Sitting of 13 March 1946

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Demobilisation
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the promised speed-up in the rate of release of the accountant trade and equipment trade; whether he will give an assurance that the release target aimed at for those in these trades will be reached by June; and how many men have been remustered into these trades from other trades since September, 1945.
    Major Wyattasked the" Under secretary of State for Air what is the latest position with regard to the deferment of clerks accounting.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): Equipment assistants are this month three groups behind the general level of release for most airmen, but the gap comes down to one group next month. The position is not so good for airmen in the accounting trades, who are five groups behind at present and will be six according to the latest forecast for May. This is most disappointing for all the men concerned; precisely because their work is essential to the general speed-up in release, they cannot at present share the advantage themselves. There is, however, absolutely no question of stopping their release or of going back on the May forecast. While we are doing our best to narrow the gap, we know that there are still difficult problems to overcome—for example, the introduction of the new pay code next July—and so I cannot give any promise at present. We are ready to train every suitable man for accounting duties, and since the beginning of last September up to the end of February the output, including recruits, has been over 3,500. We have also trained about 5,500 men and women as equipment assistants over the same period.
    Captain Chetwyndasked the Undersecretary of State for Air when meteorological officers of age and service Group 27 will be released; and to what extent the release of meteorological officers scheduled for February and March has been cancelled.
    Flight-Lieutenant Haireasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what release group of meteorological officers does he anticipate will be reached by June next.
    Mr. Strachey: Junior meteorological officers of the Royal Air Force in Group 27 will be released in June; from Flight-Lieutenant upwards the release group for meteorological officers will be 25 in June. No release of meteorological officers for February and March has been cancelled. We were not able to confirm our advance promulgation at the time of our action promulgation, but I am able to do so now.
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether applications for release under Class B are dealt with summarily by commanding officers; or whether each application is dealt with by his Department.
    Mr. Strachey: We deal with all applications for Class B release in the Air Ministry. Commanding officers have no power either to make or to refuse an offer of release in Class B.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: It I bring to the hon. Gentleman's notice a case which has been dealt with summarily by a commanding officer, will he look further into the matter?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many R.A.F. medical officers are specialists, and on that account frozen from the operation of the Class A release scheme and what steps he is taking to replace these officers by civilian specialists who have no previous service in the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Strachey: There are 134 Royal Air Force medical officers filling specialist posts. So far, we have told those who would otherwise be due for release up to the end of May—74 in all—that we shall have to keep them on under the Military Necessity clause. The Central Medical War Committee is calling up specialists, for a period of 18 months, who have not yet served in the Armed Forces and who are over 30 years of age, and we trust that we shall receive a sufficient allocation of these new entrants tr. enable us to release as many as possible of our own specialists. We are also accepting volunteers aged 40 and over for a similar period of service.
    Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Central Medical War Committee that it is important that they should reach an early conclusion in this matter of replacing these specialists, as these men have been held frozen for a very long time?
    Mr. Strachey: We agree it is a case of real difficulty, and we shall put in a very strong plea for a good allocation.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Toothasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will reconsider the treatment for release purposes of R.A.F. personnel who have been serving in the G.D. branch and are transferred to the A. and S.D. branch on account of injuries sustained in flying accidents, and who consequently have the date of their release deferred by reason of the difference in treatment for release purposes between personnel of the same group in these two branches.
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The rule to which the hon. Member refers has applied throughout the Royal Air Force ever since the beginning of the release scheme, and it would not be practicable—or indeed fair —to change it now.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that sometimes these transfers cause a delay of up to two months in the date of release of the individuals concerned; and that when they have made arrangements to take up a civilian job on their original expectation the result is not only disappointment, but actual damage to the individual concerned?
    Mr. Strachey: We try to avoid making these transfers at all near the date of release, but some such transfers are inevitable in order to even out the rate of release as between trades. That is the justification for -them. I quite agree that they result in disappointment, but I feel that it would be worse not to make them.

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Osborneasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when a reply can be expected to the letter of nth January, 1946, sent by the hon. Member for Louth, respecting 1775195 L.A.C. Plant, whose immediate release was requested because his father had a stroke and is unable to work on his farm; since application for the son's release is supported by a doctor's certificate, the W.A.E.C. and the N.F.U., if he will immediately release this man; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the efficiency of his Department in dealing with Members' letters.
    Mr. Strachey: As the hon. Member has been informed, we have been able to grant this airman an immediate 28 days' agricultural leave. So he is at work again on his farm. We are ready to consider full compassionate release, but the evidence submitted was insufficient. Delay has been due to the fact that the airman, although matters were explained to him, had not taken any steps to obtain additional evidence.
    Mr. Osborne: With regard to the second part of my Question, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Press keep telling our constituents to write to us about their problems, and it makes Members look fools when they cannot get answers from Ministers in less than 11 weeks?
    Mr. Strachey: In this case the delay was due to the fact that the airman himself was a very long time in producing the additional evidence. It is a very difficult case. We cannot get the sponsoring departments to support Class B release, and on the evidence so far submitted there is no valid case for Class C release. I really cannot take responsibility for the delay in this case.
    Mr. Osborne: This is not the first question —
    Mr. Speaker: Delay in answering letters is being raised on the Adjournment shortly, and we cannot anticipate the Debate by questions now.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when a reply may be expected to a letter from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, dated 22nd December, 1945, regarding 1350308 Corporal Craston, G. W. E.
    Mr. Strachey: This was a case of considerable complexity, since a new ruling which affected the matter had been introduced, But the hon. Member will now have received my letter of 7th March.

    Surplus Hangars
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many R.A.F. hangars are now redundant; and how many of them have been passed over to the Board of Trade for disposal.
    Mr. Strachey: We have informed the Board of Trade that 387 hangars are no longer required by the Royal Air Force. The Board of Trade allocates the hangars to various Departments for storage.
    Mr. Shephard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I addressed a Question to the Board of Trade on this particular point, and that it has been handed over to the Ministry of Works? Can the hon. Gentleman say which Department is dealing with it?
    Mr. Strachey: My information is that the Board of Trade is the Department responsible for allocating.
    Mr. Shephard: Have these hangars actually been handed over?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, it is analogous to our declaring surplus procedure. We have informed the Board of Trade that we do not want the hangars, and the
    1082
    Board of Trade is allocating them for storage purposes.
    Major John Morrison:. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I had a similar experience to that of my hon. Friend, and it took four months to get a very unsatisfactory reply?
    Mr. Strachey: That is the position. We cannot be responsible for the allocation, because I understand it is the Board of Trade which allocates. It certainly is not we.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is not this another example of lack of co-ordination between Departments?
    Mr. Speaker: May I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to study the evidence given to the Procedure Committee by the acting Leader of the Opposition?

    Airfields (Hay Crop)
    Mr. S. Shephardasked the Under secretary of State for Air if he will allow a. hay crop to be taken off those parts of R.A.F. airfields which cannot be cultivated owing to flying commitments.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

    C.M.F. (Leave)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Under secretary of State for Air when it is pro posed to commence regular leave by overland route for men in the C.M.F. who have still some time to serve.
    Mr. Strachey: Fourteen days' home leave is granted to members of the Royal Air Force in the Central Mediterranean Forces who have completed 12 months of their overseas tour, provided they have at least six months more of the tour to serve.

    Temporary Constables (Discharge)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Under secretary of State for Air whether he will reconsider his decision to discharge temporary Air Ministry constables to enable R.A.F. personnel to take over their duties at R.A.F. stations and to suspend such discharges until the general man power shortage has materially eased.
    Mr. Strachey: The Air Ministry constabulary is a civilian police force, and precisely because of the general manpower shortage we are reducing as rapidly

    1083
    as possible the number of civilians working for the Royal Air Force. There is no question of establishing Service posts to take over the work of these constables.

    Oulton Airfield, Norfolk (Release)
    Mr. Goochasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will facilitate the early release of Oulton airfield, Norfolk, so that this extensive area can revert to food production.
    Mr. Strachey: We are using this airfield for storing aircraft, and I am afraid that we shall need it beyond this ploughing season, but we shall not need it permanently.

    Deenethorpe Camp, Upper Benefield (Conditions)
    Mr. Championasked the Undersecretary of State for Air if he will cause an inquiry to be held into the conditions at the camp at Deenethorpe, Upper Benefield, at which bad conditions are reported, with lavatories beyond description, cooking bad, the cookhouse intended for 600 made to serve well over 1,000, and training done on the perimeter regardless of weather conditions.
    Mr. Strachey: The station is at present about 30 per cent. above its usual strength, owing to its temporary use for the training of recruits. This will end in about two months time. Living and working conditions have sometimes been rather difficult during the bad weather. The standard of messing is said to be good. However, I am having further inquiries made.

    Drivers (Questioning)
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Undersecretary of State for Air what persons, other than civilian or service police, have authority to question R.A.F. drivers as to their duties and destination.
    Mr. Strachey: No one else, except of course their superior officers or N.C.Os. acting in the course of their duties. If, however, my hon. Friend has in mind the questions apparently put to three R.A.F. drivers in Palace Yard last week by the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Squadron-Leader Sir G. Fox), I am delighted that the drivers answered these questions courteously, though they
    1084
    were no doubt quite unauthorised. For the drivers' answers should have satisfied the hon. and gallant Member that the cars were being used for the right and proper purpose of fetching Ministers from this House, although, as I said in the House on 5th December, we are hoping that this work willbe put on a civilian basis very soon now.

    Surplus Coal Stocks
    Major Wiseasked the Undersecretary of State for Air what action is being taken to dispose of surplus stocks of coal at present lying on R.A.F. or U.S.A.A.F. stations which have closed or are closing down; and if arrangements will be made for these stocks to be sold to augment supplies for civilian needs in the vicinity.
    Mr. Strachey: Surplus stocks of coal at R.A.F. and U.S.A.A.F. stations are, in the first instance, redistributed to other R.A.F. stations within a fifty mile radius. Normal deliveries to the latter stations are then cancelled. Any remaining surplus is then reported to the regional officer of the Ministry of Fuel and Power for disposal.

  GERMANY

    Control Commission Clubs (British Officers)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Undersecretary of State for Air, what action is being taken against the senior R.A.F. officer or officers implicated in book-keeping irregularities and extensive black market transactions at the Control Commission clubs at Detmold and Vinsebeck, which have recently been under investigation by the public safety branch of the Control Commission's Internal Affairs and Communications Division.
    Mr. Strachey: An inter-Service court of inquiry has been convened, and at present I can only say that certain members of the Royal Air Force have been relieved of their association with these clubs.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware of the damage caused to British prestige among German civilians at Detmold and Vinsebeck by the extensive black market transactions engaged in by senior British officers at the Control Commission clubs; and if he will give an assurance that attempts by such officers to impede full

    1085
    investigation of this matter by officials of the Public Safety Branch of the Control Commission's Internal Affairs and Communications Division have been, and will be, resisted.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): An inter-Service Court of Inquiry is now investigating these alleged irregularities. I am informed that investigation by the Public Safety Branch has not been impeded, and any attempt to do so would, of course, be resisted.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been attempts to do so, because the people concerned, as in the R.A.F. Regent's Park case. took care to implicate a number of senior officers— quite innocently, in the first instance— by giving them small presents of coffee and so on, and will he look into that?
    Mr. Hynd: As I have said, my information to date is that there have been no attempts at intimidating or impeding the Public Safety Branch, but the whole question is now under consideration.

    Non-German Displaced Persons
    Flight-Lieutenant Haireasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Poles, how many Germans expelled from Poland and how many non-German displaced persons, respectively, there are in the British zone in Germany.
    Mr. J. Hynd: There are some 326,000 Polish displaced persons in the British zone of Germany. The movement of German nationals from Poland to the British zone has only just commenced; the only figure available is that some 4,300 have arrived in Schleswig Holstein. In addition to the Polish displaced persons there are approximately 119,000 other non-German displaced persons in the British zone.
    Flight-Lieutenant Haire: In view of the serious food situation in our zone in Germany, will the hon. Gentleman say what progress is being made to restore those displaced persons to their homeland, and also whether the expulsion of Germans from Poland can temporarily be suspended?
    Mr. Hynd: The progress has been very considerable. I have not figures available, but considerably over 1,500,000 have been repatriated already, and the progress, of
    1086
    course, must slow down as we are coming to what is regarded as the hard core. In regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I think the answer has been given already in reply to an hon. Member on the other side.
    Mr. Stokes: In reference to my hon. Friend's remark that these expulsions are continuing, may I ask if he has read the outrageous reports of what is going on? Will he make representations in the proper quarters to see that the expulsions are carried out humanely, or else stopped?
    Mr. Hynd: I have no knowledge of the outrages to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I can give him the fullest assurance that the conditions under which these expulsions are carried out, and the reception so far as the British zone in Germany is concerned, are being rigidly adhered to.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the Poles had been repatriated to Poland?
    Mr. Hynd: No, Sir.

    Immigration
    Major Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends to suspend all further immigration into the British zone in Germany.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Organised transfers of population to and from the British zone depend in general on terms agreed by the four occupying Powers. The present intake from Poland is governed by a later arrangement, the modification or suspension of which would have to be agreed between the Governments concerned.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that it is not possible adequately to feed the existing population of the zone, is the Chancellor taking steps to obtain the necessary consent to a suspension of this immigration?
    Mr. Hynd: The provisioning of the British zone is obviously a very difficult question, raising quite a number of problems. I can assure the hon. Member that all these considerations are being very closely and urgently examined. The proposal that he has submitted is, of course, among the questions which will be considered.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Scottish Air Services (Administration)
    Major Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if it is proposed to form a Scottish airways division of the projected British-European Airways Corporation; and, if so, will the operational management of Scottish air services be left entirely in the hands of Scotsmen resident in Scotland.
    Lieut. -Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is proposed to establish, in Scotland, a purely Scottish organisation to administer air services, aircraft construction and the international airport, with freedom to make airline agreements with other countries.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): With permission, I will answer Question No. 21 and Question No. 24 together.
    Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I must withhold my permission. My Question is fundamentally and very substantially different from Question No. 21.
    Mr. Thomas: There will be a Scottish division of British European Airways which, as part of that corporation, will be responsible for the administration of air services within and radiating from Scotland, and there will be a Scottish Advisory Committee to advise the corporation. There will also be a Scottish regional headquarters to administer all transport aerodromes in Scotland, including the international airport. The making of agreements with other countries for all services will remain in the hands of the Government. Questions on aircraft construction should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and Aircraft Production.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this will not lead to Scotsmen being displaced from principal managerial posts elsewhere?
    Sir T. Moore: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the first satisfactory answer we have had on Scottish aviation since the Government came into power?

    Belfast-Prestwick Service
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware that the air service between Belfast and Prestwick is now operating twice daily and carrying 450 passengers a week; that an additional allocation of petrol would enable it to operate five times daily and reduce fares below third class fares by rail and boat between Glasgow and Belfast; and if he will consider a further allocation of petrol for this purpose.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: .I am aware of the present operating capacity of this air service. I am unable to support an application for an increased allocation of petrol, but arrangements are being made to augment the direct Glasgow-Belfast air service.

    Foreign Operators (Prestwick)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is now able to make a statement as to whether foreign operators were refused permission to land at Prestwick.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Yes, Sir. No foreign operator has been refused permission to land at Prestwick.
    Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr.Speaker. Perhaps you, Sir, misheard me when I withheld my permission from the hon. Gentleman with regard to Question No. 24.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member said it was the only satisfactory answer he had received.
    Sir T. Moore: That was merely an interim commendation.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member will perhaps put his question down again if he is not satisfied, and we" will consider the matter.

    Rineanna Airport
    Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to what degree air traffic to this country is likely to be affected by the decision to make Rineanna, in Eire, a free airport; and whether there is any proposal to establish a similar free airport in this country.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: The airport at Rineanna is used in the main as a refuelling point for aircraft in transit and is thus in a substantially different position from international airports situated in this country. The Customs regulations in force here are designed to reduce to a minimum formalities in respect of through traffic, and I am satisfied that air traffic to this country will not be adversely affected by the decision to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. The answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the Americans have adopted Rineanna as a terminal point, whereas he referred to it as a refuelling point?
    Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. Rineanna would not generate or receive much traffic on its own account. It just happens to be the nearest airport to the United States.

    Crashproof Fuel Tanks
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is intended to insist on the use of Henderson crash proof fuel tanks in civil aircraft, the design of which is subject to the approval of his Ministry.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir.

    Newspapers (Air Editions)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether air editions of news papers in bulk enjoy any priority over mails for the Forces.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir. Mails for His Majesty's Forces are accorded priority over air editions of newspapers.

  HONG KONG (GOVERNMENT OFFICERS' FAMILIES)
  Major Symondsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many passages he is granting in March to the families of Government servants returning to Hong Kong.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The housing situation 11; Hong Kong makes it inadvisable for families to leave this country for the Colony until there is definite accommodation available for them. Accordingly, passage facilities for dependants are
  1090
  not, as a rule, granted until the husband has arrived in Hong Kong and has satisfied himself that suitable accommodation is available for them. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that any passages will be granted to wives and families of Government officers during March.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    War Damage Contributions
    Lieut.-Colonel Mackesonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the arrangements for ceasing to collect war damage contributions are the same in the Colonies as in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The only Colony in which war damage contributions are now payable is Malta. Under the Malta War Damage Ordinance, 1943, contributions are payable by 10 half-yearly instalments, the first of which became due in 1943, the last becoming due in 1947.

    Tin Prices
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the price of Malayan and Nigerian tin is now only £300 per ton as against £422 per ton for South African tin, £350 per ton for Belgian Congo tin and £345 per ton for Bolivian tin; what is the justification for this difference in price; and whether he will initiate early discussions with a view to obtaining a uniform and satisfactory world price for this commodity in view of its importance to the British Colonial Empire.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The price of tin in Malaya was fixed after consultation with expert opinion on the spot. No price has yet been settled for current supplies of Nigerian tin. In regard to the future of tin prices generally, I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. I would add that according to my information the figures quoted by the hon. Member in respect of other territories are not on a comparable basis with those quoted for Malaya and Nigeria.
    Mr. Gammans: Would the hon. Gentleman consult with the tin producers, so as. to get a price which is in some way related to the conditions, in view of the damage done to the Malayan tin mines, and will the Government see to it that they do not deliberately throw away a valuable source of dollar exchange?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That matter will be noted, of course, in the discussions now going on.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to the House who fixes these prices? Is it the international tin cartel or His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Obviously, these prices are determined by the Government in consultation with expert opinion on the spot.
    Mr. Stokes: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by expert opinion?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Various interests and administrative people who are responsible for the territory.

  PALESTINE ORANGES (PACKING)
  Major Wyattasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what methods of packing the surplus orange crop in Pales tine are being employed other than timber, for example, coconut matting or string bags, so that it may be exported to this country; and what will happen to the surplus crop if it is not exported to this country.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Oranges require careful packing, protection and ventilation during the voyage from Palestine to this country. The use of substitutes for timber for packing, notably aluminium, and steel mesh cases has been investigated, but so far has not offered sufficient prospects of success to make their use immediately feasible. The authorities here would not be prepared to accept the degree of wastage that would result from packing in string bags or coconut matting. The Palestine Citrus Marketing Board who are the responsible authority will consider how to dispose of any un exportable surplus of oranges, if it arises.

  ZANZIBAR (CLOVE TREES DISEASE)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the effect of the disease known as '' Sudden death '' on the clove trees in Zanzibar; what percentage of the trees is affected; and what steps are being taken by research, and otherwise, to deal with this disease.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The effect of the disease is that of a general wilt. Only a
  1092
  few days elapse from the time that the first obvious symptoms appear until the tree is dead. The estimated average annual loss of trees is about 10,000, representing just under one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the estimated clove trees in Zanzibar. Experiments on manurial and moisture requirements are being conducted by the Department of Agriculture, and in collaboration with scientists in this country the mineral nutrition aspect is being investigated. Experience shows that affected areas can be successfully replanted, and large Government nurseries are maintained from which seedlings are readily available for the regeneration of these areas.
  Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people attribute the onset of this disease to the change of Government in this country?
  Mr. W. J.Brown: Might I ask whether there is any affinity between the symptoms of this disease as read by the hon. Gentleman and the experience which happened to the Tory Party last July?
  Mr. Speaker: I repeat the advice that I have just given about supplementary questions and the evidence of the acting Leader of the Opposition.

  GOLD COAST (SYRIAN LANDOWNERS)
  Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the number of Syrians resident in Accra; the area of land in and around the township which they own; and what restrictions there are on the holding of land by aliens in the Gold Coast.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I have asked the Governor of the Gold Coast to supply this information, and will communicate with the hon. Member on receipt of his reply.

  EAST AFRICA (MASAI TRIBE)
  Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused in the administration of the Masai tribe in Kenya and Tanganyika by the fact that the tribe is divided by the inter-territorial boundary; and whether he will examine

  1093
  the desirability of realigning the boundary so as to bring the whole tribe under one administration.
  Mr. Creech Jones: No instances of inconvenience in connection with the administration of this area have recently been brought to my notice, and in practice the administrative authorities on either side of the inter-territorial boundary co-operate to the fullest extent possible for the purpose of eliminating any such difficulties. I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member's suggestion in the second part of his Question, and I am aware that in the case of certain territories boundary lines pay insufficient regard to ethnological considerations, but there are, however, considerable practical difficulties in the way of accepting this suggestion.

  BRITISH COMMONWEALTH (GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS)
  Mr. Maclayasked the Prime Minister(1) what arrangements now exist for regular consultation between His Majesty's Government and Dominion Governments on matters of major importance affecting the Commonwealth as a whole, and
  (2) What arrangements now exist for consultation and the exchange of information between the various Departments of His Majesty's Government and the equivalent Departments of Dominion Governments when subjects are under consideration, decisions on which will materially affect all or any of the Dominions.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It would not be possible, within the limits of a reply to a Question, to give a detailed account of the system of communication and consultation with the Dominions on matters of common concern. The arrangements have been described in previous statements both in this House and in another place, and the hon. Member may be assured that there is full exchange of information and views on all questions of general policy. The normal procedure is direct communication between the Governments, but there are other valuable methods of consultation including discussion between Prime Ministers or Ministers of the respective Governments, between United Kingdom Ministers and
  1094
  Dominion High Commissioners in London, and between United Kingdom High Commissioners in the Dominions and Dominion Ministers. As regards individual United Kingdom Departments, there are various arrangements for liaison with corresponding Dominion Departments and in some cases standing bodies on which all the Governments are represented. In addition, where necessary, conferences are arranged on particular subjects, either in the United Kingdom or in other parts of the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Maclay: While I thank the Prime Minister for his very full reply, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that these arrangements really are producing satisfactory results, and whether full advantage will be taken of the forthcoming Dominions Conference to discuss the matter in detail, in view of its very great importance?
  The Prime Minister: I was myself Secretary of State for the Dominions at one time, and I am satisfied that there was very full consultation, which continues up to the present time. I am hoping that the conference with the Prime Ministers will be extremely useful in forwarding the ends the hon. Member has in view.

  LAND NATIONALISATION
  Mr. Kirk-woodasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to nationalise the land of Britain without further delay, in view of the fact that the difficulty of getting land is the chief obstacle to the speedy building of houses for the people, and that the cost of purchasing the necessary land makes the building unreasonably expensive.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but a Bill to provide a more speedy procedure for acquiring land is now before the House. Meanwhile powers for compulsory acquisition of land required for housing already exist and the Government do not accept the suggestion that difficulty in getting land is the chief obstacle to the speedy building of houses. So far as cost is concerned, the land compulsorily acquired for housing is acquired at the 1939 value by virtue of Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that in many cases land is being requisitioned which would be of great value for

  1095
  agriculture, and is it not desirable that this step should be taken in order to provide land for houses and at the same time have the best land for agriculture?
  The Prime Minister: Care is taken in land planning work generally to see that a proper division is made between land fit for agriculture and land used for building. I do not think that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) would accelerate matters.
  Mr. Stokes: While being in complete sympathy with the intention of the questioner, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will bear in mind, in considering this matter, that there is another most efficacious way of arriving at the same conclusion, namely, by putting a comprehensive tax on site values?
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does not the Prime Minister believe that '' A robber band has seized our land "?
  Mr. Baldwin: Is the Prime Minister aware that enough land has been purchased up to the present time to fulfil the building programme for the next two years?
  Hon. Members: No.

  GREAT POWERS (CO-OPERATION)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for improving the relationship between the Big Three Powers, he will take the initiative in suggesting a further meeting of their leaders, bearing in mind the successes obtained in the past at such meetings.
  The Prime Minister: I am ready to adopt any means likely to improve relations between the Great Powers, but I cannot commit myself any further at present.
  Mr. Lewis: In view of the reports in the Press to-day, wherein it is stated that the American Secretary of State, Mr. James Byrnes, has suggested a meeting such as I have referred to in my Question, will the Prime Minister review his answer?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid I have not seen those Press reports.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a large part of the human misery with which Europe is now afflicted dates from the decisions taken at Potsdam, Teheran and Yalta?
  Mr. Chamberlain: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us feel that no meeting of this kind would be of much or any use until we have clarified our policy in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Pacific, particularly?

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Carbonated Drinks (Label)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Food if he will consider making it compulsory for manufacturers of carbonated drinks to display their names on the bottles at present bearing only the label of S.D.I.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill):In fairness to those soft drinks manufacturers whose factories have been closed as a result of the concentration of this industry, operating firms must continue to sell their products under anonymous labels as prescribed by the Soft Drinks Order.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the hon. Lady agree that this single label principle does now lead to dishonest manufacturers getting away with a lot of shortcomings?
    Dr. Summerskill: No, I do not, because the label bears the approved code marks which are recognised; and, therefore, we can identify the manufacturer.

    Grain Allocations (Brewers and Distillers)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food what is the total amount of each variety of food used in 1945 by the brewery and distillery industries; and whether it is his intention to utilise any of this supply to meet the present food shortage.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 21st February to the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and on 6th March to the hon. Members for Altrincham (Colonel Erroll) and for Clapham (Mr. Battley) of which I am sending him copies.
    Mr. Freeman: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is widespread apprehension over the existence of the waste of this food, particularly in view of the starvation throughout the world, and will she consider allocating some of it to some useful purpose?
    Dr. Summerskill: When the hon. Member has read the answers to which I have referred him, he will find we are no longer allocating grain to distillers and, therefore, the production of whisky has ceased for the time being. [Hon. Members: "Shame "] We are reviewing the position of the brewers.

    Imported Staple Foodstuffs
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Food what staple foodstuffs can now be imported at a landed cost substantially below the price now being paid by his Department for comparable home grown produce.
    Dr. Summerskill: The staple foodstuffs which can now be imported at a landed costsubstantially below the price now being paid for comparable home grown produce are shell eggs, meat, bacon and sugar.

    Rice Stocks, Siam (Allocations)
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Minister of Food whether every practical means will be adopted to ship the rice stocks in Siam to meet the urgent needs of India; and if he will give an assurance that no rice from Siam shall be despatched East ward untilthe demands of India are satisfied.
    Dr. Summerskill: Rice is subject to allocation by the Combined Food Board, and, accordingly, all supplies which can be made available for export from Siam are placed at the disposal of the Board for allocation, according to need, amongst the various claimants, of which one is India. It is not possible, therefore, to give the assurance desired by the hon. Member, since it will be necessary for the Board, having regard to the overall supply position, to allocate some part of the rice available for export from Siam, to countries other than India, e.g., Hong Kong, Malaya, British Borneo and China, all of which are claimants upon world supplies. The rice requirements of India have, however, been submitted to the Combined Food Board and have the full support of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that owing to the hold-up in the decision the total amount of rice which will become available will be much less because buyers are being held up at the export ports and are not able to get up country to buy rice?
    Dr. Summerskill: We are aware that there is a big deficit, and I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is trying to expedite matters.
    Sir S. Reed: Will the Minister take urgent steps for the procurement of this rice, which is held up in Siam because of the lack of confidence in the currency, and because of prejudice against disgorging this rice pending reparations?
    Dr. Summerskill: We are aware of that, and we are doing everything possible to encourage merchants to disgorge their rice.

    North-East Scotland
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Food if he will take steps to alleviate the points position in Aberdeen and on the North-East coast of Scotland during the winter, at least regarding vitamin supplying syrups needed by all, but especially by children; and secure that a greater quantity be made available in the shops of that area.
    Dr. Summerskill: The North-Eastern Food Division of Scotland is receiving its appropriate share of all points rationed foods, including syrup. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot make special supplies available for this area only.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Lady realise that fresh green vegetables which produce vitamin "C" have a short season in the North-East, and will she bear that in mind in making allocations to the North-East?
    Dr. Summerskill: I was assuming that the hon. Member's Question referred to syrup.

    Retail Grocers (Points)
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Minister of Food (1) whether he is aware of the hardship caused to retail grocers by the delay of 10 to 12 weeks in his Department in considering PCL 7 applications; and whether he will take steps to reduce this delay;
    (2) whether he is aware that the public is being deprived of foodstuffs owing to

    1099
    the delay by his Department in considering the applications of retail grocers for a review of their points capital position; and whether he will accelerate the consideration of these applications so that sufficient goods may be available for the public in retail grocers' shops.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is aware that owing to the number of applications received in the latter part of 1945 some delay occurred in reviewing under the P.C.L. 7 procedure the points capital of the applicants. That delay has now been reduced to the minimum required for the work involved. The public has not suffered from shortages of points foods on account of the delay.

    Holiday Resorts
    Wing-Commander Robinsonthe Minister of Food whether he is aware of the demands which will be made on the supplies of foodstuffs in holiday resorts in the coming season by visitors; and what steps he is taking to ensure that adequate supplies of both rationed and unrationed food will be available for bona fide residents in holiday resorts during the coming holiday season.
    Dr. Summerskill: As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Following is the reply:
    My right hon. Friend proposes to take this year action similar to that which proved successful lastyear, when the only complaints from permanent residents arose not from a shortage of supplies but from the shopping difficulties caused by inadequate staff in the shops. These staff shortages are gradually being remedied as further manpower becomes available. The procedure adopted for the adjustment of supplies last year and which will be followed again this year is for local Food Officers to consult with local interests in the formulation of estimates of the probable influx of visitors into the principal holiday resorts during the various holiday periods. These estimates are communicated to the wholesalers in order that they may adjust the supply of unrationed foods to the changes in population. The supply of rationed foods is adjusted by the issue of supplementary permits which local Food Officers are authorised to issue at very
    1100
    short notice, and by a procedure which permits retailers to buy supplies in advance of estimated requirements. The supply of points food is also increased by the allocation of additional points credit to food retailers which enable them to purchase the additional points rationed food necessary to meet the anticipated demand. Persons paying day trips to holiday resorts, particularly at Easter, Whitsun and August Bank Holiday will, nevertheless, be well advised to take sandwiches or a picnic meal with them unless they have made arrangements in advance to take their meals with friends or at a catering establishment.

    One-Man Businesses (Release)
    Mr. G. Langasked the Minister of Food how many applications for release on the grounds of ownership of one-man businesses have been recommended by the Manchester divisional food office; and how many refused from the inception of the scheme to 28th February.
    Dr. Summerskill: Out of 260 applications, 40 have been recommended for release under Class B. A substantial proportion of the balance obtained release on compassionate grounds under Class C arrangements
    Mr. Lang: Does the hon. Lady really think that that is a satisfactory proportion? Can she say if the recent change in personnel in Manchester means that there will be a little more sympathetic consideration given to these cases?
    Dr. Summerskill: I would remind the hon. Member that we cannot release men on compassionate grounds. That is a matter for the Services. All one-man businesses do not necessarily indicate that the one man concerned must come out on industrial grounds

    Australian Supplies
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the confusion felt in Australia on account of the conflicting announcements of his Department regarding the need for additional food supplies from Australia; and if he will make a clear statement indicating the needs of this country and the machinery agreed between his Department and the Australian Government for the collection and despatch of food supplies from Australia.
    Dr. Summerskill: As the reply is rather lengthy I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Could the hon. Lady now, so as to relieve anxieties, indicate that really effective steps are taken so that people may make their gifts and be assured that they reach this country?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Member that we are in the closest touch with the Australian representatives in this country. I have given this long statement because he asked for a clear statement, and I thought he would like to have the details. I think he will be satisfied that we are in touch with Australia, and that Australia is satisfied with the contact.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the Combined Food Board allocates all the food and that, therefore, no matter how generous the Australians are—and they are wonderfully generous—we get no additional food?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the Combined Food Board is not a supernational State. It can allocate food but it cannot direct food. It may allocate an amount of food, but if that food is not there to purchase, we cannot purchase it. If the Australians happened to have a surplus amount they would be in a position to give us the food to purchase which has been allocated.
    Mr. De la Bère: May- we thank them for their wonderful generosity?
    Following is the answer: From time to time announcements from the Ministry of Food have made it clear that the United Kingdom has undertaken to purchase and to ship the utmost supplies which the Australian Government can offer of butter, cheese, milk powder, condensed milk, tallow, wheat, flour, rice, meat, eggs, sugar and dried fruits. The need for these foodstuffs is now greater than ever and we shall appreciate to the full any further help rendered from Australia. Most of the foodstuffs are needed to maintain the rations in the United Kingdom, but certain supplies, including particularly wheat, flour, rice and condensed milk must be used to relieve distress in those British Commonwealth territories such as India, Ceylon and
    1102
    Malaya which are relatively near to Australia. Sugar is in a similar position. Additional supplies can make their greatest contribution to the United Kingdom and to United Kingdom responsibilities if they are used with greatest possible shipping economy. In this way food supplies from Canada, the United States and the West Indies which might otherwise have to be shipped great distances are released for the United Kingdom and Europe. The Commonwealth Government assesses the quantity of the foodstuffsmentioned above which are available for export from Australia and, in general, sells the produce direct to the Ministry of Food. The United Kingdom Government is responsible for shipping the supplies destined for the United Kingdom.

    Oat Flakes
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Food why he refused to allow the Northern Agricultural and Lime Company, "Limited, Aberdeen, to extend their manufacture of oat flakes, at present amounting weekly to 60 tons of human food, 30 tons of animal food and by- products, whereby the food supply of the country would be increased and additional employment would be given to from 15 to 20 people; and if he will re consider this matter and see that this project is encouraged.
    Dr. Summerskill: The existing productive capacity is more than sufficient to meet the demand for oat flakes, and there is accordingly no occasion to increase manufacturing capacity at the expense of labour and building material required for more urgent purposes. Such additional employment as might be created, if permission were granted to this undertaking to extend its plant, would be counterbalanced by reduced employment elsewhere in the industry.

    Milk (Priority Permits)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of Food whether he has completed his inquiries into the system of priority permits for milk; and, in view of the possibility that these permits may be misused, what steps he proposes to take to obviate their misuse.
    Dr. Summerskill: The statistical inquiry has now been completed. My right hon. Friend is seeking the advice of his

    1103
    medical advisers on certain aspects, but there does not appear at first sight to be any serious or widespread abuse of the arrangements so far as the issue of permits is concerned.

    Fish Shop Licence, Whitstable
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Minister of Food on what grounds Mr. R. Foreman, of 79, Station Road, Whitstable, was refused a licence to open a shop for the sale of fresh fish, seeing that suitable premises were available and that Mr. Foreman's supply would be caught by his own vessel; and whether, with the cessation of fish zoning, he will, in the interests of greater food production, reconsider this application.
    Dr. Summerskill: Mr. Foreman's application was refused on the grounds that there were already sufficient fish shops in Whitstable. As, however, the refusal was given in March, 1945, I am arranging for Mr. Foreman's application to be reconsidered by the Food Control Committee, and I will notify the hon. Member of the result.

    Tomatoes (Allocation, Scotland)
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Food whether there will be any allocations of imported Canary tomatoes to Scotland.
    Dr. Summerskill: Canary tomatoes will be allocated to Scotland, provided their condition on arrival permits of their being carried by rail for long distances without excessive waste.

    Imports from Eire
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Eireann producers are eager to export more foodstuffs to Britain, but that the prices offered are inconsistent with the costs of production; and if he will open negotiations with the Government of Eire for the purposes of settling price rates and relieving the food situation at home.
    Dr. Summerskill: As my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the prices offered to Eire producers are sufficient to encourage exports to Britain, he sees no reason to open special negotiations.
    Mr. Longden: Can the hon. Lady assure us that no political prejudice now stands in the way?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can give the hon. Member that assurance
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the production of foodstuffs in Eire has been considerably reduced in the last three years as a result of the consistent policy of the Government in refusing—
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question.
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Eire is the second biggest exporter of foodstuffs to Britain; and if he will consider the mutual advantage that would come from the issuing of more licences to the exporters of British agricultural machinery, feeding stuffs and fertilisers to Eire.
    Dr. Summerskill: Although Eire is not the second biggest exporter of foodstuffs to Britain, as my hon. Friend suggests, we are anxious to give every encouragement to her exports. So far as concerns agricultural machinery and fertilisers, all the supplies possible are being provided for her out of the limited quantities available, but regard must be paid to other needs, particularly those of United Kingdom agriculture, and to our obligations under Combined Food Board arrangements. As regards feeding stuffs, exports from the United Kingdom are not at present possible.

    Service Rations
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Food what decision has now been reached by the Government in regard to reducing Service rations so that the rations of men engaged in the heavy industries may be increased.
    Dr. Summerskill: The question of reductions in the home Service rations is still under consideration.
    Sir T. Moore: During that consideration, will the hon. Lady bear in mind that the people of this country do not understand how it is that a young girl typing a few hours in the A.T.S. should have more food than a miner or a skilled worker?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am fully sympathetic with the hon. and gallant Member's point of view.

    Jam-Making Fruits
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Food if he intends reverting to the prewar arrangements regarding the marketing of fruit for jam-making, or to renew pre-emptions for the coming year to selected merchants.
    Dr. Summerskill: Arrangements are being made again this year for the pre-emption of soft fruits for jam-making, on similar lines to those of last year.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Lady say whether the merchants concerned are the same as last year?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, the same licensed merchants will handle the business.

  SOAP RATION
  Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that many laundries are now refusing to take the work of their former customers; and if he will arrange for an extra soap ration to be granted to those people who have to do their own washing, owing to the inability to get it done by a laundry.
  Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is aware that, largely owing to shortage of labour, many laundries are unable to accept any more customers, but he regrets that he is not able to provide them with extra soap rations. The hon. Member will appreciate that many housewives have managed all along to do their own laundering without the provision of extra soap rations.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Wine Import Licences (Service Personnel)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the President of the Board of Trade, how many applications by officers and men of the Forces have been made for the importation of wine under duty purchased by or gifted to them; and how many such applications have been refused and for what quantities.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I regret that records arc not kept in a form which would enable me to give the hon. and gallant Member the information for which he asks. In general, however, licences have not been issued in such cases.
    Colonel Hutchison: Will the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of the general satisfaction this would give to these men and their families, say what motive prompts the Government to refuse these licences?
    Mr. BelcherLicences are issued, or are not issued, according to the advice of the Ministry of Food, whose policy is based on a fair share for every one, and the feeling that it would be destructive to that principle if privileged people were allowed to import into this country quantities of wines and spirits greater than those which are normally available here.
    Colonel Hutchison: When the Minister talks about privileged persons, does he not agree that it is a small recompense by way of privilege for what these men have done for the country?
    Mr. Belcher: I cannot agree that the way to award people for their services to this country is to enable them to import wines and spirits.

    Glove Industry
    Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmillasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many glove-cutter apprentices are employed in the factories on the Pontypridd estate;
    (2) whether it is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government that glove factories on the Pontypridd estate are sending skins to other areas to be cut, to the detriment of the older-established centres of gloving.
    Mr. Belcher: One glove manufacturer on the Treforest Estate, to whom the hon. and gallant Member presumably refers, has employed since his establishment shortly before the war a small amount of cutting labour in other areas. The firm is training a number of local apprentices to do this work, but it is a skilled operation requiring considerable experience, and, while local labour is being trained, it is necessary to have the assistance of a few skilled workers from other areas in order to provide full employment for the labour engaged on other operations.
    Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: Is the Minister aware that the old established glove firms are so short of skins that they are unable to start production, and does he not consider that there has been a misallocation of skins?
    Mr. Belcher: No, Sir, the fact is that the allocation to this particular firm is on the same basis as for the rest of the industry, but, since their labour forces were better maintained during the war than in glove firms generally, they were able to do a fair amount of Government work. We

    1107
    have maintained their allocation at the wartime levels to avoid unemployment. We have emphasised to this firm that we expect them only to employ Welsh labour, but there is always. a certain amount of out-work in the glove industry and we have no legal means to prevent them from doing so.

    Furniture From Europe
    Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that, in connection with any arrangements made under the auspices of his Department for buying furniture from European countries, such furniture will not come from forced labour in concentration camps.
    Mr. Belcher: Yes, Sir.

    German Timber
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of logs have been supplied to this country from the German State forests since the armistice; whether he is aware of the necessities of an adequate timber supply for our housing programme; and if he will take steps to expedite imports of timber through the Army authorities on the Rhine.
    Mr. Belcher: One thousand, two hundred and ninety-three tons have so far arrived from Germany in addition to 6,300 tons of sawn timber, but I am unable to say whether they were derived originally from the State forests. In view c-f the need for timber in this country, a strong organisation for timber production has now been created as part of the Control Commission in the British zone and supplies will be developed as rapidly as production and transport conditions allow.
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Forestry Commission sent to Germany commenced operations; and if he will state the quantities of timber exported to this country since these operations commenced.
    Mr. Belcher: Timber production was started in Germany in the early days of the Allied occupation mainly to provide for the needs of the forces of occupation and of the coal mines. The first part of the enlarged organisation left this country at the end of February. The answer to
    1108
    the second part of the Question is 7,500 tons.
    Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Can the Minister give an assurance that German forests will not be permanently destroyed by the present exploitation?
    Mr. Belcher: There is certainly no desire on our part to exploit German forests to the point of annihilation, but we have to meet our essential requirements.

    Business Premises Control
    Mr. Maclayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that every order prohibiting the carrying on at any premises in the United Kingdom of any trade or business, made by him under the powers conferred on him by Defence Regulation 55A, as continued and amended by S.R. & O., 1945, No. 1618, by virtue of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, will be laid before Parliament.
    Mr. Belcher: The laying of Orders under Defence Regulations is not a matter for Ministerial assurance, but of statutory requirement. Under Section 4 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, every Order made under a Defence Regulation which is of the nature of a Public Act is required to be laid before Parliament, and is subject to negative resolution. Defence Regulation 55A empowers Orders to be made prohibiting the carrying on at any premises in the United Kingdom, or in any area in the United Kingdom, of a trade or business of a class specified in the Order which was not being carried on during a specified period. It does not empower the Board of Trade to make an Order prohibiting a named firm from starting business. All Orders made under the regulation have been of the nature of Public Acts, and I cannot conceive of an Order being made which would not be of that nature.

    Textile Materials, Italy
    Mr. Stokesasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is a large surplus of textile manufacturing capacity available in Northern Italy; and whether he will consider making arrangements for the supply of raw materials on the basis that the major proportion of the manufactured

    1109
    goods would then be available for disposal in this country or elsewhere in the sterling or dollar areas.
    Mr. Marquand (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The existence of surplus capacity in the Italian textile industry has been known for some time and no effort is being spared to make the best use of it in order to relieve the world shortage of textiles. The Board of Trade have already assisted a number of British firms to make arrangements of the kind referred to in the second part of the Question, and we are willing to consider further schemes on similar lines.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the hon. Member aware that a considerable volume of textile machinery is standing idle in this country due to the great shortage of labour?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stokesasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there are 300,000 quintals of silk about 15,000 tons, surplus in Italy; and whether he will arrange for the supply of scrap iron or other raw material badly needed in Italy, so as to make this surplus available for domestic use in this country.
    Mr. Belcher: The amount of silk in Italy at the end of 1945 for home use or export is thought more probably to have been about 4 million lbs. in all. The present total United Kingdom stock, which includes supplies from Italy, is ample for our present capacity to process with the limited labour available. There is, therefore, no occasion for special measures to secure further supplies of silk from Italy.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he has not answered my Question? I am suggesting that arrangements should be made to put into manufacture this surplus silk in Italy, and the figures I have quoted correspond to the supply of 500,00.0,000 pairs of silk stockings in this country.

    Seamen's Woollen Comforts, Newlyn
    Mr. Beechmanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that mittens and other woollen goods now stored at the Seamen's Institute at Newlyn for distribution to fishermen can-not be so distributed owing to the fact that the fishermen are not entitled to
    1110
    Mercantile Marine coupons; and whether he will have this matter put right as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Belcher: No, Sir. I understand that the goods to which the hon. Member refers were originally supplied by the headquarters of the mission to deep sea fishermen for distribution to crews of minesweepers. The Secretary of the local institute appears, therefore, to be following the wishes of the donors of the articles in declining to release them except against the surrender of Merchant Navy coupons or the "free comforts coupons" which deep sea, but not inshore, fishermen receive.
    Mr. Beechman: Can the Minister arrange for inshore fishermen, who take out small boats many miles to sea in all sorts of weather, to receive these endowments as well as other fishermen?
    Mr. Belcher: Inshore fishermen, in addition to the ordinary civilian ration, receive the industrial "ten" and they have special facilities for acquiring coupons for protective clothing.

    Empire Cotton Crowing
    Captain Crowderasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken, other than those by the Empire Cotton Growing Association, to encourage the production of U.S. type cotton in territories under the Crown.
    Mr. Belcher: The Government of India are continuing to encourage the production of United States type cotton with considerable success, but it is used principally in India itself. In British East and West Africa, the United Kingdom Government since the beginning of 1943 has underwritten the cotton crops up to and including the first postwar crop. Substantial quantities of cotton have come to the United Kingdom under these arrangements.
    Captain Crowder: Will the Minister do what he can to encourage production within the Empire so that dollars will not have to be found to purchase this commodity?
    Mr. Belcher: We will certainly look into that.

    Imported Furs
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the President of the Board of Trade how many furs were imported into this country from

    1111
    September to December, 1945; and whether any inquiry is made as to how these furs are obtained, to secure a minimum of cruelty to the animals concerned
    Mr. Belcher: Imports of fur skins, other than rabbit skins, are not recorded by numbers of skins, and no such figures are available. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 5th March.

    Fibre Board
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of fibre board for the manufacture of corrugated containers; and the bad effect which this is having upon manufacturers in many trades; and if he will take steps to have the output of this substance increased.
    Mr. Belcher: Yes, Sir. While almost as many fibre board containers are being produced as before the war, the demand has increased owing to the shortage of other packing material. Endeavours are being made somewhat to increase the supplies of fibre board, but it is important that old containers should continue to be re-used to the maximum extent possible.

    Northern Ireland (New Industries)
    Mr. John Beattieasked the. President of the Board of Trade the number of new industries allocated to Northern Ireland in the 12 months ended February, 1946.
    Mr. Belcher: Since January, 1945, 21 firms have decided to start new production in Northern Ireland. We have, of course, no power to allocate new industries to any particular area.
    Major Lloyd: Is it not a fact that the major reason for this very considerable number of industries starting up in Northern Ireland is that they have confidence in the Government over there?
    Mr. Beattie: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in Northern Ireland we have a growing army of unemployed persons due to the failure of the Tory Government in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Belcher: I suggest that perhaps the answer—
    Mr. Speaker: One bad supplementary question leads to another bad one.

    Women's Garments (Down pointing)
    Miss Baconasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement with respect to the reimbursement of traders for coupons lost by the de pointing of women's garments; and state the position of tailors and dressmakers who make garments to customers' requirements.
    Mr. Belcher: Yes, Sir. Garment manufacturers, including bespoke tailors, will, during the period of downpointing, continue to give the full number of coupons for the cloth which they purchase but will receive the reduced rate of coupons for garments of the downpointed types which they supply. They will, therefore, require reimbursement on the basis of the number of garments of the downpointed types of their own manufacture which they supply to others during the period of downpointing. Dressmakers who merely make up cloth which is their customers' own property will not lose any coupons and will, therefore, not have any claim. Dressmakers who themselves surrender coupons for the cloth required to make their customers' garments, and collect coupons from their customers at the appropriate rate for the finished garments will be in the same position as bespoke tailors, and will require reimbursement in the same way. We have secured the help of the trade associations in handling these applications. Claim forms for manufacturers and bespoke tailors will be available from the trade associations after 25th March, and should be returned to these associations after completion. Distributors will sell downpointed garments from their opening stocks for less coupons than they gave for them, but they will be able to replace them during the period of downpointing at the reduced coupon rate. They will, therefore, lose coupons only if their stocks of downpointed garments are lower at the end than they were at the beginning of the downpointing period and they will require reimbursement only in these circumstances and to this extent. All distributors who think that they may wish to make a claim should start keeping records at once to show separately for each type of downpointed garment (a) the number in stock at 13th March, (b) the number pur-

    1113
    chased from 13th March to 7th June, (c) the number sold from 13th March to 7th June and (d) the number in stock at 7th June. Claim forms for distributors will be available from the distributors' Associations at the end of the period of downpointing. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude to the Trade Associations for their help.
    Captain Crowder: Will the Minister explain what is the difference between depointing and downpointing, and what those terms mean?
    Mr. Belcher: I am not aware that I used the word "depositing."
    Hon. Members: It is in the Question.
    Mr. Belcher: I cannot be responsible for words used by hon. Members in Questions. Obviously, the word should be "downpointing."

  FASCIST ACTIVITIES (ALBERT HALL MEETING)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Driberg:
  137. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a public demonstration is to be held at the Albert Hall, on Wednesday, 13th March, by a body known as the Britons' Vigilantes Action League; and if, in view of the fact that much of the propaganda of this League is identical with that of our enemies in the late war and of the consequent likelihood that a breach of the peace will be provoked, he will prevent this demonstration from taking place.
  Mrs. Braddock: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency and the possible far-reaching effect of any reply which may be given, can we have an oral answer to Question No. 137?
  Mr. Speaker: No, I can see no need and this is not a matter for me to decide.
  Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Should I be in Order in raising on the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill this afternoon the question of this Fascist demonstration?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Chairman of the Committee. It has nothing to do with me.
  Mr. Driberg: May I, in view of the urgency of this matter, ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance—that is, the revival of Fascism in this country and the public demonstration by Fascists which is due to take place at the Albert Hall tonight?
  Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical, and I cannot accept it.

PERSIA (RUSSIAN TROOPS)
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I have been asked to make a statement regarding Persia. The Soviet Government have not yet replied to the note addressed to them on 3rd March by His Majesty's Government on the subject of the non-withdrawal of Soviet troops from Northern Persia. I have instructed His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Moscow to ask M. Molotov for an early reply. I have not yet received it. I should still prefer not to make a statement at this stage.
LIBRARY (HOUSE OF COMMONS)
Second Report from the Select Committee (with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix), brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 99.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have agreed to—
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Mortlake Crematorium Board) Bill, without Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED

  CAMBERWELL, BRISTOL AND NOTTINGHAM ELECTIONS (VALIDATION) BILL,
  >" to validate the election of Mrs. Freda KÜnzlen Corbet, Stanley Stephen Awbery, Esquire, and James Harrison, Esquire, to the House of Commons notwithstanding their holding certain offices, and to indemnify them from any penal consequences which they may have incurred by sitting and voting as Members of that House," presented by the Prime Minister; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, the
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General and Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  " That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).''—[Mr. Whiteley]
  The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 131

  Division No. 98.]

  AYES.

  [3.20 p.m.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Longden, F.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Ewart, R.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Fairhurst, F.

  McAdam, W.

  Austin, H. L.

  Farthing, W. J.

  McAllister, G.

  Ayles, W. H.

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

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Foot, M. M.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  McGovern, J.

  Baird, Capt. J.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mack, J. D.

  Balfour, A.

  Gallacher, W.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Barstow, P. G.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Barton, C.

  Gibbins, J.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

  Gilzean, A.

  McLeavy, F.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  MacMillan, M. K.

  Belcher, J. W.

  Gooch, E. G.

  McNeil, H.

  Benson, G.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Beswick, FIt.-Lieut. F.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

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

  Grierson, E.

  Marquand, H. A.

  Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Binns, J.

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

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

  Blyton, W. R.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Guy, W. H.

  Monslow, W.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

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

  Montague, F.

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

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Moody, A. S.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Morley, R.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Hardy, E. A

  Moyle, A.

  Burden, T. W.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Nally, W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Haworth, J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Callaghan, James

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

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

  Champion, A. J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

  House, G.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hoy, J.

  Oliver, G. H

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hubbard, T.

  Orbach, M.

  Cocks, F S.

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

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Coldrick, W

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Parker, J.

  Collick, P.

  Hughes, Hector (Abardeen, N.)

  Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

  Collins, V. J.

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

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Pearson, A.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Corvedale Viscount

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Perrins, W.

  Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A

  Janner, B.

  Piratin, P.

  Daggar, G.

  Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

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

  Popplewell, E.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  John, W.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

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

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Price, M. P

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Keenan, W.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Kenyon, C.

  Ranger, J.

  Deer, G.

  King, E. M.

  Rankin, J.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Kinghorn, Squ.-Ldr. E.

  Ridealgh Mrs. M.

  Diamond, J.

  Kinley, J.

  Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Dobbie, W.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Dodds, N. N

  Kirkwood, D.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Douglas, F. C. R.

  Lang, G.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lavers, S.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Sargood, R.

  Dye, S.

  Levy, B. W.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

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

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A A.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Logan, D. G.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Watson, W. M.

  Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Shurmer, P.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon J

  Skeffington. A. M.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T C.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Skinnard, F. W.

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

  Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Thorneycroft, H.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

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

  Thurtle, E.

  Williams, D. J (Neath)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Tiftary S.

  Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Titterington, M F.

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

  Sparks, J. A.

  Tolley, L.

  Williams, W. R (Heston)

  Stamford, W

  Tomlinson Rt. Hon. G.

  Willis, E.

  Steele, T.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Stephen, C.

  Usborne, Henry

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Viant, S. P.

  Wyatt, Maj. W.

  Stokes, R. R

  Wadsworth, G.

  Yates, V. F.

  Strachey, J.

  Walkden, E.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Strauss, G. R

  Walker, G H.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Stross, Dr. B

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Stubbs, A E.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Warbey, W. N.

  Mr. Mathers and

  Symonds, Maj. A. L.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Captain Blenkinsop

  NOES.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Astor, Hon. M.

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

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Barlow, Sir J.

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

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

  Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

  Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Bower, N.

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

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Jennings, R.

  Savory, Prof. D. L

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

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Scott, Lord W.

  Carson, E

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  Challen Fit.-Lieut. C.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)

  Channon, H.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Smith, E. P (Ashford)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Conant, Maj. R. J E.

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

  Snadden, W. M

  Cooper-Key. E. M

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

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Spence, Maj. H. R.

  Crowder, Capt J. F. E.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Cuthbert, W. N

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  De la Bère, R.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

  Studholme, H. G.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

  Sutcliffe, H.

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

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)

  Drayson, Capt. G. B.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

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

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R (Lancaster)

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

  Duthie, W. S.

  Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

  Touche, G. C.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Turton, R. H.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Erroll, Col. F. J.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

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

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T D

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Gammans, Capt. L D.

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gates, Maj. E . E

  Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

  York, C.

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

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Osborne, C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Mr. Drewe and

  Grimston, R. V.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Commander Agnew.

  Resolution agreed to

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  " That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the powers of the Treasury to raise money under Section one of the National Loans Act, 1939, to make provision as to certain obligations arising out of or in connection with the war, to charge certain payments under the War Damage Act, 1943, on the Consolidated Fund, to provide for a temporary increase in the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund, to amend the Defence Loans Act, 1937, and to increase the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the raising under the National Loans Act, 1939, of—

  (i) any money required for raising any supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and in addition a sum not exceeding two hundred and fifty million pounds; and

  (ii) any money required for the purpose of providing any sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (d) of this Resolution;

  (b) the treating as a liability arising under a security issued under the National Loans Act, 1939, of any liability to make payments over a period of years which, under any agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and any other Government concerning obligations arising out of or in connection with the war, is accepted by His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom in respect of those obligations, or in respect of sums advanced by that other Government to enable those obligations to be discharged;

  (c) the payment into the Exchequer of any sum advanced as aforesaid by the other Government, and the issue thereof out of the Consolidated Fund for the- purposes of discharging the said obligations;

  (d) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required—

  (i) for payments under the War Damage Act, 1943, by the War Damage Commission in respect of war damage, or in respect of interest on value payments or on payments to be made under Section eighteen of that Act; or

  (ii) for payments under the said Act by theBoard of Trade in respect of war damage to goods or in respect of interest on any such payments; or

  (iii) for increasing the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund until the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty by not more than two hundred and fifty million pounds; or

  (iv) by reason of the increase, as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred
  1120
  and forty-six, of the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to three thousand five hundred pounds per annum; and

  (e) the payment into the Exchequer of all repayments of sums issued to the Civil Contingencies Fund under paragraph (d) of this Resolution, and the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the sums paid into the Exchequer under this paragraph and their application in redeeming or repaying debt."

  MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major Milner in the Chair]

  MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL

    CLAUSE I.—(Additional borrowing powers, etc.)
    3.30 p.m.
    Mr. Assheton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out paragraph (a).
    We had rather been hoping that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been here this afternoon to deal with this important matter, but I understand that at the present time he is meeting a, deputation with regard to the problem of Japanese bonds. Although we need his presence here this afternoon, I hope he will give serious attention to what the deputation has to say, and I trust he will give to them a much more responsible reply than any he has so far given to the House.
    When the Financial Secretary was dealing with this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill, he put the House in a rather grave difficulty. He explained that the Government were anxious to get the Bill before 31st March, and he went so far as to say that the difficulty for the House was unavoidable, since Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill must necessarily be passed before 31st March. We quite understood his anxiety to get those Clauses, but we did not see any reason why he should get Clause 1. That Clause, to which this Amendment is directed, gives the Treasury very extreme powers with regard to borrowing. Up to now, there has always been, in recent years, a National Loans Bill introduced into the House after the Budget. On this occasion, the Clause, which covers the same business as that with which the National Loans Bill dealt, is part of this Bill, which is innocently called the

    1121
    Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill. One would not imagine from the Title, that this Bill was a very important one, but, in fact, it gives the Government powers to borrow the whole of next year's expenditure, and £250 million in addition. If the Amendment is not accepted, the Committee will have vested these enormous borrowing powers in the Chancellor.
    I suggest to the Committee that it is not reasonable that the Government should ask for such extraordinarily wide powers until the Committee have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he feels he is likely to want to borrow. If the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary are not in a position now to give some indication of how much they will want to borrow, and how much of next year's national expenditure will be met from taxation, I suggest that the Committee ought to insist on this Amendment being carried, and a National Loans Bill being introduced after we have heard the Budget Statement. The Budget Statement is, of course, the most important financial statement of the year, but it is rather an extraordinary procedure that the Government should ask the Committee to authorize, in advance of any information with regard to the Budget, such an enormous sum of money.
    Many people in this country are be coming seriously alarmed at the rate of expenditure, and the extravagance of the Government. I know very well that in wartime, extravagance is very difficult to avoid. In time of war, the Treasury are gravely handicapped in carrying out their normal functions as guardians of the public purse. There are so many sudden changes of policy, events move so swiftly, the skilled technical manpower available to the Treasury is so scarce, that extravagance is almost inevitable in time of war. But now, I suggest, we must seriously examine every detail of our expenditure. The sums of money which it is proposed to borrow under this Bill may amount to £4,000 million or £5,000 million. In the years of highest war expenditure, there was no occasion when more than about half of our expenditure had to be met by borrowing, and, therefore, it seems a very odd proposal that we should be asked, in advance of the Budget and the Budget Statement, to give authority for such large borrowings as this.
    1122
    For what are these very large sums of money wanted? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us something about that. It is easy to see in what direction money is being spent. There is a vast continuing expenditure at the present time on warlike stores and equipment. ' We learned from Debates in the House only a week or so ago that more than 1,700,000 men and women are still employed in producing warlike stores and equipment. I do not know what the wages bill for such a vast number of people would be, but I cannot imagine that it would be less than £400 million or £500 million a year, if one calculates wages on the sort of levels at which they have recently been running. In addition, there is the vast cost of material, which also adds considerably to the bill. Again, there are large numbers of civil servants being employed. The latest figures in the statistical tables show that there are now 821,000 civil servants employed by the Government. That figure, of course, does not include industrial workers, but it takes into account a certain number of part-time workers. Comparing it with equivalent figures before the war, I calculate that, whereas there are now 821,000 employed, there were, before the war, somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000, an enormous increase. Many of the Estimates which we shall be examining later on will also, no doubt, be making great demands upon the Exchequer. I should very much like to examine closely the estimates of the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Supply, and the War Office. We might then see where these vast sums of money are being poured out.
    There is one aspect of the matter to which I would draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman. He has been engaged, as all his predecessors have been, in encouraging the National Savings Campaign. I ask him very seriously to consider the ill-effects upon that campaign of continued Government extravagance. It is a serious difficulty in the way of those who are supporting the National Savings Campaign to find that Government extravagance is not being curbed. It is not going to be easy to keep up the savings effort, and the Chancellor may not find it nearly as easy as in past years to borrow money. There are, of course, very great advantages to the borrower in obtaining cheap money; but of course cheap money is less agreeable to

    1123
    the lender than to the borrower, and it may be that, if money is very cheap, those who have some to spend or invest may be tempted to spend it as soon as goods become available, and some even may possibly encash some of their wartime savings.
    The inflationary consequences of all these things will be very apparent. Up to now the true inflationary position in this country has not thoroughly revealed itself. At present, there is a concealed inflation, but I suggest that the true position is bound to disclose itself in due course. I have always thought that the estimate of 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. above prewar levels, which Sir William Beveridge and others have suggested as being the sort of level at which prices may settle down, is a very optimistic one indeed. I hope that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary will keep a very close eye on the need for funding, which does not become any easier if the expenditure is still kept on a high level. I suggest to the Chancellor that he must remember that once the Bretton Woods Agreement is through, if it does come through —
    Mr. Boothby: It will now.
    Mr. Assheton: It looks as if it will—he will not be able to continue the depreciation of the currency in the same way as in the past. I hope the Committee will realise the extraordinary dilemma in which they are being placed by the Government this afternoon. This Committee is being asked to pass a Bill which contains a Clause giving power to the Government to borrow money, and the Government have so far not been in a position to tell us what this money is to be used for, or how much of next year's expenditure has to be covered by borrowing. The Financial Secretary himself, in the Second Reading Debate, said:
    " We are today asking the House to give us the authorities set forth in this Bill, before the House knows what the Budget may contain. That is a difficulty, but it is an unavoidable difficulty since this time in Clauses 2 and 3 we are asking for additional powers and provisions which it is essential this House should pass before 31st March."—[Official Report, 1st March, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 2297.]
    We recognise the need to borrow under Clauses 2 and 3 and also that it will be necessary to have
    1124
    a National Loans Bill at some time, during the next month or two, but we do not think it is an unavoidable difficulty. We say that the way to avoid it is to accept the Amendment to leave out paragraph (a) of Clause 1. If that is done, the Government will get all they heed for the present time, and they will then have to introduce the National Loans Bill after the Budget in exactly the same way as they have done annually in recent years. I see no reason why, in time of peace, we should adopt a procedure which this Committee was not called upon to adopt even in time of war.
    3.45 P.m.
    Mr. Norman Smith: I have not been very deeply impressed, nor, I think have the Committee, by the somewhat self-contradictory remarks of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). What, after all, is he afraid of? He has spoken to us about the possibility of extravagance, but we have heard a great deal in the last few days about terminal charges and all the inevitable expenditure that must necessarily come at the end of a war. We have had it made clear to us that while there cannot be a substantial saving in 1946 there is every certainty of such saving in 1947 and thereafter. I happen to have a very long memory, and I well recall what happened at the end of the last war, when the National Debt went on increasing in 1919, 1920 and 1921. Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of an increase in national debt? Is that what is troubling him? I can hardly think so because in his speech he expressed a very grave concern for the savings campaign. The savings campaign, whether right or wrong, has the effect of increasing national debt, piling up that heavy burden for posterity to carry.
    I cannot, as I say, think what the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of. He used a very grim and ominous word which I do not like, which the taxpayers of this country will not like, and which, I think, this Committee will not like. It is a thing for which we have to keep our eyes skinned. He used the word ''funding." Is that what he is concerned about? Does he want the Government to exchange a low interest debt for a high interest one, to pay out 2½ per cent, or 3 per cent. instead of one-half or five-eighths of 1 per cent.?

    1125
    I never heard such a hotch-potch of conflicting arguments as those used by the right hon. Gentleman. I have a feeling that, in this Committee, one either understands finance or one does not. If one does not understand finance, one is in the happy position of seeing the whole thing very clearly. If one does understand finance, one is in the unhappy position of not being able to see the forest for the trees. Before I sit down I should like to refer to the threat—I love to hear that threat—to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It was to the effect that if the loan went through and we were tied to Bretton Woods my hon. Friend would not be able to allow the currency to go on depreciating as the right hon. Gentleman suggests it has been doing. I put it to the Committee that the powers for which the Government ask are perfectly reasonable, and that, even if they were not, nothing the right hon. Gentleman has said has given any cause either for hon. Members on this side to give way to them on their Amendment, or for any unfortunate taxpayer like myself to believe that things would be any better in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have never been able to understand whether the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) is one of those people who understands finance or not. At times, it appears to me that he both does and does not. I wish he had been able to address himself to this Bill, because I assure him it gives ample scope for his intellectual powers and for his knowledge of the subject. In the remarks I wish to make to the Committee this afternoon— and which I hope will not be unduly protracted—I would emphasise that this is an important Bill, as my right hon. Friend has said, and that we must investigate it from many angles. I want to concentrate on five main considerations connected with Government borrowing policy. First, the unlimited sums which are asked for in this Bill; secondly, the system of Government accounting; thirdly, the increasing risk of inflation; fourthly, the future activities of the national savings campaign; and, fifthly, the Government policy of cheap money.
    The Press, on the Second Reading of this Bill, entirely misapprehended it. They seized on the figure of £250,000,000, which is associated with
    1126
    the Civil Contingencies Fund, and ignored altogether the £2,700,000,000 odd which is now being obtained from various sources by the issue of Government stock. They called it an adjusting Bill. They quoted a few words of the Financial Secretary and left the public with the impression that only £250,000,000 was to be borrowed before the Chancellor was able to balance his Budget. That is entirely misleading. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. O. Stanley) said on the Second Reading, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) said just now, this Clause gives the Chancellor power to finance the whole of the central Government expenditure by loan. It is, in fact, a Clause with the widest possible implications. At present, taxation provides about half the central Government expenditure, and therefore half the cover provided by this Bill is redundant and supererogatory. I am astonished that no limit, even one as high as £3,000,000,000), has been put into this Clause.
    The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the Noble Lord, but he is referring sometimes to the whole Bill, sometimes to this Clause. We are dealing with an Amendment to the Clause.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I apologise, Major Milner. I am speaking about the Clause. and about this Amendment which the Committee are considering. Clearly it is no use asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put any limit into this Clause. To him, no doubt, as to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) pounds, shillings and pence are meaningless symbols. Nevertheless, I think it very surprising that the Treasury, with its reputation for financial propriety, and exactitude in financial matters, should be guilty of taking a cavalier attitude, in framing a finance Bill. This Clause is sloppy in style and phraseology. It is also dangerous in intent, and I would like to examine with the Committee what are some of the dangers
    The 1945 White Paper on the sources of war finance and the composition of the national income shows that out of a total Government expenditure of £5,900 million—I am dealing now in

    1127
    figures to the nearest £100 million— approximately half, or £3,100 million is provided by taxation; £1,000 million from miscellaneous sources, including depreciation in internal assets and increase of overseas indebtedness; and £1,700 million, nearly one-third of the total, by private savings. That £1,700 million is made up as to £800 million in small savings, including an increase in deposits in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Bank, and as to £900 million by an increase in corporation reserves and the reserves of public departments and local authorities. It is with sums of that order that we are dealing in this Clause.
    During the war very few issues of industrial capital have been allowed, and consequently the outlet for savings has found almost total expression in the issues of Government stock. I would like to pause here to remark how unsatisfactory and inadequate to the needs of the times, is the present Government system of accounting. Successive Chancellors have sedulously refused to produce anything in the nature of a capital account or Ex chequer balance sheet. No one knows what are the assets of the Government on capital account. The Eleventh Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure says that the Government's accounts are kept upon what they call "a penny notebook system." We know what are the outgoings of the spending Departments; we know what is the Ex chequer income from taxation and from increases in the National Debt. We know nothing about the composition of Ex chequer assets, and this at a time when nationalisation and State trading are turning—
    The Chairman: Now the Noble Lord is out of Order. The sole question is whether these borrowing powers should be given to the Government or not. A review of the whole governmental policy is not permissible.
    Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Is it permissible to argue that the Committee should refuse to give the Government such powers because they have a wrong accounting system?
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am just about to pass from the point of the accounting system on to other matters.
    The Chairman: There may be something in the hon. Member's point, but I do not think hon. Members are entitled to go into detail on that matter. They may mention it in general terms, but not in detail.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I pass from that point and ask the plain question: Does the annual income derived from taxation go to construct permanent Government establishments? We suppose so, but no one knows how many factories are built by the Government out of taxation, or what is their value. Much more important than that—and it applies particularly to this Clause of the Bill— is whether the people's investments in the Funds go to provide old age pensions and other annual outgoings. It may well be the case. No one has the slightest idea, and I suggest to the Committee that that is an extraordinary position, and calls for some drastic revision of the system of Government accounting.
    It is easy to say that the Government have not embarked on the course of devoting a large part of the revenue to the creation of profitable, permanent assets. Much more likely altogether the reverse of that is true, and the Government are devoting the proceeds of capital savings and investment to annual expenditure without any tangible return. That is exactly what the Government did in 1930 and 1931. I suggest to the Committee that that is a vicious financial practice, which brings private firms into bankruptcy, and great States into ruinous inflation. Are the Government sliding easily down that slope? I think they are, and fatuously, too. The saying of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield about pounds, shillings and pence being meaningless symbols, is well known already to the Committee, but there are other examples as well. There is the Minister of Works, who, during the Committee stage of the Building Materials and Housing Bill, said he had no knowledge of the financial matters of his Department. Several times the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have come here and said that they do not know what our commitments are, and in Bill after Bill which the Government introduce are the sinister words, "No estimate of the charge to public funds can be given."

    1129
    4.0 p.m
    But much more serious than attitudes and words, are the facts and figures of the present situation. The National Debt has risen over the last six years, by an average of over £2,500 million per annum, and the fiduciary issue has also increased by £150 million per annum. The note issue has gone up from £660 million in 1939 to £1.615 million today. Average weekly industrial earnings in industry have risen from 53s. 3d. in 1938, to 96s. Id. in July last year, an increase of 80 per cent. The index of wholesale prices stands at 175 today against 100 in 1939, industrial raw materials at 200 and building materials at 158. The cost of building labour has risen 70 per cent. on 1938 prices. It is true that the working class cost-of-living index stands at 131, but that scarcely represents reality, because subsidies to the extent of £300 millions are included in it. Those subsidies themselves operate in an inflationary sense. Do not these figures point to a developing inflationary situation? Manifestly a man who invested £100 in war loan in 1939, finds that it is only worth £50 or £60 today in terms of current prices of goods and services. It is abundantly clear that the pressure of Government money today is, bit by bit, destroying the value of small savings.
    It is a completely false economic doc trine that high taxation and a high rate of savings prevent inflation. That is the stock argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it simply will not wash. Look at the result of both today, after six years of war. The burden of the propaganda of the National Savings Committee is that self-interest and patriotism are served by investing in Government stock. But where is the self-interest, if at the end of six years the money is reduced by half, and where is the patriotism if at the end the nation finds itself landed in a financial crisis? When do we begin to introduce legitimacy into the activities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his collaborators in the national savings movement? I believe that the boundary line of propriety is what I said earlier— taxation for current expenditure, savings for capital investments. There must be some mean between the extreme view of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) who regards all savings campaigns as a racket, and the more general view that such campaigns are the very essence of
    1130
    virtue and wisdom. To refuse the Government any borrowing powers at all would obviously be to wreck the reconstruction programme, to reduce the strength of our Armed Forces, to destroy our overseas commercial connections, our propaganda services and to impair our prestige. On the other hand, to allow the Government to pursue their present course unchecked would inevitably impoverish the pensioner, and betray the trust which millions of small savers have reposed in successive Governments.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London said just now the Chancellor and the National Savings Committee must really think out afresh what their policy is going to be over the next few months. Let their appeal to the public be selective. Let it be calculated to promote investment in permanent assets. Do not let us have any more of these vague national savings campaigns which only find expression in higher annual outgoings. I shall certainly continue to attack such campaigns as the raw material for totalitarian equalitarianism at home. Hon. Members opposite might equally well attack them as the raw materials for imperialism over seas. Let us put this so-called mandate of hon. Members opposite to a practical test. Let the Minister of Fuel and Power, in conjunction with the Chancellor and the National Savings Committee, issue a prospectus for the re-equipment of the coal mines
    The Chairman: The noble Lord is going too far. I did not follow his argument on the question of the national savings movement at all. Do I understand him to say that he is not agreeable to the paragraph appearing in the Bill on the grounds that the national savings movement is not desirable? If that is his argument, he has not made it clear. All the Noble Lord seems to be doing is to make a speech on the national savings movement, and he is not relating that to the question before the Committee
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I was trying to make concrete suggestions for the future of the national savings movement, which would produce money directly related to investment and the production of goods, and not given to the Treasury to

    1131
    be spent on current expenditure, thus promoting inflation. I submit that that subject is strictly relevant.
    The Chairman: If the hon. Member can relate his argument to the Amendment to omit paragraph (a) from the Clause, I will agree with him. But he is merely indulging in a general discussion of financial questions sometimes far removed from the Amendment. He must relate it to the Amendment.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I shall endeavour to follow your Ruling, Major Milner.
    I make one more suggestion, and I assure the Committee that it is strictly relevant to the paragraph which we are proposing to leave out of the Bill. I have made a suggestion about the coal mines. I have another suggestion in regard to the Minister of Health, who wants local authorities to build houses. Why should that Minister take money in a round-about way? Why should people who object to his schemes be forced to pay for them? Let us have a housing loan accompanied by the fullest facts and details. It is sometimes said that we cannot identify a particular issue of Government stock, or a particular savings appeal, with the appropriate Department responsible for the expenditure. It is said that all the funds are gathered in by the Treasury and must be brought into the "kitty" and redistributed among the Government Departments. I do not see why that should be so. No private firm of which I know would operate in that way. Apart from the Services, I do not see why the Treasury should not emulate the best commercial practice. The fact remains that if the loan policy of the Government is not to be subject to continuous attacks from this side of the Committee, two things must happen. Inflation must be arrested by a, reduction in loan expenditure and a reduction in the note issue and in the fiduciary issue. Secondly, the impression must be removed that the Government are borrowing very largely for the purpose, not of capital investment, but of current expenditure. More than that, very much fuller information must be given of the character and objects of future loans.
    May I say a word on the subject of cheap money? The irony of the present situation is that cheap money, or, to give
    1132
    it another name, an expansionist financial policy, was devised by the economists as a remedy for slumps and unemployment, whereas today we have over-employment and a boom in finance, if not in trade. In those days Lord Keynes was the fair weather bird, soaring aloft in an economic blizzard. Now he hovers there in the light of the sun of his own creation, while my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) looks on him with adoring eyes. After years of education all political parties have come to adopt an expansionist financial policy as a fundamental part of their doctrine, but now what has happened? In response to the drive for cheap money our economy has switched, violently, from the trough to the crest, from the nadir to the zenith. Cheap money cured the patient of low blood pressure about 1940 or 1941, when the unemployment figures fell to negligible proportions. Now we are suffering from high blood pressure, and are still applying the same remedy—a sad commentary on the inertia of party policies. Cheap money is not a panacea for all economic evils. In a situation of over-employment and developing inflation no Government ought to be on a 2½ per cent, basis, least of all, in my opinion, a Socialist Government. I should like to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer get on to a 3½per cent., or 4 per cent, basis with the utmost celerity. The difference in money cost, for example, in a housing programme, is trifling, beside the rising cost of labour and materials which inflation is promoting from week to week. I doubt very much whether we have the right economic medicine at our bedside. It is incumbent on the Government to put up a much more elaborate defence of their policy on borrowing than they have hitherto seen fit to-do, and to be much more explicit on the terms of any future loans, and also on the character of future national savings campaigns.
    I close with some words which were used by the present Chancellor of the. Exchequer in 1939 in the Second Reading Debate on the National Loans Bill, which is repealed, by implication, in this Clause. They are my sanction for having addressed the Committee at such length this afternoon. They are:
    " In the Debate on the Financial Resolution on Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:

    1133
    '' It is obviously not in the public interest that the terms of a future loan should be the subject of debate and discussion before the issue is made.'
    In a certain sense that may be true, but in another sense I think it is profoundly untrue. It is of very great importance that Members in all parts of the House should express their view before the form of the issue is determined upon, in the hope of influencing the decision of the Government regarding the terms of the issue to be made. This is a moment when debate can do no harm and may do much good."—[Official Report, 9th November, 1939; Vol. 353, c. 459-60.]
    The speaker was the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), and I invite him now that he is Chancellor of the Exchequer to practise what he then preached.
    4.15 p.m
    Mr. Driberg: I shall be very brief in expressing the hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment, be cause I feel it may well be that, if certain tendencies which have not yet been checked are allowed to continue un checked, there will be need, in the financial year which we are considering, of unforeseeably large expenditure on certain services. I will give one example of that. It may be that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will find it necessary to take extra powers, and, therefore, to engage extra staff, in order to combat the revived and still insignificant, but growing, menace of Fascism in this country. I believe that, during the financial year referred to in the paragraph which it is sought to delete, we shall be feeling the full ill-effects of the meeting which is to take place tonight in the Albert Hall. I am referring strictly to the financial year referred to in the paragraph. Hon. Members may have seen a leaflet which has been distributed by the thousand throughout London to day, adorned with a swastika, advertising 2,000 free seats at that meeting —
    The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are quite out of Order. I cannot see that the question which he is now raising has any relevance whatever to the Amendment.
    Mr. Driberg: With great respect, Major Milner, I am not sure whether you heard the opening of my sentence, in which I said that, in the financial year referred to in the paragraph which it is sought to delete, we shall be feeling the full ill-effects of the meeting which is to take
    1134
    place tonight in the Albert Hall, because there is a growing, although still small, menace, to check which, I believe, the Home Secretary may have to incur extra expenditure during the coming financial year. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to delete this paragraph, it seems to me that they are seeking to defeat the prime object of the Bill, which is to make provision for
    " certain obligations arising out of or in connection with the war."
    To my mind, one of our prime obligations arising out of the war is our obligation to those who died to resist this foul heresy of Fascism, which is flaunting itself openly at the Albert Hall in three hours' time.
    Mr. David Eccles: After the arguments of my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) there does not remain much for me to say as a reason why this paragraph should not remain in the Bill. It raises the whole question of the Government's borrowing policy, and if we are not satisfied that that policy is being properly carried on, I do not think we should give the enormous powers contained in this paragraph. I am not satisfied, for a particular reason. It seems to me that lately the Government's borrowing policy has become too much a Treasury game, in which cheap money is being pursued for its own sake. We all want cheap money, we all think it is a desirable thing, but low interest rates are useless, unless trade and industry can borrow the money at those rates. If one of the methods which is used to push, and cajole, and wheedle the price of 2½ per cent. Consoles to 100, is to prevent industrial borrowers from competing with the Government, we are not getting anywhere useful. If I might give a close parallel, it would be from the costs of house building. If we want to reduce the costs of house building, one of the easiest ways is to prevent any houses from being built; then, assuredly, costs will fall.
    That object will be attained, but no one will get a home. We can do just the same thing with the price of money. If one has the power, as the Treasury has, to limit the number of borrowers, well, it is quite easy to firing down the price of money. I am very much afraid that has happened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now by far the largest speculator on the London Stock Ex-

    1135
    change. I know from my own experience it is a most intoxicating thing to see one's own stock creeping up and up and up. It is really most exciting in the morning to look first at the financial paper— demoralising but exciting. One can pursue a bull market for its own sake. It does nobody any good if the result of doing this with Government stock is to prevent really good borrowers from getting their money.
    It cannot be in the national interest that we should borrow money at these artificially cheap rates to keep at work munition workers who are producing obsolete weapons, when sound borrowers who want to extend their production facilities for, say, civilian goods are kept out on the side line. If we look at this from the point of view of labour and materials, it is exactly the same. If we take up the labour and materials on un-creative work on the account of the Government, we prevent the labour and materials from being available for creative work in some other part of our economy.
    I, therefore, ask the Financial Secretary to give us an assurance that this cheap money policy is not being pursued for its own sake by cutting down the number of borrowers so that, inevitably, the price of money falls. I have just one example which I wish to bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention. One of the results of this borrowing policy of the Government always making money cheaper is that capital values go up. Capital values of land and buildings have gone up a very great deal. That is directly the result of these enormous borrowings. Now a landowner or a farmer, if he desires to put up new buildings and to borrow money to carry on his business, finds when he goes to Agricultural Mortgage Corporation that he is allowed to borrow only two thirds of the prewar value of his land, on the basis that it is going to return to that value. That is what they tell him. The right hon. Gentleman's policy is making it certain that land and buildings will not return to that value. Therefore, we find men anxious to get on with productive work in the country who are prevented from borrowing the stun of money which they need to do that work, because of this Treasury manipulated cheap money policy. The Treasury has got its eye on the wrong thing. It has got its eye on
    1136
    figures of two and a half per cent. at 100 instead of having its eye on creating new productive capacity. No doubt, we shall not be able to delete this Clause, but will the Financial Secretary please give some assurance that the Treasury's policy is one that aims at production and not just at low interest rates.
    Mr. Stokes: May I go back for a few moments to the remarks addressed to this Committee by the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)? He presented a most astonishing argument. He complained of the cheap money policy of the Government. He likened it in his own mind to some process of blood pressure, and explained how in 1940–41 it was necessary to reduce the Bank rate to get cheap money in order to provide full employment. Has the Noble Lord forgotten that the war had just started —
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That was not my argument at all. I said that, by 1940–41, when unemployment had been reduced to negligible proportions, we had been cured of the disease of low blood pressure.
    Mr. Stokes: The point I wish to make is, had there not been pretty strong representations made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, money rates would not have been lowered. It had nothing whatever to do with the situation prevailing, but was merely the result of the increasing consciousness of the public that they were not going to put up with the racket of dear money in time of war. Be that as it may, there was one point in his speech with which I did agree. He complained that Chancellors of the Exchequer were disinclined to differentiate between capital and expenditure when presenting their Budgets. I agree with that remark; but how long were the Tory Party in power? How many opportunities have they had of presenting a different kind of Budget? Have they ever taken the advantage, which has so constantly been offered to them, to give the country a true picture on what is spent on capital account and what is spent on revenue? I am quite sure that the next Budget introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be much mere informative than anything of the kind introduced by any of his Tory predecessors.

    1137
    The Noble Lord went on to say that the Government were sliding down the slippery slope of inflation. He complained that the Government were spending capital on account of revenue items. Here again may I ask has he forgotten that the war has only just ended, and that a war consists in spending capital on revenue items? That is what war is about, really. I think my Noble Friend has not a real conception of what constitutes wealth or capital. Capital is wealth used in the production of more wealth. When we get into a war we take our so-called surplus wealth and blow it to smithereens. Of course, we spend our capital on revenue items. We cannot get out of it on short term afterwards. If the time were appropriate, I should give the Committee a dissertation on the history of the last war and what happened in this connection. I do not know whether I should be in Order, except as a guide to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There was talk about the effects, or likely effects, of inflation. Surely, that is the history of war again. Does the Noble Lord remember what happened last time? We started the 1914-18 war with a National Debt of £700 million. Then we had four years of nice war, and at the end of that time there was a National Debt of £7,000 million. He and his Party then started to reduce the National Debt. It was done so effectively that after 20 years, had it gone down? No—it had risen by another £1,000 million, to £8,000 million. Now we have a National Debt which is of the order, I suppose, of £22,000 million to £24,000 million. It is a mess that, somehow or other, has to be cleared up. Prices have to be adjusted in order to meet the new situation. It was in a state of war that that process took place. Perhaps it may be a salutary lesson to the peoples of the world not to engage in such a futile occupation.
    Complaint was also made by the Noble Lord of the increase in the note issue. For myself, I cannot see that an increase in the note issue is, in itself, a bad thing. It seems to me that it must inevitably follow in times of full employment, as in wars when there are more jobs than people to fill them. Again, my noble Friend has a wrong conception of money. Before, in this House, I have likened money to a bus ticket. That is all that money really is. The fact that one has a
    1138
    bus ticket does not take one to the end of the route. One could put it on the pavement and sit on it, and one would still be on the pavement in the evening. So it-is with money. Money is merely a means of exchange. If we are to produce more goods, if we are to employ people fully, then it follows, as the night the day, that the note issue must increase in order to keep pace with the increased productivity.
    Depreciation of war savings was another subject referred to by the Noble Lord. He said that everything the Government were doing was likely to lead Lo depreciation of the genuine savings of the people. I wonder whether he is right. I confine myself to this one point. Had he and his party got into power, and taken the advice, which he is now recommending, and put up the rates of interest, what would have happened to the genuine savings of the people in war loans? Down would go their value at once, without any hesitation. He knows that to be perfectly true.
    4.30 p.m.
    The Noble Lord got on one of his own hobby horses and said that I am always describing war savings weeks as '' rackets.'' That is a mild term compared with what I do call them. I have always described them as deceiving the people. I have always recognised that, if we are to have savings weeks, which must go on, in the conduct of our affairs in present circumstances, it is essential that the people should understand what they are doing. But to get people to believe that by lending their money to the Government it produces more tanks or aeroplanes, is just rank deception. That is what I have said. I certainly never followed the Noble Lord in his wickedness when he stood up in Dorset, and urged people not to indulge in war savings for a purely political issue —merely because he disagreed with the character of this Government and the aim they had in view. I never did anything of the sort. I encouraged them to put money away, but I told them not to be humbugged by the City financiers, who had only one end in view, and that was to raid their savings as soon as they could. [Interruption.] Unfortunately, I never have any money. I know hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side always know much more about other people's private affairs, so I shall leave it at that.

    1139
    Icome to my last point on this question of a policy of cheap money. I hope the Government will continue with their policy of cheap money. When the noble lord talks about the slippery slope in the policy of this Government and of the implication in this Bill that the Government are going to be spendthrifts—which I do not accept for a moment—may I remind him that, despite all the pressure and the representations made again and again to this House and to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging that he should borrow money more cheaply than was done during the war, the Treasury discount rate went up from about one-half per cent. before the war, to over one per cent. since the war started. That was for no reason whatever except that the City told the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do it. What does this Chancellor do? The right hon. Gentleman has said "No more of this; we will put the bill rate down again," and the effect of reducing the bill rate week by week is, I think I am right in saying, an annual saving of £12 million sterling, and I call that a very satisfactory step and one which, had it been taken when we urged it five or six years ago, would have saved this country something of the order of £70 million. Looking at the facts of the case, if the country were asked to judge which Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the group of Chancellors whom we have had in the last seven years, was likely to bring the country through to a satisfactory solution—satisfactory in the true sense, not the City sense, of the word—of the financial problems facing us, I say, without doubt, that the verdict would be in favour of the present Chancellor.
    Mr. Boothby: If the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) again does me the honour of asking me to dinner at his house, I warn him that the first thing I shall do will be to make a bee-line for his bedroom, in an effort to find the stocking wherein he keeps all his savings. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) that this Bill ought to have been introduced after the Budget; and that we should then have had some idea of its effect, and also more facts to guide us. At the present moment, we are completely in the dark as to the intentions of the Government, and also on the facts.
    1140
    I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London when he says that current expenditure is excessive. It always is. I have never known any Government in the history of the country whose current expenditure was not excessive. It is, at the present moment; but more so than it has ever been before. But I part company with the right hon. Gentleman, when he says that he sees a great danger of inflation, arising out of this Clause. I do not think that this Clause is an inflationary Clause at all; and, personally, I want to see money kept cheap. I do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind when he spoke about funding operations; but, if he meant that we want to fund on more expensive terms, I do not think that is going to do any good. Alternatively, I do not see how we can make money much cheaper than it is.
    Mr. Assheton: There is some advantage in using a time of cheap money in order to fund it.'
    Mr. Boothby: Yes, of course. I am entirely on the side of the right hon. Gentleman there; but I should have thought that the current interest rate was so low, that it is difficult to see how we can get it much lower. I do not believe that inflation is caused by borrowing, as such. I believe that inflation is caused by the fact that the amount of money in circulation exceeds the amount of goods produced; and I believe that there is only one real answer to the problem. I think we have got to increase productivity. I do not think that the answer is to cut down the money in circulation at the present moment, but rather, at all costs, to increase the productivity of this country. I think that is what we should concentrate upon, to the exclusion of everything else, for almost nothing else matters today in our economic life.
    Now I come to my main point. I believe we shall not get a quick increase of productivity in this country unless we lower taxation now, and, particularly, taxation on earned incomes; unless we put more goods into the shops, so as to give people some incentive to work; and unless we remove petty and vexatious controls at the lower levels. In order to carry out this policy, I think that, for the next two years, at any rate, a substantial borrowing policy is essential. I

    1141
    do not want to see loan expenditure reduced at the present critical moment in our national affairs; and taxation, in consequence, either increased, or maintained at its present exorbitant, and, as I think, quite unjustifiable, level. We are still convalescent. That is why, other things being equal—and I regret that we have not had more information—I would be glad to see the Government use the powers which this Clause gives it to borrow pretty extensively until we can get a healthier economic position; and I cannot go into the Lobby against them, should there be a Division.
    Before you came into the Chair, Mr. Beaumont, Bretton Woods was mentioned; and it was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London that, if we continued to borrow on this scale, we might not be able to maintain the exchange value of sterling at the present rate. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that the less the attention the Government pays to this unpleasing forest, the better it will be. The Bretton Woods Agreement has already been shown up as a monstrous piece of —
    The Deputy - Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member's remarks are rather wide of the Amendment. Perhaps he will get back to it.
    Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. May I point out that the Noble Lord deliberately saddled the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) with worshipping at the shrine of Lord Keynes over Bretton Woods?
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Although the hon. Gentleman no doubt knew why you had risen, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I confess that I did not know. Could you state what was the point of Order on which you gave a Ruling?
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member's remarks seemed to me to be going away from the Amendment and tending to widen the Debate, which is not desirable. It might be perfectly true that the Noble Lord did introduce the subject of Bretton Woods, but, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) refrained from referring to it, I hope the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) will also refrain.
    Mr. Mitchison: Did not the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) introduce the matter?
    Mr. Norman Smith: Was it not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) who introduced it?
    Mr. Boothby: On that point of Order, I would submit to you, Mr. Beaumont, that, anxious as I always am to be as good as possible, it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London who first raised the issue of Bret-ton Woods, on the specific point that if we gave to the Government the powers they ask for in this Clause we may not be able to hold sterling against the dollar. He was fully and ably answered by my hon. Friend opposite, in a speech with which I am in complete agreement. I merely wish to say that I think that it is strictly relevant to the argument that these borrowing powers, if granted to the Government, may prevent them holding the exchange value of the £ at this fantastic rate; and I submit that I am entitled to address myself to that argument. However, in deference to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, I will not do it at any length. I will content myself by saying that I hope the delegates to the Bretton Woods Conference at Savannah are now enjoying themselves at the taxpayers' expense. They will achieve nothing more than that. We shall not be able to hold the £ at 4.2 to the dollar any more than the French will be able to hold the franc at 480 to the £. To attempt to stabilise exchanges in the world's present condition is something which can never be achieved, and borders on insanity.
    I will now leave this topic, and deal in conclusion with a question which has been raised in almost every speech— the question of increasing the National Debt— because that, in effect, is what this Clause is bound to do. The Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset raised the matter specifically; and, as he was speaking, a chord was struck in my memory which carried me back mentally to Lord Macaulay's "History of England," and carried me physically into the Library of this House, where I dug out the volume. I will quote one or two of the observations Lord Macaulay made upon the subject of the National Debt, as I think it is a good thing for this House sometimes

    1143
    to revert to the wisdom of the past. Our own is not always so very profound. Discussing the National Debt, Lord Macaulay wrote, in volume IV:
    " Such was the origin of that debt which has since become the greatest prodigy that ever perplexed the sagacity, and confounded the pride of statesmen and philosophers. At every stage in the growth of that debt, the nation has set up the same cry of anguish and despair. At every stage in the growth of that debt, it has been seriously asserted by wise men that bankruptcy and ruin were at hand. Yet still the debt went on growing; and still bankruptcy and ruin were as remote as ever. When the great contest with Lewis the Fourteenth was finally terminated by the Peace of Utrecht, the nation owed about fifty millions; and that debt was considered, not merely by the rude multitude, not merely by foxhunting squires and coffee house orators, but by acute and profound thinkers, as an incumbrance which would permanently cripple the body politic. Nevertheless trade flourished; wealth increased; the nation became richer and richer. Then came the war of the Austrian Succession; and the debt rose to eighty millions. Pamphleteers, historians and orators pronounced that now, at all events, our case was desperate. Yet the signs of increasing prosperity, signs which could neither be counterfeited nor concealed, ought to have satisfied observant and reflecting men that a debt of eighty millions was less to the England which was governed by Pelham than a debt of fifty millions had been to the England which was governed by Oxford. Soon war again broke forth; and, under the energetic and prodigal administration of the first William Pitt, the debt rapidly swelled to a hundred and forty millions. As soon as the first intoxication of victory was over, men of theory and men of business almost unanimously pronounced that the fatal day had now really arrived."
    So we go on, through war after war, until we come to:
    " The wars which sprang from the French Revolution, and which far exceeded in cost any the world had ever seen, and taxed the powers of public credit to the utmost. When the world was at rest again the funded debt of England amounted to eight hundred millions."
    4.45 p.m.
    Lord Macaulay continued:
    "It was in truth a gigantic, a fabulous debt; and we can hardly wonder that the cry of despair should have been louder than ever. But again that cry was found to have been as unreasonable as ever. After a few years of exhaustion, England recovered herself. Yet, like Addison's valetudinarian, who continued to whimper that he was dying of consumption till he became so fat that he was shamed into silence, she went on complaining that she was sunk in poverty till her wealth showed itself by tokens which made her complaints ridiculous. The beggared, the bankrupt society not only proved
    1144
    able to meet all its obligations, but, while meeting those obligations, grew richer and richer so fast that the growth could almost be discerned by the eye. …
    " It can hardly be doubted that there must have been some great fallacy in the notions of those who uttered and of those who believed that long succession of confident predictions, so signally falsified by a long succession of indisputable facts. To point out that fallacy is the office rather of the political economist than of the historian. Here, it is sufficient to say that the prophets of evil were under a double delusion. They erroneously imagined that there was an exact analogy between the case of an individual who is in debt to another individual, and the case of a society which is in debt to a part of itself; and this analogy led them into endless mistakes about the effect of the system of funding. They were under an error not less serious, touching the resources of the country. They made no allowance for the effect produced by the incessant progress of every experimental science, and by the incessant efforts of every man to get on in life. They saw that the debt grew; and they forgot that other things grew as well as the debt."
    I submit that the Committee should take encouragement from this dissertation.
    Mr. Montague: Is it not true that it is generally agreed that Lord Macaulay invariably sacrificed accuracy to style?
    Mr. Boothby: It seems to me that in this case he combined the two with admirable skill. I may not have done justice to him in my reading; but I am sure the prose must have given great pleasure to all hon. Members present this afternoon. Lord Macaulay concludes by rightly observing that those wise philosophers
    " greatly overrated the pressure of the burden; they greatly underrated the strength by which the burden was to be borne."
    That is profoundly true. I am quite sure that this country, as after every war it has undertaken for the last two centuries, can survive quite easily the burden of debt which presses upon it at the present moment, on one condition—that the people of this country get down to work. If the Government can persuade the people to work hard in the next two or three years we shall come through, and they can borrow what they like. If they cannot persuade the people to work hard, then we shall not come through, whatever happens.
    Mr. Mitchison: It is, I believe, well established that the pillars of financial orthodoxy are at any rate

    1145
    supporting if not actually sitting upon the Benches opposite and it is heartening to some of the financial heretics who may, no doubt, be found on this side of the Committee to discover such startling differences of opinion. In the discussions on this Amendment which have reached to the very limit of relevancy, we have seen the most violent difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and Lord Macaulay speaking together on the one side, and the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on the other. The one side would, if I understand it rightly, confine us to such limits of financial purity that in South Dorset, at any rate, one would in the first year after the war be compelled not to borrow save for purely capital purposes. That is a very remarkable result at the end of six years of war. On the other hand, we were urged with equal eloquence by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen to borrow as freely as we could, in order that by so doing, we might be relieved of the burdens of taxation.
    I would not have ventured to intervene had it not been for the result which appears to have been produced upon the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset. It was refreshing to hear him praise the patriotism of those who contributed to war savings. It therefore became all the mere puzzling to discover why he considered it necessary to throw all possible public discredit upon war savings as soon as they were asked for by a Government with the political complexion of which he disagrees. It is difficult to discover any reason whatever for the attitude which is so noticeable in his public speeches. There have been moments in the discussion when it seemed to be the object of hon. Members opposite to prevent the Government taking borrowing powers at all. The fact was more properly and 'sensibly put by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), who objected merely to the stage at which this proposal was brought forward. What does that come to? The right hon. Gentleman recognises that Clause I is, as I believe it to be, in the usual form of a National Loans Bill following upon the Budget. There is nothing unusual in that provision; it is standard form. Giving this authorisation to the Treasury involves no exceptional gift of powers. The only objection is that this provision is intro-
    1146
    duced in one Bill, when it might have been made the subject of a second Bill. I suspect an attempt to induce the Government to make two Bills where one would have been sufficient and to delay, to that extent, the progress of the Measures which the Government have in mind.

    Is there any substance in the objection? Is it not true that, when the Budget statement is made it includes a statement of the expenditure and of the taxation contemplated? From those two statements can we not clearly discover the amount of money which has to be borrowed in one form or another? Surely it is at that stage that we shall exercise control over the amount of public borrowing during the year to come. Clauses of this character are no doubt necessary, but the Debate upon them must, in my submission, always come on the Budget, and on the Finance Bill which follows it. It is ridiculous to object to a provision of this kind being brought in before instead of after the Budget, when the substance of the matter, and the whole point at issue, will have to be debated in the course of those Debates For those reasons I suggest that the Amendment has no other object than delay, and to make the Government bring in two Bills where one will clearly suffice for the purpose, and of preventing the very interesting discussion which has emerged. One remarkable cat came out of the bag, if I may use that metaphor. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) defend, with such conviction, higher interest rates and assert that a policy of cheap money' was bad for the country because it brought a lower return to the investor.
    Mr. Eccles: It will be within the recollection of the Committee, that I said that cheap money was desirable. We all want it, but the industrialist must be able to borrow at cheap rates. Otherwise cheap money is just a farce. I said that if money became cheaper and cheaper as a result of preventing people from borrowing, that was not a good policy. I want money to be very cheap.
    Mr. Mitchison: I still find it difficult to follow the hon. Member's meaning and to understand whether he says it is good or bad that money should get cheaper and cheaper. If I have in any way mis-

    1147
    understood him, I apologise for doing so. In view of the national needs, it seems that the further the policy of cheap money can be pushed the better for the country. If it is bad for this or that industrialist to be unable to borrow money at the moment, his claims must come second to the claims that are made for money and capital expenditure in response to public needs.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: I have been dealing with finance for 25 years, but I must ask to be classified as "ignorant," according to the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith). I leave to him the role of sole repository of the financial wisdom of the House. The hon. Member for Kettcring (Mr. Mitchison) unconsciously joins me as one of those clearly ignorant of finance, in view of his misunderstanding of the clear speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles).
    The Clause we are discussing foreshadows possible inflation in the future and is a confession of inflation in the past and in the present. That may not be so dangerous as the Committee might imagine. We may indeed be near the end of a wave of inflation and at the beginning of a correcting wave of production. I heartily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) that if the wave of production grows under the mass exhortation which is to be turned upon it during the next few weeks, under the spotlighted and distinguished exhorters sitting opposite, we may just narrowly escape the worst effects of this inflation. It is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that inflation, in its best known form, is with us. We have" over-expended. The ratio of our currency and of our fiduciary issue to assets is all wrong. This is the natural result of the war effort. If the corrective volume of output is effective, we shall come through fairly well. One method of reducing the amount of money that the Government may need, under the blank cheque for which they are asking us so glibly today, is if they cease the bad practices that they have got into regarding the purchase of commodities; I add to this their failure to stimulate our very valuable invisible exports.
    One of the chief gibes thrown at this side of the Committee on more than one
    1148
    occasion has been the reference to "private un enterprise." I will reply by saying that nothing is worse than to see what has happened to the handling of commodities by some "Government in-experts" who have had charge of the situation during the past few years. Not so long ago we had a Debate on rubber and rubber prices, and during the Debate on Malaya it became clear that in that commodity alone, as in the case of tin, we were mishandling our opportunities, resulting in excessive Government expenditure. It has also resulted in the loss of gold dollars which we need so badly.
    5.0 p.m.
    I would, therefore, urge that at the first possible moment the Government, in their drive for exports and production, should devote more time and attention to the invisible exports of the country. They must affect the actual figures in this Clause very materially, and they must equally affect the extremely vital form of trade in which this country specialises and for which it has been known throughout the century. Sooner or later, whether we have Bretton Woods, "Bretton brambles," or any other form of" Brettonry," we shall undoubtedly come to a period when something like open markets and the open evaluation by others 'outside this country, both of our currency and of our trade, can be made. If, during the intervening period until that day arrives, by inaction and by devoting too much time to our visible exports, we fail to stimulate the vitally important source of permanent revenue, we shall regret it. We must make London, Liverpool and our other towns the commercial and financial centres of the world or we shall pay very dearly for our lapse.
    The old stock arguments which might be used against open markets no longer have any value. Under a reasonable measure of control, the opening of commodity markets with maximum and minimum prices—not a fixed price—is clearly called for. We cannot make water run along a straight line, but we can make it run between two banks of a canal. We want maximum and minimum prices. I submit to the Government that one way of reducing the amount of money for which they ask in this Clause is to have an energetic policy to open our commodity markets in this country again, to

    1149
    see that our ports and warehouses will not in five or 10 years' time have grass growing between their cobbles while there is activity at rival Continental ports. Let us bring this country back to prosperity, and rehabilitate it as the leading and trusted entrepÔt centre and broker of the world.
    Sir Arnold Gridley: In case there should be any misconception as to the views which are held by those whose political faith coincides with mine, I want to say that I am a convinced apostle of the policy of cheap money. I think it is of vital significance, for many reasons. We were told to what the growth of the National Debt has mounted since before the first world war until today. It was £700 million in 1914, £7,000 million in 1918, and today it is somewhere in the region of £24,000 million. Whether we can afford that huge debt or not depends not on the amount of it, but on the cost of servicing it. The cheaper we can service it by a cheap money policy, surely the more advantageous it is to the whole nation.
    With regard to the policy of full employment, I was, in conjunction with business associates of mine the other day, wanting to raise a million of money. I have been borrowing for the last 40 years, but never have I been able to borrow money more cheaply than at this moment, and it was very pleasant to be able to go to the public and raise a million of money at the unheard of rate for preference shares—3½ per cent. The result of that issue was that £1 million was subscribed more than three times. The whole of the money is being spent on capital works. One can see how important this policy is if a large scheme of improvements were to be contemplated, as I think it will be, on our railway systems in the near future. A great many millions could be spent in improving the railways in many directions. Greater electrification schemes would be of advantage to the country and would provide much employment. A great deal depends on whether the money to be spent on these great "capital works can be raised on cheap terms or not. We have had Questions asked in the House during the last few days as to whether the barrage scheme on the Severn is to be proceeded with. That scheme will cost between £18 million and £20 million. A great deal depends
    1150
    on the rate at which the money can be obtained and on the cost of servicing it. One could go on giving illustrations of the great importance of a cheap money policy. Therefore, I for one, hope the Government will proceed along those lines, always provided—and here I entirely agree with what has been said by some of my hon. Friends—that under the control of investments, those powers shall be wisely exercised and not be too rigidly imposed. When any good industrial activity desires to expand and raise money for the purpose, I hope the Government will deal with matters of that kind in a big, broadminded way and not in a narrow political sense.
    The difficulty I find in this part of the Clause which we are seeking to have omitted from the Bill is this. The Financial Secretary will remember that I made a short intervention during the Second Reading Debate, when I said that I had some difficulty in understanding how this money was to be spent, because we had had no information. I reminded him that a few weeks before, the Prime Minister had said that what the nation wanted were more facts and information. I hope the Financial Secretary has come here today prepared to give us a good deal more information than he was able to give during the Second Reading Debate. I am looking forward to getting fuller information from the Financial Secretary, and I hope he has it with him.
    There is one other point to which I wish to refer. Under this Clause, and under many other powers and Measures which the Government have now on the Statute Book, or which are in process of finding their way there, the Government are being armed with very wide powers of all kinds. Among those powers they will have the authority—far wider authority than they have at this moment even—to go in for trading of various kinds. I do not know whether any hon. Gentleman can tell us what are the Government's activities—how many people are employed in various places, and so on—but that is information which we are certainly entitled to have. It is easy for anyone to say that Government expenditure is not proceeding at an extravagant rate—it may or may not be—but I for one shall not be prepared to accept such a statement until I have some information which justifies me in doing so.

    1151
    What we lack today is information. During the war, when expenditure was so high, we had a committee which could go down and see things for themselves, see the expenditure that was going on on the spot. Shortly after the new Government came into power it was asked from this side of the Committee that that committee should be reconstituted for the time being. I think the Government would have been wise had they acceded to that, in their own interest. If they had had a committee of that kind, upon which the party opposite would have the majority, it could have made reports which might have buttressed the present Government against any charge of extravagant expenditure. It is all very well for us to have an Estimates Committee, which looks into what Government Departments propose to spend, and a Public Accounts Committee which goes into public expenditure after the money has already been spent well, or wasted. What I think we want is some body in between, at a time when national expenditure is running at a very high rate, to examine how the money is being spent, where it is going and whether it is being spent wisely or economically.
    When we have information about the Government trading activities I hope that the account keeping will not be of the penny note book kind which we have heard referred to in an earlier speech. I hope that accounts will be kept and presented to this Committee on well understood commercial methods. We ought to have—this has been stressed before and I hope it will be stressed again—both capital and revenue accounts in the national trading accounts. I am not sure that the whole financial expenditure of the country ought not to be divided up between capital and revenue. I hope our present Chancellor of the Exchequer will not see the difficulty which former Chancellors have apparently seen in presenting the national accounts on that basis. I am sure we shall have to come to that as time goes on, with the constantly increasing rate of national expenditure, which we hope some day will be reduced at any rate below its present figure. When it has been, I think we can look forward, as trade expands, to a gradually increasing prosperity. The rising national expenditure makes it all the more important that we should be able to look at
    1152
    the national accounts and to have them presented in a manner which can be understood by the common man. I defy anyone to understand them on the present system under which they are presented.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) into Bretton Wood, unless I am satisfied that it is a bit clearer than the maze I see in it at the present time. I have always had the idea that in a Bill of this kind we are giving the Government power to borrow money to pay interest for previous borrowings. The more we go on borrowing, the more the borrowings accumulate, and the more we have to borrow. I think it is about time that process was stopped. The hon. Member for Stock-port (Sir A. Gridley) said that, at the beginning of the 1914-18 war, our National Debt was £800 million, and at the end of the 1914-18 war it was £7,000 million. Where did that £800 million arise from? From the Boer war. We are still paying interest on money that was borrowed in the Boer war. How much have we paid on the money we borrowed during the Boer war? Why do not we say that the time has come to stop it, that they have had more than they are entitled to? Finish it; liquidate that debt. In 1914 we borrowed money. This is 1946. We have been paying, interest for 32 years. Is it not time that it was stopped? They ought to be told they have had enough. We ought to liquidate that debt, finish it off, pay them no more.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I am trying to follow the extremely interesting argument of the hon. Member. Is he advocating that His Majesty's Government should now pay off the debt? Is that what he means when he says "liquidate "? If he is not going to pay it off, how is he going to pay interest in the future?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot allow-the hon. Member to be tempted by that question. We would be out of Order.
    Mr. Gallacher: I would pay them no more. They have already got more than they are entitled to, far far more. Let us take an example of what it is the other

    1153
    side want in connection with borrowing. The other day we had the case of a local authority which, 20 years ago, borrowed money from the Prudential at 7 per cent. They asked the Prudential to accept repayment so that they could borrow cheaper money, but the Prudential refuses to accept repayment and the contract carries on for a considerable time. If the local authority got £1,000,000 that means it has paid back to the Prudential £1,400,000 and still owes £1,000,000. Can anybody say it is just that a local authority should pay back £1,000,000 after paying £1,400,000? That is what Members on the either side have been living on; that is how to get rich quickly, but always at the expense of somebody else's labour. Nobody can justify that sort of thing. On one occasion I heard an hon. Member on this side of the Committee talking about a local authority paying 6 per cent, on a loan they got 20 years ago. The Government should put a stop to this robbery that is going on. They should limit this borrowing by putting a finish to the continual payments where already those who participated in this business have obtained far more than they have loaned.
    The big problem before the Government in connection with finance and in connection with this borrowing—a question I have already raised with the Chancellor recently—is the question of providing the local authorities with interest-free money in order to get houses. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that the solution for this question is the production of commodities. If we can get a greatly increased production of commodities, then we can meet all our obligations. How are we to get the increased production of commodities that we desire, if the masses of the workers have not got decent homes, if they are packed into single rooms, and unable to get the amenities of life to which they are entitled?
    The local authorities have the job of building homes, and they cannot do it because there is not a local authority in the country that is not overburdened, not with cheap money but with dear money. The Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is our anti-savings Member, but I would be prepared to go with him to the local authority in his constituency and look over the books, and I will guarantee that
    1154
    his local authority, like mine and every other local authority represented here, is overburdened with heavy interest payments because of dear money, so much ' so that it is almost impossible for them to carry out their responsibilities.
    I was speaking at a meeting on this question of finance in my constituency one day—not that I am a financier, I do not want anyone to accuse me of being a financier—[Laughter]—I consider it to be a subject for libel—and a doctor came on to my platform and said that he had been to the local authority and had learnt that they had borrowed £35,000 some 30 years ago, repayable in 1965. In 1965 the local authority will have paid in interest alone £90,000, and will have the £35,000 still to pay. That is what the hon. Members opposite live on. That is what they want—dear money. I say that such continued payments should stop. After the original sum borrowed has been paid, through interest payments plus a certain small allowance, it should be finished up, and no more payments made. If that were done, we might get a little more production, because hon. Members on the other side would have to look for work. If we are to solve our financial problems we must have increased production. Only the workers can give us that, and to get it from the workers, the Government must have power to borrow and use money at the cheapest possible rate, in order to make sure that the reforms to which the Government are pledged are carried out at the speediest possible rate.
    Mr. Drayson: When this Bill was read a Second time it was not introduced 'as a streamline Measure, nor did the right hon. Gentleman flourish the pamphlet "Let us Face the Future," because in this Bill we have to deal very realistically with the future, and it will not be very pleasant. Clause 1, to which I particularly wish to refer, virtually provides the Chancellor with a blank cheque to draw any amount he likes. So that he can continue his rake's progress of painting the City red. The trouble with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time is that he thinks he is doing well because he has a rising gilt-edged market. He does not realise that what is more important than a firm gilt-edged market is prosperous British industry. What would it profit the Chancellor if

    1155
    he reduced the interest on our National Debt by a half of one per cent, if, at the same time, our industry was so crippled, or not adequately encouraged, that it could not take its proper place in the race for world recovery? This Clause also strikes a rather depressing note, because it points out quite clearly to the general public, although they probably know it already, that there will be a large deficit in our Budget for the current year. There is, however, no attempt in this Bill to tell the public just how big that deficit will be. If there were some limiting amount in this Clause, say £1,000 or £2,000 million, there would be some encouragement; and it might help the savings movement, as people would know what amount had to be raised by borrowing up to the end of the financial year on 31st March, 1947.
    What the general public want to know particularly is what steps the Government are taking to reduce this very large deficit. Many hon. Members have spoken on that point this afternoon. I see very few signs of any real economy drive on the part of the Government. We have heard that there is to be a production drive, and I would suggest that the two things go hand in hand. Can we not have some sort of inquiry into the swollen Ministries, dotted up and down the country in our luxury hotels, and appearing to the local inhabitants to be doing extremely little productive work? We know there are hundreds of thousands of workers on wartime production. I cannot think of a more soul destroying occupation than having to make armaments which are known to be already obsolete. We believe that there is something sinister in the Government's motive in keeping people on such employment. They are frightened of a rising unemployment figure. But they must be prepared to accept a small measure of unemployment while we are converting our great industries from a wartime to a peacetime basis.
    What are the Government doing about the vast dumps of materials all over the country? The ordinary man in the street is justified if he feels that perhaps this deficit could somehow be reduced if those vast stocks of materials were made available to him right away. There has been criticism this afternoon of the Government's dealings in commodities through-
    1156
    out the world. I would suggest that here again is an example of how the Government are about to miss their market. The time will come when these things will no longer be required, and they will then be so rotted as to be completely useless. The Lord President of the Council said the other day that we are now engaged in what he called "Operation Carey Street.". I suggest that the Chancellor has misread his instructions and that he is engaged in "Operation Carey Street," because that is undoubtedly where we shall be if he carries on with his present restrictive policy. Is he making any attempt to build up a national economy that will be able to support this large and increased National Debt? We have heard this afternoon that these obstacles have always been overcome in the past. But the times Macaulay was writing about did not suffer from the sort of Government we have in this country at the present time.
    I believe that the large National Debt we have could well be supported by an economy in which free enterprise was given full play in every walk of life. We may be approaching a position in our national finance where it will be hard to imagine any Britisher wanting to subscribe to the Chancellor's loans. It may be considered unpatriotic to support him in his folly. Business restrictions must be removed. Every encouragement must be given to the country. I submit, and this has already been mentioned this afternoon, that taxation on the lower income groups should be still further reduced. Make overtime free of tax. Do not let it be that part of earnings which suffers the greatest burden of tax in any worker's pay packet. At the same time, fill the shops with goods for the people to buy. Instead,
    " Waste and destruction all around we see;
    Their only cure is bills and £ s. d.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Spearman: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gndley) I want to express the views that are so widely held on this side of the House in favour of cheap money. There are many benefits to the State from cheap money. Perhaps not the least—it is the only one to which I shall refer—is the easing of the burden on the taxpayer. It is, I think, a very remarkable thing that while

    1157
    the National Debt should have increased during the last 20 years by some 300 per cent., by the clever handling of the debt service on it the increase in the annual burden has gone up by only something like 30 per cent. But I should like to emphasise this point, that if the Government fail in meeting the menace of inflation by the more delicate and certain weapons that are within their power they may have to revert to this extremely clumsy and upsetting means of dear money—an evil, but a lesser evil than the social injustice and dislocation of real inflation. I think that if the Government fail in the methods they should adopt they will have to be prepared to face using more unpleasant methods.
    We are all agreed on the necessity of the Government's borrowing money at this time, but in view of some of the things that have been said on the other side of the House it would be reassuring if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would state quite clearly that the fact that the Government have the powers and the fact that they are able to borrow more cheaply does not mean that for those reasons they are going to spend more than they otherwise would. We are sometimes rather led to think by hon. Members opposite that they are of the opinion that the more the Government borrows the more the Government can spend. In actual fact the amount that can be spent is absolutely limited to the amount the State can produce and the amount that the wretched consumer can be prevented from using himself. The State cannot spend more unless more is produced except by diminishing the resources of the consumer, so it is of the very greatest importance that this simple truth should be made quite clear on every occasion by the Government.
    I should like to refer to one point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who is in and out of the Chamber so often. He is not here now. I think that for once, perhaps, he was a little in a state of confusion when he referred to the fact that dear money would upset the savings of the people. That, of course, is not so at all. What it might upset would be the speculators. I do not know whether he was considering himself or considering that point of view, but on this side of the House we are not so interested in the speculators as in those people who have invested their savings,
    1158
    and who are not so interested in the capital value in whether their stocks go up or down. What matters to them is the purchasing power of their money and that, indeed, might be taken from them, and would be taken from them if we had inflation. Dear money cannot possibly cause inflation. Dear money can only be a help towards preventing inflation. It is a clumsy weapon but it may be a necessary one which we should have no hesitation in using if the worst occurs.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: We have had a long and interesting Debate on this Amendment. I had hoped that the length of the Debate would have afforded some opportunity at the end to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to share in the interest. We quite realise that at the beginning he had to be absent meeting the deputation of bond holders, but it certainly has been a long meeting, and I do not know whether his loyal subordinate ought not to telephone to the Treasury to find out that he is none the worse for it. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps it would be better to telephone to Scotland Yard to find out. We have had a Debate which has been remarkable for its breadth, and, equally, for its depth, although I confess that in listening to some of the speakers I have heard the clattering hooves of hobby horses which have been ridden by them before. But the Debate that has taken place does offer a very tempting selection for any speaker who wishes at this stage to reply to it.
    I have taken a note of some of the points raised. They include the need for Government economy; the merits in one case or demerits in another of the national savings movement; the danger of Fascist meetings at the Albert Hall; the advantages of cheap money; the merits of Lord Keynes; the effect of housing conditions on the production of goods; and finally, the whole theory of interest. Faced with that galaxy of choice I have been quite unable to decide which of these interesting topics to which to devote myself, and so, I think, I will devote myself to the Amendment on the Order Paper, and the reason why it was put down. I am encouraged to do that out of mercy to the Home Secretary. It is always as well to do the Home Secretary a favour if you can, because you never know but that the time will come—[Interruption.] He has

    1159
    been sitting there patiently on the Front Bench, and all the time, despite the courteous look on his face, I have felt he is more interested in the future than he is in the immediate present. [An Hon. Member: "Is that in the Amendment?"] Well, perhaps it is not wrong to be merciful. The primary point for which this Amendment was put down, and which has enabled such a very interesting discussion to take place, was to call attention to what we on this side think to have been a quite unnecessary alteration in the procedure of the last six years, an alteration which has resulted in the House of Commons being asked to take a decision of great importance without knowing the necessary facts on which to take it.
    Nobody on this side, in putting down this Amendment, wants to deprive the Government of borrowing power to make up the inevitable deficit in the first full year after the war between what is raised by taxation and what has to be paid out in services. Nobody thinks, however great the efficiency of the Government in effecting economies, that, in fact, in that first year, any Government could balance those two figures. We all agree, therefore, that the Government must have these powers. We say that there is no reason why this year the Government should not have done what Governments have done in the preceding six years, and that is, first to make a Budget statement, giving us an estimate of the financial requirements of the year, together with an estimate of the extent to which these powers are to be used and the relationship between taxation and borrowing. When the House of Commons has all the facts, then the Government can ask us for these powers which we shall be glad to give them.
    I was very depressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), particularly as he had the supreme advantage of being educated at the same school as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. Although I was prepared to see one back slider in the case of the Chancellor-of the Exchequer, I was depressed to see yet another Member who had not fully benefited from that education. He advanced the astounding proposition that it was ridiculous to object to the House of Commons being asked to pass the Bill first and hear the arguments afterwards. How far has the hon. Gentle-
    1160
    man deteriorated from that intellectual level which I know he reached some 30 years ago. The Financial Secretary said that he was in a dilemma; it is this dilemma, or what I would call the doctor's dilemma, which we are trying today to resolve. We quite realise that, with the exception of this Clause, the other Clauses have to be through by 31st March, and we are perfectly prepared to give them to the Government, but there is no need why these borrowing powers should be taken before the Budget.
    The effect of the Amendment is to give the hon. Member the opportunity, which I know he wants, of making a full disclosure to the Committee of all the facts and a full estimate of all the possibilities, before the powers are taken. We on this side of the Committee were sorry for the hon. Gentleman when this matter was debated before. He was so obviously anxious to give all the information he could, and it was only the stern injunction put on him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which prevented him doing what his conscience urged. We want to resolve that conscience, and to give him an opportunity to provide us with the fullest information which this Committee has a right to demand. Therefore, while we make it quite clear that we believe the Government must have borrowing powers, this Bill ought to be introduced at the proper time, which is after the Budget statement, when we should be prepared to facilitate its passage by every means in our power. We cannot assent at the present time to the Government having these enormous powers without any explanation of the extent to which they will be needed.
    5.45 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) in that we have had a long and interesting Debate. It has roamed fairly widely, and Members have found an opportunity by one means or another, as he said, to ride their particular hobby horses. The speeches he said have had breadth and in some cases depth and to that I am not going to add length if I can avoid it. The right hon. Gentleman knows, none better than he, that it is impossible for me to accede to his request and anticipate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to say when he opens his Budget in a few weeks'

    1161
    time. I therefore stick to the Amendment. It seeks to take out of Clause 1, which is one of the main operative Clauses of the Bill sub-paragraph (a), which gives the Government power to borrow during the financial year 1946-47 up to the gross amount of Supply granted; plus £250 million in order to tide them over the period between 1st April, 1947, and such time thereafter as is necessary until another Bill of the same kind can be introduced and carried through this House. In answer to what the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said about the wording of this paragraph, I have to say that we have exactly copied the words of the National Loans Acts passed annually through the House since 1939. Therefore, if he finds the wording sloppy I can only tell him that it is rather late in the day to discover it. At any rate, this form of words has been sufficient during the war to cover what has been needed.
    Speaker after speaker has indicated that by giving us the powers of this paragraph the Government will be taking what they described as unlimited powers to borrow money. That is not true. The Committee knows quite well that all we are asking for is power to borrow to cover a possible deficit or the outturn of the year 1946-47. I have come to the House as has every Financial Secretary each year during the war. The only difference between previous occasions and this—and the House frankly faced it and discussed it at some length during the Second reading—is that the House on previous occasions has heard the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before being asked to grant these powers. The fact that the Committee is not fully seized of the expected deficit on the next financial year is, as I said on Second reading, a dilemma which the Government realises. But it is essential that we should have this Bill before 31st March, that is, before the Chancellor makes his Budget speech, because there are other provisions in the Bill which it is necessary we should get through by that date. It is not essential by itself, I agree, that this particular paragraph should be passed by then. Nevertheless there are checks which would prevent excessive borrowing by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    1162
    These will continue to reside in this House. There is no real reason therefore why the Committee should not give us these powers a few weeks in advance of the normal date.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the Financial Secretary tell us what he means by "sufficient checks" and exactly what are the checks on borrowing? There may be checks on expenditure, but what are they on borrowing?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The check on borrowing is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot borrow in excess of the Supply voted by this House. I said during the Second Reading Debate—it emerged quite clearly then and the point was made I think by other speakers—that although the Government are taking these powers, they do not intend to borrow up to the full total of the Supply granted. They cannot borrow beyond the amount of supply granted by the House and that in itself is a check. The Civil Estimates have been published and also the Defence Estimates and the House is well aware what the total will be. It will be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to borrow in addition to the total Supply which the House has .granted and I might add that the House has not, so far, granted the major part of next year's Supply on the Votes. Therefore, the House will, in a very real sense, continue to control the borrowing powers of the Government. I think that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have expressed doubts whether these borrowing powers should be given.
    I can say however, in addition, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer confidently expects that during the next financial year, that is 1946-47, the pro-portion of Budget expenditure to be met from borrowing will be appreciably less than it will be in the present financial year. I might also add that if anything like these borrowing powers are necessary for the financial year 1947-48, it is hoped that it will be possible to consider the necessary legislation after the Budget statement is made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he continues to hold his office, or by his successor. During the war years the House gave these powers year after year. I have today given an additional assurance, and the House has the knowledge that, if, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has opened

    1163
    his Budget, it feels dissatisfied with his statement, it can, with the machinery open to it, stop Supply. That is the real check. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will now allow us to pass on to the next Clause or, if the Opposition still feels
    dissatisfied, that we shall take the matter to the vote.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause "
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 144.

    Division No. 99.]

    AYES.

    [5.55 p.m.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McAllister, G.

    Adamson, Mrs. J L.

    Edelman, M.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

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

    McGhee, H. G.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    McGovern, J.

    Allighan, Garry

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Mack, J. D.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Fairhurst, F.

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

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Farthing, W. J.

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Attewell, H. C.

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

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Austin, H. L.

    Follick, M.

    McLeavy, F.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Foot, M. M.

    MacMillan, M. K.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    McNeil, H.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Baird, Capt. J.

    Gallacher, W

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Balfour, A.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Marquand, H. A.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Gibbins, J.

    Martin, J. H.

    Barton, C.

    Gilzean, A.

    Mathers, G.

    Battley, J. R.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Messer, F.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Bing, Capt. G. H. C.

    Grenfell, D. R

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

    Binns, J.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Grierson, E.

    Monslow, W

    Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Montague, F.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Moody, A. S.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Griffiths, Capt. W D. (Moss Side)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

    Morley, R.

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

    Gunter, Capt. R. J.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Guy, W. H.

    Moyle, A

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

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

    Murray, J. D.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hale, Leslie

    Nally, W.

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

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

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Hardy, E. A

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Buchanan, G.

    Haworth, J.

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

    Burden, T. W.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Burke, W. A.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Oldfield, W. H.

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

    Hicks, G.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Callaghan, James

    Hobson, C. R.

    Orbach, M.

    Champion, A. J.

    Holman, P.

    Paget, R. T.

    Chetwynd, Capt, G R.

    House, G.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Hoy, J.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hubbard, T.

    Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

    Cobb, F. A.

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

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Coldrick, W.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pearson, A.

    Collick, P.

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

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Collins, V. J.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Perrins, W.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Irving, W. J.

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Janner, B.

    Popplewell, E.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Corvedale, Viscount

    John, W.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, A. C. (Ship'ey)

    Price, M. P.

    Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Daggar, G.

    Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

    Ranger, J.

    Daines, P.

    Keenan, W.

    Rankin, J

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Kenyon, C.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    King, E. M.

    Reeves, J

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Kinley, J.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

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

    Kirby, B. V.

    Robens, A.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lang, G

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Deer, G.

    Lavers, S.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Diamond, J

    Levy, B. W.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Dobbie, W.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Sargood, R.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Logan, D. G

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Douglas, F. C. R.

    Longden, F.

    Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Lyne, A. W.

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

    Dye, S.

    McAdam, W.

    Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

    Shurmer, P.

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

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

    Simmons, C. J.

    Thorneycroft, H.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Skeffington-Lodge, T C.

    Thurtle, E.

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Tiftany, S.

    Wilkes, Maj. L.

    Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

    Titterington, M. F.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Tolley, L.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

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

    Tomlinson. Rt. Hon. G.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

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

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Usborne, Henry

    Williams, W R. (Heston)

    Solley, L. J.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Williamson, T.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Viant, S P.

    Willis, E.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Wadsworth G.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Walkden, E.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Stamford, W.

    Walker, G. H.

    Woodburn, A.

    Steele, T.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Woods, G. S

    Stephen, C.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Yates, V. F.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Watson, W. M.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Webb, M (Bradford, C.)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Weitzman, D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Symonds, Maj. A. L.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Mr. J. Henderson and

    Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Captain Michael Stewart.

    NOES.

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Nicholson, G.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Nield, B. (Chester)

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

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Graham-Little, Sir E.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Orr-Ewing, I L.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Barlow, Sir J.

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

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre A V.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Pitman, I. J.

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

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

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Bower, N.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Braithwaite, Lt -Comdr. J. G.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Renton, D.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

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

    Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.

    Hurd, A.

    Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

    Bullock, Capt M.

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

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Jarvis, Sir J.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

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

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Carson, E.

    Jennings, R.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Channon, H.

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Clarke, Col R. S.

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Spence, Maj. H. R.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

    Law, Rt Hon. R. K

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H.

    Stuart, Rt Hon. J.

    Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

    Lindsay, Lt.-Col M. (Solihull)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

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

    Digby, Maj. S. W.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

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

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

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

    Drayson, Capt. G. B.

    Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

    Touche G. C.

    Drewe, C.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Turton, R. H.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Duthie, W S.

    Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Erroll, Col F. J.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L

    Marples, A. E.

    Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    York, C.

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

    Molson, A H E.

    Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

    Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Gammans, Capt. L. D.

    Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

    Commander Agnew and Major Conant.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT]
  Resolution reported:
  " That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of the unpaid balance of principal and all arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of a loan to John Henry Thompson, Annie Thompson and Arthur Thompson."

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major Milner in the Chair]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL

    CLAUSE I.—(Appointment of Public Works Loan Commissioners)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    6.8 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I understand that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, although they did not put down an Amendment to this Clause, would like some further explanation as to why we propose to change the manner in which the Commissioners are appointed, but I do not know if there is really much I can add to what I said when we took the Second Reading of this Bill. Perhaps those who read that Debate will remember that these Commissioners are appointed under Section 12 of an Act which was passed in 1875, and regularly every five years from that time until 1941 the Commissioners names actually appeared in a Bill which passed through this House. Fairly recently we had a Bank of England Bill where another method of appointing directors was laid down, namely, appointment by the King. We suggest that that is a much better method than what I described on Second Reading as the rather archaic method laid down for the appointment of these Commissioners under the Public Works Loans Act of 1875. We not only seek to change the method of appointment; we also suggest that they should serve for a stated time of four years, and that there should be 12 of them. In the past, the number has, I gather, varied from 16 downwards, and the number at the present time, I think, about 11. We propose that the number should be limited
    1168
    to 12, and that they should serve for four years, except during the initial period when they will retire four at a time during each of the first three years, and thereafter, according to their appointment, at the end of every fourth year.
    They receive no emoluments In the past, they have been public-spirited men who have given their time quite freely to this work. It is more than likely that in the immediate years ahead they will have much more work to do and certainly far more than they had to do during the war years. It may well be that some of these Commissioners will not be able to serve for the whole of the period for which they are appointed. It is, therefore, necessary that we should have a much more flexible method of appointing them. For these reasons, we ask the House to accept our proposal as the proper one for the future. We have no intention of making changes in the Commissioners simply for the sake of making changes, but we feel that, as and when Commissioners go, for one reason or another, we should be able to change them by a much easier method than in the past. We have no intention of altering the powers conferred on them. Those powers will continue as hitherto. All we suggest is that the method of appointing them should be similar to that laid down in the Bank of England Act, which is much more up to date and, in our opinion, a much better method all round.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Assheton: I am obliged to the Financial Secretary for his explanation. I am not sure that I feel this new method of appointment has so very much to commend it. There seem to me to have been advantages in the original procedure. We do not intend to press the matter, although we did feel that it was our duty to draw attention to the change that was being made. I would like to join with the Financial Secretary in expressing sincere admiration which hon. Members on this side feel for the work of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. They are gentlemen who do a great deal of unpaid public service, and the whole Committee ought to feel indebted to them.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY [11th March]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1945
    CLASS II

      DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS, ETC.
      Resolutions reported:
      1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

      UNITED NATIONS
      2. "That a sum, not exceeding £340,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for a contribution towards the expenses of the United Nations and for other expenses in connection therewith."
      FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO GREECE
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for providing a credit to the Greek Government for the stabilisation of the Greek currency."
      COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES
      4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to de fray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid."
    CLASS V
      OLD AGE PENSIONS
      5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted to His Majesty. to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the payment of Old Age Pensions and pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith."
    CLASS VII

      ROYAL PALACES
      6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding; £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to
      1170
      defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a grant in aid."

    POLICE BILL
    Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
    6.20 p.m
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
    " That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 2, line 8, and Clause 12, page 13, line 8, standing on the Order Paper in my name."
    The first of these Amendments will enable me to fulfil a pledge which I gave in the Committee, and the second deals with the difficult point that was raised by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) during the Committee stage, which I hope to be able to deal with in the way indicated on the Order Paper.
    Bill immediately considered in Committee.
    [Major Milner in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE I.—(Abolition of non-county borough police forces.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out from "and," to "and," in line 11, and to insert:
    " shall hold office by the same tenure and on the same conditions as immediately before that date, and, while performing similar duties shall, in respect thereof, receive not less salary or remuneration than the salary or remuneration to which they would have been entitled if they had not been transferred."
    This Amendment deals with the position of transferred officers and servants, other than policemen, who may leave the service of a non-county borough under the Bill, and enter the service of a county police authority. It was felt by some hon. Members of the Standing Committee that the present wording of the Clause might mean that if the county service had better conditions than the borough service, the officer transferred might be compelled to remain on the level on which he had been in the borough service. I cannot think that is a very likely interpretation, but I have in my time known legalistic clerks of councils who delighted

    1171
    in giving such interpretations to Acts of Parliament. In order that there may be no excuse for that, I have submitted this Amendment, which ensures that a man shall receive not less salary or remuneration, so that if he is in a borough where the conditions are better than in the county he will, if transferred, remain on the old level, whereas if conditions in the county are better he may be promoted to the higher level.
    Mr. Grimston: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment which, as he says, fulfils a pledge he gave upstairs. It certainly covers the point and we are very much obliged to him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 12.—(Consolidation agreements under County Police Act, 1840, etc., 3 and 4 Vict., c 88, 19 and 20 Vict., c. 69.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 8 to 16, and to insert:
    " (6) In relation to the determination of a consolidation agreement under this section the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if references therein to a transferred area included references to the county police area as well as to the borough police area, and as if references therein to an amalgamation scheme and to a scheme under this Act revoking an amalgamation scheme included respectively references to a consolidation agreement and to a scheme of agreement under this section; and provision may be made—

    where the consolidation agreement is determined by an amalgamation scheme or by an agreement under this section, by that scheme or agreement;

    in any other case, by an order made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the authorities concerned or by an agreement made between those authorities with the approval of the Secretary of State."

    This is a somewhat more difficult and really highly technical Amendment that deals with a matter first brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) in the Standing Committee. It was discovered at that time that there were certain non-county boroughs, some of which, as in the case of the borough which gives its name to the hon. Members constituency, had never had police powers but had in fact
    1172
    entered into arrangements with the county police authority with regard to certain matters relating to the police. It first appeared, in the case of Weston-super-Mare, that the borough, for some reason which was difficult to discover, enjoyed a great financial privilege and is in fact at the moment enjoying a rate of some 4.4 pence in the £ less than the county police rate. It was suggested that we should make some arrangement by which a sudden rise in the rate to that extent should be minimised, and I introduced a complicated escalator clause which appeared to meet the point. Then it transpired that while they had a rebate of 4.4 pence in the £ on the rate, they were under an obligation to pay to the county for 30 years the sum of £2,718 annually in respect of police expenses. It seems to me a very complicated way of running rival swings and roundabouts enterprises, but undoubtedly it would be very unfair to put Weston-super-Mare on the escalator clause and relieve them of the £2,718 simultaneously, or to say that after all hope of police powers had vanished they should continue to pay £2,718 per annum.
    There are similar agreements of the most amazing complexity—I would almost say irrationality—in different parts of the country, and this Amendment will enable the Secretary of State, when amalgamations take place, to deal with these matters by a scheme so that he will be able to take into account the figures on both sides of the balance sheet and arrive at an equitable arrangement between the borough and the county. Some of these arrangements are the result of consolidation agreements entered into many years ago when a non-county borough that had a police force agreed to that force being consolidated in the county voluntarily. I desire to have the necessary powers so that when the new arrangement comes into operation on 1st April, 1947, I may be able to deal fairly with both sets of ratepayers, those of the borough and those of the county involved.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment. I very much appreciate what he has done. It was a very difficult and highly technical problem and one which only matured in our minds at the very last stages of the discussion of this Bill upstairs. I cannot help feeling that this is an example of how dangerous it is to try to legislate too

    1173
    fast. There was not very much opportunity for local authorities who had been bound in the past by these extraordinary regulations—and I agree that many of them are extraordinary—to consider the effect of the proposals under the Bill, and in fact unless the words now on the Order Paper had been inserted, I think many of them would have suffered considerable loss. The right hon. Gentleman has met the need and I express my gratitude. At the same time I should like to say that the fact that this was raised at the very latest stages was no fault of mine and I think he appreciates that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) considered.

    CLAUSE I—(Abolition of non-county borough police forces.)
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PEAKE:
    In page 1, line 8, after "borough," insert:
    " of which the population according to the census of 1931 or to the latest estimate before the appointed day of the Registrar-General (whichever shall be the higher) was less than thirty thousand."
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Peake: On a point of Order. Do I understand that it is not your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call the Amendment standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends on this side of the House, which raises the question of the abolition of the non-county borough police force?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That is so. Mr. Speaker has decided not to select that Amendment.
    Mr. Peake: Would I be in Order, Sir, in making a submission to you with a view to asking you to reconsider the decision on that matter?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I am afraid not. Mr. Speaker has made his decision, and it would not be proper for me to hear arguments contrary to it.
    Mr. Mack: Does that mean that the whole question of the non-county boroughs cannot be discussed on Clause 1?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members can only discuss Amendments which Mr. Speaker has decided to select; they cannot discuss others.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: May I ask for guidance on this matter, Sir? Is it to be understood that if a Bill is taken upstairs, and then brought back to this House, we, on the Floor of the House, are, in future, to be deprived of making any efforts towards amending that Bill?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, not in the least. Mr. Speaker has selected certain Amendments, and hon. Members will have an opportunity of speaking on those Amendments.
    Mr. Davies: Further to that, Sir, I have had handed to me the Amendments which you do not propose to call and it is obvious now to those of us who strongly object to this Bill that we are to be deprived of the opportunity of expressing our opinions and from making any effort to correct the shortcomings of the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must point out that the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to question Mr. Speaker's Ruling.
    Mr. Jennings: I would like to ask your guidance on this point. I agree that Mr. Speaker has made his decision, but is it not competent for you to reconsider the matter on application?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. Mr. Speaker takes the decision and, quite clearly, the Deputy-Speaker cannot override that decision.
    Mr. Mack: On a point of Order. Surely this is a very serious matter and, with great respect, we are entitled to have some guidance from you. May I put it this way—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I have indicated that hon. Members are not entitled to question Mr. Speaker's decision. Hon. Members have a course they can adopt on this and other matters on which they wish to question the decision of the Chair. Quite clearly I cannot allow any further questioning or discussion of Mr. Speaker's decision on this matter.
    Mr. Mack: Further to that point of Order. I do not question Mr. Speaker's decision, but if I ask you for guidance surely that is well within the limits of

    1175
    Order. I only ask this—I am not questioning the decision at all—but can you, Sir, guide those of us in the House, who are very much perturbed and concerned, as to the method we can possibly adopt to get this matter discussed?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid I cannot do so here. It is quite clear that the matter is not debatable.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "appointed day," and to insert "date of transfer."
    This is purely a drafting Amendment. The appointed day in Clause 1 (3, b) is wrong, since the Clause will operate in relation to county boroughs which are demoted to the non-county borough status after the appointed day.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Adjustment of rates in consequence of abolition of non-county borough police forces.)
    Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from the first "area," to "under," in line 32.
    This, too, is a drafting Amendment. Clause 3 (4) will translate the reference to the county police area in line 31 in Clause 2 into a reference to a combined area, and the words proposed to be left out by this Amendment are therefore unnecessary.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Voluntary schemes for the amalgamation of county and county borough -police forces.)
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, after "scheme" to insert:
    and comprising only members of the police authorities whose areas are amalgamated by the scheme."
    The genesis of this Amendment was the fear or—-perhaps that is too strong a word to use—the anxiety felt upon all sides of the House that this Bill might be used to create a national police force, or something approaching it, not, I may say, by the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Home Secretary, but by someone who may later reign in his stead. Hon. Members will observe that under Clause 3, which provides details of the scheme to be used if com-
    1176
    pulsory amalgamations are brought about, Subsection (2) (b) contains these words:
    " the maintenance of the combined force by a combined police authority constituted in accordance with the provisions of the scheme."
    In the proceedings in Committee I moved an Amendment to try to make it perfectly clear at this point that the Home Secretary could not become either a part of a combined police authority or the combined police authority itself, as it did not seem to me to be clear in the Bill that he could not take on that function under a scheme. At that time I was referred to Clause 5, which defines a combined police authority, and I think it will be clear if hon. Members look at it The first few words are:
    " The combined police authority constituted by an amalgamation scheme shall consist of such representatives of each of the constituent areas as may be prescribed by the scheme."
    We wanted it made perfectly clear that the Home Secretary could not be a representative, and therefore a part or the whole of a combined police authority. The Attorney-General was not able to be present at the Committee meetings but the Home Secretary was good enough to obtain an opinion from him, and I would like to read it to the House. The learned Attorney-General said this:
    " I have read the report of the debate in Committee and considered the point raised, namely, the danger that the Secretary of State might nominate himself as the police authority for a Combined Police Area, thus in effect opening the door to the nationalisation of the police forces."
    " Clause 4 (1) "—
    which is now, of course, Clause 5 (1) under the amended Bill—
    " provides that the Combined Police Authority shall consist of such representatives of each of the constituent areas as ' may be prescribed by the scheme,' and in my view it would be inconsistent with this Clause for the Secretary of State to appoint himself the authority for the combined force, since the Clause clearly requires representatives of each constituent area and is mandatory and not merely discretionary. Moreover, the Clause contains no provision for anyone who is not a representative of a constituent area to be included in the combined authority. It would, I think, be quite inconsistent with the whole scheme of the Bill for the Secretary of State to prescribe himself as ' a representative ' of one of the constituent areas, and I feel no doubt, that Clause 4 (1) taken alone precludes the possibility of his prescribing himself as the representative of all the constituent areas."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 5th February, 1946; c. 147-8.]

    1177
    We have there the opinion of the Attorney-General that the point we wish to protect is provided for in the Bill. But, on considering the matter, I still think that rather than let it rest on the opinion, however good, of the Attorney-General, it would be just as well to insert the words I propose, in the Bill itself. It makes it perfectly clear that the Home Secretary cannot in any case become himself either a part of or the combined police authority under an amalgamation scheme. I hope the Home Secretary will consider accepting these words. That would not provide anything which he does not intend should be a part of the Bill. Instead of resting the matter on the opinion of the Attorney-General, it should be put into the Bill. I hope the Home Secretary will agree that it is desirable to put the words in, having regard to the fact that it is merely, so to speak, dotting the i's and crossing the t's of the opinion the Attorney-General has given.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has just said, and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept it because, in fact, it is not limiting him in any way. It is merely putting on to paper that on which the Home Secretary himself found it necessary to get counsel's opinion. If the Home Secretary, with all his learning and knowledge, had to consult counsel before the position was made absolutely clear to him, I feel that the private citizen should have it made so simple and clear on paper that he, in turn, shall not have to consult counsel when the Bill comes into operation.
    Mr. Ede: I think that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) will find that his memory, for once, has played him false. I did not have to go to the Attorney-General for advice on this point. I expressed a certain opinion and was quite certain it was right. Hon. Members opposite who were serving on the Committee expressed doubts, and I was anxious to resolve those doubts. They suggested that the proper person to resolve them was one of the Law Officers of the Crown. I went to the Attorney-General and procured a letter which I read to the Committee and which now the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has read. I was never in any doubt whether
    1178
    it would be possible for any Home Secretary to be the representatives—in the plural—of more than one police authority. I know at least one past Home Secretary who has been alluded to as Jehovah. But after all, the thing about Jehovah is that He is a unity and therefore not capable of what would be required to comply with the situation presented by this Amendment.
    6.45 p.m.
    I am bound to point out that, in spite of what has been said, these words would limit me in the selection 01 the combined police authority. It has to be borne in mind that the police authorities are not the councils concerned. In the case of a county borough, the police authority is the watch committee In the case of a county, the police authority is the standing joint committee. It may be that a county borough which had been, after all processes had been gone through, brought into a combined police authority, could then defeat me, or the Secretary of State for the time, by declining to appoint a watch committee Then I would have no body from which I could select the borough representatives. A county borough might, by the process of selecting the members of its watch committee when the watch committee had lost its police powers, exclude from the watch committee, certain members of the council who might be very desirable as members of the combined police authority.
    During the Committee stage, I expressed views I hold very strongly with regard to standing joint committees. In view of the peculiar way in which those bodies are constituted, it might very well be that either the justices, or the county councils, would deprive me of the proper width of choice by declining to put certain appropriate people on the standing joint committees. I could not then bring them on to the combined police authorities. What I am prepared to do is to say that in selecting the representatives on the combined police authorities, I will not go outside the bodies who elect the appropriate committees which become on appointment the police authorities for the boroughs and the counties. That, I think, is what this Amendment is really aimed at-a desire that a person who is not a member either of the borough council in the case of the county borough, or of the county council or' the justices in Quarter Sessions in the case of a county

    1179
    —should not be appointed. I am quite prepared to say that that will be the line I shall adopt in any case where a combined police authority is set up. I do not think that is anything more than a common sense view. But to confine me to members of the police authority, would mean that I should be limited to the members of the committees that the parent authorities have set up. I think that might, in certain circumstances, limit me far too much.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert:
    " (g) the delegation to any constituent authority of any functions of the combined police authority under Section five of the Police, Factories, etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916, or under the House to House Collections Act, 1939."
    This Amendment, with the Amendment to the Third Schedule, page 24, line 16, to leave out sub-paragraph (1) relates to non-county boroughs, and fulfils an undertaking which the Home Secretary gave in Standing Committee to make special provision with regard to street collections and house to house collections.
    The Amendment makes it clear that an amalgamation scheme has to make provision for the delegation to constituent authorities of any functions of the combined police authority in respect of street collections and house to house collections under the 1916 and the 1939 statutes. That will mean that a county borough which is included in an amalgamation scheme, although it ceases to have separate police powers, can continue to exercise the functions of a police authority under these statutes, under powers delegated to it by a combined police authority. A request was made in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) about the question of retaining power under Section 1 (4) of the House to House Collections Act, 1939, under which a chief officer of police has power to issue certificates of exception in respect to local collections, and it was desired that that power should be exercised by some responsible police officer in the borough as opposed to the chief constable in the county or a combined area.
    The answer to that question is that under Section 7 (2) of the Act of 1939 a
    1180
    chief officer of police has power to delegate his functions to an officer of a rank not below that of inspector. It is proposed to advise chief constables of county and combined forces that in the case of amalgamation schemes, where power is delegated under the scheme to constituent authorities in those cases where non-county boroughs retain their functions under these Acts and under the proposed Amendment to the Third Schedule, they shall delegate their functions under Section 1 (4) to the police officer who is in charge of the borough or division in which the borough is situated. The difficulty can well be met administratively, and no statutory prevision is necessary. It will be found that the Home Secretary, with this Amendment, and the Amendment to which I have referred in the case of the non-county boroughs, has implemented his promise.
    Mr. David Jones: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary for inserting this Amendment. It is held by the smaller non-county boroughs that these are functions peculiar to the non-county borough itself, and the provision which has been made is satisfactory.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out, "made before the appointed day."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment.
    Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a purely drafting Amendment to Subsection (4). I must confess that I cannot make head or tail of Subsection (4), with or without the words he proposes to omit from it. The Subsection states:
    " In relation to a borough comprised in a county to which an amalgamation scheme made before the appointed day applies, Section 1 of this Act shall have effect as if for references therein to the police area of the county, the county police force and the council of the county there were substituted respectively references to the combined area …"

    I cannot for the life of me see how Clause 1 of this Bill, which deals with the abolition of non-county borough forces, can in any way apply in the case of amalgamation schemes, because these non-county borough police forces will, by virtue of Clause 1, have been abolished, and therefore an amalgamation scheme

    1181
    under Clauses 3 or 4 can only relate to the county boroughs or to the county police forces. I must confess that, even leaving out the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to omit, I cannot see the meaning of the Subsection. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a little further explanation.
    Mr. Ede: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I would say that I am not quite sure how far an elucidation would be relevant to the Amendment.
    Mr. Peake: What is the effect of leaving out the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to omit?
    Mr. Ede: After the passage of the Bill it may be that certain county boroughs will, on the recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners, be reduced from county borough status to the status of non-county boroughs. Then they will, of course, lose their police powers, and a scheme for dealing with such a new non-county borough which was formerly a county borough, might be made after the appointed day for this Bill. It is necessary to have a provision in the Bill to meet such a contingency. Subsection (4) of this Clause is aimed at dealing with that situation. This Amendment to leave out the words "made before the appointed day" is moved because if that were not done, a special Act of Parliament would be required after the passing of the appointed day, in order to deal with the situation which would arise over a borough which, having ceased to be a county borough, had lost is police powers, and the county had no power to pick up the police powers which had been lost by the county borough. One might have the somewhat anomalous position of an area of a former county borough in which no one had any police powers which could be exercised.
    Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 3, line 42, leave out "Section one," and insert" the foregoing provisions."
    In page 4, line 2, leave out "that Section" and insert "Section one of this Act."—[Mr. Oliver.]

    CLAUSE 4.—Power of Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes.)
    7.0 p.m
    Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, after "a," to insert "county or."
    I would ask the House also to consider the following Amendments—in page 4, line 28, at the end to insert "county or "; in line 30, after the second "the," to insert" county or "; and in line 32, after "the," to insert "county or."
    These Amendments represent the fulfilment of the undertaking which was given in the Standing Committee that the proviso to Clause 4 (1) would be extended to apply to counties with a population of 100,000 as well as county boroughs. The effect is to give an absolute guarantee to counties with a population of 100,000 that they cannot be amalgamated against their will with an area with a larger population than their own.
    Mr. Grimston: As the hon. Gentleman says, this Amendment is the fulfilment of an undertaking, given in the Committee, to cover this point of bringing in counties as well as county boroughs, and I should like to thank him for it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, to leave out" one hundred," and to insert" sixty."
    Major Peter Roberts: On a point of Order. I would like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether it would be in Order to discuss, with this Amendment, the Amendment which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)—in page 4, line 31, to leave out from "area" to the end of the Subsection.
    Mr. Speaker: I think it might be convenient. I think the two Amendments cover the same ground.
    Mr. Grimston: When this Bill first went upstairs, there was no limitation on the scope and size of the amalgamations which might be brought about under it. In response to the feeling, which existed on all sides of the Committee, that this was too wide a power, and might leave the door ajar to too large amalgamations over the country, the Home Secretary met the

    1183
    Committee by inserting the proviso at the end of Clause 4 (1). Another Amendment was moved, also on the lines of that which we are now discussing. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee, if I indicated the difference between the two. Under the proviso which the Home Secretary has inserted, no county borough or county, in accordance with the Amendment which has just been accepted, with a population of 100,000 or more, can be amalgamated compulsorily with a county or county borough larger than that. Of course, that does go some distance in limiting the size of these amalgamations For these small mercies we thank the Home Secretary. In my opinion, however, it does not go far enough. I would prefer an absolute limitation of the size of amalgamations which can take place This would be achieved by the Amendment to which the hon. and gallant' Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts) has just referred. I would prefer that, but I want to say a word or two about the Amendment which I am moving. It would apply the Home Secretary's principle to boroughs and counties of 60,000 people. Here let me interpolate that the Home Secretary is again flying in the face of the recommendation of the Select Committee of this House which reported in 1932. It said:
    "… your committee therefore recommend that no county borough should be deprived of its rights to maintain a separate police force."
    Perhaps I might add also that we are, in some degree, departing from this recommendation, because within certain limits we are prepared to deprive county boroughs of that right. I would like to read to the House a list of the county boroughs which may be affected if the provision is left as it is with the limit of 100,000. They are county boroughs which may be compulsorily amalgamated against their will if the Bill is left in its present form. They are Newport, Wallasey, Burnley, Halifax, Reading, Northampton, Rochdale, York Grimsby, Ipswich, Wigan, Warrington, Oxford, Southport, Bootle,Rotherham Barnsley, Merthyr Tydfil, Bath, Lincoln, Barrow, Hastings, Tynemouth, Exeter and Don-caster. I think the House will agree that
    1184
    those are boroughs of importance. I know that misgivings have been aroused in their minds—if a borough can have a mind; the House will understand what I mean—by reason of some remarks which the Home Secretary made in the Committee. During that particular discussion it was thought that the right hon. Gentleman indicated that they were all going to fall under consideration for compulsory amalgamation. The purpose of this Amendment is to give those important places the same rights as those which places of 100,000 population now have under the proviso.
    There is another reason, which is that the instructions which have been given by Parliament to the Boundary Commission are to the effect that no county borough should, ordinarily, be deprived of its status as a county borough, unless its population is less than 60,000. I think it is wholly reasonable that the figure which has been chosen by Parliament, above which a county should not be deprived of its status, should also be incorporated in this Bill, and that county boroughs, of the size and importance I have indicated, should not be forcibly amalgamated with places larger than themselves without their consent. I believe that, without doing any damage to intentions, from the point of view of the efficiency of the police forces, the Home Secretary would do well to reduce this figure, particularly as it will bring the Bill into line with the instructions which Parliament has given as to status to the Boundary Commission.
    This to my mind is only a compromise. We would like to go further and give an absolute guarantee that there should be no amalgamations of county boroughs without their consent. I have given up any idea of the Home Secretary agreeing to that, but I think that we ought to insist that he goes this step further, and makes this provision that he has introduced applicable to places of 60,000 people, and over, instead of only to those of 100,000 people and over.
    Major Peter Roberts: I support the Amendment. My constituency is part of the city of Sheffield, which has a population of over 500,000, and, adjoining it, is the area of Rotherham, which has a population of under 100,000. I understand that, with regard to this Amendment, the figure chosen is 60,000. In the

    1185
    Committee upstairs, the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft) said that, if this Clause went through as it was, it would be possible for Rotherham and Sheffield to be amalgamated by the Home Secretary, because Sheffield, being above the size of Rotherham, could say nothing about it, and Rotherham, being below the size of Sheffield, could also say nothing about it. After reading the speech of the Home Secretary in Hansard, I thought that he showed no intention of trying to join Rotherham and Sheffield, but he went further and said there was a corridor, or some geographical area between the two. In point of fact, that is not so and there is a boundary of about three miles between Rotherham and Sheffield.
    Sheffield citizens, as far as I know, are very satisfied with their police force, which is very efficient and very well run, and I do not think that there is a desire on the part of anybody for a combined authority to be imposed upon them. I understand that the Minister does not intend to do this, but the Clause as it now stands will enable powers to be given into the hands of the Home Secretary, not, possibly, the present right hon. Gentleman, but those who come after him, and I can see no reason whatever why, if the right hon. Gentleman has these ideas, they should not go down in the Bill. I hope he will reconsider the matter and be able to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Stokes: I want to say a word on this Amendment. I do not entirely support it because I find myself in some difficulty in deciding what the figure should be. I do not really know how the Secretary of State arrives at the figure of 100,000; I am more in doubt how the proposers of the Amendment arrive at 60,000. My constituency has received honourable mention from the mover of the Amendment. We are in the somewhat precarious position that we now have a population of 93,000 with our boundaries about to be extended, and so, while I should not like to tie the Home Secretary down to a particular figure, I should have thought that it was reasonable to ask him to have regard to the circumstances of each case, and that, where there are populations very nearly approaching the figure which the right hon. Gentleman fixes, some assurance should be given to these county boroughs
    1186
    that they will not be forcibly amalgamated with other areas.
    7.15 p.m
    Mr. Grierson: I have been requested by people in my constituency to emphasise the view that the population figure ought to be nothing less than 60,000. Carlisle is a very ancient city, with a long historic background. I believe it is true to say that we have had organised government since the year 1240. We have a long tradition and a great deal of civic pride. Carlisle, geographically, is in an isolated position, and we feel that, in view of the importance of the city, which is the gateway to Scotland and has many problems which need a special organisation, we are definitely entitled to some consideration.
    The estimated population at the present time is somewhere in the region of 70,000, but it is true to say that, at the weekends, in our city, there is regularly a population of at least 100,000 people. During the war, we had an exceptional experience. We were a reception area, and, at that particular time, it was our duty to receive at least 7,500 evacuees. Furthermore, we have employed in that area, in the various factories that were commenced during the war, at least 3,500 people. I was at a meeting a few weeks ago, as a member of my local authority and there were at least go representative's present. I was amazed at the support given by the delegates present to the view that this amalgamation scheme ought to be annulled, but I feel that, in the circumstances, after having heard what was said, if I put the point of view of the city of Carlisle, I shall have played my part.
    We, in Carlisle, have been able, during the last few years, to build a modern police and fire station, equipped with all the modern amenities, as far as police work is concerned. In view of that, and of the fact that we have made special efforts in order to educate the members of the police force and give them all the necessary facilities, we may feel that, in Carlisle, we were playing a very important ' part in regard to police duties. We have, on many occasions, had various difficulties in the regulating of our traffic, and members of our police force have had to specialise in order to make themselves conversant with this particular aspect of their work. We have certain old charters

    1187
    and by-laws of a special character in our city, and I feel, therefore, that we would be doing a grave injustice if this Bill was passed in its present form limiting the population to 100,000. I sincerely hope the Home Secretary will give this point his very favourable consideration. I have, during the last few weeks, been approached by the Watch Committee with a view to ventilating their feelings here this evening, and I feel that, having done so, I have played my part.
    Mr. I. J. Pitman: I would like to urge that the Home Secretary should give way on this particular Amendment. I represent one of the cities that has received honourable mention, and I have been specially asked to urge the Home Secretary in this particular direction. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen the figure of 100,000, and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has asked why it should be 60,000. It is not merely that the figure of 60,000 suits all the parties interested, but it is, I understand, laid down in the instructions given to the Boundary Commission by this House that the particular figure of 60,000 was chosen as the one for which no loss of county borough amenities or rights should be suffered. Therefore, I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt that precedent and choose the figure of 60,000.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have ruled that a discussion may take place on the following Amendment standing on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of some of my hon. Friends—
    In page 4, line 28, after "upwards,'' insert
    " or where a county borough has an authorised establishment of more than one hundred."
    —during the discussion on the Amendment which is now before the House. The purpose of the Amendment standing in my name is to limit the powers of the Home Secretary in ordering a compulsory amalgamation in the case of county boroughs which have a police establishment 01 over 100 persons. In Committee the Home Secretary, in dealing with this particular point, said:
    " It will be noticed that in the two following Amendments a further criterion is estab-
    1183
    lished—a police force with an establishment of 100. The reason I did not include that in my Amendment is that the size of the police force is determined by the Secretary of State. He authorises the establishment, and therefore, if there were a police force with, say, an establishment of 102, it would not be within the power of this hypothetical Secretary of State, who was anxious to do the unreasonable thing, to reduce the size of that police force to 99." —[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 31st January, 1946; c. 87.]
    I agree that that is absolutely true, as the Home Secretary has stated, but I do feel that the right hon. Gentleman who endeavoured to reduce a police force from 102 to 99 under conditions such as that, would be seriously challenged by this House before it would permit him to do such a low-down, dirty trick. I am perfectly certain that the present Home Secretary, by including in the Bill the words suggested in my Amendment, would carry out the intention quite honourably and I am sure he would not resort to the trick of reducing an establishment, so as to effect amalgamation.
    My own constituency and that of Hastings axe county boroughs, and we cater very largely for holiday traffic. We have a winter season and a summer season. During the year there are very few months when our population is not over 100,000 persons. Our stable population is only 59,000, so that we are not covered by the 60,000 Amendment. Our average all the year round population is clearly in excess of the 100,000 mentioned and that is why in my own constituency, in Hastings and in other county boroughs, we have what appears to be a very large police force for the size of the borough. This is an extremely reasonable Amendment, and I hope the Home Secretary will deal with the case when he comes to reply. There is one further point I. would make. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson), said that, having ventilated the case of his constituency, he thought he had done his duty and need do nothing more about the matter. May I assure him that his duty is not completed until he goes into the Lobby, to support the views, which he has so ably expressed in the House?
    Mr. Deer: I appeal to the Home Secretary to give consideration to the question of the status of the county boroughs which have for so long had police powers and have used those powers reasonably and satisfactorily, even if he

    1189
    cannot give consideration to the figure of 60,000 mentioned in the Amendment. I raise this question because my own constituency, the City of Lincoln, was mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment. In the case of Lincoln, which is both a Cathedral city and an industrial city, we are surrounded by a large rural area whose problems, both in regard to police and everything else, are entirely dissimilar to that of my constituency. I mentioned the fact upstairs that we were regarded as an oasis in a desert. Politically speaking, the deserts are beginning to alter, but the important thing is that we should be very upset and worried if we had to give up a very efficient police force and transfer, at the behest of the Home Office, to a standing joint committee who are not so democratically controlled and whose functions are run by a nominated body, partly elected by county quarter sessions and partly by county councils. I am convinced that if the Home Secretary will give us the assurance we need, he can have a speedy passage of the general provisions of his Bill.
    The important thing to me is that although a case may be made out for joining authorities who have common interests, a case cannot be made out for the amalgamation of a long established county borough whose interests are entirely different from the police authorities surrounding it. That sort of thing does not make for efficiency, because both the county authorities and the county borough authorities have to use the services of the special departments, such as the forensic laboratory at Nottingham, and so on, in pursuance of their ordinary work. But we are placed in the dilemma of having to vote against the Government on this because, although many of our constituencies are controlled by people of the same complexion as those on this side of the House, they feel that if they give way on this issue they will put themselves under the control of very reactionary rural and county authorities. I hope that the Home Secretary will have special regard to this plea. Even though he cannot accept the figure of 60,000, he ought to give us an assurance that county boroughs will not lose their status. The fact that in the Boundary Commission's recommendation no authority of over 60,000 is to lose its county borough status ought to be sufficient for him to
    1190
    give consideration to the plea put forward by both sides of the House to see that the very efficient police organisations of county boroughs are maintained.
    7.30 p.m.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Unlike some hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, my constituency is not in the least interested in this matter and, therefore, perhaps, I may put another point of view. I very well remember the discussions in this House when the recommendation of the Boundary Commission was under review. I would ask the Home Secretary to consider taking no action in regard to this Bill which might prejudice the position of county boroughs which are at present immune from the consideration of the Commission. I recognise the importance of police mobility and such things, and that one does not want to multiply police forces unnecessarily. The county boroughs which were particularly excluded, which were, in other words, made safe by this House, should not now be placed in jeopardy. It would be very difficult for those who appeared before the Boundary Commission and gave evidence if we now prejudiced the situation by any action contrary to what this House then decided. It is wrong for Parliament to override a decision which was reached after a great deal of discussion, when the figure 60,000 was arrived at.
    Mr. Younger: I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer). I represent another borough in the county of Lincoln. I would ask the Home Secretary to explain exactly why he alighted upon the figure of 100,000. I agree that it is difficult to hit upon any particular figure, but I should have thought that the 60,000 of the Boundary Commission had distinct relevance. If that figure is not to be maintained we should be told why by the Home Secretary. If my right hon. Friend should think it impossible to insert 60,000 into the Bill I would ask him to let it be placed on record, and that he should give us some assurance, that in considering county boroughs with a population of less than 100,000 he will take into account special circumstances relating to those boroughs. My constituency is a seaport and fishing port. Its police problems would be unfamiliar to any police personnel who might come in from outside. If the Home Secretary would give us the assurance

    1191
    that conditions of that kind will be taken fully into account he would allay the very real fears that exist in many county boroughs. No doubt those circumstances would be taken into account in a local inquiry, but it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could make a statement on the subject
    Mr. Maude: I would like to present one farther argument in favour of the alteration of this figure. Can Lincoln speak, and Exeter remain silent? Lincoln is a parvenu compared with the great cities of Exeter and Carlisle. Nevertheless, I look across to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer) with great affection and admiration for what he has said on behalf of the other cities besides his own. I am prepared to admit that 100,000 is a good round figure and that it is probably helpful to have something in hand in this matter. It is not unhelpful for some of these boroughs, even if they are very ancient, to have something in hand so as to keep up to the mark. I do not think it would be unfair to say that simply to sing"Auld Lang Syne" and get away with it, is completely out of date. One must face facts and recognise that we may have to have changes. Nevertheless, Exeter is not an oasis in the middle of the desert. We are rather a desert in the middle of an oasis and are having a miserable time trying to rehouse ourselves. I am making no capital out of that fact and am not trying to blame anybody. We are having a very thin time. I do not want to see', at the end of this Debate when the Bill passes on, my city in a position to say, "Good gracious, now we may be faced with forced amalgamation of our police force."
    Our citizens feel very strongly, because they have done well with their city. They have a first-rate police force. They do not base their arguments only on that ground. They say: "We are coming somewhere near the border line and we do not believe that the Home Secretary intends to amalgamate us. On the other hand, we appreciate that it is very difficult for him. At some later stage it might become expedient." I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give all of us some assurance that the attitude of mind of himself may be represented in this way: "I have plenty of material here for the experiment "—it is largely
    1192
    an experiment—" and there is no reason to feel apprehensive. If, in fact, it should be a very successful experiment it might nevertheless still be true that there is no reason for apprehension on the part of these county boroughs who are on the border line. Indeed, they may remain quite calm and they may be satisfied that at the present moment there is nothing at all to worry about."
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to go as far as that. It is rather farther than he has been urged heretofore. He has been asked to take into consideration special circumstances, but this is something rather more than that. We do not want to be bothered with something extra put on the local authorities and upon the minds of the citizens in the shape of extra worry and annoyance which will only cause local strife. I therefore support the plea which has been put forward humbly, with great reasonableness and with great good temper.
    Mr. Paget: I represent the ancient and famous borough of Northampton and I rise to say that it is worried. The trouble is that at the last estimate by the Registrar-General, our evacuees had left us and our Service people had not came pack and that, although our average population is over 100,000, our particular population, as referred to and defined in the Clause, was shown to be just under 100,000. My watch committee are very proud, justifiably, of a well-organised police force, which has served the borough well for a large number of years. It has very different problems from those of the rural police force of the county. The watch committee are worried that the fate of the police force should even be threatened. They were anxious that I should put down an Amendment to the Clause, after Registrar-General" to add:
    " at any time within a period of five years preceding the appointed day."
    I did not think it necessary to do so, because I feel confident that the Home Secretary will give us an assurance that, in the application of this admittedly arbitrary figure of 100,000, our average population will be taken into consideration and that advantage will not be taken of a temporary decrease in population which will be altered at a subsequent date. I earnestly ask the Home Secretary

    1193
    to give Northampton that assurance and to say, without any necessity for my going in for an Amendment, that the average population will be taken into consideration and that the decrease will not be a ground for partial amalgamation.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I am sorry to introduce a different" note into these very harmonious proceedings but I propose to ask the House to reject the Amendment. I believe that, in the interests of good government, it is important that police forces should be larger than some of them have been in the past I realise that many hon. Members feel strongly on this matter and I sympathise with them. Local patriotism is very important and we should encourage it, but I want to assure them that their fears are not justified and that if these proposals go through, they will lose nothing at all. I represent one half of a county borough of 211,400 people, and we have no police force at all under our jurisdiction. Therefore, if a county borough of that size can be run happily and without any trouble, why should there be qualms about county boroughs of a much smaller size? The police in our county borough come under the Metropolitan Police Force. There is no chief constable, but there is a superintendent. I regret to say I cannot tell the House the strength of the police force. I have inquired from the local police, from Scotland Yard and from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but none of them can, or will, tell me the strength. I cannot imagine that they do not know and, therefore, I must assume that the barbarous wartime practice of maintaining secrecy is being continued into the days of peace. However, I think it can be assumed that it consists of a superintendent, a few inspectors, some sergeants and a number of men, and they function very satisfactorily indeed. When we have civic functions, the superintendent takes the place of the chief constable in other forces.
    If these small boroughs lose their forces, what difference will it make? It will not make a scrap of difference to them. Not a single undergraduate more will go to Oxford if there happens to be a local force there, and not a single undergraduate less will go there if there is not a local force in control. Is anyone going to tell me that people are going to Eastbourne, because there is a local police
    1194
    force there, or that people are not going to Eastbourne because there is not a local police force there?
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: We have been amalgamated during the war for wartime purposes. We have had experience of amalgamation and we have had experience of having our own police force; we prefer to have our own police force.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I think it is a dangerous argument, because it seems to me that the duty of a police officer is to carry out the law. What is the point in objecting to an amalgamated force? Is it thought that if these amalgamated police forces have full control, the police will carry out the law? Is that the fear? For these reasons I ask this House to consider this matter very seriously, because it is an important matter of administration. Having had some experience of association with the police, I know the big forces feel strongly in this matter when they see chief constables of little forces, with not nearly as many men in them as an ordinary inspector in the Metropolitan Police has under him.
    745 P.m
    Mr. Mikardo: Like the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), my constituency has no direct interest in this matter, although the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) did list it among those boroughs with a population of less than 100,000. In fact, it has a population of much more than 100,000, but, at least, the hon. Gentleman's error was unwitting and drew attention to an important point. The hon. Gentleman's error was unwitting, because this is a borough whose population has changed markedly and in a short time, and this is only one example of a number of causes of population change. We have heard from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) of seasonal population changes, and we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Grierson) of weekend population changes, no doubt due to the amenities of his city partly as a result of an experiment in nationalisation which attracts people from North of the city. We have heard also from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) of anomalies in populations which are very close to a given figure, and we have heard from my

    1195
    hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) of a population which fluctuates just above and just below a given figure.
    The arguments for this Amendment have tended to support not a figure of 60,000 as against 100,000, but the contention that any arbitrary figure must be wrong and must create anomalies. If this is so, and since the function of the House at this moment is to decide only between two figures, then let us choose the figure which will create fewer anomalies. The lower one goes down the population scale, the more boroughs are affected, and, therefore, the greater is the number of potential anomalies arising out of the enforcement of an arbitrary boundary. On those purely technical grounds alone, I would say that a figure of 60,000 is not as good as a figure of 100,000 and, for that matter, a figure of 100,000 is not as good as a figure of 200,000. For that reason, I beg the Home Secretary to resist the Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: I will endeavour to restore to the proceedings the harmony which was so rudely disturbed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams). I accept all the testimonials that have been given to their constituents by the hon. Members who have reason to feel grateful to their constituents. I would point out that some of the arguments that have been adduced can hardly be regarded seriously. I am told to have regard to the fact that at weekends Carlisle has a population of 100,000. I live in the borough of Epsom, and on the first Wednesday in June we shall have a population rather larger than that of Birmingham. I make no claims in respect of that. I have been asked to give attention to the claims of cathedral cities, but I thought the days for taking restrictive action against turbulent priests had long since passed.
    Let us examine exactly what is proposed to be done. The argument has proceeded on the basis that some Secretary of State will descend on a county borough of between 60,000 and 100,000 in population, will promote a compulsory amalgamation scheme, and forthwith the borough will be amalgamated. That is not by any means the situation. Let us assume that a compulsory amalgamation
    1196
    scheme is, in fact, promoted. If the authorities to be amalgamated agree, the scheme can then go through, but if one of them disagrees an inquiry has to be held. I have gone further than any Minister has previously gone in my endeavour -to ensure that the inquiry shall be held by a person of as complete impartiality as it is possible to obtain. I did agree on the Second Reading that it should not be an inspector of police or an officer of any Government Department. In the Committee stage of the Bill I suggested that this person should be taken from a panel, to be drawn up in consultation with the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association, so that the person holding the inquiry would be one whose efficiency and knowledge would already have been approved by the local authority associations most concerned.
    I think that was a concession which ought to be made in view of the anxiety which is felt by many hon. Members of the House that this Bill might be used to promote a national police force, or possibly large forces outside the Metropolitan police area of the same size as the Metropolitan Police Force I have no such desire myself. I have as great a dread of the "police State" as any hon. Member in the House, and perhaps with more reason than some That is not the end of it. The report of this inspector has to be presented to the House, so that the Secretary of State cannot smother the findings of the inspector if they are unfavourable to his views The House of Commons will then have in front of it, before the scheme comes into operation, the findings of an inspector who has been selected from the panel which I have described. I think that that indicates it will not merely be the desire of some Secretary of State that will determine whether these amalgamations take place or not.
    I am bound to say that I am almost overwhelmed by the compliments that have been paid me with regard to my own good sense in the matter. I recognise that lion. Members opposite really dread what may happen when in the distant future they have to provide a Secretary of State to carry out the powers that I am going to confer upon him by this Bill. However, it is not, as might have been thought from a good many of the speeches, the mere -whim of a Secretary of State

    1197
    which is to determine this matter. It will be only after an inquiry, more protected from Government prejudice than any similar inquiry that has ever been held under a Statute of the House, that any amalgamation can possibly take place. I hesitate to call this a wrecking Amendment, because the hon. Gentleman and I got on so well upstairs that it would be almost imputing a motive to suggest that this was designed to wreck the Bill. However, I would point out to him—and it is a thing that has been forgotten in the course of this Debate—that I have included already in the Bill, on the motion of my hon. Friend the Undersecretary, an Amendment to the part of the Bill we are now discussing, which brings the counties as well as the county boroughs into the 100,000 limit. If I were to accept this Amendment of 60,000 it would apply to counties as well as to county boroughs. It is safe to say that the effect of this Amendment would be that no amalgamation scheme worth while could be carried through in the country at all, because it limits it with regard to both counties and county boroughs.
    I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) and others to give an assurance that the special circumstances of a borough would be taken into account. Let me assure him, and also the representatives of the counties, that before promoting a compulsory scheme, the first step will be, if a voluntary scheme is not brought forward by adjoining authorities, that a conference will be held with the authorities whom the Secretary of State may desire to amalgamate, to put before them the reasons why in his opinion it is desirable that in that particular area a joint police force should be set up. If they consent, again all will be well. If not, there will still be all the processes which I have indicated to be gone through. One must assume that in all these matters the special circumstances of areas will be borne in mind before any consideration is given to whether an amalgamation scheme ought to be promoted or not. For instance I cannot think that the people of Northampton are really as worried as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) represented. Fancy the constituents of Bradlaugh and Labouchere being worried about a matter of this kind, especially
    1198
    when they are represented by my hon. Friend. After all, it is an ascending order of merit which I have mentioned. A very good case to take here is, I think, a county borough which has at the moment approximately 100,000 people. I do want to point out that I have endeavoured to ensure that the utmost reason shall be observed in the matter. It is the last Registrar-General's estimate which is to be taken. That is to say, the moment the Registrar-General estimates that a borough has over 100,000 people it will become exempt from compulsory amalgamation.
    The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) referred to the question of the considerations given to the Boundary Commission. Do let us be quite clear what they are. They are, that no authority which has now the status of a county borough council should be reduced below that status to non-county borough status if its population is over 60,000. Many county boroughs are in all sorts of joint schemes, not merely for police but for other purposes. It does not by any means prove that an authority is not capable of exercising county borough council powers merely because, for one reason or another, it has agreed to take part in a joint scheme with neighbouring authorities. There is a very wide range of public services over which joint committees operate, and to which the various county boroughs, county and other councils appoint their representatives without anyone suggesting that the appointing council is incapable of discharging its proper functions.
    Sir R. Glyn: If the right hon. Gentleman would forgive me for interrupting, may I say the point is the question of a compulsory scheme? I quite agree there is nothing to stop them getting together on a voluntary basis.
    Mr. Ede: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member will find that is so always. There are plenty of provisional order schemes that have been promoted to cover these cases. Already eight county boroughs have voluntarily amalgamated themselves with the counties in which they are situated, and I should hesitate to think that Bournemouth, which is one of them, is not as efficiently policed as either Eastbourne or Hastings.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is not comparing Bournemouth with Eastbourne, is he?
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I am. I have been to both places, and for more than a weekend, and I doubt very much whether any one going into either place could tell that the one was policed by an amalgamated constabulary while the other used to be policed by its own independent constabulary.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer), and one or two other hon. Members, used the argument that this would place the county under what was described as "a reactionary police authority." It was because of that anomaly that the Bill was drafted as it is. At the moment, the only way in which an amalgamation can take place is by the absorption of a borough force in a county force. The eight county boroughs to which I have alluded have all had to agree that their borough force shall be absorbed into the county police force. I desire to avoid that situation, and that is why I have drafted the Bill in the way I have. In the case of an amalgamation, whether voluntary or compulsory, the effect of the wording of the Bill will be that in future the two or more police authorities to be amalgamated will retain the right of appointing their own representatives to the police authority. It will not be an absorption of a borough into a county, if the arrangement is that a county borough and county are to be amalgamated; there will be so many representatives for the county borough and so many for the county, and, as I explained on an earlier Amendment, I am very anxious to leave the arrangement so wide that the best possible people from each of the constituent authorities can be selected to sit on the joint police authority.
    Colonel Wheatley: Does that mean to say that only a portion of the standing joint committee will be the police authority?
    Mr. Ede: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member was present earlier in the evening when I dealt with the question of the way the representatives might be selected. Let us suppose that an amalgamation is proposed involving a county borough and a county.
    1200
    have promised this evening that the representatives of the county borough shall be selected from members of the county borough council. The representatives of the county police authority will be drawn from the members of the county council and from the justices sitting in Quarter Sessions, so that the representatives of the county borough will all be county borough councillors and the representatives of the county will be drawn from those people who, at the moment, are responsible for appointing the members of the standing joint committee.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Are we to understand that the future standing joint committee will not be composed of, say, one half elected representatives of the people and the other half nominated persons? If I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says, the representatives of the county borough which is amalgamated or absorbed into the county will be elected representative of that borough council. If the elected representatives of the borough council sit side by side with the standing joint committee, am I correct in inferring that there will be a majority of elected representatives on the standing joint committee?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not think the hon. Member has quite realised exactly what I have said. It would all depend upon the respective size of the county borough and the county. I think, in most cases, the effect would be that on the new joint police authority a majority of the members would be either county borough councillors or aldermen, or county councillors or aldermen, with, in most cases, a number of county justices equal to the number of county councillors and aldermen, selected in reference to each of the counties concerned. If the amalgamation is between a county borough and a county of approximately equal size, that would mean that two-thirds of the representation would be from local authorities and one-third from the county justices. It would in every case depend upon the proportionate representation assigned to the county borough and county concerned, and that in the main would be arranged roughly in proportion to the populations involved.
    I have given very careful consideration to this figure of 100,000, and I have selected it because it is the figure at which,

    1201
    it has been decided by this House, a new county borough shall be constituted. Existing non-county boroughs and urban districts with populations of under 100,000 cannot be made into new county boroughs, and it is therefore quite clear that this House, which has steadily raised this figure since 1888, when it started at 50,000, has decided that 100,000 is the figure at which an area can expect to get and retain county borough status. The House has also stated that only under exceptional circumstances should county boroughs with a population of less than 60,000 be allowed to retain that status. The effect of this Amendment, therefore, would be, when the boundary commissioners have completed their report, that it would be impossible to amalgamate any county borough, no matter how strong the case and no matter what the report of an inspector if he was allowed to go and hold an inquiry. In this matter it is essential that we should have regard first to the .public service. It is the efficiency of the public service which alone is a justification for government, either national or local. As one who has given 40 years to local government, I want to say in all sincerity that one of the things that sometimes makes it very difficult to justify the continuance of certain local government powers is the way in which the very often legitimate pride of a local authority causes it to stand in the way of efficient amalgamation and efficient co-operative and joint use of powers with surrounding authorities.
    The House may rest assured of this, that these powers will not be put into motion except after the most careful scrutiny and consideration. If any Secretary of State, having given that careful scrutiny and consideration, should propose a scheme for any local authority whose population is less than 100,000, and that local authority does not like it, his proposal will have to stand the scrutiny of the investigation that I have described. I venture to say that that is an ample safeguard to ensure that the particular requirements of seaport towns, or cathedral cities, and other places with peculiar problems, will be legitimately considered before any decision is taken in the matter.
    Mr. Peake: I have a great admiration for the Parliamentary gifts of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I
    1202
    nearly always find his arguments persuasive, and sometimes I have very nearly found them convincing. But I have never heard him less persuasive or less convincing than he has been this evening in answering this Amendment. He stresses the safeguards in the Clause. There is to be a local inquiry; the inspector has to make a report; there is provision for a negative Resolution of the House of Commons. That is true. But if there are all these safeguards in the Clause why has the right hon. Gentleman introduced the limitation of a population of 100,000 into the Bill? Let hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cast their minds back to the origin of this Amendment. The House discussed the Second Reading of this Bill on 1st November last. This question of police amalgamations is an issue which cuts across party lines. There was a general desire in the Debate on the Second Reading, therefore, upon a subject possibly embarrassing to hon. Members, that we should, if possible, avoid a Division.
    At that time the Clause we are now discussing contained no ceiling whatsoever to the size or scale or the numbers of the amalgamations which might be carried through on the instigation of the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary wound up the Debate with his usual charming and bluff good humour, but he did not answer the one important question which was put to him for an answer. It was, Would he introduce some limitation into the Bill to the scale of the amalgamations which might be undertaken? At the end of the Debate I rose in my seat and asked whether he would be kind enough to answer the question I put to the Government, whether they would set some limit to the objectives they had regarding the size of amalgamations. The hon. Gentleman replied that we should have an opportunity of discussing this matter with the local authorities. I thought that was treating the House of Commons rather badly. We were not to be told whether the Government would or would not introduce any limiting Amendment. We were told it was a matter which would be discussed with the local authorities. During the Committee stage, presumably after discussing this matter with the local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman inserted in the Bill a ceiling to these powers of amalgamation.

    1203
    He has chosen a yardstick of the population of the area and given protection to those police areas where the population exceeds 100,000. For my part I should have much preferred the yardstick embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) which is also, I understand, being discussed along with the Amendment now before the Committee. That yardstick is the numerical size of the police force concerned. After all, if one was seeking for the efficiency of the police by means of amalgamation, I should have thought that the number of police officers in the force was a better yardstick to choose for putting a limit to units than the population of the area which that police force has to look after. However, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary turned down the yardstick of the numerical strength of the force in the Committee stage, and brought forward this proposal for a limit of 100,000 with reference to the population of the area. The effect of his proposal is to give absolute protection against amalgamation against their wishes to a substantial number of county boroughs and county police forces. It protects 38 out of 73 county borough forces and it protects all but 15 out of a total of 58- county forces. The question before the House at this moment, is therefore, Is that degree of protection sufficient?
    8.15 p.m.
    Our Amendment is to set the population limit at 60,000 in place of 100,000 proposed by the Home Secretary. Incidentally, our proposal would result in giving protection to a very large number of those police forces where the strength is over 100 constables, which are not protected in the proposal made by the Home Secretary. Our Amendment would, as my hon. Friend, in moving it, told the House, protect an additional 25 county boroughs. My hon. Friend gave the list, and I do not think I need give it again since most of the representatives of those county boroughs are in the Chamber at the moment. Further it would protect five more of the counties, making all the county forces safe from amalgamation except 10.
    I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that this Amendment would wreck the Bill. After all, this Bill contains a good many other Clauses
    1204
    besides Clause 4. Clause 1, as we know, abolishes non-county borough police forces altogether. That will be left to the right hon. Gentleman. Clause 3, which widens the scope for voluntary amalgamation, will still be left to him, and there will still be a considerable field for amalgamation put forward by the Home Secretary under Clause 4 of the Bill. Since the declared object of the right hon. Gentleman is to build efficient units broadly on the structure of the county boroughs and of the counties I really cannot see why he should not accept this Amendment. After all, it was the ineptitude or inexperience of -the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary which forced us into the Division lobby on the Second Reading. A Division could easily have been avoided, had he said that the Government proposed, during the Committee stage, to set some ceiling to the size of the amalgamated force. The right hon. Gentleman is, I am afraid, going to force us into the same position again tonight. I could have hoped that he would put up his Under-Secretary this evening to make good the error into which he fell during the Second Reading Debate, to say that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment giving protection to the additional 25 county boroughs and five counties.
    What is the argument in favour of compulsory amalgamation over a wide area? The whole object of this Bill is to promote efficiency in the police force, but, in promoting efficiency, you must have regard to local pride and local traditions. In most of these 25 county boroughs, whose police forces may be abolished if our Amendment is not incorporated in the Bill, it could be said that they are places with a long history and tradition; one could go further and say that nearly all of them have had police forces for more than 100 years—I think all of them have had police forces for more than 80 years. They are all substantial places, and many of them have more than 100 constables in their forces. I am of the opinion, and I do not speak without some little experience at the Home Office, that a force of 100 constables could be a highly efficient force If the right hon. Gentleman will permit some forces of the size of 80 or 100 constables to remain in being, he would not in any way be prejudicing the efficiency of the police. The argument was produced during the Committee stage,

    1205
    that police areas must be increased because of the mobility of the modern criminal. The idea seemed to be that the police constable, chasing a thief on a motor bicycle or in a motor car, stopped at the borough boundary and waved him good-bye. That, of course, does not happen, because there is admirable liaison between the different boroughs and county police forces; they are heavily interlocked in districts such as the West Riding of Yorkshire, or the County of Lancashire.
    Then, there is the argument that you must have bigger units because all sorts of means and methods are at the disposal of the criminals today which he could not have employed before. I venture to say that that also is a completely fallacious argument. Never in the course of our history has a burglar been at such a disadvantage compared with the police than at the present time. In the days of Dick Turpin the criminal had a horse and the policeman had a horse; in the days of Charles Peace, I do not know what they had, but they certainly had no motor-cars or motor-cycles. Not only have the police all the equipment at their disposal which the criminal has, but they are a long way ahead of the criminal. There has been much complaint for a long time past from the burgling fraternity that methods like finger prints, blood tests and radio are most unfair and quite out of keeping with the principles of the game as it used to be played. The argument that because we have the telephone, the telegraph and the radio the burglar is at a greater advantage than he was in the past, is completely fallacious. It is possible to have a highly efficient police force of 70, 80, 90 or 100 constables, all of which are sufficiently large to give a good man a chance to come forward and obtain promotion.
    The right hon. Gentleman used two other arguments about which I think I ought to say a word. He said, if our Amendment were accepted, that no scheme of amalgamation which was worth while could be made. Really that, I think, is a considerable over-statement. This narrows the field of compulsory amalgamation to a certain extent, but it does not shut it completely. It still leaves a field in which compulsory amalgamation can operate. The right hon. Gentleman went on to argue that he had chosen 100,000 because it had been laid down
    1206
    for the guidance of the Boundary Commissioners, that they should enforce the county borough status in future upon any area which did not have a population of that size. This is a case of abolishing a police force, and that rule does not apply. The rule laid down for the guidance of the Boundary Commissioners is that they must not recommend the deprivation of county borough status for any area which has a population of more than 60,000. Surely that is exactly comparable with the case which we are putting forward; that is to say no area shall have its police force taken away against its will if the area has more than 60,000. For myself, I would have preferred a yardstick based on the number of constables in the force. The right hon. Gentleman has refused that, and he has taken the yardstick of population, setting his figure at 100,000. If we are to have a yardstick based on population, then 60,000 is a better number to choose than 100,000 It will preserve a number of admirable police forces, and will not wreck the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has presented.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Unlike a number of my hon. Friends. I did not have the pleasure and enjoyment of taking part in the discussions on this matter in Committee. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is leaving the House. [Interruption.] I am not asking him to come back.
    Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member address his remarks to the Chair:
    Mr. Davies: I must avail myself of this opportunity to say how profoundly and absolutely I disagree with my right hon. Friend and with the case which he has attempted to make out this evening. If my right hon. Friend continues to resist this Amendment it will considerably affect Wales. There are seven counties there whose population is under 100,000. These seven counties are adjoining, and each one varies extensively in size and population. Each one can be deprived, if this Amendment is not accepted, of any control which they have as counties over their present police forces. I know that my right hon. Friend has a considerable sense of humour, and I think it must be that sense of humour which prompted him this afternoon to describe this Amendment as being almost a wrecking

    1207
    Amendment. That is rather amusing having regard to what has already happened in the House today. Already he has deprived every borough in this country, notwithstanding any pride which it may have in its own police force, of any control over that force, and now he is afraid of another wrecking being perpetrated as the result of this Amendment, when he has already wrecked as many county boroughs as he can.
    8.30 p.m.
    There are 34 county boroughs whose control over their police forces is threatened if this Amendment is not accepted. If it is accepted, that number will be reduced to nine. This Bill, from beginning to end, is a wrecking Bill. My right hon. Friend knows that only too well, and the only excuse he has given us in resisting this and other Amendments is that he stands for the efficiency of the police forces. Not once during the long discussion on this Amendment has he given, if he could give, any idea as to what he understands by the word "efficiency." I am driven to the conclusion that the reason why he resists this Amendment is because he confuses efficiency with size on the assumption that the more numerous and more congested a population, the more efficient is its police force.
    I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his attitude on this matter. His stonewalling of these major Amendments —this is one of them—will, to put it mildly, not endear him to hon. Members in this House. My right hon. Friend took a great deal of time to tell us, "I have done more in this Bill than has any other Home Secretary to protect the police authorities in this country." That, I would say, is a piece of effrontery. What he should have told us is this: "I am doing more than any other Home Secretary in the history of the police forces of this country to wreck those police forces." [Interruption.] I am not getting in a bad temper because my own police force is being threatened. But I am entitled to ask the Home Secretary why he should threaten that police force and threaten to merge it and lose it in a county police force.
    Mr. Ede: What I am doing is to protect the Merthyr Tydfil force from suffering on the assumption—and it must not be taken
    1208
    that the assumption is a sound one—that if Merthyr Tydfil were amalgamated with either of the counties which it adjoins, the police force would not be amalgamated with and absorbed into the county police force but would become part of a joint police authority on which the Merthyr Tydfil Council would have the right of appointing representatives. If it would help the hon. Member, I will promise him that, in the unlikely event of such an amalgamation taking place, I will see that a seat on the new police authority is reserved for the mayor of the borough.
    Mr. Davies: I shall be very happy to convey to the Mayor of Merthyr Tydfil the kindly concern which my right hon. Friend has shown for him. I do not think that any of us is impressed by the promise made by my right hon. Friend that it will not be a merger but an amalgamation. The sprat will be amalgamated with the shark. A county borough of 70,000 population cannot be amalgamated with a county with a population approaching 1,000,000. Only one thing can happen—it will be swallowed by it, and the county borough knows it only too well: I am sorry my right hon. Friend has been so obdurate. I dislike the Bill intensely and I hope to have something more to say on that later. I am surprised and disappointed that he is resisting without reason, without argument and without case the Amendments which have been submitted, most of which have been inspired not that this borough or that county borough may retain its police force, but because of the profound fear that exists that this is but the first step towards the destruction of local government in this country.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: I have no constituency matter to raise in relation to this Bill or this Amendment but I hope very much that when the Home Secretary replies, which I imagine he will do—
    Mr. Ede: I have already replied.
    Mr. Brown: In that case I hope that a supplementary reply will be forthcoming on this question of identifying size with efficiency. There is no more vulgar modern heresy than that which confuses size with virtue. It is a very pronounced heresy and a very widespread one, and it may be that it is invading the terms of this Bill. It is not true to say that a

    1209
    big country is necessarily better than a little one. I think that the world owes much more to Greece than to America. It is not true to say that a big union is better than a small one or a big shop is better than a little one. I call Heaven to witness that no man conducts his courtship on the basis that the bigger the woman the better. I do not say that efficiency and virtue reside in size. I am open to conviction. If the Home Secretary or the Undersecretary can convince me that a unit of 100,000 is better than 60,000 then I am willing to be convinced, but I am not at all impressed that we ought to pass it, because to my commonsense and practical mind it appears to be probable that there is some relation between the number of '' coppers '' and the size of the population. It is not a mathematical relation. Speaking for myself, I may say that I find the degree of attention which I get from the police is pretty uniform no matter which part of the country I go to. On this point of whether 100,000 or 60,000 makes the better force I am open to conviction, but I would say that there is truth in the poet's remark:
    " The Lord speaks in the voice of little things."
    If I may also quote from a great fellow-countryman of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. 0. Davies):
    " The world owes much to little nations and to little men."
    As I have said, I am open to conviction on the argument that the larger unit makes for efficiency. That is the point of the Amendment. I think the House does require to be convinced that a force of 100,000 makes for greater efficiency than one of 60,000, and that we are not crushing local associations of long standing and merging little police forces in wider bodies on the plea of higher efficiency. I do not know whether any Government spokesman is going to speak. [Hon. Members: "Vote."] Hon. Members want to vote? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] Then Heaven forbid that I should stand in the way.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 112.

    Division No. 100.]

    AYES.

    [8.43 p.m.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Collick, P.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

    Collins, V. J

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

    Allen, A C. (Bosworth)

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Gunter, Capt. R. J.

    Attewell, H. G.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Guy, W. H.

    Austin, H. L.

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Ayles, W. H.

    Daggar, G.

    Hale, Leslie

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Daines, P.

    Hall, W G. (Colne Valley)

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

    Baird, Capt. J.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Balfour, A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

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

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Barstow, P. G.

    Diamond, J.

    Haworth, J.

    Barton, C.

    Dobbin, W.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Battley, J. R.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Herbison, Miss M

    Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

    Douglas, F. C. R.

    Hewitson. Capt. M.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Hicks, G.

    Belcher, J. W.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Bellenger, F. J

    Dye, S.

    House; G.

    Benson, G

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hoy, J.

    Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

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

    Hubbard, T.

    Binns, J.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

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

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

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

    Blyton, W. R.

    Ewart, R.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Irving, W. J.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

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

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A.

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

    Follick, M.

    Janner, B.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Foot, M. M.

    Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

    Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)

    Foster, W. (Wigan)

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

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    John, W.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Freeman, Maj. J (Watford)

    Jones, A C. (Shipley)

    Buchanan, G.

    Gallacher, W.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Burden, T. W

    Gibbins, J

    Keenan, W.

    Burke, W. A.

    Gibson, C. W

    Kenyon, C.

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

    Gilzean, A.

    King, E. M

    Champion, A. J.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Kinley, J

    Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

    Gooch, E. G.

    Kirby, B. V

    Clitherow, Dr. R

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Granville, E (Eye)

    Lavers, S.

    Cocks, F. S

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

    Coldrick, W.

    Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Paget, R. T.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Levy, B. W.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Pargiter, G. A.

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

    Logan, D. G

    Parker, J.

    Thorneycroft, H.

    Longden, F.

    Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T

    Tiffany, S.

    McAdam, W.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Titterington, M. F.

    McAllister, G.

    Pearson, A.

    Tolley, L.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G

    McGhee, H. G.

    Perrins, W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Mack, J. D.

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Usborne, Henry

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Popplewell, E.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

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

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Viant, S. P.

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Walkden, E.

    McLeavy, F.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Walker, G. H.

    MacMillan, M. K.

    Rankin, J

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Reeves, J.

    Watkins, T. E

    Mallalieu, J. P. W

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Watson, W. M

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Rideaigh, Mrs. M

    Weitzman, D.

    Mathers, G.

    Robens, A.

    Wells, W T. (Walsall)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

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

    Messer, F.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

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

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Sargood, R.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

    Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

    Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

    Wilkes, Maj. L

    Monslow, W.

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Montague, F.

    Shurmer, P.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Moody, A. S

    Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

    Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Morley, R.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Williams, W. R (Heston)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Williamson, T.

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

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

    Willis, E.

    Moyle, A.

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

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Murray, J. D.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Nally, W.

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Woodburn, A.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Solley, L. J.

    Woods, G. S

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

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wyatt, Maj. W.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Stamford, W

    Yates, V. F.

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

    Steele, T.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    O'Brien, T.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Oldneld, W. H.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Oliver, G H.

    Symonds, Maj. A. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Orbach, M.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Captain Michael Stewart and Captain Bing.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Molson, A H. E.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

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

    Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

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

    Gage, Lt.-Col. C.

    Nield, B. (Chester)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Gammans, Capt. L. D

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Glyn, Sir R.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Peto, Brig C. H. M.

    Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Pitman, I. J.

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

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Bossom, A. C.

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Bower, N.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

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

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

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

    Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

    Jarvis, Sir J.

    Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Scott, Lord W.

    Carson, E

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

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

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Snadden, W. M.

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

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

    Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

    Spence, Maj. H. R.

    Cuthbert, W N.

    Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

    Digby, Maj. S. W.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Marples, A. E.

    Sutcliffe, H.

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

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Drayson, Capt. G. B.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Maude, J. C.

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

    Duthie, W. S.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Touche, G. C.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Turton, R. H.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    York, C.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

    Wall, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Sir A. Young and Mr. Drewe.

    Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, after "upwards," to insert:
    " or where a county borough has an authorised establishment of more than one hundred."
    Mr. I. J. Pitman: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 261.

    Division No. 101.]

    AYES.

    [8.55 p.m

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O

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

    Glossop, C. W H

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Barlow, Sir J

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Prior-Palmer. Brig O

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

    Grimston, R. V.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V.

    Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

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

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

    Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

    Bossom, A. C.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Bower, N.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

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

    Scott, Lord W.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

    Jarvis, Sir J.

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Shepherd, Lieut. W S. (Bucklow)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

    Carson, E.

    Kingsmill, Lf.-Col. W. H.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Channon, H.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Spence, Maj. H. R.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Studholme, H. G

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

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Cuthbert, W. N

    Marples, A. E.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Marsden, Capt. A.

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

    Digby, Maj. S. W.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Touche, G. C.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Maude, J. C.

    Turton, R. H.

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

    Medlicott, Brig F.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Drayson, Capt. G. B

    Mellor, Sir J

    Ward, Hon. G. R

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Duthie, W. S.

    Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Nield, B. (Chester)

    White, J. B. (Carterbury)

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H P

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Nutting, Anthony

    York, C.

    Gage, Lt.-Col. C

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Gammans, Capt. L D.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Sir A. Young and Mr. Drewe.

    NOES

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

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

    Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Diamond, J

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Dobbie, W.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Brown, T.J. (Ince)

    Douglas, F. C. R.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Attewell, H. C

    Buchanan, G.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Austin, H. L.

    Burden, T. W.

    Dye, S.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Burke, W. A.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.

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

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

    Bacon, Miss A

    Champion, A. J.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Baird, Capt. J.

    Chetwynd Capt G R

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Balfour, A.

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

    Cluse, W S

    Ewart, R.

    Barstow. P. G.

    Cocks, F S.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Barton, C.

    Coldrick, W.

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

    Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

    Collick, P.

    Follick, M.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Collins, V. J.

    Foot, M. M.

    Belcher, J. W.

    Colman, Miss G M.

    Foster, W. (Wigan)

    Bellenger, F. J

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Benson, G

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Freeman, Maj. J (Watford)

    Binns, J

    Corvedale Viscount

    Gallacher, W.

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Cove, W. G

    Gibbins, J.

    Blenkinsop, Capt. A.

    Daggar, G.

    Gibson, C. W

    Blyton, W. R.

    Daines, P.

    Gilzean, A.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Gooch, E. G.

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

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    McLeavy, F.

    Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    MacMillan, M. K.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Grey, C. F.

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)

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

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

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

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden

    Mathers, G.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Gunter, Capt. R. J.

    Mayhew, C. P

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Guy, W. H.

    Messer, F.

    Solley, L J.

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

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mikardo, Ian

    Stamford, W.

    Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

    Steele, T.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Monslow, W.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Montague, F.

    Symonds, Maj. A. L.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Moody, A. S.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Haworth, J.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Morley, R.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

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

    Hicks, G.

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

    Thorneycroft H.

    Hobson, C. R

    Moyle, A.

    Tiffany, S.

    Holman, P.

    Murray, J. D.

    Titterington, M. F.

    House, G.

    Nally, W

    Tolley, L.

    Hoy, J.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Hubbard. T.

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

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

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

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Usborne, Henry

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

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

    O'Brien, T.

    Viant, S P.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Irving, W. J.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Walkden, E.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Orbach, M.

    Walker, G. H.

    Janner, B.

    Paget, R T.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Warbey, W. N.

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

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Watkins, T. E.

    John, W.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Watson, W. M.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Parker, J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Keenan, W.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    White, C F. (Derbyshire, W.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Pearson, A.

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

    King, E. M.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Kinley, J.

    Perrins, W.

    Wigg, Col. G E.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Wilkes, Maj. L.

    Lavers, S.

    Popplewell, E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Levy, B. W.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

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

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Rankin, J.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Williamson, T.

    Logan, D. G.

    Reeves, J.

    Willis, E.

    Longden, F.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Wills, Mrs. E. A

    Lyne, A. W.

    Rideaigh, Mrs. M.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    McAdam, W.

    Robens, A.

    Woodburn, A.

    McAllister, G.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Woods, G. S.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Wyatt, Maj. W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sargood, R.

    Yates, V. F.

    Mack, J. D.

    Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

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

    Zilliacus, K.

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

    Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Captain Michael Stewart and

    Maclean. N. (Govan)

    Shurmer, P.

    Captain Bing.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, at the end, to insert "county or."
    This and the next Amendment are drafting Amendments consequential on an earlier one to which I have specifically referred.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments' made:
    In page 4, line 30, after the second "the," insert "county or."
    In line 32, after "the," insert "county or."—[Mr. Oliver..]
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    1216
    " Provided that a person appointed under this Subsection to hold a local inquiry shall be selected from a panel of persons prepared by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association."
    This Amendment arises from a discussion which we had on the Committee stage, to which the Home Secretary has already referred. The point was raised that where these compulsory amalgamations are initiated by him, there should be a person appointed to hold the inquiry who should be acceptable to the local authorities concerned. After some discussion, the Home Secretary accepted a suggestion, which I think came from an hon.

    1217
    Gentleman opposite that a panel should be set up from which he could draw. We thank him for that concession.
    We believe it will be a very good thing to have this panel set up and agreed ' with the Association of Municipal Corporations beforehand, so that in the event of an inquiry having to be held, he can select a person from the panel to hold the inquiry. We would rather like to see this put in the Bill. I would remind the Home Secretary that in the course of the Committee stage he said:
    " I prefer to leave it in the form of the pledge I have given to the Committee. If hon. Members feel they would like to see it embodied in the Bill, they can put down an Amendment on Report Stage."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B., 5th February, 1946, col. 120.]
    That is what we have done on the invitation of the Home Secretary and, without more ado, I would invite him to see if he cannot accept it.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: I am really grieved about this. We have had a very pleasant evening. The only person who I gather has any ill-feeling towards me is the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies). I made this concession in Committee. I stand by what I said with regard to using this machinery, but I would suggest that it is hardly appropriate to put it in the Bill because, after all, both the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations are voluntary associations which may disappear or be altered in name, and then the words of the Statute might become meaningless and even embarrassing in certain circumstances. I have no hesitation whatever in repeating on the Floor of the House the pledge which I gave in Committee that this will be the machinery which will be adopted. As soon as the Bill becomes law, I will take steps to set up the panel, and I hope that that assurance will be sufficient for hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the Home Secretary for the assurance he has given, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 12.— (Consolidation agreements under County Police Act, 1840, etc)
    Mr. Oliver: I beg to move, in page 12, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    " and references in those provisions to the police functions of the borough and to the exercise of such functions by the council or watch committee of the borough shall be construed accordingly."
    This Amendment is designed to make it perfectly clear that non-county boroughs which are policed by agreement with the county are to be put in exactly the same position as other non-county boroughs for the purposes of Clause 1.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 13, line 19, leave out from beginning to "be," and insert "may."
    In page 14, line 37, leave out "a rank," and insert "any capacity."— [Mr. Oliver.]

    CLAUSE 17.—(Special provisions as to certain non-county boroughs.)
    Amendment made: In page 17, line 10, after "any," insert ': such."—[Mr. Oliver.]

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions for adjustment of rates payable in certain counties.)
    Mr. EdeM: I beg to move, in page 19, line 22, after "standard," to insert "police.''
    There are a number of other Amendments, a rather formidable looking list, to this Schedule which I hope can be considered with this one. This is the Schedule which was introduced in to the Bill to enable the escalator Clause to be worked. As worded when it was introduced in Committee, it involved the calculation of a notional police rate which would in fact not be the police rate that would be levied in the counties where a non-county borough had been absorbed into the county police force. The difference of more than 2d. in the £ had in consequence been made in the rating of the non-county borough. As worded, the Schedule would really restrict the county to levying a mathematically correct rate for the expenses that they would incur during the course of the year. No matter what the theory may be, it is, in practice, quite impossible to levy a mathematically accurate rate, which might involve calcu-

    1219
    lations to two or three places of decimals, in order to make quite sure that the county balances were neither increased nor decreased as a result of the year's working.
    These Amendments enable the county, in raising its police rate, to adopt the usual procedure of either absorbing balances, or possibly adding a little to balances, as a result of the actual working of the administration of the police fund during the year. The non-county borough which was to benefit, will receive exactly the same amount of benefit under the revised wording as it would receive under the old wording. There is the additional advantage that it will not be necessary in future in counties to have a separate police fund because inasmuch as the police rate will be levied over the whole of the county and not merely that part of the county which is outside the area having its own non-county borough police powers, it will be a general county charge, and not a special county charge to be levied only on part of the county.
    9.15 p.m.
    These Amendments are an administrative convenience, which will not inflict any injury on anyone, and will confer considerable benefits on county treasurers and county finance committees who have to deal with the calculation of the amount to be raised in the county. I, therefore, hope that this Amendment and the ones which follow will commeno themselves to the House As the hon. Member for West-bury (Mr. Grimston) knows, this problem was raised rather late in the Committee stage. We inserted the Schedule so that we might have something on which to work. As a matter of fact, we had not had the final views of the County Councils' Association on the matter on the day when the subject was considered in Committee, and these Amendments have been brought forward in the light of the representations we have received from the County Councils Association, on whom the responsibility will rest of making the calculations and levying the rates.
    Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation, as also for the concession which he made in the Committee stage. So far as we on this side are concerned, we note what he says, and are glad to accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 19, line 27, after "standard,' insert" police."
    In line 31, leave out from "levied," to the end of line 36, and insert:
    "in that year by the rating authority for each of the county districts in the county for the purpose of meeting the expenditure of the county council for general county purposes; and the amount so ascertained in relation to any such district shall be taken to be the unadjusted county rate of that district for that year."
    In line 37, after "standard," insert police."
    In line 38, after "standard," insert" police."
    In page 20, line 1, leave out from "the," to "shall," in line 2, and insert:
    expenditure of that council for general county purposes."
    In line 2, leave out from "shall," to "be," in line 3.
    In line 5, leave out "current," and insert "county."
    In line 7, after "standard," insert police."
    In line 9, after the first "standard," insert "police."
    In line 9, after the second "standard,'' insert "police."
    In line 10, after "standard," insert "police."
    In line 11, leave out "current," and insert "county."
    In page 20, leave out line 12, and insert:
    (c) in the case of the other county districts, the rate shall be the unadjusted county rate together with such additional."
    In line 41, leave out from the beginning, to the end of the Schedule. [Mr. Ede.]

    THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Transitory Provisions.)
    Mr. Oliverm: I beg to move, in page 24, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "4. Where, immediately before the date of transfer, the watch committee of a borough, which ceases to be a separate police area by virtue of Section one of this Act were exercising functions under Section five of the Police, Factories, & (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916, or under the House to House Collections Act, 1939, then unless and until the Secretary of State otherwise directs that committee shall continue to exercise those functions in consultation with the police

    1221
    authority for the county or the combined area, as the case may be."
    This Amendment is brought forward by reason of an undertaking given by the Home Secretary in Committee, whereby the watch committees of non-county boroughs merged under Clause I should continue to exercise the powers which they exercised under the Statutes of 1916 and 1939 with respect to house collections and street collections.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 24, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
    In line 23, leave out "foregoing provisions of this," and insert "provisions of the last foregoing." — [Mr. Oliver.]

    FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 26, line 31, at the end, to insert:

    "9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 26.

    The Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions)Act, 1946

    So much of Pan II of the First Schedule as re to the Defence (Amalgamation of Police Forces) Regu1ations], 1942."

    The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, when he was Home Secretary, promoted certain schemes for police amalgamation in the South of England to deal with the situation that had arisen during the war. These Regulations have been continued in the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, but Clause 13 of this Bill provides for their being carried on only until the appointed day, instead of until 31st December, 1947, which is the latest date in the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act. Therefore, it is desirable that that provision should be repealed, and that there should be no doubt that the amalgamations remain in force up to the time when this Bill comes into operation. The police administration of those areas will be carried on under the provisions of this Bill and not under the Defence Regulations.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    9.21 pm
    Mr. Grimston: I do not want to allow this occasion to pass without saying a few words on the Third Reading. When it first came to the House this Bill gave the Home Secretary very wide powers. I would like to express my appreciation, and the appreciation of hon. Members on all sides of the House, for what the Home Secretary has done to meet us in limiting the scope of this Bill. He has not gone as far as we should have liked, but I do not want to let that limit the appreciation I express to him for the way in which he has met us. There is, however, one point which I do regret. That is that on Clause 1 we were unable to impress him at all. As the Bill now leaves the House, on a certain day every non-county borough which has a separate police force will, so to speak, suffer execution. Many of us think that it would have been much better had the Home Secretary followed the suggestion of the Select Committee of this House in 1932 and allowed these non-county boroughs of over 30,000 population to fall into Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill as it now stands.
    We have had a long and fair discussion today, and I do not wish to delay the House now. I would, therefore, conclude by saying that I believe this Bill will be a useful instrument in promoting the efficiency of police forces. We have limited its scope in the direction that we wanted, but not so far as we should have liked. In view of the concessions of the Home Secretary, and the spirit with which he has met us during the discussion, we shall not propose on this side of the House to divide against the Bill.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. G. Lang: I will not detain the House at any serious length at this time, but I cannot allow this Bill to leave without saying a few words. On the Second Reading I criticised the Bill in some detail and expressed the hope that on the Committee stage it might be amended to make it more suitable, more palatable. It has been amended but not, I think, to any great extent to satisfy a number of us. In fact, as I have read, the Committee stage of the Bill has had a most unfortunate time. The Bill was damned with faint praise, and praised with faint damns from the start. Nobody seems to be very enthusiastic about it. At the end of the

    1223
    Committee stage the Home Secretary held out this rather unwanted offspring, whose paternity I am not too sure about, and said it was really better that it should come in. Somebody courteously agreed but there was no great enthusiasm. It is absolutely unwanted, I believe, by anybody at all. As I see it, it is unnecessary, and, certainly, so far, no case has been made out for introducing it at this particular time. In view of the fact that the Boundary Commission will be reporting presently, it does seem to me that it might well have been held over.
    There are two things that seem to have been mainly put forward as the justification for this Bill, and the first is the blessed word "efficiency." No standard of efficiency has been described, and perhaps none could be, but we have not been told what was the measure of inefficiency. One does not question for a moment that the Home Office police inspectors are thorough end excellent, but we are not told that it is upon the reports of these inspectors that these smaller forces are to be sacrificed. Does anybody really believe that the larger the aggregation, the bigger the force and the bigger the area, the more efficient the detection of crime? I can scarcely conceive that I could commit a crime, but, if I did, I would not attempt to commit it in Hyde or Stalybridge, but in this city, where I could do it with far more impunity, and far less chance of being detected. Even when all the forces of Scotland Yard here have failed to lay a murderer by the heels, we, in some cases, have caught their men for them and despatched them to the Central Criminal Court. It is much more dangerous to commit a crime in these quiet areas, than it is in these enormous aggregations.
    I see no case for efficiency made out under this Bill, which is now to receive its Third Reading. In my constituency, we are to lose our two borough police forces—not a very cordial vote of thanks to give to those people for having sent me here to support this Government, nor any great encouragement to the electors, who, in the one borough, have completely captured the council for the party to which we belong, and in the other, have made themselves equal to the combined opposition. Never was an enlightened electorate so truly rebuffed, and I am quite certain that if I had asked the
    1224
    electors to send me here to abolish their police forces, the House would have been deprived of my presence.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurncy Braithwaite: Did they send the hon. Member here to abstain when it came to a vote?
    Mr. Lang: I am glad the hon. and gallant Member mentioned that I am stained just now, because I will never interfere in other people's business, but, surely, if the Opposition could leave things alone in the case of vast and important matters like the American Loan, I may leave alone a matter like that Clause. I was saying that these two non-county boroughs of my constituency will lose their police forces, and I greatly regret it, because they are efficient and competently managed, and they have, I believe, proved themselves efficient. I greatly regret this loss of power and this loss of patriotism in localities. It is said that it is parish pump politics. Well, what is wrong with that? When our men are far away on the battlefield, they do not think of Scotland Yard. With great respect, I suggest they think of a village home—
    Mr.Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I am not quite sure,-but I think he is talking about an Amendment which has not been accepted. If so, that is out of Order on Third Reading, when he may only discuss what is in the Bill and not what has been left out.
    Mr. Lang: I am greatly obliged, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I accept your Ruling, I really was not discussing that Amendment, but was talking on the Bill, which deprives my two boroughs of their police forces. We are steadily pushing forward to larger aggregations, and I do not like it. Conscription, control and the removal of these local powers are all bad things. We are regimented enough, we are pulled about enough, we are remote enough from real home contacts, and I hope that that will not continue. I do not like the Bill and I am quite unable to give it my support. If it comes to a Division I will be obliged on this occasion to cast my vote against the Bill.
    9.31 p.m.
    Mr. Stubbs: I welcome the opportunity to make a few observations with regard to this Bill and particularly in regard to the Clause re-

    1225
    garding representation on the police committees. I want to deal with the position of Cambridge. Whilst accepting the Bill, my county council strongly object l to the representation laid down in this Clause. The amalgamation was accepted, and negotiations have taken place between the borough council, the county council and some department of the Home Office. I am not sure, but I think the Home Secretary has seen representatives from our county council on at least two occasions, and in conference before Christmas the Home Secretary agreed upon the representations submitted by the county council. He said that the new police committee would consist of an agreed number of members, half of whom would be appointed by the borough council and the other half by the standing joint committee of the county council, the borough representatives to include a number of representatives appointed by the Senate of the University as provided for under an Act of 1856. To the amazement of the standing joint committee and the borough council watch committee, the Home Secretary has run away from that. He says that the borough will have to accept an alternative proportion of representation, namely, 10 members from the borough council, 10 from the standing joint committee, and five nominated by the Senate of the University. Under the Act of 1856 the University have five members sitting on the borough watch committee. They are not appointed by the electorate but by the University.
    Under this new arrangement the county council is to have a much smaller representation on this committee. My county council think that it is manifestly unfair, and that it is certainly undemocratic. This scheme, of course, for the purpose of representation has been based on the various populations. If we take the 1931 census, which I think are the only reliable figures, it shows the population of the county to be in excess of that in the borough. On account of the extension of the borough boundary, however, the population has passed beyond the figures in the 1921 census and the borough now has a population of 70,169 and the rural districts a population of 69,835.
    It will be appreciated, therefore, that while the population of the borough is slightly in excess of that in the county, the population in the "county borough
    1226
    contains 4,000 or more students who will be represented by [he five members appointed by the Senate of the University Thus, from 4,000 to 5,000 university students, who are inhabitants of Cambridge for only about six months in the year, will have five representatives. Surely that is contrary to democracy and is wrong. Everybody will agree that that is not fair representation. The other inhabitants of the county, who are about 69,000, will have altogether only 10 representatives I would ask the Home Secretary whether he would be willing to add just a few lines to the Clause to provide as follows:
    " Under any scheme as aforesaid, the number of representatives of the county borough of Cambridge shall not exceed the number of representatives of the council of the county of Cambridge."
    Our county council would be perfectly satisfied if my right hon. Friend would do what I am asking We shall, in any case, at some other time, press for an Amendment of this kind in order to remove what we consider to be essentially an injustice.
    It is a far cry to go back 90 years to 1856. A lot of water has flowed down the river Cam since then. We get these undergraduates for only about six months in the year. It was very clever of the Home Secretary, but he did not give us any reason for what he did. After all, we have to have special arrangements in Cambridge, because the Senate had a provision in the Act of 1856. What for? To keep the undergraduates quiet? Is that to be said of people who come from good homes, and ought to know how to behave themselves? That is what those arrangements are for. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but if the ordinary workers in Cambridge were to do some of the things which the undergraduates do, they would be brought before the bench. If the Senate at that time had a scheme to deal with discipline I fail to understand why they now need five members upon the watch committee to deal with something for which they say they provided. It is not only that; these five members deal not only with undergraduates but play a part in the general administration of the council. They are not elected. They are on a property vote. We have got a long way from "One man, one vole." Those people directly represent the University. Perhaps the Home Secretary would give us an assur-

    1227
    ance on this point, because the University will get more out of this than they ever anticipated- They will have more representation than they anticipated, and certainly more than that to which they are entitled. If the Home Secretary will add those words which I have suggested, the position will then be satisfactory to my county council.
    9.40 p.m.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: As one who wishes loyally to support the Government, I find myself in a certain difficulty with regard to this Bill in so far as it deals with the position of the larger non-county boroughs. This Bill takes the police from every single non-county borough, except in the case of a non-county borough which may achieve county borough status. In doing that, my right hon. Friend applies exactly the same standards to any non-county borough, whether it is a small borough of 10,000 inhabitants or a large one of 70,000 or 80,000 inhabitants.
    I would like to say a word or two about the major local authority which I represent—the borough of Accrington. We hope that, as a result of the Report of the Boundary Commission, we may find that we have a population of perhaps 70,000 persons. In other words, we will not be up to county borough status, but we will have a substantially larger population than a considerable number of county boroughs. Nevertheless, our police are to be taken away from us with no further ado, whereas a county borough will either be able to keep its police or will be able to make a satisfactory arrangement for amalgamation. No wonder the people of Accrington are disappointed by this Bill. They take great interest in their local government. I can give an example of that, in that at local government elections we have a poll of from 70 to 75 per cent. Every member of the town council is against this Bill, and it is not a case of party interest. Labour, Liberal and Conservative are equally against it. Indeed, even the police themselves have submitted a memorial asking not to be handed over to the county council.
    May I say a word about the position of local government generally? There seems to be an idea that only the larger units of local government are suitable for
    1228
    efficient administration; by this, I mean the county councils and the county boroughs. In my opinion, that is not the case, and it is not the size of a borough which matters but the spirit of the people and the calibre of the representatives whom those people elect. If we continue nibbling away and taking these things from the non-county boroughs—one year we take education, the next year we take the police, and the third year we take something else—the people will cease to have that interest in the administration which it is so desirable they should have. It will be a bad day for this country when we cannot retain the interest of the people in the small local authorities where they are closely bound up and allied to the councillors whom they have elected
    On the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend promised to consider any reasonable Amendment which might be put forward, but, although the Bill has now gone through the Committee stage and has reached the Third Reading stage, we are in exactly the same position as We were on the Second Reading. On the afternoon of the Second Reading I was a loyal member of the party although I was not at all happy about it, and voted for the Bill. Tonight I cannot do so; in fact, I must take the opposite course. This is not a party question; it is not, in my view, a political question: it is an administrative question purely and simply. It is a question of tidy administration balanced against the wishes of the people. I am all in favour of tidy administration, as one who has had something to do with administration Nevertheless, as one who believes in government of the people, by the people, for the people, when there is a clash between tidy administration and the wishes of the people, in my view tidy administration must, if necessary, take second place.
    9.46 p.m.
    Mr. Spearman: I am glad to have this last minute opportunity of making an appeal to the Home Secretary to see if he could not make some modification of that part of the Bill which abolishes the status of non-county boroughs as police authorities. Though the right hon. Gentleman has shown, I understand, a very helpful manner during the day, I am afraid he is perhaps of a too determined and unchanging disposition to give me much

    1229
    hope that tonight he will have second and wiser thoughts. I think we all applaud and agree with the Home Secretary in his determination to have the maximum efficiency in police forces, and we realise that he must take drastic action against those forces which do not come up to his standard of efficiency. We all recognise that some of the very small forces cannot be efficient and, therefore, must be amalgamated. We also all realise that the easiest way of dealing with that is the way he has chosen, to abolish the status of non-county boroughs of all sorts, regardless of their size and regardless of their standard of efficiency. I suggest to him that that labour-saving device, so far as his Department is concerned, may not be very admirable from the point of view of the country. It would be worth while involving his Department in the extra labour of making an inspection of those forces which were not efficient, and only taking power away from the local authorities who did not have efficient police forces at the present time.
    I realise very well that the town which I represent is not typical in many respects. However, the same conditions do apply to many of the larger non-county boroughs whose future, as far as the police force is concerned, is threatened. I only speak of that town because I know the conditions there. It is a large seaside resort, where the main industry is that of providing holiday facilities for workers of all classes, and a very important industry it is. I suggest that that does require perhaps rather different and specialised handling by the police, and a more tolerant attitude in certain respects than might be suitable for an industrial town. Moreover, that town—and no doubt similarly with many others—is very remote from the capital town in which the police authority will reside in future, namely, about 70 miles away. In future, presumably instead of having a very efficient chief of police we shall have a more junior official who will have to refer his decisions to a more distant authority, thereby depriving the town of some of the efficiency it has at the present time.
    The final point I would like to impress on the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is that there really ought to be a very considerable improvement in efficiency to justify diminishing the powers of the local authorities. I suggest that may have very unfortunate results I
    1230
    agree with what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliott) said on that point just now. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that already he is looked upon with rather lukewarm favour by non-county boroughs, in view of the considerable part he took in belittling their position at the time of the Education Bill. The taking away of police and other powers does diminish the status of these places, and if we do that there will be a great risk that the most responsible and ablest of the town's officials will tend to look elsewhere, where they think there is greater scope. Further, we shall tend to see the ablest and most responsible citizens, whom we want to take an increasing part in local affairs, become discouraged and give up to attend to their own business. This diminishing of the status of the larger non-county boroughs may have very unfortunate results for the country as a whole.
    9.51 p.m.
    Mr. David Jones: I believe that this Bill is a better Bill than it was at the time of its Second Reading in this House, and if the Home Secretary had taken the advice of some of us who have tried to help him during its progress, it would have been a much better Bill even than it is tonight. We sought to improve the Bill by not removing from the local authorities that measure of pride which is necessary, and those important -functions which they need to have to perform if men of good will and spirit are to continue to take part in local government. I was hoping that during the progress of this Bill we might at least have made one improvement in local government administration which I think is long overdue. I refer to the continued existence of standing joint committees.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not in the Bill. We can discuss what is in the Bill and nothing else. We cannot discuss what we should like to see in the Bill now; we have passed that stage.
    Mr. Jones: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, standing joint committees are still in the Bill, and I was hoping that we might have removed them. I think the day of standing joint committees has long since passed. We should provide some new method of governing police forces in this country. With the passing of this Bill my right hon. Friend had an

    1231
    opportunity to provide for it much more extensively. He has provided for joint police authorities, and I suggest that he could have improved this Bill far more by abolishing standing joint committees and providing for watch committee powers for all the joint police authorities.
    9.54 p.m.
    Major Symomls: I have no wish to detain the House long, but in view of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) about Clause 17, I feel I must say a word to correct some of his misapprehensions. Unfortunately no Member representing the University is here tonight, and so I must try to say a word for both borough and university. In putting forward the case which he did, my hon. Friend used census figures. These, unfortunately for him, were out of date. He did not mention the fact that the latest available figures show a considerable advantage in favour of the borough as against the county, 79,000 population as against 72,000. I have no wish to stress that, because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, realising that populations may have readjusted themselves to some extent during the war, has decided to call it fifty-fifty and has offered equal representation to the borough and to the county. As regards the idea that this proposed authority is undemocratic, I would point out that the hitherto existing authority for the county which my hon. Friend represents has been only as to one-half an elected body. One-half has been nominated. On the authority proposed to be set up under this Bill there will be 15 out of 25 elected members. In other words, on the new authority the majority of the members will be democratically elected.
    Then as to the proportion of the University representation, as things are at the moment, Cambridge University has five out of 15 on the watch committee. In future, under the new authority, it will have five out of 25. In other words, the proportionate representation of the University has been considerably reduced. My hon. Friend made great play with the fact that the Cambridge Award Act has existed since 1856 and argued that, therefore, it must be bad. I have
    1232
    no wish to defend it on account of its age. I am not concerned with whether it was passed in 1856 or 1756 or at any other date. I am supporting it because it is a practical working proposition at this moment. It has worked and is working well, and it is accepted as such both by the borough and the University. It is assumed by my hon. Friend that the University representative must be in the pocket of the borough. I think that is a quite unjustified assumption, and as my fight hon. Friend has given the borough and the county equal representation under this Bill I should like to thank him for it. I feel he has done the best that could be expected in the circumstances.
    9.57 p.m.
    Mr. Mack: I rise, a very nervous and worried man, because I have on this occasion to defend policemen, and I do not like police-men on the whole. Almost from my earliest years they have been a source of misfortune to me. In school the teacher made us learn pieces of poetry, and I have not liked poetry since. He asked us to select a piece of poetry descriptive of the career we should like to choose. I thought, then, that it would be fine to be a policeman, because as a policeman I could boss people about and be important. I read out:
    " I should like to be a policeman, and flash my bullseye out,
    If there were not so many thieves, and naughty men about."
    You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I was quite young at the time. My teacher was a rather robust personality. He said I ought to read it with more emphasis and put some action into it, to show that I should really like to be a policeman. So I read out again:
    " I should like to be a policeman and flash my bullseye out," —
    and I flashed my fist out and struck the eye of the pupil next to me. He emitted a terrific roar, and I was thoroughly castigated. From that time I have always been very respectful to policemen, but I have not liked them, except in individual instances. Nor do I like lawyers. There is some affinity between them and police-men.
    As regards the present situation in relation to this Bill the Home Secretary, if

    1233
    I may use the word without offence and if he will not misunderstand it, is a most deceptive man. He is deceptive in this sense: he is so benign and benevolent in countenance. I like the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that I like him. But I do not think that in this Bill he has been as generous and understanding as he might have been. London today is a burglars' paradise. More swag is being appropriated as a result of the so-called police regulations, in London, the greatest city in the world. It is not my case now, however, to criticise the police for that. What I am concerned about is the effect of the Bill on my own borough. My borough was represented for many years in this House by no less redoubtable a figure than Josiah Wedgwood. I should like to invoke the shade of Josh Wedgwood at this moment. I am positive that if he had been in this House now there would have been some fundamental alterations in this Bill. If it had not been for the personality of Josh Wedgwood, my borough, of which I am proud, which is progressive, and which has a charter 700 or 800 years old, would have been incorporated in Stoke-on-Trent. No more terrible fate could possibly befall a borough than that. It was saved on that occasion, but now the Home Secretary would appear to be making depredations, because we have a population of only 70,000. When the Boundary Commission gets to work—and I understand there will be a lot of roving by the gentlemen who will make inspections—we shall probably have a population of 90,000. I understand it has been computed that we may even attain the status of 100,000. It is then that we shall begin to become a county borough. We are being fobbed off by the Home Secretary who tells us, that when we are a county borough, our problem will be solved. We are concerned, however, as a non-county borough with what is to be our status.
    There has been some talk about civic pride. I deprecate references in this connection to politics. When all is said and done there are towns in this country which take great pride in their civic administration and I believe that to be one of the fundamentals of good government. No Government can maintain its reputation, unless it has behind it municipalities which take a pride in their administration, with men who work with-
    1234
    out remuneration for long hours, giving of their best. I submit that my borough is an example in that respect. We have all political parties represented, Communists, diehard Tories, and Liberals. They are all united in a desire to maintain their own police force in Newcastle-under-Lyne. I say, quite frankly, that if we are to be put into a county, these people will be prepared to put up a fight. There may be a safeguard in the appointed date of 1st April, when events may happen to enhance our status and give us the possibility of becoming a county borough. But we are apprehensive about this matter.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has acted in a dual capacity in this House in that he has also done excellent work on the educational side. I commend to him the principle of excepting districts under the Education Act for the purposes of this Bill and I ask him to allow retention of police forces in cases where the existing forces are efficient. There are only three towns which are in a special category, Chesterfield, Luton— which will resolve itself into a county borough by virtue of its population of 100,000—and Cambridge, which I mention with reserve, because it has universities and riots and so on. My right hon. Friend cannot roam about every constituency, and I would not like him to do so, and besides I am not sure that he would be a good judge of the efficiency of police forces. But he will have other people roaming about—perhaps they will be called judges or inspectors of constabulary—who will advise whether the police are efficient or not. The fact remains that the police force of my borough is very efficient. I ask my right hon. Friend therefore to give consideration to it, and to remember that I am voicing not only my own point of view, but, what is even more important to the House and to him, the views of the whole population of the town in saying that they are determined to retain their police force.
    10.5 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): We have reached the last stage of this Bill, and I would like to thank the hon. Member for West-bury (Mr. Grimston) for the opening words of the speech which he made on

    1235
    Third Reading. This Bill, as he quite rightly said, and as has been demonstrated by this Debate, puts a strain on a good many party loyalties. When we were debating the question of non-county boroughs in Committee, no Labour Member voted against me, but one of the hon. Member's hon. and gallant Friends voted with me, and it was quite evident that there were some divisions on that side of the House as well as on this side. I would like to thank the hon. Member also for the helpful way in which he dealt with many of the Amendments in Committee and again today. I think that we can say that, although feelings have run high, the Debate has been conducted at each stage of the Bill with good temper and clear statements on both sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang), made a few ecclesiastical comminations—I would not dare use the word he did, because I am quite sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would rule it out of Order if it were used by anyone not in Holy Orders. Apart from that, he questioned the paternity of the Measure. Despite all that has been said about this child tonight, I claim to be its one and only father. When I became Home Secretary there was no Bill. There were not even the heads of a Bill, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) will agree that there were none when he left office.
    Therefore, I stand quite unashamedly to defend this Measure as it is now presented to the House for Third Reading. I say quite frankly that it is a better Bill now than it was when it was introduced. After all this House exists for government by discussion, and I hope that in all the controversial Bills which it has been my misfortune to submit to the House during my career as a Minister, I have always shown willingness to listen to people who differ from me. I have endeavoured to see that any Measure which has left this House represented the best of the views that have been put before the House. This Bill I say is better now than when it was introduced because of suggestions made from both sides of the House which I have found possible to incorporate, without destroying essential principles.
    No one except the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde himself has ever suggested that Stalybridge should remain
    1236
    a police authority with less than 30,000 people. It is the hon. Member's own ewe lamb, for whom nobody but himself has shown the slightest affection or respect. With regard to the other borough of Hyde, it only became a police authority by mistake.
    As regards the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cambridge (Major Symonds) respectively, I met the representatives of the borough, the county and the University on two occasions each. I gave no positive pledge to any of them. What I said was that I would convey to the other parties what each one said. I was warned that if I got them inside the same room together, the combined police force in their areas would not be sufficient to control the resulting disturbance. It is true that no one got out of this all he wanted. That is not unusual when there is compromise. But I was faced with the fact that Cambridge has this Act of 1856, which ensures to the University five seats on the police authority. It differs from Oxford in this, that the police have jurisdiction throughout the whole borough, whereas in Oxford, a place where I understand there is a University, I am told that the police jurisdiction does not extend inside the portals of some of the colleges, and judging by the products I can well understand that. I was assured that nowadays there is a complete understanding between the borough, the University authorities and the undergraduates, which is a distinct improvement since I was an undergraduate 42 years ago. But discipline of a residential university in a comparatively small town like Cambridge does present difficulties when the police force have as large powers and as circumscribed powers as they have in Cambridge, and it would be necessary, in my view, either to put the University into some fresh, extraordinary position with regard to discipline, or to arrange that the University should be represented on the police authority.
    Therefore, I decided to put into the Bill on the Committee stage that arrangement whereby the University will have the number of representatives on the police authority to which the Statute of 1856 entitles it. I do not believe that on every occasion the representatives of

    1237
    the University will vote with the representatives of the borough. In fact, there must have been a very considerable change in the relationship between the University and the borough since my day, if it is likely to happen on very many occasions, and I should have thought that the sound rule laid down by the Junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) in "Tantivy Towers '' should hold:
    " They who mix with County
    Must do as County do."
    I cannot help thinking that on many occasions the University will find itself more attuned to the county atmosphere, than to the borough atmosphere. I am certain of this that no other arrangements for the policing of Cambridge than that which I have placed in this Bill, could be expected to work, without asking the House to set up some new police disciplinary authority for a residential university, and that I am quite sure all sides of the House would be reluctant to do.
    We have had several speeches from hon. Members representing non-county boroughs. They have spoken very resolutely and loyally for the non-county boroughs which they represent in the House. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Scott-Elliot) has overlooked the fact that the county boroughs which he cited as being smaller than his non-county borough are not very likely to survive under the instructions which the House has given to the Boundary Commissioners. I have to point out to the House that, since 1888, with the exception of Hyde, where a mistake was made, no non-county borough has been granted police powers, and it has been the consistent policy of the House to reduce the number of non-county boroughs enjoying police powers. At no stage during the passage of this Bill has anyone suggested that any non-county borough not now possessing police powers should be granted police powers. Except for the 47 specially privileged non-county boroughs out of a total of 226, outside the Metropolitan police district, no one has suggested that a non-county borough ought to be a police authority.
    With regard to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Mr. Mack), I have taken special precautions in the Bill to preserve for non-county boroughs the right to become police authorities the moment
    1238
    they receive county borough powers. On that day they will have all the rights, duties and powers of a police authority. I think that should be a sufficient acknowledgment of the desire I have that this vast, vague national police force, fears of which rather oppressed the House on Second Reading, is not a thing that I desire to see, or which I imagine any Home Secretary in the future will wish to see; but in spite of what the right hon. Member for North Leeds said earlier this evening, we have to provide a police force to meet the needs of today, and not provide a police force that might have been adequate for the circumstances of 50 or 60 years ago. We have to face up to the resources that are available to modern criminals.
    May I say here that I do not accept for a single moment the criticisms that have been made of the Metropolitan Police Force or the state of crime in the Metropolitan Police District, as compared with other parts of the country. The Metropolitan Police Force always has very particular and peculiar difficulties to confront, but without saying that it is better than any other force, I say there is no other force in the country which is better than the Metropolitan Police Force. I would like to feel that it is the first among a very considerable number of equals.
    In conclusion, I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman). There are many places under a county police force which have to face, and face efficiently, all the problems that confront Scarborough. Worthing is one. I was there only a week ago, and can say that it is a place to- which trippers occasionally go. Worthing was first under the West Sussex county constabulary and is now under the temporary joint police force for the County of Sussex, and I am sure that no one there feels that they are worse looked after by the police than are the people of Scarborough. As a -last word I would repeat that I believe that local government in this country has to adapt itself from time to time to the changing needs of the people of this country. What may have been a good and efficient layout 50 years ago, 30 years ago, or even under the Act of 1929, will need adjustment periodically as facilities for travel improve, and as the circumstances of our times alter. I

    1239
    believe that this Measure—which will enable the new police authorities to consider how much they can advance police administration by voluntary amalgamation—is one means by which local government in this important sphere will be able to adapt itself to the changing needs of the populations it serves.
    10.22 p.m.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have watched this Bill closely from its inception and I willingly join in thanking the Home Secretary for what he has done to improve it. I believe that when it first came before us it was susceptible to a great many improvements. Upstairs the Home Secretary met us, listened to our arguments, and accepted many suggestions which were made from all sides of that Committee and have now been embodied in this Bill. There is only one streak, or possible hint, of ingratitude in the very few words that I wish to say about the Bill in its last stage. It is that, in all these matters, whether they affect local government, police, or the community through the intermediary of local government, there is a danger that the Minister responsible may have to involve himself in private conversations with representatives of local government. Those conversations, in themselves, bind the representatives who meet him to secrecy. We all know that that is essential, but there is a grave danger that it may be carried too far, and that, after consultations with only a section of those representing local government, their feelings and their opinions may be taken as fully representative of all others. Legislation is therefore hurried through the House—I am not imputing anything whatsoever against the Minister—on the assumption, which may not always be correct, that it will be acceptable to all those affected. The truth is that all those affected may not have had sufficient time to examine the effects of that legislation.
    The only note of caution I would utter, whilst thanking the Home Secretary for what he has done, is that should he come before this House again, or should the Government come before this House again with Measures such as this, they should, if possible—I am not claiming anything unfair—give more time for the consideration of the proposed legislation. Fair consideration should be given by all
    1240
    those affected, before the Measure comes before the House and in all its stages, not only the first stages. After all, we represent the electors of this country, and it is our duty to protect the electors who sent us here from the too rapid passage of legislation through this House. I think the Home Secretary has dealt with us very fairly in this case, stage by stage. The right hon. Gentleman and his Department have had a great deal of additional work, because a little extra time was not given, in the initial stages, to consideration of the effect 01 the proposed legislation. As a private back bench Member of this House, I think it my duty to say that I feel there is very grave danger in hustling legislation through this House—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can discuss the Bill and what is in the Bill, but hustling legislation through this House is not in the Bill. This is not the Second Reading.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir, but as a result of the steps that were taken and the efforts—the very gallant last-minute efforts—made by the Home Secretary, it was necessary, in one respect at least, to recommit this Bill this afternoon in a manner which would, I believe, have been unnecessary—because I know the Home Secretary's intentions were perfectly correct—if further time had been given to the consideration of the effects of this legislation at an earlier stage.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates: Mr. Kirby added.—[Mathers]

    DONINGTON PARK (DEREQUISITIONING)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Mathers.]
    10.28 p.m.
    Mr. Follick: I wish to bring to the notice of this House a matter the gravity of which affects the wellbeing of a great number of industries of this country, and the welfare of millions of

    1241
    people. Time and again the President of the Board of Trade has told us that we must push forward with our export business in order to maintain the standard of living of our people. In fact, he has told us that we need approximately to double our exports over the figures of 1939- Some of the most important industries concerned in our export business are the motor car industry, the cycle industry, the motor cycle industry, the tyre industry. All these industries depend upon racing tracks for their improvement and development. Since Brooklands has been disposed of, there is only one racing track left in this country that can be used for this purpose, and that is Donington Park. At present, Donington Park is in the hands of the military authorities, and, time and again, representation has been made to the military authorities to release it. It seems, however, that once the military authorities have their grip on anything it is very difficult to make them loosen their clutch.
    I accompanied a delegation to the War Office some weeks ago and we were interviewed by the Under-Secretary of State for War. We put our points to him. Lord Brabazon was there, Earl Howe, representatives of the motor car industry, of the motor cycle industry, representatives of the A.A., of the R.A.C., of the Cyclists Union—all very important bodies in this country—but we could get no decision from the Under-Secretary of State for War about Donington Park. I pointed out to the Under-Secretary the correspondence I had had with the War Office in the case of Donington Park, because it happens to be in my division. The only objection they could raise was that the Department had spent a lot of money on the park, and for that reason they said they could not release it. They could not find any other reason at all for holding on to the park. I pointed out to the Under-Secretary that we should forget the money spent on war, and remember only what we have to do to restore our finances and our trade. We cannot do that by looking back on what has been spent before; we must look to the future.
    The motor car industry stated emphatically that they could not improve or develop cars without an adequate racing track. They used to have this track where day after day they could do their racing and help to bring their manufactures up to the highest pitch of develop-
    1242
    ment. Without an adequate circuit this cannot be done, and it must be a circuit where there is no danger to the public, because the cars race at a terrific speed. By means of these speeds, it is possible to learn where the stresses and the strains are, what developments have to be made, what the final outcome of a car will be. Not only that, but without an adequate track, we cannot take part in international competitions, and among those I must include the United States. We must have a track on which drivers and cars can practise, and we must not forget that when we have a winning car in these international races, it is a great advertisement for our products. When a car has won an international race the products of that firm go up by leaps and bounds People have seen the car win the race; they say it must be a good car, and they buy the products of that factory on the argument that if it produces winning cars, it produces good cars. Another reason for having a racing track is that it is necessary to train good drivers. They must get experience on a track. Without that experience, you cannot expect men to win races, no matter how expert they are or how courageous they are. They must have that experience in order to keep up the production of our cars, which, in turn, means the selling of more of our cars for export, to bring in the needed foreign exchange.
    There is not only the necessity for tracks for cars, but there is the question of tyres. It really is shameful that while our Empire has the greatest output of rubber in the world, yet our tyre manufacture is small compared with that of the United States. The United States have had to buy their rubber from our Empire, yet their tyre output is abnormally greater than our own. It is only on the racing track that tyres can really be tested. A representative of the tyre industry told the Under-Secretary that they could not compete in the world markets with their tyres, unless they had every opportunity of trying them out on the track.
    Apart from that, before the war no cycle in the world had a higher reputation than the British cycle. For this branch also-a racing track is necessary. Donington Park used to have races every Sunday before the war. Now what will happen? Cycles will have to race upon

    1243
    the roads to the danger of the public, while everywhere throughout the country one sees on hoardings the warning "Beware of accidents on the roads." "What are we to do about that? Are the military going to retain their hold on Donington Park? If so, it will put hundreds of thousands of cycles on the roads which ought to be on the track.
    I am told that the military authorities are considering to a certain extent the desires of the factories and producers of cars in this respect. They say they are going to release the track but keep their hold on the park. They are speaking of spending somewhere about £100,000 on this venture. That is only throwing good money after bad. We want them out of the park altogether. We want the park to be returned to its owners, the people of the centre of Britain. The park itself was a great centre for picnics—a great centre of entertainment for millions of people from Rugby, Birmingham, Derby and all those centres, who used to converge on Donington Park to spend their weekends and afternoons. In 1938 and 1939, years of international races, over 86,000 people attended each race. Between 25,000 and 30,000 cars assembled at the park on those afternoons. In the course of the year over 500,000 people attended the races in Donington Park. This means in Entertainment Tax Duty between £5,000 and £10,000 a year which the Treasury are now losing by the military holding on to Donington Park. I say to the Government, "If you give us back Donington Park, you will be restoring a great deal of finance to the Treasury." Think of the buses going in and out, the trade developed by the park, and all this up building of a great centre of entertainment. This is apart from the fact that Donington Park is a lung for the industrial centre of Britain, and the only lung there is. The military are taking away this health-giving lung from the people who are building up export industries for this country.
    I would like to show the difference between the way we are looking after our exports, and the way the Germans before the war looked after theirs. They did not starve their industries- of racing tracks. They subsidised the racing tracks. And what was the result? German motor cars went all over the world—the Mer-
    1244
    cedes and the Opel—and only because they gained their reputation by their cars winning races, because they had the tracks and the experienced drivers. Give Britain the track, and Britain will give you the winning drivers and cars, and then we shall win the exports. It is not that we have not skilled mechanics and drivers. We have them, but they lack experience. In some of the German races, competition was driven to such a height that half a million attended a single race. That is the way the Germans before the war developed their export trade, and we have to go along the same lines.
    We must not starve the nation of tracks; we must subsidise tracks, help to develop car speed and put our cars in front of anybody else's. It must not be forgotten that it is the reputation of the car that sells the car, and nothing gives a greater reputation to a car than the propaganda gained by winning a race. We here in Britain, when we see British people winning races, forget all about party politics and feel a pride in that accomplishment of our people. We are asking for a very small thing. We are asking the Government to let us have back Donington Park. Let the military authorities find a dump somewhere else for their cars. Some of the cars have been there for four years and more, without any reason at all. Since the agitation has been on foot, they have actually been bringing in more cars; some have come from Aldershot and Portsmouth, and up to the end of the year there were 9,700 cars there. I submit that it is up to the House to say that we should have Donington Park back again; then we shall have winning cars back again.
    10.40 p.m.
    Commander Noble: I am glad to be able to say a few words on the need for the return of this track for testing and racing cars. At the moment there is no place where the products of the motor industry can be tested, and it is a fact that British cars must be thoroughly tried out, if they are to capture the export market. As my hon. Friend has said, motor racing is most popular on the Continent and abroad, and racing has a direct bearing on export. It resulted before the war in the selling of many cars. Britain is planning a strong programme of car manufacture,-but it is essential that there should be a track on which to conduct experiments

    1245
    and research. I hope that Donington Park will be released in the near future.
    10.42 p.m.
    Group-Captain Wilcock: As one of the members of the deputation which visited the Secretary of State for War, I support my hon. Friend in his appeal for the return of Donington Park. Apart from the racing interests, there were representatives of outdoor organisations on that deputation. Surely, now that the war is finished, and spring and summer are coming on, we have a right to one place in the Midlands to which our people can go for outdoor recreation. There is, in this district, no other place like Donington Park; in fact, there is no place in England like it. I went to see what the difficulty was about moving these Army vehicles. I could see no difficulty in moving them, although there was some question of hard standings. Let them be moved to some of the aerodromes which are not now being used. Why this property should be retained by the Army is a mystery to all of us. I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us that Donington Park is now to be cleared of all M.T. vehicles belonging to the Army.
    10.44 P.m.
    Sir Peter Bennett: We hear a good deal of talk about research nowadays, and I hope it is realised that we cannot have research unless we have facilities for testing things out and, in the case of cars, for testing them out at speed. Speed is the method by which engines are tested under conditions which cannot be provided on the roads of this country. As a result of such tests, you get reliability. That is obtained from racing methods on the track. We have lost Brooklands and we are looking forward now to the day when we can again have a track for racing and testing. This country has always been handicapped in competing with foreign cars, especially Continental and American, because those nations had facilities which we did not possess. We were handicapped at the start of the motor industry because the French had achieved speeds which we were never allowed to attain, which put them in front of us, and it took us years to come up to them. We have, of course, special cars built for this purpose, but I am not going to say anything about racing
    1246
    facilities as such. I am concerned with facilities which will enable the designer to test new designs and construction far more thoroughly than he can do it in the ordinary workshop, or on the road itself. We were able in the Schneider Cup race, and in other directions, to obtain speeds in front of the ordinary needs of the country, and so were ready when the emergency arose. Only by similar methods can we hold our own in motor development, keep our place and get better cars both for civilians here and for export.
    10.47 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): I hope the House will believe me when I say that the War Office has every sympathy with the case presented to my noble Friend the Undersecretary of State, by the deputation which visited him, and by those who have spoken tonight. But this case differs from the majority of cases which are presented for the derequisitioning of properties held by the Service Departments. This is not a case where the owners of the property have asked for derequisitioning. It is a case in which a third party has asked for the property to be given up, and that third party was clearly indicated by the hon. Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Follick), when he spoke tonight. Although the hon. Member made play with the desire of thousands of people in that area for the return of Donington Park to some of the recreational purposes, for which it was used before the war, I think the main burden of his speech was to the effect that this racing track within a private park is desired to foster the export trade in motor cars. Obviously the War Department, which holds this property, has got to take cognisance of that point, which is a very substantial one, and I think the hon. Member for Loughborough, who was a member of the deputation which visited the Under-Secretary of State, will agree that at that interview, and in subsequent correspondence, the War Department showed willingness to be helpful. I hope, before I sit down, to prove that such was the case.
    The policy adopted by the War Office in regard to properties it has requisitioned, is to derequisition them according to priority. In view of the arguments put forward tonight, I regret to say that

    1247
    Donington Park has a low priority. Our purpose at the War Department is to re lease those bypass roads and housing estates which facilitate the housing programme of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. And this park, although, no doubt, it would if derequisitioned fulfil the purpose for which it was partly designed, namely, the testing of racing cars, and tyres, on the racing track, will not stand up to the test that we first apply in derequisitioning, namely, the highest priority in the national interest. Perhaps I ought to tell the House what Donington Park is being used for by the War Department because
    Captain Crowder: Can the hon. Gentleman say what rent the War Department is paying to the owners?
    Mr. Bellenger: No. I have not that information at the moment. Of course, I can ascertain it if the hon. and gallant Member puts down a Question, but I do not think it is germane to the argument that I am putting before the House.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: It may be germane if the War Office are paying the owners a rent with which they are fully content. That may be the reason why there is no pressure to derequisition.
    Mr. Bellenger: That is not the argument at all. There are other arguments why the owners may not want the property derequisitioned as much as do the other parties, but that is not the burden of my argument tonight in my effort to convince the House that the War Office cannot derequisition this property, I fear, for some considerable time. Donington Park is the Army's biggest and best vehicle reserve depot, having approximately 10,000 load-carrying vehicles. My hon. Friend gave what he considered to be some indication of the decreasing value to the War Office of this park, but I have to inform the House that there is an average weekly turnover, in and out of Donington Park, of some 1,500 vehicles. Although I agree that the amount of money the public have spent on Donington Park during the war—some £264,000—is not an argument for keeping this property in military hands, nevertheless one cannot ignore the fact that a considerable amount of public money has been spent on it in the national interest, which happens to be represented by the War Office.
    1248
    Both on the occasion when the deputation met my Noble Friend and in correspondence, we have indicated to those who are agitating for the release of this property, in whole or in part, that the War Office will consider any proposition that the promoters of the agitation care to put up, if it is consistent with the necessity that we must retain it for some time. In that respect a proposal was put up to Earl Howe, to whom reference has been made by my hon. Friend and others, that the War Office and the other parties should use Donington Park jointly. Those proposals were not satisfactory, to us at any rate, and we have made counter proposals. These, I am afraid, would involve considerable capital outlay, of which I am not at all sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would approve. Nevertheless, we are prepared to present those proposals to the Treasury if we can get agreement with the other interested parties. With that end in view, we have approached the Society ofMotor Manufacturers and Traders, who, we think, represent more fully the interests mentioned by the hon. Member for Lough-borough, and have put certain questions to them on the answers to which we may be able to base our decision. Those questions have not yet been answered. We have not yet received any reply from what we consider to be the representative organisation, although we sent a letter about a month ago, or probably a little less. No doubt it is under active consideration, as we say in this 'House, but the fact remains that we have not yet received any reply. I do not know the reason why they have not replied, but until-we do receive a reply, I suggest to my hon. Friend, and to the other hon. Members who have spoken, that we cannot come to a decision.
    Sir P. Bennett: The Council meets tomorrow.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am glad to hear that and hope we shall receive a reply to the letter we have sent. In the meantime I suggest to my hon. Friend who initiated this Debate, and others, that they should allow the conversations to proceed as they were proceeding. If it is possible to get some scheme on which we can agree for the joint user of this property, we shall do our best to help those who want the release of this

    1249
    property. I am afraid it is out of the question that we shall be able to release the whole of this property. Therefore, we have to fall back on the next best alternative, which we think might be a joint user of this property, though that will present considerable difficulties to the War Department and I have no doubt also to those who have initiated this Debate tonight, Further than that I cannot go. I hope I have said enough to convince my hon. Friend and those who support him, that the War Department are not retaining this property for any insubstantial reason, but because we really need it in the public interest, and I am afraid we may continue to need it for a long time. On those grounds, I regret I am not able
    1250
    to give any more definite reply tonight, than my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State was able to give to the deputation, but in conclusion, I would repeat that we are willing to help, if it is at all possible.
    Mr. William Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman say what alternative sites he has considered to take the place of this Donington dump?
    Mr. Bellenger: We have considered every alternative presented to us, but op to now we have found no suitable alternative.
    Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Batavia (Food)
  Batavia (Food)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Unit, Andover (Married Quarters
  Unit, Andover (Married Quarters
CIVIL AVIATION
  Airports (Amenities)
  Airports (Amenities)
  Whitchurch Airport (Ground Staff)
  Whitchurch Airport (Ground Staff)
WEST AFRICA
  Proposed Parliamentary Delegation
  Proposed Parliamentary Delegation
  College Students
  College Students
  KENYA (HIGHLANDS RESIDENT LABOURERS)
  KENYA (HIGHLANDS RESIDENT LABOURERS)
PALESTINE
  Defence Regulations
  Defence Regulations
  Refugee German Jews
  Refugee German Jews
  MAURITIUS (ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES)
  MAURITIUS (ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES)
  NYASALAND (TEACHERS)
  NYASALAND (TEACHERS)
  JAMAICA (DISTURBANCES)
  JAMAICA (DISTURBANCES)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Ministry Sponsored Companies
  Ministry Sponsored Companies
  Cattle Collecting Centres (Weighbridges)
  Cattle Collecting Centres (Weighbridges)
  Fish and Chip Shop Licences
  Fish and Chip Shop Licences
  Bread (Saving Campaign)
  Bread (Saving Campaign)
  Biscuits (London)
  Biscuits (London)
  Ethiopian Grain and Cattle
  Ethiopian Grain and Cattle
  Wheat (Damage by Flooding)
  Wheat (Damage by Flooding)
  GERMANY (MISSING NAZIS)
  GERMANY (MISSING NAZIS)
  RUMANIA AND GREECE (WHEAT IMPORTS)
  RUMANIA AND GREECE (WHEAT IMPORTS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Canada (British Textiles)
  Canada (British Textiles)
  Empire Tobacco
  Empire Tobacco
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  Consumers' Interests
  Consumers' Interests
  Furniture (Raw Materials)
  Furniture (Raw Materials)
  Text Books (Paper Supply)
  Text Books (Paper Supply)
  Children's Footwear
  Children's Footwear
  Gas Mantles
  Gas Mantles
  ANGLO-SOVIET TREATY
  ANGLO-SOVIET TREATY
  PERSIA (RUSSIAN TROOPS)
  PERSIA (RUSSIAN TROOPS)
  GERMAN PRISONERS (GENEVA CONVENTION)
  GERMAN PRISONERS (GENEVA CONVENTION)
  WORLD ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION (RUSSIA)
  WORLD ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION (RUSSIA)
ROYAL NAVY
  Re-employed Personnel (Pensions)
  Re-employed Personnel (Pensions)
  Officers, Hong Kong (Families)
  Officers, Hong Kong (Families)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Factories (Retirement Age)
  Factories (Retirement Age)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Trooping Conditions, Mediterranean
  Trooping Conditions, Mediterranean
  Chatham Barracks (Food)
  Chatham Barracks (Food)
  Pier, Weston-super-Mare (Release)
  Pier, Weston-super-Mare (Release)
  War Casualties
  War Casualties
  Service Members of Parliament
  Service Members of Parliament
  Cadets
  Cadets
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  H.M.S. "Howe "
  H.M.S. "Howe "
  Requisitioned Houses, Skegness
  Requisitioned Houses, Skegness
  Royal Marines (Pay)
  Royal Marines (Pay)
  TRIAL BY JURY
  TRIAL BY JURY
  PROSECUTIONS (AIDING THE ENEMY)
  PROSECUTIONS (AIDING THE ENEMY)
  P. G. WODEHOUSE
  P. G. WODEHOUSE
BRITISH ARMY
  B.A.O.R. (Mail)
  B.A.O.R. (Mail)
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Surplus Furniture
  Surplus Furniture
  WAR CRIMINALS (ITALIANS)
  WAR CRIMINALS (ITALIANS)
  HONG KONG (REHABILITATION)
  HONG KONG (REHABILITATION)
  WOMEN'S SERVICES (RATIONS)
  WOMEN'S SERVICES (RATIONS)
  ARMED FORCES (RESERVE VEHICLES)
  ARMED FORCES (RESERVE VEHICLES)
  MALAYA (RUBBER CLAIMS)
  MALAYA (RUBBER CLAIMS)
  MAIL SERVICES (CEYLON)
  MAIL SERVICES (CEYLON)
  SERVICE AIRCRAFT (CRASH PROOF FUEL TANKS)
  SERVICE AIRCRAFT (CRASH PROOF FUEL TANKS)
  PENICILLIN
  PENICILLIN
  MINISTRY OF WORKS (SURPLUS R.A.F. HANGARS)
  MINISTRY OF WORKS (SURPLUS R.A.F. HANGARS)
SHIPPING
  Refrigerator Ships
  Refrigerator Ships
  Motor Fishing Vessels (Losses)
  Motor Fishing Vessels (Losses)
  FASCIST ACTIVITIES (ALBERT HALL MEETING)
  FASCIST ACTIVITIES (ALBERT HALL MEETING)
  FOOTBALL POOLS
  FOOTBALL POOLS
AGRICULTURE
  Bulbs from Holland
  Bulbs from Holland
  Women's Land Army
  Women's Land Army
  Production Targets
  Production Targets
  DIPHTHERIA (DARLINGTON)
  DIPHTHERIA (DARLINGTON)
  CIVIL SERVICE TYPISTS (PAY RATES)
  CIVIL SERVICE TYPISTS (PAY RATES)
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS

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

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF TUNIS.
Field-Marshal Sir Harold Rupert Leofric George Alexander, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., C.S.I., D.S.O., M.C., having been created Viscount Alexander of Tunis, of Errigal in the County of Donegal—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD TEDDER.
Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur William Tedder, G.C.B., having been created Baron Tedder, of Gleniguin in the County of Stirling—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
2.53 p.m.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to education in Scotland; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Westwood).
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

REAR LIGHTS ON VEHICLES.
2.54 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they are aware of the danger resulting from the fact that the owners of many road vehicles have still failed to re-adapt their rear lights to the standard of brilliance generally observed before the war; whether steps can now be
92
taken to ensure effective observance of the provisions of Section I of the Road Transport Lighting Act of 1927 (under which it is obligatory for all vehicles on the road during the hours of darkness to carry one lamp showing to the rear a red light visible from a reasonable distance); whether new regulations can be issued providing for the standardization of the position of rear lights on all vehicles; and whether they can give an assurance that all Government owned and operated vehicles will be made to comply with the regulations applicable to such lights.]
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, provides that where a vehicle is required to carry a rear lamp it shall show a red light visible from a reasonable distance and Regulations have been made under that Act prescribing within limits the position in which such lights must be carried. The law in this matter applies to Crown vehicles save that the Service Departments may, subject to suitable safeguards, use vehicles without lights in the event of operational need or for the purposes of training. Enforcement of these provisions is a matter for the police who give this and other Regulations relating to road vehicles all the attention which their resources permit.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the reply to my question, but I would like to raise the matter at a later date.

THE HOUSING SITUATION.
2.55 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN rose to call attention to the housing situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suppose that there is no one in your Lordships' House who would think it was not right that we should have a discussion to-day on the housing situation. I suppose that work, food and homes, apart from their own personal good health, are the three most important factors in the lives of the people. There is no need to discuss work at the present time, because I think we all agree that no man or woman who can really give good work need be long looking for a job in these days. We discussed food very fully a week or so ago, and it seems to me right that we should now see

93
whether the members of this House have any constructive suggestions to make towards the very urgent task of providing homes for our people.
Too many of the people of this country have of necessity been uprooted from their homes during the war. During that time the homes of many have been in ships, in Nissen or other huts and dugouts or, as our American friends call them, "foxholes." Too many families still have other families living in the same house, and those other families for too long have had no homes of their own. All this is inevitable at the end of such a war as that we have just been through. It should not be allowed to last for long in peace, and I suppose there is no one who can say that he is happy at the housing progress which has been made so far.
In England and Wales less than 2,000 permanent houses and only about 12,000 temporary houses have been built, and about 10,000 conversions have been made. In Scotland, only about 1,700 permanent houses and just over 700 temporary houses have been erected. In fact, the total amount of new accommodation provided is only about 6,000 more than the number of houses which Government Departments, chiefly the Service Departments, have now derequisitioned. This brings me to consideration of the quickest way in which to provide homes for the civilians to live in—that is, by further derequisitioning. I should like to know how many houses and flats are still under requisition by Government Departments. I am not now talking about the 86,400 odd that have been requisitioned for housing the civilian population; I am talking about those houses and flats which are used for civil servants to work in, or for the Navy, Army or Air Force personnel. I would like to ask the Government what steps are being taken to release the remainder; and further, what steps are being taken to use more huts.
Many camps, of course, are in quite inconvenient places from the point of view of civilian houses, but a number are quite accessible, and they have water, drainage, heat and light laid on. I see that only 2,985 huts in the whole of England and Wales, and apparently, unless I have overlooked a figure in this White Paper, none at all in Scotland, are being used for housing civilians at the present time. Considering the multitude of the armies
94
—American and our own—which we had housed in this country just before D Day, there must be many more huts that could be used for housing in this emergency, and I would like to ask what steps are being taken by the Government as a whole to see that Service men—the soldiers, sailors and airmen—wherever it is possible move out to the more remote camp sites and leave the nearer ones for use in this vital housing problem. We must all be aware, in our different localities, that there are empty huts up and down this country which are merely deteriorating because nobody is living in them at the present time. Nobody is keeping them painted or keeping the windows and doors in proper condition, and they are deteriorating every week that they stand empty. I hope that something more active and strenuous will be done to use some of those for this very important need.
I come now to temporary houses. I dislike both these and huts as homes for the people, but in circumstances like the present they are better, of course, than no home at all. If anything, I believe the temporary house is the greater menace, because it is liable to stay much too long. I was told, and I believe this to be accurate, that the last temporary house erected after the Great Fire of London was finally removed during the 1930's.
These houses are much too liable to become permanent disfigurements of our landscape. They are also becoming expensive. The noble Earl who, I believe, is going to reply and I were both at the same school, and at that school you could either have a permanent tie or a throwaway tie. The advantage of the throwaway tie was that it cost very little more to buy than it cost to wash the permanent tie. Therefore it was possibly a good thing to use the throw-away tie, but if the throw-away tie had become as expensive to buy as the permanent one, then either one would have ceased to use it or the tendency would have been to use it too long and until it had got into a rather disgusting state. The same thing is likely to occur with these houses. They are becoming most expensive items to buy.
I do not know whether prices have recently gone up, but the figures I am going to quote are those given last November and December, by, I be-

95
lieve, the Minister of Works. For a prefabricated asbestos house the price is now £1,020; and for the aluminium type of house it is no less than £1,365. I should like to know why prices have risen in this way. The houses are, after all, mass-produced. They have only one living room, two bedrooms, a scullery and a bathroom. If you compare the cost of a steel box containing that small amount of accommodation with the cost of a cottage before the war, the comparison is really quite ludicrous. I remember that at home we put up a pair of cottages, each of which had three good bedrooms, a sitting room, a kitchen, a scullery, a larder, a bathroom, and a water-closet. Incidentally, main water and electric light were laid on. The cost of that pair of cottages was only £750. The noble Earl says, "Cheap." That figure of £750 does not include the cost of the site, but that is not a very large part of the cost. That is, in fact, what we had them built for. Now we are paying three times as much for one of these inferior types of dwelling, and four times as much for the other. I should like to know whether we can be given any explanation of why the price of these temporary houses is so high as it now is. Next, the supply is very belated. There are many authorities still waiting for their first deliveries. I know that my own local authority have got the slabbing and draining done, but they have been told that they cannot expect any houses until the end of March. I should like to know why this delay is taking place in this temporary housing programme. One of the main advantages of temporary houses is that you can get something done quickly, but the longer the programme is delayed, the more they lose their value.
Now I come to permanent houses, which, of course, must provide the main solution. What are the main factors in the production of a house? Some may think that a subsidy is the main factor, but of course it is not. I am aware that in another place a Bill has just been introduced providing quite generous subsidies. Some subsidy is, unfortunately, necessary at the present time—I only wish it were not—but it is as well to remember that while subsidies may enable people to live in houses at rents they can pay once the house has been built, they will not of themselves build us any more houses.
96
The three main factors are the site, materials, and labour. It would appear from the White Paper that there is little bother about providing sites, and indeed if there were any bother about sites, ample powers exist to deal with it. When we see from the White Paper that 616,000 sites have been acquired, and when we find that there are only 16,000 houses built, there seems to be no great difficulty about obtaining sites.
What about materials? I think anyone who has had any experience in production knows that the first thing you want to secure is your supply of materials. You look at that at the same time that you see whether you have got the productive capacity to produce the finished article. That is what we did in times when I had the honour to be at the Admiralty, then at the Ministry of Supply, and then at the Ministry of Aircraft Production. That was a task which it fell to my lot to perform for the first two-and-a-half years of the war when I was Chairman of the Materials Committee of the Government. It was through constant watch and through action being taken in time that during the whole of the war the munitions programme was never held up by a lack of raw materials. Nobody seems to be doing this work now and it is essential work in regard to the housing programme.
Everyone knows that there is now an acute shortage of bricks, and if house building progresses as we hope it will there will be an even acuter shortage unless some drastic steps are taken, and taken now. The brick industry of this country, I am credibly informed, is to-day producing only about 20 per cent. of the bricks which it was producing in the years just before the war. Many brickyards are not working at all, and in the main those which are working are not working to their full capacity. They are short of labour and they are short of coal. This is the fantastic kind of thing which I have heard has happened in at least one case. The manager of a brickworks goes to the labour exchange to ask for more labour. The labour exchange manager says to him: "If you are assured of the coal I might let you have some more labour." Then he goes up to the local Fuel Controller who says: "If you have got the labour I might try and let you have some coal." That, it seems to me, is the way in which the national plan, which the

97
present Minister of Health said in his Election address would provide spacious houses for us all, is at the present time working in this country. To get these brickworks into full production is a far easier task than it was to build up our munitions potential before the war. The plants are there, although it may be some need renovating, but at any rate you have got the plants there. It is only a question of getting them started, getting the labour to them, and getting the coal to keep them supplied.
If we look next at cast-iron goods, that is, baths, sinks, drainage pipes and gutterings, which are needed for every house, we find that these are equally in short supply. I cannot help wondering how much of the material needed for these things is now being used by the million and a half people who seem still, for some very odd reason, to be making munitions in this country. Would it not be far better to take some of those people off making munitions, many of which are quite useless? I know of a factory which is turning out bayonets now in quite considerable numbers every week. Could not they be taken off that work and put to work on creating more of these essential goods for the housing programme, instead of using up material which is needed for that programme?
Timber, too, is still regrettably short, and I should like to ask how much we have got from Germany. The one reparation—perhaps with just the exception of hock, which I might put in the same category—which we could get from Germany, and which will do no harm to anybody but will do an immense amount or good, is timber. There is a mass of first-class timber in the British zone and in the American zone as well. When I was in Germany last July with Mr. Hudson, the then Minister of Agriculture who was concerned of course with our home timber supplies, we talked with our Army authorities and, indeed, sounded the Americans, as to whether some of that timber—the German forests have not been depleted anything like ours—could not be cut and sent to this country. I would like to know whether any has been cut for us and how much we have got. That timber, of course, should be seasoning now if we are going to speed up our housing programme in the way we all hope to see it. Are we getting any from Norway? I remember
98
when I was arranging some supplies of food for the Norwegians they said they would have plenty of timber to send to this country, and I would like to know whether we have got any from that source. Are we taking any steps to try and get timber here front Russia, including, of course, the Baltic States, from whom we got timber in the days before the war? It is lovely timber.
I remember perfectly well, when I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of War Transport, going to greet the first three Russian ships that came into Leith, and they had brought timber with them. The reason why I remember that visit so well was that it was six months later that a friend of mine said: "You were making a speech in Leith yesterday," and I said: "No I was not." He said: "Well, you probably make so many speeches you forget where you make them." Of course the news had not been released until the Russian convoy got back to Archangel. The point is it was superb timber, and just the kind of stuff we need for the housing programme. We really ought not to deplete our own woods and forests any more if we can help it. I know the Timber Control are still coming round begging for wood, but we have, out of our forests, made a far greater contribution during these years of war than any other country throughout the whole world, and I do hope the Government are taking steps to get timber from elsewhere.
I hope that the Ministers who are good enough to reply to this debate have at their disposal representatives from all the Departments concerned in this matter. This Ministry of Housing, about which we read in Let Us Face The Future, seems to have been still-born, and we still find that there is a good sort of game going on with the Minister of Supply holding the steel and timber cards and the Minister of Works holding the brick and concrete cards. The Minister of Health has, I think, all the forcing cards but he really does not know how to play them except against private enterprise. There is the Minister of Labour, of course, who has all the trumps all the time, with the two Ministers with double-barrelled names occasionally joining in, the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Town and Country Planning. They seem to be playing that all-time-consuming game of passing the buck, but we really want to

99
see that action is being taken to get all these materials for the housing programme.
Now I come to labour, the third factor which your Lordships will remember I mentioned. Before the war there were at least 1,000,000 men in the building industry, and the estimate is that about one-third were on permanent house building, which means that some 330,000 men before the war were on the job of building permanent houses. It is a dreadful thought that to-day there are apparently only 34,000 people so employed in this country. That kind of number will not go far towards building the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 houses which Mr. Bevin, the Foreign Secretary, promised us during the Election in very quick time. How well are the men working who are on the job? I am told that the builders reckon to get an average of about 60 per cent. of pre-war production from them.
I hope that the Prime Minister's broadcast appeal for increased production will have some effect, but I am sorry that, so shortly after it, strikes are taking place in the motor industry. In case it does not have effect, I should like to offer the Government a recipe which, I think, will certainly help, if they will adopt it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can use it in his coming Budget, if he wishes to do so. If he is going to make any alteration in "Pay as You Earn," the simple and the orthodox way is of course to raise the exemption limit. But there is an ingenious and unorthodox way, which will I feel be a way that will have the greatest effect on production in the immediate year or a couple of years ahead. This is my suggestion: keep the same tax on the basic earnings, but let any overtime or extra work of that sort be completely free of tax, and let that apply also in regard to piece rates. If a man is earning the average piece rate, he pays tax upon it. But if he can earn in a week one or two pounds more than the average rate, I believe you will encourage production tremendously by treating that excess as a bonus free from all Income Tax. I believe that in these days, when we want all the production we can get, that would be a very good step for the Government to take.
There are other suggestions that I have to make, because it seems to me that the Government should use every available
100
source of supply of houses. I know that the Minister of Health originally planned that the local authorities alone should be the building contractors as it were. That plan has been modified to bring in some of the housing associations. That is a wise step, if it is fully and properly implemented. But let the Minister bring in the builders, small and large as well, not only to work for the local authorities but to make their own individual contributions to this vital need. The Minister has, I believe, recently declared that he is going to try to restrict the number of licences which local authorities give. If that happens it will indeed be a confession of failure, a confession of failure to provide enough labour and to provide sufficient material, because it is quite clear that a step like that is stopping one source of supply of the new houses.
In this connexion, I think there are four things that we should beat in mind. The first is that independent builders are quicker and their methods are more flexible than the bureaucratic machine working through local authorities back to the Ministry of Health, where, sometimes, it takes months even to answer a simple inquiry. The second thing we should bear in mind is this: that whereas some local authorities are well equipped to build good houses and get the job done, many are not. They never did it before, and they are not equipped for this job now. So let the people who really are equipped get on with it. The third point to bear in mind is that builders who were engaged in housing schemes before the war had trained staffs, architects, quantity surveyors and similar persons, and those builders have a statutory obligation to take those of their old employees who have been in the Forces back into their employment. It is only, fair that the builders should not be deprived of the opportunity of having work for these men to do. The fourth thing to remember is this: that just as everyone likes to own the clothes that he wears—I think it is almost the prerogative of the convict not to do so—and most people like to own the furniture in their homes, so there are a great number of people (and these not exclusively the rich, either) who prefer to live under their own roofs and in their own houses. Masses of them have acquired their houses, either by saving their money or through building societies. Moreover, let us not overlook the fact that many

101
of them, by going into houses which are their own, which they have bought, release others, at the same time, for letting. So let the Minister give an equal chance to all who can help in this vital job.
It is absurd in my opinion to say that in the early days after the last war the private builders did not make a contribution to the solution of this problem. It is quite true that up to September, 1920, the private builders, unassisted, built only about 30,000 houses. But if one looks at the table given in the Hansard report of March 11, one finds that private enterprise, unassisted, starting off in 1923 built 52,000 houses, next year 73,000, next year 60,000 and after that 65,000, 64,000, 71,000, 107,000, until it got up to the tremendous figures of 200,000 and 264,000 towards the time just before the outbreak of this last war. Those are all figures which are given here in this table. What we shall be doing if the Government pursues its present line is to hamper the people who made that tremendous contribution to the solution of our housing problem in the days between the wars. Further, let us remember that just after the last war the building industry was not of the size nor had it acquired the knowledge and the technique which it acquired in the years between the wars when it was making this tremendous contribution.
Finally—for I do not wish to keep your Lordships long, and I hope that I have not done so—I would beg the Minister to put his own house in order. The bylaws of many local authorities, which, of course, are approved by the Ministry of Health, lay down that an ordinary dwelling house, a five-roomed house, should have 1.7 standards of timber as the minimum. Now a manual recently issued by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works lays down that it should be 1.5 standards of timber. I know a case where this has happened: The Timber Control have been asked by a builder who is building houses to provide 1.7 standards according to the local by-law. They say: "No, according to the manual you can only get 1.5 standards." Then they go along to the Borough Surveyor and he says, "No, our by-laws lay down that it should be 1.7 standards as the minimum. You cannot build a house in this area unless you put 1.7 standards in it." The builder cannot get the timber; nobody will at
102
the moment give way, and so that little bit of the housing programme is held up. In a large number of areas these by-laws need to be altered in accordance with the practice which has to be used in this emergency.
Until we find that the brickworks are in full production, that timber and other materials are corning in and are in ample supply, until we see the building industry in full swing, which it is not now, and until we are assured that the Minister of Health is using to the full every available builder to help him in this task, the Minister of Health will remain very much on trial. Despite all his eloquence in his own defence, I feel that the verdict is beginning to go against him. I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat has delivered, if I may say so, a most constructive and comprehensive survey of the whole field. If I may use the language of the Housing Report, he has obtained possession of so many sites upon which no erection has yet taken place that, for my own part, I propose not to encroach upon the same housing estate, but to divert myself to sites developed but not yet slabbed, and to do a small amount of slabbing on my own account! This is not a question upon which any of us desire to score a partisan advantage, or to execute a partisan manœuvre. We have several times in recent weeks bestowed upon ourselves in this House, amidst general acclamation, the title of "Council of State;" and, as I understand the function of a Council of State, it is to state its counsel, and to state it as temperately, as constructively and with as much detachment as possible. Whatever our political allegiance may be, in regard to this particular question our simple and common purpose is to endeavour by any means in our power to see that the maximum amount of accommodation is made available; but not merely the maximum amount of accommodation—the maximum amount of suitable accommodation, of a character and at a cost which will make it available to those persons who most require it. It is no good on the one hand building acres of jerry-built slums for the accommodation of people; nor is it of great use in these days to

103
build acres of Grosvenor Squares at the other extreme. You have to cut your bricks according to the means and requirements of the people who are going to live in these houses.
In this of all the problems which are confronting us at the moment, surely, in a phrase well-known to lawyers, "time is of the essence of the contract". We are also under a solemn obligation to those Service men and women who have been looking forward, during their period of absence from home, to returning to a certain amount of proper accommodation at the end of their service. We are under a solemn obligation to them to make every effort to see that the production of those homes is accelerated to the greatest possible degree. From that point of view, so far as I am concerned, I do honestly regret that the Minister of Health has set his face so adamantly at this stage against the policy of conversion of property.
There came out a very short time ago a most admirable report on the conversion of existing houses, the report of a committee which owed its appointment to the Central Housing Advisory Committee. It is a committee the history of which is not entirely without interest. It was appointed in January of last year. Its report is dated August 31 of last year. So far as I know, it first saw the light in February of this year, after an interval of five months. I am a very simpleminded and unsuspicious person, and I should be the last person to suggest that the ultimate appearance of this report, after a protracted hibernation of five months, had anything to do in any way with the fact that, just before it came out, one London evening paper was asking a series of pertinent and somewhat strident questions as to what had happened to it. Of course, it may be only coincidence that the publication of this report and the reiterated publication of those questions synchronized. On the other hand, of course, it is possible (and it is not for me to decide) that there was some element of cause and effect between the publication of those questions and the publication of that report.
However that may be, the first really operative sentence in that report is one of such general application and value that I would just like to quote it: it is in a
104
chapter headed "Desirability of Conversion and/or Adaptation," and the sentence is this:
"It is generally accepted that during the period when vast numbers of families will be seeking homes, something can and must be done with vacant housing."
Well, nobody would contend that the period when large numbers of families are still seeking homes is at an end, and yet the policy is not at this stage to do anything with vacant housing. Then the next sentence of that report is not without interest:
"Such hesitation as we have encountered is based solely on financial considerations."
I pause there for a moment to ask: Who is meant by "we"? The Chairman was a gentleman called Mr. Silkin, who is at the present moment, to the best of my knowledge, the Minister of Town and Country Planning. One of the members of the committee was Alderman Key who, equally to the best of my knowledge, is now the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health. Yet this report is now looked upon, I gather, with some disfavour and there is a general tendency to push it into the background. Indeed, Alderman Key, speaking a very short time ago in another place, said:
"It is deliberately intended to delay such action"—
that is, action on conversion—
"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."
The full development of productive capacity is bound to take a long time and surely the conversion of houses is one of those things which, in the interval while production is being brought up to its fullest point, might advantageously be put into operation with a view to producing at the earliest moment accommodation for numbers of people.
Some reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, to the shortage of bricks. No doubt the full production of bricks may take a considerable time, but here again conversion has a great merit over the building of new houses because the amount of material—not only bricks but lead for plumbing, timber and all sorts of things in short supply at the moment—is required in very much smaller quantities for the purposes of conversion than for the erection of new houses. There is another point in favour of conversion and that is that this

105
is the kind of work which very commonly is, and most suitably can be, undertaken by the small builder who is not prepared to tender for the bigger job which he feels himself incapable of carrying out. If we are trying to mobilize the entire building resources of the country, as presumably we are, here again is a field in which that might usefully be given scope. The committee itself points out another further advantage, that streets, sewers, public services, schools, shops, cinemas and so forth are already available on these sites and do not require fresh construction as if you were developing a new residential area. It also brings in the aesthetic argument, that by converting, for instance, same of the Georgian terraces in different parts of the country like those at Cheltenham and Bath, you can preserve these amenities both from the aesthetic and economic or tourist point of view and at the same time turn them to good account by providing accommodation for people to live in. That again I suggest is an advantage. It may be said that all these things will come, but that we do not want to do this at the present stage. Houses, however, like a good many other things, do not improve by keeping, and if these houses are allowed to remain indefinitely uninhabited (in a more or less derelict state, as many of them are), not only will it be a much costlier job to convert them when the time comes but it will require more material and labour in order to put them into a habitable condition.
I mentioned just now in passing the objection which the Parliamentary Secretary expressed to the suggestion of conversion in another place. The Minister himself took a different point, but he was equally hostile to the suggestion. He put it on what, if I may respectfully say so, really seems rather a startling ground. His ground was that when the war damage is over we want building workers to go on to the straightforward clean job of building new houses; that if you take them from war damage work and put them on conversion again it does not satisfy the craftsman's pride; it is dirty work, and we will not possibly get from the building workers the results we ought to get. Satisfying the craftsman's pride is a laudable object but a good deal of dirty work comes the way of a good many of us. Washing-up is one of them! But it is no good saying that it does not
106
satisfy our craftsman's pride! Is that really a serious argument to put forward if, as every recommendation of this unanimous report urges, conversion is one of the effective ways in which houses can be produced for the people of this country?
Recently in London the walls have been adorned with a number of posters bearing upon them an ardent and alert figure pointing to the legend "Labour Gets Things Done." After a close and intensive inspection of that poster I came to the conclusion that the ardent and alert figure was the noble Lord who, I am sorry to say is not in his place this afternoon but who leads the London County Council. From that I deduced that the expression "Labour gets things done" had perhaps a more limited significance than my first glance at it had led me to believe and that it was confined not to labour in general but to the Labour Party in particular. However that may be, with the general proposition that labour gets things done I would entirely agree. In the end all these building operations, as in so many other instances, come down to two things: a pair of hands and the amount of work that pair of hands is prepared to produce.
If I might make a short autobiographical detour, during the war I had the novel and extremely interesting experience of being at least partially responsible for substantial quantities of military labour. That labour was engaged either in conjunction with the Royal Engineers or independently, in large construction work, on roads, camps, storage huts and so forth. I always found that there was no lack of kind friends or unkind superiors to tell me at intervals that my men were sitting about and not doing any work. Naturally I made it my business to go and inquire and in nineteen out of twenty cases I would find that it was neither original nor acquired sin which made them have an appearance of indolence but that either the technical direction from outside was not on the spot or, more frequently, the materials had not arrived. I think that some people when they go about London and criticize, sometimes in very bitter terms, those men who have been working in London on bomb damage repair do not realize that a man cannot work unless he has got the materials with which to work.

107
Very often when there is an appearance of, shall we say, a lesser degree of concentration than might be looked for, at the same time it must be remembered that is by no means always the men's fault. It has to be remembered that very often these men have been brought away from their own homes, and housed in derelict, bleak, and I should think very often unheated houses with the result that occasionally the balusters of the house disappear. They have very few amenities, with communal feeding often at a considerable distance from the place at which they are working. With these disadvantages the fact of their being transported to and from their work in a luxury coach is not entire compensation.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, rightly made a great point of derequisitioning. Surely it is for the Government to set an example in these matters and to free as much accommodation as is reasonably possible. I heard recently a rumour, which I trust is only a rumour (perhaps it might be possible for one of the noble Lords who is speaking for the Government to inform us) that arose from a rather tentative application by a gentleman who owned a house in London which had been requisitioned, but which he found to have been derequisitioned. When he asked whether he might now have it back, he was told, "Oh, no. You cannot have it back because it is going to be requisitioned again in order to house a contingent who are coming over for the Victory Parade in June." Well, that seems rather a long sighted view. After all, June is the month in which we nominally have summer, and there are still such things as tents if we have to accommodate persons arriving in this country for an occasion of that kind. What in particular I would like to impress upon the Government is that they should abandon a practice which I believe to be still in force, which had some justification during the war but in my submission has none now, and that Is the practice when one Government Department has finished with some particular premises of hawking them round to every other Government Department. There may have been a time when that was justified, when there was a long list of applicants and very little accommodation going. But one really hopes the number
108
of candidates for accommodation amongst Government Departments is on the decline and that it is not necessary to go through this protracted process of offering to all and sundry any premises which are derequisitioned by one Government Department before the miserable owner has any chance of reclaiming them for his own use.
I would like to reinforce one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said. Very little account is taken in the present organization of the housing plan of the man who wants to own his own house. It seems to me that whatever anybody's political affiliation may be, a sense of property and a sense of family are two of the deepest instincts in any member of the human race, and these instincts are perhaps best fulfilled in people of modest means by the ownership of their own house. I do suggest that not enough consideration is being given to those people and not enough attention is paid to the psychological value to the morale of the country as a whole of giving an individual that feeling of permanence and stability which comes from knowing that at least the house in which he lives and in which his family reside with him is his own property.
To return to the position from which I started, the criticism I have made, has, as I hope the Government will realize, been made in no unfriendly spirit, but merely in a desire to help. I think we all realize that the Minister has got a long, rough and uphill path before him before the time comes when he can pause upon the crest and look back upon his achievement. As far as we are concerned, we want neither to thrust obstacles in his path nor to make that road more difficult, but by criticism, by suggestion and by co-operation to assist in the task which is common to us all to provide the people of this country not only with houses but homes.
3.55 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I believe that the Government and the House are equally indebted to the noble Lord opposite for this opportunity to survey the housing situation as a whole. The last occasion for a debate of this kind, as many of your Lordships will remember, was in the middle of November on the initiative of the most reverend

109
Primate, the Archbishop of York, and the number of events that have happened since then more than justify a further review of housing policy and performance. I welcome particularly the general and comprehensive terms of the noble Lord's Motion. It will enable the House to range over more aspects of the housing problem and to discuss more thoroughly questions of broad policy than would have been possible in a debate limited in scope by a narrower Motion or by the specific proposals of a Bill. I should like at this point to express my very warm thanks to both noble Lords who have just spoken for the constructive and non-partisan tone of their speeches, which, if I may say so, started this debate at the highest possible level.
I had not the advantage, before preparing my remarks, of advance information about the points which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin intended to raise, so that I fear that any correspondence between my brief and his speech will be purely coincidental. But there is one matter he dealt with to which I should like to address myself for a moment. He gave some figures relating to the size and distribution of the building labour force. I would like to add one or two more. In the last six months, the period surveyed in the White Paper, the building labour for temporary houses has risen from 14,000 to 36,000, while building labour on the work of constructing permanent houses has risen from 4,000 to 34,000 men.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is the figure I ought to have quoted: I am sorry.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged. This does illustrate that there has been a distinct improvement in the course of the last six months. Out of a total building and civil engineering force of just over 690,000 men more than 435,000 men are now engaged on housing operations of one kind or another.
What I said just now in relation to the noble Lord's speech applies equally to the speech to which we have just listened with much pleasure of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, but I can make two brief comments on the subject of conversion. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health is now considering the report, to which the noble Marquess referred on this subject, from one of his advisory committees. He will decide on the long-term policy with the assistance and recom-
110
mendation of this report and in the light of views expressed in Parliament and by those concerned with the reconversion problem. But for the time being, conversion is being carried out at a reasonable rate by the local authorities, which have ample powers to requisition empty houses for this purpose.
An immediate relief is being provided by the requisitioning of unoccupied houses and their conversion and adaptation for use by several families. Local authorities have already requisitioned nearly 100,000 unoccupied houses, and they have also taken over a number of huts and camps, erected, of course, during the war for different Government purposes. I should add that any point which I may have missed my noble friend Viscount Addison, who will wind up the debate, has kindly consented to do his best to answer.
I think there is general agreement on both sides of the House about two essential points. The first of these is the desperate urgency of the need for houses, both for the demobilized men returning from the Forces and for the thousands of families whose home conditions have always been below a standard we would accept for ourselves. The question at issue is how best these people can be provided with decent homes—what the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, called "suitable accommodation"—at a rent they can afford, and with the shortest possible delay. This question of method, of how most efficiently and effectively to set about the job, immediately raises sharp controversy between private enterprise and public control. But even at this stage there is a further point on which most of the adherents of both schools of thought would agree. It is that neither private enterprise nor public control should be regarded as an article of faith. Both political Parties appeal to public opinion for their justification, not by faith, but by works. Each knows that the verdict of the public will be decided by services rendered and goods produced, and that the best intentions, coupled to a theory that does not work in practice, will not reverse the verdict or even be treated as a mitigating circumstance.
That is why I propose to deal, in my remarks this afternoon, with what the Government has actually done, in the last six months, to produce and to prepare

111
for the further production of flats and houses. I shall leave your Lordships to judge whether any alternative policy could have built substantially more houses in the time, or could have laid firmer foundations in preparation for the 1946 and 1947 building seasons. Your Lordships will have seen in the White Paper (Command 6744) that the number of new permanent houses completed by the end of January in England and Wales was actually less than 2,000. This meagre figure must of course be supplemented by the 12,000 temporary houses that had been finished by that date. It is indeed true that the figure for permanent houses looks extremely small. But as local authorities were only authorized by the Government to start building operations in August, a considerably larger number could not reasonably be expected by anyone who knows how long it takes to build a house. If the local authorities had been allowed to go forward in the spring of last year, then, no doubt, many more houses would have been standing at this time.
The decision to postpone building operations until after the war was a decision of the Coalition Government of which both the noble Lord opposite and I myself had the honour to be members, and no one challenges the harsh wisdom of its determination not to relax before Germany and Japan had been defeated. The fact is that the handful of new houses that have gone up since the war is one of the many tragic consequences of the war itself. Further proof of the accuracy of this explanation is to be found in the excellent record of Scotland, where more permanent houses have been completed to date than in England and Wales taken together. In Scotland, on account of the particularly bad housing conditions in certain areas, permission to start building was given during the war. That is why Scotland has taken the lead. But even this trickle of new houses is not a bad beginning, if compared with the few drops that were squeezed out of the building industry immediately after the last war. During the first year of peace, right up to November, 1919, there was a total output of only 124 new houses. And in those days, of course, it was not possible to supplement the traditional type of house by mass-produced factory dwellings.
I believe the real test of our housing achievement in the past six months is
112
whether or not we have succeeded in making the indispensable preparations for a large and steadily increasing flow of new houses during the 1946 and 1947 building seasons. The figures in the White Paper show that most of the local authorities are now well advanced in the acquisition of sites, in site development, in requesting and placing tenders, and in the actual construction of houses begun but not yet completed. By the end of last year they had bought sites for over 400,000 permanent houses, and had started development with roads, sewers, and gas and water mains, on sites for 133,000 houses; 74,000 houses had reached what might be called the tender stage, and 17,000 were at different phases of construction on the same date. This means that, in the last six months, local authorities in England and Wales have settled the siting and the detailed plans for about 91,000 houses, of which half are already under contract for building. When the 1946 building season begins this April, over 50,000 permanent houses should be going up—in process of construction—with at least as many again coming along for contract as soon as the building trade can absorb them.
This is really rather a remarkable six months' record, when considered in relation to the difficulties most local authorities have had to face. It reflects a great deal of credit on the local authorities concerned. They began the period seriously short of trained staff, and they have shown much enterprise and determination in pressing forward with their housing schemes, and overcoming the many obstacles in their path. This spirit persists everywhere, in spite of the continuing shortage, in many cases, of technical assistance and advice.
The main criticism of the noble Lords opposite, which if not explicit is almost always implicit, is on the lines that the Government have not tried out the alternative policy of allowing private enterprise a free hand to get on with the job. They will say no doubt—at least one noble Lord has applauded my remark—that if private builders had been given a free hand to put up the houses, subject only to a maximum ceiling price, many more would have been ready by now, and a number far exceeding the plans of local authorities would be in prospect for 1046 and 1947. Private enterprise in the building field has in fact been tried out in the

113
pre-war years, and the evidence at my disposal—I am afraid I must differ from the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on that point—suggests a precisely opposite conclusion to his. A wrong impression may, I think, be given by the fact that private builders have completed three times as many houses to date as local authorities in England and Wales. The explanation of this is that these firms have been building in small groups of two or three houses, whereas local authorities have been building in fifties and hundreds. That private builders will soon be overtaken and outstripped is shown by the 5,000 to 6,000 houses they are now in process of building as compared with the 17,000 that have already been begun under contract with the local authorities. The enterprise of private builders working—
LORD WOOLTON: Are the private builders allowed to build? Can they get the licences?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I could, with notice but not from memory, give the exact figure of the number of private builders who have already received licences from local authorities. I should like to make it perfectly clear that the Government and the local authorities are extremely grateful to the private builders for doing this work under licence.
EARL DE LA WARR: Could we have at the same time the number that have not received licences?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My noble friend Viscount Addison will reply to as many points as he possibly can. What happened during the time that private building enterprise was given a fair trial to show what it could do? Do not let us forget that this was in a situation very similar to and no less urgent than ours to-day. It could hardly have had a fairer trial because the Government in power at that time, immediately after the last war, definitely favoured free business enterprise. This meant that in those days the private builder was not only subject to no licensing restrictions but was actually encouraged to build by subsidy from public funds. What was the result of this social experiment? In the first year, up to November, 1919, the first year after the Armistice, not one house was built by private enterprise. In the second year, up to November, 1920, private builders only put up half the houses completed in
114
the same period by local authorities. At the end of the building season in 1921, the third year of peace, private building still amounted to less than half the output commissioned by local authorities. It was not until 1923—I am very glad to see the noble Lord opposite is checking up on my figures because it assures me they are correct—that private builders started to forge ahead of local authorities and to become, as they ultimately became, the principal and most numerically successful agency for the provision of new houses between the wars.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: May I ask the noble Earl a question? Is it not true that for the first year after the last war the brick industry was in a worse state than it is now, and in that year there just was not a brick for anybody to use?
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I say that according to the figures, given by the Minister of Health in an answer in another place, the number of houses erected by private enterprise, assisted and unassisted, was 73,000 up to the end of 1922. For public authorities it was 576 for one year, 2,926, then 47,000 and then 85,000.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am afraid there is a direct conflict between the figures. Naturally I am inclined to claim that my figures (which also proceed from the Ministry of Health) are correct. I dare say the noble Lord will be so kind as to discuss the matter with me when the debate is over. After all, looked at quite impartially, what happened after the last war illustrates a simple economic fact, namely, that at a time when costs are high and may continue to rise, the expectation of profit is uncertain, and private enterprise becomes sluggish and inert. I refer of course to the building industry. But that is exactly the position, vis à vis costs, that we are in to-day. So long as labour and materials remain in short supply, a stampede by the would-be users of the industry after the men and building materials they want would soon push up costs above their present level. This would again result in the inflated housing prices we had after the last war. We cannot forget that between 1919 and 1922 housing prices rose by 200 per cent. This danger was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in the White Paper he published in March, 1945.

115
Moreover, however widespread the willingness of builders to face the risk of financial loss, the number of houses that can be built in 1946 is strictly limited by the expanding, but by no means fully expanded, physical capacity of the 'building industry. If houses were started sooner, and in larger numbers, there would be no increase in the quantity of materials or the supply of labour available this year.
The inevitable result of unrestricted building by private enterprise and local authorities all over the country, would be fewer finished and more unfinished houses at the end of the building season. It is to avoid these pitfalls, into which free enterprise has fallen once, and would certainly fall again, that the Government are controlling the allocation of labour and materials, and have decided to make the local authorities the senior partner in carrying out their housing programme. We should like to fix the contribution of the private builder to our programme at one in every five new houses built, because about four out of every five families in Great Britain need houses to let, and cannot afford, whatever their wishes may be, to buy their own homes.
Now I should like to turn from broad policy to certain salient features of the housing situation. I have already referred to the 12,000 temporary houses which were completed in England and Wales by the end of January. This is the first instalment of a programme comprising 130,000 temporary houses, and steady progress is being made with erection on sites in spite of the winter months. At the end of the period surveyed in the White Paper, 25,600 of these houses were at different stages in process of erection upon the sites chosen for them. By the end of February, to show the improvement month by month, the construction of a further 4,500 had begun, while 3,500 more were finished and became available for occupation. It is estimated that by the end of this month 19,000 temporary houses will have been completed and a total of 34,000 will be under construction. Your Lordships will see that we are now completing the erection of temporary houses at the rate of 4,000 to 5,000 houses a month, a speed of construction in the off-season that will undoubtedly be accelerated during the spring and summer months.
116
It is the time factor that is so exasperating about traditional building methods, and the Government intend to make the greatest possible use of the time-saving device of prefabrication. We have therefore arranged for the large-scale production of two types of prefabricated permanent houses, which will result in the addition of many thousands of permanent homes to those that will be built by traditional methods in 1946. These two types are a steel-framed house suitable for towns, and a concrete house for country districts. Both can be assembled quickly in situ, and require comparatively little skilled labour. There will be a special grant to local authorities to reduce the cost of these houses to the average cost of the traditional brick house in a particular area. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health will be explaining the arrangements for the erection of these houses to local authorities in the course of the next few days.
I will not go into detail about the housing subsidies proposed under the Housing (Finance) Bill which was read a second time last week in another place. That Bill will be discussed by your Lordships in due course, and in great detail. But I should like to emphasize that no Government has ever made a greater effort to keep down the rent payable for new houses by an average wage-earning family, in town or country, to a figure it can afford without having to give up any essential necessities. The generosity of the new subsidies, as compared with prewar subsidies, can be judged by their higher capital value. The capitalized value of the total subsidy under the new Bill, over a period of 60 years, is £594 per house in urban areas, and £770 per cottage in country districts. The capital value of the pre-war subsidy in the countryside was only £273 per cottage, while the urban subsidy at the same date was £187 10s. per house, both figures being calculated over the shorter period of forty years.
LORD WOLVERTON: Could the noble Earl tell us what price they can afford to pay?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot give an exact figure because, of course, it would vary from one area to another, but the subsidy is based on a calculation which would enable the average wage-earner

117
to afford to live in these houses without hardship.
It is probably unnecessary for me to say that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is anxious to enlist the services of every agency in the building industry that can help him to speed up the output of houses. He has therefore been discussing with the Federation of Registered House Builders how to enable the small builder to make his useful but peculiar contribution. The small builder has hitherto been unable to undertake the large contracts offered by local authorities, as his methods are not suitable for the simultaneous construction of a large number of houses. It is therefore hoped to arrange for the acceptance by local authorities of contracts with experienced private builders for the erection of small groups of houses. These minor building operations will not require the technical staff, the specifications, the bills of quantities, and the elaborate contracts involved in a full-scale housing scheme. Contracts made with the small man in the building industry will ordinarily be for two to six houses on a site. They will be based on a modern house already erected by the builder, and will provide for a lump sum payment. The essence of the arrangements will be that the local authority, having a good knowledge of the builder's pre-war work in a particular area, will have confidence in his capacity to satisfy present standards despite the absence of the usual paper guarantees and qualifications. The Minister of Health is also suggesting to local authorities that they should invite builders, large or small, to build for them on their own land, the land and the houses being subsequently purchased from their owner by the local authority. My right honourable friend expects to announce shortly a scheme acceptable to the local housing authorities and the small builders.
But however desirous public authorities and private building firms may both be to play their part in the present housing effort, they will be delayed and slowed down if the supply of building materials falls far short of their requirements. I will not disguise from your Lordships that shortages in a large number of essential building materials are causing the Government considerable anxiety. The Minister of Works is doing everything possible to step up the production of materials in short supply.
118
Your Lordships will remember what my noble friend Lord Henderson said last month about special measures to increase the labour force in the brick fields. The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, has made a special and close study of the brick industry, and I have no doubt we shall hear an interesting contribution from him on that subject later in the debate. The building materials industries hold the key to housing, and in no field of production should the Prime Minister's appeal for renewed and greater effort receive a more willing and immediate response in the national interest. In conclusion I would only say this. Until now our building programme has been mainly preparatory. The next six months will be the first big opportunity the country will have to secure new houses in large and rapidly increasing numbers. If full advantage is to be taken of this opportunity, there will have to be a maximum of co-operation and good will from public authorities and private firms alike, from labour and management in the building and ancillary industries, and from all the agencies and individuals on whose efforts in the coming months the homes of the future now rest.
4.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, everybody I think will agree that this housing problem is one of very great difficulty, and in the speech to which we have just listened the fact is, of course, very fully explained. I am glad to think that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who has considerable but not, I think, a very happy experience of the matter, will be able to tell us of his adventures in the enterprise of getting houses built for poor people. As my noble friend Lord Llewellin pointed out, there are several great difficulties, sometimes described as bottle-necks, connected with the supply of materials, in which bricks are the most important, and with which my noble friend Viscount Stonehaven will deal. Both labour and materials are at present in short supply, but we hope in the future things will be much better. I think the noble Earl who has just addressed us agrees that up to the present moment the results of building have been somewhat unhappy, but I am bound to say that he has given us reasons for thinking that the results in the future may be of a more pleasing character.

119
I am not going to attempt to roam over the whole of the subject we are dealing with to-night, but I want to say something on the subject of the handicaps which the Minister of Health and as I think, the Government have deliberately imposed upon themselves, which very seriously prevent their dealing with this question of building as efficiently as they might do. Three matters in particular I wish to mention, two of which I think have already been mentioned. The Government, for some reason or another, seem to have taken objection to any private enterprise in this matter. Secondly, they are equally opposed to any houses being built for sale; they want all houses to be built for letting. Thirdly, in one sentence, after complaining of the difficulty of poor men in the matter of housing, they are making attacks on the great building societies of the country, which have assets, I believe, amounting to £800,000,000. They are attacking these building societies and scoffing at them. They have applied to them the term "moneylenders," and have stated that their interests ought not to be taken into consideration. Why they should be called moneylenders" I do not know. The Bank of England is a money lending institution, and it now belongs to the Government—or to the country rather. There are vast numbers of enterprises in this country which lend money, and if they lend money at the reasonable rates to which building societies are compelled to keep, and enable, as they have enabled in the past, millions of people to acquire their own houses, it does seem to me rather invidious—if I may say so with all courtesy—and not wise to attack the building societies in connexion with this matter. That one could enlarge upon, but I do not want to say too much about it, because I think that I have enough to say on the subject of private enterprise and the matter of building for sale.
I am not in the habit of doing a thing that I regard as somewhat foolish and that is accusing people of something without having grounds for what I say. Mr. Aneurin Bevan on March 6 of this year said this:
"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
120
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."
The right honourable gentleman proceeded to say that honourable members on the Opposition Benches came forward with the old Tory clap-trap. The only remedy they had for every social problem, he asserted, was "to enable private enterprise to suck at the teats of the State." Of course, there is a different standard of courtesy in this House, and, for my part, I am not concerned to comment upon the Minister's language. But I should like to know from the noble Viscount who will finally reply to this debate when the Government accepted the solemn obligation that they should use our building materials and our labour first for the production of houses for those who need them, namely, houses for letting, instead of houses for sale.
The suggestion was borne out a little later by the assertion which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, repeated only a few minutes ago, that four out of five persons living in Great Britain need houses to be let, and cannot afford to buy them. Four out of five! I should like to know where those figures come from. I confess that it is absolutely and totally opposed to any of the facts that exist, so far as I know, on this subject. It is opposed by the fact that before the war vast numbers of men were building houses and getting finance from building societies and from other institutions. So far as I know, there is only one instance of an inquiry made by direct investigation as to what people want in this country. A Mr. Arnold Whittick, a lecturer to the Forces on houses and planning, made inquiries in eight groups of people in the Army and the Royal Air Fcrce. These people were asked whether they would prefer to rent or to buy a house, and in order to have the matter quite clear, the question was divided to provide for two separate sets of circumstances (a) assuming economic and social conditions to be those obtaining in 1938, and (b) assuming an assured and regular income sufficient to provide the necessities of life. These were the answers. Under assumption (a), that is, with con ditions those of 1938, seventy-five people wanted to rent houses, 361 wanted to buy. Under assumption (b), that is, that they were to have an assured and regular income sufficient to provide the necessities

121
of life, the answers showed that ten only wanted to rent, and 492 wanted to buy.
That is entirely different, ludicrously different, to the suggestion that four men want to rent as against one who wants to buy. It can only be made a statement approximating to the truth if the proposition is that these men for whom houses are required are men who have no money of their own, and who are not allowed to borrow either from building societies or other institutions. Of course, if you prevent a workman, a man who is just beginning his life, from acquiring money with the assistance of building societies, you may say that very few such men want houses, because they cannot afford to pay for them. But it is a most unfair and most unjust statement of fact, unless you explain that that is what you mean. I challenge the Government to prove their figures, and I would suggest to them with complete candour that the figures they have given, so far, are absolutely and entirely untrue. They are based on theories which cannot be proved.
Now I want to say something about private enterprise. The noble Earl who has just spoken would have us believe that the Government are not opposed to private enterprise in the matter of houses, and that the proof of it is that for every four houses built by the local authorities the Government are willing that one should be built by private enterprise. One in five! Of course, we know that so far as we can judge from the inter-war period, the position was rather the other way, and that private enterprise could and did build at least three times as many houses as the local authorities. But let us pass that by for a moment, and let us remember, firstly, that the houses built by private enterprise in the towns are not to have one of these extraordinarily generous subsidies, and that only some much smaller subsidy is allowed in the rural districts. Let us also remember that in order to build the houses licences must be obtained. The noble Earl opposite was challenged about licences for houses. I can tell him the answer. The answer was that, so far, from the end of the war, 28,000 licences had been given by local authorities to private builders. That statement was contained in a recent copy
122
of the Economist as a leading statement of fact.
What do they mean when they say that they will allow one-fifth of the houses to be built by private enterprise, and why? I am not accepting that it can be just to exclude houses built with the assistance of loans. Most of the millions of houses which were built before this war began were built with the assistance of borrowed money. It is true that building enterprise is cheaper and more rapid if done by private people than if done by local authorities. But the real difference between the two sets of houses, those built by local authorities and those built by private enterprise, is this: that, apart from the question of subsidies altogether, the Government (with that strange objection they have to any houses being built by private individuals) are banking on the fact that when the private man has built his house it comes within the Rent Restrictions Acts at once, and he also cannot get a licence unless he builds for rent, for letting. On the other hand, the houses built by local authorities are free from the Rent Restrictions Acts. A private builder, contemptuously referred to sometimes as a speculative builder, has to be rather a bold speculator and must be willing to spend some thousands of pounds in building a house which can only be rented, and the rent of which may be reduced, as soon as he has put it up, by some tribunal over which he has no control, whereas the local authority is entitled to fix the rent and to raise it when they think fit.
But it goes further than that. The private house, the house built by private enterprise, and which is subject consequently to the Rent Restrictions Acts, is one in which the first tenant gets security of tenure for an unknown period. Even if he does not pay his rent, it is exceedingly difficult to eject him; you can only eject him by expensive proceedings in the County Court; and he is entitled to stick there, and his wife and his children are entitled to stick there, until the Rent Restrictions Acts come to an end. But the local authority house is in a very different position. There, the tenant gets a weekly tenancy—that is the practice all over the country, according to the best of my information—and after being put in there, after putting in his scanty furniture and getting accustomed to the house he is at any time liable to be turned out

123
at a week's notice. Really the dies are loaded against building by private enterprise, as the Government know perfectly well. Mr. Bevan in his speeches has indicated perfectly clearly that his doctrine is: "No private person in this country is, if I can help it, to own a house of his own." You may think that is an extravagant statement, but I believe it is true. I have read his speeches and I cannot believe that there is any other explanation of the way in which it is made impossible for private individuals to build houses to any great extent or of the fact that even if they are willing to speculate they are held up by the stipulation that they must build only upon a licence and for a weekly rent.
The Rent Restrictions Acts have got a very wide effect. I am well aware of them and had to make a study of them for another purpose. I am quite aware of the security of tenure and the vast advantage of it, contrary to any contract which may be made at the time the tenant is put into possession, but I would observe that with regard to the houses which the local authority has built, the situation is a very curious one if one realizes the old doctrine of a home. You cannot have a home if you may be turned out in a week, and you cannot say any longer that "an Englishman's home is his castle," if it is a castle on a weekly tenancy. I would say that it is completely unfair and unjust to the ordinary men and women who desire to buy a house to be treated in the way in which they are treated by the Bill which is before Parliament and by the intentions which the Government have disclosed in speeches in the other place.
I do not know how far members of His Majesty's Government read the works of Karl Marx and how far they have great pleasure in the phrase "wage slaves"; but I would venture to say that for my part I think the phrase "rent slaves" would be, not quite as just, but about as just, as a description of the people who live in these houses erected by local authorities.
Perhaps I may conclude by telling your Lordships a little story about a case which I had when I was at the Bar, a case about the custody of a child. It was a claim by two working men, one on one side and one on the other. My client, who
124
claimed to keep the child under his care, had been a working man all his life (he was not very old) and, as I knew, and as I elicited in the court, he had acquired, with the assistance of a building society, a house of his own and quite a substantial sum of capital. It was necessary to say that to show that he was a proper person to look after the child, to give it all it needed. The case was not a very easy one. I was very anxious for the Judge to appreciate what I had appreciated about this man. He was of the best type of English working-man and I for my part would say that there is no better type than that particular class of man. I asked him the question, "Now, Mr. So-and-So, how did you get all this money?" and he drew himself up and hit the desk before him and said "By work." There was a sensation in court. Everybody looked at him and I am sure they felt that by those two words he had indicated long years of thrift and labour in order to be able to build up a home and some means of supporting it and for looking after the child.
A good many years have passed but so far as I can see, and I am speaking absolutely with no political idea at all in saying so, the men who will strive and work and put money away are getting fewer and fewer. Everything is being done for them by the State. They are helped in every department of life until it comes to the time for their funeral and you will not find many men, in my belief, who will be inclined to save money under conditions as they are now where saving is almost useless. They cannot buy a house with it; they cannot buy clothes for their families. There is absolutely nothing they can do to make life enjoyable other than things like greyhound racing, the companionship to be found in a public house, and occupations of that kind. It will be a bad day for England if the Government do not, as soon as they possibly can, encourage these men to save. I am firmly of the conviction that one of the best ideas is that they should be able to earn sufficient to enable them to pay week by week or month by month sums by which they will acquire their own houses with such amenities as can be given at the present time.
I do not speak as a politician and care very little about what happened in the past. It leaves me cold to think that

125
after the last war houses were built very slowly. It does not move me to much excitement to be told that during the last six months the Government might have done better. The Government have got to submit to criticisms, especially of a constructive kind. What I am deeply concerned with is that houses should be obtained for the working classes of this country and for those gallant fellows who come home from abroad whether they be soldiers, airmen or sailors. They should have not only houses in which they can live at a subsidized rent but houses which they can acquire in which to spend their time with their wives and families. These, I think, are among matters most desperately needed at the present time.
4.56 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Government for reassurance on two specific points. One of them in particular is causing me a very great deal of anxiety because it is fundamental to a successful housing policy. The first point on which I want reassurance from the Government—and I hope the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, who I understand is going to wind up this debate, will be able to give it to me—is on the question of what is the Government's policy on the problem of the great urban aggregations. This is fundamental to a proper housing policy and I should like to remind your Lordships of a debate which took place in your Lordships' House in November, 1944, when I had the privilege of moving that the decentralization, decongestion and redevelopment of the great urban aggregations should be a prime object of policy. Those were the days when my noble friend Lord Woolton was Minister of Reconstruction and after a debate which was, if I may say so, on a high level, in which noble Lords from all quarters of the House took part and during which there was no dissent, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, accepted the Motion on behalf of the Government. I admit quite frankly that my noble friend while accepting the Motion was careful to say that he did not thereby commit himself necessarily to accepting all the arguments which I had put forward but as he had accepted the Motion I was quite content, and that stood as the accepted policy of the Coalition Government.
126
That is the first question I want to put to the noble Viscount who I much regret to see is not in his place, but I hope that means will be found to communicate to him the question I am asking. I have not thought it necessary to give him private notice because I understood that the policy of this Government is in accordance with the principle I have enunciated, but it would be highly satisfactory to me, and, I am sure to the House, to have an assurance on that point from the noble Viscount. It is really fundamental to get this right because without a deliberate policy of decongestion of the great towns we shall never get the houses we want in all the right places. To get the houses in the right places, which I am afraid we signally failed to do between the wars, is, in my opinion, a fundamental part of a successful housing policy. I began by saying that I was apprehensive about this. I want to tell your Lordships why. I am apprehensive because a sine quâ non for a proper policy of decongestion is a proper land policy. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is not here because no one knows better than he the difficulties of getting an agreed land policy. I regret very deeply that it was not found possible, and I know that Lord Woolton made very great efforts in that direction, but the regrettable fact remains that it was not found possible to get an agreed land policy in the Coalition Government. Nevertheless, the present Government before they came into office announced their policy and gave pledges as to what they were going to do.
It is very unfortunate that nothing yet has been done. We have the promise of a Bill. I think Mr. Silkin, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, has definitely indicated that a Bill will be forthcoming some time this spring, and the sooner the better, because what is happening now is that all the local authorities are proceeding with their housing programmes and building new houses and flats and almost entirely extending peripheral development. In other words, the housing machine is getting well started off again on the old bad track. Big cities are getting bigger and bigger, and there is no organized dispersal. I do not want to anticipate the discussion on the Housing Bill, which will be coming up before long, but I do want to say to your Lordships that if the noble Viscount is going

127
to tell us (and I do earnestly hope that he is, and I anticipate that he is) that the Government do adopt a policy of dispersal and decongestion, well, they really must think again about the financial provisions of the Bill which is now in another place.
The rules of order in your Lordships' House I think are sufficiently elastic to allow me to refer very briefly to what is going to happen, and, although it would be quite improper to anticipate a discussion, to give your Lordships very few figures. The capital value of the subsidy for houses is £594; that is on land up to £1,500 an acre. Now here is the point. On land over £1,500 per acre the local authority has got to build flats; there is no option under Clause 4 of the Bill. The subsidy for flats on land over £1,500 an acre runs up by steep stages and on land of 18,000£20,000 an acre is £1,482 per flat or £1,764 per flat if there are lifts. That compares with £594 for a house. Of course one can make an easy calculation of how many millions will be saved by building houses and not flats, and that would be nicely to beg the whole question, because quite clearly you have got to have some flats towards the centre. But if the Government really do intend to have a policy of decentralization, then they must be prepared to arrange for the dispersal of a considerable proportion of the people who are living highly congested in the central areas. I find from working it out that even on land up to £13,000 an acre, if dwellings were provided three houses to one flat, you would save £11,000,000 in capita] value on every 100,000 people of whom 50,000 were dispersed. I do not expect the noble Lord to grasp the figures which I am giving him just like that, because we will return to the matter when we get the Bill here, if it has not been amended. The point I want to make is that as at present arranged on land over £1,500 an acre the local authorities are not allowed to build houses at all; they have got to build flats. Those flats are going to be far more ext pensive than the houses, and the cubic space is going to be lower, and they are not what the people want. What the people want, of course, are houses with gardens. I do not intend to enter into the competition in arithmetic which we have had between the two Front Benches. I was deeply interested to find the two
128
noble Lords, one on each Front Bench, each with perfectly watertight figures derived from the Ministry of Health, and, of course, the fact is I am quite sure that both sets of figures are perfectly right, because, of course, statistics prove anything.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): There was—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think I can anticipate the noble Viscount. I think he is trying to tell your Lordships about a return, also from the Ministry of Health, giving the average age of death from a certain disease. That is quite right, isn't it?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The average age of death from this disease was 45, but when you looked into the return you found there were only two cases. One was a new-born baby, and the other was a nonagenarian. So I have not any doubt whatever that all the figures given by both my noble friends are perfectly correct. That is the first point. I would like the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to give me a reassurance that the Government are determined to give effect to a policy of decongestion and dispersal and redevelopment as expected by this House, the absolute essential for which is suitable land legislation. I do not embark on the form which that land legislation is going to take; we will argue about that when the time comes, but land legislation there must be, and I do hope to hear that the Government really are determined to give effect to the policy of dispersal.
The other point is the question of what use the Government are going to make of the housing societies. I did ask a question some months ago, and I was given an answer of what I can only describe as very modified rapture about the housing societies, and I was at the time a little disappointed. But on examining the Bill—again I do not want to anticipate the Bill—I was not altogether reassured but I believe the answer again is a modified affirmative. I want to ask the noble Viscount to give us something more than a grudging affirmative about the use of these societies. I am not going to follow my noble and learned friend who has just sat down on the question of houses for

129
sale or houses to let, except to say one thing in passing. I accept the fact that it is the policy of the Government to produce houses to let. I am not embarking on merits when I say that I would beg the Government to consider whether it would not be wiser to approach people in the building societies and the building trades and try to see by what means they could be encouraged to build houses to let, if that is what the Government want (and there is a case for it) instead of calling them a pack of cutthroats, and really putting them off by accusing them of being rapacious. There are two sides to every question. I am quite certain in this housing matter the great building societies and the great contractors in the building trades want to co-operate, and I am quite certain that the Government will get a better and a more speedy result by trying to secure co-operation, by saying frankly, "What we want are houses to let. How can private enterprise co-operate?" I think they will in that way achieve the speedier result, which we all want, than by a process of antagonizing the building societies.
Of course they will have to do something about the Rent Restrictions Acts. I will come to that in a moment. There is one more point on the question of the housing societies. My noble friend the Earl of Listowel said that neither public control nor private enterprise should be regarded as an article of faith. He also said that they wanted to enlist every agency to speed up house building. I know that is true, and I accept that absolutely on its face value. Even if the Government are absolutely determined to have nothing but houses to let, then the housing societies really are down their street. They are non-profit-earning bodies, and they do precisely parallel work to the local authorities. I do beg the Government to give an assurance that there will be real cordial co-operation and a real whole-hearted attempt to get these people to work with the local authorities. There is a very good reason for that. I am not disputing the need for houses to let, but I do dispute the advisability of a situation in which every house to let, or the great majority of them, are owned by the same owner, and that owner the local authority. That really is putting the population in a very invidious position. A monopoly of landlordism in the hands of local authorities surely must be admitted
130
to be a bad thing. You cannot defend it by any possible argument whatever. Here are these housing societies willing to offer alternative accommodation to that of the local authority, on similar terms, if they can get the assistance to which I say they are entitled under the Housing Act.
Those are two points on which I want reassurance: one about the policy of decongestion, and the second about real co-operation with the housing associations. Thirdly, I want to ask the noble Viscount something of which I ought to have given him notice; consequently I do not expect an answer to-day, but perhaps we may expect it when the Housing Bill comes up for consideration. Have the Government a policy with regard to the question of local authorities raising the rents of their houses? These low rented houses are under the Rent Restrictions Acts for every owner except the local authorities. The houses of local authorities are not under the Rent Restrictions Acts and, to my knowledge, some local authorities are raising rents. I would like to know, without arguing merits, whether or not the Government are proposing to lay down a policy for local authorities in that respect.
5.12 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, while being in complete agreement with the questions and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I do want to get back to this matter of the licences for private builders to build houses. I had put down a starred question on this point for to-morrow, but I put it down anticipating that this debate would take place in a week's time. I have since withdrawn that question and I want to bring it into this debate. This statement that the number of licences issued to private builders for building houses is going to be reduced, is really very disturbing. When one looks at the progress report which has recently been issued—the White Paper which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, quoted and criticized so ably—in spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said about it, one finds that it does show one thing which is sticking out a mile, and that is that a great number of local authorities, for some reason or another—probably a perfectly genuine reason—are not yet in a position to provide the houses which we all want so badly. It may be lack of

131
staff, it may be inefficiency—I do not know the reason—but the fact remains that there are a considerable number of local authorities who are not yet carrying out the Minister of Health's programme.
Are we going to take the pace of this housing programme entirely from the slowest people? That looks to me as if it were the threat implied. If various local authorities, for probably a perfectly good reason, cannot start building their houses, you are going to limit the licences issued to the private builder in a ratio to the houses supplied by the local authority. You are going to limit the private builder. You are going to slow down the pace of this house-building programme to that of the slowest people in the whole scheme. I believe that in certain cases—not in house building—you have to adjust your pace to the slowest moving element. You have to do so in ship convoys, and things like that, where they have all to be kept together. But I do suggest that that is a very bad policy to adopt as regards the provision of houses. Why cannot you turn it into a race, instead of a convoy? This really is causing a great deal of concern and discouragement to the private house builder.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that the figures of houses which were being built by private enterprise would decline. If this policy of limiting the licences is going to be carried out, it is bound to decline, and the Government policy will be pushing it down. It is the greatest discouragement to private enterprise and the private house builder that they can possible offer. At the same time the noble Earl referred to the necessity of having the local authority as the senior partner. He said that we want a partnership in which the local authority must be the senior partner. I agree thoroughly. But, for heaven's sake, do not let us get to that position where the senior partner reduces the junior partner to such an extent that he becomes completely non-existent. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, saying that the private builder will shortly become inert and sluggish.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I do not think so.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes; look it up.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I do not like interrupting the noble Lord because I know how tiresome interruptions are, and also because of the time, but I used those words in a different context. I was referring—I am speaking from memory—to the attitude of the private builder when he is faced with a high cost and the prospect of a further rise, as he was after the last war.
LORD CHESHAM: I appreciate that. I should have said that in certain circumstances he is likely to become inert and sluggish. That is not the kind of encouragement for which the private builder is looking. He is not inert or sluggish now. He is trying to do his job, and all the Government are doing is to assert that he is becoming inert and sluggish, and that they will immediately cut down the number of licences for which he may apply.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I apologize for interrupting again, but I applied that expression, "inert and sluggish," to what happened after the last war. The noble Lord is, I think, suggesting that I am describing private builders at the present time in those terms.
LORD CHESHAM: I am afraid I am not impressed with what happened after the last war; I am worrying about what is happening after this war. Are the conditions the same as they were after the last war? And what happened after the Zulu War and Boer War? To my mind that has just as much bearing on these cases as what happened after the last war. Were all these houses destroyed by bombs in the last war? Is the situation the same in any way? I do not think the noble Earl's argument has anything to do with it. Anyhow, I do want to point out, without getting hectic over this matter, that the whole position of the private builder is getting more and more bewildering and confused. I hope that the Government do not intend to enforce too strongly this four to one proportion of building houses, as has been stated. I want to ask the Government whether they do intend to adhere strictly to this policy, and if so, can they give an assurance that in cases where the private builder is in a position to build a house, where he has the materials, the labour and the site, a licence will not be withheld because the local authority, through inefficiency, lack of

133
staff or any other reason, are unable to do their part of the job?
LORD CALVERLEY: If the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, I can say that as far as Leeds is concerned the policy is to take in the small builder. That is definite.
LORD CHESHAM: They will issue a licence?
LORD CALVERLEY: That is right. They are going to allow them access to specifications and to help them in every way.
LORD CHESHAM: That is extremely gratifying. Perhaps the Government will follow the lead of Leeds. I want to put in an appeal for the mobilization of all forces to get these houses built. It is no use saying that the local authority will do this and that private enterprise will do that. You have got to get the whole thing together because otherwise you will not get the houses built. I am going to tread on ground now of which I am completely ignorant, and that is the Ministries. We are always blaming the Ministry of Health, but surely it is a whole conglomeration of Ministries which is concerned—the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Labour. There is not a single Ministry which is not either directly or indirectly concerned. I hope that they too will get together, because only in that way will we get these houses built.
5.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Earl the Postmaster-General said he considered the record of Scotland to be excellent. He gave some explanation to show that it was not quite all it appeared to be from the paper, but he did not say that what it amounts to is that the figures are entirely illusory and will not give any satisfaction to Scotland at the present time. Indeed I will say that a very page in the history of rhetoric has been lost by the fact that the Under-Secretary, Mr. Buchanan, cannot denounce this result in the passionate, vigorous and vivid manner of which he is such a consummate master. The fact is that last July Scotland had 4,000 houses under construction and had actually built 600. Not only did she have a flying start but she had actually
134
chalked up a score before the whistle blew. Last October Mr. Buchanan said there were 5,000 houses under construction and that construction of 3,000 would start shortly. Since that date the construction of only some 1,800 houses has been started. I think I have some idea as to why that is; I think it is due to slowness in approving tenders. The figures give that impression, and that impression has been amply confirmed by a contractor, who told me that a tender he, had submitted last October was only approved a few days ago. That is a delay of five months. That was not a local authority; that was the Scottish Special Housing Association, which is directly under the Department.
I am going to speak on the position of housing in Scotland, because it is fundamentally different to that which exists in England. In the first place, we have not suffered the bomb damage that England suffered; we had a mere 7,000 houses destroyed. But our problem is much more serious than that which exists in England and it is of an entirely different nature. I regret very much that no noble Lord who is familiar with the situation is speaking in this debate or, as least, is not shown to be speaking at the present time. Things which work in England do not necessarily work in Scotland. The first thing that occurs to me is the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. That was a very great success and a most valuable Statute in Scotland, but I understand it has not been quite so valuable in England. That may be due to the fact that our farmhouses are of a different style; they are more isolated and they are made of stone, which is a more suitable subject for reconversion and redevelopment than brick. We certainly do not use lath and plaster as is done in some parts of England. In any case the repeal of that Act constitutes an act of surrender conforming to English requirements and not to Scottish requirements.
The second point I have to make concerns what is called the speculative builder. Why he is called speculative because he anticipates the requirements of his customers I do not know. You never speak of a speculative haberdasher or a speculative ironmonger. The speculative builder has not been a success in Scotland. Whereas in England he built three out of four houses between the wars, in

135
Scotland two out of three houses were built by municipalities. I do not mind telling you that we have looked with some envy and some greed at the very rapid development in England which has taken place between the wars. We have wondered why it is that our housing has not progressed to the extent which housing has progressed in England. The difference can be shown by the figures of overcrowding which were recorded in the report of 1935. In England 3.8 per cent. of the houses were recorded as overcrowded, whilst in Scotland the figure was 22.6 per cent. None of the English towns reached the Scottish level, and none, of course, even approached the appalling figure of 44 per cent. which exists in such places as Coat bridge and Greenock. To us it is the midsummer night of madness to strangle the goose that has laid the golden egg. If I may venture as a mere Scot to express an opinion on a purely English matter, we cannot understand why you are being so foolish as to throw over the instrument which has performed no less than a miracle between the two wars.
It is no blind chance that the speculative builder has not been successful in Scotland; there are very definite reasons for it. The first reason is the incidence of the rates, on which I will say something in a minute. The second is the tradition of low rents which is very closely connected with the incidence of the rates. The third is the fact that local authorities in England have been more generous to the speculative builder than they have been in Scotland. They have assisted, for instance, in the construction of roads, which has practically never been the case in Scotland. On the question of rates I will read to you what Mr. Tom Johnston, formerly Secretary of State for Scotland, is reported to have said in a recent broadcast:
"It is true that we have built more municipal houses in proportion to England, but even in our best year we were never anywhere near the English figure, and the cause was the rating system which manifestly discouraged the building of houses to let. Unless that issue can be taken out of the scrimmage of party politics in Scotland we shall continue to suffer from a disadvantage from which England and Wales are free."
The outstanding points of the rating system—and I will be quite shod, because it is complicated—are, firstly, that
136
vacant houses, whether furnished or not, are liable for rates, and, secondly, that the unfurnished rent is automatically the assessed value. That means that the annual values in Scotland are higher than those of comparable properties in London. To compare the poundage, an increase of 25 per cent. is correct or approaching correctness. Thirdly, there is a division of the rates between the occupier and the owner. In origin that was intended as a form of Income Tax but as the course of centuries went by it became removed from its original intention.
As a result of these factors the ownership of dwelling houses to let is an unattractive proposition and a thing which no one willingly undertakes if he can possibly avoid it. I do not know whether this example is common in England, but it certainly is quite common in Scotland, where I have seen an example of it quite recently. A block of about 100 houses was up for sale and nobody wanted to buy it. It was virtually to be given away. The houses were not new houses but they certainly were not derelict. Those houses constituted to the owner a pure liability which no one was willing to undertake, and when I say "no one" I include the local authority, which refused to take the houses as a gift. In these circumstances it is not possible to expect that private enterprise, as it is called, will solve the problem of housing in Scotland until the rating system has been put right. We do not expect it, but I must emphasize that the subsidy as suggested at the present time imposes a very heavy burden on the local authorities. It demands by Statute a bigger payment per house from the local authority than any Act for the last fifteen years and any Act at all of which extensive use has been made since 1919. In Scotland, in very hard and severely hit areas, £6 10s. per house has to be paid, whereas in England, in such places as Bournemouth or Brighton, £5 10s. has to be paid. The rates at the present time in these areas will not stand that incidence, and it will mean, provided that the cost of houses does not go up and provided the rents are obtainable—both of which contingencies are uncertain—that there will inevitably be a 10 per cent. increase in rating on burghs which are badly placed to-day. It is a burden

137
which they can only bear with very great difficulty indeed.
There is an enigma about Scottish housing which is difficult to explain; it is rather like the widow's cruse in reverse. When the Royal Commission reported in 1917, the demands were 121,000 houses. By 1919 it had risen to 131,000 houses; by 1935 it had risen to 250,000 houses; by 1939 it had risen to 260,000 houses, and to-day we are faced with a demand for 500,000 houses. You cannot say nothing has been done. In fact, 350,000 houses were built before the war, three times the original figure given by the Royal Commission in 1917.
There is one other very significant thing, and it is just a word, the word "tradition." Brick is now called the traditional method of building in Scotland. No one could conceivably have called it that 25 years ago, when stone was the traditional method, and everybody viewed with scepticism the introduction of brick into a dwelling house. I only mention that to show that quite a revolution has already taken place.
This constant increase in requirements has taken place for two reasons. First of all, there has been a rise in standards. Secondly, there has been no allowance for routine replacements, because houses as built to-day do not last for ever. In regard to standards, may I just tell this story for what it is worth? In 1938 I went to Berlin, a city which at that time had no slums, and I asked to be shown their housing sites. I was taken to three of their newest housing sites, and not one of them would have been up to the standard demanded by the Department of Health for Scotland.
In regard to replacements, I would like to put it this way, if you will bear with me for a moment in a little simple mathematics. In the report which has just been issued, the number of houses in Scotland is given as 1,200,000, to which it is stated a net addition of 400,000 is required, making a total of 1,600,000. Giving those houses a sixty years' life, which I think is not ungenerous, that means that 28,000 houses a year are required to replace the present numbers. In other words, with 28,000 houses a year, we are merely marking time, not losing ground. In the whole history of recorded building in Scotland, only once have 28,000 houses a year been built and that was in
138
1876. In 1938 and 1939, 25,000 houses were built. That means that the building force in Scotland, which was about 60,000 before the war, requires to be doubled or trebled, and the question I should like to ask the noble Viscount who will reply is: What arrangements are being made to double or treble the building industry in Scotland? Are training centres being built? Are there organizations for putting under training new men who can build up the industry as it now stands? To-day housing is by far the most urgent problem in Scotland, a problem which I think is even more urgent than it is in England, and there is no section of the populace at any point who would not give the fullest and utmost co-operation that they can if the way is open for them to do so. Housing is a task which should be taken right out of the scrimmage of politics, and put into the realm of administration, so that it is dealt with apart from politics just in the same way as we deal with water or with roads. I have much pleasure in supporting the noble Lord.
5.35 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, perhaps it would be as well if I come in at this moment in order to reduce somewhat the task of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in summing up the debate. I have always looked upon it as a mere convention to express gratitude to the noble Lord who opens a debate on occasions like this, but I think I can quite honestly say that it is not mere convention on this occasion, having regard to the importance of it and the manner in which it has been discussed by noble Lords with the desire, as I see it, not to score points, but rather to endeavour to find a modus vivendi to solve the housing problem. In that the noble Lord who opened the debate gave us an admirable lead. He will not mind my saying that some people do not like the temporary houses, but it all depends on the people. I know a good many people who live in them who do like them. It all depends on what your contacts have been, and the social circle in which you move. I know a good many people in these houses who have got considerably better housing accommodation than they had before, particularly with regard to the amenities which are supplied in this particular type of house. It is not that I am approving of them altogether, but that has to be borne in mind.

139
As a woman said to me the other day, "One thing, during the coal shortage we are not feeling it like the other people because we have one fire which manages to heat the whole house." There are, therefore, some things with which we can say that the people are very well satisfied. I heard a woman in a train saying that she had never had such a house in all her life, and the car was then passing some of the temporary houses in the Vauxhall Bridge Road.
A NOBLE LORD: You can take that either way.
LORD AMMON: Among the questions that were asked was this. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, asked how many houses had been derequisitioned. The number released from requisition between January 1945, and January 31, 1946, was 33,800. He then asked how many un-derequisitioned houses there were. The number is 18,000, including 7,000 very large houses of the mansion type. The noble Marquess then went on to ask what steps were being taken with regard to those that are still requisitioned. They are being released as fast as possible, but it is as well to note that it 'has a little different bearing on the housing problem to what is borne out by the ordinary figures, because when a house of twelve rooms or less becomes derequisitioned it is reported to the local authority, who then use it to house people who are overcrowded under the peculiar circumstances that have arisen in various districts, and that is pretty considerable.
I think probably some noble Lords, and many other people, do not know exactly how far that has gone. For instance my own borough has got 40,000 houses in it, and only 400 of them escaped damage during the "blitz." Bermondsey and Stepney have suffered even more. That will give some idea of the tremendous trouble which is involved not only in the actual building of the houses, but in repairing houses in order that people may find accommodation in the meanwhile.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, wanted to know what was the objection to any private enterprise, and then he quoted, of course with his usual accuracy, a certain number of quite accurate figures of persons who had ob-
140
tained private licences. That indicates that there may be a limited objection, but that it is certainly no real objection. I propose dealing with that at greater length when I answer the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. But there is a little more to it than that. The Government are prepared to give a subsidy to country builders, so that if a farmer wishes to build a cottage for his labourer he will get the subsidy and can proceed with the work, provided he can get a private builder to do it.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: A smaller subsidy than a local authority would get.
LORD AMMON: Yes, but a subsidy. I am dealing with the point about not calling in the private builder. This is a case in which he is helped in the way that I have stated. I, for one, am not inclined to decry or to depreciate the work done by the building societies. I happen to be Vice-President of the Metropolitan Building Societies' Association. But I am not blind to the fact that a good many people have bought houses, more or less under a kind of compulsion, and that they have found them a burden weighing very heavily on their shoulders in later years. They have found the onus of keeping up the payments a very weighty one. No one who has been in contact with working people who have been labouring under that difficulty can fail to understand that that is a position which must be taken into consideration.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: But it has been improved very much by an Act which I helped to draft and put through myself.
LORD HAWKE: Has it not been improved still more by the present policy of inflation which is reducing the value of money in terms of goods?
LORD AMMON: Well, whatever the causes I am willing to admit that there has been improvement. I am certainly not attempting to decry any efforts which have been made to bring about improvement. I would remind the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, that the licensing system was brought in by the Conservative Caretaker Government, so you must not lay your complaints on this score wholly at the door of the present Government.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Nobody complains of licences. The complaint is that they are not being granted.
LORD AMMON: The noble and learned Viscount said that you cannot have a home if you are liable to be turned out in a week's time. Most of the working class are in homes for which they pay weekly rent, and in that sense they may be liable to be turned out. But I have had a good deal of experience in helping people in difficulties of that sort, and I can tell your Lordships that it is very hard to find a magistrate who is going to turn a man out of a house immediately simply because he owes one week's rent or is in some other monetary difficulty. It is true, however, that most of the working-class population labour under this disability due to a weekly tenancy. But it is also true, and it is much to the credit of whoever is concerned, that it is not implemented. Therefore, I do not think the noble and learned Viscount is entitled to make any capital out of that.
He also challenged the Government as to the estimate of one in five relating to the building arrangements with regard to the private builder versus the local authority. There are no exact figures but I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree that it is worth while to consider on what this estimate is based. It is based on the proportion of the population who are wage earners receiving from £5 to £7 a week—that is, of course, leaving out all considerations of inflated wages. It is recognized, in making this calculation, that there are many people who buy houses through a building society and find them subsequently to be millstones round their necks for the rest of their lives. Figures are also worked out by the Income Tax people. It is found that such wage earners as I have mentioned make up 70 per cent. to 80 per-cent. of the population. Whether the noble and learned Viscount thinks that is an adequate explanation or not I do not know, but that is how the figures are arrived at in this particular case.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am awfully sorry to interrupt again, but I should be very glad if the noble Lord would elucidate how the different figures have any bearing on the proposition which he is trying to establish.
LORD AMMON: The noble and learned Viscount wanted to know how the figures were arrived at. I am just giving him the answer, showing how they are arrived
142
at in regard to the proportion of those who want to buy houses and those who want to rent houses. It is presumed that the people who pay rent are in the proportion which I have already read out to the noble and learned Viscount. I hope, therefore, that even if I have not satisfied him I have made the point which I am trying to make quite clear to him. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, asked what is the Government's policy with regard to great urban aggregations. The policy is that of dispersal and an endeavour to set up a system of zoning and so spread out the population thereby breaking up very large aggregations. Of course, a difficulty arises in that connexion as the noble Lord will readily realize, owing to the fact that in the urban districts where land is so very much more expensive there will be a good many more flats than in other districts because of the cost involved. I am afraid that it is impossible for anybody to give the noble Lord an answer at the moment as to what is the position of local authorities with regard to the policy of rents. But that no doubt will be taken notice of and will be considered by others. I cannot give an answer to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on the point which he has raised with regard to Scotland. I can tell him that with regard to the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, the Minister has had an interim report on it from an advisory committee. He is giving consideration to it and no doubt a statement will be issued before very long.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Do I understand that you are reconsidering the Act still?
LORD AMMON: Yes, that is the position now.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That will give great satisfaction.
LORD AMMON: Next, I want to turn if I may to the particular point raised by Lord Chesham regarding the private builder as against the local authority. His suggestion was that putting the building in the hands of the local authority slows down the pace. There is no evidence to bear that out, and in spite of what the noble Lord may have said in his efforts to pour scorn on what was done after the last war, may I say that experience between the wars rather shows that when private enterprise had a free hand it did

143
slow down things considerably. It slowed down the numbers of houses built and increased the cost by as much as 200 per cent., and it was only when local authorities started building, and did build, that the pace of building quickened very much. Perhaps my noble friend the Earl of Listowel's phrase, in which he used the words "inert" and "sluggish" was not altogether unmerited. He is, I think, afraid that inertia and sluggishness might supervene again unless there were a certain amount of compulsion behind the building effort.
LORD WOOLTON: Will the noble Lord tell us how much the price of building has gone up now? He used the figure of 200 per cent. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us how much it has gone up now.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I have the precise figures for the cost of a house at the present moment, which I will give the noble Lord.
LORD WOOLTON: As compared with 1938?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Lord will be able to compare them with any period.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Really these figures that were given in the House of Commons by the Minister of Health do not bear out what he said at all, because up to March 1920, local authorities built 576 houses and private enterprise built 159 houses. Then in the next period, which is to September, local authorities built 2,926 houses, and at the same time private enterprise built 2,486, apart from 30,000, which you cannot apply, because the figures are all bracketed. The result was that up to 1922 the local authorities had built a total of 137,000 houses and private enterprise 73,000; they were not slacking off at all.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I reply? I think I have this advantage over the noble Lord, that he has not consulted the Ministry of Health as to the accuracy of his figures. I think it is possible that there may be a misunderstanding and that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, may be right in the sense that figures may be used in different senses. I do not want to prolong the argument, but I should very much like
144
to have an opportunity of comparing my figures, which were passed as correct this morning, with the figures just quoted by the noble Lord.
LORD LLEWELLIN: These are not my figures at all I am reading from column 162 of the House of Commons Report of March II. Mr. Bevan said: "I regret that no complete information is available of building in each of the years 1905 to 1919. From January I, 1919, to March, 1945, the following figures are available"—and those are the figures I was reading.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I accept what the noble Lord has said of course, but I should like to have an opportunity of comparing notes.
LORD AMMON: Those figures were raised in a speech before by Lord Llewellin and answered by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I have been dealing with a set of circumstances which have arisen since then. In the first place, I want to tell the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that it is the Government's firm intention that the greater part of the building work must be done by local authorities. But, nevertheless, regarding the issuing of licences, the limitation that has already been put on of four to one is an overall one. That means to say that it must have regard to the demands in different districts and to the different types of houses. Therefore, there may be an excess in some cases of the use of private enterprise, and in another a deficiency; and that will be evened out over the whole. It is an overall figure and may vary in different areas according to the type of houses required. This is done because in the main the houses built by private enterprise have been and are mainly for those who are able to buy them. As I have already said, the majority of people cannot afford to buy a house. I have given figures, which have been worked out, from the Income Tax authorities as to the proportion of people who rent houses compared with the proportion of people who do not, and I have given some indication of how some people are forced, by economic circumstances and according to the conditions of their employment, into buying houses in that connexion.
Particularly it will be found that it applies to the case of what I would call

145
the black-coated workers. They are often in great difficulty in that connexion. I have known of people (clerks and that sort of people) who, when they wanted to get promotion, have been shifted to a different town and have had to get rid of their houses, often at a considerable loss to themselves, in order that they might get the necessary accommodation. So that it is only the local authorities, under the present circumstances, building with the Government subsidies, that can afford to provide the houses at a rent commensurate with the pockets of the persons who desire to live in them. Private builders have not private sources of labour and materials and could not build houses by absorbing labour which would be required for building in other areas. I can say this, that where it is found to be necessary labour will be directed to local authorities' housing. If a local authority, as some people have suggested, is slack or dilatory in these matters, then the Ministry will step in and take over the functions of the local authority and proceed with the building. Clause 18 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is now before the House of Commons, also empowers the Minister to set up housing associations to do the work of local authorities. That, I think, meets the question that was raised by someone in the debate.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It does not meet my question. I believe these are new housing associations. I should be very interested to know why they are going to be set up. Is the Minister going to make use of housing associations which have their place under existing housing legislation? That is quite another matter.
LORD AMMON: In regard to the question of whether there is any difference between new housing associations and old ones, I cannot answer that. But the Minister is prepared to use new housing associations if the local authority fails in that particular respect.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Only if the local authority fails to do so. That means he is not going to use existing associations for providing houses between the wars at low rents, but is he only going to use these new housing associations set up under the Act?
LORD AMMON: I am not advised on that. With regard to the small builder, there is a scheme under consideration whereby he will be encouraged to co-operate with the local authority; that is, having regard to the fact that some of these small builders are not able to prepare specifications and bills of quantity, they will get the necessary assistance from the local authorities in certain cases in order to carry on that necessary work. That I think will give some small comfort to my noble friend in that connexion. There is one other thing that I would like to call attention to before I sit down and that is the fact that in discussing the housing question I think there has been a great deal of unfairness, both in the criticism, which has not always been intentional, and in the fact that people have not always realized the tremendous difficulties involved apart from the mere shortage of houses. I suppose that there is no industry which makes such great demands as that of the building of houses. There is so much involved apart from the mere assembling of the house itself and its construction. Having regard to the grave position which the country finds itself in in regard to labour and materials that must be given due weight in all our deliberations.
I feel convinced that before long noble Lords will begin to recognize that the Government have followed the right policy by carefully building up their plans and organization in order to proceed steadily forward, and not by jumps and jerks, in their housing policy. In their decision to use local authorities to a greater extent than private enterprise, I am sure they are well advised, having regard to the fact that the people who are most concerned are those who find it very difficult indeed to meet the cost of buying houses and even to meet the cost of rents. I remember saying many years ago that the time would come very shortly when you would never be able to build houses for working people unless they were subsidized, and I think we have now reached that point. I have endeavored to answer the questions which have been put, and I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords, although it is not always in human nature to do that.
6.3 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I do not propose to detain the House for any

147
length of time, but there is one matter to which little attention has been directed. I suppose we are all agreed that however great is the shortage of houses in the urban areas, that shortage is just as great in the rural areas. It is one or two remarks under that heading that I propose to address your Lordships. We have got before us the proposals for agriculture put forward by the Government, which I think most of us have welcomed. It is the intention, I hope, to implement it completely, and that cannot be made a success unless you can induce men to remain on the land and also to go to it. You cannot direct men and women to the land unless you are prepared to bring the homes and dwellings of those people up to the standard of the amenities which are necessary under present conditions. Those houses must be adequate in numbers and must possess eventually, as the great schemes which confront us are worked out, adequate pipe-line water supplies and electricity.
I do not know if I need elaborate in this House the urgency of the need for rural housing. It is perfectly obvious, I imagine, to every one in the House at this moment that it is of the utmost importance in the national interest that this policy of vigorous encouragement of building—of new cottages in the first place, of course—should be pursued with the utmost vigour of which the Government are capable. There is one point which has emerged owing to the way in which the planning has been done in the country. There seems to have arisen in certain parts a good deal of misconception as to the disposition of these buildings. There is a danger, apparently, which has emerged in different parts of the country, of concentrating the building of cottages into large villages at the expense of smaller ones. That has been adopted, I am sorry to say, by some planning authorities, and in a very interesting article the other day there was a very good instance of this.
A village in West Sussex, with a population of 450, applied for a number of new houses. It was an old village; the houses were not modern, and not up to the standard one would wish at the present time. Permission was refused to build cottages in that village. The planning authority said that they were only prepared to allow houses to be built in
148
another and rather larger village about twos miles off. There was a protest against this by the people of the village, and their protest was backed up by the rural district council involved, that of Midhurst. They badly needed cottages in this place, and they certainly did not wish to have their populations foisted on to another village where the men would be more remote from their work, and where it would prove extremely bad for the men, very awkward and inconvenient, and to the farmers who employed them. The planning authority were again approached, and the only answer finally was that they might allow farmers to build a few houses provided that they were in the group of farm buildings, with no separate access from the road.
Of course, I think that anybody who is accustomed to the country will agree that there is a degree of concentration which is highly desirable, such as the provision of central village schools. In fact, many villages do provide those things for various purposes, such as the provision of the playing fields. But it must be realized, and it is, I think, important for the planning authorities in the countryside to realize, that small villages form natural centres near a farm. After all, I need hardly remind your Lordships that some of those working on the farm have to be up very early in the morning. Take, for instance, the case of the cowman, who also has to deal with cows which are in trouble very late at night. I venture to suggest that it is an exaggeration—it has been both said and written in the Press—to say that there is no necessity for men of that category to live near the farms where they are employed.
I was very glad to see that this matter was raised in another place when Mr. Silkin answered in a way which Will commend itself to your Lordships. He said:
"… I do not consider that there should be any bar to the replacement of outworn houses and the improvement of services in the majority of smaller villages, to which the inhabitants are attached by long-standing ties and associations. Nor, of course, would I seek to discourage the building in such smaller villages of new houses required by persons, for example, agricultural workers, who have to live near their place of work."
I think it is not out of place in a debate of this kind that attention should be drawn to this kind of thing which is going on in the country, and it is most

149
important that it should be corrected. I need not elaborate this matter, especially after the discussion we have been listening to, and the knowledge we all have of the extreme, real, major need of new houses being built. We do remember that the figures between the wars show that out of 871,000 cottages erected in the countryside, no fewer than 700,000 were built under private enterprise. I do not wish to elaborate that; so much has already been said in this debate on that point.
Apart from the agricultural point of view I would emphasize the great need of reconditioning houses. Of course this should be complementary to the building of new houses. I would point out that from the point of view of the rural landowner it would naturally be to his advantage that these new houses should be built for letting. This need for reconditioning, great as it may be in the case of some urban areas, is very vital in most parts of the country. If official encouragement were given, it could be carried out in accordance with the circumstances of the localities. For instance, the small-scale builder is really, more often than not, more suitable to deal with matters of this sort than to deal with new construction. The labour that is available locally is more suitable for reconditioning than for employment on new buildings. In cases where there are estate staffs which include men whom one can describe as handymen, there again there is scope for dealing with this question of housing on the lines of reconditioning. Many small builders in the countryside work themselves and employ two or three other men. Frequently nowadays, owing to the war, those who are at work in those small firms or businesses are either very young or else very old men, and they would be much more suitable for dealing with reconditioning of houses than for dealing, with the construction of new dwellings. I think it is notorious that it is a slow and expensive business for big firms with directed labour to deal with questions of this sort, and so I would urge the Government to give every encouragement to the reconditioning of these houses that need it so very greatly in the country. If this was carried through in the way in which it might be, quite a great step forward would be taken in providing adequate houses in the country.
I would like to say one word with regard to the subject of tied cottages. I
150
am afraid that has become partly a political subject, or rather a matter of political controversy, which I think is a very great pity. In many forms of employment, not only in agriculture but in coal mining and elsewhere, we have service occupation. Generally the service occupation arises as a mutual convenience both to the workman and to his employer, and, as I have already pointed out, there are certain specialized workers in respect of whom it is really essential that they should be near their work. Therefore I would suggest that the solution is not to free all cottages, as has been suggested, but to have an adequate overall number of cottages so as to ensure freedom of choice between tied and free cottages. I would also venture to suggest from a certain amount of personal experience that there are quite a number of workmen who prefer tied cottages because of the advantages of being close to their work, and also because of the very low rental and relative ease of transfer from one job to another, as opposed to the difficulties of transfer in the case of rent-controlled cottages.
There is another point I should like to mention. That is with regard to the provision of small cottages for aged people. There again it is a waste to build cottages for such people of the size and standard that is laid down for the ordinary construction of new dwellings. I observe that the Government are prepared to give subsidies and encouragement to the local authorities to build those, but I would venture to suggest that that is a limitation which is really not sound and that the subsidies for the provision of houses of this nature should be available to others than the local authorities. Of course in the background is the overwhelming need for new construction, and I would like to see landowners and private enterprise given an opportunity to take their part in this vast programme that it is essential should be done. I must say after listening to this debate that I am not satisfied that private enterprise is being given that scope (I will not go into figures like many others have done) to which I think their record entitles them, and which would be of the utmost value, particularly in dealing with the rural aspect of the case. As I view it, the future welfare of this nation largely depends on the provision of adequate houses and homes for the

151
men occupied in this great basic industry of agriculture. It is not really an industry; it is a way of life, and it is one which we want to encourage in the country to our utmost ability if we are to expect and hope for sound reconstruction of industry and the welfare of the inhabitants of our country.
6.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, there is one point I think which has not been touched upon yet except almost obliquely in the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Llewellin namely with regard to efficiency in the building industry itself. We know that our costs are, roughly speaking, up by 100 per cent. (I am speaking subject to correction by my noble friend on the Front Bench) on what they were in 1939. I think it was Lord Llewellin who said there was something like 60 per cent. efficiency in the building trade at the moment. I do not know exactly what he meant by that phrase.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was referring to the output of the worker. That was not referring to the cost of material.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: That was what I understood him to mean. The late Christopher Turner writing in a book called Yeomen Calling, which was published just before this war, pointed out that houses of an equal or substantially better quality with regard to specification and so forth and amenities could be built at half the price in certain countries in Europe which were not very far different in wage levels and so forth. I do not think we can burk this issue. Sooner or later we shall have to tackle the fact that we must have a better efficiency not only in output per man but probably in due course in the assembling of material at the right time, which is so difficult to-day when everything has to be got hand to mouth and piecemeal, but we shall never to my mind get a satisfactory solution of the housing problem until we can tackle that particular side. One has great sympathy with the trade unions who have a rule that a man should lay a certain number of bricks per day and no more. As was pointed out in a letter to The Times on Monday by Mr. Anthony Vickers, they refused to have quicker methods of laying bricks by various new appliances. That is all right, very understand-
152
able and very reasonable—I have every sympathy with it—so long as we do not have an expansionist monetary policy. But if we know that for years ahead we have got certain wants which will never be fully satisfied and know that at the same time it is possible by a sensible financial policy to keep almost all the people who are employable always in work, then I think the fear which inspires that attitude falls to the ground. But it is a thing which we cannot overlook.
One often is told that if English farming is not efficient we must go abroad for our food. One has heard that again and again, and it was, until famine loomed across us, the popular thing to say. If that is true, then we must go abroad for our houses, and all live abroad all live in imported "pre-fabs." This brings me to the point my noble friend Lord O'Hagan has already brought up—the very serious position in regard to rural houses. The position to-day—and I think this is probably true of a great many other sections of the population—is that the housing needed per worker in the countryside is much greater than it was before. That is due not only to smaller families but to the fact that even if there are two or three working people in a family, one goes to the town and another somewhere else. The result is that in that cottage there is only one person working in the countryside. It is fair to say, from what I have been able to assess in my own county, that probably a cottage to-day houses only 1¼ it persons working on the land, as against two persons thirty years ago. There are probably 300,000 more cottages needed on the land than are available.
We shall not get our food unless we have cottages. For two years, perhaps, we shall be saved by German prisoners, but they will not be here for ever. Unless we start building adequate cottages, in two years' time we shall not have our food produced. On economic, quite apart from sentimental grounds, building cottages for rural workers is absolutely as important as building cottages for workers in the export trades. It is probably true that the rural district councils and other local authorities will do their utmost. I am not going to argue the question of private enterprise in urban districts. It may be that in a "blitzed" district there is a very good reason for giving the urban authorities a very high

153
priority, but in rural districts the boot is very much on the other foot. That is shown not only by the figures my noble friend Lord O'Hagan quoted lust now, but by the fact that in the rural districts it is the private owner, in conjunction with the private builder, who, for the most part, will build houses where they are most needed. If he does not get encouragement there will be a tendency to concentrate houses in large villages and leave the districts which need them most absolutely unprovided for.
The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, I think said that provisions were being made so that the farmer could employ the local builder to build a cottage for him. I did not interrupt him at the time because he was very much harassed by other noble Lords, but I should like to ask him this question: Is the farmer who is going to build that house going to be able to reserve it for one of his workmen, or must it be for general use, should his workman leave his employment?
LORD AMMON: I said it is for his labourer.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Yes, but suppose his labourer decides to leave him. Is he going to be able to have that house as a service cottage, and will he get the Government subsidy?
EARL DE LA WARR: It is a very important point.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We are well aware of it.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: There are a great many owner-occupiers, men with a farm, who probably need two or three extra cottages. The rural district councils are not going to cater for them. If those men can get a licence to build and if they do build for their own farm, they will not get any subsidy if they want to keep the houses for their men. It is a very serious problem in many cases because, as my noble friend Lord O'Hagan suggested, the real remedy for the tied cottage—and I have lived long enough in the countryside to know the insecurities and the difficulties of the tied cottage and very often the sad cases that arise—is to provide ample cottages for all.
In the Bill which is now being debated in another place there is, I think, no stable provision for rural district councils to build cottages for rural workers with
154
the increased and very generous subsidy. In that Bill provision is made to ensure that those cottages are tied, not to one agricultural worker, not to one particular service tenancy but to agriculture as a whole, but I think it is a very weak clause. The intention is all right, but the wording is weak. We all know how, between the wars, district councils built cottages for agricultural labourers which, in three months' time, were being used by artisans from the local towns. Therefore I believe we must have some provision whereby there will be a minimum number of cottages tied to particular farms, but a great many cottages tied to rural and ancillary industries. After all, 10 Downing Street is a tied cottage, and, if one can judge anything at all, one would say that there are at least 600 applicants in another place waiting for it.
There is another point which I think is most important. Week after week in my own county I sit on a committee to which ex-Service men come as applicants to be trained under the Government's Land Training Scheme. I invariably ask them, "Are you intending to set up on your own and to have a little holding of your own in the end?" I should say that ninety per cent. of the people who come to us say they do. Very often, after five years under Majors, they do not want to be bossed by anybody else in future; they want to become master men. That is a very healthy and sound instinct, but there is no provision to-day for housing for the small man who wants to set up on his own, and after all, by far the most expensive part of creating a smallholding is the dwelling house. So far as I can see, there is no provision for the intending smallholder (whether he is going to rent from a private landlord or whether he is going to become independent) to get the same assistance in the building of his house as he would get were he a labourer. I think that is something we ought very seriously to consider now.
I turn to the question of private building and public building in the country districts. The Minister of Health said in another place that he could only plan with the plannable. Nobody doubts his sincerity in wanting to get houses built, and indeed nobody could be a Minister in his position and know that his job was going to go on for very long unless he

155
thought he could get the houses built. However, with all due respect to the Minister, so far as my knowledge of rural conditions goes, that is nonsense. Having regard to all the Departments through which you have to go, to get anything done through ordinary licensing channels is more difficult than getting the camel through the eye of a needle. You can plan with the assistance of private owners just as you can with the assistance of rural district councils, and that way you will get cottages built where they are most urgently required at the present moment.
Reconditioning has already been fully debated in your Lordships' House, and there is only one word I would like to say on it. Some of the old cottages which have been condemned but which are still repairable, and some of the small ones that will have to be reconditioned if they are going to be made fit, should be set aside for the older people, with a guarantee that they will not be condemned in a year or two, so that while the present housing shortage lasts the older people will at least have somewhere apart from the workhouse in which to live in a locality where they are near their friends and relations, and where they can be happy.
I am going to turn—and I apologize for detaining your Lordships at this hour—to what I think is the most important point, namely, the housing problem in general. To my mind, the present method of subsidizing building is something which will lead us to State bankruptcy, unemployment and higher cost of houses. The higher you push your subsidy, the higher your taxation rises, and the greater becomes the snowball of unemployment and distress. It is a deflationist policy to do it by that method. In fact, you borrow money from outside sources and then provide a subsidy to pay the interest for another sixty years or more. That is, to my mind, a most dangerous way of trying to finance the building of houses. Since it is credit which has got to be written into existence, spent into existence, surely the sounder way is for the Government (which, after all, has nationalized the Bank of England) to create a certain credit for building and to say that only amortization and upkeep charges are required for rent. If you work out the
156
figures, you will find that on a £1,000 house you pay £30 at 3 per cent. per annum, which is a pretty low interest today, £17 per annum on a sixty-year amortization, and £10 for upkeep. If you wipe out practically the whole of the £30, and leave just enough for the book-keeping entries which are necessary, you get a house, even at £1,000 capital cost, which will be within the reach of practically every class of workman in the country. That is very important when it comes to people wanting to own their own houses, because people are not happy and contented until they have a chance of owning some genuine stake in the country and until they have something that they can call their own and in which they can take a pride. A £1,000 house with interest, plus amortization, plus upkeep is going to be beyond the reach of the vast majority of people as full employment becomes less certain and as we get back to the more normal post-war conditions. If we do not provide some means of allowing people to take a pride in themselves, and to avoid their becoming a homeless shifting proletariat, this country will never have stability, and housing is one of the tap-roots of stability in this country.
6.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I think this debate has been notable for many things, but for two in particular. The first thing is the practically universal offers of, shall I say, encouragement and help to the Government in this problem. The other thing is the fact that, as I see it, somebody at the Ministry of Health gets two out of ten for mathematics. The figures just do not agree. Later I shall produce a few figures, but I hope they will not be "phoney"; I hope they will be genuine. I want to offer my assistance, help, or whatever you call it, to the Government, and to assure them that I criticize in no Party spirit. On the other hand, if I do criticize, I hope they will accept it in the spirit in which I offer it.
I have mentioned before the necessity for a programme and the answer has been that the Government have a programme. Very well, the Government have a secret programme. Who can imagine any military leader embarking on, say, an invasion without having a programme, and without seeing that that programme is accessible to every single person concerned on his side? The only people from whom

157
he would try to keep it would be the enemy. At the recent election the Government received a terrific mandate, and in those circumstances it is odd that they should now say to the people of this country: "You are the enemies; you cannot know what is going to happen." That is only by the way, but where it really comes in is in this way.
However inexpedient, politically speaking, a programme may be—and I admit you will find it is a stick used to beat you with—it is a first-rate method of keeping you up to scratch. In dealing with a subject which is so involved as building, I maintain, and will always go on maintaining—you can call me a stubborn Scotsman if you like—that a programme is essential. You can have provisos and get-outs if you like, but it is essential to have a programme so that everyone connected with the industry—and there are thousands—knows where he is going. Even if you do not keep to your programme—and, of course, you never do—the whole thing is done in a logical sequence and you do know what you are aiming at. Recent events lead me to believe that something in this secret programme, this target for the housing drive, has miscarried. To get any building done at all, you have, as has already been pointed out, to deal with practically all the Ministries, with the Ministries of Health, Labour, Works, Supply, the Board of Trade, the Ministries of Fuel and Power, Town and Country Planning and Transport. It is only owing to the fact that modern technique now enables us to make bricks without straw that the Minister of Agriculture does not come in.
With the best will in the world, if you have got to deal with all those Ministries and they have all got to have a say, it will be a month before you can get an answer. It really is an urgent problem, and a thing about which everybody wants to know what they are doing. According to the figures, the Ministry of Health is certainly adrift with itself somewhere. There is no official with a salary just below Ministerial level, so far as I can see, co-ordinating all these people. If somebody was appointed with a salary commensurate with his job to take the kicks, then you could pass the buck as much as you liked, and there would be somebody to whom you could say: "Right, you are buck king,
158
all bucks go to you." It would be somebody you could count on. I do not suppose he would have a long life, but he would be there. I do think that is an important point.
I will just quote very quickly my reasons for this. On October 29 the Minister of Works said in another place:
"The number of closed brickworks is 753 and when these works were working to capacity they employed 20,000 men and the number of bricks manufactured was 1,100,000,000."
Now this is the important point—
"Provided always that the necessary labour is forthcoming, I anticipate no shortage of bricks for housing and the other essential work."
About that time I said something to the effect that it would be silly to bring back a lot of building trade labour and not be able to make bricks at the same time. The next thing that happened was that on October 30 the Minister of Works said:
"Meantime the stocks of bricks in hand provide a reasonable safeguard against any general shortage for some months to come."
On November 13, the Minister of Labour, talking about the brick industry, said:
"Every effort is being made to provide the necessary labour which the industry needs."
In answer to a question in your Lordships' House the noble Lord who replied to me—it was the same question as put in the other place two months earlier—said that 860 brickworks were still not producing and that normally they employed 29,000 people when working. The stocks of bricks amounted to 976,826,000. That in point of fact represents a consumption of 61,000,000 bricks a month, or the equivalent of 3,000 houses, but that is beside the point. The answer, two months before that, was that 117 more works were operating. Am I to take it that 117 works were closed down and 9,000 persons left the brick industry in those two months? That is the way it reads, and I did give the noble Lord notice that I would spring this on him. I have used that to illustrate how you can apparently go adrift with your secret programme, because under the vows of secrecy, apparently, the brick trade has not been taken into it.
Up to about Christmas the general inference from the replies was that there is no worry about bricks and the stocks will carry us on. The Government did not say that in so many words, because any

159
Minister producing an answer to a question is always safeguarded, but that is the general tone. The next thing that occurred was that shortly after Christmas apparently somebody woke up with a jolt and said: "Good heavens, there is going to be a famine in bricks." That seems to me wrong, because a target would have thrown light on that long before, or even avoided it altogether. The question is whether there is going to be a brick famine, and what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to prevent this. If they are taking steps, are they satisfactory ones in everybody's opinion and could anything more be done?
It is on those lines that I tried to explore the brickwork position and get a rough idea of the brickwork industry to try and stress the point. I think the question is vitally important. Obviously it does not matter who is going to build these houses. I would like to say in passing, that after the last war everyone said that private enterprise built no houses. There was not a brick to be had, because the brick industry then was in a shocking state. You can say that is our fault and it may have been, but it was a fact. That is one reason why I think it is important. I must say I welcome the extremely good publicity which I think is being given to this matter by the Evening Standard. I think they are being very fair and remarkably accurate.
Bricks have always held a fascination for me, and if I may say so, they should be a fairly fascinating subject to members opposite, because they produce the first recorded instance of a strike. If you like you can say Moses might have been classed as a trade union leader; I do not know. Anyway they have the advantage of an historical background, and the subject has an attraction for me because I still retain from my youth a strong mud-pie instinct. To try to get at some reasonable angle on this subject, as I am not an expert myself, I consulted the National Federation of Clay Industries; I read the three Simonds Reports on the brick industry; I consulted the managing director of a very large combine of brickworks; I consulted sundry small brickwork manufacturers, directors and operatives, and went round a few works just to try and ensure I would not say anything which was completely foolish. I apologize for going into this rather
160
deeply, but I think it is very important and a few very general remarks, I hope, will help to explain the whole subject. Of course they are very rough and very far-embracing. At the moment there are four chief methods of making bricks. There is the hand method, which comprises 2 per cent. of the total output. There is the wire cut method, or plastic method, which takes into account 31 per cent. of the total output. There is the stiff plastic process which takes in another 31 per cent., and then there is a semi-dry or Helton process which embraces 33 per cent. I had a question down which I shall take off because it will not be of any value, but my technical information on this subject is that the coal consumption in those main branches of the brick industry in 1938 when they were producing roughly speaking 8,000,000,000 bricks in the year was for the wire-cutting method 1,500,000 tons, for the stiff plastic process 600,000 tons and for the semi-dry or Fletton process, which produce 33 per cent. of the total, 300,000 tons. I am not trying to produce dead accurate figures but just an idea.
The labour allocation in the industry was somewhere of the order of 56,000 employed and the 33 per cent. represented by the semi-dry or Fletton process was produced by something in the order of 56,000 operatives. Your Lordships will see that a very small number of operatives with a very small consumption of coal produced 33 per cent. of the bricks and you will see the importance of that in a moment. I do not think handmade bricks can play a very important part in the housing drive, but they should not be just brushed aside. The handmade brick is almost invariably a facing brick and for your rural housing in this country, unless you are going to put up some hideous structure, that is just what you want. You do not want them in enormous quantities and they are made in small units dotted about the country and can in that particular branch play their part. Another point to be noted about them is that generally the chap concerned is an operative himself; give him a lad or a couple of lads, and in a very short space of time he will have them trained. So there are aspects of the handmade process that are not to be ignored.
The wire-cut process is important because it is applicable to almost every clay.

161
Practically any clay can be worked on that process. It is extremely simple, and transport charges do not enter into it. Amongst the disadvantages of the process are that it takes a lot of coal for pre-drying the green bricks and firing the bricks in the kiln afterwards. The average quantity of coal used is 10 to 12 cwt. per 1,000 bricks produced. Brickworks are designed more or less in units, and a unit is designed with a capacity up to 5,000,000 bricks per year. In bigger works you get multiple units of 5,000,000, 10,000,000 and 15,000,000 capacity. That is the layout of the brickworks. The size of the works depends on the local market which, in the past, has been the near-by towns very largely. The capital in the industry is about £4,000 per million of brick output. That is to say, that for an output of 5,000,000 per year the capital would be in the order of £20,000. What I have endeavoured to show out of this mass of figures is that in this industry there are a lot of small enterprises with small capital involved. The proprietors are very largely small men, in fact, with the notable exception of the big semi-dry people near London. A 10,000,000 output of bricks is required, near enough, for 500 houses a year.
The stiff plastic process is only applicable to hard shales and hard clays, and is generally found in conjunction with the collieries, very often as one of the offshoots. One of its merits is that it does not require anything like as much coal as the wire-cut method. You can cut out nearly all pre-drying, and the consumption of coal is somewhere in the order of 4 cwt. to 6 cwt. per 1,000 bricks. These figures are rough, I admit, but they have an important bearing owing to the coal position which exists to-day, and that is why I am venturing to trespass on your Lordships' time by going into detail.
The Fletton process is only applicable to one particular bed of clay, which I believe is called Oxfordshire clay. It is found, I understand, at Bedford and Peterborough. That is the only bed of clay that can be operated by this process. The bricks do not need any pre-drying. They are made in the press and they go straight into the kilns for firing, and, as the clay contains a high proportion of carbonaceous matter, the bricks, once the firing process is started, practically
162
fire themselves. That gives you this great advantage. First of all the process is relatively new. The works are large and they have been laid out with plenty of capital to back them up and on modern lines. Therefore the potential output is terrific. Their requirement in coal consumption is in the order of 1½ cwts. per 1,000 bricks, which is the figure to compare with the 10 to 12 cwt. for wire-cut and 4 to 6 cwt. for the semi-stiff. Broadly speaking, with regard to the cost of production, if you take the wire-cut as unit cost, the stiff plastic is two-thirds and the Fletton is one half.
Where there is a big combine, there are facilities for large canteen and welfare arrangements, for housing of the workers and all the rest of it. On that score you find that the brick industry, in that particular part, has comparable if not better arrangements than the arrangements to be found in any other industry in the country. They are big chaps, these particular producers, and if they did not do these things properly someone would make them do so. The other man, the small man who has only a capital of £20,000 is in a different picture altogether. I conclude from these facts that if we are going to be short of bricks—which we are—the proper thing to do in a short-term policy is to man up the big combines, that is to say, the Fletton people, who have a total capacity of 33 per cent. of the output of the country, and are now working at the proportion of 15 to 20 per cent. of that capacity. Their total labour requirements in this particular group of big works is in the order of 7,700 operatives when working to capacity. At the present time they require somewhere in the region of 5,000 to be manned fully in order to give their full capacity.
A very large number of these works have been and still are taken over. The weekly output of these would not be less than 35,000,000 bricks. This represents about 1,700 houses a week for a matter of somewhere in the order of 2,600 tons of coal a week. These figures, my Lords, are rough, I do not pretend that they are anything other. These works of which I have been speaking could be rapidly manned. The figure of 5,000 workers that I have mentioned is very different to the figure of 29,000 which we have been hearing about.
And now a word on the subject of requisitioning. I have found out the details

163
over the telephone only to-day relating to one particular works—the Coronation Works of the London Brick Company. When working, they have a weekly production of 12,000,000 bricks. These works were requisitioned by the War Department. After a time the War Department had no further use for them. And here let me say that I gave a wrong impression when I said that the place was derequisitioned and immediately requisitioned again. It was never derequisitioned. What did happen was that the War Department without derequisitioning it handed it straight over to 'the Ministry of Works, and it has not returned to producing bricks. It has been, as I said, handed from one Department to another, and that is a practice which has been commented upon already in this debate.
What has been done by His Majesty's Government in order to help this industry on? So far as I know—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—His Majesty's Government have said definitely that they are worried about the position, and that they have done their best to produce prisoner-of-war labour. I understand that that is so and that this labour is now going into this work. There is now no difficulty about getting a licence to open works. Licences are being doled out, and people are being encouraged to open works. Requisitioning I do not know about, but I think that it is a problem which will have to be faced.
As to conditions in the industry—I am not speaking of the Fletton group but of the rest of the industry, the small men. In order to get production out of the small man who has had a thin time during the war there was a contribution scheme for care and maintenance work, on a levy principle, for brickworks closed down compulsorily by the Government. But, owing to time-lag and things coming in one way and another—if you read the Simonds Report there was a time-lag of six months during which nothing was done—a very large number of brickworks closed themselves down voluntarily; the labour had gone and they shut down. They did not qualify for any of these small grants. The levy was 3s. in a thousand, or something of that sort, up and down on one man's excess production and one man's loss of production. But a large number of these small men without big capital behind them have had
164
a thin time, and now, without any definite knowledge or any programme ahead of them, there is the main statement: "One day there are plenty of bricks, and one day there is a brick famine." Figures are bandied about; you get all sorts of absurd figures of what is going to happen, and they are never contradicted. It is very easy; if you want to talk about bricks, you divide the total bricks by 20,000 and that is the number of houses which can be built. That is presumably why this secrecy hits the brick people.
Confidence must be restored Ito the small man in the management of the industry. Personally I should say: Give the brick industry a target for ten years, and let them know definitely they are going to have ten years' steady work without fluctuation. That is a thing which affected the brick industry before to a great extent. Supposing your new housing drive wanes, then the Government will undertake slum clearance. We should try to keep the definite market steady. There is another fear the small men have if they put their own house in order with much additional mechanization and so on, if capital is available. A lot of them say, "Ah! This Government love something which runs itself. They will come along and see this beautifully running industry and nationalize it." I do not oppose nationalization because it is a Party matter, though a lot of people do. What I do maintain is that an undertaking, if possible, should be given by His Majesty's Government that they do not intend to nationalize that industry provided the output is forthcoming. That would go a long way towards restoring confidence.
Another growing need, as far as I can see from my very brief glance at the industry, is that an independent technical adviser, an expert, or what you like to call him, should be appointed by the Government to go round to these brickworks and certify whether or not they could have a loan or anything else to help them to get back into production owing to their deterioration due to the war. We do not want a committee for that. The total amount of money involved would be very small; if you take the total capital of the whole industry, it is very small. But if this expert could be appointed to go round and give quick decisions, and the money were forthcoming in a fortnight you would get somewhere.

165
Then there is the matter of labour. The brickwork industry is still under direction. Personally I disagree with direction. But you have got direction, and I do not expect anything I say will alter that very much. But if you are going to have direction, let us have efficient direction. At the present moment His Majesty's Government direct one man here, one there, and one there; that does not really affect the output of bricks at all. It merely means that where someone is working harder than they would have been they are now not working so hard because they have another man to help them. If you adopted one of these three schemes of direction, you would get a good improvement. One is to direct key men; eight key men will open up any brickworks in this country with local labour, prisoner-of-war labour, or any other labour. The second alternative is to have a complete production unit, eighteen men of the correct balance of trades, who would get any brickworks producing again, provided the state of repair is reasonable, in three weeks to one month's time. Then there is the third method. I am broad-minded, and if it makes anyone happier I will call it the "working party" method, that is, a mobile unit of experts. Four experts, directed to closed brickworks that have been reopened, could get the brickworks going with prisoner-of-war labour, military labour, or any other labour in the same way. Those are three methods which are not being adopted at the moment, all of which would give far greater results than directing an odd man here and an odd man there, which does not help production very largely, though I admit it helps the labour problem.
The other matter I would like to mention is the question of amenities or welfare in the industry. The first shout, headed by the Daily Mirror, is, "Oh, it is a filthy industry; it is hard work, and conditions are shocking." I do not agree. It is not particularly dirty, or, if I may say so, it is "clean dirt." Its conditions are not bad; all these works have a statutory obligation to provide a canteen, and they have done so. But the men do not necessarily use them, because a man would far sooner sit in the warm, near the kilns, to eat his snack. I have no hesitation in refuting that. I would say definitely that conditions in the industry are no worse than in any other industry. The grounds that there are for saying conditions are bad,
166
or rather the grouses that the men put up, are that quarry workers get an additional cheese ration. The union argument is that if a quarry worker gets it, why should not the man working in a clay pit get it? In a brickworks employing eighteen or twenty-five men, you have two men in the clay pit. So yon can wash that out. Incidentally, they are driving a navvy or tending a navvy, so that the point does not really arise at all; it is just a quibble. There is one way of tackling it with which I do agree. During the war there was a great deal of admirable work done by mobile canteens, which were run by various people—the W.V.S., the Y.M.C.A., and other institutions of that sort. There are unrationed things such as vegetable pies, meat pies and hot tea. I suggest that instead of these earnest ladies driving around twice a day to air stations, so that airmen can fill themselves up, it would be better for them to direct their endeavours to the needs of the brick workers. By that method the men could purchase extra food which they could not get otherwise. It is pleasing, there is someone to talk to, and the men can get cigarettes and other things which they cannot get in a works which cannot go in for a catering licence. These people could help quite a lot.
Another complaint is that the men want extra allocations of soap. That is a matter for the Government. If the Government want to give them soap, well and good. I have already dealt with the cheese ration and P.A.Y.E. has been dealt with by others during this debate, but the remarks made apply very much to the brick industry. The other point is this. It is essential that the proper priority should be given to housing. You cannot produce a lot of labour for brickworks if there is nowhere for the men to live. There is one matter which rather impressed me. When I was going round I said to all the small men I met that the obvious thing was that if His Majesty's Government wanted bricks quickly the big combines must get going first. Universally they agreed with that, whether it was in their interests or not. I think that shows a kind of spirit in the industry which is worthy of note. It shows that they are trying.
I have here a few figures not without interest having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister has given a production

167
drive speech. The minimum wage in the brick industry, including the good timekeeping bonus, is 82s. a week. In point of fact a large proportion of the industry is on piece work and the average wage that is earned anywhere in the south varies from six to eight guineas. But that is by the way. In the north, where the trade unions are dead against any payment by results, they brought pressure to bear on a certain works to combine this good time-keeping bonus with the minimum wage and this is what happened. Before they did this they lost in this works, owing to absenteeism, twenty shifts and fifty "lates" in one week. These men, of course, forfeited their three shillings. As soon as they combined the bonus with the minimum wage so that a man could come and go as he pleased they immediately lost 130 shifts and 102 "lates" in a week, which shows exactly how the operatives are backing up the unions in a production drive. The normal output per man has now dropped to about two-thirds of the pre-war figure. That of course is practically universal. Recently the unions and the industry negotiated a wage agreement which would cover the ensuing year. Just after that the building trade got a rise of, I think, 3½d. or 4d. Immediately, agreement or no, round came the unions asking for the increase in the brick trade. That kind of thing does not help anyone, so far as I can see.
I hope I have not been too long and bored your Lordships and I hope I have produced one or two good arguments about the brick trade because if you do not get bricks you cannot lay them. The labour figure is roughly 30,000 on permanent housing building, but it is an established fact from past records that one man built one house per year. That is averaging the thing out. Therefore, the number of houses you can build in one year is dependent on the labour you can provide. There are 190,000 men on bomb damage repairs and I quite agree that that should be tackled first and the sooner the better. But there is a lot to do still and until you can draw from that labour you cannot build up your labour force for permanent house building. So I maintain that with the best will in the world no one will be able to build more than 100,000 houses in the nine months remaining in this year.
168
I think that if they do that they will have done very well. The point of that is that it represents 2,000,000,000 bricks per year output. By taking away the figure of the houses built from the number of bricks produced in the peak pre-war production year, 8,000,000,000, the number of bricks left over for other purposes amounted in that year to 2,000,000,000.
An estimate to cover the likely requirements of bricks in the ensuing nine months would be 4,000,000,000 bricks. If you have a figure of that kind to aim at you will not be in the position which apparently may arise from going from no bricks at all to over-production of them. You might easily do that without a programme, but by this means you could sort the thing out on a reasonable basis. If that figure is not denied it will stand and it will do just as much harm as any other figure. Therefore, I hope His Majesty's Government will produce some reasonable estimate to put people out of their pain, as it were. Let them know what they intend to do. Another point is the question of roofs. You have perhaps, got the walls of the house up and then you have to put a roof on. The total stock of tiles at 1st January was in the order of 47,000,000. I made a calculation and the result was that, taking a roof as requiring 5,000 tiles. There were on 1st January enough tiles for 9,400 houses in stock. I said to begin with that the Minister of Agriculture would not come into this but perhaps he will, because someone will want some rick sheets. I think that is perhaps all I can say about this problem and I hope it has been of some use.
7.9 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, at this late hour when we are all wishing to hear the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, I hope we shall all be very brief. I only wish to touch on one point and that is on the services side of these new houses. They need services of water, electricity and gas, and it is on the electrical side that I should like to say a word this evening. I have here a letter which I have got permission to read to your Lordships and to hand over to His Majesty's Government. If I may read it, it will show the seriousness of the brick situation which we have heard described at some length. It does show some of the difficulties of these big power stations

169
and this letter deals with a very big power station at Stourport in the Midland area. The letter is from the Himley Brick Company, Limited, Kingswinford, Brierley Hill, Staffs., dated the 4th March, 1946, and is addressed to Frankland Dark, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., of Messrs. Farmer & Dark, Terminal House, Grosvenor Gardens, London, S.W.I. It is in the following terms:
"Dear Sir,
Re Stourport Power Station.
I refer to our conversation of Saturday, 2nd March.
The highest allocation of facing bricks that I am able to give from current production is 10,000 per week.
It is obvious that this quantity will be entirely inadequate to meet the increasing tempo of construction on this most vital contract.
These works have the capacity for meeting your requirements given a speedy return of labour and fuel to pre-war proportions.
Of the two bottlenecks the fuel situation is the most disturbing.
We have been in touch, since speaking to you, with the South Staffordshire Collieries Association (the fuel distributors to these works) and have asked for an assurance that they will meet such demands as necessary to enable us to increase output as labour becomes available to start up idle portions of the works.
We are told that no such undertaking can be given and we are therefore in a dilemma as to the wisdom of engaging more labour. Indeed, unless supplies are increased immediately, we shall be in the absurd position of having to curtail output rather than increase it.
We have been drawing on our fuel reserves until now we have only three days stock in hand—a most dangerous level even for current output.
There seems to be no link up between Ministries, as we have on the one hand the Minister of Health stating that output is to be increased by the more liberal use of German P.O.W. labour, and the distributors on behalf of the Minister of Fuel and Power starting that delivery of fuel to meet the increase of output cannot be assured.
We are willing and anxious to get back to pre-war output and improve upon it. It is surely the responsibility of the appropriate Government department to see that these embargoes on supply should be lifted at once, and the brick making industry given the priority in available supplies that the urgency necessitates.
Yours faithfully,
for THE HIMLEY BRICK Co., LTD.,
(sd.) R. YATES,
General Manager."
That shows the seriousness of the situation in which these companies find themselves
170
in trying to get up these new power stations to deal with the increased load. There is a very grave shortage of power plant in the country. Noble Lords will know that last winter there was a great shortage of electric power. If we are to increase rapidly this power production to meet the housing need it will be vitally necessary in my submission to give high priority to power stations, gas undertakings and water undertakings to get their works going, otherwise the power, gas and electricity, will not be forthcoming.
There is another very vital need to which I should like to refer. Underground cables are extremely difficult to get for these new housing estates. I am told the difficulty there is lead. That means foreign exchange. Then there is the situation with regard to the poles, which mostly come from the Baltic countries. That is also very bad. If we cannot get further supplies, I am told, stocks will run very low. I would suggest that His Majesty's Government arrange for foreign exchange and shipping facilities to deal with those matters. It is of vital importance, because all rural electrification is carried by overhead wooden poles. I am told some consideration has been given to concrete poles, which are used a great deal on the Continent. They are heavier and more costly to make. Being heavier, they need more labour to put them tip, and the labour is not available.
The other point I want to make is with regard to the supplies side, which is very difficult from the point of view of electric appliances and wiring equipment. The stocks are very low even now, and, unless they can be increased rapidly, you will find you will get terrible bottlenecks. At this late hour I will not say more than that. I wanted to bring that aspect of the supplies side to your Lordships' attention, because it is absolutely vital that that marches in time with the actual production of houses.
7.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will agree that we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, not only for introducing this subject to your Lordships, but also, if I may say so with great respect, for the substance and character and temper of his speech. It was what we should have

171
expected from one of his experience. It was full of constructive suggestions and recognized the inherent difficulty of the situation. I was rather comforted that the debate was not an echo of many others that have taken place on this subject, namely, an assailment of the Government because houses could not be produced quite in the same way as mushrooms grow up in a night. That is the kind of experience from which I myself suffered quite repeatedly many years ago. I think if my right honourable friend the Minister of Health had been here to-night he would have derived considerable comfort from the fact that the discussion to-day has been much more informed and sensible. I feel that tins is due to the fact that it is recognized that it was only last August that the war ended, and we have still vast forces (I wish we did not have to keep so many) all over the world. It is not for me to give the numbers, but a Defence Paper was issued the other day which shows that many men will still be required even at the end of the present year. That of course means that we are deprived of these men in industry, apart from the immense dislocation which the war caused to all forms of industry.
The debate has also shown that there has been recognition of the fact that you cannot suddenly turn round from war industry to peace. Just as it took a couple of years or more to turn from peace industry to war industry, so it will take a long time to turn from war industry to peace-time industry. I am very glad that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health has refused to give a target. We shall do our utmost and nobody can do any more than that. In view of the lateness of the hour I shall be as brief as I can. I assure you I shall not give you a long discourse, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven did, which showed great industry, labour and interest, for which we all respect him. I shall not be three-quarters of an hour on bricks. The noble Lord referred to the deficiency in the supply of certain parts and of the urgency of taking steps to deal with the matter. I entirely agree with him. We all know how critical it is.
Every now and then, as is inevitable, we come across shortages such as those to which the noble Lord who has just spoken referred, which hold up this or that. I can, however, assure him that
172
my colleague, the Minister of Works, is tackling this problem on a very large scale, and, judging from what has happened in the past, I think so far he has made surprisingly good progress. I will not put it any higher than that. I see that some progress has been made in respect of timber. May I just say that I have received one slight correction with regard to the difficulty to which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, referred about somebody not being able to obtain timber in accordance with some special by-law. I think it had to be 1.7 or 1.5 standards. I am informed that by-laws do not normally include provision about the amount of timber, as a by-law. It may be given as a guide in some by-laws, but the standard allowance which the Government is making is 2 standards, not 1.5. If that local authority has further difficulty and the noble Lord will send me particulars, I shall be glad to have it inquired into.
With regard to the force of labour employed, I think that the noble Lord who moved was not quite fair to us. It is true that the labour employed on building permanent houses at the present time is a very small figure, and seeing it is only six months or so since the war ended and anybody was able to get any sort of a start, I am not at all surprised. But may I draw your attention to the figures on page 6 of the White Paper on housing, which give the numbers employed on different branches of house building and repair? They show that on war damage repairs 203,000 men were employed in England and Wales. We did not have that prodigious job before us, happily, at the end of the last war.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That was on 31st July. The number at 31st January was 197,000.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg your pardon, 197,000. I am very glad it has declined a bit since July; they are getting on with the job. But 197,000 is a large figure. Then there is preparation of sites, 15,700; erection of temporary houses, 32,000; erection of permanent houses, 28,000, and conversions and adaptations. One noble Lord made the suggestion that we were not doing as much with regard to conversion and adaptation as we ought to do, but I would point out that there are 60,850 men employed on that work.

173
Therefore it shows that, whoever is doing it, a considerable amount of work is being done. In fact, including 70,000 men employed on repair and maintenance work, there are no less than 404,000 men at present employed on building operations connected with re-housing. Therefore, to give the comparatively trivial figures employed on building permanent houses is, if I may say so, not quite a fair guide as to what is going on. It is certainly more sensible to deal with the repair of damaged houses and get habitations of some sort as quickly as you can, than to absorb too many men too soon on building. Anyhow, I think it is an exceedingly creditable figure. Seeing that the war ended only last August, to have 404,000 men now working, in one way or another, to provide houses for the habitation of the people, is an exceedingly creditable achievement. I know there are lots of snags—we are all painfully conscious of them—but, taking the effort as a whole, it is a very good one.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, referred to the question of the number of flats released from requisitioning. I have been supplied with the figures, and they are as follows:—Between January 1 1945, and January 31, 1946, 33,800 houses and flats were released from requisitioning. The number still held under requisition at that date was 18,000, but 7,000 of these, I understand, are large houses, such as country houses, which are scarcely in the category of those that will be released in our cities for reconversion. With regard to conversion, I have given you the number of workmen employed, and if noble Lords will consult the White Paper they will see, on page 5, that there have been 9,945 conversions and adaptations carried out, and they are still going on. Repair of unoccupied war-damaged houses (which is much the same) amounted to some 70,000 houses. Therefore there is a vast volume of work which is going on in all these other directions, and unless fair account is taken of it one does not get a faithful representation of the effort that is being made.
Then the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, told the House that there was a refusal to restore some requisitioned premises on the ground that they would be needed to accommodate visitors on June 8. I have not been able, between the
174
making of his statement and the present moment, to confirm it, and all I can say is that if the noble Marquess will give me particulars I will have them looked into; but the statement occasioned some surprise, so I understand. However, that is the best I can say about it.
Witty regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I can give him every assurance that the Government are fully seized of the necessity for a policy of dispersal. He need have no misgivings about it; we are not departing from the faith that is in us in the least. I know that the delays and complications arising out of questions of compensation and betterment are of an appalling character, but I would like to assure the noble Lord that we have no intention of shirking—none whatever. We welcome the effort, too, of housing associations so far as their work can be supplementary to the local authority's programme. But we must have an understanding that they are prepared to build houses to let of a comparable character. That must be part of the arrangement.
We concur also with him in his recognition of the fact that people, taking them in the mass, prefer houses to flats, but of course the condition with regard to flats is imposed upon us by the immense cost of the land upon which they are built. So far as I am concerned, being a countryman in my blood and bone, the more cottages we can have the better I shall be pleased. However, all I can say is that I do not think the noble Lord need have any apprehensions on that subject, or think that the provision of flats will be carried any further than is forced upon us by the circumstances of the case. Certainly we shall not allow it to prejudice the dispersal which we all recognize is necessary.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then may I ask the noble Viscount to look carefully at Clause 4 of the present Housing Bill?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am aware of it, and seeing that the noble Lord has called my notice to it again, I will give it renewed attention.
Just let me say a word on some of the things said about private building. Really, what is at the back of them? As a matter of fact, what was said about what happened after the last war is true, and there is no discrepancy between the

175
bulk of the figures used by the noble Lord opposite and those given by my noble friend. The figures in the Paper refer to round about 30,000—That is the approximate figure given—houses built by private enterprise after the last war up to 1923.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Unassisted.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is right. The facts are, I understand, that in the first year there were none, in the second year there were 5,645, in the third year—up to September, 1921—a further 17,000, and the balance up to the beginning of 1923. That is how the total figure is made up. I am not blaming private enterprise in the least; private enterprise builds houses to make profits out of them. I am not blaming them for it; it is self-evident. Private enterprise builds houses in the main to sell. It was not until after 1923 that large-scale private building got under way, and the houses, as we all know, were built to sell. If same of the noble Lords are proud of the record of some of the companies that: built houses for sale in those years, all I have to say about it is that they are satisfied with a poor record. The prices that were paid by the people who bought those houses week by week and the character of the houses that were provided when they had paid for them were shocking in a large number of cases. Certainly that is not an example which my right honourable friend is disposed to imitate.
The real reason is that at the present time, owing to the immense shortage of materials and labour, it just is not possible to relax restrictions. In the present shortages we are bound to have priorities and to ration, so to speak, as best we can. Without a doubt the overwhelming need of the people is for houses which they can have at a weekly rent and which they are not required to buy. It is because of that outstanding need that we are bound to give the highest priority to this class of house. When the position becomes easier and more materials and labour become available, then of course it will be quite possible—and everyone desires to do it—to remove restrictions. But having said that, I would point out that from page 4 of the Housing Return you will see that licences have been issued to private persons to build 28,250 houses. I think myself that
176
that is a remarkably generous figure. It is not possible to suggest, with a figure like that before us, that the Government are trying to snuff out building by private enterprise in one form or another.
Let me turn for a few minutes to rural housing. I entirely agree with the aspect of it as put before us by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. We are fully conscious of the urgency of the problem. The only reason why we cannot let things go as we should like to in the rural areas—and the same applies to the towns—is that now and for some time to come we are confronted with great shortages both of men and materials. As soon as ever it becomes possible I am quite sure much more will be made available in the country districts. At the same time, my right honourable friend is at this moment in the course of negotiations which will, we hope, bring in the full possibilities of the small builders in the villages and in the country districts. We are fully alive to the necessity of harnessing what capacity they have got to the enterprise and my right honourable friend is at this moment engaged in discussions with a view to that object being attained.
We are just as alive to the necessity of providing cottages in rural areas as any of our critics. Let me say that a long time ago now in your Lordships' House I myself expressed misgivings on this matter. Owing to the importance of additional labour in 1947, when very likely we shall not have so many prisoners of war and other people, houses are absolutely essential. Having said that, let me say that the warnings which are addressed to us to secure that cottages erected with the aid of subsidies are not diverted from agricultural labourers are entirely superfluous. We have every intention of securing that where subsidies are provided so that houses may be let to agricultural workers, they are let to agricultural workers. We have no intention of departing from the spirit and intention of that plan.
Here I would draw attention to the somewhat acrimonious speech which was addressed to the House last week by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I do not know whether he was infected with the enthusiasm which recruits sometimes possess, seeing that, after a considerable period of indecision, he appeared for the

177
first time as a Conservative on the Front Bench opposite. I am not blaming him for his enthusiasm, but I do blame him for his acrimony, and still more I blame him for his inaccuracy. It was suggested, almost as if it were some fault of this Government, that cottages for agricultural workers had been mopped up by week-enders and other people. Let me quote the noble Earl:
"What steps are the Government going to take to ensure that the houses that are built in the villages are in fact let to agricultural workers? My own personal experience is that they are generally let to everyone but the agricultural worker."
What about it? When did this experience of the noble Earl arise? It has not arisen since last August; it cannot be the fault of this Government. It has arisen during the last twenty-five years; it is the noble Earl and his friends who are responsible for this disgrace. It is a disgrace to every village in England and nobody knows that better than the noble Earl and myself. Time and time again during the war I was applied to by farmers who wanted cottages. In many cases there were farms with half-a-dozen cottages and those cottages were let to all kinds of people, to anybody but agricultural workers. That arose from the decline of agriculture and there were all kinds of reasons for it, but it was not the fault of this Government. There is no reason why the noble Earl's admonition should be addressed to us; he had better address his admonition to his friends behind him. They are the people who are responsible.
EARL DE LA WARR: At this hour I do not like to interrupt the noble Viscount. It is quite true that my speech was exceedingly critical of the handling of the food situation, and in spite of everything that has been said I continue to be critical of it. However, the noble Viscount's discomfort at what I said on that subject should not lead him into trying to read into my words about this question of cottages built by district councils in villages any criticism at all. Of course those words related to the past; I said "My experience in the past has been." There was no question of criticizing the Government.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is all very well, but the noble Earl cannot get away from the context. This was part of a general onslaught upon this unfortunate Government. If this had no relation to
178
the noble Earl's onslaught why did introduce it? No, I cannot let him off with that. Let me carry it a little further. Here is his remedy; this is what the Government are to do. I hope the noble Lord opposite who has a realistic impression of what really is required will address some observations to the noble Earl in private. This is what he says: this is the remedy: "Let him"—that is the Minister of Agriculture—"drive his colleagues. Let him drive the Minister of Labour to give him more workers. Let him drive the Minister of Health to give him more houses." Really, I can understand a fourth form school boy saying that sort of thing but I find it rather difficult to believe that it is a contribution to the solution of our difficulties at the present time.
May I turn to one other thing which was a challenge to the Government, and that is the suggestion which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis—I am sorry he is not here, but I had not an opportunity of securing his presence—as to what is behind the Government's policy of requiring local authorities, for the reasons I have stated, to build houses. I want to read it to your Lordships. It is a very serious matter. "He must"—that is, the tenant of the house—"be a tenant of some council, and then he will have less chance of deserting the Socialist faith. That is the feeling that is gaining ground, and it is believed that is a definite thought out policy." I only hope to heaven it is not. All I have to say is that to suggest that the Government is directing local authorities to build houses in order that there may be at the back of it some obscure Socialist propaganda to tie people to the Socialist faith, is something which ought to be protested against most vigorously. It is almost an insult to suggest a thing of that kind, and it ought not to pass without contradiction. I feel very very hurt that a thing like that should be said, because it ought not to be said, and I take the first opportunity that is open to me of repudiating it. You must excuse that little exacerbation, but when I am confronted with statements which are so profoundly unjust as that, I think occasion should be taken to remedy it as soon as possible. We are desirous, of course (and we are doing everything we possibly can) of getting houses built for the people. We take no cognizance of anything but their need;

179
that is the only test there is, and we hope that all the building capacities of the country, as materials and all the rest are gradually developed, will be brought to our assistance.
Nobody has mentioned the fact which, to my mind, is one that causes us the greatest, anxiety of all, and that is the high cost of these houses. To me it brings back painful personal recollections which I will not endeavour to enlarge upon, but the figure which is now before us is dreadful, and I think I would like to assure the House that the Government has every intention using every legitimate means within its power to get these prices reduced. I think it is absolutely essential that we should do everything we can to do that, and I am sure nobody will support it more heartily than the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin.
I would like in conclusion, as I said at the beginning, to thank him very sincerely for the character, substance and temper of his speech. It has been a most valuable contribution and for my part I think that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, considering he has only been on this job for about seven months, has made remarkably good progress so far.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to thank the three noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench for being courteous enough to reply to the debate which I had the honour to initiate. I think perhaps I stand rightly corrected in having only quoted the figures for the permanent houses. At any rate, the figures which the noble Lord just gave only show an increase, since demobilization started, of 77,000, and I hope we shall very soon get more. A considerable proportion of the figure he gave of people in the building industry were in the building industry as at July last, and I hope we shall get far more. There are only two other points I would like to comment on. He said that private builders and these building societies and associations are building entirely for sale. I think, if the figures are looked up, at least
180
a third of those were for letting in the years between the wars.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did not say housing associations, only building societies.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Then the noble Lord made some comment that some of the houses that were built for sale were shocking and that in some cases they were pretty bad. My only comment on this is that each of those had to be passed by the chosen instrument, the local authority, which the Government are trusting now, because the plans had to be passed by them and the house had to be passed by the local surveyor. In regard to the last few moments of the noble Lord's speech, perhaps I may be allowed to comment that around one of the cages in the Zoo there is a nice little notice, "This animal is dangerous, and if irritated he attacks," and the noble Lord seemed to be following very much that line. In regard to his comments upon my noble friend who sits beside me, I would only make just this one comment, that the noble Lord opposite was making the best defence I have yet heard of the tied cottage because they have been kept by the landlords and the farmers for the agricultural workers, and I thank him for that.
I think it has been a useful debate. My Motion was not, unfortunately, a Motion for houses, otherwise if they could have been given, as Papers might be given, we should have unanimously voted for it. Since it was put down we have had all the Papers that anybody reasonably could require, and in these circumstances I have no hesitation in asking the leave of the House to withdraw it.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTLAKE CREMATORIUM BOARD) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.