Sitting of 8 May 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NEW TOWNS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.37 P.m.
  The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  My first observation is on the Title of the Bill. The House will observe that it is not called a "Satellite Towns Bill," or a "Garden Cities Bill," and for reasons which I will give later I hope we may regard the term "satellite," or "garden city," as applied to a town, henceforth as having been interred decently. If the towns to be built under this Bill are new, neither the need for them, nor the idea, is in any sense new. My researches on new towns go back to the time of Sir Thomas More. He was the first person I have discovered to deplore the "suburban sprawl," and in his "Utopia" there are 54 new towns, each 23 miles apart. Each town is divided into four neighbourhoods, each neighbourhood being laid out with its local centre and community feed centre. Incidentally, Sir Thomas More was beheaded, but that must not be regarded as a precedent for the treatment of town planners——
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs): On a point of Order. May I claim your protection, Mr. Speaker? It has just been announced by the right hon. Gentleman that I have been beheaded. I want to know whether there is any confirmation of that.
  Mr. Silkin: I was referring to the past, and not to the future. It is a long cry from More's "Utopia," to the New Towns Bill, but it is not unreasonable to expect that that "Utopia" of 1515 should be translated into practical reality in 1946. There have been many other warnings about the ill effects of the growth of London and other large towns. Queen Elizabeth was very much disturbed about it. London then had a population of 120,000. In 1593, a Statute was passed—"an Act against new building"—which made it an offence to erect any dwelling house within the City of London, or the City of Westminster, or within three miles of any of the gates of those cities. The penalty

  1073
  was £5. It was quite ineffective, and soon became a dead letter, but remained on the Statute Book until 1888, when it was repealed. By that time London had a population of some four millions. The House will remember Cobbett's description, in the early 19th century, of London as "the Great Wen."
  More recently, Sir Ebenezer Howard, in 1898, wrote his book "Garden Cities of Tomorrow," in which he advocated the principle of building new self-contained towns surrounded by an agricultural or rural protective belt. His main object was to assist in relieving the congestion of large cities by redistributing the population in new and well-balanced towns of limited size. The towns were to be planned as a whole and to provide for industry and residence. There were to be adequate cultural and recreational facilities. He regarded it as essential that the whole area, including the protective belt, was to be under a single ownership. Sir Ebenezer Howard was himself responsible for the creation of Letchworth, in 1903, which was planned for a population of about 35,000, but which, at the outbreak of the war, had a population of under 18,000. He was also the founder of Welwyn Garden City, which was started in 1920, for an ultimate population of 50,000, but which, in 1939, had a population of about 15,000. Both these towns were started and have continued to be privately owned undertakings.
  At the end of the last war, when the great housing drive began in 1919, there were many warnings of the danger of permitting unplanned and uncontrolled development to take place on the outskirts of our towns. Unfortunately, these warnings were not heeded, with the result that we have all over the country a continuation of the suburban sprawl, and frequently miles of ribbon development, eating up more and more of the countryside and making the centre of the town more and more remote from the country. In fact, between the wars, the population of Greater London increased by two millions, while other areas, such as those of the Midlands and the Manchester regions, have increased proportionately. While these increases in urban development were going on, committees were reporting on the evil and on its remedy. For instance, a Committee under the chairmanship of the late Mr. Neville
  1074
  Chamberlain, appointed by the Minister of Health at that time, Sir Alfred Mond, was appointed to advise the Minister on the best method of dealing with slum areas. They recommended, in June, 1921, the development of self-contained garden cities, and that these should be hastened by State assistance. In 1931, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and the then Secretary of State for Scotland set up a Departmental Committee on garden cities and satellite towns, under the chairmanship of Lord Marley. They reported in 1934, and drew attention to the dangers and evils, economic and social, of haphazard, scattered and ribbon development. They also deplored the tendency to demand higher buildings and greater density which, they said, was based upon existing concentrations and lack of planning in the past, accentuated by badly planned suburban development of recent years. They recommended that the time was ripe for the development of garden cities and that this development should be regarded as a national and not a local problem.
  Again, in 1939, a Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population, under the chairmanship of Sir Montague Barlow, was set up to consider what were the disadvantages arising from the concentration of industries or of the industrial population in large towns, and to report what remedial measures, if any, should be taken in the national interest. This Commission reported in 1940 that the continued drift of the industrial population to London and the Home Counties constituted a social, economic and strategical problem which demanded immediate attention. It is somewhat ironical that, within a few months of the publication of this Report, enemy action drove home forcibly the strategical problem of London. The Report recommended that urgent consideration should be given to the decentralisation or dispersal both of industries and of industrial population from congested urban areas by means of garden cities or garden suburbs, satellite towns, or the development of existing small towns. During the war it was not possible to take concrete action on this Report. Lord Portal, however, I believe following a decision which had already been made by his predecessor, Lord Reith, when Minister of Works and Planning, by agreement with the local authorities in the Greater London area,

  1075
  appointed Sir Patrick Abercrombie to prepare a plan for the redevelopment of Greater London. This plan was published in 1944, and recommendations were made as to the creation of some ten new towns within about 30 miles of London, and of the enlargement of a number of existing towns so as to redistribute a population of some 1,250,000, mainly from the County of London and the immediately surrounding congested areas, like East Ham, West Ham, Waltham-stow, Tottenham, and a number of others. These new towns were each to have a population ranging from 30,000 to 60,000. They were to be self-contained so that their inhabitants would not have to leave the town for their work, and each town should be provided with all the necessary amenities of life
  One of my first acts as Minister of Town and Country Planning was to set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Reith to advise me on the general questions of the establishment, development, organisation and administration that will arise in the promotion of new towns in furtherance of a policy of planned decentralisation from congested areas, and to suggest guiding principles upon which such towns should be developed as self-contained and balanced communities for working and living. I have now had the advantage of two interim reports from this Committee, and this Bill has been prepared with due regard to their recommendations, though in certain respects I have not altogether accepted them. These reports have been unanimous. I am now awaiting the final report of this Committee which will advise me on the second part of their terms of reference. I should like here to express my thanks to Lord Reith and to his Committee for the thorough and energetic manner in which they are applying themselves to their task.
  The need to build new towns was recognised by Parliament in 1919 when, in Section 10 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act of that year, powers were given to local authorities or a combination of them, to purchase land and develop it as a garden city. These powers were reenacted in the Town Planning Act of 1925, and again in Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932. This provision—it was prac-
  1076
  tically the same in all the Measures—has had two major defects. It does not provide adequate powers to build a self-contained and balanced town, nor does it provide adequate finance, and it is not surprising that no projects for new towns have been initiated under these Acts.
  I think the House will agree from what I have said, that our failure in the past has not been due to any lack of writings, warnings, investigations, diagnoses, commissions, reports, or recommendations. Meanwhile, the demand for the erection of large numbers of houses and the need to rebuild war damaged towns are pressing. Between the wars some 5 million houses were built, and the effect on the countryside and on our towns has been almost calamitous. Enormous areas of agricultural and market gardening land have been lost to these islands for ever. Large numbers of people in the towns are living in grossly congested and overcrowded conditions, and there is almost always a serious lack of open space, particularly in the poorer parts of our towns. The majority of the population being more and more divorced from the countryside, many people are forced to live at a considerable distance from their work, and are involved in long, tiring, and expensive daily journeys.
  Many towns have built new housing estates on the outskirts. These have largely failed in their purpose of providing a better life for their people, and have almost invariably become dormitories consisting of members of one income group, with no community life or civic sense. Today there is a need for additional houses, possibly equal in number again to those built between the wars. Are these to be built on the outskirts of our towns, with the same lack of planning and ill consequences as before? If so, I dread to think what sort of place this still fair land of ours will be in 10 or 15 years time. This is our last chance. Many of the houses now to be built must be carefully located in new self-contained communities, if the existing evils are not to be aggravated.
  On 5th March last I announced in this House that the Government intend to carry out a programme for the planned dispersal of a substantial proportion of the population of London to areas situated 20 to 50 miles away, and there to create homes and work for the people so moved, in new towns, or by the substantial enlargement of existing towns. The evil, of

  1077
  course, is not confined to London; it applies almost equally to such places as Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds, Portsmouth and Plymouth, each with a population for which it cannot provide housing within its own boundaries ranging from 40,000 to 250,000 people. In many of these cases, the building of new towns is the only satisfactory method of providing accommodation for the overspill population. Apart from the problem of congestion with which I have just dealt there is also in various parts of the country the case of scattered villages whose inhabitants depend on natural local resources for their living, and where these sources have declined, where, for instance, local mines have been worked out, the inhabitants are left high and dry. The only solution to permit of their living near to employment is also the creation of a new self-contained town. The House will, I am sure, by this time be satisfied that an effective policy for the creation of new towns must be an essential part of our postwar replanning. The Bill before the House provides, I hope, a satisfactory instrument for the carrying out of that policy, and one which will, at long last, enable us to cope with one of the most pressing problems which faces this small island. I propose to confine myself to England and Wales, but the Bill also applies to Scotland; beyond making that statement, I think I had better leave Scotland to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  The Explanatory Memorandum printed with the Bill contains notes on the 23 Clauses, and a White Paper has been prepared which I hope will facilitate an understanding of the Sections of the 1944 Act which have been attracted to this Bill. I recognise that some of the Clauses are somewhat technical; so is the 1944 Act, as my right hon. Friend opposite will readily admit. We have done the best we could to enable hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to understand the Bill by publishing this White Paper, which I hope will facilitate very much the understanding of the Measure. I believe the Explanatory Memorandum is in sufficiently clear and simple terms, and in the circumstances I do not think it necessary to go through the Clauses one by one.
  Mr. Maclay (Montrose Burghs): Could the Minister indicate how Scotland will be dealt with? Is the Secretary of State
  1078
  for Scotland to wind up the Debate, or will he make an intervention?
  Mr. Silkin: I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will intervene if necessary. Perhaps I might explain in broad terms the general framework of the Bill. It provides, generally speaking, that the Minister who is defined in the Bill as the Minister of Town and Country Planning will appoint a development corporation to be responsible for the building of each new town. In this connection I ought to explain that when I speak of a new town, I include also the substantial enlargement of an existing town. There may be exceptional cases in which it may be expedient for a development corporation to be responsible for more than one town, and provision is made accordingly. I have in mind the possibility of the development of two new towns which may be not a very great distance apart, one of them almost at the end of its development, and the other about to be developed. The commonsense arrangement would be for the one corporation to be responsible for the two, but that would be exceptional. The corporation will consist of a chairman, a vice chairman, and up to seven additional members who will be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the appropriate local authorities. Normally they will be appointed for a set period and the remuneration will be fixed with the consent of the Treasury. They are given the widest possible powers of estate management, but will not have any of the ordinary local government functions of a democratically elected authority. These will remain vested in the local authority. The powers conferred upon the corporation will be exercised in accordance with such directions as may from time to time, be given by the Minister.
  The site of a new town will be determined by the Minister, after consultation with the local authorities whose inhabitants will be accommodated in the proposed new town, as well as the local authorities who are directly concerned with the new town area. They will all be consulted. Once the site has been settled, that area together with any adjacent land which might be necessary, will be designated as the site of the proposed new town. The Bill provides machinery for the compulsory acquisition of land in the designated area.

  1079
  This land will, in due course, vest in the development corporation. It will then be the business of the corporation to prepare a plan for the development of the area. The corporation will be authorised to employ the necessary administrative and technical staff. I hope they will get as good a staff as possible. The plan will be submitted to the Minister, who will consult the local authorities upon it, and in due course approve it, with or without modification. It will not be essential for the corporation to submit fully detailed proposals for the development of the whole town at once. It will generally be sufficient if an outline plan for the whole area is agreed, showing, broadly, the location of the individual zones—commercial zone, residential zone and industrial zone—main roads, railways, etc., and accompanied by a detailed plan of the development which is first to take place. That will, of course, be a matter for the corporation to determine.
  Once the plan has been approved, it will be the duty of the corporation to secure that the necessary services are provided. This is, in the first instance, the duty of the local authority or group of local authorities, and of the statutory undertakers in the area, but the corporations are empowered to provide those services or any of them if the statutory undertakers or the local authority are unable or unwilling to do so. The services having been provided, the land is ripe for development. The corporations are empowered to carry out all the development of the towns themselves, and in particular to build houses as a housing association. Frequently, the local authorities who desire to rehouse in the new town their overcrowded population will be prepared to take a lease of the necessary land, and to build appropriate houses themselves, in accordance with a plan. There will be every encouragement to them to do so. One or more housing associations may be prepared to undertake some proportion of this task. Private enterprise will be invited to participate in the building of houses by taking leases of parts of the area. The small builder will not be shut out, nor will the person desiring to build a single house.
  Captain Crookshank: I hope the Minister of Health agrees with all this.
  Mr. Silkin: So much so, that my right hon. Friend has, as the right hon. and gallant Member will notice, put his name on the back of the Bill.
  Similarly, land will be leased for the building of factories, shops, cinemas, theatres and other necessary buildings. Land required for schools and other public buildings will be disposed of to the county council, or to the appropriate local authority. The Bill contemplates that the corporation will remain the freeholder of the land, and may dispose of the land by way of leasehold only for a term not exceeding 99 years, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying disposal by way of freehold. Disposals will be subject to the approval of the Minister and there, the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor will be glad to know, I have followed the admirable precedent set out in Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. There will be cases where a corporation will not be able to secure at the appropriate time the erection of suitable buildings in this way. In the case of Welwyn Garden City, the development company was unable, at the outset, to induce private enterprise to build shops. They were compelled to build a store themselves and a very fine store it is. The Bill gives the corporations power to carry out any necessary development. Power is conferred upon the Minister at any time to wind up a corporation. In particular it is the intention when the development of a new town is substantially complete, to wind up the corporation, and, by agreement with the local authorities, to transfer the assets and liabilities of the corporation to the local authority.
  Mr. York (: Which local authority?
  Mr. Silkin: The local authority of the area in which the new town is situated.
  An Hon. Member: It may be the county council.
  Mrs. Braddock: Would my right hon. Friend explain a little more fully the position in regard to the local authority? This is one of the difficulties which some of us will have to meet. Some of the proposed new towns will be situated in the jurisdiction of rural district authorities; are they to be the democratic bodies to govern these towns?
  Mr. Silkin: Perhaps I had better explain this matter now. The designated area will

  1081
  often be within the boundaries of several local authorities. There might be an urban district and two rural districts. Let us take the case of Stevenage, of which most hon. Members will now have heard. In that case, possibly four-fifths of the area of the new town will be in the jurisdiction of the Stevenage urban district council. Of the remaining fifth, perhaps one-half —one-tenth of the whole—is in the area of the Hertford rural district council and the other half is in the area of the Hitchin rural district council. The intention would be to go to the Boundary Commission as soon as possible, and ensure that the whole area is within the jurisdiction of one local authority. In this case it will probably be the Stevenage urban district council, but it is not for me to prejudge that matter. The other authorities will be entitled to make out their case. Assuming that the Stevenage urban district council becomes the local authority of the area for the proposed new town, it will be open to that authority as the population increases to make application, in the usual way, to become a municipal borough. It might, although I do not contemplate that it ever will, become even large enough to be a county borough—but that is in the future. That is the way in which these local authority functions will be worked out.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does the Minister mean that the selected local authority will be established before the new town is built, or afterwards?
  Mr. Silkin: That is something which experience will dictate. I imagine that it will take place at a fairly early stage, in order to remove complications arising from having perhaps three different local authorities responsible for the provision of services. It might be found convenient to go to the Boundary Commission and get one local authority to answer for it. We shall live and learn.
  The financial provisions of the Bill are described and explained in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum printed with the Bill. I refer hon. Members to those paragraphs. Broadly speaking, capital moneys required for development will be provided by way of loans from the Consolidated Fund, up to a sum of £50 million. When that has been spent, it will be necessary to seek further Parliamentary authority for the continuation of
  1082
  the programme. It is estimated that this may take about five years, so that we may be coming back for more money in the year 1951. Parliament will then have the opportunity of taking stock of the progress which will have been made and of expressing its opinion, and indeed it will have such opportunities in the meantime. There will be a careful check on capital expenditure, but the Minister and the Treasury must be satisfied that the expenditure is likely to produce for the corporation a reasonable annual return. The Exchequer will also pay to the corporation the appropriate housing subsidy in respect of working-class houses built by or for the corporation. It will also provide by way of subsidy the expenses of the corporation, which might amount to between £30,000 and £40,000 a year for each new town, in the early years of development, as well as certain other minor expenses.
  Mr. Molson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point may I ask a question? Under the Housing Act, half the subsidy is provided by the Exchequer and half by the rates. How is he going to provide for the subsidy in this case? Is the full contribution to be made by the Exchequer, as well as the ordinary Treasury one?
  Mr. Silkin: Yes. The housing subsidy will, of course, have to be provided. Let me make that clear. Whoever builds a working-class house will be entitled to an Exchequer subsidy, and therefore the payment to the corporation of the Exchequer subsidy involves no additional expenditure. The hon. Gentleman's question is what happens to the rate subsidy. In many cases—I hope in the vast majority of cases—working-class houses will be built by the corporation when it does build on behalf of or for the benefit of certain overcrowded towns, who are desirous of rehousing their population in the new towns. I contemplate an agreement between the exporting authority and the corporation, under which the exporting authority will pay to the corporation, the whole or part of the rate subsidy. That is an arrangement which in my experience as an ex-chairman of the housing committee of the London County Council, was often made. The London County Council often paid to other authorities the rate subsidy or a portion of the rate subsidy in consideration of being provided

  1083
  with accommodation for its inhabitants, and I imagine that in a great many cases, perhaps in the majority of cases, such an arrangement will be feasible. But where a corporation is not able to secure a rate contribution from any local authority, that rate contribution will have to be made good by the Exchequer.
  It is estimated that the capital cost to public funds of the development of each new town will be about £19 million, on the assumption that most of the middle-class houses, the shops and the factories will be built by private enterprise. The corporation will spend £15½ million and the local authorities £3½ million in building houses, but none of this is really additional expenditure. Wherever the houses are built, the cost will be the same. Even if no new houses are built, the middle-class houses, shops and the factories would have to be provided somewhere, in part out of public monies. It is true that perhaps 10 to 20 per cent. of the capital cost may be incurred for the provision of new services in a new town which would not be incurred if the development took place on the fringes of existing towns, but this excess expenditure is more than offset by the fact that there is a great saving in land costs by building at a distance from the town. For instance, the cost of the land at Stevenage may be of the order of £500,000, whereas if the proposed population were housed on the outskirts of London, the land might cost £2 million to £3 million, or if in the centre of London, in flats, many times that figure with the higher Exchequer and rate contribution. I would say, therefore, with confidence, that it is no more expensive to build a new town, than to build in the old bad way. I have described as briefly as I can the structure and the finances of the Bill——
  Mr. McAllister: Before the Minister leaves that point, would he indicate what percentage the £19 million would be of the total expenditure on one completed town?
  Mr. Silkin: It is impossible for me to say what would be the cost of providing the factories, the shops and so on by private enterprise. I cannot possibly say that. I can only make a guess. The House would like to be informed on the way in which this legislative structure will be used, and the kind of town that it is
  1084
  intended to build. First, as to the corporation and its relationship with the Minister. I intend to appoint to the corporation those whom I consider to be best equipped for this most important and responsible task. Since a permanent and adequately qualified technical staff will be employed, I do not think it essential that any of the members should, necessarily, have any special technical qualifications, but administrative experience and capacity are indispensable. Moreover, I hope it will be possible to find suitable women and younger people with drive and imagination. They will be appointed in the first instance for three years. They will have a task which will require the expenditure of a good deal of time and energy, and I think it essential that they should be paid. It will be my policy to interfere as little as possible with the detailed administration, and to give these bodies the maximum freedom. Of course, I should expect to determine main questions of policy. It must be remembered that the Minister will be responsible to Parliament for the proper and efficient administration of the Measure, and a considerable amount of public money will be involved. I must, therefore, be in a position to satisfy myself from time to time, that things are going as they should.
  The House will see that the Bill provides only for a Government sponsored corporation. The Reith Committee in their first interim report regarded such a corporation as, generally, the most suitable agency; they, nevertheless, recommended that provision should be made for two other types of corporation, namely, a local authority sponsored corporation and, in certain cases, an authorised association. Perhaps the House would like me to explain why I did not see my way to accept those recommendations. I examined carefully the case for the local authority sponsored corporation. It seemed to me to differ very little from the Government sponsored corporation. There was to be a proportion of members nominated by the local authorities concerned, but the necessary finances would be provided, in either case, out of moneys raised nationally. I can see no real justification for complicating the Bill by providing for two types of corporations, which do not seem to me to differ very much in essentials.
  I came to the conclusion that there were two fundamental objections to the

  1085
  local authority sponsored corporations—and here I know that I am treading on rather delicate ground. I do not think this is a task which can satisfactorily be undertaken by local authorities at all. I think that it must be carried out nationally and with national responsibility. This was a matter which was frequently discussed in the London County Council when I was a member. When ever we, as a council, were urged to take responsibility for a new town, our answer—and it was given quite irrespective of party—always was that this was a national task and not a local authority one, and almost every other local authority has taken the same view. Moreover, I can see no hope of a speedy agreement being arrived at between an authority which desires to build a new town, and the authority in whose area this town is to be built. The case of Manchester and the county councils of Lancashire and Cheshire is a very good example.
  There is always suspicion on the part of the receiving authorities that the exporting authority is desirous of absorbing the area of the new town, and the suspicion is, I am afraid, not always without some justification. Indeed, I have never known any authority which contemplated the building of a new town, and which did not take it for granted that it was essential that their boundaries should be expanded to take in the new town. But, if this were to happen, the whole purpose of the new town would be defeated. It must be self-contained and self-governing; it must not be run as a distant colony from a remote control 20 miles or so distant. It could not possibly have any life of its own. or any civic or democratic sense, if the inhabitants always had to look to a distant town hall as their centre of government. My second objection is that I do not think it desirable that new towns should be constituted from congested parts of another single existing town. It is essential that there should be an admixture of population from a number of different places, and the chances of a number of local authorities combining and agreeing on terms for the erection of a new town is so remote, that I can properly rule it out. For these reasons I have not provided for a local authority sponsored corporation.
  Now as to the authorised undertaking. I realise it may be argued that the only
  1086
  real new towns—Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City—that have been built in this country, have, in fact, been created by what might be described as authorised associations. I do not count Wythenshawe or Speke as new towns because, excellent as they are in many respects, I regard them not as self-contained communities, but as suburbs of Manchester and Liverpool respectively, with many of the characteristics of suburbia. There is also the fact that the earlier legislation, as well as Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, provided for authorised undertakings associations. As experiments, both Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City are admirable, but neither of them has developed as anticipated, even though they are now some 43 and 25 years old respectively. Letchworth had rather more than half the planned population in 1939; Welwyn Garden City under one-third. To a considerable extent they are both dormitory towns. There is much that we can learn from each of them as to what to do and what not to do. They have not wholly succeeded, partly because of lack of money and partly because of lack of powers for compulsory purchase of land. The cost of a new town, on the assumption that I have stated earlier is, as I have said, about £19 million. No authorised association is in a position to provide such a sum of money. Inevitably, the Exchequer would be called upon to provide a very large proportion of that money, and the provision of public money must involve public accountability, and substantial representation on the board.
  Since the location of the site of a new town would have to be approved by the Minister, after consultation with the appropriate local authority, and he would have to use powers of compulsory acquisition—because the possibility of acquiring a sufficiently large area entirely by agreement can be almost eliminated—and since the plan must be approved by the Minister, I can see no really valuable function that an authorised association can perform. This is far too big a job for an authorised association. It is a job for the nation. I have, however, already explained that private enterprise and authorised associations will have a great part to play in the building of these towns, and, so far as I am concerned, they will have every encouragement. For these reasons, I have provided for a single form

  1087
  of corporation, the Government sponsored corporation.
  I said earlier that certain powers for the creation of garden cities were conferred upon local authorities under the 1932 Act. In order to lose no time, I have, in agreement with the Hertfordshire county council, taken the initial steps for the acquisition of land in the planning of a new town at Stevenage. Individual notices have been sent to owners, in and around the town, inquiring if they are willing to sell their land by agreement, and asking that the information be supplied within 28 days. When this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will quickly, all further steps in connection with Stevenage can be taken under the powers in the Bill. While on the subject of Stevenage, may I say there is a natural anxiety on the part of owners of houses which may have to be acquired, and in due course demolished, in order that the plan may be carried out. Provision is made in this Bill that it shall be the duty of the corporation to make available other accommodation on reasonable terms, in advance of the displacements, and it is my intention that the accommodation so provided shall be a reasonable alternative to that which is acquired.
  So far as can at present be foreseen, the immediate programme contemplates the creation of some 20 new towns, which includes major extensions of existing towns, in England and Wales; my right hon. Friend will speak for Scotland. The population in these towns will range between 30,000 and 60,000. In all, this programme will provide for the housing of just over a million people. It may well turn out hereafter, if the new towns are successful, that a much greater number of new towns will later on have to be provided Many smallish towns, towns of the size of Oxford, are already grossly overcrowded, and can only be made to function satisfactorily by a considerable amount of dispersal. Everyone who knows Oxford or Cambridge will agree with me that those towns are already quite unworkable. There is an equally strong, though perhaps not quite so urgent case for new towns, or the enlargement of existing towns, to relieve congestion in such areas as these, but at present we must tackle the more urgent cases of London, Manchester, and the other towns I have mentioned, as well as the scat-
  1088
  tered villages to which I have referred in places like Durham and South Wales.
  It is essential that a sufficient amount of industry shall be available to enable every worker living in the town to find his work there. The new towns will have much to offer to industry. The industrial zone will be carefully located to provide the maximum convenience for industrygood roads and rail facilities and sidings, and plenty of room for expansion. Many industrialists who at present have factories in congested surroundings in large towns, without proper convenience or room for expansion, will welcome the opportunity of moving and of carrying on their industry in new, modern, up to date, clean, light, airy factories where they can expand, and where their workers will be within walking distance and can enjoy the opportunity of living healthy and contented lives. Already, from inquiries which have been made through the Board of Trade, I am satisfied that there are sufficient industrialists ready and willing to go to Stevenage, and to as many more new towns as can quickly be got ready. There may be some industrialists who would prefer to rent a factory, rather than build one for themselves. The corporation have the power to build standard factories or flatted factories to make it possible for such industrialists to come to the new towns.
  It is most important that the new towns in the programme should be built as quickly as possible. They constitute an important part of the housing programme. There are natural limitations on the speed with which it will be possible to proceed, but, within those limitations, it is proposed to go as fast as we can. If I, or my successor, can spend that 5o million in less than five years we shall feel we have been more successful than we anticipated. The new towns must provide accommodation for people of all income limits. We must not make them towns inhabited by people of one income level, and that the lowest. A new series of Becontrees would be fatal. We want to see in these new towns the directors, managers and technical staffs all find their homes and playing their full part in the life of the town, and so it will be necessary to provide all types of houses.
  Mr. BossomWill the right hon. Gentleman explain how he ex-

  1089
  pects to get people from all income classes, to come to the new towns?
  Mr. Silkin: By the provision of houses suitable for them. I believe that if the homes are provided people of all classes will come. I have spoken to many industrialists who would be delighted to come to a town of this sort. I should like to see representatives of other sections of the community, the administration of banks or insurance companies, or large commercial concerns, with their staffs, living in the new towns. I shall endeavour to persuade some Government Departments to decentralise a proper amount of their work to these towns and I hope my own Department will take the lead and set an example. The need for large numbers of additional schools will enable the local education authorities to provide the best modern buildings up to the very high standards laid down in the Education Act of 1944. That is often impossible in the older areas. The primary schools will be so situated that no child need travel more than a quarter of a mile to school. A much higher proportion of the land in the new town can be made available for public open spaces and playing fields, close to the homes instead of many miles away. There will be many opportunities of interesting experience in working out the most suitable arrangement of housing to get the best results from mixed development.
  Naturally, we shall seek to preserve what is best in the existing parts of the town, its charm, tradition, and character. The Bill puts me under an obligation to give directions to the corporation for the purpose of securing the preservation of features of special architectural or historic interest, but I hope to go even further than that. The towns will be divided into neighbourhood units, each unit with its own shops, schools, open spaces, community halls and other amenities. But it is possible to be lonely even in a neighbourhood unit of 10,000. I am most anxious that the planning should be such that the different income groups living in the new towns will not be segregated. No doubt they may enjoy common recreational facilities and take part in amateur theatricals, or each play their part in a health centre or community centre. But, when they leave to go home I do not want the better off people to go to the right and the less well off to go to the left. I want them to ask
  1090
  each other, "Are you going my way?" I am sure a greater amount of comradeship is assured by a quarter of an hour spent in going home together, than by an hour spent in an institution. I have known people to sit together on a committee for years without ever getting on speaking terms. I do not want to repeat the experience of Welwyn Garden City, where the town is divided into two by the railway, the workers on one side, and the middle class on the other and "never the twain do meet," except at the railway station. I should like to encourage the corporations to be daring and courageous in their efforts to discover the best way of living.
  I want to see the new towns gay and bright, with plenty of theatres, concert halls, and meeting places. I should like to see cricket and football played by the youth of the town instead of being watched by them. I want to see them producing first-class amateur teams and I should like to see golf courses made available for all. Golf is not a rich man's game in Scotland; why should it be so in England? The new town should provide valuable experience in the best use of leisure, a commodity which is, and should become, more and more plentiful.
  Hon. Members have no doubt read about the Reilly Plan for the development of Birkenhead. It is not new, in fact it has a considerable similarity to the proposals in Thomas More's "Utopia," but it is none the worse for that. It is a proposal for breaking up the neighbourhood units into smaller units of 40 to 50 families living around a green, each with a nursery school, communal kitchen, and restaurant in the centre. In the communal kitchen food will be prepared, in turn, by a rota of women living in the unit, and either delivered to the home or consumed at the restaurant. I think it is an idea worth trying out. Obviously it depends on whether the women in the various households can cooperate to make it a success, and there may be varying opinions about that. I believe they can, but one can only make sure by trying. The experiment of the Reilly Plan is about to be tried out in Bilston, Staffordshire, and I shall watch it with great interest.
  It is a remarkable thing that friendliness, neighbourliness, comradeship, and the spirit of helpfulness—all these things are only seen in the villages and in the

  1091
  slums. The spirit of the slums is indeed remarkable. If there is trouble, ill health or any of the many misfortunes that befall people living in those conditions, the neighbours are eager to come to the rescue, to take charge of a child or look after the household while the mother is in hospital. A hundred and one neighbourly jobs that need to be done, are done. But when the slums are cleared, and the people transferred to a new housing estate, all this friendliness and neighbourliness seems to disappear, and families become isolated units, each contained within the fortress of the new council house, and nothing seems to get them closer together. Our aim must be to combine in the new town this friendly spirit of the former slum, with the vastly improved health conditions of the new estate but it must be a broadened spirit embracing all classes of society. The former slum dweller, or dweller in the poorer part of a town, has a good deal to learn from those better off, and vice versa.
  Our towns must be beautiful. Here is a grand chance for the revival or creation of a new architecture. The monotony of the interwar housing estate must not be repeated. We must develop in those who live in the towns, an appreciation of beauty. I am a firm believer in the cultural and spiritual interest of beauty. The new towns can be experiments in design as well as in living. They must be so laid out that there is ready access to the countryside for all. This combination of town and country is vital. Lack of it is perhaps the biggest curse of the present-day town dweller. I believe that if all these conditions are satisfied, we may well produce in the new towns a new type of citizen, a healthy, self-respecting, dignified person with a sense of beauty, culture and civic pride. Cicero said:
  "A man's dignity is enhanced by the home he lives in."
  I say, even more by the town he lives in. In the long run, the new towns will be judged by the kind of citizens they produce, by whether they create this spirit of friendship, neighbourliness and comradeship. That will be the real test, and that will be my objective so long as I have any responsibility for these new towns. This Bill is the first step towards the attainment of this objective, but it is a big, important and long-awaited step.
  1092
  It is to me a great personal satisfaction, and a high honour, that this should be the first Bill to be introduced by me and that I should be charged with the responsibility for the conduct in this House of so vital a Measure affecting, as it does, the lives of so many members of the community. I commend the Bill to this House with the utmost confidence.
  Colonel Clarke: I would like to ask the Minister one question. From his great experience of local government, he will be aware that such a great change in regard to one local authority will be bound to impose considerable expense on neighbouring authorities, in this case the county council. For example, the county roads will have to be greatly extended when a town of 18,000 to 20,000 inhabitants is created in what was a purely country area previously. Is provision being made to help these other local authorities in the early days? Later, increases in rates will even out matters.
  Mr. Silkin: The Bill makes provision for necessary roads to the new towns, not only in the area of the new towns but outside them as well. So far as the other services are concerned, I cannot see exactly what would be the repercussion on outside authorities, but I shall be very happy to discuss the matter with the hon. and gallant Member at a later stage.
  4.43 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: The House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman has commended this Bill to us in a speech of great clarity and eloquence. In addition to those very desirable qualities, I was pleased to observe that on this matter, which concerns the welfare of the whole country, there was a welcome absence of any doctrinal persuasions or attempts to divide the House on party lines. After the right hon. Gentleman's description of the sort of new towns which he projected, one could not help feeling that they would be very pleasing places in which to live, and it was a little disappointing, when the spell of his eloquence had faded, to realise that all these new towns are still in a place which he himself mentioned two or three times in his speech, namely, Utopia. The right hon. Gentleman gave an interesting, and, to me, informative account of the history of this question,

  1093
  and he mentioned two famous Elizabethans as having concerned themselves with it. He mentioned Sir Thomas More and his Utopia, and no doubt he cherishes the hope—and many people in the House will agree with him—of translating some measure of the speculations and projections of Sir Thomas More into reality. In that endeavour he may be comforted, and perhaps a little encouraged, when he considers the aim of that other great Elizabethan, Queen Elizabeth herself. She tried to prevent people from building houses in London. The right hon. Gentleman can take comfort from the fact that the Minister of Health has now succeeded in that task.
  The subject of the "suburban sprawl, this sort of middle-aged spread, which seems to affect all urban communities when they get to a certain age, has long been a question which has concerned those who are interested in the proper development of urban life. I have myself made some researches into this question of the new towns and suburban sprawl, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not find entirely useless in his further endeavours. We have, therefore, to consider this Bill, with all that it implies, as providing, if it can succeed in so doing, an alternative for a process which has been destructive of urban amenity in the past, and not only urban amenity, but agricultural production, because the unregulated spread of our great cities has often taken the bricks and mortar to, and sealed up for ever, land which was capable of high-class agricultural production in the form of market gardens and high cultivation farms. So, if it is possible to dispose of some of our surplus population by putting them on to places which can be selected because of their comparative lack of agricultural value and fertility, so much the better for agriculture and for the preservation of our agricultural land in this country.
  We all know how a suburb grows. It starts, perhaps, with Acacia Road spreading out a tentacle into the green and pleasant land surrounding it, but it has numerous and prolific progeny. In turn, it brings forth Acacia Grove, Acacia Street, Acacia Avenue, Acacia Crescent and Acacia Court, until the whole country is engulfed by these tentacles in one uniform mass of undistinguished bricks and mortar. The human spirit is capable of
  1094
  flowering in adverse circumstances, and in these formless suburbs of ours have lived, and are living, many excellent, intelligent, public spirited and brave men and women. They have brought forth in their time great writers, artisans of great skill, great public administrators. When the hour of danger came, they brought forth gallant soldiers, sailors and airmen. Though we may regard the outward appearance of suburban sprawl as something distasteful, the people who live in those suburbs by no means deserve the sort of scorn which is sometimes heaped upon them by highbrow Bloomsbury novelists and others.
  The sprawl itself should be arrested, if that can be done. Of that there is no doubt, and the new town certainly offers a method towards that end which should be explored. But the House and the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I ask here a pertinent question. We are discussing new towns. What about the old towns? After all is said and done, at the end of a long period of time the projected new towns will house only a small fragment of the population. It remains the fact that it is in the old towns that the bulk of our people will have to live, and I should oppose this Bill if I thought that the creation of these new towns was to be at the expense of re-beautifying and reconstructing the old towns, which, in the main, are the homes of our people.
  The House will recollect a book that seems to be much quoted in both Houses of Parliament, namely, "Alice in Wonderland," in which there is described a tea party at the Mad Hatter's establishment. One cannot be too careful in these quotations and I have not had time to verify it, but I think it was the Dormouse who upset the teapot. When the teapot had been upset and the tablecloth irretrievably stained, they all moved round to a clean place on the tablecloth. I would not like the whole of this planning conception, which is much greater than new towns alone, to be dominated by a sort of Mad Hatter complex of urban decay and change. I would not like our local authorities to be deluded by this Bill into thinking that they can let decay crumble away the interiors of their own towns and then walk out on to more and more clear land to rehouse the population, which ought to have been housed in decency

  1095
  and dignity inside the old town. For that reason it is important for us to consider carefully the scale of the operations which the right hon. Gentleman has immediately in prospect. There are in London sites already chosen and approved, on planning and other grounds, for a very large building programme. Over the whole country there is certainly land chosen and sited for two years' building. Some of the land is already serviced. I hope that this new towns project at this moment of our housing needs will not be permitted to divert from these sites, which are already prepared, labour and materials which, applied to these approved sites, would yield the speediest return in homes for our homeless people. I hope the hon. Gentleman who, I understand, is to wind up this Debate will give us an assurance on the point that, however desirable this long term project may be, it will not be at the expense of an immediate grappling with the housing problem on sites that will yield a quicker return in actual homes for our people.
  The scale of these operations is important from another point of view. I am not at all convinced in my own mind, from such study as I have given to this problem, that the full social implications of creating a new town are yet understood. There are factors of an obscure character in all these operations which are not properly displayed in any book that I have seen and they are not readily apparent to the eye. The old town takes time to mature. It grows up gradually, being moulded in its passage through time by the impress of economic and social factors which have surrounded it in its history. Here there is suddenly to be created a new community. The Government should not disguise from themselves the fact that it will be, in the first instance, a synthetic community. The inhabitants of the new town will have nothing in common but the fact that they come from places where houses are in short supply. They will have none of that intimately woven texture of community life which exists in an old town where generations have succeeded each other, where marriage, it may be, has united the destinies and fortunes of several families, and where a long history of communal interest in athletics and cultural matters
  1096
  has cemented the people together. There one has a true community——
  Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge): Might I ask where this particular Utopia is to be found?
  Mr. Morrison: I could tell the hon. Lady of many towns where that is true. I am aware that in some of the larger towns the mere scale of them causes difficulty but there are in parts of London quite well knit suburbs with community lives. My point remains perfectly valid that in an old town of some history one can count upon a gradually built up community of interest which it would be wrong and foolish to expect to find in a synthetic community suddenly created. That being the case, we ought to proceed with some caution in this matter. I welcome an experiment in the most favourable circumstances with this new towns idea. I think we would learn much from it. There is a great deal we do not know about what makes community spirit and community life. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the necessity which undoubtedly exists for a proper balance in a community. I agree wholeheartedly. It should be a matter of national interest to secure that our communities contain persons of all the income levels. A great many of our artificial differences in this country arise from the fact that the various income groups never get to know each other. If people all with the same income are segregated in large estates they begin to imagine people of different income levels, whom they never see, as unknown and, therefore, terrible. To take the other extreme, in the country village of any antiquity, where there are people of every income level living cheek by jowl, one gets into a spirit of realisation of the fact that human beings have much more in common with each other than they have points of difference and dispute and, on the whole, there is a more helpful organic society. I agree that the new community must be balanced also as between residence and employment. Every community, even a new town, must have an economic basis for its subsistence. We have to do our best to secure that each new town has a proper balance.
  The reason why I ask the right hon. Gentlemen to pause to experiment and to see where he is going in this matter is so that he shall be on firm ground on these economic and social problems. This is the

  1097
  sort of thing that might happen. Suppose a town is planned for 60,000 inhabitants. It is launched, a corporation acquires the land and the affair is brought into being. Suppose in the course of experiment it is found that the population reaches 40,000 and refuses to budge because of some obscure factor which one has not been able to detect by prevision, and the process is arrested, and people prefer to go elsewhere. Then it is obvious that the objective could not be reached except by compulsion, by forcible transference of people into the new town, and of industry to go with them. That is a prospect which would go very ill with the character and independence of our people. Therefore, I urge the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, if they proceed with this Bill, to use its powers in an exploratory and experimental character, pushing on with all necessary boldness into the field of experiment, but realising that there is a great deal in the hidden social and economic factors which we have not properly understood. The right hon. Gentleman himself reminded us that Letchworth and Welwyn had not, in fact, developed as they were projected, and that is due, of course, to the existence of surrounding factors not observed by the keen and prophetic Ebenezer Howard, and it may be so with the new towns of which we are hearing today.
  I turn to other matters in the Bill itself. I want to say a word or two about procedure. This is, of course, a very long and complicated Bill. It has, in this White Paper, which I see for the first time today, attached itself very firmly to the code contained in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and, of course, a great deal of the procedural matters of difference between us are proper for Committee and not for discussion on Second Reading, but I would like just to indicate one or two of the broader matters into which we may have to go more fully so that they may receive consideration.
  I heard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of his reason for not accepting the Reith Committee's proposal to enable three sorts of corporation to be used for this purpose. I am bound to say that there is a great deal of weight in what the right hon. Gentleman says as to the difficulties and troubles which arise between local authorities adjacent to each
  1098
  other if the population of one is transported into the area of the other. I have had some experience of that myself. But this is an enabling Bill, and I am not convinced, though I recognise the weight of the argument, that it would not have been wiser to take powers to form local authority sponsored corporations and authorised associations in case a proper opportunity arises in the future free from the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman expatiated upon and where he could, at the same time, take advantage of the fund of local experience and knowledge which goes to build up this country of ours, whose variety is one of the sources of its greatest strength. I think that all of us would like, if it could be achieved, to secure that the towns of the future, besides being all the good things that we are told they are to be, possessed some local character and dignity, and smacked something of the counties and latitudes in which they are situated. One would not like to see new towns all turned out machine made from some Whitehall office and looking as like each other as first-class hotels look in every capital in the world.
  Therefore, for that reason, I would have seen no objection to the right hon. Gentleman including powers to make use of the other two forms of corporation should the future disclose that which it at present hides from him—the proper case for their employment. Of course, these corporations are given very wide power, and some of the language in which that power is expressed seems to go a good deal further than is really necessary, but these are matters which we can discuss when we come to them in Committee. I can conceive that the main ground of difference between the two sides of the House on this matter is the old question of compulsory purchase, of the procedure and the terms on which this sometimes necessary evil is conducted, and I have suspected, from earlier discussions on this topic, that there may be a fundamental difference between us on the matter which we must do our best to remove with civility in order to reach a conclusion upon it. I sometimes suspect, and I hope I am not harbouring an unworthy suspicion, that hon. Members opposite regard planning as an excuse for the public acquisition of land, but I myself take the other view of being prepared to acquire land publicly, where it is necessary in the

  1099
  interests of planning, but to regard it as a necessary evil, and I hope we shall manage to reach some balance of opinion on this matter for the reasons which I am about to state.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Stevenage, and I read in the newspapers that he went there and that his meeting was not unattended, that certain questions were asked him, to all of which he appears to have given answers, some of which were, perhaps, agreeable to those who asked the questions and to others less so. I hope he will not, in any way, be moved by that experience to decry, or to fail to appreciate, the spirit of those who object to being turned out of their homes. This same insistence on their individual rights is, after all, the emotion which helps this country to preserve its freedom—this idea of "I am here, and, as long as I keep the law and do my duty as a citizen, you should not take my home from me, and no one has the right to do so." That is really one of the fundamental bulwarks of liberty in this country. It has been found in the past to be the only safe bulwark against tyranny.
  It is very awkward, no doubt, for a bureaucrat in a hurry; it was very awkward for Hitler in the last war, but a man's love for his home and his farm and garden is an element in our national temperament which any Government ignores at its peril. So I think that, in general, viewed from my angle, which I do not claim to be the only one, much of the procedure here seems to be unnecessarily harsh and abrupt, and I hope that, in our discussions of this question, we shall not allow the matter to be obscured by prejudice about big landlords. It is not the big landlords who matter, but the man whose house is being taken from him.
  To return to specific points in the general procedure in this Bill, it follows that laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and all its provisions for designating the area, with one inquiry, and, thereafter, entry by compulsory order with speedy process. I question whether the circumstances of the Town and Country Planning Act and the purpose for which it was designed entitle the right hon. Gentleman to take it wholesale, as he has done here, and apply it to this entirely different purpose. In the first place, it must be recognised that the
  1100
  main object of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, was to deal with the bombed areas of our cities. The land there that was the subject-matter of the procedure designed for those areas was dead land. There were bricks, rubble, mortar, twisted girders, houses destroyed and wreck and ruin. It was dead land, yielding no revenue at all. The sites of the new towns comprise land that is alive and is in beneficial occupation, yielding homes and work to the people who are on it now. So I think that, in dealing with the sites for the new towns, the Minister ought to proceed with every possible consideration and with every provision for inquiry, so as to ensure that those whose land is to be taken are convinced that it is taken after a just and fair hearing of both sides of the question, and that he will not take more land than is necessary for his purpose.
  When I read of the Stevenage matter, I wonder whether it is really necessary to take all that land from people now living in Stevenage, for a project so distant. In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had taken certain preparatory steps under existing legislation towards this end. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that much of the trouble could be avoided if he held a public inquiry into the whole project, and allowed people to state their case. They would then be convinced that their case was being heard by some independent person, and they could confront each other with their arguments across the table. That is the way to get cooperation. But if they feel that they are being pounced upon in the dark, they may take an entirely different view of the situation, and may resist.
  I mention, for special note, the odious provision in Clause 4 (3) of this Bill where there are imported into the process of taking land for the purposes of a new town, the provisions of Section 2 of the recently passed Acquisition of Land Act, which enables that land to be taken by an authorisation in writing without an inquiry of any sort. Apart from the hardship to the individuals, I believe it to be a bad policy to give powers which make it possible to hustle people out of their homes and farms, even if that is not intended. We must remember, too, that

  1101
  in the Town and Country Planning Act, on which this Bill is founded, the power of purchase was given to the local planning authority which was a democratically elected body. Though the powers given by that Act were wide and sweeping, I felt, when I had it drafted, that there was a certain safeguard in the fact that it was being wielded by the democratically elected representatives of the local people and that those who might be affected by it would have this safeguard against arbitrary injustice and could go to their local councillor and ask him what about it. But, here, the acquiring body is not a democratically elected one, but a corporation nominated by the Minister and subject to his direction alone.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned, with truth, the causes of friction which may arise from local government sponsored corporations. But there is an equal danger of friction between the local citizens and a nominated body, sitting remote from the locality and receiving its authority from Whitehall, a danger which does not exist in the democratically elected bodies. It has often been said that corporations have "neither bodies to kick nor souls to condemn." That may be only partly true. I have often heard corporations condemned body and soul. As we all know, they can acquire a reputation either for justice or injustice, for dilatoriness or speed, and, in fact, it is the habit of the human mind and a trick of thought to treat these abstractions—as they are to the law—with all the attributes good and bad of the ordinary human being. I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman and those with him, with the utmost seriousness that I can, that it would be well to see that the procedure for acquiring land, which he is going to entrust to these corporations, is so manifestly fair and gives such a clear exhibition of fair play that his new corporations will come into existence, not in an atmosphere clouded and poisoned by rancour and a sense of injustice, but in such a way that they will be regarded as beneficent organisations working for the public good. There is plenty of time to be just in this matter; there is not the great urgency that exists in reconstructing our bombed cities. Even Rome was not built in a day, and a new town will not be built very much quicker than Rome was. Therefore, we could well afford to spend a little time in order to
  1102
  give an impression of fairness and consideration so that the corporations will be launched in the proper atmosphere.
  There is only one other matter I would like to mention about procedure, and that is the compensation for land compulsorily acquired. I acknowledge with gratitude that two good provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, are included in this Bill. One is Clause 5 (2) where it is made obligatory upon the corporation, as I remember it roughly, to make sure that when people have had their land acquired and the place has been reconstructed, they shall be given an opportunity to occupy the premises, when reopened, at a fair rent. The other provision is, I think, Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which imposes upon the acquiring authority the obligation to prepare, in advance, accommodation of a reasonable character for persons ejected from their land. These two things I willingly acknowledge, but I want to say a word or two upon the money side.
  I presume that all these acquisitions will be governed by Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which imposed what has been called the "1939 ceiling." It will be recollected by hon. Members who were in the House at the time that, when this Section was being considered during the war, it gave rise to a situation of considerable difficulty for the Minister in charge of it and to some lively and entertaining debate. It was a difficult corner to turn because there were so many different views on the topic of how much should be given. Finally, rather than have the whole scheme for the reconstruction of the old towns lost through this trouble, we arrived at the best compromise we could, which was based, roughly, on 1939 prices, with a supplement up to 30 per cent. for the owner-occupier of premises who was ejected. The idea was that, when a man's home, workshop or farm is taken, more than the money value of the asset is taken from him—the base of his operation and the ground on which he and his wife and family live are taken from him—and that, therefore, he ought to receive more generous and considerate treatment.
  The normal price paid on compulsory acquisition used to be current market value, but, at that time, current market value was not available to

  1103
  us. In some parts of the country remote from the danger of bombs, the value had gone sky high, whereas in others normally of high value, the values were artificially low because of war damage and the long prospect of reconstruction ahead. Therefore, we made the best deal we could. I have never pretended that it was a final assessment of the true value. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will look at Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, they will find that in the case of changed circumstances an Order can be made for varying, up or down, the allowance which can be given to an owner-occupier. Now that the market in farmland is settling down, and many farmers are going to be dispossessed by this Bill, the Government in order to give them a chance to reinstate themselves in other farms—which is all we are asking—ought to consider carefully whether the time has not come to operate the Section of the 1944 Act to which I have alluded, to make sure that the sum given by way of compensation for compulsory acquisition is nearer the figure which would enable these men to set themselves up again in their valuable occupations.
  There is another point to be remembered in connection with this aspect of the problem. Normally, when agricultural land on the outskirts of a city is acquired, that land already possesses some development value, and the price paid for it is generally a little more than the agricultural value. But here it is proposed to jump over many miles of green territory, taking land of nothing but agricultural value, and the farmer is not in the position of the man on the outskirts of a city who will get a decent sum. Therefore, I ask the Minister to review this matter and to be just if not generous to the dispossessed farmer. The Government can well afford to do it. There is no excuse for meanness. The Minister is taking land of agricultural value, and by putting the taxpayers' money behind the project, he is going to transform it into urban land of very much greater value than the amount given for it. A generous payment to these men who are dispossessed, generous treatment for the citizens involved in this compulsory acquisition, would repay the right hon. Gentleman a dividend of a thousandfold in good feeling and in the success of the enterprise.
  1104
  These are the only matters connected with this large topic with which I propose to trouble the House now. To sum up, I hope that the scheme of these operations will not be permitted to interfere with, or divert from the immediate housing problem, the labour and materials which they require. I hope also that they will not be made in any way an excuse for not getting on with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of our old cities and towns as a first priority. Let us remember the old ones when we talk about the new ones. I hope also that the procedure will be just and the compensation adequate. We shall discuss this matter further in Committee. Because the principle of obviating the urban sprawl is so necessary, I would not, at the moment, advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, but I make the stipulation that that will not prevent a critical attitude on our part to the Third Reading, unless we get from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that measure of cooperation for which I look to make this a workable, just and desirable Measure.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Irving: I recently heard the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) say in this House that every speech made here demands great nervous strain, but that the first is the worst. I cannot speak from experience with regard to the first part of that statement, but with the second part I find myself in complete agreement. I welcome the Bill because, without it, it would be impossible to rehouse decently hundreds of thousands of people in the country and particularly in London and Greater London. It is a great pity that the Bill was not introduced immediately after the last war. It would have prevented such sprawls as Becontree, for instance; it would have prevented the building of dormitory constituencies and the existence of sleeping quarters without any regard to civic life. But it appeared to be nobody's business, and the duty of no Government Department to prevent this condition of affairs arising.
  It has been the tendency of industry in the last 15 or 20 years to move from the North to the South of the country. That, in itself, has created or at any rate aggravated the problem. There has been

  1105
  no control of the migration of population or of industry, and the result is that nearly a quarter of the population of England resides within something like 15 miles of this House. That is all wrong, and I welcome this Bill because it gives an opportunity to disperse population, and to provide throughout the country decent housing conditions for the great mass of the people. I regret, however, that in introducing this Bill the Minister made no alternative provision to that of the corporation. I dislike the idea of the corporation, principally because it is not really democratic. It has been proved conclusively that the alternative of a corporation of local government authorities, recommended by the Reith Committee, is a possibility; indeed, it has been worked out. The Minister will remember that the Tottenham borough council, in association with other local authorities, worked out a scheme, which was presented to the Minister, in which the local authorities found themselves in complete agreement. Indeed, the only thing they required was the sanction of the Minister to proceed. I hope that in Committee the Minister will reconsider this alternative. It is true that the Minister has conceded to the Tottenham borough council a number of houses at Stevenage, but I hope that will not preclude the development of the scheme at Harlow by the local authorities instead of by the corporation.
  This Bill is very vital to my constituency, in which there are no less than 7,000 registered applicants for houses. Of these, 2,000 are living three and four to one room. We have land available in the borough for building 400 houses. We require ten times that amount of land, and the only hope at Tottenham as well as in many other London constituencies and boroughs is that there will be land outside for overspill. I welcome this Bill because it will provide an opportunity for the population to be overspilled into the new towns. With regard to the size of the town, I am not sure that 50,000 is a good figure. Years ago, as the Minister informed us this afternoon, Sir Ebenezer Howard recommended a town with a population of from 30,000 to 40,000. Neither of the towns mentioned has reached that figure. As the Minister reminded us, they are both dormitory towns. I notice, incidentally, that an increasing number of Members of this House live in one of those garden cities.
  1106
  They used to sleep there, but in these days they both work and sleep here.
  I hope the Minister will consider the question of the size of the new towns, because of the possibility of creating anomalies later on. He has advised us that the new towns will eventually apply for borough status, or for a charter of incorporation, I presume. Is that not likely to create an anomaly with regard to the future of local government? Is it not obvious that the future of local government provides for two types, probably on the basis of the county council and the county borough? If we are immediately to create new difficulties with regard to boroughs, it seems that we are not looking far enough ahead. The other problem is that the Boundary Commissioners dealing with redistribution are asked to take as a mean average 54,000 electors. I agree, because there are margins of coloration. If we are to have 50,000 electors it means, if we are not to interfere with borough boundaries, we need a population of something like 70,000. I hope the Minister will keep that in mind I welcome this Bill because it provides the only hope for decently housing a very large percentage of the population of this country, particularly in London and Greater London. I wish the Bill bon voyage, and I say to the Minister, "That thou doest, do quickly."
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: It is my privilege to congratulate the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Irving) upon the maiden speech which he has just made. We all recollect our own ordeal on that occasion, and many of us must wish we had come through it with the same distinction that he has done. If I may say so, he has done well to choose a subject of this kind, which does so intimately affect the future welfare and happiness of the country. After hearing his speech all hon. Members will look forward to future occasions when he intervenes in our Debates.
  I should like to congratulate the Minister both upon the substance of his Bill and upon the way in which he has introduced it. I think he was wise, when he went to the Ministry, to appoint a committee to deal with this matter, and especially wise in the choice that he made of the Chairman. It was Lord Reith who, on 17th July, 1941, made, on behalf of

  1107
  the late Coalition Government, a statement in another place which was really the foundation upon which all town and country planning for the future must be based. Speaking on behalf of the Coalition Government he said:
  "I have been authorised to proceed with preliminary work on certain assumptions. The first of those was that the principle of planning will be accepted as national policy and that some central planning authority would be required."
  Some of us have been disappointed in the intervening time that the policy which he laid down on that occasion has not so far been actually realised. Some of us also have a feeling that his departure from office at a later time was due to anxiety in some quarters that that policy should not be effectively put into operation. Therefore, I am glad that the present Minister selected Lord Reith as chairman of the committee upon whose reports this Bill has been generally based.
  I agree that there is urgent need for the rebuilding of this country to be planned. It was accepted by the late Government, and it is accepted, I understand, by this Government, that there is need for dispersal. Indeed, there was set up an unofficial committee under the chairmanship of Colonel Walter Elliot. I think hon. Members on all sides of the House who knew him regret that he is no longer in the House. That committee went into the whole question of the desirability of dispersal. When one considers the present density of population in the London area, it is obviously essential that there shall be a development of new towns outside. At the present time, in many parts, the density is 200 to the acre. Under the Abercrombie scheme it is intended to reduce that to 136 to the acre, plus four acres of open space for every 1,000 of the population. In order that that may be made effective it will be necessary for one million of the present inhabitants of Greater London to be moved outside. Under those proposals it is intended that half a million shall be provided for in new towns, and a quarter of a million in large scale extensions of the towns which are outside. There remains a further quarter of a million who, apparently, are to go out to towns which are to have smaller extensions. I have an uneasy feeling with regard to that last quarter of a million that it will turn out to be something not very far removed from a further extension
  1108
  of the suburban sprawl. That is why I particularly welcome this Bill and the assurance we have been given today of priority for the building of these towns. Already there are signs that the London County Council, in its general extension, is at the present time proposing to encroach upon the green belt.
  As regards these new towns, I feel there are three principal planning considerations which justify them. First, we are all agreed that we do not want dormitory towns. It will only be if new towns are built, and if steps are taken to induce new industries to establish themselves there that both the recreation and the work of the inhabitants of those towns will be performed in the towns. I think there is complete agreement that it is, from every point of view, undesirable that people should live in one place and work in another. Secondly, I welcome what the Minister said, and what was emphasised again by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), with regard to the great importance of having all the income levels mixed in a town, and not having the rich in one part and the poor segregated in another part. Thirdly, I have never been happy about the provision in the recent Housing Act for large subsidies being paid out of public funds for the purpose of subsidising flats which were to be built on urban sites and in the middle of London at very great expense.
  While I fully support all that the Minister is doing in the way of building new towns, I would ask him not to overlook what is happening in the case of London, which, in point of fact, is like a rotten pear that is going bad from the middle. There was a very interesting and remarkable survey made for the Gas Light and Coke Company by Mr. W. A. Abrams. It is quite remarkable to see what has been happening to the inside of London during the last 30 years. The first point to be noted is the way in which the population was declining. Between 1911 and 1939 it declined, in Finsbury by 33 per cent., in Holborn by 30 per cent. and in Westminster by 22 per cent. The second point is that not only was the population very rapidly declining, but the size of families in London was much smaller than in the country as a whole. As compared with 3.61 in the country as

  1109
  a whole, in the centre of London it was only 3.43. The third point was perhaps the most remarkable—the age of the population in the centre of London. Of all the housewives 77 per cent., and of the principal wage earners 69 per cent., were over 35 years of age. Of the housewives two out of every five had been born before 1887 and had left school before 1901; the great majority were already married before 1914. That was a survey made in 1937. Quite obviously, if that was so in 1937 those tendencies will be increased very greatly by 1947. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that his Department does observe carefully what is happening in the centre of London, because it is most important that we should know something about the age-structure of London when dealing with the town and country planning of the country in the future.
  While all that is true, there is still, of course, a need for a great dispersal of the population of London. That was made abundantly clear in the Montague Barlow Report, where it was pointed out how the effect of a great urban centre like London was to bring new industry in, and the fact that new industry came in made the market larger than it had been before. Therefore, even now after the war, and after all the lessons we ought to have learned, we are still confronted with the problem of increasing concentration. As I have said, the London County Council, in its present housing proposals, is proposing to encroach upon the green belt which had previously been intended to be kept open. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will use the passage of this Bill as an argument with the London County Council to preserve the green belt.
  Is the method that the right hon. Gentleman is using in this case right? Broadly speaking, it is. If I may quote "The Economist," he is using the method of the magnet instead of the method of the bellows. The magnet is the use of Government money and Government-sponsored organisations in order to draw population out from the great existing centres. The bellows method would have consisted of trying to get the local authorities to squeeze the population out into the new areas. I had been intending to argue that the right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to follow the Reith Committee
  1110
  in adopting at any rate three possible ways of dealing with the matter, but I think I was convinced by the arguments that he advanced. Probably this method, which the Reith Committee thought was the best and most promising, is all that is required under this Bill.
  Then, is the machinery he is proposing to use right? I very well remember the Debates upon the 1944 Act, and I remember the Minister's own speech on the subject. I also remember the speech made by the present Lord Privy Seal, and I do not think that either of them at that time contemplated that they would be in office and would be extremely glad to avail themselves of a very large number of the Sections of that Act. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am glad to think that now they are in office and have experience they find greater value in my right hon. Friend's Measure than they were inclined to think there was in it when they were on the Opposition benches. I would like to congratulate the Minister in all sincerity on what is, as far as I know, a completely new precedent in publishing a memorandum setting out all the Sections of the earlier Act which are incorporated and are really applied by this Bill. I do not recollect ever having seen this done before, and the objections which have been raised in all parts of the House to legislation by reference would lose a great deal of their force if this precedent were more generally followed.
  I do not intend to go into a lot of Committee points, but there are several matters which I think require further consideration. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman to ask him a question about how the subsidy will be made available, and I shall study in HANSARD exactly what he has said upon the subject. I do not find so far in the Bill that adequate provision is made to enable the rate portion of the subsidy to be paid, but that is a matter which we can go into in Committee.
  I hope that the powers of the Corporation to borrow will not be too narrowly restricted. I hope, in particular, that the stranglehold of the Treasury will not be too stifling of imagination and enterprise on the part of the Corporation. There is a special Clause, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred with satisfaction, which I shall want to discuss further in

  1111
  Committee. It is laid down, apparently, that no planning will receive approval by the Treasury unless it is calculated to bring in a financial return. I beg and implore the Minister of Town and Country Planning to take a long view as to what ought to be done in the way of planning, and he will not get a long view taken by the Treasury. It is absolutely vital, if we are to have good planning, that the country shall be prepared to spend money lavishly at the moment in order to obtain a good return in the years to come. I warn him that we on this side shall criticise severely any provisions of this Bill which will enable a shortsighted, narrow and purely financial view to be taken by the Treasury, which would make impossible broadminded and imaginative planning for the future. Finally, and this is the last detailed criticism, the Minister said nothing about the Central Advisory Commission which the Reith Committee proposed should be set up, and I hope that we shall have something of that sort.
  My major criticism is that the Minister is putting the cart before the horse when he introduces a Bill to build new towns in the country and does nothing to deal with the problem of compensation and betterment. We have had town and country planning Bills for the last quarter of a century, and not one of them has been effective. Why? Because the problem of compensation and betterment has never been faced. I very well remember what the Lord Privy Seal said on 15th March, 1944. He said:
  "One does not want to mention the names of Uthwatt, Scott, and Barlow. … They scar the souls of right hon. Gentlemen on the other side.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March. 1944: Vol. 398, c. 279.]
  Other hon. Gentlemen are now sitting on the Government benches and I do not find any great alacrity on their part to tackle the problem of compensation and betterment, and we have not heard a word about Uthwatt from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. But really this is vital. As my right hon. Friend said, we are going to leapfrog over the green belt, take agricultural land and develop it as urban land, and that will bring about an immense increase in land values. The Socialist Government, while being prepared to spend public money upon this development, have done nothing to ensure
  1112
  that there is a fair and adequate return to the nation for the expenditure which is being incurred. The recommendation of the Reith Committee upon this matter is quite inadequate.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be responsible for an increase in land values in a great area all round, and not only in the green belt referred to by the Reith Committee. On the contrary, some of the greatest increases in land values are to be found where land is sold outside the green belt, those who developed that land having the advantage of a Government guarantee that the green belt will be preserved. The green belt, which is available for those inside it, is equally available for those outside. Here, the right hon. Gentleman is proposing that we should pass this Bill involving an expenditure of £50 million, but nothing has been done to ensure that this expenditure of public money will bring in any return in the way of the collection of betterment. I say, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman and this Government are once more showing themselves to be what some of us on these benches said that they were. They have talked a very great deal about planning, but when they find themselves in office they have neither the ability nor the faith to carry their planning into effect.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Braddock: I count myself fortunate to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the introduction of this Bill. Its introduction comes not a day too soon, things being as they are. In saying that, I make no criticism of the Government or of the Minister. In my opinion, it is greatly to the credit of the Government that, just after nine months of office, they have found the Parliamentary time, despite the vast number of duties that they have had imposed upon them, to deal with this very important matter. I think the House and the country can congratulate themselves on the fact that we have found a Minister who has the knowledge and the energy to prepare in such a short time a Bill of this character, a Bill which, as we have already been told by hon. Members on the other side of the House, contains a vast amount of technical matter of a very intricate description. The Government, I repeat, and the Minister are to be congratulated on bringing this Bill so rapidly before the House.

  1113
  I was a little disappointed with the reception it got from the right hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). It seemed to me that he was attempting to damn this Measure with faint praise. For one thing, he said, "If the Government intend to go on with this Measure." I could scarcely believe my ears when I heard that remark. Why "if"? What does he think the Government are here for? Why has this majority been returned to this House?
  Sir William Darling: That is a mystery.
  Mr. Braddock: I can assure the Opposition that this Bill will be proceeded with, with all its implications. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester then attempted to suggest we were going, perhaps, rather fast. The Minister was warned to be very careful. I was in the House on Friday of last week when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) was speaking, and he said:
  "The problem of the location of industry cannot be solved by a merely restrictive power to stop somebody doing something. There must be concentration upon the positive aspect of causing something to be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1946; Vol. 422, C. 528.]
  Which way do the Opposition want it? If we want to get on with the job, if we introduce a Bill of this sort, we are told that we must not be too hasty; but when the Minister of Labour is dealing with the day-to-day actual household problems of the people of this country, Members of the Opposition come along and say "Let us have something of a greater constructive nature." I suggest it is about time the Opposition made up their mind exactly where they stand in these matters. If they cannot, then they should decide to follow the lead of the Government on matters of this description.
  Upon this question of new towns, the subject of housing has been mentioned more than once in this Debate. I think we should do well to remember that people live, generally, where they can get a living. That is the basis on which we should consider problems of this particular character. I think it is greatly to the prestige of this country that we had that report, which has already been mentioned on both sides of the House, of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population, better known as the
  1114
  Barlow Report. It is interesting to note a comment on this Report by Mr. Lewis Mumford, the great American sociologist. He called it:
  "The most fundamental contribution to planning that has been made by any public body.
  That was his description of that Report. We do not often have compliments from our American cousins. Apart from our fighting qualities in battle, they seem to have a very poor opinion of us, generally, and I think it very significant that this great report should have been commented upon in this way by an American citizen. I venture to suggest that this very important Bill on which we are starting today has its foundations in the proposals in that Report. While we rebuild houses and spread out the population, unless we also move the factories and the workshops with them, we shall not be able to persuade people to live in the new towns. The Minister suggested that decentralisation to the extent of something over a million people was to be required in this country. I think that that was rather an underestimate, even with regard to London In his report, Professor Abercrombie has not been overgenerous about the number of people that he expects to be decentralised from London. I think we shall find as time goes on that vastly greater numbers of people will want to get out of what has rightly been called this "Great Wen." Its wenlike character is not to be removed by simply moving something like a million people from London.
  But if that is done, and if we are to carry out the necessary implications of the Barlow Report, we shall have to erect some 2,500 factories of various sizes. I suggest that we must give serious consideration to this problem of building new factories. Although the Minister specially mentioned this he did suggest that, possibly, this matter could be left to private enterprise. Perhaps it can; but that may not be the case, and if we find that private enterprise does not face up to this problem and get these factories built the Government, and the organisations the Minister is setting up, ought to be prepared to take on this job. In my opinion there is a definite reason why the erection of these factories, offices and workshops should receive early and careful consideration. To start with, I ask the House to imagine the position of a workman in the

  1115
  suburbs of London who is living there, because he can be reasonably near his work and has transport to get to it. At the present time he is travelling to workshop, factory or office, which, in all probability, is badly situated in bad conditions, old fashioned and out of date. It would be easy to persuade that man to travel in the opposite direction if we could build factories for him on the sites where the new towns are to be built. I agree there will be in the early stages a transport problem, but motor transport has shown us how we can overcome these difficulties.
  In the early days of the war, I was employed by the Ministry of Labour as an inspector of building labour supplies. As I went around the country and saw the great installations which the Government were building, I noticed that the workers who manned these factories were being brought by motor coach from long distances, sometimes as much as 50, 60 of 70 miles. They were taken these distances, to and from the factories, morning and night. Therefore, there is no problem which we cannot overcome in regard to transport difficulties. I think it speaks well for the Government, and for their sense of timing, that just before the introduction of this Bill we had a very important statement from the Minister of Transport, telling the House and the country that he was taking necessary steps to deal with the roads which will be required to meet these new conditions.
  There is another reason why we should get on with the immediate building of the industrial areas of these towns. It will enable us vastly to increase the productive capacity of the workers of this country. We are suffering, as we all know, from being an old country. We started our industrial development many years ago. But we have had a great political revival in recent months and new life has been pumped into the country by the upsurge of new political beliefs. I suggest that we have to follow these up, by seeing that not only do we apply these new political ideas, but that we have the instruments, the factories and the machinery, which will enable us to obtain results from the ideas behind our new proposals. The erection of these factories will enable the productive capacity of the people of this country to be vastly increased. That is the second reason why
  1116
  we should give great attention to the erection of these factory areas. Thirdly, they will be, and can be, of definite use in the development of the towns themselves. We all know that in regard to house building and the building of schools, great problems are facing us, and that production of prefabricated component parts are necessary for this building. It will be much better if, on the building sites of these great new towns, we had the work people brought in, and the production plants set up, so that the materials required would be there on the spot where they are to be used.
  There is yet another reason why these areas should have first consideration. These industrial parts of the towns lend themselves to rapid production. We have had recent experience, and we have gained knowledge in recent times, of how to deal with problems of this nature. During the stress of war we were forced, in order to defeat the onslaught of Fascism, to erect great new industrial plants. We produced in this country, as we are always able to produce when we have to, the necessary technical skill, the necessary work people and the necessary engineering ability to get these great plants built rapidly. These industrial areas for our new towns are minor operations compared with the great ordnance factories we were able to develop during the war. I suggest that the knowledge which is still alive among the technicians and professional people, should be put to immediate use in proceeding with this part of our work.
  It is often suggested that we might have difficulties in this direction, but I suggest that so far as ability is concerned, either on the part of technicians or on the part of work people, there is no need to hesitate in setting on foot these plants, because of any possibility of lack of necessary technical skill. In this country we have an enormous number of trained young men and women anxiously waiting to get on with this job. I hope, once the decision has been made to proceed with this work, there will be no hesitation in selecting the sites. There can be a great deal of argument on this point, but I suggest that the only Minister who really needs to be consulted is the Minister of Agriculture. I say that because I believe that, important as new towns and housing are, the provision of proper food and proper nutrition is even more important.

  1117
  With that one provision, there is no reason why we should have any delay in selecting the necessary sites. Once the sites are selected, we can easily plant on them any necessary temporary offices for the technical skill and ability which is required to proceed with the planning and staffing of the job. Those are the two reasons why this Bill should be welcomed, and why it should pass through its various stages in this House as rapidly as possible. There is a shortage of labour and material at present, but I suggest that the best possible way of making use of the labour and material available is to employ them on projects of this description. In that way they can be more economically used, and used to better effect, helping to provide greater benefits to the population as a whole, than by wasting them to a great extent, in rebuilding damaged parts of existing towns. That is a practical reason why we should immediately proceed with the utmost speed.
  I suggest that there is another and greater reason why we should proceed with these projects. I believe that the spectacle of the building of these new towns will invigorate the people of this country. It will give them a practical example of what can be done, and what are the possibilities. If these towns are started, and people go out from the overcrowded centres of population and see the technicians, the work people and the building trade operatives of all descriptions at work in the countryside, it will show them that such things are possible; it will invigorate and improve their spirit in facing the difficulties we have to meet at the present time. For these reasons, the practical reason and what I call the spiritual reason, I hope that this House will not waste any more time than is absolutely necessary in putting this Bill through. We have the land, the skill and the material, and we are not, generally speaking, dependent upon imports from foreign countries. It is a job which can be got on with, and which will be invigorating for the country. It is right that it should be done at once.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I join with almost every other Member who has spoken in congratulating the Minister of Town and Country Planning on his Bill and on the way in which he introduced it. I agree with the
  1118

  hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), that the idea of these new towns is inspiring and invigorating. I come from that part of the world from which families have drifted to London and the South. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) suggested that there might be a difficulty in getting the population for these new towns. I can assure him that if we have a really good looking and efficient new town in the North of England, there will be no hesitation on the part of Cumberland or Northumberland or Durham workers to live in that new town, rather than remain in their old, bad surroundings, the legacy of the last century. There will have to be work there; but, with modern houses and modern layout, I am sure that there will be no difficulty in finding people who want to live in these new towns—quite apart from the fact that people want to live somewhere, and, if houses were available, they would go to them.
  I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he comes to reply, if he would come "a little over the border" and give us some information, which the Minister of Town and Country Planning did not give. I understand that ten of these towns are to be built to take the population of London. Where are the other ten to be built? The Minister referred to the problems of Manchester and Liverpool. They have big housing problems. In some ways, if Scotland is to have new towns, it will also help us in the extreme North of England. I shall be interested to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland what he is proposing to do. I suppose that my constituency is not very typical of constituencies in many other parts of England. Carlisle is the largest town in Cumberland, but there is no other big town apart from those towns on the North East coast, 56 miles away, nearer than about 100 miles. Edinburgh and Glasgow are zoo miles away, and the Lancashire towns are also about 100 miles away. There is something to be said for building new towns in those areas.

  Inside Scotland, there are many medium size towns which might be extended into bigger towns because they are not at present big enough to have the diversity of industries which are needed to give all sections of the community employment,

  1119
  and to ensure resilience when trade is not good in one industry. I hope we are to have some of these new towns in the North of England or in the South of Scotland, I would like to join with other hon. Members in querying whether one system is really the best way of dealing with all these problems. I look forward to seeing good looking towns in which it is possible to live a good life; towns which are well planned for children and young people. Appallingly little thought has been given in the past to the development of town life to meet the needs of children and young people.
  I agree with everything that the Minister said towards the end of his speech. He mentioned the Reilly scheme. We want variety of towns—and everyone's idea of good architecture is not the same. We want variety of architecture, and we want variety of ideas on layout. The Reilly plan may work, or it may not, but let us, by all means, try it. We might get that variety through a system of separate corporations for each town, but the final decision will come back very definitely to one centralised point—the Minister and his advisers in the Ministry. The local authorities, with their experience of administering and developing their own towns, could, if they had more responsibility, as they would have under one of the procedures suggested in the Reith Report, give that variety which is so important.
  The other matter to which I want to refer was dealt with by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson)—the question of land values. It is an astonishing thing that the Government have not yet been able to make up their minds how they propose to deal with this vital, long standing problem of betterment. They are taking, in this Bill, the easy way-for the Minister—compulsory purchase, if necessary, but that is not necessarily the fairest way for the individuals concerned who own the property, and it is not necessarily, as the hon. Member for The High Peak pointed out, the way that will be most economical in the end for the State. It still leaves the big problem which affects all these developments: to whom should go the value for betterment? I take this opportunity of urging the Government to make up their minds on this subject and to deal with it in a compre-
  1120
  hensive way. The Minister made some remarks about derelict mining towns in England. I hope that he will later on develop what he means by that, because most of these mining towns are small towns. It would take a lot of them to add up to a town of the size proposed under this Bill. I think that there is a great deal to be said for having some towns with a smaller population than 50,000. I think a town of 25,000 is a very nice town in which to live. It does give a large enough population for a variety of industries, it is big enough for the services to be provided like health and education, and in some ways the civic pride of a town of that size is greater and keener than in a town of 50,000. I think under this Bill some smaller towns of that sort will be developed.
  There is a problem which interests me and which I think wants to be dealt with at some time, though it cannot be dealt with under this Bill. It is the problem of the decaying, small market towns spread over the whole of England. What happens today is that the large towns get larger, and the little towns get left more and more in the backwater, with little development of any sort or kind. Their industries are dying out, they are becoming places to which people retire and they have no life and vigour. I do not think these little towns will be affected by this Bill. It may be they can be dealt with under the main Town and Country Planning Act, but they are a problem. They can be used more as towns which would provide dormitory facilities for the larger towns while having industries of their own. That would not come under this Bill. We on this Bench welcome this Bill very much but we should like to have seen adopted the recommendations of the Reith Committee about other methods besides corporations. We do want to see this whole question of land values put on a sound basis. We wish the Minister good luck with his new towns, and we are only too anxious to do all we can to help him to get them as fast as possible. It is a disaster that this was not done after the last war.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I feel that it is an understatement to say that I welcome this Bill. It is II years this month since I asked my colleagues, when I was convener of housing in Glasgow, to consider the building on a new area of

  1121
  a satellite town. Since that time I have in newspapers and on the platform strongly urged that this thing should take shape. Sometimes it would appear there was hope of something emanating. The Barlow Commission was set up, and after it had presented its report we had the Uthwatt and the Scott Commissions, but nothing whatever was done and hon. Members opposite knew who was to blame for that ineptitude and that inertia. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hitler was to blame."] That is a common excuse for doing nothing.
  Mr. York: The hon. Lady is accusing the party to which I belong of ineptitude during that period. It would not be unreasonable for me to suggest that it was quite impossible to build towns because of the war.
  Mrs. Mann: It would not be unreasonable for me to retort that Hitler had nothing to do with the disappearance of Lord Reith from the scene, and quite a number of other things happened as well when hon. Members opposite were in power. It may be that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) struck something when he said that we on this side of the House regard planning as an excuse for the compulsory acquisition of land. Probably that was the real reason why no steps whatever were taken while Members opposite had the power to take such steps. I feel that the Minister performed a great piece of work in introducing this Bill with its message of hope to the new generation and to the men and women who have come from the Forces. What could Members opposite offer? New towns abroad, but this Government offers them hope of a new life in new towns in their own country Stay here and see the improvements They do not need to go abroad.
  We on these Benches have been accused of introducing something utopian. The Minister in introducing the Bill stated that he had been chairman of the London County Council. At the same time as he was appointed chairman of the first city of the Empire I was appointed chairman of the housing committee of the second city. I think both of us have real practical experience of what the extension of housing schemes means where there is no real planning behind them. I do not think

  1122
  either of us could be accused following that harrowing experience of being utopian. The Minister approaches it from the stark reality which faces him. Between the two wars we built the equivalent of 17 towns. I mean that we built the houses. Now we are faced with the housing problem of 4,000,000, some people say. Are we really suggesting that we should proceed to build 4,000,000 houses in this country on the old laissez faire lines? If so it can only mean a suburban sprawl or skyscraper flats. There are no other alternatives without radically tackling this problem in the way the Minister is doing. I referred to the Barlow Report, which was issued in 1940; paragraph 123 of it reads:
  "The Registrar-General for England and Wales comes to the conclusion after an examination of the mortality statistics, that the factors most important in enhancing the death rates of residents in towns would appear to be:
  (1) the crowding together of houses;
  2) the crowding together of people into houses too small for them."
  I submit that unless we take the radical steps such as we now propose we will merely repeat those errors. In paragraph 130 the position is well summed up in an extract from the evidence of the Ministry of Health. It is very important in view of the fact that we have just given a Second Reading to the Health Services Bill. The extract is as follows:
  "Hitherto the health services have been preoccupied in mitigating the grosser evils of uncontrolled urban development, in curing ills rather than preventing them, and little time or thought or money could be spared to the promotion of positive health and to the consideration of what constitutes an ideal urban environment. The great need of a town population is access to the country or the equivalent of what the country means—fresh air, sunlight, facilities for exercise and recreation and means for the harmless and profitable employment of leisure. These things are essential for young and old and particularly the young.
  What are the objections which have come from Members opposite? One is the old worn out objection, "We do not oppose the creation of new towns, but we urge you to do something for the old towns." If Members will forgive me for quoting an example as a housewife, I would like to tell them that when a woman spring cleans she usually gets rid of old furniture and old lumber, if she is doing it thoroughly. Her house, when it is rid of that, has more space, more light, and

  1123
  often more sunlight. I know a man whose daughter got married. The daughter and her husband asked my friend to go and see them. Afterwards, they said they hoped he had enjoyed his visit, and had felt at home, and he said, "Yes, I felt very much at home; in fact, when I looked around your house everything I saw belonged to my home." We move our furniture sometimes by giving it to our sons and daughters, and it leaves us with more space.
  In this new development, by these proposals for new towns, why cannot we move out some of the old and derelict industries, and erect new buildings to give them a chance to set up branches or move together? I hope that in moving slum houses we shall remember, also, to remove slum industries and rebuild them on more modern lines, and that we shall also move many of our population and give our young people a chance in the new towns. That, surely, would help the old towns, because the old towns cannot get more space, more open spaces, until they get rid of a great many of their older industries, slum houses and population. I think this is a two-way traffic, that in building new towns we should move out the old and enable the old to open up new spaces.
  Another of the objections which have come from Members opposite is that the town may not develop, that its population may stop at a figure of 40,000. We were asked, "Are you going to compel people to go to the new towns? "I ask Members opposite why, hitherto, they never raised their voices when their Government forced local authorities into compulsion by withdrawing the Wheatley Act, which left local authorities with only two Acts, both of which were compulsory, namely, the Act dealing with overcrowding, and the 1930 Act. That meant that local authorities could only build for, and could only move, people who were either overcrowded or who had been cleared from the slums. The result was colonies of those who had been slum cleared and overcrowded. Surely we should now be able to direct certain people to new towns, in which there will be mixed communities. This is a historic occasion. It will be the first time in the history of Britain that the value accruing from the effort of the people will go back
  1124
  to the people. The increase in land values will belong to the people. I have heard objections about the transfer of land values, about the transfer of valuation, or, rather, the loss of valuation. There will be no loss in valuation; there will merely be a transfer. For the first time, the people of this country will be given, by this Bill, all the increases in land values.
  I think there are, however, some dangers against which the Minister will have to guard. I notice that in Clause 3 he is required to consult the local authorities concerned, and that before he appoints his corporation he will also be required to consult them. It may be that many local authorities will view with very grave concern a move on the part of the Minister to set up new towns. They will say that their valuation will drop, and they may put all manner of obstacles in the way of the development of that new town because they fear a decrease in their valuation. I think we shall require to see that local authorities are not further penalised by any loss of valuation. As I have said, there will not be a loss, but merely a transfer. Undoubtedly, legislation for compensation and betterment is overdue. In the direction of industry there will, I fear, be competition between the old local authorities and the new corporations for new industries. We find in Glasgow, for example, that they are talking of building skyscrapers, and excusing themselves for doing so on the ground that people must be near their work, while at the same time, complaining that there is not enough work, and these are asking for more industries to go inside the City boundaries. Therefore, I rather fear that the Minister may be up against that sort of competition from existing local authorities. I think it is in the interests of the people themselves that industries should be tempted into the new towns, rather than into the old, so that people will follow those industries by going into garden homes.
  I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tewkesbury refer to Stevenage, and speak of a man's love for his home and his garden. I think we all respect that, but we want more people to have homes with gardens, and surely, if one or two are merely to be transferred to a space across the road and still to have a home and a garden, they should not object too much if, in so doing,

  1125
  they are making it possible to provide many more people with homes and gardens. I welcome the Bill, and I think it will mean new homes and new lives to many of the people of this country. No longer will we hear the excuse that we must build skyscrapers because we do not want to have suburban expansion. Here is the reply in this Bill.
  6.41 p.m.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not propose at this stage to go into the merits or demerits of the Bill, but on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House who represent Scottish constituencies, I wish to make a few observations which I hope will be found worthy of careful consideration and acceptance by the Government. The allocation of time for the discussion of Scottish Measures is a matter about which there is frequently heated argument, not only in Scotland, but in the House and in the Lobbies. The Englishmen say that we get too much time and we say we do not get enough. That is a matter of indefinite argument. In the case of the Civil Aviation Bill on Monday last, the Chair was most generous in enabling us to state fully the case for Scotland and Scottish interests. We on this side wish that the Government would follow the example set in that respect and arrange more satisfactorily the time for Scottish business. An example of the failure to do this is provided by today's business and that proposed for tomorrow. Tomorrow we shall take the closing stages of a Bill which will certainly take a very short time, and the remainder of the day, as far as Scotland is concerned, will be wasted; but today we have before us this Bill which very deeply concerns Scotland.
  It is a Bill that requires very full discussion, thorough investigation, and possibly amendment, as far as it affects Scotland. It is a glaring example of the very bad system which has grown up whereby an important Bill affecting the whole of the United Kingdom has been drafted with an almost exclusively English legal background, from an exclusively English point of view, and with purely English considerations in mind. The House will appreciate that Scotland has an entirely different legal system. Land tenure, the provision of water, power and other undertakings are on a different footing from England, and yet, in a case where it is
  1126
  obvious that a separate Bill is desperately badly needed for Scotland this complicated Measure which we are now considering has been drafted purely from an English point of view. I do not know the secrets of the Cabinet, but I presume that when the Measure was completed, it was thrown across to the Lord Advocate, who was told to get on with it, to translate it as far as possible into the terms of Scottish law, and to make the best job he could of it. That is a thoroughly bad way of treating the interests of Scottish legislation. It is a monstrous thing that this Bill in its main provisions should be unsuitable for Scotland that it has to have a Clause—Clause 22—covering seven pages and containing 23 Subsections, to make it in any way possible for the Bill to apply to Scotland. That Clause is a Bill in itself, and it proves conclusively that the Bill is quite unsuited to carry both Scotland and England.
  Why should there not be a separate Bill for Scotland? It would not delay matters to any extent. It has been done in the case of education and water, and I understand it has been promised that it shall be done in the matter of the National Health Service. Why should it not be done in the case of this complicated Measure, which affects Scotland so deeply? Presumably, this Measure owes its very existence to the necesity for improving and dealing with conditions which we find respectively in Scotland and in England. What chance, if there is one Bill for the two countries, will there be of discussing on the Floor of the House matters which affect Scotland vitally? Still more, when the Bill goes to a Standing Committee—for I cannot believe that the Government will give time for a discussion of it in a Committee of the Whole House—what chance will there be to have an adequate examination by Scottish Members of these things which are so vital to their constituents? What chance will there be of our hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland? I understand the right hon. Gentleman is to intervene this evening, but after that, we shall never hear him again on this Measure. It will be looked after by other Members of the Government Front Bench. The Scottish Grand Committee exists expressly to deal with this type of legislation in the interests of Scotland. I say without hesita-

  1127
  tion and without fear of contradiction that this Bill cannot possibly work as a single Measure for both England and Scotland if Scotland is to have proper representation of her interests.
  Sir T. Moore: Why not move the Adjournment of the House?
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I will not take the extreme course advocated by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I urge most strongly and with all reasonableness that Clause 22 of the Bill and all references to Scotland should be deleted, and that a concise, clear and brief Bill on the same lines should be introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland. In asking for that, I claim that I am not being unreasonable.
  Clause 23 (5) states:
  "This Bill shall not extend to Northern Ireland."
  Why? Is it not obvious that it does not extend to Ireland because it is quite unsuitable to the conditions existing in Ireland? In Scotland we have in addition, a separate legal system which makes it doubly unreasonable that the Bill should apply to Scotland. I very much hope that, after the Minister. who is to reply has had an opportunity of consulting his colleagues, he will be able to give us an assurance, to which I think Scotland is entitled, that the Bill will be redrafted, and that a Bill on the same lines will be introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland, so that we may discuss it from the point of view of conditions existing in Scotland. This would give much encouragement to Scottish opinion in the House and in Scotland.
  6.49 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): After that very polite invitation from the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and with your approval, Mr. Speaker, I would like at this stage to intervene with a view to explaining to the House the part that the Bill will play in helping us in Scotland to deal with the whole problem of rehousing and industrial rehabilitation, and to explain the special provisions that have been incorporated in the Bill to make it suitable in its application to Scottish conditions. I have no apology to make to my Scottish colleagues for taking my part in the framing of a United Kingdom Bill.
  1128
  There will be no difficulty whatever in its interpretation, and in fact the hon. and gallant Member for Perth has already cancelled out his complaint that we have not a separate Bill for Scotland. If I understood him aright he said that Clause 22 of the present Bill is a Bill in itself. That is quite true—it is.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Only from the point of view of size.
  Mr. Westwood: The hon. and gallant Member must not now add to his remarks and make qualifications. That was his statement and it is indeed a Bill for Scotland because it deals with the differences that arise between the English system and the Scottish system as regards the land tenure position in Scotland and that in England.
  Mr. York: The whole point of my hon. and gallant Friend's argument was that the Bill would be discussed in Standing Committee by people who do not know what it is about. How can hon. Members for English constituencies understand in Standing Committee what all this verbiage is about?
  Mr. Westwood: If English Members are wise, they will deal with the Clauses concerning England and leave reasonable and adequate time for my colleagues in Scotland, on both sides, to deal with those subjects in Clause 22 of the Bill which they understand.
  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that there will be only two or three Scottish Members on that Standing Committee?
  Major Ramsay: It really is a most unsatisfactory position if we do not know what the position of this Committee is going to be. It is extremely important that this vital matter for Scotland should be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, and I appeal to the Minister at this juncture, when he can go back on his word, to reconsider the matter. He would go up in our estimation if he did.
  Mr. Westwood: The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that I am not going back on my word and I would not be a great man in the interests of Scotland if I did. I am going to try to explain to the House

  1129
  exactly what the Bill will do to help Scotland. I am sure that Scottish Members will agree with me that nowhere will this first instalment—and I want hon. Members to know that it is only a first instalment—of the present Government's planning legislation be of more immediate practical application than in Scotland. We in Scotland know—and our knowledge is based on the bitter and disillusioning experiences of the inter-war years—that our two big priority problems are jobs and homes for our people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to get agreement from my colleagues from Scotland. A positive planning policy must aim at the solution of those two vital problems as its primary objective, and I should like to explain just how the present Measure will help us to tackle these fundamental questions.
  The vital priority area for the application of the powers to be conferred by this Bill is undoubtedly the area of North Lanarkshire, and the Clyde basin—which, for the purposes of this Bill, I will call the Clyde Valley region—in which about one half of the total population of Scotland live and work, and in which about 75 per cent of Scotland's industries are located. There is no area in Great Britain in which positive planning is more urgently required than this Clyde Valley region. The problems of the area can be enumerated quite briefly. They are, appalling housing congestion, inadequate and out-of-date factory accommodation, and an undue dependence on the heavy engineering and interrelated industries. About two years ago, as part of his comprehensive policy of surveying the whole field of post-war reconstruction in Scotland, my predecessor in the Coalition Government, with that foresight which is characteristic of him, enlisted the cooperation of all the local planning authorities in the area in the setting up of a regional planning advisory committee under the chairmanship of Bailie MacCalman, of the corporation of Glasgow, and with Sir Patrick Abercrombie as its chief planning consultant. Incidentally, I think I should also mention that whilst there are repeated references to the Barlow and Scott committees, there are very few references to a committee set up by my predecessor in office, to the Westwood Committee which was charged with ascertaining the best way to distribute, in the interests of Scotland, the 500,000 houses that we needed. A sub-
  1130
  committee was set up and made its report on how best to distribute these houses, allocating them in the right places and helping other new towns, and I would advise my Scottish colleagues on both sides of the House to give careful study to this report, which is available to hon. Members.
  The remit to the Clyde Valley planning advisory committee was to survey the planning position throughout the whole region and to prepare for the consideration of the local planning authority, and for the Secretary of State as planning Minister, an advisory report on all aspects of replanning and redevelopment in the area. I have recently received an advance copy of the committee's report which will, I hope, be published in the Autumn in final form complete with photographs and plans. The committee have done a magnificent fact-finding job and have prepared a comprehensive and detailed plan for the future. The report emphasises that the root of the problem of replanning and rehabilitation in the Clyde Valley is the appalling congestion and overcrowding, both housing and industrial—it does not apply merely to housing—in the city of Glasgow. The committee made a survey of the city of Glasgow which showed that 700,000 people are huddled together within an area of three square miles round and about the city centre. Housing densities in those gaunt tenement blocks, which are a relic of the worst manifestations of unplanned enterprise of the 19th century, are as high in some districts as 127 houses, or 700 persons, to the acre. In the Dalmarnock ward of Glasgow, for instance—and I am sure that English Members of this House will not be pleased to hear this but will sympathise with me in the heritage I have had to take over so far as housing conditions in Scotland and particularly in Glasgow are concerned—93 per cent. of all the houses are of two apartments or less. And when I say "two apartments" in its application to Scottish housing it means two apartments and nothing more. Further, 56 per cent. of all the houses are overcrowded, even by reference to the comparatively low standards set by the Housing Act of 1935.
  I am repeatedly complaining, in this House and in the country, that the standards that were set for Scotland are far lower than those set for England. In

  1131
  England, calculations are made in accordance with English Acts, and to a standard based upon persons and bedrooms. We have to take into calculation, under existing Acts, all rooms, including living rooms. We are not counted as persons in Scotland, but as units and half units. Hon. Members must not blame me for that. It was a Tory Secretary of State for Scotland that got "units" in. That is another heritage which has come my way.
  Major Ramsay: We are not blaming the Minister.
  Mr. Westwood: I am pleased to know that there is something for which the Tory Party in Scotland do not blame me.
  Industrial congestion in these areas is no less acute than the housing congestion to which I have referred. Housing and industry are inextricably mixed together, and the industrial accommodation and facilities are outmoded and antiquated. It is essential that many existing industrial establishments should be re-sited in better surroundings, and that substantial numbers of new industries should be introduced into the area to provide a properly balanced industrial structure; but only a small proportion of the land required for those purposes could possibly be found within the present city boundaries of Glasgow. Similar problems of housing and industrial congestion, and a similar need for housing and industrial overspill, arise in other towns in the region, such as Greenock and Clydebank. The immediate question with which the Clyde Valley committee were faced was: How can we best secure that the plans for meeting this tremendous need for redevelopment can be coordinated and integrated as a proper plan for the region as a whole? [An HON. MEMBER: "How will the right hon. Gentleman secure it under the Bill? "] I will get it by this dual Bill. I can assure hon. Members that there will be a most lively competition between the Minister of Town and Country Planning in England, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as to who will get the best out of the Measure and make the best of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Evidently I have secured complete agreement.
  The solution at which the Committee finally arrived, and with which I am in broad agreement in principle, was that
  1132
  provision must be made at an early date for the development of communities providing ample facilities for new types of industrial development, for the resettlement of overspill industries, and for houses and other services. The sites of the new towns actually recommended by the committee are at—my Scottish colleagues will know these places as well as I know them—East Kilbride, Bishopton, Houston and Cumbernauld. I am not in a position, without considering the matter further and in more detail, to commit myself today to a definite decision on one or all of these sites, but I am arranging to discuss the whole matter with the local planning and housing authorities concerned, and I hope that it will be possible to make early progress with the planning of at least one of these new communities as a priority project.
  Before I leave the Clyde Valley I should like to make one point absolutely clear. These new communities are, I am satisfied, essential to the proper industrial rehabilitation of the region as well as to provide urgently needed housing accommodation planned in direct relation to the new industries which are going to be established. There is no question here of one local authority robbing another of its population. The communities and the local authorities belong to the people and not the people to the local authorities. The whole concept behind this Bill is that public enterprise should, in the national interest, carry out, in accordance with the best planning principles, essentially the same kind of operations as were carried out, on no principles at all and with the minimum regard for human welfare and happiness, in the late nineteenth century as part of the backwash of the industrial revolution. There is really nothing new about the idea of new towns. Several of our best-known communities in the Clyde Valley area are themselves new towns. The burgh of Clydebank, for instance, grew from a small village of 816 people in 1871 to a large urban community of 30,000 people at the beginning of the present century. This rapid growth was uncoordinated and unplanned and was dependent almost entirely on the three undertakings in the area, with the result that, in the slump of the 1920's and the early 1930's, Clydebank had one of the highest unemployment records in the whole of Great Britain. Again, 67 per cent. of all the houses built in the burgh

  1133
  were of two apartments or less, and in the black list of overcrowding it ranked third in Scotland, with 44 per cent. of its houses overcrowded. It is uncoordinated and unplanned development of this kind which the present Bill is designed to avoid.
  I now turn from the Clyde Valley region to another area in central Scotland where I hope that the powers provided by this Bill will be capable of early application to deal with one of the most important urgent developments connected with the industrial future of Scotland. I refer, of course, to the development of entirely new coalfields in the county of Fife and in the Lothians around Edinburgh. As Hon. Members are aware from the report of the Scottish Coalfields Committee, this area contains tremendous reserves of coal amounting to hundreds of millions of tons and the urgent development of these coalfields on the best modern principles of mining technique has already begun. In the next decade or so it will become the most important coal getting area in Scotland and, indeed, one of the richest sources of this vital raw material in Great Britain. The Ministry of Fuel and Power and myself are already working in the closest association to make the necessary provision for the purpose of these new developments. The most immediate need is, of course, the provision of housing accommodation as such for the mine workers, but I am most anxious to secure—and I am sure all Scottish Members will agree with me on this point, irrespective of Party—that the houses should be provided in the right places and, most important of all, that communities will be created of a balanced character providing entirely new social standards for the men and women who will live in them, and constituting a complete break with the outmoded and the depressing conception of what we in Scotland call the "mining village" or the "mining town." I for one am determined to get rid of them.
  There was always a suspicion directed against the miners by the outside population. One of the reasons for this was that what I consider to be one of the bravest and finest bodies of men were, at times, misunderstood by the country, at large. One of the greatest characteristics of the mining community—and I am proud to belong to it—is the fact that it has a loyalty unsurpassed by any other section
  1134
  of the community, so much so that the miners are, as I say, very often misunderstood. The best way of overcoming these difficulties is to see that we have well balanced communities. In the development of our new towns, so far as the development of mining is concerned, given the power which we shall get when this Bill receives the assent of Parliament, I for one if I am still in office will see that the building up of these new communities is well balanced, and without anything in the shape of the mining villages or the mining towns we have known in the past.
  For this purpose the powers available under this Bill will be most important and I propose to use these powers as a flexible instrument to give effect to the policy which I have just outlined. In dealing with the problem we do not propose to work within narrow and rigid principles. In some cases, for example, we will secure the best results by expanding some of the existing towns. That is a recommendation of the Westwood Committee if I may, without using that name in vain, say so from this Box. In other cases it will be necessary to plan entirely new communities of medium size ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 of a population. The necessary details will be worked out in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and, of course, I will carry the local authorities concerned with me at every stage.
  I should like for a moment to develop this latter point. Quite clearly, the provision of new communities cannot be secured without the closest teamwork between all the Government Departments concerned, and especially between central and local government. The principle behind this Bill is that, at all stages, the local authorities will be brought fully into the picture. They will be consulted, for example, before any decision is taken to designate a particular area as the site of a new town under Clause I of the Bill; they will be kept fully informed of all the details and of the plan of the town; and they will be consulted about the appointment of members to the Development Corporation. Then again, when the stage has been reached for building operations to begin, the Development Corporation will work in partnership with the local authority responsible for providing essential services.

  1135
  We propose in Scotland to rely largely on the local authorities for the provision of these services in new towns but the machinery in the Bill is quite flexible and in appropriate cases the development corporation themselves will be empowered to provide these services. Where they do so the expenditure incurred by them, or such part of that expenditure as the Secretary of State may think proper will be repayable by the responsible local authority. The Bill also provides that the development corporation may act as agents for the local authority in the provision of services in appropriate cases and the local authorities will have power to act as agents for the corporation in carrying out work if this is found to be convenient in any particular area.
  I should like to refer very briefly to one or two special points which are dealt with by the Scottish application Clause. The general application of the provisions of the Bill to Scotland is contained in Clause 22, to which I have already referred and to which reference has already been made, and under this Clause all the powers conferred on the Minister of Town and Country Planning as regards England and Wales are given to the Secretary of State as regards Scotland, and the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, are incorporated in the Bill to the extent required to equip the Secretary of State and the development corporations with the necessary powers to ensure the planned development of new towns. It will be seen that, following the precedent of Clause 18 (10) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, the development corporation for any new town will have power to dispose of land by way of feu or lease. It would not be appropriate in Scotland to provide, as is being done for England and Wales, that the development corporations should normally be restricted to the disposal of land by way of lease only. Long leases are not a feature of our Scottish law and the traditional form of land tenure is the feu. Normally the development corporation will dispose of land by feuing it but in appropriate cases, for instance where they have built, say, shops and wish to let them for comparatively short periods, the disposal can be provided for by way of lease. In the case of land needed for the building of churches, disposal will
  1136
  always be by way of feu unless the parties otherwise agree.
  To enable a county council, within whose area the site of a new town is established, to cooperate fully in the provision of the necessary services, the Bill empowers the Secretary of State after consulting the council to form the area of the new town into a special district—that is, during its development—for any purpose for which special districts, under our system of administration in Scotland, may be formed. The advantage of this provision is that it will be possible to go right ahead with the provision of the necessary services without having to go through the usual rather cumbrous procedure for the creation of special districts and their subsequent expansion stage by stage as the new town develops. Provision is also made enabling the county council to exempt from any special district rate any particular land or property within the special district during any period in which the land or property cannot derive benefit from any services in respect of which that rate is being levied.
  Another point of detail to which I should like to refer relates to the provisions in the Bill dealing with the taking over of streets in the area of the new town in so far as it lies within the landward part of a county. Under the existing law county councils are under no obligation to take over and maintain new streets even after they have been made up to the county councils satisfaction. In burghs, on the other hand, according to our law in Scotland, a town council can be required to take over and maintain streets which have been completed to the required standard. I think there will be general agreement—irrespective of Party, I am hoping—relating to the taking over of streets in the new towns should be assimilated to the existing law in burghs and the Bill makes the necessary provision in this respect.
  I feel sure that Scottish Members will extend a general welcome to this Bill. Nowhere in Great Britain are we in greater need of positive planning with a direct aim and purpose than in Scotland. Our experience of uncoordinated enterprise, and of the lack of any enterprise at all in the development of towns has been most unfortunate. For the first time, it is proposed to confer on the Secretary of State full powers to secure the develop-

  1137
  ment of new and well planned communities which will fit into the fabric of Scottish industrial and social economy. I hope to use these powers to full effect and I am confident that public opinion and the local authorities will cooperate wholeheartedly with me to that end.
  Sir T. Moore: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question ? A specific charge was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) in which he clearly demonstrated that the interests of Scotland were being grossly neglected, through Scotland being lumped into this Bill instead of having a separate Bill. Last Monday we had the same thing in connection with civil aviation, when Scotland was included in the English Bill. Today, we have Scottish interests lumped together with England. Is it a new policy of the Government to trail Scotland behind England? Why should we not have our own Bills dealing with our own affairs?
  Mr. Westwood: I cannot understand that last point at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is suggesting that I am trailing behind England, whereas I am marching step by step with England in this Bill.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Maclay: Taking up this very interesting controversy where it stands, I, too, while welcoming a Bill of this kind, regret that we have not our own Scottish Bill. I will not repeat the arguments, but the Secretary of State has very kindly said that those Scots who are fortunate enough to get on to the Committee can have lots of fun with Clause 22. Clause 22 is almost entirely a legal Clause. I am sure my hon. and learned colleagues from Scotland will have great fun, but to those who are not learned, even Scottish law is difficult, and what we want to discuss is whether an English Bill is suited to the very peculiar circumstances of Scotland.
  Mr. Westwood: May I point out again that this is not an English Bill; this is a United Kingdom Bill.
  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Hitherto on these matters there has always been a separate Bill for Scotland. There have always been separate Housing Bills and separate Town and Country Planning Bills for Scotland.
  1138
  This is quite revolutionary practice as the land tenure and legal systems are different in Scotland from England.
  Mr. Maclay: I am quite ready to give way to the Secretary of State to answer.
  Mr. Westwood: I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to ask your leave to deliver a second speech.
  Mr. Maclay: I will not detain the House for long but, as far as Scotland is concerned, most of us agree, I think, with what the Secretary of State has said about the need for dealing with the Clyde Valley area and the great importance of the new Fife coalfield developments. But what many of us are still worried about is what has been happening for the last 50 years further North in Angus and Perth, and right into the full Highland area, where we have seen for years the towns declining and the populations moving South. In the last Parliament we had the Distribution of Industry Bill which, among other things, created the development areas. In it there are provisions for building factories and correcting the wrong application of industry in those areas, thus generally helping the industrial situation. At that time a number of us tried to get similar provisions included for the erection of factories in the towns further North, for the smaller country towns suffering from a decline in population. We did not succeed. We had an Amendment down to the Bill, but the Dissolution of Parliament stopped it.
  Today the Minister in his opening remarks sketched the very ideal conditions under which people could live in the towns envisaged by this Bill. I think we all agree entirely with him. We think he put it admirably, but what he said was extraordinarily reminiscent of what was said before the end of the last Parliament, when we were talking about the desirability of getting people back into the smaller country towns in England, Scotland and Wales, those which have been declining for many years. Now we find ourselves in this position, that the development areas have a Bill of their own—because that is all that the Distribution of Industry Bill is—and now we have the New Towns Bill.
  I want to come down to detail because it makes my point, that the Distribution of Industry Bill enabled factories to be built in development areas, and that this

  1139
  Bill will enable factories to be built by the corporations in the Minister's new towns, if I understood the Minister aright, and let out to firms who do not want themselves to build in the new towns. But what is to happen to the smaller country towns which are not covered either by the Distribution of Industry Bill or by this Bill? There must be many of them, but as far as I can understand they are not covered by this Bill which is really an overspill Bill, intended to deal with the populations of great towns like London, Glasgow, and other industrial areas, rehousing the people and giving them better conditions. I repeat, that we are all in sympathy with that, but it does not deal with our particularly Scottish problem, which is the Highlands problem, the Angus problem, the Perth problem, and all these counties in Scotland. I would like to know whether it is considered that, in the Committee stage, there will be any hope of covering these.
  The position is very serious because, to take towns in my own constituency, some have been declining steadily for 50 years. I am bound to mention my constituency because it is a good example. The population of one town has gone down from 15,000 to about 8,000; another one has an even bigger decline, and so on, through the five towns. We have been pressing very hard for new industries for certain towns in that area. We cannot get them, because we cannot provide buildings. There are no existing buildings, and we are not a developing area, so we can get no help from the Government to build factories. We cannot even get licences. I understand that if a firm came along, in the present shortage of labour and material we could not get licences. The development areas get them and, under this Bill, the new towns will get them. The new town corporations will be encouraged to provide factories if necessary, and I understood the Minister to say that he was hoping to get rid of his cash as quickly as possible and make a very good show within five years. Well, during the first two of those five years, if not longer, I am afraid there will still be shortages of materials and labour.
  What about the smaller country towns which do not come under either Bill and will be right out of this altogether? If
  1140
  somebody wants to build a new factory, will he be helped? Will he be able to get material and labour, and will he be given any encouragement at all? He certainly cannot get financial assistance at the moment from either Bill. I would ask, Is there enough labour and material to go round during this period and to leave anything over for the towns I am discussing?
  If we had had a Scottish Bill, we could have gone much more seriously into the whole balanced economy of Scotland, but I would like to put an idea to the Secretary of State which I hope we shall be able to develop together later. We have in Glasgow the Hillington Trading Estate. Why not develop the theory of the trading estate on a much bigger scale? The Hillington Estate is tidily put together, and is one block of factories, really adding to the congestion of that part of Glasgow. Why not think of the same theory on a county basis, going further North and into the Highlands and the East coast, having the factories preferably interrelated, working in four or five or six or seven towns say 10 or 15 miles apart. If we cannot provide buildings under this Bill, let us get another one, but this one may be capable of Amendment to do that. In Angus, we already have certain very good factories, labour is interchangeable, and there is adequate fluidity because distances are not great. But there are not enough factories. We want to help some of these towns which have been declining to grow again, and if we could find other factories, get help from the Government, and give encouragement to industrialists to come into these towns, we would gradually build up on a county basis a trading estate where industries are interrelated, and people in that district would not have to leave magnificent country in order to find employment in Dundee or Glasgow. I cannot imagine any greater heresy than that our Angus people should go to Fife when the Minister gets his new towns there.
  Mr. Westwood: There could be nothing better.
  Mr. Maclay: I have made my point and I will not develop it, because this is not the appropriate moment to develop the idea of a trading estate on a county basis. If, however, during the Committee stage some Amendments are put down to make it a conceivable possibility under this Bill, I hope the Minister will consider them.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Nally: I know it is the custom of the House for an hon. Member to try to follow in Debate the arguments of the hon. Member who has preceded him. I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not follow the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Maclay). I remember once coming into the House rather late at night under a complete misapprehension about the business to be discussed, and finding a Scottish Debate in progress. I sat down with that timidity with which an English Member ought to sit down in those circumstances and attempted to translate one or two of the speeches which were being made. I happened to half-rise from my seat to leave and all sorts of odd looks were given me from all sides of the House by Scottish Members because apparently some were under the impression that I, an alien from their point of view, wanted to speak. Therefore, I do not propose to speak on the problems of Scotland.
  Mr. Maclay: The same small town problem affects England and Wales.
  Mr. Nally: On these problems Scottish Members are usually much better informed than we English Members and I would not dare engage upon them in any detail.
  This is only my second speech in the House. I rise now because I cannot imagine a more auspicious occasion on which to support His Majesty's Government. I am particularly interested in the subject for three reasons. The first is that my division of Bilston in Staffordshire is a supreme example of the tragedy that comes from lack of past planning in house and other building development. There we have an industrial community, a municipality with some courage and enterprise and with less than 60 acres of land within its own boundaries upon which to build. It has young and able municipal officials faced with heartbreaking tasks of trying, in a comparatively short space of time, to bring order out of the chaos created by something like 75 years to a century of completely unorganised development. The second reason is that for many years, as a humble assistant to my father, who is chairman of the Manchester and District regional planning committee, I have been closely associated with problems of this kind. Manchester is deeply concerned in the Bill. The third reason is that I live in Manchester myself and, therefore, have a citizen's
  1142
  interest in everything that affects Manchester.
  I think it important to begin by saying a word about the opposition to the Bill. We had an extremely reasonable and most impressive speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison)—I am sorry not to see him in his place. It was a most reasonable speech. We got the idea from it that the Opposition, with that sweet reasonableness which has always distinguished them in their view, of course, from those on this side of the House, were prepared after the admirable introduction by the Minister to treat this matter on its merits. But there are forces outside this House which even the right hon. Member for Cirencester cannot control. A good deal of completely artificial and unscrupulous opposition to the Bill and misunderstanding about it has been deliberately created by sections of the Press with which many hon. Members opposite are associated.
  Instructions were given a few days ago to certain reporters in two London offices of national newspapers, that their reporters should go down to Stevenage. There are some newspaper offices where a reporter will receive instructions from his news editor to go out and see if there is a story in such a matter. There are other newspaper offices where, if the story has any political content whatever, the reporter is told precisely what sort of story he has to bring back. I speak with some authority on this. Instructions were given in the case of Stevenage that a story must be built up preferably based upon ex-Servicemen and their wives and upon aged people who were, so the stories were to run, in danger of being flung out into the street by a wicked, bureaucratic, Socialist Government. That is, of course, a caricature, but it is the way a section of the Press is run today. Those who have regard for the honour of British journalism believe that the public ought to know the way in which Members of the Opposition such as the right hon. Member for Cirencester stand up in this place and talk about widespread anxiety about a given situation when, in fact, much of the anxiety has been deliberately created by complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the Bill by large sections of the Opposition Press in the country.
  There is also some genuine opposition which I think has to be treated with great

  1143
  respect and great regard. I refer, to the disappointment felt by many people in Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and other great cities, that the Minister has, in effect, in this Bill by-passed the right of the great municipalities with a great overspill problem in order to set up his development corporations who will themselves be responsible for new towns taking over a large proportion of such overspill. There are vested interests of many kinds. There are vested interests which the Government, quite rightly, proposes to take by their dirty necks and throttle, more or less humanly, but there are other vested interests which have to be approached with some sympathy and understanding. There is no great instrument of social good, no method devised by men for the benefit of their fellow, men, that does not sooner or later create a vested interest of some kind. We have seen it in the municipalities, we see it in the voluntary hospitals, and in all kinds of social organisations.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Trade unions?
  Mr. Nally: Trade unions, sometimes, I agree. These are vested interests which have to be approached with sympathy because they are based on a desire to do the maximum good. But sometimes they believe that the only agency by which that good can be done is by the vested interest concerned.
  The views of these vested interests, I mean the municipal interests concerned, about this Bill are expressed by Alderman Sir Miles Mitchell, one of the most distinguished figures in municipal life in the country. As chairman of the Association of Municipal Corporations, as a leading figure in Manchester and Lancashire, he is entitled to be heard with respect. Sir Miles has criticised, in rather strong and bitter terms, the proposal of the Minister in regard to new towns. He had hoped that Mobberley, which is nine or ten miles into the Cheshire plain would, so to speak, be handed over to Manchester, which has an overspill population of something like 43,000 families and with space in Manchester for only 28,000 families to be re-housed. Manchester has already done preparatory work in regard to Mobberley and has built up a most distinguished staff of technicians who were, I know, looking forward to this opportunity of practising their great technical skill in
  1144
  the new town unhampered by some of the ancient legacies from more evil days which afflict Manchester itself.
  It is important that we should seriously consider what exactly is the position of the development corporations in relation to the municipalities. It seems to me implicit in this Bill that while the development corporations will be responsible for the development of the new towns, it will be their desire, and the desire of the Minister, that at the very earliest possible date, the new towns shall not only be new towns under a development corporation, but shall constitute a new independent democracy, so far as local government is independent, wherever these 10, 15 or 20 new towns are properly established. I agree that this, to some extent, cuts across understandable big city ambitions. At the age of 12 or 13 I attended classes in local government organised by one whose name will be familiar to many hon. Members, Mr. Charles Brown, who was later M.P. for Mansfield, and whose death was a loss to our present distinguished Front Bench. He sat with my father on the same county council. They were closely associated in all kinds of municipal work, and I have studied, watched and loved local government work ever since that time. What has worried me more than anything else during the past few years—I speak as a big city man, with close associations with many big cities apart from Manchester—is the tendency of big local authorities, irrespective of which party controlled or controls them—there was and is very often agreement between the parties on this point—in places like Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield, towards cannibalism. I was and am worried about the desire of the big city going out with the idea that if it developed its acres it developed its quality. I was and am frightened at the tendency of a section of opinion—it exists in Manchester—to assume that all the smaller urban district councils and smaller places outside are legitimate prey for a big city seeking to expand. There will be agreement among Members on both sides of the House that that is a tendency we all ought to avoid.

  I believe that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has done a magnificent job in avoiding that, at least as far as these new towns are concerned. If some sections of Manchester municipal leadership had had their way, Mobberley

  1145
  would presumably have become simply a ward or wards of Manchester and would have elected councillors in Mobberley as members of Manchester City Council. As the Minister, or someone who spoke subsequently, rightly said, that would have meant that a citizen of the new town would have had to take a bus or train, pass through other municipal authority areas of various kinds between Mobberley and Manchester, before arriving at his own town hall. That seems to me an incredible and quite indefensible position. I congratulate the Minister on the fact that despite that pressure brought to bear upon him, pressure all the greater because those who brought it to bear were often some of the best, most worthy and finest people in our municipal life, he resisted it
  A big city would and could be a good mother to a place outside, but I suggest that the last thing which good mothers of a certain type do is to consent to give the key of the house to a beloved offspring when it reaches the stage at which it wants to stand on its own feet, and does not want to have to come in always at 10.30 p.m. It would be far more difficult in such circumstances for these new towns to establish a functioning democratic life of their own, if they were brought up as part of a big city, than it will be for them to attain hill and democratic status on the lines proposed by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. When the Committee stage is reached we might, I think, have a look at Clause 14, which deals with the position of the development corporations getting rid of their responsibilities. We ought to see if we cannot in a clearer way make it quite certain that the development corporations intend; and will, at the earliest possible moment, to get out of the life of the new town and leave it to develop on its own.
  We see in this Bill a massive, magnificent enterprise in which the State, the municipalities and all men and women of good will can combine to create towns with a life, personality and democracy of their own. I include, among those of good will technicians and private enterprise, far sighted industrialists, as well as workers.
  There is much eloquence in this House. I have heard a good deal of it in my life as a reporter, but there is nothing more eloquent, Mr.' Speaker,
  1146
  than your right hand when it goes down as a signal that a Member has nearly reached his time limit. I know I may be trespassing on the indulgence of the House. I can plead in mitigation that I made the shortest maiden speech on record in this Parliament in six minutes or so—and if I had not sat down then I should probably have collapsed from sheer fright. Therefore I hope, Sir, you forgive me if I go on for two or three minutes more. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester speaks with great authority on this subject, but he made one point which revealed how little he knows, not through any fault of his own, about the majority of the people who will live in the new towns. He said, as one reason for what seemed to me to be a suggestion for delay in getting on with the new towns, that the people who will go to a new town will have nothing in common except that they will have come from areas where there is a housing shortage. Nothing could be more preposterous. Trade unionists who are members of the same trade union will have a joint interest; members of the same co-operative society will have similar interests, a member of a Conservative club or an active worker for the Conservative Party will have en interest in common with his, neighbours.
  Mr. Popplewell: Used to have.
  Mr. Nally: It is true that local Conservative voluntary workers are in a minority, but after all they are God's creatures. It is not suggested that in the new towns we should impose any political bar. On the contrary, in pleasant surroundings, it may be that these few Tory working men left or even the other Tories, will be converted, and the process will be simplified because there will be better accommodation for meetings and education in these new towns.
  It may be true that above the age level of say 50, to take a rough and ready age level, we shall find many people who would be unhappy away from their life in the community where they have long lived, sometimes in slums under the worst possible conditions, but where there was warm feeling and long established fellowship with their neighbours. It is, in essence, the case that, broadly speaking, the populations of the new towns will tend to be of a slightly lower average age than

  1147
  the populations of our old cities. Younger people today have a quality of adjustment, and at the same time a faculty for building up team and community spirit over a short space of time much greater, for a variety of reasons, than was possessed by their parents. That is not because that they are any better or more intelligent than their parents; they are sometimes the reverse. That is certainly true in my case. It is rather because life these days is different. They—the younger people—can read and write more speedily and they can and do go about more. For that reason this new community life will be created more quickly than is sometimes thought. I think the word "statesman" is often as rightly used in connection with some of the people who lead our municipalities as it is in connection with people who lead in great affairs of state in this House. In every statesman, whether he be local or a national statesman, there is a rightful and proper desire to create something by which he or she will be remembered. People like Alderman Jackson, of Manchester, Watkins, of Sheffield, Fred Jowett, of Bradford, Margaret Macmillan, and the Sidney Webbs—and there were many others—did create monuments for themselves in local government. I believe the Minister and his most able and experienced assistant, the Parliamentary Secretary, have in this Bill created for themselves something which will constitute a lasting landmark, not only in their political lives, but in the life of the British people in their march along the path of progress.
  7.51 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Minister of Town and Country Planning commended this Bill to the House in a felicitous speech to which tribute has been paid by hon. Members on all sides. It was a graceful and eloquent speech. The Minister drew upon history. He established himself in direct line to Sir Thomas More, as any good Utopian Socialist should. We have had experience of his amiability in this House for a great many years, but the strange thing is that when the Minister goes outside into the country in order to prosecute his aims he finds the Englishman unaccountably in opposition to him. He paid a visit to Stevenage not long ago and, no doubt, he will pay further visits to Ongar
  1148
  and Meopham, and the rest. I do not doubt that wherever he goes he will find there is a great deal of hostility to his desires. What is the reason for that? The fact that hostility has been displayed, and is likely to be displayed, has given me food for thought on the whole question of strategic planning embodied in this Government's policy and the Bill with which we are confronted.
  I have put several questions to myself. First of all, "Does the population trend justify these large extensions of built-up areas?" We have heard nothing at all about population. In the course of the next few months I suppose we are to have the report of the Simon Commission. It would have been a valuable aid to us in determining our policy today if that report had been published earlier. Statistics show that the population of this country will drastically decline over the course of the next generation or two. In fact, some prophets go so far as to say that the population will be halved in 60 or 70 years time. If that is the case, what is the need from a long term planning point of view, of great extension of built-up areas? That is a very powerful argument against the planning of new towns, when one takes into account the fact that a great deal of rebuilding is to be done in existing towns and also in the countryside. My second question is, "Do current attempts to redistribute the population between the town and the country justify the establishment of these new towns?" There again everybody is agreed that there has been far too great an extension of urbanisation in the last few years. We are doing everything we can to bring life and vigour back to the countryside. We talk of village amenities, of water supplies, and we are about to confer higher wages on agricultural workers. The whole trend of policy is to reduce this difference between the town and countryside to which the Minister himself referred in his speech. The fact that that conception is to be established would indicate a general sweep of population out of the towns, even some of the smaller towns, into the villages and hamlets of this country. We want to get men back on the land. We cannot get them back on the land unless we establish good rural housing conditions.
  The third question is, "Can we afford the loss of agricultural land which will

  1149
  result from the establishment of these new towns? " I am told Stevenage is in the middle of good market garden country. The other towns surrounding London that are contemplated will inevitably cover an area which could, with modern technique, be used to produce a valuable agricultural crop of some kind or another. We cannot get away from the fact that by designating an area and establishing a town upon it we are depriving the Ministry of Agriculture of vital crops. Who can say we can afford to go back to the old days when we brought a large amount of foodstuffs from foreign countries and paid for them with our exports? We do not know whether we can return to that system. The whole endeavour has been to establish a strong and continuous agricultural policy for the benefit of the workers in agriculture and in order to guarantee in war and peace food for our people.
  Then I ask myself, "What is the extent of the public demand for these new towns?" I have referred to Stevenage. It has been reported in the newspapers that the people of Meopham are also extremely distressed that their land should be taken. It will be the same in the other towns as they come forward. There is no demand in the places themselves that these towns should be established, except perhaps on the part of a few officials and professional men who will benefit from the greater aggregation of property. Where does the demand come from the public who are to be decanted? During the war when the blitz descended upon London hundreds of thousands of people were sent into the country. What did they do? They returned again at the first opportunity even while the blitz was in progress. Why did they do that? They did it because they did not like being out of London.
  Mr. Asterley Jones: Is it not true that they did not like it, because they had to live in other people's houses?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There were many reasons why they did not like it. The prime reason was because the social circumstances were not to their advantage. How do we know what will be the social circumstances in the great new towns which it is proposed to build, mausoleums as I think many of them will be? People will find their outlook is dispirited
  1150
  in consequence of having to move into them.
  Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency nearly 2,000 families have declared to the local authority that they are ready to go outside of our area at least 20 miles distant, to any place where we can provide them with decent homes?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not know the hon. Gentleman's constituency——
  Mr. Sparks: Acton.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Quite so. No doubt their work is in London. But 20 miles from Acton is not, under the conditions of modern travel, too far for the "daily breader." Who is going to be prepared to go to these new towns? Where are the large numbers of people who are saying "We are prepared to leave London, or Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds, in order to live in a new town in a different part of the countryside miles from our work." Some of them may go, and that may include returning ex-Servicemen, and people who have not yet established themselves in their homes. A few technical people may go. The Minister can send his civil servants there, and no doubt they will be delighted to go into the new surroundings under his direction.
  Mr. Jack Jones: Would not the noble Lord agree that the people who were evacuated from London returned for exactly the same reason as that for which the people of my constituency, the biggest in Britain, returned after taking a holiday—the economic reason that they cannot afford to live away from it?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think there are many reasons, but I do not see the evidence of a great public demand necessary to justify a policy of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman was asked in Stevenage the other night whether he would hold a referendum of the people, and he declined to do so, saying that the referendum which justified his policy was the mandate which the Socialist Party received at the Election. That is the substance of my complaint. The Party now in power are using the mandate they have got in order to impose a planning policy on the public, and exercise restraint upon the very individuals who brought them into power.
  Mr: Nally: The noble Lord is aware, of course, that, when the Minister of Town and Country Planning visited Stevenage, he was, asked if he would take a referendum. From the reports I have seen, and I saw practically all that appeared in the national dailies, what the. Minister said was -that a referendum ought to be conducted at the same time for those people who were desirous of living in the new town. The Minister said that, if he conducted a referendum for the local people, he ought, at the same time, to conduct one for the people who want to live in the new town.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Minister said—I quote from the "Daily Herald":
  We have already had an admirable referendum which gave us the mandate to do these things and upon which I am working.
  What the Minister was referring to was the General Election. But let him have a proper referendum. Let him arrange that the people of London can give expression to their desires. If his policy is backed up by the natural desires of the people, when they know the circumstances and can judge what that policy will be, I would be content.
  The next question I ask myself is whether the sprawling urbanisation, which we all detest, can be prevented otherwise than by this Bill, because a great many people seem to think that this Bill is the answer to it and that there is no other. I believe that, without going into technicalities, a series of negative controls, combining the Town and Country Planning Act, 1943, which stopped interim development, with the Distribution of Industry Bill passed earlier in this session, and introducing into it a Clause which was in the last Bill but was left out because of the General Election, could, by that combination, introduce the powers which the Government need in order to prevent urbanisation and sporadic growth.
  I would like to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) said about putting the old towns in order, and I would also like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) about the danger of cannibalism. Surely, what we want to do is to remodel our old towns and prevent the gradual invasion of the Countryside by the exten-
  1152
  sion of these towns, leaving behind great masses of derelict property. I am afraid that we may be only too easily exchanging that policy of unplanned ribbon development for a policy of planned cannibalism. What ought to be done is to go to the full extent in remodelling existing towns. Many of my hon. Friends represent London constituencies, as do hon. Members opposite, and we know that their problem is appalling. They are faced with the most acute housing shortage, and they sense the admirable desire of the people for better conditions. Cannot it be done within the framework of the Greater London Plan by developing blitzed sites, by moving the people from the houses they now inhabit to the blitzed sites while remodelling their own houses, leaving the parkways and open spaces proposed by Professor Abercrombie? My point is that the whole thing can be done by remodelling the Greater London area without any extensions of the number of new towns.
  Mr. Sparks: Is the Noble Lord aware that, in the Greater London Plan, provision is made for eight new towns such as are proposed in the Bill, in order to deal with the congested areas of London?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I know there has been a certain amount of talk about these million persons proposed to be taken out of London, but that came originally from the first plan of Professor Abercrombie. Since that date, there have been two estimates made which, to my mind, deal with the greater part of those million persons. There was the estimate made in the second Greater London Plan, in paragraph 106, that, on the basis of such sites as have full services laid on, 400,000 persons could be accommodated on existing estates. The second estimate which I think was made by a housing committee of the London County Council, or by a body analogous to it, was for an approximate number of 400,000 persons who could be accommodated in new housing on existing sites within the London region. If these two estimates are correct, and they are additive, they rather dispose of the original estimate in the first London plan.
  Then I ask myself whether the built-up areas can spare the builders for the new towns. There is a tremendous work in progress today, both in rural development, the building of rural cottages, housing in large and small towns and housing in the

  1153
  great cities. Every builder is at work upon reconditioning and rehousing. I fear that, under this new Government corporation, powers will be taken to move builders from their present vital work in the existing towns and villages of the country.
  My final question is: What is to be the social life in the new towns? The Minister spoke today about friendship, neighbourliness and comradeship, but is he so sure that he is going to get it? A thing of this kind has never been attempted before in the whole history of this country. It has been attempted in Russia, but we do not know about the sociological results of the establishment of these great towns in the Ural Mountains. It has never happened before in the history of any Western European country or the United States for a Government to come forward and designate an area, to plan the town, to put up the buildings and then for the people, by some pressure, negative, positive, economic, or by dictation to be pushed into the area. Sir Ebenezer Howard was responsible for the planning of Welwyn Garden City and Letchworth, but he never dreamed of powers of this kind. Various factors were operating in those days which induced people to go to Welwyn Garden City and Letchworth. They had their businesses in London. A house was built and, after contacting some agency in London, they moved into it. They went to join a friend, perhaps, and the whole thing happened slowly over a long period of time and, gradually, the place was developed.
  But to come along and to say in 10 years time that the houses are up, and the people are to be put into them, means, to my mind, that a great deal of direction and control will have to take place which will have violent sociological repercussions. The Minister spoke about factory managements and industrialists who have agreed to go to Stevenage. Do these industrialists speak on behalf of every single one of their existing workers and are they certain that they can take a factory and put down the people in Stevenage? Are they certain that they can take the whole of their workers with them and all their raw materials? Have they planned the whole thing out? I do not believe that for a moment. If the Minister were to say that the industrialists whom he has contacted have assured him that they are satisfied that
  1154
  their problem is settled on the basis of a factory at Stevenage, then, of course, I would believe him, but I do not think he can produce any such evidence. Then there are the residents of the new Stevenage. Are they to be there with their friends or without them? They will have come from other areas and will have left people behind whom they went to in time of trouble—doctors, friends, counsellors, bankers and lawyers. Are they going to take such people with them? Who are the new people they are going to mix with? Who is to form the club life of Stevenage, and who will work on social committees and on the town council? It is the speed of this thing which appals me. The fact that it has got to be done within 10 years will result in serious social dislocation.
  I now come to the Bill. My approach to it, as hon. Members can see, is one of alarm and despondency. It must be admitted that the Bill, despite the character of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it, is frankly totalitarian in form. What a profound pity it is that this Ministry of Town and Country Planning, which until a few weeks ago was a spacious and gracious Ministry dealing with the essential social and economic problems of relations between town and country, should suddenly take on the character of the Ministry of Works and resort to monstrous powers and a very great degree of ruthless direction. In Clause I we find the terrible phrase:
  Expedient in the national interest."
  What is the national interest. Can any hon. or right hon. Gentleman tell me what the national interest is in peacetime?
  Mr. Medland: The health of the people.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There was once a philosopher named Plato who said that justice was what is in the interest of the Government. It is clear that under National Socialism the national interest is what is expedient to the Minister. After a phrase of that kind in Clause I, it is a mere bagatelle to find the Minister designating an area as the site of a town—poor wretched Stevenage which has never done any harm to anyone and through whose spacious streets many thousands of people have passed to their great delight. In Clause 2 we come immediately to the

  1155
  rotund phrase, every word of which reeks of arrogance and pomposity:
  "The Minister shall by order establish a corporation."
  Who are the corporation? They are an oligarchy of nine men who are going to rule the roost at Stevenage and in other towns. They are the creatures of the Minister. They are appointed by the Minister. They are responsible to no one but the Minister, and are given enormous powers. It scarcely needs the acquisition of pistols to turn these gentlemen into the bosses of Wild West towns of gold rush times.
  In Clause 4 the oligarchy proceeds to acquire compulsorily any land, inside or outside the designated area, for any purpose whatsoever without the obligation to hold a local inquiry. That is where 78 year old Mrs. Ellen Gray, of Stevenage, who has lived in her house for 45 years, comes in, or rather goes out. I was very glad that the Minister's tyres were deflated. I hope they will be deflated again when he goes to Ongar and all the other places. One day the spirit of independence of the Englishmen will rouse itself to a fever pitch and will wake the planners out of their dreams. Clause 8 ensures that no one—no one at all—in new towns shall own his own house or plot of land. What is the intention there? Clearly it is to proliferate the creatures of the Minister and assure him of a goodly supply of Socialist tenants in the national interest. There follows power after power, and provision after provision, all centralised in the Minister. Clause 22 is a poignant Clause and deals with the application of the Bill to Scotland. Alas, poor Scotland. Another deadly blow; another mighty Empire overthrown!
  In conclusion, may I say a word about the financial provisions? When the Minister was in Stevenage the other day he said "Stevenage will, in a short time, become world famous. People will come from all over the world to see how we in this country are building for the new way of life" Yet only £19 million is to be provided for each of these new towns. If we take four persons to a house, that gives 12,000 houses. Divide that into £19 million, and we get a figure of just over £1,500 per house, which has to include land. What quality of house is that to provide? A good second class quality house. Where is the money in that sum
  1156
  of £19 million for the open spaces, the larger houses, public buildings and churches? There is not a penny. Is that the quality of town that the Minister is going to build? The Minister spoke about private enterprise providing its own factories. What about public buildings and the creation of open spaces to give the towns life and vigour? Either the sum must be considerably stepped up, or else the Minister's claim to pride and beauty for the new town is absolutely groundless.
  On all those grounds, therefore, I think the case is not proven either for the new towns or for this Bill. I believe that unsightliness and sprawl can be stopped by negative control, and that the bad location of industry can be remedied by the same process. In their whole policy of strategic planning the Government make the altogether intolerable presumption that the people shall bow to the planners. They arrogate to themselves dictatorial powers. They propose to use an electoral vote given for social progress as authority for popular constraint. In the name of a minority of electors they intend compulsion for the majority That, I believe, is a programme which, as many a nation has found to its cost, destroys in time the Government which sponsored it. Fortunately in a democracy the speed of destruction is great and the harm done is diminished. The right hon. Gentleman's policy will be on the scrap heap before very long. He spoke of Sir Thomas More having lost his head. Let us hope the Minister, in a few years' time, will lose his office.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Asterley Jones: The Noble Lord has made a speech which has covered a large number of subjects, and I trust that in the few minutes at my disposal I may be able to reply to one or two of the points, at any rate, which he has made. I suggest that if he is right when he says that a Bill of this sort will bring down the Ministry, he ought to give it his wholehearted support, and I hope he will do so for that reason, although, of course, we on this side of the House support it for other reasons. I am very grateful for the opportunity of intervening in this Debate, for three reasons in particular. In the first place, I have in my constituency the first garden city of Letchworth. Years ago that was a very

  1157
  notable experiment which only today is bearing full fruit. I can assure hon. Members that people really do like living in Letchworth. It is a very good place in which to live. There have been defects in its development. For instance, many people regard as one of its major defects the fact that there are no public houses in the centre of the town. That is regarded as a very serious defect. However, the fact remains that it is a very much better place in which to live than places in which large numbers of our people have to live today.
  The second reason why I am particulary interested is because I live just outside my constituency in a second garden city, Welwyn, and although I have been a resident there for only a short time, I can truthfully say that the people who are living there would not go back to the densely populated urban areas from which many of them came. The third reason why I am particularly interested is, of course, that in my constituency, almost mid-way between Letchworth and Welwyn, lies Stevenage—the town of which we have heard so much. So that it is true that although we have heard the word experiment—in many cases it has been referred to as "untried experiment"—in Stevenage we are not experimenting. My right hon. Friend is building, quite rightly, on the experience which has been gained over a period of years in Letchworth and Welwyn, and although as Mr. Shaw said about our parents, those two places should be used rather as a warning than as an example, in many ways their experience will be most valuable.
  The question is, Are the people to continue living in densely, overcrowded urban areas such as exist in London? If not, they will have to be dispersed over a wider area. Putting the question perhaps more closely, are we to resign ourselves to a situation in which large numbers of people live in flats? I was living in a flat for some time until I moved out to Welwyn, and I can truthfully say that living in a flat is not the best form of life. I believe only a very small proportion of people wish to live in a flat. In that case, if we get rid of the idea of flats, further dispersal and the use of more land is necessary. The question is, where is that new building and the setting aside of gardens to go?
  The alternative to this Bill is sprawl into the Green Belt around London; not only
  1158
  that, but sprawl from other towns in the neighbourhood of London, including Stevenage. Stevenage is within a distance from London in which people can travel. They can commute, as the Americans say. If Stevenage is not scheduled as a satellite town the land round Stevenage will, surely, be used for building in one way or another. If we accept the principle, which most of us, at any rate, do accept, that dispersal is necessary, surely it is right that that dispersal should be planned and canalised, and new communities should be built up rather than that indiscriminate development should be allowed such as took place between the wars at places like Hatfield, Boreham Wood, Brookmans Park and the various other rather half-baked places—if the people who live there will not mind my saying so—which grew up without any centre or any plan at all.
  Therefore, I suggest that this House will be right to give this Bill a unanimous Second Reading on the ground that it is the only way in which we can properly solve this problem of housing the people. That is not to say that there are not one or two points on which some of us feel some concern. The difficulty, of course, is that much as all of us approve in normal circumstances the use of the democratic machinery of local government for the carrying out of public works of many kinds, the fact remains that there is no machine which usually can be used for this purpose. There is no local government machinery which could be used at Stevenage for the creation of this new town. The same applies probably to the majority of others. It is, of course, possible for a borough such as Tottenham to set up its own organisation and transfer a large amount of its population from Tottenham to its new town. But, of course, a very large number of other people will go there. I use Tottenham merely as an example. I believe it is the better solution, and I am glad the Minister has adopted it, to appoint a corporation which will be, in the sense of the word, a trustee for the people who are to live there.
  Ample provision is made in the Bill for the transference of that corporation and all its effects to the local authority when the local authority has grown up to a sufficient size to take it over. To my mind this corporation is in danger from two sides. The noble Lord the Member for

  1159

  Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), in spite of the exaggerations in which he indulged, did say something in which there was at any rate a grain of truth, when he implied that there was a danger that this corporation will tend, if the Minister is not careful, to become too much under the domination of the Ministry, and not only that, but under the domination of the Treasury, which would be far worse. If this corporation is to work properly it must be given a very large measure of independence, financially and otherwise.
  I join with hon. Members who have questioned the wisdom of Clause 12 (7) of the Bill, which apparently makes it necessary for some financial justification to be presented to the Treasury before money can be advanced. I think I can carry hon. Members with me when I say that it will be quite impossible, quite impracticable and quite unreal for the members of this corporation to go to the Treasury and say they want an advance of so many millions of pounds, and that over the next 20 years they think the return will be so much. At the best it will be guesswork. I do not believe that Subsection will be able to stand the test of time. Similarly, I think it is unsound to deprive the corporation of its right to borrow elsewhere than by advances made by the Minister. In the early stages the corporation should be given a float, something to start with, something to set it going in life. We should not be too particular about a financial return for that float. After that it could carry on borrowing money against security as the place developed. The danger of this domination of the corporation by the Ministry and by the Treasury is that we shall not get the best men possible to be members of the corporation. If they are to be told at every turn what to do and how to do it we shall not get men of vigour and enterprise to organise these new towns, and they are the sort of men who will undoubtedly be needed.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister, anxious as he is to father these new towns—and that is perfectly right—will not wish to impose control in every detail. After all, he has the right to appoint the members of the corporation, and in proper cases he has the right to dismiss them. I think he should confine himself to the right of hire and fire
  1160
  and leave them very largely to carry on their work in their own way. He should give them freedom to experiment and freedom to make mistakes, because nobody can pretend that mistakes will not be made. Mistakes will be made, and if these men are to be hamstrung at every turn by the Ministry and the Treasury we shall not get men of courage and initiative to take the job on.

  I turn to the danger which the corporation faces from the other side. On the one side there is the danger of domination by the Ministry, and on the other side there is the danger of being out of touch with local opinion. I have already indicated what I regard as sound views for appointing corporation agencies for this. We must face the fact that the corporation will have to deal with the most intimate human details of people's lives. It is essential that it should evolve some machinery whereby public opinion may be kept in touch. I would suggest that some statutory provision should be made for the setting up of a local advisory body.
  I do not suggest that the corporation should be formed entirely of local people elected for the purpose, because an executive body appointed to do a job should be composed of the best people to do it, but I do believe that there is room for the appointment of a local advisory committee to form a channel for opinion. I consider that that body could be formed round the local council, or councils if there are more than one, and it should be composed of representatives of all sections of opinion, drawn not only from those who are already in the place if we are building up round a nucleus, but also from the people who are to come in as well. We shall know, sometime ahead, which factories will move in and which workers will come; let us include on this advisory committee representatives of the manufacturers, the trade union branches and members, and clubs of all kinds which may be going to move in. Let us try to have an organised body of opinion which could form a contact between the corporation appointed to develop the town and the public at large, whether already living there or about to come in.
  There are one or two other points on the subject of cooperation with the local authority on which there is a certain amount of doubt. The question of how far the

  1161
  existing local authorities will be able to control development is one, and there are others, but these I consider are matters for the Committee and I pass over them. The really essential point, apart from that of effective contact between the corporation and the public, is to have good publicity in the running of this plan. Many of the Minister's problems, and many of the events which took place at the meeting last Monday evening, at which I was present, were in my view due to the fact that there had not been quite enough preparation of the ground beforehand. It would have been better had the Minister gone to Stevenage and made the admirable speech he did, not last Monday, but two months ago, before the notices were served on the people inviting them to sell their property by agreement. That, I think, is an augury for the future. No great damage has been done, but at all stages in the development of this great new town—as I hope it will be—the fullest possible disclosure must be made to everybody concerned. It involves peoples' ordinary lives, and I ask that it should be done.
  One final point. Hon. Members have mentioned this question of leasehold tenure. I myself live, as I have said, in a garden city where all the property is leasehold. There is no objection to leasehold tenure at all. I am not a tenant in the sense that I pay a weekly or monthly rent; I pay a large price down for the lease and then there is a small ground rent which is paid annually, but I am not, in the ordinary sense of the word, a tenant. I can say definitely that there is no disadvantage in being a leaseholder on a long lease, but there is clearly, in the minds of many people, a very considerable prejudice against the 99-year lease. My right hon. Friend is perfectly right when he says that the object of the 99-year lease is to give a lease for the approximate life of the building. That may be so, but the difficulty is to persuade a person at the present time that that is the life of a building. I can quote an instance in Letchworth. There are many houses which are running on to about 40 years; they are getting to the "hump" of the lease, and after they have got past the "hump" there will be a growing disinclination to do repairs.
  Already there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction and unrest in Letchworth because they realise that time is getting
  1162

  on and that these leases will fall in in due course. I suggest as a possible alternative to the 99-year lease that there should be a 999-year lease, which will give the corporation all the planning powers that are available to a freeholder who lets out his land under lease, but which are not available to those who lease plots out freehold. There should be an option to re-buy that lease at certain periods, every 50 years, say, or at such other period as the corporation in its discretion decides, on payment of the residual value. That, I think, would achieve the same result as the 99-year lease, though it would avoid the prejudice that the 99-year lease undoubtedly incurs, and the real disadvantages the 99-year lease has in many cases. Above all things, in starting this great new project, what we want to avoid is unnecessary prejudice. If we do things it is not absolutely necessary to do, we run the risk of antagonising people unnecessarily, and for the future, not only of these towns, but of the rehousing of the people as a whole, I do ask the Minister to reconsider that point to see if he cannot benefit from the experience which has been gained in other places, modified to some extent on the lines I have suggested.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones), who is my political neighbour in Hertfordshire, the county most immediately affected by these proposals. I am not opposed to the principle of this Bill. I am certainly not opposed to the principle of new towns. I appreciate that a plan and machinery are required to bring into effect the principle of creating self-sufficient and balanced communities. I, also, as much anybody deprecate the continuance of "suburban sprawl."
  After all, towns are more than a mere multiplication of dwelling places or a collection of persons. They require a sense of common effort, common interests, a common point of view and associations, in order to make of the lifeless parts, a living whole; and that, I hope, is what this Bill seeks to do. But no Act of Parliament can do more than provide the framework, and all that we can do in this House this evening is to consider whether or not this is the best framework possible.

  1163
  In some ways it falls short of my expectations. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to restrict the operation of the proposals to the sole agency of a Government corporation. Here I am on the side of the angels, because I am in agreement with the recommendation of the Reith Committee. The right hon Gentleman directed his heavy artillery against the local authority corporation, which, I think, finds less support than the authorised association, in regard to which he fought only a light skirmish. It seemed to me he did rather less than justice to the authorised associations which built the garden cities of Welwyn and Letchworth. It may be he will do better than they. I hope he will. But he must also take into account that he may do less well, because Welwyn and Letchworth had the great advantage of the stimulus of enthuiasm. They were set up by enthusiasts, and behind them was that spontaneous drive of good will which one can get from an authorised association. It seems to me that the Minister is wrong in eschewing the benefit of their vigorous spontaneity and dynamic force. He has confined himself to the Government corporation.
  In my view, the Bill makes the Government corporations too dependent upon the Minister. There is no security of tenure, nor fixed period of service for those serving on the corporations. This limits their independence of thought and action. There is no provision for representation of the inhabitants of the new town areas on the corporations. In these, as in other respects, the recommendations of the Reith Committee have been omitted from the Bill. There is no central advisory commission which can survey these problems as a whole, and, in some measure, detached from the official view of Whitehall. All these valuable recommendations of the Reith Committee find no place in the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. He explained the Clause which permits one corporation to deal with more than one town. I hope that he will abide by the strict limitation of his explanation, and not yield to the temptation to make a single corporation responsible for a large number of towns. That is possible under the Bill, but I hope, as he says, that it is not his intention.
  I feel also that the undue centralisation of this Bill has one other possible unfor-
  1164
  tunate effect. It links the success or failure of a Government corporation too closely with the reputation of the Minister, and even of the Government themselves. It has this disadvantage. It may be, faced with failure, and with that failure being linked so closely with the Government's reputation, that they might seek powers to direct industry into these areas, for which no powers at present exist. It is not a question of directing factories and machines, but of flesh and blood. There are negative powers under the 1943 Act, and inducements under the Distribution of Industries Act, but there are no powers of compulsion at the moment. I hope that the Minister will not be tempted, by the realisation that his reputation may be linked with the performance of the corporations, to seek these powers in the event of a possible failure. I consider that these new towns must have behind them spontaneous unconscripted goodwill, if they are to succeed.
  In the few moments remaining to me. I want to consider where these towns should be set up. It seems to me that five short principles apply. The first is that they should he set up sufficiently far from London, or any big city, to exclude the possibility of their becoming a dormitory town. Secondly, they should not be set up on the nucleus of existing old towns, if it involves blotting out the individual life of that town. Thirdly, they should not be set up on valuable agricultural land. Fourthly, regard should be had in setting them up to causing the minimum of hardship to the people already resident there, and all possible regard should be paid to their convenience. Fifthly, the designation of an area should be preceded by a public local inquiry. I should have thought that these were self-evident propositions. I bring them to the attention of the House, because it seems to me that the case of Stevenage defies all five of these principles. I have no time to deal with the question of Stevenage in detail, but I should like to say this. As I see it, the dispossessed people of Stevenage at the moment have only two consolations. They have the restricted right of monetary compensation, and the qualified right of reinstatement, which I do not consider to be completely satisfactory. Compensation fixed at the 1939 value, plus a maximum of 30 per cent. of the owner-occupier's interest, is often insufficient to meet the cost of

  1165
  rehousing today. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the possibility of substituting what I call a portable cost of works payment. It is a point with which I hope we can proceed on Committee, because I am sure it is the just solution for the unfortunate people dispossessed under this scheme. I am also sure that in these cases public local inquiries should always be held; and, perhaps, after the experience of Stevenage, the Minister will also see the advantage of a public local inquiry being held, so that the people of an existing town can be sure that full attention is paid to their point of view, before a new town of any kind is set up in their area.
  In conclusion, I would refer to a point made by my right hon. Friend. This Bill is not, in any way in satisfaction of or substitution for the immediate task of housing the people. For instance, it will take three years to provide the sewerage at Stevenage, and so that project is in no way a solution of the immediate problem. Nor must resources be unfairly diverted from other needs for these new towns. In rural Hertfordshire, the people have waited a long time for better housing, for amenities for piped water, sewerage, and so on [An HON. MEMBER: "Too long."] I agree with the hon. Gentleman—too long. And, therefore, it is vital that to long expectation the right hon. Gentleman does not add exasperation by giving away these long deferred amenities to new residents in the county while they are still denied to those now living there. If that is done, he will find that he has sowed the tares of ill will, which will make it extremely difficult for any new town satisfactorily to settle in the constellation of its county.
  There is a personal responsibility on the right hon. Gentleman to see that he so comports himself in this first experiment and in regard to this Bill as not to put in jeopardy the whole principle of new towns and I hope that, during the passage of this Bill through Committee, he will listen to the advice offered, so that when we come to the Third Reading we may give it to him with less criticism and less reservation than we have felt obliged to express and to feel tonight.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. McAllister: I think that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) has presented his point of
  1166
  view With a lucidity and logic which were, unfortunately, completely lacking in the speech of the Noble Lord who preceded him. The Noble Lord showed a lack of logic which was only equalled by his complete ignorance of almost every aspect of the subject on which he touched. He asked, for example—and one might have expected that a Noble Lord, a member of a great landed family, would know something about agriculture—Could we afford the agricultural land for these new towns? This Bill proposes a modest decentralisation of population from our overcrowded cities. If it proposed to decentralise 6,000,000 people into the new towns, we should lose only one per cent. of the land of Britain, and that need not be the best agricultural land—indeed, it not only need not, but should not be the best agricultural land. The Noble Lord asked if the people wanted these new towns. Some one else, in the Debate, observed that people wanted to move where there was work for them to do. I think that that is the profound and simple truth. When Messrs. Stewart and Lloyd decided to move from Lanarkshire to Northamptonshire, they shifted a large village population, not only from one county to another, but from one country to another, and the people went there, not because they wanted to go to Northampton, but because there was work there for them to do. The people of this country have not got the privilege of choosing between a seat in the Home Counties, or in the Highlands of Scotland, like the Noble Lord. They have to choose their houses where their work is.
  It would be a pity, however, to allow a Debate of this kind, on a Bill of this kind, to develop into a mere argument between those of us, on this side, who are Socialists, and those, on the other side, who are Conservatives. This is a very great occasion. This Bill represents a new departure in town planning history, and I should like to congratulate the Minister of Town and Country Planning on having lifted town and country planning on to a new level. Until now, and from the introduction of town planning as a legislative factor in the 1909 Town Planning Act, sponsored by the late John Burns, planning in Great Britain has been entirely permissive, restrictive and negative. It was always a case of "Thou shalt not do this" or "Thou shalt not do that." Now, for the first time, a Bill is

  1167
  introduced into this House which not only coordinates housing with industry, and both with agriculture and with the unspoiled countryside, but a Bill which accepts for the first time, the principle of three dimensional planning.
  I should like to say there is no other kind of planning than three dimensional planning. It is not a question of saying this zone must be used for that purpose, and that zone must be used for this purpose. We must, by our planning, build up a new environment for the people of this country. In this Bill the Labour Government are returning to one of the great initial impulses that belonged to the movement in its earlier days. Indeed, it goes further back than the origins of the British Labour Movement. It goes back to the attempt by Robert Owen to establish communities at New Lanark and Orbiston to provide decent living conditions for the mill workers, which was one of the things that gave birth to the whole idea of Socialism. Thomas More has been mentioned. But there were others. There was William Morris, with his sketch of an ideal London in "News from Nowhere." Even more important was Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backward," with its picture of an ideal community which caused many people to turn their eyes towards Socialism.
  In this country Sir Raymond Unwin, Mr. Barry Parker, Dr. Thomas Adams and Sir Patrick Abercrombie have made enormous contributions to the idea of the limitation of town growth and the development of new towns. In Scotland, Sir William E. White has done a similar work to that performed by Sir John Tudor Walters for both England and Wales while Mr. Alwyn Lloyd was one of the pioneers of the movement in Wales. We owe a debt to people like Lewis Mumford, the greatest sociologist in town planning of them all. Above all, there is the new town movement which for almost 50 years has owed its inspiration to Sir Ebenezer Howard and his decisive "Garden Cities of Tomorrow", and Mr. F. J. Osborn, who with the Town and Country Planning Association, has carried on the long fight which reaches its legislative culmination this evening.
  I was a little disappointed that the Minister, in putting forward this Bill so admirably, in a most effective speech,
  1168
  should have chosen to make one or two slightly sneering remarks about Welwyn and Letchworth. Welwyn stands out as the one note of harmony and integration in a chaos of disorderly development. If the Minister would look at Welwyn again and contrast it with other towns and particularly with the shocking development at Hatfield he would get it in its true perspective, and I do not think that he would say again of Welwyn what he said today. He said that Welwyn and Letchworth were dormitory towns. I have heard the Minister make that statement before, and I have heard him contradicted, but apparently he has to be contradicted again. It is not true; Letchworth is decidedly not a dormitory town by any standard. Welwyn Garden City has no more than 600 season ticket holders travelling between Welwyn Garden and King's Cross, and both towns offer employment, not only for the people who live in them, but also for people from the surrounding villages.
  I know the Minister is deserving much more of my praise than of my criticism, and I think that it is a remarkable thing that, with his extraordinary experience as the chairman of the London County Council planning committee and with a natural predilection in favour of the large town and the large city, the Minister should have been able, during the short time he has been in office, to raise his gunsights from the more limited view of London, and take in the great national picture. I think he has done that admirably and that he deserves all praise. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertford that there is one serious point of difference—the rejection in the Bill of the authorised association as a method of establishing these towns. I think that this is strange since the Minister has the example of Welwyn and Letchworth before him, and the knowledge that these towns were created, by private enterprise perhaps, but certainly by private enterprise directed to a high social objective. As the Minister knows, there are groups of people in this country who have for several years, even during the war, been planning to create new towns when hostilities finally came to an end. It boils down to this: the Minister says that only if he chooses the team, can it be a good one. I think that that is an untenable proposition and that it is quite

  1169
  possible for a group of people to get together and decide that they will build a new town, and that if they get the right technicians, the right architects, the right town planners, and the right business men, they can make a great success of this. I hope that before the Bill goes through Committee, the Minister himself may see fit to amend it in this way, and to accept the further recommendations of the Reith Committee on that point.
  We are looking forward to the establishment of these new towns, not only in England and Wales but in Scotland, because it is not possible to separate this problem from the problem of the development areas. These new towns will not only bring opportunities of new industries to Lanarkshire and the West of Scotland, to Durham, Tyneside, and South Wales, but will themselves create a new opportunity to provide an environment better than the people in these areas have ever known before. The late President Roosevelt regarded it as one of the great jewels in the crown of achievement of his New Deal administration that it had been responsible for the creation of three new green belt cities. I think it was a very great achievement indeed but those green belt cities were not so great as the towns that my right hon. Friend is proposing to bring into being by this new Bill. They were in fact mere dormitory settlements; they were excellent in some ways, for they provided a spacious, sunlit environment for many thousands of American families. The new towns we are going to build will not only provide decent houses and factories in a spacious and palatial layout, but will give all the men, women and children who live in them, the opportunity for a happier and certainly a healthier life than they have known in our crowded cities. When we are trying to assess the place of Welwyn and Letchworth in this regard we must remember that they have the best health statistics in Britain today. The infant mortality rate in those two towns can be compared only with the infant mortality rate of New Zealand, which is the lowest in the world. We, through this Bill, hope to build new towns in order to provide the kind of environment which will produce health, and may lead to a great increase in human happiness.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am inclined to agree with the
  1170
  hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) that the Bill does not of itself raise any profound question of party principle. Not unnaturally he dwelt at some, but not excessive, length upon his own party's interest in this question. I hope, therefore, that he will not regard it as unnatural, if I, equally, emphasise that the practical provision of decent accommodation for all classes of the community is an ideal and an objective for which the Conservative Party has fought, not without success, for a very considerable period of time.
  If there were anything calculated to smooth the passage of the Bill it would certainly be the manner in which the Minister introduced it. I hope that I shall not be ruled out of Order on the basis of tedious repetition if I say how much I appreciated that tone, and, in particular, the complete absence of that vindictive element of partisan recrimination which sometimes disfigures the speeches of certain of his colleagues. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that his most eloquent and effective denunciation of the consequences of uncontrolled development struck me as an extraordinarily powerful argument for his case.
  Hon. Members cannot get away from one difficulty. There is a perfectly clear cut choice before this country. The big towns must expand, and their population must, to some extent, be rehoused. There are only two ways, really, in which that can be done. One way is something on the lines, broadly, of the principles of the Bill. The other is by that tendency to suburban sprawl and ribbon development, and its concomitant horrors to which reference has been made. I do not believe for one moment, as did the Noble Lord who spoke from in front of me, that negative restrictions will effect any useful purpose whatever. I feel that we cannot get away from the alternative between to some extent planned and organised development of rehousing in this country, or completely disorganised chaos. That being so, I cannot but feel that the general principle and the general approach of the Bill are right.
  Despite the manner in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) has been taken to task by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) for daring to criticise the terms of the Bill, that fact does not prevent one from submitting

  1171
  to the House a number of detailed criticisms of the Bill as it stands. The House of Commons is still entitled to debate Government Measures. We have not yet been reduced to indulging in the unanimous applause of the Reichstag at every Government pronunciamiento. I very much regret that the hon. Member who made that criticism is not now in his place. We are quite entitled to accept the general principle of the Measure and then to say that certain aspects of it are unfortunate and imperfect. I will not weary the House with what is, to some extent, a Committee matter, but none the less it is a fact that Clause 2 (2) and Clause 4 (1b) are extraordinarily widely drafted. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he comes to consider them at a later stage, will regard it as necessary to the success of the Bill, to take these extraordinarily wide powers, and I am perfectly certain from what I know of the right hon. Gentleman, that he will not persist obstinately in insisting on powers that are not really necessary. I am certain that a Minister who could make the reasonable speech that the right hon. Gentleman made this afternoon will not, at any stage, advance the argument that he is taking wide powers and does not propose to exercise them.
  Again, it is a matter of profound regret, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) has said, that the right hon. Gentleman has concentrated on one kind of authority for development. After all, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, the scheme in this Bill is, in some degree, an experiment. The right hon. Gentleman himself very frankly admitted in another context that he must wait to see how things developed in order to decide what measures it might be necessary to take. That being so, what objection is there to including in this experiment the three separate and different types of development corporation—the Government-controlled one set out in the Bill, the local authority controlled one, and the authorised association. If the right hon. Gentleman is right in his view that what the Government want is the best, that would no doubt be proved by events, but why not set up three corporations, each of a different kind, and try them out in free experiment? The result could not but be valuable. If the right hon. Gentleman is right, he could be in a posi-
  1172
  tion to tell the House and the Opposition that he was right and they were wrong, and if, on the other hand, either of the other forms of corporation works effectively, I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman would be only too willing to avail himself of this information.
  Therefore, I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman, in his otherwise broadminded approach to this problem, has not faced more courageously the fact that this is an experiment and that experiments are very profitably conducted by trying out all the different varieties and variations available. Those are criticisms which will no doubt be adumbrated later, but on the general principle of the Bill and on the general principle of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, one is tempted to comment, not upon its introduction this afternoon, but upon the delay in introducing it. After all, this Government have now had command, as hon. Members on the back benches know only too well, of the time of the House of Commons for some nine months. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this Measure is much more valuable than many that have been brought in here, that the problem is urgent and important, and that it is somewhat inconsistent with the right hon. Gentleman's own arguments as to the importance of this matter—which I accept—that the Bill was not introduced before. Indeed, I can only speculate that the reason which impelled the right hon. Gentleman not to bring in the Bill before, was that he knew the Minister of Health had been so successful in inhibiting the building of houses that the problem was not perhaps as urgent as it might otherwise have been. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, will confirm that.
  There are points in this Bill—and it is fair and right that it should be said—which illustrate a very practical and broadminded approach to the problem. I much appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the value of private enterprise in assisting him to establish these new towns. Not only did he go out of his way in his speech to point that out, but he has put in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which is printed with the Bill, a very significant passage:
  "It is assumed that a large part of the construction of commercial buildings, shops, factories and middle-class houses will be undertaken by private developers."

  1173
  A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was sitting alongside the right hon. Gentleman. I can only hope that the Minister of Health caught a few bacilli from so broadminded a spirit, and that he has gone out to devise a broader approach to the housing problem. But it is significant that we should today have a Minister of the Crown coming to this House with a Bill and in the Memorandum attached to the Bill, and in his speech, expressing his reliance, for a most important part of his scheme, upon the work of private enterprise. That is a matter of congratulation, not only to the right hon. Gentleman for his width of vision, but also to the Government. A little light seems to be creeping in somewhere, if the right hon. Gentleman will permit the metaphor.
  If, as an hon. Member opposite said a few moments ago, this problem is not handled at once and vigorously, it will be too late, in this small and overcrowded island, to prevent large tracts of country from being spoiled by the erection of vast, unsuitable, inappropriate, inconvenient and badly designed dormitory communities. To illustrate the urgency of this problem, I invite the attention of the House to a particular and specific example, which happens to affect my own constituency. On 17th April of this year, it was learned through the Press, since no official communication had been made to any of the local authorities concerned, that the L.C.C. intended to erect a vast dormitory for the housing of between 20,000 and 30,000 people from the East End of London at a place called Chessington in the Green Belt in the County of Surrey.
  Mr. Gibson: As a member of the L.C.C. who is very familiar with the housing side of its work, I would inform the hon. Member that what he has just said is completely wrong.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall be delighted, should the hon. Member be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if he will tell me the precise particulars in which I am wrong. But anticipating the possibility that some hon. Member might be so rash as to challenge this statement, I have armed myself with a not inconsiderable quantity of material from all the relevant authorities, including the Surrey county council and the borough council of Surbiton,
  1174
  which I shall be happy to show to the hon. Member at any stage, to make it quite clear to him that what I have stated and am about to state is a matter which I am in a position accurately and fully to prove. As I was saying when the hon. Member attempted to assist me, on 17th April, no communication of any sort having been sent to the Surrey county council or to the borough council of Surbiton, it was learned that it was proposed to erect at Chessington this large dormitory community. I may comment in passing that the refusal, even informally, to communicate an intention of this nature to the local authorities concerned, suggests a diplomatic technique which could almost have been borrowed from Herr von Ribbentrop.
  I put this particular Chessington example to the Minister, because every fact connected with it is characterised by just these features of development which he condemned in his speech. I will draw those facts to his attention. In this area there is practically no work available. Again, the right hon. Gentleman very properly emphasised that there should be work available for the population in these new towns. Consequently, it will be necessary if this scheme goes through for all these people, or a vast majority of them, to proceed to work in the London area. To do so, they will have to proceed by an already overstrained railway service. The right hon. Gentleman, rightly, to my mind, condemned any policy which resulted in a further increase in the congestion caused by increasing the daily rush on the main line railways. All the people concerned in this vast move of population are people of the same income group. The right hon. Gentleman, again rightly, condemned the segregation of people of one income group. That is a view which I share with him. The right hon. Gentleman said that these new communities should be 20 to 50 miles from London. This site is 11 miles from London. Finally, this site occupies valuable agricultural land. Above all, this proposal at Chessington is entirely contrary to the whole planned scheme for the development of the London area.
  Hon.Members are no doubt more than familiar with the massive volume which enshrines the lucubrations of Professor Abercrombie. In the Greater London Plan he dealt with the specific area to which I have referred. It would

  1175
  seem almost more than a coincidence that he invited the attention of the L.C.C. to it. In order to make it clear what a challenge this proposal is to the whole scheme of planned development of the London area, I quote Professor Abercrombie:
  "The southern part of the borough into which the new railway line has penetrated is almost entirely undeveloped at present and forms a most important part of London's regional open land to which the railway will provide convenient access. No further extensions of the built up perimeter south of the Mansfield Road area should be allowed. There is adequate room to the north of this road for considerable infilling in partially built up estates. The important wedge running southwards has already been referred to under 'Cobham.' When it reaches Chessington it divides with an additional branch which runs up the Hogsmill River, and this again looks eastwards into Ewell. All this land should be kept unbuilt on as shown on the map."
  I have quoted that example as showing the urgency of this matter. There, by the greatest local authority in the country, is a direct challenge to the whole principle of planned extension in the London area. There is a defiance of every principle which the Minister enunciated this afternoon. There is a direct challenge to the recommendations of the Greater London plan. There is an illustration which, in my submission, is as vivid as possible of the urgency of this matter. The only matter for consolation is that the local authorities concerned have already announced that they will oppose this scheme tooth and nail. In parenthesis, I may add that the borough of Surbiton, the local authority concerned, has always adopted a view which the Parliamentary Secretary has himself expressed. The local authority has always adopted an attitude of loyalty to the Greater London plan and has refused to build on that area for that reason. I notice the Minister nods his head. I am obliged to him. The one consolation in this matter is that by reason of that opposition this matter will come, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to him for decision. Obviously, it would not be in order for me to ask him tonight for any assurance on the matter.
  But I would say to him, and I do not think he is entitled to disagree, that his action in this matter will be the clearest possible illustration of his real attitude of mind towards this question of the planned development of our urban areas. There is here a clear challenge to his ideas and his
  1176
  proposals, and it is proper that this matter should be discussed upon this Bill tonight, because the House is discussing—and it is no party matter—a great proposal for planned development, a proposal which is threatened almost at birth by the action of the most powerful local authority in the country. It is, as I may without overemphasis describe it, really a test case. That is an illustration, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members, had they been fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would have given further illustrations of the urgency of the problem.
  Under this Bill and other Measures, the Minister is arming himself with sufficient powers if he is prepared to use them, and use them properly. Under this Bill, as perhaps under all Bills, it all depends on how the powers are used. If they are used as the Minister has indicated he intends to use them, with a clear determination to assert his authority and at the same time to allow no question of party or partisan bias to interfere with him in the exercise of those functions, there are certain grounds for optimism. I hope I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that, in presenting this Bill to this House he has been much more usefully occupied than most of his colleagues have been during recent months. It is said in Holy Writ that when the question of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain, which perhaps have certain similarities to the present Government, was under consideration, it was arranged that if ten just men could be found the cities would be saved. If that test were applied to the present Government they would be nine short.
  9.27 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall): The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) seems to have a wonderful facility for mixing rather uncharitable expressions with quotations from Holy Writ. While I am referring to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps I may deal with the question that he has so ably put before the House, that is, the matter of Chessington. I congratulate him on achieving a good bit of publicity with regard to this proposed development, but I am sure he will not expect me to anticipate the Minister's decision on a matter which is going through the ordinary procedure of town planning legislation.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I said so.
  Mr. Marshall: We, of course, understand all the factors relative to the matter and we shall ultimately come to a decision. In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on having raised a matter which will ultimately come before this House. He complained that this Bill had been so long delayed. Frankly, I do not think he has much cause for complaint there. If I have heard any view from the other side about the legislation that has been proposed from this side of the House, it is that the Conservative Party is in very great danger of getting legislative indigestion, and they have asked us to go slow, in order that they may recover from this rather difficult complaint. I am inclined to think that the hon. Gentleman has no cause for complaint there.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The point I was trying to put was not that this Government should introduce more legislation but that they should be more discriminating in their choice of legislation, and introduce Bills of this sort earlier than Measures such as the Trade Disputes Bill.
  Mr. Marshall: I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the Bill that is now before the House, as I rather gather he is. In some of his remarks, of course, he gave it scant praise, but on the whole I think he gave it general approval. I was interested in his reference to the Minister of Health. He suggested that the very short stay in the House of the Minister of Health by the side of my right hon. Friend had infected him with a strange bacillus, and that he is rather pleased about it. Both my right hon. Friend and myself have been in close contact with the Minister for several hours today, and if the hon. Gentleman is right I am afraid he may have been given rather a strong dose of the bacillus.
  My right hon. Friend introduced this Measure in a speech of great understanding and considerable force. In a very interesting survey he traced the efforts which have been made to create new living communities in the country, and he placed his Bill at the end of a long and interesting evolution in these very fascinating social experiments. It is a story of trial and error, in which valuable experience has been gained and many lessons have been learned. If the present venture succeeds, as we con-
  1178
  fidently believe it will, it will be because it has been blessed by many public spirited men and enlightened local authorities, who have provided us with a very rich accumulation of experience on which to build, and also because we now know a great deal more about the vital things, both physical and social, which go to make real living communities. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there is a considerable amount of literature on the subject, from the Barlow Report to numerous books, essays and pamphlets, all dealing with various aspects of this problem. Therefore, this Bill is no leap in the dark, as the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) rather suggested. It is a proposed piece of legislation based on a century of accumulated experience and knowledge, on wide and varied research, and fitted against a background of urgency and necessity. It is really something of very great significance in the way of the national planning of the creation of ideal living communities.
  My right hon. Friend expressed his feelings of pride that it has fallen to his lot to introduce such a Measure, and I may say that I am happy in that this, my maiden speech from this Box, should be associated with this important Bill. It may be that in my remarks I shall disclose many shortcomings; if I do, I can only ask for the tolerance of the House, and I know from past experience that it will be forthcoming. The Debate has been a very good one, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has every reason to be gratified by the reception his Bill has received. Doubts have been expressed, criticisms made and questions asked about the various Clauses, and I will now proceed to give what answers I can to the many points that have been raised.
  I will first of all refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). We have learned to expect from him in his speeches, charm, wit and courtesy, and on this occasion he did not fail us. I think I can say truly that he gave general support to the Bill. He made reservations on one or two matters, but I think the right hon. Gentleman can be said to have given general support to the main purposes and principles of the Bill. I very much enjoyed his reference to Acacia Road, and his wonderful description of

  1179
  how this one road bred a great progeny of Acacias, until the whole thing in my estimation became something like a sunflower. I also enjoyed his reference to the Mad Hatter in Lewis Carroll's great masterpiece. Thinking of the right hon. Gentleman's description—the House will recollect that he said that every time someone overturned a teapot or a teacup he moved on to a cleaner part of the cloth, they all moved round—I could not help but compare it with what I consider to be the position of planning during the last 30 years. It seemed to me that someone had been trying to tear the cloth up altogether. The inter-war trends of the last 30 years have made this Bill, and other Bills that will come along later, absolutely imperative, and have invested them with a quality of urgency that must sooner or later—very soon in my estimation—be satisfied. One has only to consider what these trends are today; great masses of population have been moving and concentrating towards several great centres in this country. My right hon. Friend mentioned what those centres were. Furthermore, in Durham great areas have almost become derelict owing to the failure of the mineral resources upon which men have relied for their livelihood, and these two facts together have created a very tragic lack of balance in the industry of this country. The consequence is that development areas or distressed areas have been created on the one hand, and vast conurbations have grown up on the other. That is the national aspect of this problem, and planning hitherto has done very little to arrest that tendency. This Bill is the first effort to do anything towards arresting it. It is not only a planning Bill, it is not only a New Towns Bill, it is a Bill which makes the first efforts towards a balanced distribution of the industry of this country, and from that point of view it is exceedingly valuable and urgent.
  I want the House to get that background against which to judge this Bill. In some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks he said he feared that this Bill may—he did not make the assertion that it would—prevent us from dealing with the old towns as we should. I want to pay my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's Act of 1944. It was a tremendous piece of planning legislation. Its powers, if they are used properly, will, I believe, do a very great work, as far as our old towns are concerned.
  1180
  But I think the right hon. Gentleman must regard this Bill as the supplement to the 1944 Act. After all is said and done, the 1944 Act really dealt with the overspill population of the blitzed towns and of other towns.
  It dealt with these matters and provided for powers of acquisition in order that land could be bought so that the overspill populations of the blitzed towns, and the blitzed towns mainly, could be housed. Where are these people to be housed? If they are housed on the fringes of the towns already existing we shall simply perpetuate the suburban sprawl we are so anxious to avoid. The alternative to that is that they must be housed in the new towns. Therefore, there is urgency about this Bill. It is supplementary to the Act of 1944, and since it is, we are justified in using the powers of the Act that the right hon. Gentleman himself piloted through this House, the powers of acquisition in the 1944 Act. I thought the right hon. Gentleman did less than justice to his own Bill. I think that, really, in order to get planning we have to take these two Measures together. My own view is that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will not prevent the reconstruction of any town. The two things must be taken together. They complement each other. I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reflect, will see it in that way.
  We cannot go forward in that leisurely way the right hon. Gentleman visualised. I was very interested, of course, in his description of a sympathetic community." It is a new one on me, but I think I can understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant. It is true, of course, that there are certain old towns in this country where a wonderful spirit of intimacy has grown up. It is compounded of their history, of their failures and their successes, their achievements, and even of their buildings. It is what one of the greatest planners in the country calls "the intimacy of the towns." Today many of these large towns are in danger of losing that intimacy. They have lost it I think it should be the aim of the planners and of this House once more to restore to those towns that sense of local civic pride, which goes under many names, but which I like to call intimacy, that warmth of fellowship that can grow up only in living communities. One of the tragedies of the old towns, especially in the north, is that they have grown to

  1181
  such an extent that they have lost that intimacy. The trend of modern planning has been to accelerate that process, and I feel that this Bill should rectify that trend. I do not think there is anything obscure about this. As I said in my opening remark, we know so much today about the main factors that go to make living communities that we can almost guarantee success in this great venture.
  The right hon. Gentleman then talked about the powers of acquisition that, he said, we were attracting to this Bill, the powers under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman felt that, having taken up this attitude on the Second Reading of the Acquisition of Land Bill at that time, he ought to protest against our attracting those powers. I can assure him, and I can give him this undertaking, that these powers will only be used in very exceptional circumstances. It is no part of my right hon. Friend's purpose to use such powers. We must not forget that this Bill will make a considerable contribution to the housing needs of this country. If the acquisition of land powers are necessary as far as housing is concerned—I am not going to enter into an argument with the right hon. Gentleman about the acquisition of land powers, because that was argued at the time, and this Bill will make a considerable contribution to the housing needs—I think we should be justified in attracting these powers to the Bill. I know that this argument will not suit the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that I shall have to leave it there, with the assurance that, unless we get a very intractable owner who takes advantage of the law to delay and hold up vital development, then these powers will not be used.
  A good deal has been said about the corporations, and the fact that the Minister has confined the development corporations to Government sponsored corporations. The arguments have been for and against. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) made a very interesting speech, and he pretty well confessed the Minister had convinced him that in the circumstances the limitation to a Government sponsored corporation was possibly a wise course. I am bound to confess I thought the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Minister were very convincing. Whatever a local authority sponsored corporation
  1182
  can do a Government sponsored corporation can do a lot better. I think that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. WalkerSmith) mentioned this matter, and pointed out the necessity for maintaining or securing variety in the various designs of the new towns. He seemed to imply that unless there were local authority sponsored corporations——
  Mr. Walker-Smith: If the Parliamentary Secretary is dealing with my observations, I would point out that I addressed myself primarily to the case of the authorised associations from the point of view of getting spontaneous good will and enthusiasm, rather than to the local authorities.
  Mr. Marshall: I was going to deal with both aspects. May I finish what I have to say with regard to local authority sponsored corporations? I have already said that the Government sponsored corporations can do the job much better. I have spent 20 years on a great county borough council, and I think I know pretty well as much as anyone about these matters, and my right hon. Friend's work is well known on the London County Council. Therefore, all that we say about this matter is thoroughly unbiassed, and the decision of limitation to a Government sponsored corporation is made on the highest national consideration. The local authority sponsored corporations would find it rather difficult to get away from the local outlook. If they did get away from the local outlook, they would be on the same level as a Government sponsored corporation. The fact is that local authorities are not concerned with the building of entirely independent new towns. When they want to build new towns, they look forward with anticipation to collecting the rates. They want to own the freehold and link up to the parent town with finances, rates and services, and all sorts of other connections. I have yet to learn that the local authorities have expressed any desire to become local authority sponsored corporations on this matter, and I express the opinion that if local authorities were invited, under the terms of this Bill, to become the corporations of these new authorities, they would decline to do so. Obviously, it is a vast undertaking; it is a national undertaking, and it can only be carried out by nationally sponsored corporations.
  With regard to what I might call the "authorised association," here you get

  1183
  rather a different set up. I want to pay my tribute to the Ebenezer Howards, the Cadburys, and many other people, who with fine public spirit have blazed the trail with the experiments which they have made. I should say that three parts of their motives have been philanthropic, and, probably, one part financial. Is there anything to prevent these fine gentlemen coming into a Government sponsored corporation and giving it the benefit of their advice and experience? The door is open to them, and there is wonderful scope for their philanthropic activities. There is nothing in this Bill that prevents the services of these men being utilised to the utmost. From that point of view, I can see some very fine corporations being set up. I cannot imagine that anyone would want to vest in these people the powers of compulsory purchase which are involved. I know that there is a good deal of doubt and anxiety whenever these powers are exercised, but I have never yet heard anyone in this House, not even hon. Members on this side, advocate that a very small accumulation of private individuals should be vested with powers of compulsory purchase in the way which they would be under the powers of this Bill.
  Mr. McAllister: While I agree with what my hon. Friend has just said, would he not think it reasonable if the State compulsorily acquired the site and then handed it over to an authorised association?
  Mr. Marshall: That would bring about no end of complications. I want to say, as a final argument on this matter, that the scheme which the Minister has put forward has the virtue of simplicity, and that, I believe, is a very great virtue when we are embarking on a great undertaking like this.
  I intended to deal with many other matters. I wanted to refer to Stevenage, and to many speeches made from this side of the House, but I see that my time is practically up. I have, however, this consolation, that many of the points made were Committee points, and they can be thrashed out in Committee. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will deal with every one fairly during the Committee stage, to which I look forward
  1184
  very hopefully. There is happily in this House, and always has been a desire to make this country worthy of its people. It is a gigantic task, and it will test the sincerity and courage of everybody in this House and everyone in the country. I should like to think of it as a great effort of regeneration in which the errors of a century will be rectified, the unspeakable ugliness left by the 19th century revolution swept away, and among the smiling landscapes of the country these people will find a habitation and a home. I commend this Bill to the House.
  Major Ramsay: May I ask one question? I did not want to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary when he was dealing with this matter, because it was his first speech on such an occasion. I want to ask, Will he, when encouraging industries into the new towns, and when the new towns are country towns, consider particularly encouraging industries which are allied to agriculture?
  Mr. Marshall: I have no doubt these considerations will be taken note of, and I cannot think the Minister of Town and Country Planning or even the corporations will invite and encourage industries not suitable to a locality.
  Mr. Driberg (Maldon): There is some difficulty in the case of towns such as Witham. They do not know whether they have to plan for 6,000 or 40,000, and, therefore, their housing plans and industrial development are, to some extent, in suspense. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how soon a decision can be announced about which are the 20 towns? Can that be fairly soon?
  Mr. Marshall: We shall have to consider these cases as soon as the Bill becomes an Act, but I cannot at this stage tell the hon. Member where these towns are to be.
  Mr. Driberg: I did not ask for that. I asked how soon.
  Mr. Marshall: I could not say.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

  NEW TOWNS [MONEY]
  Considered in Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the creation of new towns by means of development corporations, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise:—

  The issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for making advances to development corporations, not exceeding in the aggregate fifty million pounds, for purposes of capital expenditure;

  The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants to such corporations, of such amounts as may be approved by the Treasury, for purposes of expenditure other than capital expenditure;

  The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any annual Exchequer contributions under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, or the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1946, and of any sums equivalent to such contributions, payable by virtue of the provisions of the said Act of the present Sessions—

  in respect of houses provided by a development corporation in accordance with arrangements made with a local authority under section ninety-four of the Housing Act, 1936, or under section twenty-six of the Housing (Scotland) Act. 1935:

  in respect of houses provided by a development corporation otherwise than in accordance with such arrangements, being houses approved by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, or the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1946, as the case may be;

  The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums authorised or required to be so paid by virtue of any of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, as applied by the said Act of the present Session, including sums payable into the Road Fund for the purpose of defraying expenditure out of that Fund under any of those provisions;

  The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Town and Country Planning or by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session;

  The raising of money by the Treasury, in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund as mentioned in this Resolution, or of providing for the replacement of sums so issued;

  1186

  The payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Minister of Town and Country Planning or by the Secretary of State by way of interest on or repayment of the principal of advances made to development corporations under the said Act of the present Session; the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums so paid into the Exchequer; and the application of any such sums, in so far as they represent principal, in redemption or repayment of debt, or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest which would otherwise be payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt;

  The reduction of the liability of a development corporation in respect of such advances in any case where such a reduction appears to the Minister of Town and Country Planning or the Secretary of State to be expedient having regard to any agreement made or to be made for the transfer to a local authority or statutory undertakers of any part of the undertaking of the corporation;

  The payment into the Exchequer of any surplus, or the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any deficit, arising from the winding up of a development corporation."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Silkin.]

  Captain Crookshank: There is not time tonight, but there are one or two questions we might want to put on this matter. We hope that arrangements may be possible to raise them on the Report stage if that is found necessary.
  Mr. Silkin indicated assent.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session, to provide for the establishment of a comprehensive health service in England and Wales and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  expenses incurred by the Minister of Health in the exercise of his functions under the said Act, the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930, or the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1938;

  compensation payable to medical practitioners in respect of losses suffered by reason of any provision of the said Act prohibiting the sale of medical practices, the aggregate amount of such compensation not exceeding the appropriate proportion determined in accordance with the said Act of sixty-six million pounds, and interest on that compensation;

  1187

  grants payable to local health authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in carrying out their functions as such authorities or in defraying expenses of any joint board exercising such functions, being grants not exceeding, in the case of any authority, three quarters of the expenditure so incurred by that authority;

  sums necessary to defray the expenditure of Regional Hospital Boards constituted under the said Act (including the expenditure of Hospital Management Committees so constituted in exercising functions on behalf of such Boards) and the expenditure of Boards of Governors so constituted for teaching hospitals;

  expenses incurred by other bodies constituted under the said Act;

  remuneration and travelling and subsistence allowances payable to members of bodies constituted under the said Act;

  superannuation benefits provided for officers engaged in health services and medical practitioners and dental practitioners providing services under the said Act; and

  the remuneration of an additional medical Commissioner of the Board of Control;

  and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Minister of Health under the said Act."
  Resolution agreed to.

  CIVIL AVIATION [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to civil aviation and matters connected therewith, and, in particular, to secure the development of air transport services by corporations operating under public control, it is expedient——

  To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Civil Aviation in making, to the undertakings mentioned in that behalf in the said Act, in respect of periods not later than the end of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, grants not exceeding in the aggregate eighty-four million pounds, and in making advances on account of any such grants.

  To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums which, by virtue of the provisions of the said Act or any instrument made there-under, are payable out of such moneys otherwise than in respect of grants to such undertakings as aforesaid and advances on account thereof.

  To charge on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling any guarantee given by them in pursuance of the said Act, subject to the limitation that the aggregate amount outstanding of the principal of the stock and loans in respect of which guarantees are so given does not at any time exceed thirty million pounds,
  1188
  except in so far as that limit is exceeded for the purpose of redeeming stock which may properly be redeemed or of paying off a loan.

  To charge on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund any additional sums required to be so charged and issued by reason of any provision of the said Act increasing the amounts in respect of which guarantees may be given under Section sixteen of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, subject to the limitation that the aggregate amount outstanding of the principal of the stock and loans in respect of which guarantees are so given does not at any time exceed fifty million pounds, except in so far as that limit is exceeded for the purpose of redeeming stock which may be properly redeemed or of paying off a loan.

  To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums required to be so paid by, under or in consequence of the said Act of the present Session."

  Resolution agreed to.

  PUBLIC SERVICES (HIGHER POSTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Michael Stewart.]
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. King: I desire first to apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for the very short notice I have given him, The responsibility for that is entirely mine, and he knows the circumstances. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the education and the social background of those who now occupy, and who are in future likely to occupy, the highest posts in the Civil Services, the Armed Forces, and other public services appointed directly or indirectly by the Crown. Let me say first and at once that in my view no country in the world has in our generation ever been served by public servants of greater integrity, capacity, or public spirit, and I am not intending any criticism in what I shall say. It is however also true, and equally worthy of emphasis, that in no country in the world is such an influential body of men drawn from so narrow an educational group—over 47 per cent. come from 12 schools—or so similar a social background, for heredity provides what is largely an esotoric philosophy.
  I want to suggest to the House that new blood is required to prevent a widening of a social cleavage which is out of touch with modern thought, and unfortunate in its social consequences. But it

  1189
  is not primarily the job of a Civil Service Selection Board to consider social consequences or to probe into early educational background. It is for them to seek efficiency and award, on the results of examination, or interview as they find them. That examination is the finishing tape, at which point the results of the race are not easily adjusted. It is for the Ministry of Education to provide equal opportunity from the starting pistol right up the course.
  First, the facts. From some tables submitted by the Workers' Educational Association it appears—and I quote these figures as somewhat surprising—that in 1939, since when I do not think the position has changed, out of 830 bishops, deans, judges, stipendiary magistrates, highly paid officials in the Home and Indian Civil Service, Governors of Dominions, and directors of banks, 636 or some 76 per cent. were drawn from the independent schools. Of these, 394, or 47.5 per cent., came from 12 schools. The diminution in those percentages in the last 20 years has been very slight. I want the House to consider how this has come about and why. It may be that social prejudice in appointing authorities has played a part, but I am not going to suggest that it has played an overwhelming part. Social prejudice could not alone have brought about that result, and if therefore for a moment we discard social prejudice as an exclusive measure, are there other reasons why 76 per cent. of these posts go to 1.86 per cent. of the population? Two questions arise; do the 1.8 per cent., on the average, possess a higher intelligence? Do they receive a superior education? Before I turn to intelligence, with which I will deal at some length, let me make it clear that I do not for a moment suggest that intelligence is the only factor; character, integrity, and culture obviously all take their place as do social sympathies.
  These things are not reducible to figures. Intelligence is so reducible. The science of intelligence testing has made immense strides in our generation. The Department of Social Biology of the University of London conducted a survey in 1939, when they examined 10,000 children. They found that the average I.B.—index of brightness—in the preparatory schools to be 123.9, and in the public elementary schools to be 93. If those figures be accepted, it is at once apparent that, by
  1190
  and large, a public school boy who derives from the preparatory school possesses a substantial advantage in competing for any post which depends upon literary examination. At that school, the boy will come from a home and an environment which can purchase very many advantages not accessible to the other home, from which want has not always been far distant, for whom the books are too expensive to purchase, and music, art and all that ennobles man, hard to come by.
  The one boy goes to an expensive prep" school and commences Latin—upon which entry to a university still largely depends—French and algebra at the age of nine. The other boy learns little but reading, writing and arithmetic until he is 11. It is not easy to catch up upon those two or three years' start. The one boy is taught in a class of 12 and the other boy in a class of 30 or 40. One boy is familiar with the green lawn and the tended cricket pitch, the other has the asphalted yard. The independent school provides one master for 12 boys. The maintained school provides one master for 28 boys. Anybody who has taught a sixth form knows the ghastly disadvantage that is, in the search for a university scholarship. To the one boy, the inspiration of the arts, sciences and library, and of the spacious fields, is widely available. To the other, not. Then comes the Civil Service exam. How hard a task have we set the schoolmaster in the maintained school. How heavily are the scales weighted against him—and how brilliant, let me add, has been his performance. I am asking that we shall not break his back.
  Nor is this kind of difference diminishing. It is increasing. More boys were attending independent schools in 1939 than in 1914. I believe that there are more boys attending independent schools today than there were in 1939. The social rift is widening. That is the point of what I wish to say. Many hon. Members on this side of the House, and possibly on the other side, regret this tendency, but I, at least, regret it in no narrow or party sense. I want to regard this problem as a piece of social engineering, based upon hard facts. We are in the realm of the biologist and the psychologist, who have sufficient evidence which we should hear. It is the function of the Minister

  1191
  of Education to trace all ability of whatever kind, and to nurture it according to its nature. Approximately two per cent. —very small—of our population have the ability to gain a first-class honours degree at a British university. That is a vital fact.
  I would like to help the Minister to trace this particular kind of ability. Here, percentages are deceptive. Gray and Moshinsky, who delved most deeply into this matter, found that 15.5 per cent. of fee-paying pupils have an I.B. in excess of 150, whereas only 6.2 per cent. of free pupils had the same I.B., that is an I.B. which obviously justified university training. In 1939, there were well over 1,000,000 boys who paid no fees and only about 140,000 who did pay fees. Therefore, there were a little over 21,000 of these boys in fee-paying schools and 62,000 in free schools. That is to say, and this is the important point despite the higher average I.B. in independent schools, in round figures there are three boys capable of high intellectual attainment in the free schools to one in the fee-paying schools.
  Will the House for a moment cast its mind back to my original statement and see the ludicrous position at which we have arrived—76 per cent. of the higher administrative posts go to 1.86 per cent. of the population, but two-thirds of the brains of this country are not even included in the 1.86 per cent.? It is to this two-thirds, this unknown, unsung and mentally hungry 62,000, that I want to attract the attention of my hon. Friend. If these 62,000 have failed, as largely they have failed, to secure posts which are their due and if today they are doing work to which they are not by their aptitude fitted, it is on the shoulders of the Ministry of Education and not on the Civil Service Commissioners that the responsibility rests. The Education Act laid down that a child should be educated according to its aptitude and ability. Are we carrying out that pious intention, having regard to my point of departure, which was the necessity to bring new blood into the higher posts in the public services?
  I am concerned to expose a disease, and not to point the remedy, which I know the Parliamentary Secretary will do better than I. The independent schools
  1192
  are not to be blamed for the social hierarchy from which they have sprung. Their headmasters, who have a not inactive social conscience, as early as 1921 urged on the Government of that day that they should be allowed to welcome their proper proportion of pupils from every type of home, a proposal which the Coalition Government of that day rejected and which is now being renewed. However that matter may lie, it can only be an infinitesimal contribution to the problem, and I do not ask today for any answer to it, but I do ask for parity in teaching conditions in the existing primary and secondary schools.
  I ask other questions, too. Did the Minister note the request for more language teaching made recently by the President of the National Union of Teachers? Do not the cleverer boys in the primary schools in the towns now want some rather harder intellectual food which they can only secure in a smaller form? Do we not need more boarding schools to meet the needs of the rural population, as well as to provide opportunities for cultural, physical and personal development? Is the Burnham increment sufficient to attract first-class honours men to the sixth form? Is the Minister aware that sixth forms in many schools, including my own constituency, are quite literally dying for want of staff in sufficient numbers? Are there to be more university scholarships? Is he aware—to me this is a most important problem—of the problem of the bespectacled, physically under-exercised and mentally unawakened boy who for years enjoys no other education than cramming scholarship papers, and who at 19 is worked out because education committees take into account written papers only, so that prefectships, music, art, drama, games, societies, the joys of friendship, are put aside so that he may spend every minute at his books? My last question may not strictly be one for my hon. Friend to answer. Is there any suggestion of altering the type of examination for entry into the Civil Service?
  May I recapitulate briefly the facts? Forty-six per cent. of our high officials come from 12 schools. That is too narrow an oligarchy. Despite the fact that less than one-third of the brains of the country are in those schools, they enjoy every educational privilege. The other two-thirds—I refer only to the in-

  1193
  tellectually brilliant—learn languages too late, are taught in classes twice as big, by a staff less well paid, have fewer opportunities for laboratory work, for reading, for art, athletics and for every other form of culture, and are being emotionally and spiritually deprived. The Government have expressed their intention, I am sure genuinely, of bringing new blood into the Civil Service. If that be their intention they must face these facts. I know that at this moment there are difficulties—buildings, staff and many others, but I wish to ask them, and I know I shall receive a sympathetic reply from my hon. Friend, what are their plans, even in the most distant future?
  10.17 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): Very briefly I will run through the points which have been raised by my hon. Friend. He calls for new blood in the Civil Service. With that we all have sympathy, provided that the new blood is of sufficient standard to carry on the great traditions of that great service in their highest form. May I give a few facts concerning the progressive increase in the number of high posts in the Civil Service filled by products of the grant aided schools? In the 10 years before the first World War, from 1905 to 1914, 283 men entered the administrative class by open competition. Of these, 210 came from public schools in the wider sense, that is 74 per cent. of the whole, 27 from grant aided schools, 18 from Scottish day schools and 28 from miscellaneous sources. In the period immediately following that war 197 men entered the administrative class by open reconstruction examination. Of these, 125, or 63.5 per cent., came from public schools, 43 from grant aided schools, 18 from Scottish and II from other, schools. Following the resumption of normal competitions after the first World War, of 426 men who entered the administrative class by open competition between 1925 and 1937, there were 263, or 61.8 per cent., who came from public schools, 107, or 25 per cent., from grant aided schools, 41 from Scottish and 15 from other schools. Of the persons who were appointed to the head of a first class Department between the wars, an analysis of 61 persons showed that 40 came from public schools, II from grant aided schools, five from Scottish schools and five from other sources.
  1194
  The term public schools is used in these figures in its widest sense, and if we make a division between boarding and day schools, we find that boarding schools supplied 40 per cent, of the entrants from 1905 to 1914, 40 per cent. of the 1919–20 reconstruction entrants, and 33.8 per cent. of the open entrants between 1925 and 1937, so that those figures show, though it is not a very great increase, that there has been a progressive increase in the number of high posts in the Civil Service held by the products of the grant aided schools. It is to my mind not satisfactory but at least there is a progressive increase.
  Then we must remember in considering this problem that State aided grammar school education is a comparatively modern development. In 1904, for instance, there were 9,000 places in State aided schools. In 1946, there were 580,000. Public schools have been going for 400 years, and State schools for only approximately 40 years. I do not think that at the present time we are in a position to evaluate the products of grammar schools in connection with the Civil Service. There has not yet been time. The percentage of pupils staying on in grammar schools for sixth form work has been relatively small but there has been a considerable advance in recent years. If we take the figures for entrants for higher school certificate examinations we find that before the last war, in 1938–39 there were 13,000 entrants. The position today is that there is an increase of 6,000 making a total of 19,000. I think I must tell my hon. Friend that it is the policy of the Government to improve facilities and to increase opportunities of access to universities. This is another factor that will ultimately tend to rectify the present disproportion.
  An extremely important point was raised concerning university scholarships. Perhaps the hon. Member will pardon me if I remind him of a quotation that occurs in the report of the Norwood Committee. In that report the following words occur:
  "There should be no need for a successful candidate to search round for means of supplementing the college or university award."
  I am glad to able to inform the House that very soon the right hon. Lady will be making an important pronouncement upon the whole question of awards for university students. I am not in a position tonight as a junior Minister to anticipate that statement but a statement will be

  1195
  made in regard to this subject. There is no question but that access to the Civil Service has been conditioned by the opportunities for pupils from State aided schools to get to universities. My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise that. The State scholarship scheme, however, only began in 1920. I would be the first to admit that even now it is far from being fully developed. If we can get a big increase in the accommodation at universities and of facilities in the shape of scholarships, then I think again it will have a material effect.
  When we consider the general points raised by my hon. Friend it is, as he said, a fact that there is a division in the educational world between two nations. The problem of the public schools to my mind is not educational, it is psychological and social. There is no reason at all for believing that Winchester, Eton or Harrow, can show a higher intelligence quotient than the Manchester Grammar School, or any of the good maintained secondary schools where there is a selected academic training. I do not agree with some of the points made by my hon. Friend in this connection. Where the public schools, in the narrower sense of being independent boarding schools with great traditions, do score is that they have a far better staffing rate, as my hon. Friend points out—approximately one in 12 or 14—while in the State schools of the selected grammar school type there is one staff to 28 or 30 as an average. Again, as was pointed out, the public schools have their pupils for longer periods with that expensive preparatory school training as a back ground. Because of economic advantages held by their parents, the pupils of these closed independent public schools have chances which those of the average secondary schools have not got. Yet in spite of this, I contend that boys and girls from maintained schools have shown themselves as intelligent, intellectually gifted and as capable of leadership as those from the great public schools, and, surely, the events of the last six years have shown this to be true. I am convinced that if the highest type of State secondary education were available for boys and girls from every type of home according to ability, to train for the highest professions—for the Civil Ser-
  1196
  vice, for instance—the public schools would lose the race.
  We intend that State secondary education with boarding facilities, fine modern buildings, well equipped class rooms and laboratories will give advantages that have been denied to many who have not the wealth to obtain them at public schools. Yet an extraordinary position exists today, and has existed, getting more and more acute, as my right hon. Friend points out, in the last century. The status of the public schools, which are closed corporations for the wealthy, is based not on intellectual qualities but on capacity for payment. The words of a manifesto issued in 1942 convey vividly what I mean:
  "Britain is the only great industrial country where wealth systematically buys a different type of education for its offspring, where education sets a different aim for the wealthy than for those less well off."
  That was a manifesto in 1942, signed by distinguished scholars in the realms of science and art. The problem of the public schools, as I see it, is there, because it divides the English children as far as educational opportunities are concerned into two distinct and separate sections. It is a question of social prestige, not of one having a better education than the other, or a higher intelligence quotient among its pupils. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no suggestion among those of us who say these things that public school education is bad. In fact, some of the best schools in the world are among the English independent boarding schools in the public school system. There is no question about that at all. There has been great leadership by headmasters in those public schools. There has been educational experimentation. Let us not forget also that under the State system as well there has been a great deal of educational experimentation of a very high order indeed, but we are not decrying the public school education at its best. What we say is that the State system must be given the inspiration and the money to create across the length and breadth of the land schools that are as good as and even better than the great scholastic institutions of our country.
  It is no long-term solution to suggest that a percentage should be skimmed from the cream of State pupils and sent to independent boarding schools. The

  1197
  only solution, to my mind, is for our generation to offer only the best education that we can devise in terms of buildings, playing fields, swimming baths, libraries, class rooms and, above all, the best trained staffs. Our long-term slogan, perhaps, ought to be "Get the public school type into the State schools." The real democratisation of our society rests upon the introduction of a universal system of primary education for all Along those
  1198
  lines, and based upon that principle, whatever may follow after primary education, it seems to me that we have the spirit of a democracy where there is no longer a division in educational opportunity between those who have wealth and those who have not.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

  PALESTINE (TRANS-ARABIAN PIPELINE)
  Mr. Keeling
  asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what financial advantages Palestine will gain from the grant of a concession to the Trans-Arabian Pipeline Company to carry oil through Palestine.

  Mr. George Hall: Palestine will receive no direct financial benefit from the pipeline, but its construction and maintenance will provide increased employment and indirect revenue.

  EAST AFRICA (INDIANS AND EUROPEANS, WELFARE)
  Sir G. Fox
  asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what total amount have been expended by the British Government on welfare and education throughout East Africa for Indians and Europeans, respectively, from 1937 to 1945.

  Mr. George Hall:
  I am asking the Governors concerned for the information required and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member in due course.

  CYPRUS (CITRUS FRUIT, EXPORTS)
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke
  asked the till Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the free export of citrus fruit from Cyprus is prohibited; that the costs of producing the fruit have risen by 400 per cent. on prewar costs and that the effect of the marketing scheme is to raise prices to producers only to 75 per cent. on prewar prices; and what action he is taking in the matter.

  Mr. George Hall:
  All exports from Cyprus are still subject to export licence, but these licences are granted freely for grapefruit and lemons. The Ministry of Food contract price for oranges was a least as favourable as the price paid to Palestine. As this figure was not sufficient to provide a profit for the producers in view of the high cost of production, and the prospects of disposing of the crop elsewhere were doubtful, the Cyprus Government agreed with the producers to
  88
  purchase the entire crop, to set off possible export loss against profits of local sales and to spread profit or loss evenly among producers. As yet an initial payment has been made to the producers. Additional proceeds depending on market price locally will be distributed at the end of the season. I cannot yet say how the final return to the producer will compare with the prewar price but it is expected to be at any rate twice the prewar figure and, therefore, well above the 75 per cent. increase quoted by the hon. Member. Production costs as reported are approximately three times the prewar figure.

  DISTRICT REGISTRIES (DIVORCE JURISDICTION)
  Wing-Commander Robinson
  asked the Attorney-General whether, in order to meet the convenience of all parties concerned, he will extend the jurisdiction of the Blackpool District Registry of the High Court to matrimonial causes similar to that of the registries named in Appendix I to the Matrimonial Causes Rules, 1944.

  The Attorney-General:
  Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has consulted with the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Divorce Division and it is proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the Blackpool District Registry in the manner suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. Divorce jurisdiction is also to be conferred on the District Registries at Southport, Halifax, Coventry, Reading and Peterborough. The new jurisdiction will be exerciseable at these places on and after 1st July next.

ROYAL AIR FORCE

  W.A.A.F. (G) Officers (Releases)
  Wing-Commander Hulbert
  asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the release of W.A.A.F. (G) officers is 13 groups behind the average release of other W.A.A.F. officers; and what steps is he prepared to take to remedy this state of affairs.

  Mr. Strachey: I am afraid the forecast just issued does show that W.A.A.F. (G)

  89
  officers will be 12 Groups behind at the end of July. These are key officers with the special job of looking after W.A.A.F detachments. The trouble about replacements is that there are no other W.A.A.F officers to spare. However, we are no content to see this lag continue, and we, hope that a combination of remedies we, are applying will have substantially altered the position by next September.

  Bellgrove Hotel, Glasgow
  Mr. Stephen
  asked the Under Secretary of State for Air if he will take steps to secure the early derequisitioning, of the Bellgrove Hotel, Duke Street, Glasgow, in view of the housing shortag in this district of the city.

  Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. This hotel will be released by the end of this month.

  Night Flying, Taunton (Complaints)
  Mr. Collins
  asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that residents in Taunton, Somerset are repeatedly disturbed between midnight an 2 a.m. by low altitude flying, and if he will take appropriate steps in the matter.

  Mr. Strachey:
  No, Sir. I was not aware of this complaint and still find it difficult to understand since there has been no regular Royal Air Force night flying near Taunton for the past two months. We have been in touch with the other Departments who might be concerned, but we have not yet been able to identify the cause of the trouble. But I will gladly make further inquiries if the hon. Member could let me have more particulars of time and place.

  Derequisitioned Houses, Ruislip
  Mr. Beswick
  asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that properties in Ruislip, at 27, Church Avenue, and 8, Manor Road, previously occupied by his Department, are now both empty; that the respective owners are without homes; and when these properties will be derequisitioned.

  Mr. Strachey: These two houses, which had been unoccupied since Easter, have now been derequisitioned.

  STATE OWNED CONCERNS (APPOINTMENTS)
  Mr. J. R. Thomas
  asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the setting up of a panel of professional, financial, technical, administrative and labour executives known and proved to be sympathetic to the Labour Party's programme of nationalisation and State ownership; and will he consider issuing a directive to Ministers that appointments to international organisations and national boards of State owned concerns be chiefly made from this panel.

  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government's policy is to appoint to all posts the best qualified persons who are available.

  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN REFUGEES (REPATRIATION)
  Mr. Martin
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many German and Austrian refugees in this country have applied for repatriation since the cessation of hostilities; how many have so far been repatriated and for what main classes of employment they went; and if he will give an indication of the position or services they have occupied or rendered in the respective zones of the Allied occupation.

  Mr. J. Hynd:
  Many thousands have applied in various ways but only 197 written applications have been received in the Control Office. Thirty-six have been repatriated who were urgently required for reconstruction tasks; 17 politicians, II civil servants, five trade union leaders, two journalists, and one judge. In the time available I have not been able to ascertain what service they have rendered since their return.

FOOD SUPPLIES

  Blue Peas
  Mr. E. P. Smith
  asked the Minister of Food how many tons of blue peas have been shipped from this country to Holland since 1st September, 1945; and how many tons of blue peas have been shipped from Holland to this country during the same period.
  91
  Sir B. Smith:
  No blue peas have been shipped by my Department to Holland. I have purchased from that country for the United Kingdom 2,948 tons of blue peas since 1st September, 1945, of which 1,948 tons have been shipped; the balance of 1,000 tons is now in course of shipment.

  Members of Parliament (Correspondence)
  Mr. Collins
  asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that district food executive officers have been instructecd to forward correspondence from Members, of Parliament to divisional headquarters; and if he will explain the reason for this instruction.

  Sir B. Smith:
  Yes, Sir. This instruction applies to all correspondence from Members of Parliament except that which concerns a Member personally as a consumer or producer of food. The reason for the general instruction is that Members of Parliament frequently raise questions involving wider considerations that would normally be within the cognisance of a food executive officer.

  Eggs
  Mrs. Mann
  asked the Minister of Food what is likely to be the maximun number of shell eggs for each ration book on closing date end of May; and what are the prospects for June, July and August.

  Sir B. Smith:
  I regret that owing partly to a shortfall in the supply of eggs from overseas and partly to the severe weather in March issues of shell eggs have fallen short of what I had anticipated. The prospects now are that 30 egg allocations will be completed by the end of May. I regret that I cannot predict the number of allocations for the ensuing three months as available supplies of eggs will be affected by the increasing shortage of poultry feeding stuffs.

  Mr. Hurd
  asked the Minister of Food what effect the two recent reductions in feeding stuffs rations for poultry will have on egg production and consumers' egg rations in the next 12 months.

  Sir B. Smith:
  As regards the reduction in rations of poultry food made on Ist May, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on the 10th April. The further temporary cut in rations for July, August and September,
  92
  recently announced by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, will not, I hope, seriously accentuate the normal seasonal decline in supplies of home produced eggs during this period.

  Bananas
  Mrs. Mann
  asked the Minister of Food when there is likely to be a delivery of bananas for the adult population of Great Britain.

  Sir B. Smith:
  Owing to the continued shortage of ships suitable for the transport of bananas, I regret that I can hold out little hope that the quantities I can import will be sufficient to enable me to make a distribution to the adult population this year.

  Cauliflowers
  Mr. Spence
  asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the cost of Kent grown cauliflowers is 27s. 7d. per cwt. at Aberdeen and that the maximum permitted wholesale selling price in Aberdeen is 27s. 6d. per cwt.; and what action he intends to take to adjust prices of these vegetables.

  Sir B. Smith:
  Under the provisions of the Green Vegetables Order, 1945, the maximum price at which cauliflower may be sold by secondary wholesale at Aberdeen during the period 2nd March to 2nd June, 1946, is 34s. 3d. per cwt. trimmed and 26s. 3d. per cwt. untrimmed. Aberdeen traders are able to obtain supplies at this time of the year from Lincolnshire and will shortly be able to get them from Yorkshire. I am advised that the carriage allowance provided for in the Order should be sufficient to leave a reasonable margin to the trader, but I am looking further into the matter.

  Coffee (International Trade)
  Dr. Stross
  asked the Minister of Food whether he has any announcement to make regarding the restoration of facilities for the United Kingdom merchants, to conduct an entrepôt trade in coffee.

  Sir B. Smith: Yes, Sir. Provisional arrangements have been made in agreement with the Coffee Trade Federation, the Coffee Importers and Exporters Association, and the Coffee Brokers

  93
  Association, for merchants to resume their international business in coffee. Under these arrangements recognised merchants who take part in the scheme will be permitted to import coffee from any country for resale for resale for sterling, and I hope that this business will ultimately make a substantial contribution to our overseas income, and that it may be possible eventually to re-establish in London the international coffee market which was active here before the 1914–1918 war.

  Fish
  Major Leǵǵe-Bourke
  asked the Minister of Food what orders are in force regarding the removal of rib, bone and flap from fish supplied by coastal merchants to inland purveyors; and if he is satisfied that these orders are being fully complied with.

  Sir B. Smith: The Fish (Control and Maximum Prices) Order, 1946, provides that, when fish is sold as fillets, the bones and the greater part of the flap, as well as certain other parts of the fish, must be removed. In the case of flat fish the flap need not be removed. I have had complaints that the Regulation is not fully observed, but proceedings are taken wherever satisfactory evidence is forthcoming.

  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison
  asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the fixed retail price of Is. 5½ per lb. for haddock filleted by the Scottish method is considered to be quite inadequate by Scottish fishmongers; and whether he will review this matter.

  Sir B. Smith: I am aware of the complaint of the Scottish fishmongers, and am considering ways of overcoming the difficulty.

  Linseed Oil
  Colonel Ropner
  asked the Minister of Food whether taking into account the overall world shortage of vegetable oils and oil seeds, he contemplates allocating an increased supply of linseed oil to paint manufacturers; and whether he is aware that, owing to the present shortage, the demands of the shipping industry both for maintenance of vessels at sea, repairs to them in port, and the coating of new tonnage, cannot be met.

  Sir B. Smith: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." I
  94
  regret that I cannot provide an increased allocation of linseed oil for paint. As regards the second part of the Question, my information is that, while some complaints have been received about the supply of paint for maintenance at sea, enough is at present available for requirements in port and in ship building yards. I understand that consideration is being given to the desirability of allocating paint between the more urgent uses.

  Bread (Daily Delivery)
  Mr. Ernest Davies
  asked the Minister of Food by how much the consumption of bread has increased as a result of the reinstitution of its daily delivery.

  Sir B. Smith:
  Although the restrictions on the delivery of bread were removed on 31st March there has so far been no general resumption of full daily delivery services. There is no reason to think that this development has had any effect on the level of bread consumption.

  Rice (World Allocations)
  Mr. Nicholson
  asked the Minister of Food the latest figures for the allocation of grain to the various countries provisionally agreed upon by the Combined Food Board.

  Sir B. Smith: Rice is the only grain which is formally allocated by the Combined Food Board. On 2nd May the Board released a Press statement regarding their recommendation for the distribution of rice during the second quarter of 1946. I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

  Wheat is not subject to formal allocation by the Combined Food Board. The constant changes in requirements and the uncertainties of supply make it necessary for exports from the main producing countries to he programmed on a month to month basis. This programme is undertaken in the light of discussions on the Cereals Committee in Washington. Full details regarding the quantities programmed to the different claimant countries have not yet been received from Washington, but I will endeavour to obtain them and communicate them to the hon. Member.

  Following is the statement

  The Combined Food Board has reached an agreed basis for the distribution of rice during the second quarter of 1946. Estimates of rice supplies available for allocation in

  95
  1946 are still too tentative to permit a recommendation to be made for the full year at this time. The quantities indicated in the table below are intended merely to enable claimants to proceed with procurement and shipping arrangements during the April-June quarter, and will be revised as considered necessary by the Board. These quantities should not be interpreted as bearing any direct relationship to the total quantity of rice to be recommended for any claimant for the full calendar year. Countries controlling supplies are being urged by the Board to keep deliveries to claimants in line with the recommended allocation shares except for such substitutions of source as may be agreed by the operating agencies concerned in order to meet shipping and other problems. The Board recommended further that the appropriate national authorities make every effort to increase the amount of rice available for export from all sources. Essential world import requirements for rice during the April. June quarter, as submitted to the Board,
  96
  amount to approximately 2.1 million metric tons according to the Rice Committee of the Board, the quantity now indicated as being available for export from all sources is approximately 581,600 tons, as shown in the following table. Widespread crop failures, coming at a time when wartime strains had already reduced production substantially, have now given rise to a desperate situation. Widespread famine is threatened in many rice-eating areas of the world, notably China and South-East Asia, India and the Far East generally. Present estimates indicate exports of less than 1.5 million tons from Burma, Siam and French Indo-China in 1946, as compared with prewar exports of nearly 6 million tons. No allocations of rice have been recommended for European countries in order that all available supplies may be reserved for those areas where rice is the basic food. The requirements of the rice-importing areas in the western hemisphere have been scaled down to provide only for the subsistence of rice-eating populations.

  Recommended allocation of rice second quarter of 1946

  Country

  Recommended Allocation

  Source.

  India

  146,000

  Brazil

  24,300

  Burma

  15,000

  Siam

  106,700

  UNRRA (China)

  100,000

  U.S.A.

  36,500

  Chile

  7,300

  Siam

  50 900

  Argentina

  4,000

  Portuguese Guiana and Rice-eating populations Surinam

  1,300

  Ceylon

  90,000

  Brazil

  48,000

  Egypt

  42,000

  Malaya

  69,000

  Siam

  57,000

  Australia

  12,000

  Cuba

  39,200

  U.S.A.

  18,100

  Chile

  2,900

  Dominican Republic

  8,200

  Ecuador

  10,000

  Philippines

  39,000

  U.S.A.

  27,200

  Siam

  11,800

  Puerto Rico

  25,400

  U.S.A.

  Hong Kong

  20,000

  Siam

  Netherland East Indies

  9,800

  Siam

  Far East (British Military)

  9,800

  Siam

  Middle East

  8,000

  Egypt

  British Pacific Islands

  3,000

  Australia

  British West Indies

  7,500

  British Guiana

  Hawaii

  5,700

  U.S.A.

  Mauritius

  4,900

  Brazil

  2,400

  British Guiana

  2,500

  British Borneo

  4,000

  Siam

  Seychelles

  300

  Brazil

  Total

  581,600

  In addition to the 50,900 tons indicated for U.N.R.R.A. for China from Siam, the Board has recommended that there be made available the first 15,000 tons of any supplies becoming available for export from Siam over and above the presently estimated quantity of 270,000 tons for the second quarter. If these potentially available supplies from Siam are included, the total recommended allocation for China becomes 115,000 tons.

  Wheat (U.S. Shipments)
  Captain Crowder
  asked the Minister of Food the quantity of grain which was due to have been exported from the U.S.A. during March and April; and what quantity was actually exported.

  Sir B. Smith: At the time of my visit to Washington in February the target set

  97
  by the U.S.A. for shipments of wheat and flour during the first half of 1946 was at the rate of one million tons (wheat equivalent) per month. I understand that shipments during March totalled about 896,000 tons and that the April figure may be about 720,000 tons.

  Imported Fruit Allocation (Personal Case)
  Major Beamish
  asked the Minister of Food on what grounds his official decided that a licence to sell imported fruit and tomatoes should not be granted to Mr. T. G. Vine, the owner of a greengrocer's and fruiterer's business in Coldean, North Moulscombe; why they reported that Mr. Vine's claim of consumer need was groundless; and whether he is aware that Mr. Vine, being over military age, cannot qualify for a licence as an ex-Serviceman and that the greengrocer's business, which Mr. Vine is now running, was run as such until the outbreak of war, being closed down owing to the ill-health of the owner.

  Sir B. Smith: With regard to the first part of the Question, Mr. Vine does not qualify for allocations of imported fruit and tomatoes on priority grounds, and I am satisfied that consumer need for another distribution point in the area is not sufficient to justify the grant of allocations to him. With regard to the second part of the Question, the desire of local residents to obtain imported fruit and tomatoes from the nearest shop cannot in itself be regarded as sufficient reason for allowing another distribution point to be set up if there are, as in this case, other shops selling the commodities in question within a reasonable distance. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir," but Mr. Vine did not purchase an existing business. The fact that the premises he took over may have been used previously for greengrocery gives him no entitlement to allocations of imported fruit and tomatoes.

  Fishing Restrictions, Ulster Ports
  Sir W. Smiles
  asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Ulster ports were closed to fishing on 13th, 14th 15th, 19th, 22nd and 29th March and 4th and 5th April; that on days when boats were allowed to fish they were usually restricted to only 30 boxes of fish per boat; and if he is now in a position to allow more fish to be landed.
  98
  Sir B. Smith:
  The answer to the first and second parts of the Question is "Yes, Sir." The restrictions were self-imposed by the fishermen in order to cope with the glut of whiting, but they have my approval in so far as they avoid dumping or condemnations which might result because of the limited demand for this fish in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and because of the difficulties in transporting or preserving it. I am anxious, however, to see the fleet more fully utilised and am ready to consider any practicable steps towards this end.

  Bread
  Sir W. Smiles
  asked the Minister of Food if he will allow shopkeepers to sell bread in slices in order to prevent a large heel being left on each loaf which is very often wasted; and if he is aware, that in the smaller loaves now to be sold there may be many more heels wasted.

  Sir B. Smith: Except for the sale of sliced bread to catering establishments and institutions, the wrapping and slicing of bread by mechanical means or in specially prepared wrapping paper is prohibited by the Bread (Control and Maximum Prices) (No. 2) Order of 1943. This Order was made owing to the shortage of waxed paper and of labour, and I am afraid that until there are adequate supplies of waxed paper available, the slicing of bread before sale would only tend to increase waste. I shall review the position as soon as adequate supplies of waxed paper can be made available.

  So far as the latter part of the Question is concerned, the new lighter loaves introduced this week should not be substantially less in volume than the loaves they replace. Members of the public ought not to purchase increased numbers of these lighter loaves and there should, therefore, be no reason why any greater wastage should occur.

TRADE AND COMMERCE

  Cotton Imports (Sampling)
  Mr. Erroll
  asked the President of the Board of Trade what facilities spinners have for sampling raw cotton before acceptance from the Cotton Control; and what facilities will be provided by the new Purchasing Commission.

  Mr. Marquand:
  Port conditions due to the war have obliged cotton imports to

  99
  be stored inland in conditions which do not permit of sampling, but gradually as port storage becomes available for new arrivals, facilities for sampling will be made available up to the full extent of the demand.

  Stockings
  Air-Commodore Harvey
  asked the President of the Board of Trade when silk and nylon stockings may be expected to be on sale in the shops.

  Mr. Belcher:
  Very small supplies of pure silk stockings have always been reaching the home market, and will continue to do so. But pure silk is an expensive and imported raw material, and stockings made from it will, for the most part, be exported. I hope nylon stockings will begin to appear in the shops within the next three months.

  Spanish Press Services (Newsprint)
  Mr. G. Thomas
  asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he now proposes to prevent any further allocation of newsprint to the Spanish Press Services, Limited.

  Mr. Belcher: No, Sir. The control of paper could not be employed as an instrument of censorship.

  Jackets and Trousers (Kenya)
  Mr. Touche
  asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the importation into Kenya, by a Government contractor in Manchester, of 500,000 jackets anc trousers for sale at 4s. each; and why this large amount of clothing has been sent to Kenya at this price.

  Mr. Marquand:
  I understand that the jackets and trousers in question have been advertised in Kenya at the price mentioned, but I have no evidence that the goods have been exported. Since 23rd April, non-utility garments have been removed from the export licensing list.

  World Trade
  Sir W. Wakefield
  asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give estimated figures of world trade in 1946 1947 and 1948, together with the anticipated share of this country in such work trade, and comparable figures for 1938 and if he will state the amount of expor trade formerly done by countries such
  100
  as Germany and Japan, which it is expected will be obtained by the United Kingdom, using convenient years for comparative purposes.

  Mr. Marquand: I am not in a position to furnish the estimates asked for.

  Hearing Aid Batteries
  Mr. Touche
  asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that some companies have recently increased the price of all hearing aid batteries, but not the standard range of wireless and torch batteries; and, in view of the hardship that this involves on deaf persons, if he will make a statement on the subject.

  Mr. Belcher:
  I am informed that this is the first increase in the price of these batteries since before the war, though there have been previous increases in the price of torch and wireless batteries. I have asked the Central Price Regulation Committee to make inquiries.

  Doormats
  Dr. Segal
  asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will undertake to provide an adequate supply of coconut-fibre doormats.

  Mr. Belcher:
  The production of doormats in the United Kingdom is larger than before the war, but almost all our supplies used to come from India. There is a world shortage of the coir yarn from which they are made.

  Bottlinǵ Jars
  Dr. Seǵal
  asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ensure an ample supply of screw capped bottling jars to be made available in good time before the fruit bottling season commences.

  Mr. Belcher: I cannot promise that there will be a fuller supply of bottling jars than there was last year, and I am afraid that the public may again have to make use of jam jars with special closures. We are doing everything we can to assist the glass container manufacturers, but they are faced with heavy requirements of bottles for other important food and drink and for medicines.

  Timber Poles
  Major Diǵ
  by asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the relative

  101
  priority given to the needs of the Post Office for timber poles for the telephone service and to electricity companies which urgently need supplies of poles for the extension of electricity supplies to rural areas.

  Mr. Belcher: No general distinction of priority is made but available supplies are allocated in consultation with the Departments concerned.

  Victory Mugs
  Mr. Osborne
  asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that orders from local councils for Victory mugs for schoolchildren have been refused owing to the needs of the export trade; and if he will grant a temporary concession to manufacture these mugs until 8th June.

  Mr. Belcher: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir," but I am not prepared to grant the concession sought in the latter part. This decision is in line with what was said by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on 18th February and I cannot see any sufficient reason for the temporary concession requested.

  Potteries District
  Mr. A. Edward Davies
  asked the President of the Board of Trade what new industries have been recently allocated to North Staffordshire; and whether he has any plans under consideration for providing a greater diversity of industry and more employment in that area.

  Mr. Belcher:
  The Potteries district is one of the areas in which, after the Development Areas, we are making every effort to provide a more diversified industrial structure. Three Government-owned factories have been allocated to civilian production during the past nine months. The firms to whom they have been allocated are engaged in the electrica industry and will provide employment opportunities for about 5,000 on work of a type not available in North Staffordshire before the war.

  In addition 23 building schemes have been approved. Three will be new factories for existing industry, 19 for the modernisation and extension of existing factories and the remaining scheme is for the construction of a factory which will produce aluminium household fittings am utensils and will be a new industry for the district. These schemes when com-
  102
  pleted will provide employment for about 4,500 additional workers.

  Travellers (Personal Effects)
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the British Trade Commission in Montreal, Canada, to give full and clear details to prospective travellers to this country regarding the regulations governing the importation of personal effects for the use in this country of the visitor, and so avoid misunderstanding, such as occurred in the case sent to him by the hon. Member for West Leicester.

  Mr. Marquand:
  I have been asked to reply. The duties of His Majesty's trade commissioners do not normally include giving advice to intending travellers regarding Customs and Excise regulations governing the importation of visitors' personal effects for their use in this country. I am, however, sending to all trade commissioner posts copies of a memorandum giving the latest details of the regulations, although I would point out that there is no reason to think that all persons travelling to the United Kingdom will approach trade commissioners for information on this subject.

  Meanwhile, I am causing inquiries to be made from His Majesty's Trade Commissioner at Montreal regarding the case to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. From information already in my possession, it appears that the bulk of the traveller's luggage was admitted free of duty under the concession applying to used personal effects. Duties and Purchase Tax were only levied on the consumable stores and certain other articles which were obviously new and which were, therefore, clearly outside this category.

  CIVIL AIRCRAFT (PRODUCTION TYPES)
  Air-Commodore Harvey
  asked the Minister of Supply if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the specifications of aircraft and engines referred to in the letter sent to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield on 11th April, 1946, together with those aircraft likely to be in production before the end of 1947.

  Mr. Wilmot:
  Following is the information for which the hon. and gallant Member asked:
  103 104

  Name

  Maker

  Engines

  Description

  Gross Weight lb.

  Cruising Conditions.

  A.—TYPES OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT AT PRESENT IN PRODUCTION.

  1 Tudor I

  A. V. Roe

  4 X 1,660 h.p Merlin 600 (later Merlin 62I)

  Range 4,200 miles. Accommodation for 12 night or 24 day passengers.

  78,000

  245 m.p.h. at 25,000 ft.

  2 Tudor II

  A. V. Roe

  4 X 1,660 h.p. Merlin 600 (later Merlin 621)

  Range approx. 2,500 miles. Accommodation for 40 day and 20 night passengers.

  80,000

  245 m.p.h. at 25,000 ft.

  3 Solent

  Short Bros

  4 X 1.725 h.p. Hercules XX

  Flying Boat. Range approx. 2,500 miles. Civil version of RAF Seaford. Accommodation for 24 passengers and 8,500 lbs. freight.

  75,000

  185 m.p.h. at 10,000 ft.

  4 Lancastrian III

  A. V. Roe

  4 X 1,610 h.p. Merlin T 24/2

  Range approx. 2.760 miles. Accommodation for 13 day passengers or 6 night.

  65,000

  200 m.p.h. at 10,000 ft.

  5 York

  A. V. Roe

  4 X 1,610 h.p. Merlin T 24/2

  Range approx. 3,000 miles. Accommodation varies for from 12 to 24 passengers plus freight.

  65,000

  200 m.p.h. at 15,000 ft.

  6 Halton

  Short & Harland

  4 X 1,675 h.p. Hercules 100

  Range approx. 2,400 miles. Accommodation for to day passengers and freight up to 6,600 lbs. Conversion of Halifax bomber.

  65,000

  200 m.p.h. at 10,000 ft.

  7 Sandringham

  short & Hartano

  4 X 1,200 h.p. Pratt & Whitney R. 1830.

  Conversion of R.A.F. Sunderland V, flying boat. Range approx. 2,500 miles. Accommodation for up to 45 day passengers.

  56,000

  170 m.p.h. at 10,000 ft.

  8 Wayfarer

  Bristol Aeroplane Co.

  2 X 1,675 h.p. Hercules 131

  Passenger or freighter aircraft. Range approx. 1,000 miles. Accommodation for 34 day passengers.

  35,000

  182 m.p.h. at 10,000 ft.

  9 Freighter

  Do.

  2 X 1,675 h.p. Hercules 131

  Range approx. 1,000 miles. Load 3½–4 tons

  10 Viking

  Vickers Armstrongs

  2 X 1,675 h.p. Hercules 130

  Range approx. 1,000 miles Accommodation for 21-–27 day passengers.

  34,500

  240 m.p.h. at 10,000 ft.

  11 Junkers 52

  Short & Harland

  3 X 600 h.p. BMW 132.

  Range about 1,050 miles. Conversion. Accomodation for 12 assengers and stewardess.

  23,100

  105 m.p.h. at 3,000 ft.

  12 Avro XIX

  A. V. Roe

  2 X 420 h.p. Cheetah XV

  Range 600 miles. Accommodation 6–9 day passengers.

  9,770

  155 m.p.h. at 5,000 ft.

  13 Dove

  De Havilland

  2 X 330 h.p. Gipsy Queen 71

  Range approx. 500 miles. Accommodation for 8–10 passengers.

  8,000

  160 m.p.h. at 5,000 ft.

  Consul

  Airspeed

  2 X 410 h.p. Cheetah X

  Conversion of Oxford. Range approx. 980 miles. Accommodation for 5 passengers.

  7,900

  122 m.p.h. at 5,000 ft.

  15 Rapide (Dominie)

  De Havilland

  2 X 185 h.p. Gipsy Queen III.

  Range over 900 miles. Accommodation for 5 passengers.

  6,000

  120 m.p.h. at 5,000 ft.

  16 Aerovan

  Miles Aircraft

  2 X 158 h.p. Cirrus Major.

  Range approx. 450 miles. Payload 2,000 lbs. (Freighter) or accommodation for 10 passengers.

  5,400

  (Passenger version) 5,800 (Freighter)

  105 106

  Name.

  Maker.

  Engines.

  Description.

  Gross Weight lb.

  Cruising Conditions.

  17 Proctor

  Percival Aircraft

  1 X 210 h.p. Gipsy Queen II

  Range approx. 600 miles. Accommodation for 4 passengers.

  3,500

  140 m.p.h. at 5,000 ft.

  18 Gemini

  Miles Aircraft

  2 X 101 h.p. Cirrus Minor II

  Range approx. 500 miles. Seats 4–5

  3,000

  130 m.p.h.

  19 Messenger

  Miles Aircraft

  1 X 140 h.p. Gipsy Major or 1 X 158 h.p Cirrus Major

  Range approx. 450 miles. Accommodation or 4 passengers.

  2,425

  100 m.p.h. at 2,000 ft.

  Auster

  Auster Aircraft

  (a) 1 X 65 h.p Franklin or Continental.

  Range 200 miles. 2-seater type.

  1,400

  83 m.p.h.

  (b) 1 X 100 h.p. Blackburn Cirrus

  Range 220 miles. 3-seater type (Autocrat

  1850

  100 m.p.h.

  B.—TYPES OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT LINKELY TO BE IN PRODUCTION BEFORE THE END OF 1947

  Brabazon I (*)

  Bristol Aeroplane Co

  8 X 3,500 h.p Proteus.

  Range 5,000 miles. Accommodation for 72 night passengers.

  284,000

  350 m.p.h. at 35,000 ft.

  Hermes

  Handley Page

  4 X 1,675 h.p. Hercules 100

  Range approx. 2,500 miles. Accommodation for 34 to 40 passengers.

  75,000

  240 m.p.h. at 25,000 ft.

  Ambassador

  Airspeed

  2 X 2,520 h.p Centaurus.

  Range approx. 1,000 miles. Accommodation for 24 to 39 day pasengers.

  4,5000

  240 m.p.h. at 20,000 ft.

  Marathon

  Miles Aircraft

  4 X 330 h.p. Gipsy Queen 71

  Range approx. 750 miles. Accommodation 14 day passengers.

  16,500

  175 m.p.h. at 10,000 ft.

  Concordia

  Cunliffe Owen

  2 X 500 h.p. Alvis Leonides

  Range approx. 1,000 miles Accommodation or to passengers.

  11,000

  180 m.p.h. at 5,000 ft

  Merganser

  Percival Aircraft

  2 X 295 h.p. Gipsy Queen 51

  Range approx. 800 miles. Pay load 1,150 bs (including 5 passengers).

  6,800

  160 m.p.h. at 5,000 ft.

  Aerocar

  Portsmouth Aviation

  (a) 2 X 158 h.p. Cirrus Major III

  Range 650 miles. Accommodation for 6 passengers

  3,700

  140 m.p.h.

  (b) 2 X 101 h.p. Cirrus Minor II.

  Range 830 miles. Accommodation for 5 passengers

  3,300

  118 m.p.h.

  (c) 2 X 101 h.p. Cirrus Minor II

  Range 770 miles. Accommodation for 6 passengers

  3,300

  110 m.p.h.

  Ace

  Chrislea Aircraft

  1 X 100 h.p. Monaco.

  Range approx. 400 miles 4 seater

  1,650

  110 m.p.h.

  (*) In this case no actual production deliveries are expected before the end of 1947 but considerable progress should have been made by then in flight trials of the first prototype and work on the production aircraft should be well in hand.

  Note.—All ranges quoted are still air ranges, with no other allowances.

  All figures are necessarily approximate and are liable to vary with development.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN (REINSTATEMENT)
  Mr. Loǵ
  an asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that some seamen, after serving temporarily in the R.N., are now being refused a place in the shipping pool; and why he is training men and .refusing experienced men.

  Mr. G. R. Strauss:
  Former members of the Merchant Navy who served in the Royal Navy during the war and who have the right of re-instatement in the Merchant Navy under the Re-instatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944, are entered in the Merchant Navy reserve pool on their release from Naval service if they so desire. Sympathetic consideration is given to applications from other ex-members of the Royal Navy for entry into the reserve pool, who are qualified to serve in merchant ships in capacities for which there are vacancies. Training for the Merchant Navy is restricted to boys between 16 and
  108
  17 years of age for service as junior deck end catering rating and to a limited number of adults who are required for employnent as fireman/trimmer in coal burning ships and as cooks.

BRITISH ARMY

  Ration Scales (Civilian Comparison)
  Sir T. Moore
  asked the Secretary of State for War how the rations issued to our Forces abroad and at home now compare with the rationed foods available to the civilian population in this country.

  Mr. Bellenǵer:
  The present weekly rations of the main items of food for the Services at home and overseas and for the civilian population of this country are as follow:

  Item

  British Services scale.(*)

  U.K

  Overseas (Except S.E.A.C.)

  S.E.A.C.

  Civilian Adult Scale in U.K

  ozs.

  ozs.

  ozs.

  Meat (Bone-in)

  35

  42

  63

  18. 2d.(†) worth

  Bacon

  8

  9

  16½

  3 ozs.

  Butter/Margarine and Cooking tats

  10½

  17½

  7 ozs.

  Sugar

  13

  14

  21

  8 ozs.

  Cheese

  6

  6

  7

  3 ozs.

  Jam

  7

  10½

  4 ozs.

  Tea

  2

  3½

  5¼

  2½

  (*) The ceiling figures for consumption of rationed foods in His Majesty's ships and Naval establishments approximate generally to these scales except that for sea-going ships the figures for meat are :—Home waters, 42 ozs.; Abroad, 7o ozs.

  (†) Includes 2d. worth of canned corned meat.

  I should, however, like to emphasise that any comparison of this sort between Service and civilian ration scales is liable to give a misleading impression. For example soldiers have a limited ration of foods such as bread and potatoes which are unrationed for civilians, and many civilians have greater opportunities to supplement their rations by meals in restaurants and canteens. The Home Service ration scales are at present under review.

  B.A.O.R. (Curfew)
  Mr. Driberǵ
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that an order has
  been issued in 32 Field Regiment, R.A., B.A.O.R., that the time of curfew for British troops is to remain at 23.00 hours, but that the time of curfew for German civilians has been altered from 22.30 to 23.30 hours; and if he will cause this apparent discrimination in favour of German civilians against British soldiers to be modified.

  Mr. Lawson:
  The time of curfew for British troops is left to the discretion of local commanders, but I understand that in the division concerned the time was altered to 23.59 hours a few days after the change in the time of the civilian curfew.

  Graves Registration Units (Exhumations)
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for War for how long at a time officers and other ranks, respectively, in Austria are employed in Graves Registration Units opening mass graves in connection with the investigation of war crimes; whether he is aware that many officers and men complain of the strain imposed on them by this work; and if any special measures to protect the mental and physical health of men engaged for long periods on this work are taken.

  Mr. Lawson:
  I regret that I have no details as to the time which has been spent by officers and other ranks on opening graves in connection with the investigation of war crimes. Exhumations for identification, or for concentration of isolated graves into war cemeteries are part of the normal duties of members of the Graves Service, for which they are specially equipped and for which extra duty pay is issued in view of its trying character. At the request of the authorities concerned they have occasionally undertaken exhumations in connection with the investigation of war crimes, but no complaints about this particular kind of work have so far been received by the War Office.

  Victory Celebrations (Home Guard)
  Captain C. Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for War the conditions under which Home Guard contingents in uniform may take part in parades organised on 8th June.

  Mr. Lawson:
  A uniformed contingent of the Home Guard will take part in the Victory March in London on 8th June and a Press notice about the wearing of uniform by ex-officers and men of the Home Guard generally on the occasion of the Victory Celebrations in June will be issued shortly.

  Mail Delays (Austria)
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts
  asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that letters from Servicemen in Austria still take from three to four weeks to reach their destination in this country; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy matters.
  110
  Mr. Lawson:
  I have been asked to reply. The normal time taken for letters to travel from the Base Post Office in Austria to the office of delivery in this country is four days. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any case where letters have taken three to four weeks I will gladly investigate it.

  Demobilisation
  Mr. Keenan
  asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the 7th and 8th Parties, age and service Group 28, proceeding to 6 Military Disembarkation Unit, Strensall, near York, arrived in Strensall at 0200 hours on 27th April; that they were delayed 24 hours owing to their discharge papers being mislaid; that when the papers came to hand the parties proceeded to 7 Military Dispersal Unit, Ashton-under-Lyne; that the papers had been in charge of a private from Tournai to Dover, where they were taken from him by an officer; and what action is he taking against the responsible officer whose carelessness delayed the demobilisation of a large number of men.

  Mr. Lawson:
  In accordance with the normal procedure the two officers who conducted these drafts throughout the journey from Tournai to Strensall handed over the release documents to the officer commanding troops of the ship in which they crossed the Channel, but owing to a misapprehension he did not return them to the draft conducting officers at the end of the crossing. Immediately the mistake was discovered the documents were sent by the fastest available means to Strensall. In spite of the slight delay in receiving their documents which I regret, the men spent less than 32 hours at the disembarkation camp as compared with the normal period of 24 hours or possibly slightly less.

  PURCHASE TAX
  Major Ramsay
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider refunding to retailers the purchase tax they have paid on those articles which are now relieved of such tax, in view of the fact that these articles are now only saleable at a loss.

  Mr. Dalton:
  I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for St.

  111
  Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Jeger).

  PAMPHLET (LEGALITY)
  Mr. Driberǵ
  asked the Attorney-General if he has considered a pamphlet, a copy of which has been sent to him, issued illegally without an imprint by Lieut.-Colonel L. Sheridan, public relations adviser in the United Kingdom to a Dutch political association; and what steps he is taking in this matter.

  The Attorney-General: Inquiries are being made in regard to this matter. When they are complete I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  TROOPING STAFFS (PAY)
  Sir W. Darlinǵ
  asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the disparity between the pay of permanent naval trooping staffs as compared with military and R.A.F. trooping staffs employed in similar capacities; and if he will take steps to correct it.

  Mr. Duǵdale:
  I am not clear what disparities the hon. Member has in mind. There are now no naval officers or men employed as permanent staffs in troopships The Naval staffs formerly employed on such duties in troopships
  112
  received Naval pay and allowances under Naval regulations. These rates of pay and allowances differ at a number of points from those of the Army and Royal Air Force owing to differences between the respective pay codes. It is not practicable to ensure that in all circumstances and at all times officers and men of all three Services employed on the same or analogous duties receive precisely the same remuneration, though the new pay codes which come into force on 1st July next mark an advance in this direction.

  BATHS (PRODUCTION)
  Captain Crookshank
  asked the Minister of Works the present rate of production of baths; to what extent their release is being restricted to prefabricated houses; and for what reason.

  Mr. Tomlinson:
  The present production of baths represents an annual rate of about 250,000. Of this production, 75 per cent. is of the Magna type, which by reason of its dimensions is specially suitable for use in temporary houses. In order that the temporary houses may be completed for occupation as rapidly as possible, the manufacturers have been directed to give priority in delivery for this use, which is at present absorbing the greater part of the production of this type of bath.

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord de Clifford—took the Oath.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, a question of which I have given private notice. It is to ask, in view of the fact that an important Government statement was made in another place yesterday without it being made also in this House, whether he can give an assurance that this will not be regarded as a precedent on other occasions.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I can quite fully and freely give the noble Viscount the assurance which he asks, and I must accept full responsibility myself for the fact that the statement was not made here yesterday. Between the time of the decision to make it and the meeting of the House I had not an opportunity of informing other noble Lords, and afterwards I was fully employed in work in connexion with the Dominion Conference. I will take care, however, that the precedent which we have set before is fully and faithfully observed.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.

BURMA LEGISLATURE BILL. [H.L.]
LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Listowel I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the Burma Legislature (including the law relating to the franchise in Burma), and to move that it be read a first time.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BORROWING (CONTROL AND GUARANTEES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF TEIGNMOUTH).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Urban District of Teignmouth and laid before this House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECONOMIC POSITION.
2.34 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL rose to call attention to the present state of the economic position in this country; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I put down this Motion, we have all been saddened by the news of the death of Lord Keynes. The whole House, I am sure, will agree in deploring that we cannot benefit to-day from his wisdom and his power to elucidate these complicated matters. I make no apology for raising this question, for nobody I am sure can deny that the economic position of the country gives cause for grave anxiety. If, in the course of my analysis, I should state some obvious elementary economic truisms, I trust I may be forgiven, I can only plead that a truism is so-called because it is true.
Two separate though, inter-related problems confront us. We have to consider, on the one hand, what are the prospects of a country with a stationary population, in which 40 per cent. of the national income is taken away in taxation and in which wholesale prices have increased

59
by 75 per cent. in six years. More pressing are the particular difficulties facing a country dependent on imports for more than half of its food and nearly all of its raw materials, which has sacrificed in its struggle for freedom most of its export trade and has lost in that cause the greater part of its foreign income from investments, insurance and banking and other sources, which has accumulated foreign debts amounting to nearly £4,000,000,000, and has selected that very moment to turn upside down many of its principal industries in largescale experiments in nationalization and in Government control.
On the broad issue my contention is as follows: A country which makes no attempt to balance its Budget, and sustains its expenditure by the printing press, is heading straight for galloping inflation. This course the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly repudiates. But if the Government wish to spend 40 per cent. of the national income without gravely unbalancing the Budget they must and do take most of this out of the pockets of the great mass of the population earning low wages and salaries, for there is nothing worth having left in the pockets of the rich. This will result in demands for higher wages and salaries which will, of course, lead inevitably to further rises in prices unless production is stepped up to meet the increase. The simplest remedy is to economize and to spend less. If the Government cannot or will not do this, they should try to increase production instead 'of hampering it at every turn, removing all incentive to effort and trying to run themselves vast, complex industries which demand a lifetime of study. If they cannot carry through either or both of these policies to an adequate degree, the only hope—though I agree it is a slender one—is to persuade people to be content with less by dispelling the idea, once for all, that they can get something for nothing.
Never in our history, so far as I can see, has the danger of inflation loomed larger. Slow, gradual depreciation of the currency over the centuries has always been with us. Ever since the Middle Ages, except during the nineteenth century, the value of money has been falling at the rate of about 7 per cent. per annum, or one half in a century.
This is perhaps not an unhealthy corrective to the tendency for purchasing power to accumulate in the hand of the rentier. It is smaller than the normal increase in technical efficiency per head—about 1½per cent. in the last century—and is much smaller than the standard rates of interest. Although it gives old people a chance to explain how much cheaper things were in the good old days, it is not sufficient to cause a loss of confidence in the stability of the currency to a point at which people are deterred from working and saving and planning ahead. But the drop in the value of the pound in recent years has been of a very different order. In the last six years, so far as I can make out, its purchasing power has fallen by something like 10 per cent. per annum. At this rate it would halve in value every 7½ years, and would drop to 3s. in twenty years. Formerly there may have been some who said: "Inflation only hits the rentier. Serve him right! "But today, with all our insurance, contributory pension schemes and so forth, we are all rentiers, and any inflation hits all alike. A decline such as has been taking place over the last six years would, if continued, not only cheat all our people out of their savings and pensions, but render all planning impossible and spell the doom of our position as an industrialnation. This lamentable result will, it seems to me, be very hard to avoid if our present gigantic expenditure and resulting high rates of taxation cannot be reduced.
The reason in my view is simple. Less than fifteen per cent. of the national income accrues to individuals receiving over £I,000 a year, and less than seven and a half per cent. by the time they have paid Income Tax and Surtax. If the Government have to extract thirty per cent. or forty per cent. of the national income from the taxpayer, the major part of it must clearly come from the wage-earning and smaller salaried classes in one form or another. Instead of being able to get the money from a small group of rich people, it is the great bulk of the population which has to pay. If the money is collected by indirect taxes, the prices of all the articles on which they are levied rise and the taxpayer complains of the increased cost of living. If direct taxes are levied, there is so much less in the wage packet for the wage earner and his wife to spend. The consequence in both cases is obviously

61
a demand for higher wages and salaries. And these higher wages and salaries increase the cost of production, once again raising the cost of living and the vicious spiral is in full swing.
What are the Government doing to combat the danger, which I gather they recognize as clearly as anybody? As to economies, nobody can claim that these featured very extensively in the Budget speech. This is not surprising; economies are never popular. Moreover, the dialectical retort to any demand for any economies is cheap and obvious; the Government spokesman has only to say, "Where do you propose to make them?" If the critic makes a concrete proposal he is pilloried, and if he does not he is ridiculed. I am sure the noble Lord who is going to reply will not descend to such ignoble tactics. We are not here to score debating points or to win verbal victories; we are really concerned with the proper answer to a serious problem. Nobody outside the Government can weigh and measure the pros and cons of the various economies or be expected to make specific suggestions. I will content myself with listing the increases in some of the outstanding civil items between 1936–37 and 1946–47. The cost of central government and finance has gone up from £2,000,000 to £11,000,000; foreign and colonial expenditure has increased from £9,000,000 to £76,000,000; education has gone up from £58,000,000 to £131,000,000; health, labour and insurance has gone up from £162,000,000 to £346,000,000; trade, industry and transport has risen from £45,000,000 to £147,000,000, and pensions from £45,000,000 to £107,000,000. Then there is a rather mysterious item called Common Services (which includes, I understand, Government works, buildings, maintenance, information services and stationery) which has risen from £9,000,000 to £83,000,000. I may perhaps mention that printing and stationery alone account for £13,000,000 per annum, or about half what was spent on the pre-war Air Force. It is not for me to quarrel with any of those items individually, but when one sees this vast increase one cannot help wondering whether persistent, unremitting efforts are being made to check undue and wasteful expenditure. So much for the Civil Estimates.
The Service Estimates are harder to criticize, but all the same the expenditure of £1,660,000,000 in a year in which we expect to be at peace—twice the normal pre-war Budget—does give rise to misgivings. Naturally we all wish to treat Service-men properly, but Service pay is only a trivial item in this sum. If demobilization proceeds as is promised we shall not average much more than 1,600,000 men under arms every year. We shall, therefore, be spending something like £1,000 per serving man. Can this really be justified? Then again, are we quite sure that the strength could not be further diminished, that the numbers have really been reduced to a minimum, and that the natural and commendable desire of the Service Chiefs to be on the safe side has been taken into account? Every one of the items which together add up to this vast sum can no doubt be proved to be most desirable, but are they all absolutely essential in our present straitened circumstances? Would the danger to which cuts would expose the country compare with the danger of inflation? That is the test. We are told, of course, that these figures are the minimum required to fulfil our commitments, but is not one of our first commitments to avoid inflation, with its catastrophic results on the people's standard of living? Surely we must cut our coat according to our cloth and not enter into commitments which can only be fulfilled at such vast expense as would cripple the country.
In small matters nothing can exceed the meticulous care with which the Treasury scrutinizes every item; it is in large matters of policy that the urge for economies seems to fade away. I will return to this in connexion with our balance of payments. It is, of course, common form to complain about the increase in the numbers of the Civil Service, but having worked with them, I have far too great an admiration and respect for their ability and zeal to join in the hue and cry. The numbers required in the Civil Service are the result of Government policy, and if the Government keep interfering more and more in the civil life of the community it will require more and more civil servants to carry out the work. I was struck, I must admit, by the increased ratio of female to male civil servants. The number of full-time male civil servants has gone up by about one quarter whilst the number of female civil

63
servants has gone up three and a quarter times, presumably to cope with all the various forms and the typing which are required. I hope my Civil Service friends will forgive me if I recall the old couplet:
"And all the tripe that I dictate
will now be typed in triplicate."
Before leaving the question of expenditure perhaps I might ask one question. The Chancellor told us he expects to spend about £3,800,000,000 in 1946–1947. It would be helpful, and I trust reassuring, if the Government spokesman would give us some idea of the expected rate of expenditure in the various quarters of the year and perhaps even for 1947–1948. I imagine they must have those figures if they have made their forecasts. So much for economy.
What are the Government doing to increase production? Their intentions are, I am sure, of the best, but their measures appear, from our point of view, to be rather deplorable. Nobody complains about their maintaining a certain measure of control, allocation and so on, but there is a vast difference between broad general controls during the period of transition and all the petty, finicky, detailed control throughout everybody's daily life. Permits, licences, and so on have to be obtained for every trivial activity; nobody can be trusted to do anything that does not receive the rubber stamp of officialdom's approval. The other day the Lord Chancellor betrayed a trace of human frailty—very unexpected and pleasant, if I may say so, in a Socialist—when he confessed to an instinctive horror of filling up forms. May I commend to him one incident within my knowledge? A man responsible for an estate belonging to a charitable institution and anxious to rebuild six cottages had to fill up 187 pages of forms. I do not know that he has finished yet.
It is not so much that permits are with-held as the appalling loss of time involved in getting them, and time at the moment is of the essence. Houses are going to rack and ruin while the Minister fiddles, if I may use the word. Anybody who ventures to help himself without first obtaining all the permits from all the various offices is threatened with penalties up to seven years' penal servitude. Whether the President of the Board of Trade, refreshed no doubt by contact with Mr. Gandhi's austerities, will augment
64
our clothes ration remains to be seen, but it is disquieting, to say the least of it, to observe that the only major industries lagging behind the building materials industry in the rate of recovery to pre-war employment figures are the textile and clothing industries.
Even more serious than the hampering petty restrictions is the threat to take over large parts of our industries by the Government. In the last century there was an idea that the only way the working man could be protected from exploitation was by nationalizing industry. It was in this period that the obsession that this was the universal panacea grew up. But for a generation or more it has been clear that there are other much more effective and convenient methods of safeguarding his interests and it might have been hoped that the Government would have realized this. Generations of agitation and propaganda in the coal-fields have, of course, created such a psychological condition that the Government's decision to nationalize the coalmines was intelligible. Their gratuitous decision to close the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, with all the direct and indirect losses this involves, is bound to arouse antagonism amongst Senators from the Southern States on whom we are depending in the loan negotiations is a more serious symptom. There was no demand for this from the extremists, no mandate. It almost makes one think Ministers are taken in by the claptrap some of their supporters spout on the soap-boxes, who pretend nationalization is an end in itself.
I will not enlarge upon the Government's proposals concerning the iron and steel industry, as these will no doubt be dealt with more authoritatively by others next week. I merely recall that the Lord President of the Council announced in Canada that the case for nationalization would have to be made individually on its merits for each industry. Now apparently it has been decided to nationalize the iron and steel industry before the case has even been considered and a special board is to be set up, not to discuss whether it is desirable or whether nationalization is feasible, but merely how it is to be carried out. Of the story that the case for nationalization would have to be made out on its merits of course nothing remains. It may

65
be that some political reasons not immediately apparent to more simple Conservatives underlie this remarkable decision. It must be very awkward going away for a pleasant family party at the seaside at Whitsuntide knowing that an affiliation order will be served upon one as soon as one arrives. But it is not for me to delve into the mysteries.
LORD PAKENHAM: There is a visitors' gallery at Bournemouth.
LORD CHERWELL: The noble Lord is more conversant with it than I am. What else is the Government doing to assist production? One method seems to be to reduce to a minimum every material incentive to effort by those capable of making a notable contribution. Apparently they pin their faith to eloquent exhortations and are determined to reduce so far as possible the prospects of more solid reward. This might be very well in an ideal world but unfortunately however elated noble Lords opposite may be by the results of the Election we are not yet living in a completely ideal world. It is all very well to entreat people to lay up their treasure in Heaven but unhappily not everybody is quite so confident, as no doubt are noble Lords opposite and, of course, their neighbours on the Bishops' Benches, of getting there to enjoy it. In war, under the impulsion of common danger, people will make unheard of efforts without thought of gain. In peace-time there is a regrettable tendency even amongst quite decent people to expect some material reward in this world for the work they do. This is recognized on all hands in connexion with "pay-as-you-earn." Indeed, anybody who blames the small man for refusing to work overtime because a fraction of his wages is taken away is regarded as a sort of Blimp. On the other hand, the possibility that a richer individual might be deterred from extra efforts because 75 per cent. or 90 per cent. or even 97½ per cent. of his earnings will be confiscated if he does, does not seem to enter the Government's calculations at all. If it is as much as mentioned we are told that it throws a lurid light on the lack of patriotism of the richer members of the community.
I will not weary the House by discussing this curious ethical question. Broadly speaking there are few rich men, not
66
because most people do not want to be rich but because the majority have not got the aptitude and qualities which enable people to become rich. Apart from inherited wealth people in the main earn money by producing or manufacturing or arranging something which meets the needs or desires of the community. The qualities required may not be very amiable. I do not happen to be particularly attracted by them myself. But that is neither here nor there; these people deliver the goods. In some cases methods may have been used which are not particularly nice and in a few cases practices may have been indulged in which are anti-social. This is a good reason for curbing the practices, but not an argument for getting rid of all the exceptional people who have the knack of producing what the community wants. You do not discourage poets because Byron kicked over the domestic traces. You do not eliminate housepainters because Hitler was once a housepainter. If cattle are eating your vegetables you do not get rid of the cattle but you put a fence around your vegetable plot. But that is not the way of the Chancellor. "If thine eye offend thee pluck it out," seems to be his motto. And he appears to be very easily offended. The fact that high salaries are only given for good value does not impress him. He is out of sympathy with high pay so the community had better do without the services of the few specialists who can fill the bill. Rather a few cheap cheers for an attack on the rich than more goods and services for the benefit of the masses.
Most people do not mind how comfortable their neighbours are provided they are reasonably comfortable themselves, but there are some soured people who do not mind how uncomfortable they are themselves provided they can make their neighbours equally uncomfortable. This second class no doubt applauds the Chancellor's line. But the Government need not pander to them; they will vote Socialist anyhow. One might have hoped that the futility of egalitarianism would have been brought home to everybody by the great experiment made in Russia twenty or thirty years ago. All the revolutionary favour, all the compulsion of the Ogpu was not sufficient to achieve the required output. The difference in incomes in Russia to-day is notoriously far greater than ours. Not

67
long ago some Russians visited an Oxford college. When dining in Hall with the undergraduates they asked who the people were sitting at the High Table. On being told they were the teachers they asked if they got the same food as the undergraduates, and the undergraduates told them they did. The Russians evinced great amusement and their spokesman said, "In Russia the teachers get twice as much food as the students. In that way the students all work hard so as to become teachers."
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I never found any undergraduates who believed we got the same food.
LORD CHERWELL: The noble Lord the Master of Balliol may have been singularly unfortunate. It has been said that you can only get a horse to work by the carrot or the whip. In Russia they tried the whip, and have had to offer the carrot as well. His Majesty's Government disclaim the policy of the whip, but refuse to offer the carrot. Apparently they think that they can get the horse to pull by more or less harmoniously chirruping by the Prime Minister relieved from time to time by objurgations from his colleagues. Well, we shall see.
The Government's other contribution to the production drive is to threaten to nationalize our major industries. Whether this be a good or a bad thing in the long run it does seem most unfortunate to have seized this most critical period to make such far-reaching experiments. All these great industries depend upon a large volume of knowledge and experience gained by thousands of men in a lifetime's work and study. If, as we are sometimes told, the same men are to continue running the industries, what is the urgency of all this fuss and trouble? If it is to be a different lot of men, the hopes of efficient production are slender. I must confess I often wonder whether all the Ministers really believe, themselves, that nationalization will increase efficiency. Take the case of coal. For 150 years now coal has been our great industrial asset, our one indigenous raw material, essential for production at home and sought after as an export abroad, for which we could obtain good value. Yet the other day the Minister who is to be in charge of the nationalization of mines recommended
68
home users to turn over from coal to oil. He does not seem to have much faith in nationalization. I am afraid that the prospects of the Government initiating a great up-surge of production are slender.
If the Government cannot economize and cannot increase production, the only hope of avoiding inflation—admittedly a very faint one—is to make the public realize what the position is, and trust that people of their patriotism will refrain from insisting on increased wages and salaries. After years of propaganda in the opposite sense this will be no easy task. It only Command Paper 6784 could be simplified and distributed it might have a most salutary educative effect. Table 12, for instance, shows that taking the private incomes of all persons in the United Kingdom as a whole, only about 9s. 3d. or 9s. 4d. in the pound flows to people with incomes under £250 a year; 4s. 9d. to people with £250 to £500 a year; and 2s. 7d. to people with incomes from £,500 to £1,000.
Now I do not know at what income level a man passes from the class of the deserving, down-trodden poor to the class of the bloated, hateful rich. But I do not think anyone would draw the line below £1,000 a year gross—that is to say, £750 net, about equal to £300 a year purchasing power before 1914. If we draw the line between the sheep and the goats at £1,000 a year—even at the risk of leaving many of the noble Lords opposite at large amongst the goats—it is plain that only 3s. 5d. in the pound of income in private hands in the United Kingdom goes to people with over £1,000 a year gross—that is, before tax is paid. And is. 7d. of this 3s. 5d. is taken away in Income Tax and Surtax, so that only Is. 9d. is left. Thus very little remains to confiscate. Even if everything over £750 were taken away, the gain would only amount to about 6d. in the pound of the total national income. The corresponding figures for £2,000 gross, that is to say, £1,300 net are is. 6d. to 7d. and 1¾d. That depleted hen-roost, at any rate, is not worth robbing.
For forty years now a large section of the British public has been persuaded that it is possible to get ninepence for fourpence. This was and is perfectly true. The wage earner could get ninepence for fourpence by taking the extra

69
fivepence out of the rich man's pocket. Unfortunately, in his innocence, he now tends to think that he can get 9s. for 4s. Is it not time to make it plain that the rich man just has not got the 5s. he wants? Compare the figures I have mentioned with the sort of outgoings we contemplate, mostly admittedly spent in most desirable ways. About £250,000,000 a year for instance is spent on food subsidies. This has to be collected from someone. As we have about 20,000,000 people gainfully employed in the United Kingdom, it means that the Government take about 4s. 9d. a week from each of these peoples' earnings. When people say that the Government are paying £250,000,000 a year to keep the prices of food down, what they really mean is that they are all contributing 45. 9d. a week in one form and getting it back in some other form. Take education, a most excellent objective. This costs £129,000,000 a year; 2s. 6d. a week out of the pocket of each person gainfully employed. Or take old age pensions, just over 2s. a week out of everybody's pocket, or family allowances, £57,000,000 in a full year, about 1s. 1d. out of everybody's pocket, or the social services, £450,000,000 a year, something like 9s. a week out of everybody's pocket.
When people say that they are only paying 8½. a week for a free health service, do let us be clear that the Government contribution of 2s. 3½d. comes out of the wage-earner's pocket just as directly, though not so obviously, as the 8½d. I am not for one moment attacking these various items of expenditure. What I am attacking is the idea that you can get, or are getting, these amenities by soaking the rich. The rich have been soaked. And the whole yield is only about one-third of the national expenditure. Every item over and above this—two-thirds of the national expenditure—must and does come directly or indirectly out of the pockets of the poorer classes. Our food and drink, our clothes and tobacco do not fall like manna from heaven. What we consume we must make or buy. If the public like to ask the Government to spend one-third of their income for them, they must make up their minds to the fact that they will only have two-thirds left in their pockets
70
to play with. No amount of juggling with figures or currencies can alter this.
We can, of course, increase the number of shillings by 50 per cent., and reduce their purchasing power to two-thirds, but the brute result will remain that one-third of our wages will be handed over to the Government to disperse, and only two-thirds will be left in our pockets. In many cases, indeed in most cases, this will be a very good thing. It is far better that the Government should give all the old people their pensions, and abstract two shillings a week from everybody's pay packet for this purpose, than that these old gentlemen and old ladies should be left to the mercy of individual charity.
Is it not the duty of Parties to make this plain? Surely our people should be proud to think that they have consented to—indeed, insisted upon it. Only if the great broad masses fully realize these very crude, economic facts is there in my view a hope that they may comprehend that any increase in wages and salaries must inevitably be counterbalanced by a corresponding increase in prices, so that the purchasing power of their money and their savings will dwindle and vanish, leaving them no better off in the meantime. Naturally, with the gradual improvement of technical efficiency, we may hope that the output per head will increase, and to this extent wages and salaries can safely be raised. But it would be foolish to expect any spectacular change in our life-time. About one and a half per cent. per annum has been the average for a century or more, corresponding to an improvement of about fifty per cent. in twenty-seven years. I maintain that we should be very rash to anticipate anything much greater. Any greater rise in wages is bound to mean inflation. Of course if hours of work are reduced while wages and salaries are fixed, the result will be exactly the same inflationary effect. In other words, if we produce less we shall have to consume less, however much we may cheat ourselves by devaluing not only the money we earn but also the money we have saved.
There may be some hope in putting this simple argument across, but it will not be easy. A much more difficult topic is one on which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, touched recently, namely the question of relative wage rates. We all know the vicious spiral which enures because

71
each of two or more industries claims that it should be paid more than another. How are these delicate questions to be settled in a society in which we have full employment? In the modern world, in which sub-division of labour has been carried to extremes, each body of workers in turn can hold the community up to ransom. The noble Lord said the other day that the Government intended to fix wages according to the relative attractiveness of the job.
LORD PAKENHAM: It was not what I said, but I am sure the noble Lord will make it plain as he goes on.
LORD CHERWELL: I hope that the noble Lord will expand this a little more when he comes to it. Something of the sort, of course, does obtain in certain industries where extra remuneration is given for unpleasant jobs. It is known I believe as "dirt money," and, in the Navy, as "hard-lying money." I should hate to have to say how Ministers would fare if that were the criterion on which their salaries were fixed. At any rate the right reverend Prelates would certainly suffer. Seriously, would not this course also tend to cause inflation? It is much easier to raise wages than to lower them, and each adjustment would tend to increase the average level. To take a specific instance, would the Government try to attract engineers in Lancashire into the cotton trade by lowering engineers' wages, or by raising the cotton spinners' wages? I cannot see them doing the former. But to raise wages throughout the cotton industry, would increase not only the amount of money in circulation but would also put up the price of cloth and we should have inflation from that one single adjustment.
I fear I have kept your Lordships very long, but before resuming my seat I must say something about the immediate, urgent and pressing question of our balance of payments. Here also we are in the grip of one of those unpleasant, immutable laws, which in science we call conservation laws, which boil down to the simple proposition that you cannot get something for nothing. In war time, it is true, the United States supplied us under the Lend-Lease Agreement with a large part of our needs without making immediate claims. Canada made a similar most generous arrangement. Other Dominions and neutral countries allowed us to buy on
72
credit and in this way, during the whole of the latter part of the war, we were able to keep up our imports whilst letting our exports drop to less than one-third of their pre-war volume. But nobody can go on living on credit for ever. Unless we can soon pay our way we shall have to cut down our imports.
We cannot expect foreign, or even Empire countries, to continue to send us goods without an adequate return, merely in order to keep the people of this island living at a higher standard than their efforts justify. No tricks or jugglings with the exchange will get over the fact, however painful, that in the long run we shall have to pay for what we import by exports in one form or another. Only if we have something to give which the foreigner wants shall we be able to get from him what we want. As everybody knows, we have lost the interest on a great many foreign investments, made in the century of our industrial preeminence, which we had to sell in the early days of the war, before Lend-Lease started. To make up for this, if we want to import as much as before we shall have to increase the volume of our exports by something like fifty per cent. over the pre-war figure. Over and above the loss of our investments abroad we have accumulated foreign debits approaching something like £4,000,000,000. A great part of this was reckoned at inflated prices, and often the money was spent in defending the creditor country. Much will depend upon what arrangements can be made about these foreign debits. But whatever is done, a vast increase in exports will clearly be required.
Unfortunately in the twenty years between the wars there was a general decline in the volume of our export trade. It was not catastrophic, but it was unmistakable. Now we have not only to arrest this decline but to expand the volume of our export trade by something like seventy-five per cent. One hundred years ago we were ahead of all other countries in manufacturing technique. Engineers from all over the Continent tried to worm their way into our factories to learn about our processes. British goods surpassed all others in quality and we alone were in a position to export in quantity. To all intents and purposes we could make our own terms and our export trade led the world. Unfortunately,

73
things have changed. From being the only nation with a large surplus of first-class exportable wares we have become only one amongst several. Unless we can produce goods better and cheaper than our competitors the foreigner will buy from them, instead of from us.
It is clear that we cannot jump up the volume of our exports in a few months from thirty per cent., to which they had fallen in the war, to 150 per cent. or 175 per cent.—five or six times the war figure—which is necessary if we are to pay our way. To tide over the transitional period, the Government, quite properly in my view, have endeavoured to secure a loan from the United States. This loan is now being debated by Congress. If we obtain it, it will give us the necessary breathing-space, provided that we work hard and efficiently and that nobody throws a spanner into the works. But it will not last for more than two or three years. By 1948 or 1949 we must reestablish some sort of balance in our external trade in some form or another. If we cannot raise exports to the desired level we shall have to reduce imports. There is no getting away from that, and the reduction of imports with all the austerities which it would imply, will certainly not commend the Government to the electorate.
Nobody denies that the Government realize the supreme importance of redressing, the balance of trade, but many doubt if they are setting about it in the best way. Export industries are very properly given high priorities on paper and exhorted periodically by Ministers at weekends to strenuous efforts. But they are all still subject to the petty delays and restrictions which impede and hamper industry throughout the country. All the newspapers a fortnight ago paraded the fact that the volume of our exports had now reached nearly ninety per cent. of the pre-war figure. That is very satisfactory as far as it goes, but it is only about half way to our target. Above all, even at the risk of seeming pessimistic, I think we must remember that we are operating today in a transitory sellers' market. For five years now almost all the countries in the world have been deprived of manufactured goods. Almost any firm can obtain as many orders as it likes—or perhaps I should say dares to accept—but this back-log of demand will be filled
74
in a few years, and then the pinch will come. So we ought to make hay while the sun shines.
I have already referred to the difficulties of nationalization. These difficulties are very much more serious when we are concerned with our export trade. Here we have hundreds and thousands of firms, each with their own contacts and customers abroad, all of them anxious to do business and build up goodwill. How can we possibly expect to get similar efficiency from one vast nationalized industry? How can we expect individuals in the industry to throw themselves into rebuilding our shattered trade with enthusiasm when they know not only that the major part of their earnings will be taken away but also that in a short time they are apt to be supplanted by a gaggle of Government employees? We cannot really expect great efforts, from a swimmer struggling against the tide if he is told that he is scheduled for the lethal chamber in any event. What we are really concerned with is not so much exports or imports singly but their difference which constitutes our balance of trade.
There was great jubilation in the Press recently because exports had increased by £7,000,000 over the figure of the previous month. There was much less emphasis placed on the fact that the imports had gone up by £23,600,000, a vastly greater figure. The unfavourable balance, in other words, had increased by £16,600,000. This export deficiency is due to solid material imports. Nothing, so far as I can make out, is included for what we might call invisible imports, namely the enormous expenditure still, I believe, going on for all sorts of purposes abroad. It is here that vast savings could be made by clear hard decisions. I have referred to the huge foreign debt which has grown up during the war, when we were obliged to spend, £,1,500,000 a day in the various countries we were defending. Are these huge sums still being expended? Are these enormous sterling liabilities continuing to pile up against us in India, Egypt and all the countries of the Middle East? What is the position? Can we be told whether our liabilities are growing and if so, at what rate?
The Government stated the other day that they expected a negative trade balance of £750,000,000 in the coming

75
year. Are they prepared to tell us how much this will be quarter by quarter, or better still, give us some approximate forecast of the imports and exports of the expenditure abroad which is anticipated for each quarter of the year? They must have the figures otherwise they could not have made their forecast.
It is very hard of course for a rich man to come down in the world and have to economise, but it is better than going bankrupt. It is the same with countries. Naturally we should all prefer to be free and generous with our money. Fifty years ago we could afford it. Today the position is utterly different. Yet we go on forgiving debts and handing out cash all over the world—£80,000,000 to U.N.R.R.A. one year and £75,000,000 the next; £46,000,000 to Greece, plus a cash gift of £10,000,000. Huge debts are forgiven to Poland and vast sums expended in Italy. Worst of all I see in the Civil Estimates that £130,000,000–2s. 6d. a week out of every wage-earner's income—will be spent by the civil government over and above the costs of military occupation in Germany this year. Really we must get out of these free and easy habits. There is enough talk about austerity at home. Let us practise some of it abroad.
I cannot help observing an alarming similarity between our position to-day and that of Holland after the War of the Spanish Succession. At the end of the seventeenth century the United Provinces were one of the world's great Powers; they negotiated on equal terms with France, England and Sweden. Their alliance was sought, their words were carefully weighed in every Chancellery in the world. They fought a series of wars in one generation. In all they put forth gigantic efforts. In none were they defeated. In the two last, helped by their allies, they were victorious. They had exhausted themselves. Ever since then they have played no significant part in the history of the world. To-day we also suffer from the exhaustion of two stupendous struggles. Only by the most anxious care can this country be nursed through its troubles and hope to recover the strength which will enable it to maintain the position in the world which it has held for two and a half centuries. This is no time for vociferous claims or for rash experiments. Least of all is it time for partisan
76
squabbles. Only if we all put our shoulders to the wheel and refrain from extravagance in behaviour as well as in demands can we hope to recover the strength and balance and poise which enabled this country to save Europe four times in as many centuries from domination by a single Power and to set an example of decency, toleration and freedom to the world. I beg to move for Papers.
3 25 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord down the road that he has chosen to tread. I understand that he is not happy about the position. In fact I do not think any aspect of it really appeals to him. But the difficulty, really, in dealing with the subject is not that of finding fault, but of finding a remedy. Where there is a Motion of this breadth before your Lordships' House, without any particular issue on which to hang the discussion, I think it is incumbent, as the noble Lord said at the beginning of his remarks, either to offer an alternative suggestion or to point to something which has been done which was wrong, and to point out what the speaker, it he had been in the Government's place, would have done instead. On neither of those points did the noble Lord make himself very clear. I do not wish the noble Lords opposite to interpret what I say as being agreement with their views—far from it. Many of their doctrines and policies—indeed most of them I think—are utterly repugnant to me. But I do find myself in very considerable sympathy with their position at the present moment of having to reply to this particular Motion, because I am not aware that up to date any of the measures which have been agreed and enacted are substantially different from those which had been agreed by the previous Government.
The noble Lord spoke at some length in the early part of his speech about the cost of social services, the cost of the Civil Service and the cost of administration generally. All those measures which have been enacted and which are in contemplation, all those increases in pensions, salaries, and wages—except only the increase in the wages of the Armed Forces of the Crown—have had general support, I think, by all Parties in this country. The social legislation in contemplation, broadly speaking, under the so-called Beveridge plan and under the national

77
health plan—if not precisely in the form in which it has been presented—has had the support and the enthusiastic support of every Party in this country. If, therefore, the schemes are enacted by the present Government, it is difficult to criticize them for doing what I venture to suggest any other Government would have found themselves obliged to do, and would I think have done with enthusiasm. The cost of these Services is obviously great, but if some of us feel that it is too great, then it is incumbent, as Lord Cherwell himself said, to get up and say "We do not agree with them because we cannot afford them." I am not aware that the noble Lord has said that about any single measure, but I think that is the only thing to do. I do not believe we can broadly criticize and say we are living beyond our means without saying in which respect the cloth is insufficient to meet a particular coat. I am coming to the question of nationalization in a minute.
The second point which I would like to make about the noble Lord's Motion is that it is a very difficult one to discuss at this moment. It happens, through no fault of the noble Lord, that his Motion has fallen upon a day which is probably the eve of the first vote in the United States Senate on the loan. Many of us have felt that a loan of that nature is desirable—on that there is no difference. There may be differences in regard to terms. In reviewing the economic situation of this country to-day, however, we have to bear in mind not today's position but what the position is likely to be to-morrow if that loan is not agreed to by the United States Senate. I therefore submit that a review of the economic situation to-day, bad or good as it may be, is premature at this moment. That is the additional and second reason why I do not wish to pursue the noble Lord down the road he has trod, either by making if it were possible alternative suggestions, or indeed by an analysis of the situation in the country, which I do not myself think is as black as he has painted.
I think we shall all have to take stock—the noble Lords opposite, the noble Lords on the Benches from which Lord Cherwell has spoken and my noble friends here—if the unfortunate happens and the American Loan is not acceptable
78
to His Majesty's Government in the form in which it may be proposed. I am sure no one in your Lordships' House will fail to recognise that that will involve a complete new stocktaking of our whole economic situation and policy. It may alter fundamentally the views and policies of the Party to which the noble Lords opposite belong.
But whatever the outcome of that is, the situation to-morrow, according to whether the loan is accepted or rejected, will be so vastly and fundamentally different from what it is now that I do not believe any useful purpose will be served by analyzing the position to-day. If we find that this loan is passed, I think an early opportunity should be taken to review the whole situation; but if the loan is not available to us, then I feel sure that the noble Lords opposite will wish to give opportunities to your Lordships to debate the position, because a very serious one will have arisen. The point I am raising was brought out in the discussion on the Bretton Woods Agreement when Lord Keynes spoke to your Lordships on the subject.
Another point which I would mention is rather more particular—the question of financial policy in regard to foreign payments, payments to Governments abroad, subsidies and grants-in-aid to which reference has been made, payments to U.N.R.R.A., and our own balance of payments. On that last subject I would say that it is very difficult for anybody outside the Government offices really to determine what is the position of our balance of payments. The ordinary citizen cannot have the information available, and it is extremely difficult for him to assess even the figures which are published, but there is no reason why the figures which are published should be so obscure as they sometimes are. I refer in particular to a point with which the noble Lord who is replying will probably deal, and that is the inclusion in our visible trade figures of certain items in respect of exports to U.N.R.R.A. and N.A.A.F.I., which in my view ought not to figure there or figure only with qualification. I regard the inclusion of those in the gross export figures of visible trade as entirely misleading. They may amount to something of the order of £7,000,000 to £10,000,000 a month, and when they are deducted the visible export trade figures are not as good as the spokes-

79
men of the Government have alleged them to be. That does not alter, obviously, the policy of pushing exports as much as possible. It does, however, mean that we have to push exports which we are paid for, and not include among them exports for which we pay ourselves.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I correct the noble Lord on that point now? It appears that the proportion to the total exports of the kind of exports to which he has referred has remained roughly constant throughout the period since the end of the war. So the published statements he has in mind are more correct than he imagines.
LORD RENNELL: I thank the noble Lord for making that point, but the proportion is very high. I have not the figures with me, but I shall be corrected if I am wrong. I think the last published monthly figures showed exports of £67,000,000 or £70,000,000, and if my figures are right—and I think they are derived from the noble Lord's replies in your Lordships' House—the N.A.A.F.I. and U.N.R.R.A. exports amount to about 10 per cent. of our visible exports, and that is a very substantial amount. Whether it has remained constant or not, the actual figure is large and ought not to be there. On the balance of payment figures, however, I would like to say that they have shown a very substantial improvement. Is it quite fair to take stock of our balance of payment figures within twelve months of the termination of hostilities with Germany and less than twelve months of the termination of hostilities with Japan, and say that our position is bad, not so bad, or whatever it is? I submit it is much too early, after a war of this magnitude, even to discuss the balance of payment figures as reflected by visible trade. It is because those figures are so out of keeping with reality no doubt that all technical experts have agreed in urging on His Majesty's Government, if they needed any urging, the necessity of contracting a loan in the United States to see us over the reconversion period.
I think it is equally difficult to discuss the level of prices in this country at the present stage. I frankly have been surprised that the rise in prices, the depreciation in currency to which Lord Cherwell referred, has been as small as it was
80
during the war years. I think it proves not only the value and the efficacy of the economic and financial controls which were instituted during the war, but it abundantly proves all those doctrines that Lord Keynes spent twenty-five years preaching to this country and which have now been broadly accepted by every Party here. This is perhaps one of the most remarkable of all the phenomena with which we are faced now in contemplating the economic situation.
There is no authoritative, responsible person in this country who has not got the fear of inflation before his eyes every day. We are all aware of it and we draw attention to it. We all have it at the back of our minds as a very great fear. Strangely enough, the corollary to it is there too. We are nearly all of us agreed upon the financial devices—critics call them devices—the financial measures which ought to be taken to prevent that inflation. We have, in other words, learnt at the feet of Lord Keynes in twenty-five years how to manage our currency, and the proof of that resides in the success with which it was managed during the six years of war. We have also learned to accept that the measures for controlling and managing a currency are right, and there is practically no dispute among people about that now. If, therefore, we all accept the fear and the danger and most of us also accept the remedies, is there anything then left between the various Parties except to take up one specific subject after another and to say "That is the thing I would have done differently and that is the thing you should have done differently?" With that measure of agreement both as to the danger and as to the measures which must be taken to avoid that danger, there is no room for a general jeremiad on the economic position of this country or of the iniquities of the Government in power, whatever Government may be in power.
I therefore return to the point with which I started, and that is that when we know and can take stock of our economic position, that is to say, after we know the result of the deliberations of the American Congress on the loan, a more fruitful occasion will arise to discuss the whole subject than is, I submit, the case now. If it is discussed again, either because we have failed to get the loan or because we have got it, then, if we do not agree, we must discuss the subject

81
on the basis of specific points and not on the broad issue of saying "How shocking is the state of affairs and, generally speaking, all you are doing is wrong."
I wish to close with only one remark, and that is that I would not wish any of the noble Lords opposite to feel that what I have said, which may appear to be some defence of the present policy, has been said because I agree with it; I do not. Notably on the issue of nationalization I subscribe entirely to what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has said.
3.23 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, your Lordships have listened, I think for the first time, to a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, from the Liberal Front Bench. Perhaps he would allow me to congratulate him on speaking from that excellent position and also to congratulate his colleagues of the Liberal Party on the great accretion of strength that his joining them on the Front Bench will, I am sure, mean to them. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, for giving me a very pleasant sensation by his speech. When I listened to it, and enjoyed it, as we all did, I realized for the first time that the second world war was really over. Soon after the end of the first world war I listened in another place to dozens of speeches which were not so good in form but which were practically the same in content, all talking about the wickedness of the Government's extravagance and our approaching ruin. In those days it was not a Socialist Government but a Coalition Government in which the Conservatives held a predominant position. Those speeches all talked about the wickedness of the Government's extravagance, the bloated Civil Service, the waste, and, of course, the need for economies, without ever beginning to explain where we were to begin to economize. Unfortunately in those days that series of speeches, like that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, though not so good as his, eventually had a cumulative effect and in consequence we began the disastrous process of a helter-skelter deflation, a contractionist policy, with rationalization forced on some of the basic industries by the Bank of England, rising unemployment and a premature return to the Gold Standard.
All that followed on the same kind of argument that your Lordships enjoyed
82
so much when delivered with so much grace and wit by the noble Lord. Again I hear the echoes of the terrible danger of inflation. But I have been hearing of inflation ever since I could hear anything at all and understand it—long before the first world war. As the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, pointed out, over the last four or five centuries (I believe ever since the discovery of the great gold mines in South and Central America and the great silver mines in the New World), there has been progressive inflation, a progressive increase in prices in terms of the money of the day. And, quite apart from wars and the effects of wars, there is a new potential inflation in the great new gold strike in the Orange Free State quite recently. Not only the new deposits of gold which are being discovered, especially for example in Siberia, but the modern methods of extracting gold by themselves would create inflation. I would with great respect say this also to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. We can go too far in threatening and alarming the general public with this alleged danger of inflation. There is a natural answer to it, indeed almost a corollary, and that is that while there has been this continuous inflation roughly from the time of Queen Elizabeth onwards, enhanced of course by wars—the South African war alone led to a considerable change in the price-level, and that was a mere skirmish compared with the first and second world wars—parallel with it there has been an enormous increase in the potential of production of modern industry.
The reason why my noble friends in the Government have interpreted the policy of my Party, which was endorsed by the country, of nationalizing certain industries is because they are convinced, particularly in the case of coal and iron and steel, that in no other way can the country take advantage of the technical and scientific advances and improvements that are ready to hand. With its policy of cartelization, monopoly, deflation and rationalization, modern capitalism is incapable of taking advantage of the great discoveries of science and of the improved modern methods of production. Only in war, and for war purposes, do we see full advantage taken of this great new field of production and the increase of wealth. One more passage in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, so like the speeches I heard after the first world war

83
—and of course no Conservative speech is complete without it—was the usual attack on Russia. This time, however, the complaint was that the Russian specialists were apparently paid too highly or treated too well.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I thought the noble Lord was paying their policy a high compliment; he called it good commonsense.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, can answer for himself. He is quite quick enough in the uptake to answer me. I am sure he will do it when he exercises the privilege of replying, and I shall listen with my usual delight to what he has to say. There are two matters that I wish to bring particularly to your Lordships' notice, and especially to that of my noble friends in the Government. May I say with great respect that the constructive part of the noble Lord's speech, with which I am sure we all agreed, concerned the urgent necessity to increase our exports from this country. There is common ground there. I am going very briefly to suggest two ways in which I believe this can be assisted at the present time. Without the European markets I do not know how we are going to increase our exports to the required level. Europe is our nearest and most natural market and has always played a great part in our commerce. Without the recovery of Europe I also take a somewhat gloomy view of the possibility of increasing our exports to the level required.
The greatest trouble in Europe is the chaotic state of transport. There are markets there open to us which we cannot reach because of this transport trouble. Certain of the European countries have made a very good recovery. Belgium, Holland, Czecho-Slovakia, the Scandinavian countries and I believe even the Poles are going ahead and putting their house in order. Take the case of Czecho-Slovakia particularly, because that is an inland country which can be a most valuable market for our exports, which can provide us with certain raw materials particularly timber, which we badly need, and steel which we badly need, but which we cannot reach because of these appalling transport conditions and obstacles which are almost irremovable. May I beg
84
particularly the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham to mark my next words. I know he will pass them on. This is quite a serious matter. The villains of the piece are the occupying military authorities—
A NOBLE LORD: Russia.
LORD STRABOLGI: It is quite irrespective who. The Russians, the Americans, ourselves and the French are all equally to blame. The various military authorities all seem to regard their zones of occupation all over Europe as existing for their own purposes and they do not realize that through those zones ought to be passing a growing and increasing natural and legitimate commerce. They seem to find it necessary as soldiers to put every kind of obstacle and obstruction in the way of the exchange of goods across their zones. Not only do they annex locomotives and wagons which they take a fancy to or which they think they need, quite irrespective of what is in them, and turn out the goods and sometimes keep them for months, but the Americans demand payment in dollars for the use of the transport lines through their zones from people who have not got any dollars. We demand sterling but fortunately there is a little more sterling in the world. Generally speaking there is an immense delay in getting any sort of traffic through these zones.
Furthermore the ports in the Baltic and North Sea, and this includes Hamburg which is in the British zone, are almost useless for all ordinary traders and merchants because all the berths are continually occupied for military purposes and it is extremely difficult for any merchant to get a berth in which to unload his goods if he is importing or to ship them if he is exporting. This is obviously hampering our trade with several countries in Europe and the inland countries are amongst the most important. I know that this is a matter which does not rest merely with His Majesty's Government but also with our Allies and I know that great efforts are being made to free the Danube waterway which is of great importance to Southern and Central Europe. Yet I think this matter has not been given a high enough priority and that not enough energy and drive have been put into the problem of clearing the channels of trade and commerce.

85
The same difficulty applies to ordinary travel. Unless you can go by air it is almost hopeless to go by train. You may have to wait weeks unless you are a very important person, and the ordinary British commercial traveller and the ordinary merchant or agent is not treated as a very important person although he should be. The other difficulty is the shipping shortage, and here I have also a constructive suggestion to make. I understand that owing to the lack of sailors a great many American merchant ships are laid up. The American crews were there for the war only and they think they have done their job and are going back to their farms, shops or ordinary civilian occupations. Thus many Liberty ships and all kinds of cargo ships are laid up for lack of crews. There is a world shipping shortage which is hampering the recovery of trade including our own export trade. We have the sailors and so have the Dutch, the Danes, the Norwegians and others who would co-operate with us in this matter. I do not think it is necessary to purchase these ships because after all we have an immense building programme of merchant ships in our own shipyards.
Some credit is due from the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, with regard to British ship-building because it is doing extremely well and has had every encouragement and with success from the Government. I understand the Americans are asking rather a high price for their ships on sale but surely it would be worth while to charter them for a period at the present time. I cannot imagine the American Government or the American shipping board refusing. Rather than have ships lay up rusting why not charter them when we have got surplus officers and sailors to sail them. In every country today, as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has said there is a demand for our goods but our difficulty is shipment and there is great congestion in our ports already and in the warehouses because of the lack of shipping to take out our exports. There are all these ships laid up idle and it does not make sense to me that something has not been done. These are the two suggestions I make. I do not expect any reply to them now because the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has to deal more with the philosophical side of this debate but I feel sure he will pass my suggestions on.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Before the noble Lord sits down could he tell us what we should use for dollars.
LORD STRABOLGI: If we can spend $80,000,000 a year on films surely we can spend some dollars to charter ships which will pay their own way and help our vital export trade.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: It is still dollars.
3.55 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I have felt the gloom very much of Lord Cherwell's picture, lightened as it was by the wonderful flashes of wit, but I do feel that the situation is much more temporary than he seemed to suggest. I want to address myself in the main to one side of the position which he put forward and that is the question of nationalization. I hold perhaps a rather unusual position in the Labour Party, having been in business all my life, and yet I do feel very strongly indeed upon this question not only from the ethical point of view but from the economic point of view as well. It always seems to me that the conflict between the two points of view can never be solved largely because we use completely different yardsticks. When we are considering the question of public service we measure it by pubic service. When we are considering private enterprise we measure it by public service. When we are considering private enterprise we measure it by private profit which may be and often is a completely different thing from the public service. It is not at all necessary to serve the public in order to make high profits. In fact it would almost be true to say that very often the ratio is in inverse proportion.
There is a second point I want to make. I feel strongly on this because it arises out of my own experience. It is, I think, fundamentally important in considering this question of nationalization not to think of the separate units in an industry which may be all very efficiently run and yet the industry as a whole may be inefficient because of the competition within it, because no separate unit can really know what the other units are doing, and therefore cannot know what the total output of the industry is going to be as compared with its possible merits. I think that that is true, and that

87
it has been true for many years, of my own industry—the cotton trade. It is not, I think, mainly inefficiency in the separate units but inefficiency in the industry as a whole that has given rise to most of the difficulties in that industry.
Therefore, when Lord Cherwell asks "If it is to be run by the same men what is going to be the advantage under nationalization? "I would say that the advantage is going to be that you are going to get unification of the industry and the elimination of the very costly competition between the units in the industry. Further than that, you are going to be able to fit that industry into the general plan of your national economy, into the general scheme by which you are going, to meet the needs of the nation; you are going to be able to fit it into the scheme of international co-operation which we shall be compelled, sooner or later, to build up, in a way which cannot be done if an industry is run entirely by small conflicting units.
The next point I wish to make is that private enterprise—and I think most noble Lords will agree with this—failed completely in the inter-war years to provide full employment for our people and at the same time failed to provide a decent standard of living for our people. That was a colossal failure; it was a failure that would justify a very big programme of change. I believe it was that failure which had the effect of carrying the Labour Party into power at the last General Election. The people, I am convinced, were determined that the conditions of those interwar years should not return, that we should not again have mass unemployment and a depressed standard of living. The Coalition Government accepted responsibility for the government of this country and I think that they accepted the responsibility for all time for the maintenance of full employment. That is the central consideration that the present Government have to keep in mind. They have to keep in mind that they must justify themselves by maintaining full employment, and if they maintain full employment then the nation can afford all the justifiable expenditure that is being and will be incurred.
It is, I am sure, being very clearly realized that that full employment can
88
only be maintained by keeping the standard of living rising steadily as production rises. I believe that it is going to be impossible to do that without a very large measure of national control over the whole—or almost the whole—field of industry. I have been an employer for a great number of years, and I really cannot visualize a group, of employers sitting down in conference together to make a decision something, on these lines: "Well now, production powers have increased ten per cent. during the last two or three years, and so we shall have to increase wages by ten per cent." I cannot see employers doing something like that voluntarily. Therefore, I say that there has got to be some means by which the Government will have power to see that the standard of living in the country does keep pace with the power of producing wealth.
I agree that the rising standard of living, which I believe we shall attain, is going to involve more and more imports, and that the crux of the whole question is going to be the ability to pay for our imports by means of exports. Lord Cherwell told us that we should have to expand our exports seventy-five per cent. There are great differences in figures which are given, of course, but I am inclined to think that that is an understatement. At any rate, if we want to keep the standard of living rising exports will have to continue to rise. I suggest that if we are going to be able to expand our exports, one of the first things we have got to do is to see that our exporting industries have a good economic basis upon which to work. Personally, I think that the nationalization of coal and transport and of the basic industries of the country generally is an essential economic basis for the development of our export trade. I was very greatly interested to see that Courtauld and his friends have decided in favour of the nationalization of all the services that they use in their industry. That is very significant. It means that they, at any rate, recognize that a better service is rendered by a nationalized industry than by private industry, and they want the industries that they need and use in their own industry to be nationalized. I submit that we need this sound economic basis for our industries, and it is only with providing that economic basis that the Labour

89
Party's programme is at present concerned.
The next important factor for success in our export trade—an essential factor. I believe—is international cooperation. What was the state of our international trade after the first great world war? The whole amazing system by which international trade had been built up was largely destroyed by that war, and it has never been completely rebuilt. It has been further destroyed during this last war, and our position as an exporting nation is going to be infinitely more difficult this time than it was after the first great world war.
I believe that we shall be compelled, sooner or later, to set up national import and export boards to meet this difficulty. During all the years that the cotton trade was losing money hand over fist the importers who were bringing imports into this country were reaping in profits fully as much as the export trades were losing. If you had national import and export boards it would be possible, on a joint balance sheet, so to arrange things that the losses on exports were balanced by the profits on imports. It would mean in actual practice that you would be paying a better price in exports for your imports than you were before; but it would enable you to carry on the export trades, to keep your people employed, and to pay for the imports that you require. I believe that you cannot develop your export trades through international co-operation without a very large measure of co-operation—nationalization at home. You cannot have all these hundreds and thousands of firms which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, spoke about, competing with each other, and on that basis expect to build up a system of international co-operation. He said that no juggling with the exchanges could save us. But I do believe that with national import and export boards, and with international co-operation, we could save the position of the export trades. We are the greatest international market in the world, and if we could use the tremendous power which we have as purchasers we should be enabled to carry on our international trade. Therefore I believe that it is essential, if we are going to develop our industry, raise our standard of life, and meet the difficult situation which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has put before us, that all
90
industries should be fitted into a national plan and into international co-operation. If we do that, we shall avoid any return to the terrible conditions of the inter-war years.
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think that all your Lordships will agree that the House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, for marshalling the facts of the present position in a in way which I certainly have not seen them set out and evaluated in any written or spoken word. If the debate had done no more than that, and if his speech had contained no criticisms and no suggestions it would have served a very useful purpose. But I think my noble friend Lord Rennell—he is not in his place—did less than justice to the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, when he said, as I understood it, that Lord Cherwell was hardly entitled to deploy this situation in the way he did unless he offered concrete suggestions and that he had failed to offer any such suggestions. I listened with great care to my noble friend's speech, and I am bound to say that I thought that he offered very definite suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said that we were not entitled to criticize the action or inaction of the Government because we were committed to certain policies of expenditure which are common to all of us—pensions, social insurance and the like. My Lords, I entirely repudiate that line of argument. I am not going back in any degree upon the commitments which we undertook when we were all together, because that was a policy which we entered upon in the genuine belief that it was right, and in the belief that if we all pulled together and pursued a sane economic policy, then we could pay our way and assume these great responsibilities. Therefore we are indeed entitled, not by way of destructive criticism but by way of constructive criticism, to say that matters like nationalization, particularly at this time, are not going to help.
I thought there were a good many non sequiturs in the course of the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken, if he will forgive my saying so. For instance he said that we should never be able to get an export trade unless we nationalized all our industries, not only industries

91
which will take part in export but those which will take part in imports.
A NOBLE LORD: He said nothing of the sort.
LORD DARWEN: Not industries, but the national import and export boards would be the trading agency. It would not mean the nationalization of our industry.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are going to carry further the magnificent experiment of abolishing the Liverpool Cotton Exchange?
LORD DARWEN: Quite.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think that this will find a ready echo from the Liberal Benches, whose members in another place used to take me very greatly to task for not paying enough attention to the merchants of the world, who really knew all about business. I have sometimes thought that my friends on the Liberal Benches overrated the value of the merchant as against the value of the producer, but I am quite certain that the only way to get that export trade back is to use all those agencies which for generations have built up that knowledge of markets, as well as the goodwill which has made it possible for us to have this infinite variety of export trade with all the different markets of the world. I should have thought that nobody would appreciate that more than somebody from Lancashire.
Then the noble Lord said that we were to get rid of competition. The competition we shall be up against in the export trade is not internal competition in this country; it is the competition of sellers and manufacturers ail over the world, selling in the markets of the world. I wish we could be a little clearer on these simple facts. The position of today is really no guide to the position two or three years hence. Anybody can sell to-day. It is easy to sell in a seller's market, and the risk we are running to-day is that we may be selling goods which do not come quite up to the mark. I think many of our goods are maintaining the highest standards, but the real test and the really difficult and testing time is going to come in a few years' time when the great void has been filled, and when productive capacity is
92
available—and after a war you always have a vast productive capacity; the productive capacity of America has greatly increased—and when we are using all the great new factories which we have established. That is why we feel it is so frightfully risky to be embarking on these experiments at this very critical time when, as my noble friend says, time is of the essence of the contract the whole way along the line.
Then the noble Lord said that we measure the success of private enterprise by the profit it makes. So far as I am concerned I think nothing is further from the truth. I am not in the least a theoretician on nationalization or private enterprise. But the case has got to be made out by the nationalizer, and we have also got to make out our case. The case is primarily upon the plaintiff. The point is: What is going to give you the best result? That does not necessarily involve profit, although, quite frankly, I think you will be more successful if you carry on business at a profit than if you carry it on at a loss. The only concern I know which can go on carrying on business at a loss is the State, and even the State cannot go on doing it for very long without bankrupting all the people who have to contribute to it, because that means that every loss which is made must come out of the pockets of the taxpayers who—I apologize for being so elementary in this—really, except for a most infinitesimal fraction, and that a diminishing fraction all the time—are not the idle rich or even the non-idle rich. They are of course the great mass of the people of this country. But we measure the success of private enterprise not by profit but by production and ability to sell, ability to sell at reasonable prices to our own people, and ability to sell in the only way you will sell in the markets of the world, at competitive prices. That is the test, and the only test. I do not say that private enterprise is without its faults. I believe it has had its losses, but it has paid for its losses and not the taxpayers. I do not say it has not had its faults. Put the faults right, but do not—this is the very life of the people, as we all admit—take these frightful risks.
The only other point I wish to make is with regard to economy. It is easy to say that one has no business to criticize expenditure unless one can say, "This

93
ought to be reduced," or "That ought to be reduced". That is not really a fair or adequate answer on the part of the Government. Only the Government knows where the economies can be made. But I think the charge which my noble friend and I would make is a two-fold one. Given the whole of the expenditure, which we are prepared to honour, in the increase of our social services, what does require a very great deal of explanation is, that, having budgeted for a whole year of war, and, having had only three months of war, an economy of something like £800,000,000 was all that was obtained. Can anybody suggest that the Budget for the current year does not show an expenditure which is lavish to a degree? I go a stage further and say this. I remember very well in the last Government which we were all in, when Sir John Anderson was at the Exchequer, that even in war he kept a shrewd eye on getting value for money. One of the things he was always inculcating—and he was absolutely right—was that the moment war was over it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only as the watch-dog but as the financial partner of every Department, to join them in seeing where every economy could be made. Quite frankly—I speak subject to correction—I do not remember ever hearing the present Chancellor of the Exchequer express any admiration for economy or give any advice, much less injunction, to his colleagues, that they were to be careful in their expenditure. On the contrary, the impression—I think everybody in this House will bear me out—left upon me "Spend as much as you can." That honestly is the impression he is giving, and it is not good.
My final points with regard to economy are these. Economical administration is efficient administration, and it does not mean crippling enterprise. If I may venture to take examples from ordinary enterprise, the greatest advances in trade have been made by firms who have been most scrupulous and careful in the economy of their internal administration. Indeed, that is why they have had large funds and large reserves at their disposal which have enabled them to go and make these ventures. And I would also say in Passing that unless there are those reserves, and unless there are reserves in the hands of private individuals, too, to
94
make these ventures, we may lose a great many new opportunities which are not so big at first but which do require people to take great risks, and three or four of which may fail but a fifth succeed. People sitting in all quarters of this House know from their own experience, in the businesses with which they are connected, how, because they were prepared to go and make a venture with their private fortunes or with funds entrusted to them—let us be frank about it—very often by rich people, generally by rich people—they succeeded, and that, as a result, businesses to-day with great capital and giving great employment have come to this country and stayed in this country. I know that the noble Lords opposite will say, "Well, that will all be done by the Socialist Government." I wonder. I have been in Governments a long time. I have a great respect for the public administration. I owe it deep debts. But there is one thing it does not do or does not like doing, and that is taking risks.
LORD QUIBELL: Does the City of London?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, the City of London does, very often. Certainly a great many more things have been financed by the City of London. I do not say that sometimes certain people have not been too conservative. I have not agreed with everybody, but, broad and large, certainly private enterprise, whether in the City of London or from other quarters, has found the wherewithal to go into ventures out of which great businesses have sprung. But that is not the business of Government. They do not understand it. Civil servants do not understand it. What is more—and there is nothing Party about this—what is certainly going to happen every time is that you are going to have questions asked and criticism made in Parliament. One reason why some civil servants do not very much like Parliamentary democracy is that so many questions get asked, and they get terrified of question time. Everybody puts down questions, and the more you take the whole business of the country into your own hands, the more detailed questions will be asked—and quite rightly. You cannot escape it. The moment you begin to take Government control of every industry, inevitably the result is going to

95
be Parliamentary questions. The Minister will not take the risks and the civil servant will be greatly disinclined to take them, because he will say: "It is not my money; I must play for safety, for certainty." I appeal to anybody, quite irrespective of politics, who has had a lot of experience of administration, whether as a civil servant or as a Minister of the Crown, to say whether that is not the necessary, inevitable and, I would add, the right trend; because we must keep Parliamentary control.
My final point is that you waste so much on what I may call the non-effective vote. I am not sure whether I am using exactly the right expression, but I think the House will appreciate what I mean. That vote, in a sense, is on two sides. My noble friend has quoted the example of a Charity which wanted to build six cottages, and which had to fill up 187 forms. That threw a searchlight on this position. The more of that kind of thing you have, the larger the staff you have to engage and the more people you take off productive employment and put into non-productive employment. After all, every civil servant is adding to the overheads of the business of this country. You have to have a certain number of them, and you are very lucky in those you have got. But do let us apply at any rate the best principles of business if we are going into State enterprise. The thing you always watch in business—otherwise you end up in Carey Street—is your overheads. You ask, "Is the percentage getting too high—the non-productive expenditure?" In fact, when you go into the export trade, where even eighths count in the price at which you have to sell, you must pay particular attention to this point. If you are going to add thousands or tens of thousands to the number of officials who have to be carried on the books—that is on the books of the taxpayer and of industry—you are adding to the unproductive costs. At the same time, you are not adding it only once, but twice over, because the firm is also put to unlimited extra expense; they have to take on an enormous number of extra staff to do this unproductive work of filling up forms.
I am not going to say anything stupid, such as, that we can get rid of all controls the present time. Of course we can-
96
not. On the other hand, I am perfectly certain we can get rid of a good many, and enormously simplify others. You should trust people a little and give them a broad directive on which to go. You can have a penalty to hit the man who is wrong and who is doing the wrong thing. I would rather see him put out of business. What is happening to-day, however, is, as I have said before, that you are trying to command every platoon in an army, trying to do everybody's job, and the result is delay and extra expense which falls on every business twice over—once in respect of the officials whom you have to employ in performing your side of the business, and then over again in respect of those the individual business has to employ in filling up your 187 forms. That is adding in a colossal way to expenditure.
Whether we have State enterprises or private enterprises, we have to sell in the markets of the world and build up the balance of our export trade by selling the best quality at competitive prices. If we cannot do that, it does not matter whether it is private or public enterprise that is trying to sell the goods, we shall fail to sell them. Then, indeed, we shall be in a gloomy position.
4.38 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I know the whole House are very grateful and have shown their gratitude in a number of ways already to the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, for introducing this topic in a speech which perhaps he will allow me to say, with the permission of the House, was fully worthy not only of this House but of another "House"—I refer to Christ Church, where we resided together for so long. I have heard it said, I do not know with how much truth, that the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Winston Churchill, has described him as the other half of his brain. Well, without plumbing the secrets of that mighty instrument of cerebration, I feel, particularly comparing the speech of the noble Lord today, with all its life, fire, youth and gaiety, with the speech of Mr. Churchill in Edinburgh, that perhaps we have the better half, as also many other excellent things, in this House.
A great number of issues have been raised: a great number of arrows have hit the mark, or only just missed it, or occasionally missed it altogether, and I

97
must warn your Lordships that I am afraid I may detain you rather longer than all of you might wish. Perhaps I might suggest to those who are not good at listening to long speeches that it might be more interesting to retire for refreshment now and come back later. It would also be more heartening for me at the later stages. Be that as it may, I feel you all agree that an immense subject of this kind does require a full statement from the spokesman for His Majesty's Government. I will try and cover all the points raised in my statement, rather than take them one by one, but perhaps in advance I can allude to one or two matters straight away. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for bringing forward what appeared to be most helpful and constructive points. Whether, like other points that seem helpful and constructive in this friendly atmosphere, they will lose their helpfulness and constructiveness when exposed to the bleak light of Whitehall, I have no means of knowing, but I will certainly lay them before the proper authorities. I would also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, on giving me such solid support.
The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, indulged in a number of interesting personal references with which I will not attempt to compete, because his hand is clearly in better practice at that kind of thing than mine. I must say, however, that the personal references he made, in a very friendly spirit, to some members of the administration would, I am sure, if they were here, be repaid with interest. Since they are not here, I would only tell him that while we in the past, when we have felt we were the Cinderellas of politics, have been inclined to regard noble Lords opposite as the Ugly Sisters, now that fortune has come our way we look upon them as Sleeping Beauties, working off the result of what Gibbon would call their "dull and deep potations of Party doctrine" and waiting for a Prince Charming to come along to wake them up. All the more so if he were a Professor of Experimental Philosophy at Oxford, or I think we may say after to-day, a Professor of Experimental Statistics.
Now we come to the more solid matters raised. I am not going to say very much to-day about the tremendous issue of nationalization, which we on this side
98
believe in so strongly and which noble Lords on the other side dislike. I am governed in that decision not only by a glance at the clock but also by the fact that a week to-day we debated a Motion on this subject brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot and I am sure the last thing your Lordships would wish would be for me or for any other spokesman of the Government to cover the same ground twice. Therefore I will soft pedal on that a little, but perhaps I may say one thing about it. Some of the noble Lords opposite, while possessing no great enthusiasm for nationalization in the abstract, particularly dislike the idea of its being introduced now. They ask "Why cannot you let us alone a little longer?" They remind me of Saint Augustine who, in his unregenerate youth, offered up this prayer: "Teach me continence and chastity, O Lord, but not yet." I seem to remember that that was what the saint prayed to heaven be fore he was converted.
I feel we are agreed in this House that we are all really concerned with one entity, one set of figures, and that is the amount that we in this country can produce either directly for ourselves or so that foreigners will take it and give us their goods in exchange. Whatever may have been the position before the war, when we had a small unearned income from abroad, now on the morrow of the war, we are faced with the fact that we must rely on our own exertions. We had, you remember, a small unearned income from abroad; it was a good income, as unearned incomes go, but, with apologies to Saki, as unearned incomes go, it went. We have very little left of it to-day, and we have to depend on our own exertions. We have to watch three factors, and I know I have noble Lords with me in this. We have to watch the productivity per head of this country, we have to watch the total manpower whose services we actually use (because it is no good having them available if we fail to make use of so many of them, as before the war) and we have to ensure, by democratic and peaceful means, that those services are turned on to the kind of work most necessary, including the kind of work and production which will enable us to purchase imports from abroad. Those are generalities.
I do not wish to spend too long on describing the position in which we were

99
placed as a result of the enormous economic sacrifices we made during the war. They are, I think, familiar to the House, and if they are not, may I refer your Lordships to the statistical material published at the time of the Washington loan negotiations. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, in one of the most brilliant passages of economic description to which I have listened, summarized the position as he saw it. I think he took rather a gloomy view of it, and he must not take me as entertaining exactly the same view of the position after the war as he entertains, but let us at any rate take that very gloomy summary as a starting point, without accepting every single detail contained in it. If we ask ourselves now what steps this elected Government of ours actually took when it was returned to power last July, it seems to me that five main decisions were taken. Of course noble Lords opposite, many of whom have had infinitely greater experience of high Governmental positions than I have had, or perhaps am likely to have, know that good government is not merely a matter of decisions of principle; there are also countless administrative acts which in the long run perhaps matter even more and which can only be judged by results. But let us look at the decisions of principle that were taken, because I feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that some rather interesting points arise.
As I said, there were five decisions taken. First of all, there was the decision to nationalize certain selected industries, leaving eighty per cent., or perhaps somewhat more, of industry operating for private profit. That was a decision which would not, of course, have been taken by another Government if it had come into power, but I feel that even the greatest enthusiasts among us or nationalization will hardly claim that nationalization has as yet had any influence one way or the other. I hope that noble Lords opposite will be equally generous in admitting that point. It could be argued that the psychological effect on industry is bad, but it could be argued the other way round, that the majority of people wanted nationalization and, therefore, that there is, psychological reason to suppose it has bucked up more people than it has depressed. I am perfectly content to argue the matter on those lines, but I am trying to be gener-
100
ous, and assuming that it has not as yet, taking the present position, affected the country's fortunes one way or the other.
If we take the other four decisions, it is impossible to say that noble Lords opposite, if they had been in our place, would not have taken them also. In the first place, there was the decision to demobilize in an orderly fashion according to the Bevin scheme—a scheme initiated by Mr. Bevin but which received the warm approval o: the whole Coalition Government. That plan of demobilization was probably rather less rapid than other plans which could have been evolved, but we have all agreed I think that it was much more fair and much more orderly, and that in the long run it has worked out very well. I have no doubt whatever that noble Lords opposite would have proceeded at that rate of demobilization.
Another very important decision was taken, or so historians will regard it, although in this country it seems to come so naturally that I do not think we have taken much account of it. That was the decision to remove nearly all control over labour and to say to the population, not only to the working man but to the shopkeeper, "You can work or start a business if you choose." We have freed labour. We have restored to a very large extent—much more rapidly than perhaps seemed possible during the war—the freedom of the Englishman to choose his own job. That was a very important decision, and I do not doubt that it would have been taken by noble Lords opposite.
The third of these decisions that I feel would have probably been taken (at least I hope they would have been) by noble Lords opposite, was the decision to retain controls. That is the kind of matter that cannot, of course, he argued in a sentence or two in the abstract. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that it is necessary to study the operation of particular controls before a verdict can be given. But, by and large, I do not doubt that, with the world scarcity that then prevailed, which is still prevailing and which may prevail for some time to come, noble Lords would have retained a large measure of the war controls.
Finally, we come to a decision which a great logician, the noble Lord, Lord

101
Cherwell, and I hasten to say, the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, would perhaps describe as a particular instance of the previous point which is so striking that I think we must attend to it for a moment. A decision whose importance it seems to me it is impossible to exaggerate in discussing the economic positions of our country was taken by the present Government, courageously taken and courageously adhered to, although it has not everywhere been a popular decision, to concentrate a far greater effort on export than before the war. I hope that noble Lords opposite would have taken that decision, and if so let them share the credit. If they disclaim any decision of that kind we are perfectly willing to appropriate all the credit ourselves.
It is a fact well known to your Lordships that we found ourselves faced after the war, whatever Government was in power, with the necessity of increasing exports by something between fifty per cent. and seventy-five per cent. over the prewar figures. They had dropped during the war to a third, and it was decided in all these circumstances to try and secure that the proportion of our manufactured goods going to export, instead of being fifteen per cent. as before the war, would be twenty-five per cent. after the war. That was a very big derision of principle indeed, and it has been as I say courageously adhered to. Perhaps I should also mention another decision which hardly comes on quite the same plane. I mean the decision to preserve the price level. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Fennell, said about our control of the price level and our arrangements generally. Historians will attach a great deal of importance to that. Enormous advances have been made on what occurred after the last war, but I will not refer to it under these general headings.
There you have the major decisions which were taken. You have also had countless administrative acts since—most of them we believe wise, some of them no doubt foolish—which were taken by high and low members or officials of the Government. Now let us have a look at the results. I am not going to claim for a moment that everything good that has happened is the result of the Government's policy and everything bad which
102
has happened is the result of some uncontrollable world situation—of course not. There is a healthy democratic convention in this country that a Government stands the brickbats when things are going wrong and collects all the halfpence it can when things go rather better than was expected, and I am observing that convention this afternoon. Before trying to establish any kind of rest or coming to a verdict, I would just like to be allowed in a sentence or two to refer to the enormous work of reconversion that has gone on.
Since the war ended 5,000,000 people have been brought out of the Services or organizations supplying the Services, and 3,000,000 have become engaged in civilian industry. If you ask why such a gap—I know the mathematical gap will not have eluded the noble Lord—the answer is that a million of them are women or old people who have retired from active participation and nearly another million are either taking their paid holiday after leaving the Forces or represent a small increase, because it is a very small increase, in unemployment. At any rate there has been that enormous reconversion illustrated by those figures of manpower which, of course, in physical terms represent an overwhelming turnover in plant and machinery as well as man-power. Can we work out any kind of basis, any kind of yardstick, for saying whether things have gone well or badly? I do not myself believe it is much good trying to produce selected figures drawn from industries which suit our book rather more, if we are to be met, if not to-day on another occasion, by more figures drawn from industries which suit us less well. I will just allude to the steady upward rise in industrial profits. Taking 1942 as the base, in 1943 there was an increase of twelve per cent.; there was a further small increase in 1944, and when we come to the present day we find that the increase is twenty-one per cent. over 1942. I do not want to stress those figures very much. There is a small increase of profit which shows at any rate that from that point of view things have not been going too badly. There have, of course, since the end of the war been increases in the values of Government at securities and ordinary shares. These are small straws, and I do not want to lay too much emphasis upon them.

103
Let us get back to those three great tests, productivity per head, the use we are making of our labour as shown by the employment figures, and the allocation of our labour between urgent and less urgent occupations. If we take productivity, I am afraid it is impossible to give any definite figures. It is quite wrong to suggest, as was suggested by an eminent spokesman of the Opposition in another place, that productivity has dropped by twenty or thirty per cent. since the end of the war. I have talked to all the experts I can find and not one of them can see any ground for a dismal conclusion of that sort. You would expect productivity to be somewhat lower during the process of reconversion than during the war, or during the period of peace, when reconversion is complete, but as far as we can find there is no evidence that productivity has on the whole declined since the end of the war. There is no evidence, taking it by and large, to prove that it has substantially increased. There has been a small rise in coal-mining. I might select a few industries where there has been a rise, and I have a list of seven in my hand, but I have also a list of seven where it seems there might have been some slight decline. I do not think we have sufficient grounds at the moment—I say that deliberately because it is not to the credit or discredit of the Government—for saying there has been a rise or fall in productivity per head since the end of the war.
If we look at employment and the use we are making of our man-power, I think we can say that on the whole unemployment has been pretty low during the period of reconversion. At the present time it is running at the level of about 2.7 per cent., with 372,000 unemployed. It is only fair to mention that while we certainly should not add to that figure the large number of people who are taking paid holidays after leaving the Services, yet the fact that they are not at the moment actively employed does make it impossible to take any special credit for the comparatively low unemployment figure. I would be misleading your Lord-ships if I did not point to one rather disconcerting aspect of the unemployment figures and that is that rather more than two-fifths of the unemployment is concentrated in the development areas. There
104
are signs of the reappearance of the old depressed areas.
It may be asked: "What is the Government doing about that? "The answer is that we are operating, with a great deal of energy and with the highest priority possible, the Distribution of Industry Act, which was passed by the Coalition Government during the war. We are operating that Act in a way that will be, I think, of interest to your Lordships. It certainly is a marked advance on what was effected in this field before the war. We hope, as a result of the way in which we are using this Act and other collateral measures, that something more than 400,000 jobs will be found in the development areas—the position, as noble Lords know, is worse in Scotland and South Wales than elsewhere—beyond what were found in a standard year before the war. It is hoped that those jobs will be found directly as a result of our initiative, and if you count in indirect work and services, distribution and so on, that should flow from the direct provision of work, there is good ground for believing that the problem will be eventually solved.
But, of course, your Lordships are entitled to ask, "How soon?" That is a very relevant question when thinking of the human issues involved. I am hound to say that—not through the fault of this Government, nor through the fault of any Government—it will not be before the middle of 1947 that we can expect a really substantial impression to be made on unemployment in these development areas, as the result of the Governmental measures to which I am referring. I am not boasting of the position in these areas, nor yet am I trying to hide it. I want your Lordships fully to realize the specially difficult conditions which relate to unemployment at the present time. Still on the subject of man-power, I come to the question of allocation. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, somewhat misunderstood what I said on an earlier occasion. I have not yet reached the point of life where I can repeat myself with any certainty or any acceptability, and as time is going on I would refer the noble Lord to the rather detailed statement which I made on the subject of manpower in this House a few weeks ago. What I then emphasized was that the policy of the Government was, so far as possible, to make occupations where labour was short more attractive, and by that means to

105
make people move into them and away from the occupations where labour was plentiful.
LORD CHERWELL: By raising wages!
LORD PAKENHAM: It is not, I am afraid, so simple as that; if it were, it could be done very quickly. There are a great number of ways, including the improvement of conditions in the industries concerned—
LORD CHERWELL: Raising costs!
LORD PAKENHAM:—to which I would call the attention of the noble Lord. Within this variegated saga that I have laid before your Lordships of upward struggle, with one or two difficulties and set-backs, I have at least one success story to recount to the House. I have suggested that in other respects the record contains some things which are encouraging, and some that are discouraging. But, in this particular connexion, things have gone very much better than any one expected a few months ago. I am referring, of course, to the export trade. Progress in the export trade, in the last six months, has been astonishingly good. The hour is now late, and we can perhaps on another occasion discuss it in detail—maybe next week, when the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, has a Motion on the Paper, and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has another. But I desire to place it on record now, that the progress which has been made in the export trade has exceeded all expectations.
At the end of the war our export trade had risen to something like forty-five per cent. of the pre-war standard. It had sunk below that during the war. According to the March figures, it has now gone up to close on ninety per cent. of the prewar standard. The April figures are not in my possession, so I cannot lay them before the House, but it is anticipated that they will show a further rise up to well over ninety per cent. In other words, we have more than doubled the quantity of exports as the result of what has been done in the nine months period during which the present Government have held office. I think, therefore, that I may well say that I am in no need of the sympathy which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, was good enough to extend to me. Here is something of which we
106
are entitled to boast. We should have to take a count if things had gone the wrong way, but we are entitled to have, if not a bouquet, a poesy or a nosegay, because things have gone the right way.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Might I ask the noble Lord if he would spare just one flower from the posy for private enterprise which has exported the goods?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am in a generous mood. Let us shake hands all round on it. There is a point in that same connexion which I must impose on the House. Some people may say that we have been almost too successful. That is something which I think the noble Lord had not actually thought of. He would, I am sure, regard it as unworthy. But there are people who will say that we are exporting too large a proportion of our current productivity. I would point out that nearly sixty-five per cent. of the manufactured exports in March were not goods which are ordinarily bought or sold in shops. Of the remaining thirty-five per cent. only about three-fifths—that is, only twenty-two per cent. altogether—of the exports were goods of types which are in short supply here or to which some form of rationing has been applied here. I mention that because, perhaps, some noble Lords may be inclined to wonder whether we have not, in fact, been rather overdoing the export trade.
I must express my regret to Lord Cherwell that I am unable to break up the figure of £750,000,000 which was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the total deficit during the current year. The figures I have just been given might suggest that it would be substantially reduced, but, for various reasons, we are not at the moment in a position to submit that firm conclusion to the House. I must leave the matter fluid, though I think I may add fluid in the right direction—if the great scientist sitting opposite will permit the use of such a phrase.
With further apologies for detaining your Lordships, I must come to the financial aspect of matters. I pass over—though I have already touched on it—the great achievement that is represented by the maintenance of a stable prices level, and by the fact that no-one today argues that money and credit are being wrongly distributed, or are even, so far as lies in

107
the power of governments and banks to prevent it, in short supply. The financial problem—apart from the Budgetary problem—must be held to have been handled in most successful fashion. Let us shake hands again all round. When we come to the Budgetary position, noble Lords will no doubt insist upon a little detail. It may be argued—though I do not think that it has been seriously argued by the noble Lord who initiated this debate, or by any other speaker to-day—and it can be argued that we are not being taxed enough at the present time in view of our total expenditure. It might also be argued that the wrong kind of taxes are being imposed. That would, perhaps, be hardly a suitable subject for us in this House, unless I have my constitutional procedure a little wrong.
We are left, however, with the very great question: Is our total expenditure too high? Here it does seem to me that we are entitled, all of us in this House, to agree that our total expenditure is undesirably high, and does represent a high: proportion of our total national income, without casting the blame on anybody. I do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, did any injustice to the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, when he pointed out that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, had not been able to mention any large field of economy. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—who spoke so cogently on so many subjects which would carry me rather far afield to answer—and for noble Lords opposite to say: "We are not the Government, and we have no idea at all where big economies can be made." It is not so very long since they were the Government. They know where economies are possible, and where they are not.
I do not feel myself—I must not use an expression I should regret—that noble Lords opposite are at their most elevated when they come down to us, or when their friends in another place come down to the House, and say "We know nothing at all about these things. We are innocents who have no conception about how you can make these economies, but we know in our bones that you are very bad and incompetent for not being able to make them." It may be that
108
some of the noble Lords might be able to make these economies. We have no means of knowing; we shall not have, perhaps, for a great number of years. But we can be sure of this, that no Government, ready to discharge the international and domestic responsibilities which we are all agreed must be discharged, could have effected any substantial economy.
I will ask the noble Lord, when he makes his final remarks, if he can indicate what order of magnitude, because I know he is a great authority on order: of magnitude, this economy is intended to comprise. Is it a 20 per cent., a 10 per cent. or 5 per cent. economy? The Government were given no indication in another place; they were simply told that there were these vast economies, and that it was quite impossible to begin to point to them. I must just reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, regarding his statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not interested in economy. I do not think we should allow that to go from this place. It was a taunt brought up in the House of Commons, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied at some length when he wound up the Budget Debate. In his final reply, in emphasizing his interest in economy, he referred the speaker back to his original Budget statement, and I can only refer the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to that statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this very subject, to the extent of two columns of Hansard.
You will want to know, my Lords, whether we think there can be much reduction in the future. As the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, a good deal of our present expenditure is in the nature of transient and terminal charges, arising from the war. Of the total Budget expenditure of £3,887,000,000. £1,667,000,000 is for the Defence and Supply department, and of that £576,000,000 is terminal and will not recur. In addition, the reduction of defence forces and munition industries to the level already explained in the Defence White Paper will start off Defence and Supply expenditure on a lower level next year. Among the Civil Service votes there are also similar transient charges, such as £90,000,000 for U.N.R.R.A. and

109
£80,000,000 for the Control Office for Germany and Austria.
On the other hand—here again we must face it—the annual cost of the major social services will rise by £200,000,000. This is the estimate of the increase, so far as the central Exchequer is concerned, in the period between 1946 and 1948. It should be remembered, however, that about half of that sum is due to this great health service which is, if not in some of its aspects at any rate in its quantitative aspect, approved of by noble Lords opposite. Nearly £100,000,000 of the £200,000,000 increase will come from the development of the great new health service. Much of that will represent simply a transfer from rates to the central Exchequer, and it should not, therefore, be regarded as any kind of additional burden on the community.
We are apt to exaggerate expenditure where social services have increased. Before the war social services cost us £60,000,000, which was 5.6 per cent, of the total national income in 1938. In 1946 they are estimated to cost 6 per cent. of the total national income, so there has not been much rise yet. In the years between 1946 and 1948 there will be this rise, but a great part of it will be due to the national health service and, as I have said, a considerable section of that will simply be a transfer from rates to the central Exchequer. I would emphasize to noble Lords opposite that we are not ashamed of this increase in the expenditure on social services. We are proud of them. They represent a development which during the last forty years has transformed the life of many millions of people in this country. The process is not completed yet, and if noble Lords opposite choose to share the responsibility for these great increases, I say "Let them share it." We are certainly not going to be dog-in-the-manger about it. But if they criticize us for increasing them too far I say "Let them go their own way and we shall rejoice to go ours," because on this very important question we are quite sure that, by and large, the money has been spent in a way in which it could most usefully be spent.
There is an argument, however—and I think it is one that weighed heavily with the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell—that although these things are desirable they do represent a very heavy charge on our
110
national exertions. It will be suggested that they are transferred from those who produce to those who do not produce. It is not possible to accept that argument, or to reject it, in a single sentence. Undoubtedly these social services increase the producing power of the community. They provide the nation with better brains and healthier bodies, and it may be that they have not been without influence in reducing the number of industrial disputes after this war to a level which compares very favourably indeed with that which followed the last war. It is impossible to estimate their precise effect, but we do admit that a process has been going on during recent years of transferring income from those who could most afford it to those who were in greatest need. We say that that process has not yet reached its full completion.
The noble Lord touched on another aspect of the budgetary question and then referred to inflation. I think that his language was somewhat overdrawn, but we are at one with him in admitting the seriousness of the danger. We would rather take the gloomy view with him than the optimistic view of the theorists on this subject. We are perfectly prepared to be pessimistic with the noble Lord, because we believe it is better in this matter to face the worst at once. The Chancellor has said that, if we all play our part, and if the controls are kept on—which I hope the noble Lord will accept—if the National Savings campaign is carried on with the same intensity and the same resolution as during the war, then the danger of inflation will be averted. But the Chancellor has made it plain that, ultimately, the only way to overcome the danger of inflation is to produce more goods, so that there will not be too much money running after a limited supply of goods.
On the subject of incentive, and generally on the whole question of production, there is much that might be said. The Chancellor has removed tax burdens from the shoulders of millions of people in his two Budgets and certainly has appeared to have benefited industry very considerably by removing the Excess Profits Tax. I say "appeared to," because he seems to have occasioned a very marked rise in the value of ordinary shares in consequence, and generally I think that industry is pleased, when it is not in a political

111
mood, with the way the Chancellor has handled that problem. I think the Chancellor has gone as far as was possible to lighten tax burdens and generally to stimulate production. But we do admit that in the years ahead we must go still further, we must find some way of going still further in removing the tax burden, whether from the shoulders of working people or from those in the higher income groups. We do agree that we must give businessmen more encouragement and incentive than it has always been possible to give in the past, but we are convinced, first, last and all the time, that the social services must in no circumstances be cut in order to ease the burden on the larger income groups.
In conclusion, I would just submit this to the House—since we have had a very absorbing, at times controversial but, on the whole, I think, educative debate—it is quite true that we on this side are seeking to confer a great expansion of social rights on the mass of the people; but whether you look at the duty of saving, or whether you look at the duty of making a wages policy work, or making a full employment policy work, we are agreed—we are the first to tell the country—that new social rights do involve new social duties. We are quite sure that those new duties will be undertaken in the same spirit in which the duties which fell on the whole population during the war were undertaken. But we quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, when he says that all classes of the community must realise that we are now in the same boat together.
There was a time before the war when it was perhaps too common on one side to talk about the idle rich, and too common on the other side to talk about the idle poor, or, at any rate, to say that the poor would become idle unless they were hounded along by the whip of the starvation motive. We find very little disposition in any part of the country to-day to talk about the idle rich or the idle poor. As a result of two great wars within thirty years too many rich and too many poor lie idle together, and I would suggest that, if we have gained nothing else from the war, we have, at any rate, gained a deeper, a more urgent sense of our common destiny, and of the fact that we are all roped together in the ascent of
112
the mountain. These spiritual elements are impossible to measure by the ledger or balance-sheet, but, if we stick simply to the material aspect of things with which we have been concerned to-day, I say we can once again face a future rich with hope. I only wish the whole of suffering humanity had as far a prospect as this small island, but great country, whose influence for good was never so much needed, and whose power for good was never so obvious as it is when we gaze around the stricken world of to-day.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, there has been quite an agreeable change in the usual procedure. Instead of the usual polite phrases about the value of the debate, Lord Rennell thought it might do harm. I hope and believe that I did not say anything that might impair the chance of our getting the American loan. I did hope I had made it clear that I was putting forward two or three lines of action about the way inflation could be avoided, but I will not reiterate them now. I will not take up the time of the House by discussing the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. His views on inflation I am glad to see are not shared by his Party, so I will not discuss the merits of them. I think my noble friend, Viscount Swinton, made it plain that, far from attacking Russia, I was pointing out how very sensible they were in not being led away by doctrinaire theory, and in recognizing that it was necessary, if you wanted to get production, to give incentives. Still less will I follow him in his own attack on Russia when he complained about their not helping Central Europe in their transport problems, on the Danube and so on.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord will appreciate that I said all the military zones were equally bad.
LORD CHERWELL: The fact that the others may be bad does not seem to me to excuse the Russians. The Russians are occupying the greatest part of Europe—especially Central Europe. I would be very hesitant to join in any attack on Russia for their failure to look after the transport of Central Europe. I will not go into what I conceive to be the fallacy of the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, about the power of the market. The power of the market is a very transitory thing. People will take your goods if they want to

113
sell to you, but after a time they are not going to take bad inferior goods they do not want, simply because they can sell you something you want. They will change their production effort into some line so that they can get the stuff they want. I do not think it would be desirable for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham in his series of fairy stories. I quite see that "Cinderella" comes first and then "The Sleeping Beauty," and the next one, as far as I remember, is "Beauty and the Beast." But it might be misunderstood if we went any further on that aspect.
LORD CALVERLEY: The Beast was transformed.
LORD CHERWELL: There was also a Beast with a number, but 666 is rather higher than we have actually reached. I will not follow him in his reminiscences of St. Augustine. I well remember another gentleman, often quoted as an example to us in other respects, who said that we all want to go to Heaven but not immediately. I think it is much on the same lines. As I said at the outset, I do not think it is fair to ask us to give details as to where we should make cuts, but I certainly did not suggest for one moment that we should cut the social services. I said that the public might well he proud in insisting on having these services.
What I do want is that these facts should be made plain to the public, so that they should realize, when they are made to pay taxes, that these go in meeting their own amenities. They cannot get it out of the rich; they have not enough left. If the wage-earners knew this, they might understand that it is no good asking for higher wages to make up for what they have to pay in taxes. There is nothing that can be gained in this way. It is just plain arithmetic. We of course applaud the increase in exports. Nothing was mentioned about imports, but the period is very short, and I agree it is difficult to deal with these month by month. I will not go into the question of the rise in the price of ordinary shares. Many people might say that that is because the City is afraid of inflation. The first thing that happens when people fear inflation is that they buy ordinary shares, and when ordinary shares go up as the result of purchase, I should say that the reason is
114
that people are anxious about the value of currency. As I say, however, those are big questions to start discussing at this time in the evening.
As to the amount of economies that could be made, I do not mind saying that I think the figure should be between ten and twenty per cent. I will not go into the question of how economies can be made. I know how difficult it is to make them. I had a lot of trouble of this sort in the war. There is always some admirable reason against everything you bring forward. The only thing you can do, if you want economy, is to say to a Department: "This is the total amount you can have. We cannot give you any more, and you will have to make do with it in the best way you can." That is the only possible way, and I hope noble Lords will recognize the fact.
I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord say that the Government did recognize the importance of improving the incentive to effort on the part of those people who do deliver the goods. I did not say as suggested by Lord Darwen, that a big profit meant a big output. What I said was that people do not pay a large salary because they like the other man's appearance; they pay a large salary because a man produces something that is wanted. If a man can get a large salary, it means that he is doing something that is required by the community and that few other people can do; it is a rare capacity that is worth paying for. If it is worth paying for, it means it is worth that much to the community, and if you remove the incentive to people to use their talents, then the community as a whole will lose. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and for the perhaps rather unmerited compliments that he paid in the course of it, and I hope the House will agree to my withdrawing the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petitions for the following Bills:
Royal London Ophthalmic Hospital, Royal Westminster Ophthalmic Hospital, and Central London Ophthalmic Hospital (Amalgamation, etc.)
West Sussex County Council (Shoreham and Lancing Beaches, etc.)
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bills. Read, and agreed to.

ROYAL LONDON OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, ROYAL WEST MINSTER OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL, AND CENTRAL LONDON OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL (AMALGAMATION, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (SHOREHAM AND LANCING BEACHES, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, pursuant to leave given this day, and read 1a.

INDIA AND BURMA (BURMA MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
Report from the India and Burma Orders Committee, That they have examined the Draft Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Order does not raise important questions of policy and principle: that the Order is founded on precedent: that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the House without special attention and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before six o'clock.