Combined Food Board
  Canned Fruits
  Canned Fruits
  Poultry Feeding Stuffs
  Poultry Feeding Stuffs
  Controlled Stocks
  Controlled Stocks
  Unsalted Margarine
  Unsalted Margarine
  World Wheat Supplies (Allocations)
  World Wheat Supplies (Allocations)
  Badly Bombed Areas (Shop Staffs)
  Badly Bombed Areas (Shop Staffs)
  SUPPLEMENTARY SOAP RATION (BABIES)
  SUPPLEMENTARY SOAP RATION (BABIES)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Trade Samples (Import Licences)
  Trade Samples (Import Licences)
  Exports (Weight)
  Exports (Weight)
  Munitions Factory, Dalbeattie
  Munitions Factory, Dalbeattie
  New Factories, Northern Ireland (U.K. Firms)
  New Factories, Northern Ireland (U.K. Firms)
  Paint Industry (Linseed Oil)
  Paint Industry (Linseed Oil)
  Clothing Coupons (Doctors and Dispensers)
  Clothing Coupons (Doctors and Dispensers)
  Surgical Belts
  Surgical Belts
  Non-essential Goods(Importation)
  Non-essential Goods(Importation)
  Victory Celebrations (Mugs)
  Victory Celebrations (Mugs)
  Timber (Furniture)
  Timber (Furniture)
  Flavouring Essences (Export)
  Flavouring Essences (Export)
  North Wales Development Council
  North Wales Development Council
  Woollen Industry, Wales
  Woollen Industry, Wales
  Development Area (Definition)
  Development Area (Definition)
  Irish Workers (Clothing Coupons)
  Irish Workers (Clothing Coupons)
  Tobacco (Bulgaria and Greece)
  Tobacco (Bulgaria and Greece)
  Patent Applications
  Patent Applications
  KITCHEN WASTE COLLECTION
  KITCHEN WASTE COLLECTION
  PENSIONS APPEALS, MANCHESTER
  PENSIONS APPEALS, MANCHESTER
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Technical Instructors (Home Posting)
  Technical Instructors (Home Posting)
  Bomber Command (Training and Casualty Figures)
  Bomber Command (Training and Casualty Figures)
  Lancaster Aircraft (Accidents)
  Lancaster Aircraft (Accidents)
  Airfields, Scotland (Cultivation)
  Airfields, Scotland (Cultivation)
  Shillingford Bridge Hotel (Derequisition)
  Shillingford Bridge Hotel (Derequisition)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
KENYA
  Administrative Assistants
  Administrative Assistants
  Land Control Board (Applications)
  Land Control Board (Applications)
  HIGHER EDUCATION,COLONIES (INTER-UNIVERSITY COUNCIL)
  HIGHER EDUCATION,COLONIES (INTER-UNIVERSITY COUNCIL)
  BRITISH COMMONWEALTH (CALORIFIC STANDARDS)
  BRITISH COMMONWEALTH (CALORIFIC STANDARDS)
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES (STAFF)
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES (STAFF)
  PRODUCTION CAMPAIGN (PUBLICITY)
  PRODUCTION CAMPAIGN (PUBLICITY)
  EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  AUSTRIA (HUNGARIAN PRISONERS)
  AUSTRIA (HUNGARIAN PRISONERS)
  POLISH TROOPS (ITALY)
  POLISH TROOPS (ITALY)
  ITALO-YUGOSLAV BORDER (COMMISSION)
  ITALO-YUGOSLAV BORDER (COMMISSION)
ROYAL NAVY
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  S.S. "Menestheus "(Delay)
  S.S. "Menestheus "(Delay)
  Submarine "Thetis "
  Submarine "Thetis "
  Sea Cadet Corps
  Sea Cadet Corps
  Cadet Entry (Schools)
  Cadet Entry (Schools)
  Lower Deck Promotion
  Lower Deck Promotion
  Re-employed Officers (Pay and Pensions)
  Re-employed Officers (Pay and Pensions)
  Royal Marine Police (Fire Duty)
  Royal Marine Police (Fire Duty)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  s.s. "BANADEROS" (TRANSPORT OF CARGO)
  s.s. "BANADEROS" (TRANSPORT OF CARGO)
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
  SCHOOL AIR RAID SHELTERS
  SCHOOL AIR RAID SHELTERS
  AGRICULTURAL WORKER'S RELEASE
  AGRICULTURAL WORKER'S RELEASE
  SOLDIERS' FAMILIES (CEYLON)
  SOLDIERS' FAMILIES (CEYLON)
  RELEASED SERVICEMEN (RAINCOATS)
  RELEASED SERVICEMEN (RAINCOATS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax (Church Organs)
  Purchase Tax (Church Organs)
  Betting Duty
  Betting Duty
  LOCAL ELECTIONS (NOMINATIONS)
  LOCAL ELECTIONS (NOMINATIONS)
  REGISTRARS (CONDITIONS AND SERVICES)
  REGISTRARS (CONDITIONS AND SERVICES)
  PREFABRICATED HOUSES (ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION)
  PREFABRICATED HOUSES (ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  LORD COLGRAIN.
  Colin Frederick Campbell Esquire, having been created Baron Colgrain of Everlands in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD DARWEN.
John Percival Davies Esquire, having been created Baron Darwen of Heys-in-Bowland in the West Riding of the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Bethel—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I should like, if I may, to take this opportunity to inform the House that, after consultations through the usual channels, it has been decided that we should conclude the debate on foreign affairs to-morrow rather than proceed some way with it and then adjourn it for conclusion to another day.
In order to meet the general convenience, the Kitchen Committee have arranged for dinner to be served in the restaurant from seven o'clock onwards on Thursday evening. There will be no adjournment of the debate for dinner, and it will greatly assist the staff in the restaurant, and convenience your Lordships yourselves, if those who propose to dine here to-morrow will kindly notify the hour to the restaurant in advance. In particular it will facilitate matters if times can be generally arranged, so that
1150
The service of dinners can be continuous, rather than concentrated within a single short period. I am sure I may count on the co-operation of your Lordships.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS DISPENSED WITH.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Agricultural Development (Ploughing up of Land) Bill over the other Notices and Orders of the Day and for the purpose of passing that Bill through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (PLOUGHING UP OF LAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
(The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.)
Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with, Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTLAKE CREMATORIUM BOARD) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order) and committed.

RECIPROCAL ECONOMIC AID.
2.50 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAMhad given Notice that he would move to resolve, That this House recognizes that reciprocal economic aid between kindred peoples is indispensable to the coherence of the British Commonwealth and the welfare of the Colonial Empire; and further is calculated to stimulate multilateral trade and world recovery. The noble Lord said: My Lords, last week, in another place and again in a broadcast on Sunday evening, the Prime Minister made an appeal to the nation for a united effort in working for recovery. The appeal was clear, it was cogent and it was, unquestionably, timely. I am sure that in all quarters of the country, and by all sections of the population a great effort will be made to respond to it, and I should like to assure His Majesty's Government that, so far as we on these 'Benches are concerned, we will do our very utmost in every way to further it.
On the other hand, however great is the effort, even if we recover the unity which we had in 1940, even if everybody were capable now of the same standard of work and concentration, a national effort alone will not be sufficient. As Mr. Chesterton once said, this is a country that lives on the edge of things. As the result of our enormous industrial development in the last century, we are more dependent than any other country in the world on our export and import trade. Therefore, our policy for recovery, our economic policy, must also be a world policy. In fact, recovery in this Country depends in equal measure upon two things—a united national effort in the country, and the wisdom with which we devise, pursue and expound our policy in external affairs, both political and economic. This latter question is not one for the nation at large. It is, obviously, one for debate in Parliament and for leadership by His Majesty's Government. It is that external policy which is the subject of my Resolution this afternoon.
Before I come to the Resolution I would ask leave to make three preliminary observations, to which I attach the very greatest importance. In the first place, we know that Europe, at the present moment, is a devastated and
1152
prostrate continent. We know, and we ought to recognize, that in the American continent there lies the only large, undevastated, organized, productive area with adequate population and with an adequate scheme of production, particularly of food-stuffs, to give Europe the help it requires. Our dependence on the American continent—do not let us disguise it—whatever we do in this country, whatever we do in the Empire, is great, though the dependence in Europe is greater, and I am sure that the United States, with their generous-hearted people will respond to the need of Europe when once that need is fully appreciated.
The second thing upon which I should like to insist as a preliminary is recognition of the fact, which no one can conceal, that owing to our sacrifices our financial position is, for the time being, extremely difficult. I would not, therefore, say a single word which might in any way seem to decry the importance of the line of credit which has been promised to us by the American Administration, provided it can get the support and the concurrence of Congress. You may discuss this matter, and you may criticize this point or that point about the terms presented to us and finally settled in regard to that line of credit, but, broad and long, it certainly shows exceptional consideration for this country; it certainly shows great generosity. I also believe that it will be found to be very good business for the United States. Nothing, therefore, that I say this afternoon, will, I hope, militate in any way against the acceptance in the United States of the line of credit which has been proposed by the American Government.
There is a third thing which I should like to make plain. While I am going to discuss our economic and trade relations with the United States, nothing I say is intended to suggest any departure from the terms of the agreement for the International Trade Conference which we have made with the American administration. The Prime Minister, in another place, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House here, have thoroughly expounded the significance of those proposals as they affect us, and I am sure you will agree that in this country our word is our bond, and that there will be no deviation by a hair's breadth from our engagements

1153
under this document. What we seek on this side of your Lordships' House is clarification, and, in particular, we wish to call attention to certain material and still more to certain moral considerations affecting this great issue, which in our opinion are not fully appreciated at the present time in the United States of America. I would lay particular emphasis on the moral considerations, since it is those considerations above all which must govern us as the head and heart of a great Commonwealth and Empire. I suggest, therefore, that we are in duty bound to define these moral and these material obligations with precision for the negotiations which lie ahead of us.
We are to have, I understand, an Imperial Conference towards the end of April, and an International Trade Conference is proposed to be held later in the year. Unity and clarity of purpose in the way in which we present our views at those Conferences are absolutely essential, and this Resolution is an attempt to further that unity and that clarity. I have hope that it may be accepted in that
spirit by His Majesty's Government. If in this way your Lordships as a Council of State—a phrase with which we are becoming familiar, and which I venture to think is a very good phrase and a very good description of the service we render at the present time—can promote the common effort to which the Prime Minister has exhorted us, you will, I think, have done a good day's work for the nation, the Commonwealth and the world. I do not see, and I hope noble Lords on the Benches opposite will agree with me, why our domestic differences on economic questions should in any way impair our national unity on this kind of external issue. The policy set out in this Resolution can be pursued effectively whatever solutions we adopt on the Party questions that divide us, provided only that we do not lose sight amid the hot haze of political controversy of our most vital needs, which are greatly increased production and expanding trade in the outside world.
Everyone will agree that in external relations our first duty is to do all we can for the Commonwealth and Empire. I think everyone will also agree that we must hold to our historical rôle of championing the freedom of the smaller nations in any way in which they desire
1154
it and in which we find we can help. Everyone will agree that the crux of both these policies, our policy towards the Commonwealth and Empire and our policy towards the smaller nations, depends upon the relations we maintain with the United States. The American people have become the greatest economic power in the world. Mr. Churchill in his great speech at Fulton, Missouri, last night said they had reached an unexampled pinnacle. That is true at the present moment. We need assistance from them, and they need co-operation from us, and the real question we have to determine between us is: on what terms.
Let me say first that I can imagine nothing more disruptive of the moral and material power which is now in the world to build up the Four Freedoms of the United Nations Organization than any deep divergence of policy, whether in political or economic affairs, between the British Commonwealth and the United States of America. I have travelled a good deal in the United States during the last forty years, and that long experience has bred in me a steadily increasing affection and admiration for the American people. They descend in large part from the most vigorous and independent types of men and women that Europe has produced. In many cases their ancestors left Europe because they were so vigorous and so independent, and their whole life is permeated by the invincible
spirit of the pioneer. Warm-hearted, hospitable, intensely human and nobly generous, as this war has proved, they are glorious friends and they are sure, as only greatness in its first youth is sure. Obstacles mean nothing to them when once they have taken an enterprise in hand. They are in some ways the Greeks of the modern world, always in search of something new. With their vigour, their momentum and sheer vitality, their vast resources and organizing capacity, and their inventive skill, they constitute a power without equal in the world, and that power, I am deeply convinced, is a power for good as we understand it in ordinary affairs.
What danger, then, can menace the fullest co-operation between ourselves and
them? Assuredly, not any difference of ultimate aims and ideas. We want a maximum of production and a widespread increase of producing power. So do the

1155
Americans. We want to abolish all trade restrictions which can be shown to hamper production and stunt the growth of trade. So do the Americans. We want to co-operate to the utmost with America in building up prosperity throughout the world. I believe the Americans wish to co-operate with us in the same way. There is indeed a fund of friendship within the United States which I do not think can be found anywhere at all outside our own family circle in the Commonwealth. You may have listened to a broadcast by Mr. Edward Morrow on a recent evening when he spoke about the people of this country and the character of this country after long experience during the war years in which he shared our vicissitudes with us. I am sure those of your Lordships who heard that broadcast will have found it to be a deeply moving tribute to this people and I am bound to say I have not heard anything of that kind on the air from Russia, France or China, to mention only the three permanent associates we have on the Security Council.
The danger, then, of misunderstanding between ourselves and the United States, lies not in any difference about ultimate aims but, as I fear and believe, in a really serious difference upon the value and significance of the Empire and more particularly of the moral obligation which it constitutes for us. There is, I fear, a very great divergence between American thought and ours in that all-important field. The American thesis is a simple one. It is based on two fundamentals, namely, maximum production in the United States and maximum freedom of trade throughout the rest of the world. Americans ask what hampers the maximum freedom of trade which they so desire, and they answer "Discriminatory practices." Therefore, they conclude, all such practices should be abolished, including British Imperial Preference, which they more particularly condemn. They accordingly advocate a rigid and universal application of the most-favoured-nation clause under which no State can give a preference of any kind to a near neighbour or a kindred State without conceding the same advantage to all other States.
Under such a system Imperial Preference would cease to have any value or significance at all. This ideal, let us remember, we ourselves pursued with great tenacity in the second half of the nine-
1156
teenth century. And with what result? It destroyed our agriculture; I am afraid it increased the poverty of our slums, it certainly increased their extent and it landed us with an unbalanced economy which it is now very difficult to retrieve. The conditions now are different. The unceasing process of political development, greatly accelerated by two world wars, has since that time completely transformed our relations with many parts of the Empire and also our whole attitude of mind towards it. The wars themselves we could not have survived had the peoples of the Empire not stood by us and given us their valuable aid. Those wars have taught us in the most eloquent of all languages, the language of help, what the Empire means to us when mortal peril is at our throat. Yes, and what it means to the future of the United Nations and the rule of law in international affairs.
We know' now that there will be no enduring peace or stability if the British Empire loses its coherence as part of the structure of the world. The Commonwealth and Empire is no mere trade or business association with a purely material significance. It is for us a family circle to which we are bound by the strongest of human ties. To default in any way in our duty and affection towards it would be for us a moral degradation. To do our utmost for it in the world to-day is not a question of mere political expediency or material interest. It is a moral obligation much more deeply and widely felt by us here because of the knowledge we have, derived from the two 'terrible ordeals of this century, of what the Empire has done for us and for humanity. On this great issue then we must be absolutely clear, because the American people do not understand what the Empire is or how indispensable its coherence is to the cause of peace and recovery everywhere. Nor do they understand the moral obligations which bind us to it. There is good reason for this in American history and in the whole course of the American line. "Empire," in any form at any period, has been inconsistent according to American opinion with the principles upon which human society has
been founded, which are to be found in the Declaration of Independence and more broadly in the Rights of Man. The Declaration of Independence is read to Americans at least once a year and they

1157
imbibe its principles out of the very atmosphere they breathe from the moment they are born.
I observed the other day in the Manchester Guardian, which is not an Imperialist organ, an article saying with much truth that any country in American eyes which is not sovereign and independent must be subject to Imperialist exploitation. That is broadly speaking the universal American point
of view. The mass of Americans not only see no virtue in the British Empire at the present moment but they regard it as definitely bad. On this point I hope you will allow me to quote an authority, who again cannot be dismissed as a militant or reactionary Imperialist, Sir Norman Angell. He has written one or two very interesting articles about recent travels in the United States, and this is what he said in one of them contributed on January 3 of this year to the Daily Mail:
"Any Englishman travelling or living in America is likely to find himself asked to 'explain the British Empire' in much the same offensive tone that a man might ask you to 'explain' how you came to be carrying his umbrella. For about 99 out of 100 Americans regard the simple existence of the Empire as a crime. They believe the time for repentance—and liquidation—has come."
LORD CALVERLEY: As long as we put them in as the receiver.
LORD ALTIONCHAM: It is inconceivable to me that because the Americans do not understand the Commonwealth and Empire, we should ourselves be false to it. Surely the right and honest course is to explain exactly where we stand, and that in certain matters we are governed by ties of principle and sentiment which we cannot break for any consideration in the world. The issue may come up in very practical forms. We may be asked whether Danish butter is to have the same consideration in our market as New Zealand butter. I have a great regard for the Danes, but they have not done for us what the New Zealanders did for us in this war. That is a consideration which we in this country cannot possibly forget. We may be asked whether New Zealand and Australian meat is to be treated on exactly the same level as Argentine meat. Well, I have less regard at the moment for the Argentine than I have for Denmark, and I am quite clear what our answer should be in a matter of that kind.
1158
And there is also the whole question of the Colonial Empire on which we cannot concede anything to the American point of view.
The Americans are after all a fair-minded people and I do not believe that misunderstanding would possess them if our position in these matters was clearly and resolutely explained. The one thing I fear is equivocation. We have had a terrible example, long protracted, of the results which follow from equivocation in the case of our policy in Palestine. It was never understood on both sides of the argument in the same way. It was certainly never clearly appreciated in the United States, and it has been one of the factors which has made for difficulty in the United States and particularly for the feeling about us in Congress. There are, then, I suggest, two points on which we should declare our position unequivocally. We have in our hands an enormous power, the power given us by the British market for imported goods. All the world looks to it, including the United States. Its value to the world depends upon our recovery and our recovery depends, I am deeply sure, upon the well-tried policy set out in this Resolution which I have the honour to put before your Lordships to-day. Its main principles, I repeat, are two; first, freedom for the British Commonwealth and Empire by reciprocal aid, and secondly, freedom for other nations or group of nations to build up their welfare in the same way.
Our principle should be the British family first, so far as we ourselves are concerned, and the same principle for other groups of nations as we claim for ourselves. To insist on these principles is not, I repeat, to admit any real divergence of aim. The need of the world is maximum production and the greatest possible expansion of trade. The real test of our policy should be this: Will it build up our own prosperity at the expense of others, or will it increase the total of production and therefore of purchasing power in the common interest of all? I do not wish to develop that theme. I hope that later this afternoon my noble friend Viscount Swinton, who has had great experience as President of the Board of Trade and also as Colonial Secretary of the way in which the Colonies may be affected by our policy in this respect, and also Lord Hailey, whose authority on this subject is universally recognized,

1159
may have something to say about it. All I would say is that the key to expanded trade is expanded production, and it is there that the American thesis fails. Under it production in the American Union and in the Soviet Union would be secure, but it would not be secure in the British Commonwealth or in many small nations that cannot build up their economies under a rigid application of the most-favoured-nation clause.
We must therefore do our utmost to persuade the makers of policy in the United States that the policy set out in this Resolution is as much in their interest as ours. Is this impossible? There are certainly great difficulties? Americans are Federalists in the bone, and they insist upon an interpretation of the rights of national sovereignty which is inconsistent with our own feeling that national sovereignty may be usefully combined in an association like that of the Commonwealth—a free association in which people simply choose to hold together because they have an affection and regard for each other and feel they have a common purpose and ideal in the world.
The attitude of well-informed Americans to that freedom which we postulate for the nations of the Commonwealth is well-stated in a book written by a man whom I knew very well and whose acquaintance I made a long time ago—Mr. William S. Culbertson. He was for a long time Vice-Chairman of the Tariff Commission of the United States. I often discussed this matter with him, and I can only pay a tribute to the knowledge and the strength of argument with which he defended his case. But this is what he said in an earlier book and repeats in his last one which was published only in 1937:
"The Dominions have apparently assumed that the British Empire is a unit for commercial purposes but an alliance of separate nations for purposes of diplomacy."
It is that freedom which Americans like him condemn.
We all know that the relationship which we have established between the sovereign members of the Commonwealth is a new and unexampled relationship between sovereign States. Constitutional lawyers, abounding in the wisdom of the past, may think it indefensible, but the plain answer is that this unprecedented, this reprehensible, this self-ordering family of nations has saved the world twice for
1160
the type of Government in which we and the Americans believe. It stood by us, after all, in the long period between Dunkirk and Pearl Harbour—something like two and a half years. We could not have been equal to our high task in those years but for the cement and the peculiar relationship which has kept this Commonwealth a family in spite of the national development in so many of its richest and most productive States.
Let me give an illustration of what the help of the Empire meant to us, particularly in those terrible years. All the Dominions did splendidly, and I quote Canada in particular only because her contribution to the common cause can more easily be compared with the help which was given us at that period by the United States. I am not disparaging American help; I am merely praising what the Canadians did. The United States, in population and in wealth, stands to Canada roughly in the proportion of thirteen to one; one million in Canada means thirteen millions in the United States. I quote these figures from an old issue of the Economist. They are figures which go up to the end of the year 1943—that is to say, our hardest period in the war. On that basis, Canada's assistance to us in financial grants, in services and in munitions without cost was, up to the end of 1943, per head of population, ten times that given us by the United States. Can we forget that? Canada is absolutely free to make her policy in any way she chooses. She is a great sovereign State and indeed becoming now a great Power. She stands in a very special relation to the United States. What she chooses to do is her own affair, but in view of what she and the other Dominions have done for us I say there is only one line that we can take in regard to our market, and that is to say: "The British family first, so long as it wants an admission to our markets on better terms for its goods."
Another difficulty with American opinion—and I hope that later on Lord Hailey will develop this—is the Colonial Empire. A well-known American writer says:
"The purpose of Empire is to exploit colonies. If Imperialism did not exploit colonies the possession of colonies would have no sense."
All I would say is that we would make little progress with expanding production,

1161
increasing purchasing power and raising the standard of living for Colonial peoples under the Colonial Development Act if we could not also assure them of a preferential market for what they produce. The argument for loyalty to our mission in the Colonial Empire is indeed broader still. Colonial peoples also assisted us nobly in the War. We must help them to the utmost, so long as they are unable to stand by themselves. The character of the Empire is changing rapidly, but as a political and economic structure it is going to be absolutely indispensable for a very long time to the orderly government of the world.
It is interesting to observe how Americans respond to the argument about the Colonial Empire when it is clearly put to them. In this respect I would like to cite an unofficial conference which was organized, I think in 1942, in Canada by the Institute of Pacific Affairs. Many countries were represented. There were all the Pacific Powers except Russia and Japan, and they included, of course, the United Kingdom and the United States, but only a small minority of the delegates, those from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Fighting France, represented Colonial Powers. The great majority of the Powers represented at that unofficial conference were not Colonial Powers, and therefore came to it with no predilection in favour of Colonies. Although it was an unofficial conference, the representatives were very distinguished. In the American representation there was one Senator, and the British Delegation was led, with all his distinction and authority, by Lord Hailey.
The conference started with a strong bias against the administration of Colonies by single Powers. That was perfectly clear at the outset, and it went on for some time. Let me quote, not from the British report, but from the American
report of the conclusions which were reached after the arguments had gone on for a considerable time:
"Although some members had come to the conference prepared to advocate the immediate dissolution of all Imperial systems and a single international trusteeship for undeveloped areas and backward peoples, the practical difficulties of such a transformation were soon recognized in the give and take of argument, and when the round-table finished its labours, the proposal was in the limbo of forgotten things."
1162
I think that is a remarkable conciusion to be arrived at by a conference in which the Colonial Powers were in a very small minority and the American representation very strong. It is therefore surely not over-sanguine to suggest that if the principles upon which this Resolution is founded are frankly and cogently explained, they may find their acceptance in the International Conference which we and the United States are sponsoring later in the year.
It will be said, I know, that trade will be obstructed by the formation of economic associations of any kind which do not exist at the present time. I find it very difficult to be patient with that argument. There are at the present moment two enormous economic blocs in the world, the American Union and the Soviet Union. I cannot understand the argument which says that although they confront each other with absolutely incompatible creeds, they will not constitute a danger if the rest of the world is left divided between a lot of scattered and much weaker, indeed helpless, smaller sovereignties. Surely the argument for peace is the argument which Mr. Churchill stated again at Fulton, Missouri, yesterday. It is the argument for intermediate organizations in economic as well as in political affairs. In that way not only will there be no danger to peace or friendly dealings between nations, but there will, I believe, be an increase in production, and therefore an increase in multilateral trade.
You will remember that as long ago as March 21, 1943, Mr. Churchill made a broadcast in which he stated the argument for regional or intermediate associations as an essential element in the future peaceful organization of the world. As I say, he repeated that argument yesterday. A few days after Mr. Churchill spoke on the air, the theme was taken up in the United States by a
very distinguished Senator, Senator Taft, of Ohio. I should like to read what Senator Taft then said, because it shows that the danger of leaving a part of the world divided between two very large economic blocs with incompatible creeds and leaving the whole of the rest of it unorganized is appreciated in high places in Washington. This is what Senator Taft said in a speech delivered on March 26, 1943. I apologize for reading rather a long extract, but I

1163
think your Lordships will find it interesting. He said:
"The modification suggested by Mr. Churchill last Sunday that we have regional councils to act within their respective regions is a very reasonable modification. It seems to me that the United States should be only a secondary guarantor of the peace of Europe, to be called in only when the problem seems to be beyond the resources of the European council."
Then he goes on to the economic side:
"After this war we must try to establish Customs Unions between nations whose economies are complementary, so that they can be reasonably self-sufficient. We must assure to each one of these nations and groups of nations the raw materials which they require to keep their industrial development. We must assure to each an outlet for sufficient products at least to pay for their raw materials. If we interpret freedom from want to mean this fair and equitable economic treatment, then I think it is a reasonable goal and absolutely essential to future peace. Further, our efforts should be to make the different regions or groups as self-sufficient as possible, and eliminate the tremendous competition for foreign trade which itself has been one of the causes of war. If each of these countries or groups of countries can be made prosperous within itself, the foreign trade which will result will be infinitely greater than that which existed before the war."
That is exactly our thesis, the thesis which is framed in the Resolution before your Lordships this afternoon. It is encouraging to find that it was so clearly stated by a distinguished Senator in the United States. It is true that Senator Taft speaks only of Customs Unions, but that is because, being an American, he is a Federalist to the bone; he can conceive nothing except that kind of association under a central sovereignty. But that does not affect the value of the argument from our point of view. If a rigid Customs Union is desirable in different regions of the world, then surely so is the much more flexible and much less rigid form of economic co-operation through reciprocal aid which we advocate. I believe that the principles embodied in this Resolution may find acceptance if they are potently presented in the United States, and that in presenting them we shall be arguing not only for ourselves as a nation, or Commonwealth, or Empire, but for the freedom of many other weaker nations who depend on our support. I am convinced that we shall also be arguing the principles which give the best promise of widely-spread
1164
production, increased purchasing power, economic stability and peace
This is not the time to grow faint or lax in the mission which our long history has bequeathed to us. It is not a question of showing our medals as if they were our only argument, like the tragic figures of demobilized men who could be seen after the last war upon our streets. We are for the time being tired, and we are for the time being impoverished, but we are not decadent, although we seem to have given that impression to many people in the United States. I apologize for reading yet another extract, but it is of the utmost importance that we should realize how at present we figure in American eyes and what kind of attitude we must adopt in order to secure acceptance for the point of view which we represent. From many comments which all point the same way, I select one from an amusing correspondent, Don Iddon, the New York correspondent of the Daily Mail. I expect your Lordships sometimes read him. I always find him extremely illuminating. Writing about our attitude in the United States he stated:
"We are for ever on the defensive, apologizing and explaining. More and more America is coming to think of us as a tiny impoverished group of islands in the North Sea, and rarely if ever as the vital head and heart of a powerful Empire."
If that be a true report, as many commentators and travellers suggest, it is high time that this impression that there is decadence in these islands should be wiped out.
In the concluding passage of his great speech at Fulton, Missouri, last night, Mr. Churchill gave us once again that clarion call to greatness in unity which twice in the present century has saved all Western civilization. No living man can lift up our hearts as he does, and give us the faith which we need now in
ourselves and faith in our mission in the world. All but our own kin in the Commonwealth, after all, gave us up as lost in 1940 and 1941. All others lost faith in our power to win through. The world outside our own family, outside the Commonwealth and Empire, was mistaken then. It is mistaken now." Let no man, "said Mr. Churchill last night" underrate the abiding power of the British Commonwealth and Empire "We all desire the fraternal association which he urged between

1165
ourselves and the United States. But such an association must depend on strength and virtue in all its component parts, and that means on unity in the British Commonwealth. Without one essential wing, our wing, the great structure will be built on sand, unstable, crumbling and valueless. It is that governing, ineluctable truth for which we must seek American recognition and understanding. Americans respect candour. Americans respect firmness and strength. Americans also respect our international sense and wide experience. The Prime Minister has exhorted us to great national effort. This is the necessary world framework of policy for it. This Resolution stands for the part we have to play as head and heart of a powerful Empire with a mission in the world which no other political system can fulfil if we ourselves default on it. I commend it therefore to your Lordships and to His Majesty's Government.
Moved to resolve, That this House recognizes that reciprocal economic aid between kindred peoples is indispensable to the coherence of the British Commonwealth and the welfare of the Colonial Empire; and further is calculated to stimulate multilateral trade and world recovery—(Lord Altrincham.)
3.43 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the House has followed very carefully the weighty speech of the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, for behind every word lies a long life—I do not know that it is a very long life but at any rate a lifetime—of service to the Commonwealth and Empire, in civil administration and in arms. If one could use one phrase about his speech one would say that it was above all things a speech of reconciliation. I do not know whether others of your Lordships besides the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and Lord Cherwell are philosophers, but if you are you are probably acquainted with the works of the philosopher Hegel. According to him all development of thought involves a three-fold process. First thesis, then
its opposite, antithesis, and finally, synthesis. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham has provided us with a synthesis between the extreme positions that have often been assumed on these questions in the past—shall we say fairly or unfairly between Viscount Samuel
1166
and Lord Beaverbrook, whom one is sorry not to see here to-day, between the economics of the News Chronicle and the Daily Express. For that and many other things we are grateful to the noble Lord.
I intend to deal more briefly with this subject than it deserves, fortified by the reflection that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is to wind up the debate. I do not know whether it is in accordance with the best cricketing practice to have the tyro as wicket keeper and the pundit as long stop, but it seems to work out very well in politics. The noble Lord has stripped the question of many minor legalities and technicalities, and we can approach it in a broad way. Your Lordships will not want me to run right through Command Paper 6709 "Proposals for Consideration by an International Conference on Trade and Employment." It has been discussed and accepted by your Lordships' House and now
it has once again been endorsed by the noble Lord. But may I remind your Lordships of what seem to me the essential steps of reasoning is that document? They are, it seems to me, four in number. First, recovery of the British standard of life to pre-war level is quite impossible unless our export trade in terms of volume can be raised to a figure far higher than its pre-war level. Secondly, such a tremendous increase in our own export trade can never be snatched from a diminished total of world trade, but requires a great expansion of world trade above its pre-war level. Thirdly, such a big increase in world trade is quite inconceivable unless there is a substantial reduction in trade barriers compared with those that existed before the war.
In order to achieve such a reduction in trade barriers it is necessary to get all the nations of the world together and obtain their consent in a series of bargains to reducing barriers which, although looked at as a whole were obstacles, may in individual cases have served most useful purposes. Therefore this policy has been framed by the American Government in consultation with His Majesty's Government of calling this great conference which is to be held later in the year, the principles of which the House has already accepted. One further
point. I would remind your Lordships that the initiative, although taken in conjunction with us,

1167
comes strictly from the United States. I know that certain noble Lords who spoke in the debate which we had in this House on the American agreement took the view that while a reduction in trade barriers is thoroughly desirable it is most unlikely to occur.
May I suggest that if these proposals in Command Paper 6709 represented simply a series of proposals by His Majesty's Government for reducing trade barriers, without any knowledge of American reaction, while they might provide grounds for an interesting economic debate on a slack afternoon they would hardly deserve any prolonged attention from your Lordships. The whole point is that these proposals represent not only an American acquiescence but an American initiative arrived at in the closest consultation with ourselves. The Administration in America recognize that their barriers before the war were very serious obstacles to the development of world trade, and there is recognition also on the part of the American Administration that they must sweep away many of the obstacles they have created in the past if world trade is to flourish after the war.
That I felt was a point that must be cleared away before I came to the precise Resolution.
Your Lordships will ask whether the Government are going to accept this Resolution. Perhaps you will allow me to answer that later in order to maintain the best principles of dramatic construction. I once wrote a play. There may be much better playwrights in the House than I, but I wrote one and I showed it to a manager. He said it was a very good play, or a fairly good play, or at any rate a play. He would very much like to have put it on, he said, but unfortunately everyone would have left after the first five minutes as I had given away the secrets too early. Therefore I will indicate the operative attitude of the Government at the end of my remarks. Let us survey this question broadly. The noble Lord has said that there is no conflict between his Resolution and the policy declared by His Majesty's Government in Command Paper 6709. That is also our view. The matter, as the noble Lord has said, was cleared up by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and the seal was
1168
finally set on the matter by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who said he was satisfied on the three points in the Command Paper. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said he was satisfied, and if I may say so in a friendly way, he is not always easy to satisfy. He was satisfied that there was no question of selling Imperial Preference down the river.
We can divorce ourselves from the legal or formal question between the Resolution and the proposals of the Government, but you may expect from me, before the Leader of the House finally replies, some clear statement of the mind of the Government towards this matter, and of what lies behind the Government's mind as they approach these tremendous negotiations, because after all that is the kind of thing for which this House exists. I follow the noble Lord who moved the Resolution in dividing the subject into the moral and the economic aspects as he did and I was very glad to see that he laid so much stress on the moral side of things. No one could have sat in this House throughout the American loan debate without becoming aware that behind the commercial anxieties expressed by various noble Lords with regard to Imperial Preference lay a depth of feeling which went far deeper and goes back far further than purely commercial considerations. That, I think, was evident from the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Croft, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett.
We on these Benches yield to no one in the importance we attach to the moral side of the Commonwealth and Empire. We do not take our ideas about the Commonwealth and Empire from noble Lords opposite. They must forgive me for saying that. It may be that our ideas to-day coincide. If so, well and good, but in our view it is we who have remained the same. We have not changed but the noble Lords opposite have trained on. At any rate we are not likely to underestimate the vital importance to the world of the moral principles which underlie the Commonwealth and Empire, the idea of equality between nations which have grown to manhood, and trusteeship for nations which have not yet reached man's estate. Imperfect in realization, as are most things human, these ideas seem to us to be the embodiment of that Christianity to which this country at her best gropes increasingly forward.

1169
So much for the moral side of things. We yield to no one in the importance we attach to that side of the matter but Jet us look for a moment at the economic side. Here I have a surprise for your Lordships, not I hope of an unpleasant kind. It is not a Government pronouncement of any significance but it does bear upon the debate. I have taken a great deal of trouble to prepare myself for this debate and I suppose there is no figure of any relevance which bears on the effects of the Ottawa Agreements, using that word in a rather loose sense, which has not passed through my consciousness in the last few years or even in the last few days. It is said that figures can prove anything. It may be a pleasant or an unpleasant surprise to inform you that I am convinced on this subject that figures will prove nothing. Therefore, you are going to be emancipated from a statistical thralldom which might otherwise have been imposed on you.
The Ottawa Agreements, using the term broadly—I have in mind that sugar duties were initiated long before Ottawa and that other forms of economic aid have been applied since—were introduced at the bottom of the deepest world slump in history. In the years that followed world trade and Empire trade recovered. There was a general recovery but I would challenge anyone to prove a strong, clear case that the Ottawa Agreements increased the trade of the Empire and the world faster than they would otherwise have increased. I feel that some conclusions can be drawn and I will lay four points very briefly before you which seem as incontrovertible as anything can be. I suggest that the Ottawa Agreements in the broadest sense were the sheet anchor in time of trouble. They made a great difference to certain producers of commodities in this country and the Dominions and they were indispensable to whole communities which, had there been no agreements of the Ottawa character, could not have survived. It has been amply demonstrated that there is no logical incompatibility between an expansion of trade within the Empire and trade between the Empire and the outside world. The two may well go forward together. There is no logical contradiction.
Finally, and I would not linger over this point, although it is one over which
1170
one might well linger, the Ottawa arrangements paved the way to something better. I venture to suggest that if we had not been put in the bargaining
position which Ottawa placed us in it might have been harder to acquire that development of multilateral trade and the reduction of trade barriers which were secured in 1938. I do not know whether you wish me to underline the moral of all that but it seems to me that there have been very solid advantages arising from the kind of reciprocal aid we have been discussing.
We are going into these negotiations. I need hardly tell you that we intend to make them a success. On the other hand, we are not fawning and prostrate. We are going into the matter neither with our tongues in our cheeks nor with our caps in our in hands. We are going in in a fashion which is at once candid and tough, with our hearts on our sleeves but with our heads on our shoulders. That is the attitude in which we are embarking on these negotiations. But if we do have to surrender what in isolation under restrictionist conditions have proved of value in the past in order to gain greater benefit under the expansionist conditions of the future, you must trust us to make sure we will obtain full value for the sacrifice. I would also add this, that what is going to be bargained over and discussed and negotiated is really just the external trappings of the Empire. What goes on to the bargain counter will be what is already in the shop windows, simply the external trappings.
None of your Lordships, I am sure, would wish me to end on a jingoist note. If ever a Government of this country was pledged to international co-operation, economic and otherwise, it is His Majesty's Government to-day. May we be given strength to realize that ideal. If ever the people of this country felt a strong and universal desire for abiding friendship with the American people, it is the British people who feel that desire at this moment. It is not within my sphere to comment on Mr. Churchill's broadcast last night, but I cannot forbear to refer to the opinion that he gave that a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth was probably the only means by which the new world organization could attain its full stature and strength. Without commenting on that, because it is not for me to do so, may I suggest—and I know the

1171
noble Lord will agree with this, because it seemed to me to be one of the most cardinal aspects of the argument—that a strong coherent Commonwealth is the best means and the only means to lasting friendship between this country and the United States of America. As we open these momentous negotiations, with charity in our hearts for all, we turn to the British Commonwealth and Empire and say, "If we forget you, may our right hand forget its cunning." I am sure that message goes out from the whole House on a matter which rises far above any question of Party. If we forget the British Commonwealth and Empire, may we in our turn be forgotten. On behalf of His Majesty's Government I have much pleasure in 'accepting the Resolution of the noble Lord.
4.3 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I desire to say only a few words to your Lordships this afternoon. I am speaking in a purely personal capacity, because as some of my noble friends in this House will always remember in regard to this particular issue, I have regarded it as one which far transcends any Party or political view. It is something outstandingly great upon which some of us feel that we have survived in the past, and on which we can only successfully win through the great troubles of the future. Again, I am speaking personally, because I do not know that I have a great deal of conflict with the Party opposite and the noble Lord who has just sat down. Indeed, I hope I may be forgiven if I may say that I think his speech was distinctly less woolly than those of some of my own political friends in days gone by. I am not speaking of the present moment. I think everyone in this House will congratulate him on the wit and the clarity of his statement.
Now in the remarkable debate opened by Lord Tweedsmuir last week, there was a consensus of opinion, I think, in all sections of the House, that there had been grave neglect of the education of our people on the true meaning of the system within the Commonwealth and Empire. It was felt, I think, not only amongst children, but also amongst adults, that there was a lack of knowledge which was pathetic, if indeed not deplorable. Lord Elton's great book, as I like to describe
1172
it, was referred to in that debate. I would add this, that if noble Lords have read the two little works to which I am going to refer, I am sure they will agree with me that if the general public had mastered two very fine little pamphlets, one by the Professor Ramsay Muir, who was a political opponent of mine, which I think was called The Empire, How it Grew, and the other, a little pamphlet by a political friend of mine, Mr. W. A. Wells, How the Colonies joined the Empire, and if the facts stated therein were recognized, it would be appreciated how little of this vast system joined this great family because of any form of aggression, and how much of it actually came in of its own free will, and frequently by the request of the indigenous populations. If we appreciate these facts we will change that spirit of apology and that atmosphere of indifference which has been so general in the past and we will henceforth speak, as I think the noble Lord did, certainly as my noble friend who opened the debate did, without apology, and with great pride of the achievements already to our credit, hoping that we may be worthy of continuing to build up the great structure, the foundations of which our fathers so splendidly laid.
May I just remind your Lordships that when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain went to the Colonial Office, and I was a very young man, he believed you could only really uplift the native populations of the Empire if you were greatly to improve communications, and take such gifts as we really have in western civilization—although there are many that we are not so proud of—right into the hearts of those countries by the speediest communications. It was his great vision which stimulated the growth of railways, docks, harbours and roads, and brought about other remarkable changes, so that communities were able to mix, so that warring tribes of natives in various Colonial territories ceased their bloodshed and turned to peace, law and justice under British guidance. Well, within ten years, I think I am right in saying, of the departure of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain from the Colonial Office, all the Colonies, many of which had been a great financial burden to us in the past, had turned the corner. I think all were on their feet, and have continued to pay their way, with the exception of one or two cases

1173
like Newfoundland, under financial stress in the last year or two. That was done by communications.
Why did we stop there? Why were we so callous or indifferent as to fail to determine to uplift this mighty host of peoples in the Colonial territories by the only way, namely, giving them some shelter for their primary production as they were marching to the full estate of manhood? Instead, we let them drift. We allowed hundreds of our settlers who went out there to be ruined in every Colony. Wonderful opportunities were missed of benefiting both the natives and the British who had risked their all in venture for production. Only in 1919 was it that we made a small start to prefer the products of the Colonies and the Empire. I admit that it is courageous of some people to quote figures in your Lordships' House, but I congratulate the noble Lord on using no figures at all, because I think on this particular subject figures are so staggering that they are wiser avoided unless you are whole-heartedly in favour of my noble friend's Resolution. I ask your Lordship's just to look at the results to a few products effected by the original preferential duties Which were granted in the year 1920, I think, or 1919. Percentages I know are very bad things to use, but if they give an answer which cannot be questioned, I think there is something to commend them Let us take the case of these various commodities in 1921 compared to 1937–38. These are results which I think your Lordships will agree were extraordinary.
In the first year, 1920–21, we imported in the case of rum 76 per cent. from the Empire. In 1937–38 we imported nearly 100 per cent—99·5. In the case of wine we imported only 6 per cent. in 1920 and in 1937–38 31 per cent. In the case of cocoa in 1920–21 we imported 92 per cent. That was a large quantity even in 1920, and in 1937–38 that had risen to 95·8 per cent. Coffee, in which I have been personally interested—I think I must make that declaration in this House before proceeding—which stood at 49 per cent. in 1920–21, rose to 55·5 per cent. Sugar rose from 22 per cent. to 69·9 per cent.—a remarkable rise. Raisins rose from 8 per cent. to 40·5 per cent., and tobacco, for which we must find dollars to equip ourselves with the inferior Virginia leaf (as it is so regarded by pipe smokers like myself), from 3·3 per cent. to 24 per cent.
1174
These figures, I submit to your Lordships, are startling proof of our success in abandoning the policy of laissez faire in favour of the Empire. If we can develop the importation of Empire tobacco and multiply it by eight times in sixteen years, and can, if we have the will—I am authoritively informed it is so by those who know—double or possibly treble that in three years, we surely ought not to contemplate perpetual dependence on dollar countries for our supplies of the fragrant leaf.
When the great depression took place in 1930–32 at last we had the Ottawa Agreements—the extended Agreements for which we owe so much to my noble friend Viscount Swinton, and to the hospitable help and guidance of Viscount Bennett, to which I think we would all pay tribute. Imperial Preference, under the Ottawa Agreements, marked the immediate revival of the Commonwealth and Empire, and because we thus raised one quarter of the world, as my noble friend has indicated, to a sounder economy, in my opinion the whole world benefited. It was for only six short years, but we know that there had been a depression and we led the world in the recovery under the Ottawa Agreement.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord has been so kind to me that I hesitate to intervene. It would be rather hard, however, to prove that the British Empire moved forward faster during those years than certain nations—some of them associated with sterling but others not, as, for instance, Japan.
LORD CROFT: I am afraid I have not the Japanese figures before me, but I think generally it must be admitted that the recovery was surprising. I think it was admitted in the United States that it was even more surprising in the Commonwealth than in other countries.
LORD PAKENHAM: Forgive me for interrupting; I only do it to be helpful. I agree that there was a surprisingly quick recovery in the British Empire.
LORD CROFT: I will leave it there. Our imports from British Empire countries increased from £250,000,000 in 1931 to £410,000,000 in 1937. Domestic exports rose from £171,000,000 in 1931, to £252,000,000. As to trade between British countries other than the United Kingdom, their imports increased from;£179,000,000 to £157,000,000.

1175
The point was made by my noble friend and I rather gather is not altogether dissented from by the noble Lord opposite, that the foreign world apparently did not suffer from our preferential arrangements. In fact, the trade between British countries and foreign countries, increased as follows in those six years: Imports from £932,000,000 to £1,068,000,000, and domestic exports from £468,000,000 to £636,000,000. How grotesque, I venture to assert, is the suggestion made in certain high quarters in the United States that this country was guilty of discriminatory trade arrangements of the type which destroyed the freedom of trade during the 'thirties! How a policy which was adopted in fact after the depression, as a partial cure, could have been the cause of that depression, passes the wit of man. I think it must be agreed that it is not a fact. Trade between British countries and foreign countries, far from being restricted because of the restored prosperity of the Commonwealth and Empire and the increased purchases by ourselves and all the countries of the Commonwealth and Empire from the foreign world, increased. Our recovery, I venture to suggest, actually started world recovery. Our preference harmed no one but it certainly was of immense advantage to the peoples of the British Empire and, indirectly, to others outside who traded with us.
I do not want to detain you at too great length but I want to suggest that food is the crying need of mankind. Will your Lordships deny that the greatest possibility of the expansion of agricultural production lies within the Commonwealth and Empire? These vast areas, in my humble opinion, are in fact the key to the recovery of civilization, and the succour of all humanity can be looked for there. In this matter of foodstuffs, the peril of shortage of which has become so obvious owing to the vast increase of the population of the world, more especially in Far Eastern countries, there is a special call to the peoples of the Empire. Twice in our lives—is it much of an exaggeration to say this?—we have been within something like a month of starvation. Largely we were saved because we had the safe food supplies of the British Empire, placed splendidly and unreservedly
1176
at our disposal by our fellow subjects. Therefore I do most earnestly ask your Lordships, when we see some who seek to make the elimination of Imperial preference one of the consequential conditions of the grant of the American loan, is this the moment to introduce such a proposal?
I am very glad that the reassurances given to us by His Majesty's Government in this House and another place on the American loan show that at any rate they are anxious to make clear to their countrymen that their hands are at least free and not tied with this frightful suggestion. If those who were advocating this policy had their way it would be not only a tragic blow to the Colonial Empire to follow such a proposal but would also be a very serious injury to Dominion producers. I do not speak from an academic point on this subject. Ever since I was a very young man I have believed that it was the duty of anyone who had the worldly possessions to try and do all he could to develop the backward parts of the British Empire, and I have had my experience. After all, it is a purely domestic affair if we choose to lower our duties in favour of our own people.
Far from eliminating Imperial Preference, the only sane British policy is that if we are going to reduce our tariffs—and I do not object to that—in conformity with a world agreement, we should still further increase our preference in our own family, so that our own people do not suffer. We are told in nice phrases: "Ah, yes, but none of us really want to get rid of Imperial Preference unless we get a wonderful quid pro quo in advantages elsewhere." My submission is that there is no quid pro quo in regard to Imperial Preference. No dreamer, however well he "did himself" the night before, can really believe that we shall be able or permitted to expand our trade in the United States to such an extent as to compensate us for the great advantages we receive from the preferences of the Dominions and the small advantages we receive from the very small preferential duties we get in the Colonial Empire.
But even if the United States of America is prepared to give us complete free trade—and what a hope!—does anyone believe, having regard to the wonderful power of American production, that we shall sell our motor-cars, our electrical

1177
instruments, our textiles, our fittings, our radios, to any great extent—to the extent of, let us say, £100,000,000 or £200,000,000 a year—in the United States of America? Even if we were so intoxicated with ancient Victorian theories that we believed that might be possible, I would ask, as my noble friend asked, what right we have to offer the Dominions and the Colonies on such an altar which might do such great injury to themselves? How long would Australia continue to exist under the free blast of American competition? How long would motorcars be produced in Canada if there were no Imperial Preference? Who would suggest that the United States is going to buy an expanding quantity of the tobacco, sugar and other products of the Colonial Empire on which that Empire depends for its very existence?
I will not detain your Lordships any longer, because I know there are many who desire to speak, but I would like to say that this great collection of peoples has only recently come through a trial of a magnitude to which perhaps few countries have ever been subjected. Very remarkably we won our way to victory and saved our peoples from enslavement and serfdom. I 'believe it is essential that we should preserve our liberty in all ways. I feel most strongly that we must be no party to any policy which will deprive us of our power of fiscal decision or make us subordinate to the policy of any single foreign land. I believe that in all sections of the House it is realized that we are now fighting for our very lives in the matter of production and export. I submit to your Lordships that the greatest hope for the people of this country, for the peoples of the Commonwealth and Empire, and ultimately for the peoples of the world is that our whole economy shall be united and sound. I beg that we shall not deflect our minds at this moment and throw grit into the complicated and delicate machinery of industry in this country, with all the possible consequences of class hatred which might ensue, but that we will search out those old British traditions of comradeship, of unity and of affection for each other within the British system. By so doing, I believe—putting aside all Party questions in this greater Imperial conception—we shall lead our country to that great prosperity which is, I hope and pray, its destiny.
4.23 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, there was a great deal in the early part of the speech of the noble Lord who introduced this Resolution with which all of us could agree; and even in the very early part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Croft, there was something we could all follow with agreement. But I am bound to confess that both of them drifted, more rapidly than I could have wished, back to the Resolution in its original form which was something quite different from this Resolution. Indeed, this Resolution has undergone a most surprising change since it first appeared on the Order Paper. It began, if I may so express it, as "pure Beaverbrook"—a simple call for Imperial Preference, but the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, gives me some hope that I am interpreting this revised version as something rather more modern and more in accord with recent thought than the crude statement which first appeared on the Paper.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: If the noble Lord is asking for an interpretation, I can only tell him that he is wrong from beginning to end.
LORD REA: I wonder what the noble Lord means by "reciprocal economic aid between kindred peoples." That is an object we can all support. The reference later to "multilateral trade" is a further encouragement to those of us who believe that a prosperous Empire can only exist in a prosperous world. The earlier form of the Resolution gave me some cause for anxiety, and if the imposing extra verbiage of the latest addition is merely to cover up the nakedness of the original, it is time someone made an effort, however modest and ineffectual, to show that times have changed and that Imperial Preference, as imposed upon a reluctant Britain—and I still maintain that that is a fact—some fourteen years ago no longer serves our needs. I have no wish to be controversial, and I will not argue whether the policy was a success or the ghastly failure which I believe it to have been, in spite of the figures put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Croft. I am anxious to keep fully in mind the debt we owe, and which we can never repay, to the Empire and to the Dominions for their help in our hour of need. I believe there can be no going back on Ottawa, with all its consequences,

1179
without the full assent of all who were parties to that Agreement.
The point I most particularly want to make is that the result of this fourteen years' experience both in peace and in war has been to show the need, not for raising but for lowering tariffs everywhere. The Dominions themselves are certainly coming to this conclusion. Perhaps I may quote the words of an economist who has perhaps the best right to speak for the Dominions, Professor Fisher. He was born in New Zealand, was educated in Australia and is now Professor of Economics at Chatham House. He says:
"In the best interest of harmonious Commonwealth relations themselves, the Commonwealth's place in the world economic structure demands a turning away from the exclusive tendencies of the last decade and a closer integration with world economic freedom as a whole."
In fact the Dominions have learned by hard experience the principle which we Free Traders have always urged, namely, that we cannot live by taking in one another's washing and that the markets of the whole of the rest of the world are as essential to our prosperity as to theirs. It is not the Dominions alone who have found this out; the United States is coming to the same conclusion and is being steadily driven to recognize that if she is to export, as she must, she must import as well. She is preparing to reduce her barriers and she has given the strongest evidence of this in the Atlantic Charter.
This complete change of attitude of the United States is perhaps the most important and most hopeful economic decision that has been taken in our time. It is significant that it has been endorsed by the Governments of the United Nations, while the Hot Springs agreement was signed by the representatives of forty-five nations including Great Britain and four of the Dominions. We have evidence of a world-wide desire to reduce barriers to trade. Already a modest beginning has been made in the Customs Union Agreement between Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg, with the Scandinavian countries, showing, perhaps, some signs of interest in it. Surely we might lend a hand to bring about such a union without any too violent breach of earlier commitments, whether we are Free Traders or Protectionists. If, as we are told, -Russia might object,
1180
surely the reply is—as Lord Altrincham has said—that such a union would be small, compared with the free trade areas in Russia and in the United States, in Russia particularly. I agree that this is a minor point.
My real object in rising to-day is to draw attention to the enormous opportunity to increase the wealth, security and happiness of the whole world which is laid open to us by the unexpected and generous action of the United States. When I say that the action is generous, I do not fail to recognize that it is in her own interests as well. It was greeted with great enthusiasm all over the world at first, but what is disquieting me is that there is grave danger that unless we continue to show our appreciation much more clearly than we have done recently, and take some definite steps to meet the United States half way, to show that, at least, we are sympathetic with their desires, their enthusiasm may cool down and we may loose an opportunity that may never recur. It is that fear that makes me dread such Resolutions as this was in its original form, and leaves me to hope for some assurance—which in spite of the noble Lord's interjection I trust that we may have—that my interpretation of the Resolution we are discussing is a not tin-sound one. That being so, I would associate myself with the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government and in that sense would gladly accept this Motion.
4.35 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I must express a certain amount of disagreement with some of the phrases used by my noble friend Lord Rea. I cannot quote his exact words, but I think that he said that, in his opinion, Imperial Preference had not done much good.
LORD REA: I quoted an Australian authority to show that it had not met the case.
LORD CHESHAM: The Australian authority did not seem to think that it had met the case. I cannot agree with that. The noble Lord went on from that to fundamental matters of belief—such as Free Trade—but I am not prepared to go into that question at the moment. All I want to say is that very definitely the people who live in the Colonies and who work in them attach the very greatest

1181
importance to the maintenance of the closest trade relations both with this country and with the rest of the world. Certainly in the African Colonies it has been of the very greatest value, and these Colonies definitely owe a very large part of their present stage of development to Imperial Preference. That is why I so warmly welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the indication it contained that this Resolution might be accepted.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. It is indeed a matter of
urgency, and it has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Croft. I am speaking, of course, of the question of the world shortage of food which was debated in your Lordships' House recently. What I want to bring particularly to the notice of your Lordships is the contribution which can be made by some of our Colonies, which have not already made their maximum contribution. The Dominions and many of our Colonies have been marvellous in their promises and in their contributions to meet the really serious crisis with which we are faced. But there are Colonies, especially in East Africa, which are capable of tremendous expansion in the direction of food production. I have made speeches previously in this House and elsewhere on this subject, but the fact is that the result has been negligible. I am not complaining, but what I do say is that this crisis, this food situation, does make this a matter of the very greatest importance at the moment.
Throughout the whole of East Africa it is very noticeable how relatively low is the production of food as compared with the population and with the possibilities of food production which exist in those countries. Many parts of the territories out there are extremely fertile, and are capable of producing a great deal of foodstuffs, especially grain and maize and things of that kind. But even out there you do get local famines and they are becoming almost annual events in many parts of the country. The remedy which is employed is to import grain into those territories from South Africa or elsewhere to feed the natives. Now, to anybody who knows those territories that is just too stupid. I hate to refer to the action of a Government like that, but really the whole idea is ridiculous, because there is
1182
ample capacity in those territories themselves, not only to maintain themselves and support their own people, but to make a very considerable contribution towards the export of food.
What is wanted is encouragement to the Africans themselves to produce more foodstuffs. At the moment, the African is very much inclined to produce just what he wants for himself and his family. If his crop fails, then these famines occur. The natives then have no course open but to appeal to the Government to feed them. Now that situation can be dealt with by the Government giving encouragement to the natives, through the officials who are in such close touch with the Africans, to produce more maize, more mealies. I do not say that they could do it easily, for it would mean a certain amount of trouble, but arrangements should be made so that the African can grow his stuff and sell it through the proper channels at fixed and suitable prices. Then there is the question of grain storage, which also is not beyond the bounds of possibility. It is a matter which, if tackled firmly, would be comparatively easy in that territory.
The present official remedy even for these local famines appears still to be imports from South Africa where I understand the harvest has to a great extent failed, and the other suggestion which I have received is that of a ship from South. America. I also understand that there is a serious danger that the harvest there will fail too, so where they are going to get it from I do not know. There is also Tanganyika, very large in extent but small in financial resources, which is spending £300,000 a year on dealing with these famines, and that large amount for a territory of that kind will continue to be demanded every year unless the local Government step in and help to organize the food supply and get some initiative for the Africans to produce more. I do not want to refer only to maize. The same thing applies to other food supplies such as tea and coffee and especially to meat. I want to refer to that shortly for a moment. The whole of East Africa is alive with cattle at the moment. The world outside is screaming for meat. What is wanted is some kind of organization to get the two together. I am told on good authority that it would be quite

1183
possible, with good organization, to get as much as one million head of cattle a year from East Africa. Efforts have been made in the past, in pre-war days and particularly during the war, to start this but those efforts have been somewhat halfhearted.
If you will forgive me, I want to quote for one moment from the report of the annual meeting of Liebig's Extract of Meat Company. The report of their meeting on February 12 this year seems to sum up the situation far better than I could. Liebig's have been operating in Kenya and Tanganyika for some time and are experienced in this subject. Their report says:
"Our factory in Kenya was again engaged in the production of corned beef for Government account, but the number of cattle supplied by the Colony was once more disappointing. Prospects for the forthcoming season are uncertain, for Government assistance,. on which the supply of cattle required to fulfil the orders for canned meats has been almost entirely dependent, is now being withdrawn for victualling the armed forces. It would seem, however, in the light of the serious food shortage which threatens Europe, and on which so much emphasis is being laid in these days, that the decision to suspend the system of contribution whereby the native stock-owner has been called upon to deliver a quota of his cattle to the East African Commissariat should be carefully reconsidered."
A little later the report says:
"The cattle potential of East Africa is normally greater than the consumer requirements, but its economic exploitation which would advantage both native and Government, requires organizing. … It is thus to be hoped that the dire needs of food-starved Europe, no less than the long-term interests of the Colony, will not be allowed to pass unheeded."
I cannot add to that; it explains the position in a nutshell. There is one other aspect I should like to mention. We have frequently in this House, in this country and also in Africa, paid lip service to the necessity of raising the standard of living of the African, and lip service is just about where it has stopped. Very little, if anything, has been done to implement the wonderful remarks which we all make. The best way of dealing with the problem—the only way of dealing with the problem—of raising the standard of living of these millions of Africans for whom we are responsible, is by encouraging them to sell what they have got for money with which they can buy the things they want and which they cannot get at present.
1184
Government action in this way would accomplish, in the way I have outlined, a twofold object. It would make a very big contribution to the food supply—I mean big, too—and it would be an inestimable benefit to the African. I may be told that the scheme I have outlined is a long-term policy and that it will be too late to help this food supply. I am afraid I do not agree. My information about the world shortage of food has caused me very great concern. I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am right. My information is that this world shortage of food is not a purely temporary, passing matter but that it is likely to increase to a very alarming extent in the next three or four years. I am told that it will probably reach its peak in about two years' time and that after that it will take another three or four years to get back to normal harvests. I do not want to be gloomy about the prospects, but if my information is correct, I believe that is the very, very, serious situation which the whole world has got to face.
Do the Government appreciate the gravity of this situation? Are they prepared to take very exceptional methods to deal with it? We have just fought, and won, probably the greatest war in history. We fought it as an Empire. The whole Imperial Forces of this Empire of ours got together. Now we have got the menace of world starvation in front of us and we have got to face a more serious fight. Can we not face it in the same way, on an Empire basis? Cannot we pool our resources? Cannot we pool the knowledge and experience of our Dominions, their personnel and the machinery that may be available, because it is only by a united effort that we shall overcome this crisis? The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, referred to the Imperial Conference which is to take place in London shortly. There we shall have the leaders of the Dominions and of many of the Colonies. I do suggest that this subject should receive the very highest priority in the discussions at an Imperial Conference of that kind. The gravity and the seriousness of this crisis demands most exceptional action. I would like to suggest that we cut out a lot of the delays and cumbersome methods that we have got into the habit of employing in dealing with these Colonial and Imperial matters, that we cut out the surveys which take years, cut out the

1185
reports which have to be sent home and considered, pigeon-holed, and then some decision taken on them in a matter of months later, or years in some cases. Cannot we mobilize our man-power and face up to this critical situation with drastic and prompt action instead of the rather cumbersome methods we have employed in the past?
4.52 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I am in somewhat of a quandary. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, put forward his Motion with great conviction and cogency, a cogency I may say that we might well expect from the author of his very interesting book on the British Commonwealth. In the course of that speech he suggested that I might support that part of his Motion which referred to reciprocal economic aid as necessary to the welfare of the Colonies. My quandary arises from this, that the Motion has already been accepted, and very handsomely accepted, by the Government, and I doubt whether such support is necessary.
I am unwilling at this late stage of the debate to trouble your Lordships with a good deal of statistical and economic material, pleasant as the subject may be to myself, and I do not want to put your Lordships under that kind of statistical thraldom to which Lord Pakenham referred. If I do rise to support this Motion, I will do so in abbreviated terms and I will avoid statistics as much as possible. But I feel that that particular part of Lord Altrincham's Motion which refers to the necessity for reciprocal aid for Colonial welfare, is one which needs somewhat separate consideration by your Lordships. Let me remind you that in negotiating economic reciprocities the Dominions and India are free agents, not subject to our control; but it is we who have the responsibility for deciding whether a system of preferences does actually make for the welfare of the Colonies; in the last resort we have the power to impose it; and it is we who will have to argue the case in any negotiations of an international scope which will decide the future of the system of reciprocal preferences.
In approaching this matter it would not I think be satisfactory if I were to argue the merits of the system of reciprocal preferences merely in relation to the
1186
welfare of the Colonies. We are bound to consider it also in relation to our own economy, a consideration never more important than at the present time. Let me therefore start by endeavouring to make clear the range of interest which our Colonial trade represents as seen in relation to the total value of our overseas transactions. It is necessary to do so, because one often encounters a tendency to generalize on the subject of our Colonial trade and to base on these generalizations an argument which is not justified by the facts.
I shall merely say as a preliminary that I propose to define Colonial trade as that coming from or going to the countries for whose tariffs we are ultimately responsible; this would therefore exclude Southern Rhodesia, but for the purpose of convenience would include the Sudan. If we take the figures of a normal year like 1937 or 1938, imports from the Colonies have constituted seven to seven and three-quarters per cent. of our total imports from all sources and our own exports to the Colonies have constituted from nine to ten per cent. of our total exports to all quarters. I must make one reservation. These figures represent trade with the Colonies as a whole. But there are certain territories, chiefly in Africa, in regard to which either because of treaty commitments such as those arising under the Congo Basin Acts, or because they are held under Mandate, it is not possible for us to institute a system of preferences, If we exclude these our exports to the Colonies may be for our present purpose more correctly stated as between seven and eight per cent. of our total overseas trade.
That may seem to be a somewhat restricted range of interest taken in relation to our total overseas transactions, but it is not on that account negligible. And it becomes necessary therefore to examine the measure to which, within that range of trade, the system of reciprocal preference can actually be of advantage to the United Kingdom. There are two questions which require consideration. In the first place, does this system actually enable the United Kingdom to obtain a more secure or a cheaper supply of the raw materials of industry or consumer goods from the Colonies? Now it is clear that the system of preference can in itself affect little in this respect, since

1187
the Colonies will normally seek to sell their products in the dearest or the most convenient market. The only way of guaranteeing the diversion of supplies from other markets to that of the United Kingdom would be to impose discriminatory duties on the export materials from the Colonies, in favour of the United Kingdom. We have only made one or two experiments so far in this direction, the most outstanding being of course the discriminatory tariffs on Malayan and Nigerian tin ore. There were similar measures taken at one time with regard to hides from India and palm kernels from West Africa. Those were short-lived, and that on palm kernels led to some rather undesirable results in stimulating production of palm oil in the Netherlands East Indies. Such discriminations are not only difficult to reconcile with our position as trustees, for if we apply them to agricultural products they may tend to reduce the income of the producing Colony, but they are often very doubtful in their economic effects. They are hardly likely I think to be repeated.
In the second place, and this is more important, how far does the system of preference ensure a benefit to our own export trade?
LORD PAKENHAM: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, in the absence of the Leader of the House I am anxious to make sure exactly what he has said. He argues there is no real effect arising from preferences in our getting cheaper raw materials or foodstuffs.
LORD HAILEY: Yes, that is so, unless we impose a definite discrimination. I need not point to the difficulty of calculating the precise effect on our export trade of the pre-Ottawa and Ottawa preferences which were given by Colonies to our exports. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has spoken of the difficulty of drawing precise or secure conclusions from figures extending over a series of years, years which have included, as I need not point out, changes in the value of both sterling and of the dollar. And of course the most substantial advantage enjoyed by British exporters does not always lie in any preferences our exports may receive in the Colonial tariffs; it lies largely in the more intangible preference given by old-
1188
standing trading and financial connexions and by the use of a common currency.
But a critical analysis recently made shows results which may be summed up as follows. It is beyond question that the preferences granted by those Colonies
which have not been precluded by Treaty or Mandatory arrangements from according them have resulted in increased purchases of British goods. While this is so, there is some difficulty in assessing the value of this on balance to British trade. I will not enter into the technical reasons for this. It is enough to say that the general conclusion of such analysis is that the benefit of the system lies perhaps rather in the fact that in some cases it enables United Kingdom industries to maintain a market which would otherwise be lost to cheaper and poorer quality goods. There are certainly some who, as the result of analysis the figures of Colonial trade, are inclined to hold that on balance the United Kingdom possibly loses more by the preferences given by it to imports from the Colonies—which extend of course to all Colonies—than it gains by the preferences accorded to its exports by certain of those territories.
If this conclusion is correct—and it is of course debatable—the result is not necessarily to be regretted. The Colonies are an integral part of the Empire, and it may be well viewed as one of our responsibilities to assist their development in this particular manner. Let me then proceed to examine how far the preferences given by us to the Colonial products coming to our markets have actually proved of benefit to the Colonies themselves. In considering this point there are several facts of importance to be noted. In the first place, there is a considerable range of imports from the Colonies on which no preference is granted, such as rubber, tin and copper. About 60 per cent. of the total exports of the Colonies to all quarters falls into this category. Secondly, a preference clearly confers no price benefit on the countries eligible for it if they are producing in the aggregate more than is required by the preferential market. That means to say that a considerable block of Colonial products, headed by cocoa and oil seeds, receives little or no benefit from our United Kingdom preferences. This class amounts roughly to about 18 per cent. of the total Colonial export production. There is again a third class

1189
to which the preferences granted by us are of variable value. There, again, I will not give the precise economic reason; I will merely say that into this class fall such products as sisal, timber, and certain of the oil seeds. This class constitutes about 2 per cent. of the total Colonial export.
Up to this point therefore the preferences granted by us are either of no obvious value to the Colonies or only of variable value to them. But we now come to certain classes of Colonial exports in which our preferences are of proved benefit to the Colonies. There are, in the first place, certain products which, owing to their quality, would, in the absence of preference, command only a limited market compared to products coming from elsewhere The most typical case is tobacco from our East or Central African Colonies. The total amount coming from all source, when viewed in relation to our total import of tobacco from all sources, may not be important, but it is of the greatest importance to the Colonial territories concerned. Next there is the class of goods where the existence of a preference has proved to give to the preferential goods a clear advantage over similar goods coming from elsewhere, such as tea, coffee, and some of the fruits. This class has an important place in our Colonial export trade, and constitutes about 9 per cent. of the whole.
Finally, there is the class of product where the preferences granted to the Colony are not merely useful to the producing Colonies but essential to 'their economic life. The outstanding goods of this class are sugar, bananas and some of the citrus fruits. They constitute about 10 per cent. of the total Colonial export. But their real significance lies in the fact that, without the preference, some of the West Indies and the Island of Mauritius would go out of production for what has proved to be their most suitable crop, for which no alternative has yet been found.
To sum up these figures, there are about two per cent. of Colonial exports which may benefit to a variable extent by the preferences we accord; about nine per cent. in which the preference is of clear value, and a further ten per cent. in which the preference is vital to the economy of the producing Colony and the maintenance of its standards of life.
It may be argued that a general abolition of a regime of preference should not
1190
preclude our giving preferences to Colonial products in our market, so long as we did not claim that the Colonies should, in return, give preferences to our exports in their own markets. Such a process should be no more open to objection from others than the block purchase of such goods by the United Kingdom Government at a preferential price—a continuance, in fact, of the process to which we have become accustomed during the war. There has been, I admit, in this country a school of thought to which this alternative would seem desirable, for this school has always been opposed to claiming from the Colonies anything in the nature of reciprocal preferences, holding that our duty as trustee is to give to their people the opportunity of purchasing in the cheapest market the goods required for their material development or social needs.
That may be the ideal, but it is frankly an ideal that it is difficult to commend to our own people in our present circumstances, and in face of the overriding necessity to extend our export trade. So long as it can be shown that the reciprocal preferences accorded by the Colonies to our exports do not in fact impair their acquisition of essential capital goods, and do not raise the cost of consumer goods so as to affect their standard of living, then these reciprocal preferences seem to me to be justified. So far they do not seem open to this objection. They certainly create nothing like a monopoly for our trade; of the total imports into the Colonies a little less than one-third come from the United Kingdom. In respect only of two items, footwear and certain textiles, has it ever been claimed anywhere that our system of tariffs does prejudice the Colonial consumer, but this was mainly due to the imposition of quotas against Japanese trade, which I hope can be regarded merely as a temporary expedient.
The conclusion seems to me to be obvious. We and the other self-governing members of the Commonwealth may hold our individual views of the value of the reciprocal aid we render to each other by a system of trade preferences. We may hold our own views, and they will not always be the most complimentary view, as to the motives which have inspired the attack on this system. We may hold different views of the limit of the concessions we can make to meet this

1191
attack. But we, in the United Kingdom, who are responsible for the non-self-governing portion of the Empire, must stand fast to certain requirements which its welfare demands. We must retain the power to continue the system of preferences, or some analogous system which would give the same results in cases such as those to which I have pointed. The extent of reciprocal benefits thus secured to our own export trade may be a matter of debate; but we should fail in our duty as trustees if we permitted any invasion of our capacity to render to certain of our Colonies the economic aid which it is our responsibility to accord to them.
5.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to range over all the subjects which are embraced in the noble Lord's Resolution. I want to bring to your Lordships' notice two points. At the present time we are under war conditions and all our overseas
purchases of food are made by the Ministry of Food. Imperial Preference at the moment has no practical significance. I hope and believe that this state of affairs is only temporary, but as soon as free marketing conditions are again in operation the importance of preference to the overseas producer will again be vital. I ask the noble Lord if he will take notice of this particular point. When the Conference begins its discussions—and that time is not very far away—there is a real danger that modification or elimination of preference may be conceded as a result of American pressure during the present abnormal situation, when the markets are in the seller's favour, and grave injury may thus be done to the future of a number of primary producing industries in the Empire which will badly need the assistance of a tariff preference in the United Kingdom when ordinary conditions of trading return. That is my first point. I know the noble Lord has been so good as to say the Government are going to take care, that we are going to be tough and have no nonsense and all that kind of thing, but at the beginning of this Conference we shall be in an abnormal situation and I hope the noble Lord will take note of it.
The American attack on preference ignores the fact that the United States has
1192
built up an elaborate preferential system covering its imports of sugar which gives free entry to sugar grown in Puerto Rica and in Hawaii, which are just as much Colonial territorities as are our West Indies. America also gives reduced rates to sugar coming from Cuba and from certain other foreign countries. Why should they have it both ways? Cotton, tobacco, canned and dried fruits are products of which the United States have a considerable surplus for export and which they are naturally anxious to sell here on an equal footing with the Empire producers. The noble Lord, Lord Croft, has dealt with cotton and tobacco and I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice the conditions with regard to dried and canned fruit. Before the war Dominion producers of those commodities were faced with intense competition from the United States and were only enabled to retain their position in the British market with the help of the preferences they received under the Ottawa Agreements. The industry expanded considerably between the two wars. United Kingdom imports of Empire canned fruits rose from an average annual amount of under 19,000 tons in the five years from 1919 to 1923, to 81,000 tons in 1938. The percentage of Empire imports compared to total imports rose in the same period from 25½ per cent. to 40 per cent., touching 45 per cent. in 1937. I am talking about canned and dried fruits only.
During World War II Australian and South African products have been largely consumed by the Allied forces, but the need for re-entering the British market on an even larger scale than before 1939 will soon become urgent if food production is to be maintained. Canada, Australia, South Africa and Malaya are all interested in this because together they sent 90 per cent. of the imports of canned pineapple which came to this country before the war. Without the help of Imperial Preference that will not be possible in the future. Then again, important wine industries in Australia and South Africa have been built up since preference was granted in 1925, and since the Ottawa Agreements Empire coffee producers had a preference of Id. in the pound, which has enabled them to hold their own. All these Dominions and Colonies from which these imports come will deplore any interference with these preferences, which have been of great moral support in stimulating their

1193
industries. The British Empire Producers' Organization (of which I have the honour of being a past President) and the Tobacco Federation have taken early and vigorous action in this direction which appears to have had some results, because in your Lordships' House on October 24 last the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, gave an assurance on behalf of the Government that in discussions with the United States no decisions would be taken which would affect the obligations of the British Commonwealth in the commercial field without the consent of the Dominions. No doubt the noble Lord meant that the Dominions would be consulted on every point in that connexion.
The Bretton Woods plan and Imperial Preference within the Empire hang together. I assert that the traders and manufacturers of this country and of the Empire are of one Mind, namely, that it would be fatal to adhere to the Bretton Woods plan if that involves a sacrifice of Imperial Preference. I saw in the Press yesterday that a gentleman who had just been to Jamaica to investigate economic conditions there stated that Jamaica without Empire Preference would be one great poorhouse or one great burial ground. Whether that is exaggeration or not, it is a risk which the Mother Country should do its best to avoid. Finally, I believe that most of our people feel instinctively that this country and the Empire are sound enough to ensure their own economic salvation if only they work hard enough, and that we do not need to give anything away in order to be given an opportunity of proving it.
5.17 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, there have been hints in the Press that by our signature to the Bretton Woods plan and by the Loan Agreement we have sold the Empire up the garden and abandoned Imperial Preference. If this were true or were believed in the Empire it would be a very serious matter, but so far as I have been able to understand from a study of the documents it is completely untrue. I would crave your Lordships' indulgence in stating what I believe to be the position and the consequences arising there from. There was an underlying purpose both in the loan and at Bretton Woods to remove trade restrictions. Commonly these restrictions are of three types. There are monetary restrictions, the exchange controls; there are quantitative restrictions,
1194
the import licences system; and there are tariffs, with or without preferences for one's friends. In normal times we were addicted to tariffs with preferences for the Empire, but in the difficult times of war we have worked usually by means of import licensing, though before import licences were granted monetary, shipping and other factors were taken into consideration. The Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund recognize that until members can see their way to square their balances of international payments they may have to employ monetary restrictions, but if they continue to do so after five years they must consult the Fund. The Final Act also recommends that the members shall meet together as soon as possible for the purpose of removing obstacles to foreign trade. There is no specific mention of quantitative restriction. So much for Bretton Woods.
The Loan Agreement provides, inter alia, for the release of existing sterling balances by instalments and for the free convertibility of fresh sterling balances into any currency as they accumulate. It also provides that we shall not practise monetary discrimination, but that we may practise quantitative discrimination provided that in so doing we do not discriminate against United States products. What will be the effect of all this? Firstly, if our export prices are so unattractive that the countries who acquire sterling prefer to take it elsewhere to spend, we shall have to take steps which might even include devaluation under Article 4 of the International Monetary Fund. Secondly, I believe—this is a purely personal opinion—that we shall have to maintain some form of quantitative restrictions for a considerable time. Otherwise I do not see how our exports can possibly pay for the enormous volume of imports we should like to receive to lighten our miserable state as well as to free the instalments of old sterling and pay with them the instalments of the American loan, both starting in 1951.
During this time of transition, of restriction by import licences, we shall be at perfect liberty to import anything we like from anybody we like in any quantity we like so far as Bretton Woods and the Loan Agreement are concerned, provided that we do not discriminate against United States goods in so doing. What will this amount to? I presume that we shall

1195
have to grant to the United States the same share of our markets that they held in some datum period. I cannot guess at the datum period, but if 1937 were taken, we imported goods to the value of £1,000,000,000, of which £400,000,000 came from the Empire, £114,000,000 from the United States and £500,000,000 from other foreign countries. The United States had 11 per cent. of our markets in fact. Of the £114,000,000, approximately £50,000,000 represented agricultural products
It is agricultural products in which I think we have the greatest interest to see that our Empire has the first call on our markets. These agricultural products were: grain 4 per cent of the market, meat 3 per cent. of the market, fats 12 per cent., fish 13 per cent. Then we get on to where the share was appreciable—fruit and jam 17 per cent., cotton 42 per cent., tobacco 79 per cent. These three products are the ones in which we may have to promise the United States a very appreciable share of our markets. Take the case of cotton. Our Empire has never been able to produce all the staple cotton that Liverpool requires and the competition has nearly always been between Egypt, Brazil and the United States. So I do not think the Empire is the loser there. I am afraid we shall none of us be at all happy about fruit and jam. It seems fairly clear that those are things on which we may have to cut down because we cannot afford to import heavily. That will bear no doubt very hardly on certain, perhaps rather small, parts of our Empire which depend very largely for their existence on fruit-growing. I was thinking, perhaps, of Palestine. Under Clause 9 (b) of the Loan Agreement it is possible that we might be able to claim that special consideration should be given such countries in that their economy was disrupted by the war. Tobacco I am afraid is an old story, and it has been mentioned already tonight. As a smoker of Rhodesian tobacco of long standing I should be most unhappy at not allowing Rhodesia to export all the tobacco she wished to our market. But I fear that cotton and tobacco are very political matters in the United States and that they may be considered to be part of the price of the Loan. I might point out that in 1937, at all events, Australia, Canada and
1196
New Zealand appeared to take no raw tobacco from the Empire at all, and it is possible that Rhodesia, if she has not done so already, might be able to find a better market there.
So much for the transitional stage of restricting imports by licence. After that we reach the stage of imports controlled by tariffs, modified by any agreements into which we may enter in the meantime. As both sides of this House, with the possible exception of the south-east corner, appear to accept the policy of Imperial Preference, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will be as good as his word and "fight like a tiger." But even before we reach the happy stage of import without licence, I think we shall find that the original economic purpose of Imperial Preference, to secure a market for our Dominion produce, will have receded in the light of certain new factors.
There are some very important new factors in the world to-day. There is the International Fund primarily designed to supply dollars to the world. If the world has dollars America has employment, and it was unemployment, particularly in America, in the 1930's which led to so much under-consumption. There is also U.N.R.R.A., a body to buy goods where it can and give them away to those who would never have had them otherwise. That, of course, makes for consumption. The third, but 'by no means least, factor is the translation of India from a debtor to a creditor area, and one which, by reason of her vastly increasing population, may play the classical role of a creditor nation by importing foodstuffs—grain and milk products—on a very large scale. Your Lordships will be well aware that, at the present rate of growth of the Indian population, in thirty years' time it will be nearing 600,000,000, and that before the war the area under crops in British India was some 200,000,000 acres. I doubt very much whether there was half as much again in the Native States. I think we may live to thank our stars that Hindus do not eat meat. In conclusion I would say that I 'believe that whereas the problem of the past has been to secure markets for the products of our Empire, in the future the problem may well be to secure our own daily bread. Sentimental and commercial ties fostered by Imperial Preference have been of great

1197
value in solving the old problem, and I Dominions have an entirely free hand to believe that they will be of equal value in solving the new one. But in so doing Imperial Preference may well fulfil a role which was never dreamed of by its detractors, and which might surprise even some of its creators.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Assurance Companies,

Agriculture (Artificial Insemination),

Trunk Roads,

Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions),

Agricultural Development (Ploughing Up of Land).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

RECIPROCAL ECONOMIC AID.
5.41 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, this debate has run for a long time and therefore I shall have to cut down the remarks I intended to make. First of all, I wish to say that at this time, after two great wars in which we have been successful, the wars with Germany and with Japan, and with an Imperial Conference imminent and with an international economic conference to be held shortly afterwards, we are very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, for bringing forward his Resolution this afternoon. It is a Resolution which fits the economic conditions in this country and the economic conditions in the Commonwealth and Empire and the effect that they may have upon the international economic conference itself. Perhaps I may take a slightly different line from that which has ready been taken in the debate. I should like first of all to refer to what happened in the early days with regard to Imperial Preference. In doing so I have, of course, to refer to the Dominions. As your Lordships all know, the
1198
Dominions have an entirely free hand to do exactly what they like and they have had that for a very long time. They were the first in these circumstances to grant preferential treatment and to make preferential arrangements for this country. To give her her due, and to her great credit, Canada was the first Dominion, or self-governing Colony as she was then, to give that preference. Why did she give us that preference and why was that preference followed by similar grants from the other Dominions? I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the first reason was that there was a kind of sentiment about it.
Most of the inhabitants of Canada and of the self-governing Colonies came from the old country or if they had not come from the old country themselves they were the descendants of people who had. They preferred to buy in this country and to sell to the old country rather than to go to a foreign country for their trade. This country was a very fine market for them. It was a growing market and they had a definite place to which to sell their produce after their home consumption had been fulfilled. On the other hand, here in the old country we learnt and began to appreciate that the Dominions were a good and expanding market for our manufacturers' goods.
So this went on over the years. We went through one war and we came to another war. I do not propose to go into the question of the extent to which the Dominions helped us militarily, but finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said in what I may describe as his amusing as well as interesting speech, we had in the time of the depression in 1932 a conference at Ottawa at which we discussed the whole question of improving and solidifying what had then become a settled policy. By that time the Dominions were already well advanced in secondary industry manufacture, but notwithstanding that there were many articles manufactured in this country which still found a market in the Dominions. These articles were demanded and in return for them the Dominions found a large and permanent market for their primary produce in the United Kingdom. In that way trade links, as well as sentimental links, were finally established between ourselves and the Dominions greatly to the advantage of both
of us. Side by side with these developments,

1199
considerable financial investments were made in the Dominions by United Kingdom investors, and manufacturers as well, and in this way our invisible exports to the Dominions increased in volume every year, whilst concurrently the resources of the Dominions were being developed and the Dominions were rapidly increasing in wealth themselves.
There was another outcome of this which is not always appreciated although it has 'been referred to this afternoon. The trade of the Dominions kept its standing to such a degree that it greatly overflowed the United Kingdom basin. In spite of what the noble Lord opposite has said this afternoon I am going to give some figures. I am not going to give a mass of figures but those I am going to give will, I think, emphasize the point I wish to make and which has been considered from many angles this afternoon—namely, our relationship with the United States of America in regard to this whole question. I find that in 1937—and this was five years after the Ottawa Agreements to which the United States took exception at the time and afterwards—the total imports from British countries into Great Britain were £405,000,000 in value or 39 per cent. of her imports, whilst the exports from Great Britain to British countries were £251,000,000 or only 48 per cent. of her total exports. That shows at least that Great Britain, the Mother Country, was doing a very large trade outside the Dominions and Colonies, and trading more largely with foreign countries than she was with her own Dominions and Colonies. This is a remarkable fact. On the other hand, the total imports from British countries into the United States of America were £272,000,000 or 36 per cent. of their import trade, whilst the exports of the United States of America into British countries were £335,000,000 or 40 per cent. of their total exports. It seems to me we got even with the United States of America, assuming these figures are correct, so far as our trade is concerned, and they have nothing to complain about in the fact that we are granting preferences to our Dominions, or that our Dominions are granting preferences to us, because they get just as much trade out of it to-day, or they did in 1937, as the United Kingdom.
1200
Those figures in my submission should be a proof of the state of misapprehension in the minds of many Americans, who blame us bitterly for entering into family economic arrangements with our Dominions. They are also a proof that these family arrangements provide the background of expanding trade between the British Dominions and foreign countries, and, further, that the progressive stability of trade within the Commonwealth is adding strength and expansion to the trade outside the Commonwealth. I have had certain experience in these matters during a number of years and I have witnessed the rise in the production of secondary articles in the Dominions going on more and more. I have seen coincident with that rise in production of secondary industries, an increasing production of primary produce, and we all know all the different controversies that have arisen from time to time connected with the Dominions' trade with foreign countries as affecting this country. I wish to suggest that what applies to the Dominions so fat; as expanding trade and so on is concerned applies also to our Colonies and Protectorates.
Our system of preference to our Colonies and Protectorates has been a varied one which has sprung up over the years as a result of the needs of the moment; as a result of needs connected with the various tropical product industries which were existing at the time in the various Colonies. Most of the Colonies are almost entirely dependent for their economic livelihood upon the tropical products they grow, and only a few have other sources of wealth such as oil, base-metals and gold. Generally speaking, they are entirely dependent upon their tropical produce. Consequently, that being the case, all are dependent upon their overseas markets for that produce, and they have especially always looked to the United Kingdom market as one upon which they could always rely and which would not let them down. But unfortunately over the years (and it may happen again) world market prices for tropical products have often fallen below the cost of production or so low that there was no profit in them. It is here that our family arrangement of granting preferences to our Colonies has been their salvation.
I remember a time when I was in the West Indies when the price of produce

1201
such as sugar was so low that not only were we trying to save it through preferences but we had to give grants to several Colonies in order to keep them out of the Bankruptcy Court. In that regard I might also mention that Cuba and the American islands in the Caribbean were maintained for a long time in their sugar production upon preferences given to them by the United States of America. To-day I believe they are inside the Union and have a free market in the United States. Without our help I believe that Mauritius, whose main crop is sugar, would probably have become bankrupt. The West African Colonies and the East African Colonies would all suffer very seriously if they had these preferences cut away from them to-day.
I must say one word about Southern Rhodesia, in spite of the fact that my noble friend Lord Hawke has already referred to it. I do not quite agree with all he said about Southern Rhodesia and with regard to her tobacco With my knowledge of Southern Rhodesia, I believe if she lost her preferential arrangements in the United Kingdom market she would certainly have to cut down her tobacco cultivation and lose seriously in revenue, and as a result of that we would lose in export trade. Furthermore, I am positive the United States of America would lose in export trade because they provide quite a great deal of the tobacco machinery and even mining machinery which is used in Rhodesia to-day. Look where you will at our Commonwealth and Empire, the whole is interlaced with sentiment and reciprocal trade and holds together and stands on these twin bases, crowned, if I may say so, by a common sovereign in His Majesty our King. It was largely owing to that sentiment that they came into that first World War and it helped in the second World War. I venture to think it was largely owing to our reciprocal trade links with our Dominions and Colonies in both wars that we have been saved from starvation and consequently probably defeat. I have never concealed my belief, and I have stated so in this House before, that the new conditions arising from the war would require some modifications and even alterations in our Trade Agreements as made at Ottawa with the Dominions and the Colonial Empire, and I am just as positive that any alterations or modifications should not take the form of
1202
breaking down a family trading system which has proved so beneficial to the family itself and has also been of such immense advantage in building up world trade through the economic development of the individual members of that family group.
There could be no greater disaster to world economy that I can imagine than if the United States of America were suddenly to be disintegrated and their system of close inter-economic union between their various States abandoned. That is what the United States of America is indicating we should do in regard to our economic arrangements within the Commonwealth and Empire. The United States of America, as your Lordships are as well aware as I am myself, cover a very large area and have a huge population. The British Commonwealth, on the other hand, is also very large but is much more scattered, and I believe that its economic disintegration would be as disastrous to the world's economy as would be the economic disintegration of the United States of America.
The noble Lord who moved this Resolution is absolutely right: we cannot afford to abandon our family economic arrangements, and I was glad to hear from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in his reply, that the Government have no intention of doing this. I believe that if those arrangements were destroyed it would sound the death knell of our Commonwealth and Empire, and to those who, like myself, believe that our commonwealth and Empire still have a mission to fulfil, that would amount to world disaster.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think in almost every quarter of the House the acceptance by the Government of this Resolution, which has been so widely and so moderately debated to-day, will be most warmly welcomed. Many speakers have drawn on their own personal practical experience, and I would like, in winding up the debate from this side of the House, quite shortly to draw on my own experience, both as Secretary of State for the Colonies and three times as President of the Board of Trade. I say that because it so happened that holding those two offices made me at times responsible for negotiating and following the operation of many of the preferential

1203
agreements which have been in force for the last fifteen years. It also imposed upon me the duty of negotiating and watching a great many commercial treaties and international agreements. Drawing on that dual experience has taught me, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Imperial Preference has not hindered but has, on the whole, helped world trade.
May I take two or three aspects that make up world trade? I will take raw materials first. Imperial Preference, as we have exercised it and as the Dominions have operated it, has never restricted and never handicapped the access of any nation to the raw materials of the world. Indeed, by giving confidence and an assured market here and in the Dominions to primary producers, preference has encouraged and improved the production of many different sorts of raw materials. Moreover, by increasing the prosperity of the primary producers—and I think Lord Hailey dwelt on this—preference has enabled them to buy more, not only in the markets of the Empire, but in the markets of the world.
I am not going to quote any figures, but I remember a calculation made by some economists before the war that the primary producers of the world consumed at least half the industrial products of the world, and I should think that, broad and large, that was true. Certainly it must have been about that, and, with better prices and greater demand for agricultural products all the world over, I would suppose that it was very likely larger. At any rate, those were the old figures which had currency, and I do not remember having seen them challenged. But when prices of primary products have slumped, then it is not only the primary producer who has suffered; the industrial producer and the industrial exporter in every country, of the world has suffered with him. I could give example after example of the way in which preference has assisted research and development, but I will take only two or three examples. Lord Chesham spoke about East Africa, and I will take sisal as an example. All the products I am going to cite have been of enormous importance, not only to us but to America, in this war. The preference that was given to sisal not only encouraged agricultural, plant and soil research in Kenya and Tanganyika, which greatly improved the quality of the plant, but there
1204
was going on, and there is still going on, applied research by the rope makers, the users of sisal, and the work they have undertaken in this country has been of enormous advantage in improving quality and also in enabling a far larger proportion of the plant to be used. War came, and America wanted the sisal as much as we did. If that development had not been made, we should have fallen short.
Take another Kenya product. I well remember when I was at the Colonial Office the great help we had from some manufacturing firms here in developing essential oils. The preference just gave the turn to the market. Let me take pyrethrum. It did not seem vitally important then but, as your Lordships know, pyrethrum is the greatest insecticide in the world, and every aeroplane that passed through tropical countries had to be sprayed, and sprayed most intensively, with this particular preparation, to prevent it carrying malaria and yellow fever. That was entirely dependent on pyrethrum, and that product was developed under preference.
Now let me take timber. When we introduced the timber preference for the Colonies, we were not content just to let it take its course. We said: "We must exploit this to the full"—and I use the term "exploit" in the proper sense. That meant all the research into the qualities of timber and the uses of timber for which Princes Risborough rightly became so famous, through the work of men like Oliphant. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House 'will remember how I brought home from those timber-producing countries forest officers, carefully selected, who knew all about conservation and absolutely nothing about markets, and put them to train with timber firms in this country, to the great advantage of the timber market and to the great advantage of the Colonies. When I was in West Africa during the war there was a tremendous demand for high-grade timber from West Africa and at least half—I think more than half—of the highest grade mahogany we were producing was being sent to the United States on the highest possible shipping priority month by month.
Those, I think, are good examples of how preference has encouraged research and development and has been of inestimable benefit, not only to the producing

1205
Colonies, not only to the Empire, but to the world at large. The value of these preferences to the Colonies is so well known that I will not dwell upon it, but they have added greatly to the livelihood of many of these Colonies, which have consequently been able to develop alternative crops. Nothing is more dangerous than dependence on a single crop, and Colonies have got to live on as well as off their holdings. That is tremendously important, and preferences have helped that. In some of the Colonies preference has not only been their livelihood; in the sugar Colonies it has been their very life. When, at Ottawa, preferences were made Empire-wide, when the Dominions and India of their own free will extended mutual preferences to the whole Colonial Empire, that was not only of great mutual benefit to the parties to the transaction but was, I think, a very practical example of the Commonwealth nations joining with this country as trustees of a common Colonial trust, a matter which was dealt with so interestingly in the debate which the noble. Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, initiated a few days ago. As a result, the world has benefited in raw materials and has benefited by the added purchasing power of the Colonies and the Dominions which have produced those raw materials.
Let me turn to another aspect. I believe it to be a complete illusion—and I found this on the dual experience I have had—that mutual trading arrangements make multilateral trade more difficult. Trade breeds trade, and it is the aggregate of trade that counts. This indeed is an obvious statement, but the aggregate is the sum of the individual transactions. My noble friend will not dissent from that philosophic pronouncement, nor from the further deduction that the bigger is that aggregate of trade the more we shall all do. I cannot take a better example than the United States itself. The United States is a great Customs Union. It is what is termed in the parlance of to-day—and it certainly ought not to be used as a term of abuse—an economic bloc. When internal trade is good within the United States, within that Custom's Union, trade is good between the United States and the outside world. We all know that. These things are not matters of old last century theory; these matters have been tested in the light of practical experience. In the United States up till 1929 trade was increasing;
1206
she was becoming increasingly prosperous internally. She was buying and selling more inside her borders, and in consequence was trading a great deal inure with the outside world. Then came the 1929 slump and we all know the history of that. It not only smashed internal trade within the United States, but its effects were felt outside; it cut off, as with a knife, both the purchases and the sales of the United States overseas. It also is undoubtedly true that after Ottawa not only did trade within the Commonwealth and Empire greatly increase but trade between the Empire and the rest of the world increased. I have not looked it up for some time, but there was an extraordinarily interesting report prepared by certain officers of the Department of Commerce in the United States on the effects of the Ottawa Agreements. When I read that report I thought there was a fair measure of blessing contained in its very well considered and argued statements.
Let me put one other proposition. It is not at all true that a mass of small national economic units makes for more world trade. To take an example from the past, although much may be said against its political administration, when the Austrian Empire was in existence the world outside that Empire did much more trade with it—and under safer conditions; it got paid—than when the Austrian Empire was split up into a number of separate units. I believe that the undiluted and rigid application of the most-favoured-nation clause is a great fallacy, and again I base my opinion on experience. Sometimes it was evaded by subterfuge. Some of your Lordships will remember the classical example where a special tariff concession was extended to canned milk provided, if I remember aright—that the milk was the product of—
LORD CALVERLEY: Contented cows!
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Contented cows with contented faces! The noble Lord should not make these vulgar observations, which are more appropriate to his memories of another place! The concession was extended to products of cows pastured on mountain pastures above an altitude of a thousand metres. That was the kind of evasion which used to take place. We, of course, were more

1207
well behaved. But where it was strictly kept to did it not very often mean that a particular piece of business between two countries, which would have been good for them and which would have been good for the world at large because that business would have increased the wealth and prosperity of those two countries, was prevented because it could not be extended to the whole world? I look back and take the example of Austria before the 1914–18 war and the example of Austria after that war. Let us learn from our own mistakes. We, I know, opposed on most-favoured-nation grounds—and, looking back, I am sure wrongly; I was very doubtful about it at the time—the Customs Union of those countries which were, formerly, included in the Austrian Empire. It would have been a breach, I agree, of the most-favoured-nation clause which we enjoyed with them all. But if we had not relied upon the letter of the law, if, on the contrary, we had encouraged such a commercial union between those adjacent countries, whose economies so naturally dove-tail into one another, we should have done a great deal more business with that Customs Union than with its elements. And it might have helped us to have had a more peaceful world.
We have all a common interest in this world trade. We are all members one of another. Prosperity, like security, is indivisible, but world prosperity, indivisible as it is, depends upon the prosperity of each country and of all countries. And the ability of those countries, as well as their will, to co-operate will depend upon their being able to build up their commercial and industrial prosperity individually and collectively. I am sure of this—that in commercial co-operation in peace, just as in the partnership of war, the contribution that each country can make is conditioned by its strength. How much the common cause owed to the strength and the combined resources of the United States and the British Commonwealth! We know how much, in peace, the world will need a United States commercially strong and prosperous. That is our interest, that is our hope, and our desire. But no less will the world need a British Commonwealth and Empire economically strong and prosperous, and so—and so, only, I believe—can we both play our part in rebuilding the prosperity
1208
And ensuring the peace of stricken world.
6.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I should like, in the first place, to associate myself with what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said at the opening of his speech, and to join in paying a tribute to the quality of this discussion, which I think, if I may say so, is characteristic of many more that have taken place in your Lordships' House. We shall all join, I am sure, in expressing our thanks to the noble Lord who initiated the debate, and I am glad that the form of his Resolution is generally accepted. I think that all of us were particularly interested in the illustrations given by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—they were drawn, no doubt, from his own personal experience—of the value of some of the incidences of preference in encouraging research and industrial development, in various directions. But particularly, I was interested in and encouraged by a phrase which he used which, I think, underlies a really large part of the discussion, namely, "the importance of the primary producer having confidence in an assured market"—or words to that effect.
After all, it is the purpose of all these undertakings, certainly the purpose of every one of us, I believe, who have spoken to-day, and of His Majesty's Government, to try to increase the prosperity of the primary producer. That is a fundamental necessity. As we know, the well-being of the world, of industrial nations particularly, depends upon the purchasing power of the primary producer, and I should have thought that the noble Viscount, perhaps, almost under-stated the case when he said that the purchases of the primary producer represented probably 50 per cent. of industrial products. We have to remember that in a simple thing, such as, for example, electricity, if the primary producers in a country where there is a certain limited supply—or in an English village, if you like—become a little bit better off in the aggregate, they want more electric lamps. That, in the aggregate, means that you have got to build new electric plant, to put up mighty transformers, and all the other parts of the apparatus that are

1209
needed. All this is the result of increasing the purchasing power of vast numbers of primary producers. One could give any number of illustrations of the same kind. Unless these conferences result in an increase of the purchasing power of the primary producers of the world, they will have been in vain. But that increase is, I am sure, the purpose of us all.
I would just like to refer to one or two matters which have been particularly mentioned by different speakers. May I begin with what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, said of the quite common misunderstanding—particularly in America, though it is not limited to America, I am afraid—of what the British Commonwealth really means? I think that what he said illustrated something which has certainly been impressed upon the minds of those of us who, in the present Government, have been associated with these things, and that is the real need all over the world for a better understanding of the British case. We must take active steps, without any shyness, to see that, if possible, this is achieved. It is perfectly true that large numbers of people have not really apprehended what sort of a structure, if you can call it a structure, the British Commonwealth really is. It varies, as we know from an administrative arrangement in a completely undeveloped territory, where the people are just beginning to want a better standard of life, and where it is administered—as the noble Lord himself knows better than I—in a great variety of forms, under the Colonial Office, varying from no form of self-expression whatever to a form of sell-expression which is only next door to self-government. This is not understood in the world as I think it ought to be. It is not understood how the scheme has led to the gradual development of self-government in countries which have steadily been brought up from a completely undeveloped state to one much more developed. The experience of every one of us, and the noble Viscount himself must know it well, is that among all the telegrams we get in our offices, there are many that typify that growing measure of self-dependence and self-development which is going on in various forms throughout the Colonies of the British Empire.
1210
I wish sometimes that some of our critics had a better understanding of how this comes about. It is designed to promote the well-being of the people who live in the several parts of the Colonial Empire, because we know very well that unless their purchasing power (to come back to the same text) can be developed, it cannot help trade and will not promote international prosperity. I expect some of the noble Lords read some of the discussions which took place at the recent meeting of the United Nations in London, where Trusteeship was discussed in various forms. I was very much impressed myself by the need of further instruction of a good many of those who themselves have no Colonies to administer. I am putting it, I think, quite politely; but it would have been very useful if some of them had had a little clearer understanding of the machinery of Colonial government, in its great variety of forms, which this country has developed, and which has given and is giving an increasing measure of freedom and self-dependence to people all over the world, of every race and colour.
Then I come to another point which I think should be mentioned, because to some extent it still influences a good many comments that are made on this subject, and that is, the insufficient realization of the complete independence of the members of the British Commonwealth. It is not open to the Mother Country to prescribe for them what should be done. They insist on making their own prescriptions. But that does not in any way detract from the immense value of the continual consultation and co-operation which we all seek to develop, and which is implicit in this Resolution. But it does mean that we in this country cannot prescribe in any particular conference what the form of many things should be. Our fellow members of the British Commonwealth will enter into it and decide for themselves. Yet, for all that, as I have said, the value of our continual and daily contacts is not diminished but is rather increased for that very reason. I think myself that none of us need contemplate entering into the forthcoming Conferences with any misgivings. None of us, I think, has misgivings.
So far as the Home Government is concerned, in so far as it has a responsibility to the Colonies in these matters, I can

1211
assure the noble Lords that we shall watch their interests with scrupulous care. We are fully alive to the importance of many of the things that have been referred to, and we shall take good care that they are not lost sight of. Everyone of us will realize that what lies at the back of this (we hope coming better developments in world trade) is a realization of how much further we must go, if we really adopt the right methods—I mean in development. If we secure increased prosperity of primary producers—I keep coming back to that point, for the potentialities of future world markets have, in my view, hardly been tapped, and all you have to do is to think of the many millions of people who are just living on the verge of existence and that is about all—and if we can by any means whatever lift up the standard of living by giving a better security to the primary producer, then its reaction on the increased volume of world trade will be almost incalculable.
There is one other aspect of this which I notice has not been referred to, as to the developments which may arise. May I say that so far as the word "preference" is concerned, and the various means by which it may be given effect to, I myself feel that there are much greater possibilities than we have hitherto realized. The most secure form of preference is by some combined method (I am not talking of Socialism), of co-ordinating markets by a group of communities, which is a form, if you like, of State purchase. For example, let me give your Lordships one illustration which must be in the mind of every one of us as we think of the present position. You will remember that not very long ago there was a surplus of wheat, the Canadian producers and many others found themselves possessed of vast stocks of wheat, and the price slumped. I forget how much it slumped to; the noble Viscount opposite will remember better than I; I believe it was forty cents a bushel. At all events, it slumped to an entirely unremunerative price. It was the memory of an experience of that kind which prevented vast numbers of producers from growing more wheat that the world now wants so badly. I am quite sure that the recollection of those experiences is a considerable handicap to the development of the food supplies that the
1212
world at the present moment stands in need of so sorely.
For my part, I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to devise schemes which will secure producers against that kind of slump, to give some secure (shall we say) bottom to the market; and that can only be done by large-scale co-operation, which is encouraged and fostered by State action, and that opens the door to a type of preference which I think is capable of immense expansion. I am not going to open my soul on this; if I were to do so, I should detain your Lordships far too long, because it is a subject which is very near my heart. Anyhow, it is one of the forms of development which we ought not to lose sight of, because one of the biggest handicaps to the primary producer all over the world has been the uncertainty of his markets. We must combine as well as we can to secure him against that risk.
I have only mentioned one or two matters which have been raised in this debate. Finally, let me say that I do most heartily agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has said of the immense moral value in the world of the British Commonwealth. It simply cannot be calculated. The more it is studied and understood, the more some of our friends outside study and understand it, the greater will be the appreciation of its value. I want to assure noble Lords, in accepting this Motion, that His Majesty's Government are fully conscious of the immense importance of that moral value and that we will do all we can to develop it.
6.40 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I. do not think that any noble Lord who ever moved a Resolution in this House had less reason to complain of its reception. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, to Lord Pakenham, and to noble Lords opposite, for the way in which they have received it. In particular, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, on an extremely concise speech. I must say that he gave a series of very illuminating and useful observations which were most concisely put, and he also managed to keep up the suspense to the last minute. I was also most deeply impressed by what the noble Viscount said on three matters. We, on this side of the House, absolutely agree with him that the man to look after is

1213
the primary producer, and if you look after him the rest of the world will come right somehow. In the second place, I was delighted by what he said about guaranteed markets. You cannot look after the primary producer unless you give him that kind of security in this country or anywhere else. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, gave some striking examples of what the guaranteed market has meant to primary producers, and not only to them but to the world at large in critical times. On both these points we are delighted to hear what fell from the lips of the noble Viscount. Of course, we are happy to know what he said, and what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said, about the firm intention of the Government to look after Colonial interests. Some Colonies cannot speak for themselves and therefore they are all the more dependent on our good will and understanding. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ATOMIC BOMBING AND FISH DESTRUCTION.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOEhad the following question on the Paper: To ask His
1214
Majesty's Government whether they contemplate any widespread destruction of edible fish, or of fat-yielding whales, as the result of the experimental atomic bombing of old battleships in the Pacific Ocean in the month of May; and whether any means can be devised to prevent such destruction, in view of the serious world shortage of protein food and of fats.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, His Majesty's Government have no responsibility for the atomic bomb tests which the United-States Government are proposing to carry out in the Pacific; but we are advised that experts who have carefully considered the question are of the opinion that little destruction of fish will occur.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (PETITION FOR BILL).
Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.