Sitting of 21 November 1946

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

    Wartime Consumption
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the quantity of petrol issued for civilian purposes in each of the years 1939–45, inclusive, showing each year separately and classified between classes of coupons.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): As I have indicated on previous occasions, I am not prepared to segregate civilian from military consumption of motor spirit during the war years. The statistics of total consumption have been published in the Statistical Digest, 1945.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister say how much petrol was used at Paddington yesterday?
    Hon. Members: Misused.

    Commercial Travellers
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will consider instituting a scheme by which sales representatives will be entitled to a petrol allowance, assessed in accordance with the importance of their trade or industry to the national effort, instead of getting, as at present, the same basic petrol allowance whatever the nature of the business in which they are engaged.
    Mr. Shinwell: The supplementary petrol allowances granted to sales representatives and commercial travellers are subject to a maximum quantity, which takes into
    994
    consideration the horse power of the vehicle used. Where, however, a sales representative is engaged on work of special national importance, he may be granted an increased allowance.
    Mr. Greenwood: Does the Minister regard work in connection with equipment for the rehousing of the people and the maintenance of the cotton industry as of national importance?
    Mr. Shinwell: Offhand—I should say, "Yes, Sir."

    Rationing
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why, in view of the fact that before the war one month's supply in Britain was considered adequate and that today there is four months' supply, he still maintains petrol rationing.
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the reason for the continuance of the rationing of petrol; and, in view of the fact that rationing has been removed in most countries throughout the world, when he hopes to remove this control.
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the reasons for the continuance of petrol rationing.
    Mr. John Lewisasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the reasons for the retention of petrol rationing.
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the reasons for the rationing of fuel for motor cars being continued.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the fact that there is now more petrol in this country than at any previous time, and in view of war demands having ceased, he will now discontinue the rationing system.
    Mr. Shinwell: As I have stated on previous occasions, the Government are not prepared to reveal the level of petroleum stocks held in this country. But in any event, as I have frequently explained to the House, it is the fact that a substantial part of the imports necessary to meet current consumption requires to be shipped from dollar sources, which makes it impossible under present circumstances to announce any further relaxations in petrol rationing.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is not the real reason for the continuation of petrol rationing to create difficulties and hamper the motor industry so as to fabricate arguments for its nationalisation?
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member has a colourful imagination, but there is no substance in what he says.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is the Minister aware that the amount of petrol being consumed on the roads today does not coincide with the coupons which are issued? Is he aware that there is a good deal of black marketing taking place in regard to petrol, and that if he removes the control on petrol, it will at least give the people some belief that the Government intend to remove controls as soon as practicable?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member has any information on the alleged disparity between actual consumption and the coupons issued, I shall be very glad to have it.
    Mr. Bossom: The Minister has stated on many occasions that he has "reasons." Will he give us more than the one reason why he has to continue rationing?
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member does not listen to my answers, because I gave one reason.
    Mr. Bossom: I stated "reasons" in the plural.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Why are arrangements not made to ship petrol from sterling areas, because there are ample supplies in these areas and dollar expenditure would not be involved?
    Mr. Shinwell: Sixty per cent. of the petrol used in this country comes from these sources.
    Sir T. Moore: Is the Minister aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper today, signed by 150 Members, representing something like nine million voters in this country, who want this restriction removed? In view of the statement he has made that 60 per cent. of the petrol imported into this country comes from nondollar sources, is it not now possible for him to remove this control?
    Mr. Shinwell: I always have respect for Motions which appear on the Order Paper, but that is not a matter under my control.

    Supplementary Allowances (Ex-Servicemen)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will grant an increased petrol allowance to ex-Service-men who require it for business purposes.
    Mr. Shinwell: Supplementary petrol allowances are granted to motorists who use their cars for business purposes, but I could not justify the grant of larger allowances to ex-Servicemen than to others engaged in similar businesses.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the supplementary allowances are quite inadequate in a very large number of cases, and that his answer will cause a great deal of disappointment to many classes of ex-Servicemen, who sacrificed their businesses to join up, and who now find that they cannot resume owing to restrictions Which they are convinced are unnecessary?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member has any evidence about inadequacy of petrol allowances in the case of ex-Servicemen, I shall be glad to have the information.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have sent a large number of cases to his Department, and that invariably there has been a refusal of any extra allowance?

    Pool Petrol
    10 and 12. Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) what substances are contained in pool petrol, and when its delivery is to cease;
    (2) why the pool petrol now supplied has not the pulling power of the petrol obtainable before the war; and what efforts are being made to overcome this handicap.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am sending the hon. Member details of the substances contained in the present pool petrol. It is superior to the average grades supplied prewar for commercial vehicles, but is, in certain respects, inferior to prewar No. 1 grades used for the majority of private cars. It must be remembered that the majority of engines are now in poorer mechanical condition than they were before the war, and would give a less satisfactory performance on 1939 fuels than they did at that time. The question of arranging for the provision of two grades of petrol, a commercial grade and

    997
    a better grade for private motorists, is under consideration, but I cannot yet say when the supply of pool petrol will cease.
    Mr. Bossom: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that cars are now in a poorer mechanical condition. Is he not aware that that is largely due to unsatisfactory petrol? Would he tell us what benefit this is to the general public?
    Mr. Shinwell: As I said, the question of substituting two grades of petrol for one is under consideration.
    Mr. Bossom: But could the right hon. Gentleman say what benefit there is to the taxpayers?
    Mr. Shinwell: There are a great many motor cars and public service vehicles on the road and, so far as I know, no very severe handicap has been imposed on the road traveller.
    The following Question stood on the Order Paper:
    13. Mr. JOHN LEWIS,—To ask the Minister of Fuel and Power the reasons for the retention of petrol rationing.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lewis.
    Mr. Lewis: My Question was answered earlier, Sir, along with some others.
    Mr. Speaker: I must apologise to the hon. Member for not calling him for a supplementary. I think it would be useful if I could be told when a large sequence of Questions were to be answered together, because it is a little difficult to catch all the numbers.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry, Sir, but I thought you had been informed. I apologise.

    Private Hire Service
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether concessions in the supply of petrol for private hire will be made in the case of ex-Servicemen who have invested their gratuities in a motor-car hire service.
    Mr. Shinwell: A petrol allowance for a new hire car service, or the extension of an existing service, is granted to meet a public need, and applications from ex-Servicemen and others are dealt with on this basis. While petrol rationing continues I could not justify the release of petrol for a new private hire service solely
    998
    on the ground that a vehicle had been purchased for this purpose. An exception is made, however, in the case of a person who is registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, if work as owner-driver of a hire car offers the only prospect of such a person's satisfactory resettlement.
    Sir W. Wakefield: What is the determination of public need? How is it assessed in the giving of fuel for licensing and rationing purposes?
    Mr. Shinwell: We consult people on the spot, including the police, who, generally speaking, are able to assess whether there is an adequacy of vehicles in the neighbourhood, or whether more are required.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Would the right hon. Gentleman have a look at this point, because, although no doubt in theory that is the case, in practice it does not work? I know of a case in my constituency where a licence for private hire was applied for by an ex-Serviceman, but which was turned down by the regional commissioners. I am sure that the need is there.
    Mr. Shinwell: That may be. I have relaxed the regulation considerably in the last few months, and, recently, we have had very few complaints.
    Major Peter Roberts: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct his office at Leeds to be as sympathetic as other offices in this matter? There have been many complaints from that quarter, in comparison with other offices.
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot imagine any of my offices failing in sympathy.
    Mr. George Wallace: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a public warning to be issued to ex-Servicemen in order to protect them from wasting their money in these ventures?
    Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say whether the police take hat into account in offering guidance to my Department but, naturally, it would be most unwise on the part of ex-Servicemen, or any other men, to engage in this activity if there was formidable competition.
    Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have experience of men who want to start in this business? Surely, they would not

    999
    start unless they thought there was a living in it. After all, it is their own money they are spending.
    Mr. Shinwell: Unfortunately, that is not always the case. There are men who are ready to venture into an activity of this kind who may not be altogether suited for it.
    Sir W. Smithers: Who is the judge?
    Mr. Shinwell: As I have said, so far as ex-Servicemen are concerned, if they are disabled—and this is an activity suited to them—we always agree.
    Captain John Crowder: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what the percentage of disability has to be for ex-Servicemen to be given a licence, without taking into account any other factors?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry that I cannot, because this is a matter under the control of the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a certain town, owing to the indiscriminate issue of licences, many ex-Servicemen are having a very lean time, and are sorry they were let into the cart because of the wrong advice given from above the Gangway?

    GAS SUPPLY, CRICKHOWELL
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that Crick-howell, Breconshire, has been without a supply of gas since April, 1945; and if he will make a statement as to future supplies.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am aware that this small gas works is still closed, but considerable work has been done recently to put it in order. Proposals for renting the works are being put before the owner, and as soon as I receive a report on those discussions, I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Harbours, Scotland (Coal Salvage)
    Mr. McAdamasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will have an examination made at the coal exporting and bunkering harbours of Irvine, Troon, Ayr and Ardrossan, with a view to discover-
    1000
    ing what coal can be salvaged from the beds of those harbours, and take steps to recover it.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am making inquiries into this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that none of my constituents in these burghs have so far approached me in the matter, and that I have grave doubt whether there is any accuracy in this report?
    Mr. Shinwell: On the other hand, it may mean a lack of confidence in the hon. and gallant Member.

    Irish Workers
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give figures to show the response of Irish workers towards recruitment in the coalmining industry.
    Mr. Shinwell: Since July last, when such recruitment commenced, 1,865 men have come to this country from Northern Ireland and Eire for employment in the coalmining industry.
    Mr. Peart: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that suitable hostel accommodation will be provided for recruits who have to come from Ireland?
    Mr. Shinwell: We have taken particular care to see that proper facilities are provided for these persons. We might have been able to secure a larger number if we had had the accommodation.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiry of the Minister of Supply to see if he can transfer some of the Irish labour at Ministry of Supply depots to the mines, seeing that Irish labour is now being retained at the expense of the employment of ex-Servicemen?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have no information on that point, but as the hon. and learned Member no doubt has, perhaps he will convey it.

    Quality Standards
    Mr William Shepherdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power, if he will give an estimate of the difference there would be in the annual tonnage of output of coal if the same standards of saleable coal operated today as in 1938.
    Mr. Shinwell: I regret that information necessary to enable an estimate of the kind suggested to be made is not available.
    Mr. Shepherd: Surely the Minister has seen some examples of the bad coal which is used and could give an estimate?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is quite impossible to give such an estimate.

    Miners' Concessionary Coal
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Fuel and Power If he will state the number of miners connected with coalmining who get free coal; the total quantity so supplied for their own use per anuum; what proportion this is of all coal extracted from the mines; why the amount allowed is equal to four times the annual ration for the ordinary household; and what steps will be taken to make the amount of the free coal equal to the quantity rationed to the ordinary consumer.
    Mr. Shinwell: About 530,000 persons connected with the coal mining industry receive free or concessionary coal. Approximately 420,000 of these men are men directly engaged in coal production, the balance being other employees in coal mining and its ancillary industries. Last year the quantity of coal so supplied was 4,600,000 tons, or about 2½ per cent. of the total quantity of saleable coal produced. The amount of free or concessionary coal supplied to miners is governed by district wage agreements and varies considerably from district to district. The arrangements now in force will clearly fall to be considered by the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mine-workers as part of the general review of wages and conditions of employment which they have agreed to undertake.
    Sir G. Fox: How long has the Minister been in favour of a privileged class, whereby miners' households get 10 tons of coal a year, compared with the ordinary ration in my constituency? And not only that but this privileged class black market their surplus coal.
    Mr. Shinwell: I only take note of what the hon. and gallant Member said about the miners black marketing the coal they receive. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to sustain that allegation, no doubt he will produce the evidence.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask the Minister for an assurance that there is no "closed shop" of entry into this profession in respect of anybody who wants to join it?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that the closed shop is an obsession with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Holmes: Is the Minister aware that no free coal is supplied to the miners, and that the minimum wage has a deduction made from it for the cash value of the coal supplied?
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member is correct. It is quite a mistaken idea that miners receive free coal. When the coal is paid for, it is wages in kind.

    Coal Board Accounts
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the provision under which the accounts of the Coal Board must be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee of this House.
    Mr. Shinwell: Section 31 of the Act requires the submission of the accounts of the National Coal Board to each House of Parliament, and under the Standing Orders of this House examination by the Committee of Public Accounts is thus within the discretion of the Committee.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not in any way obstruct the statement of any relevant details?
    Mr. Shinwell: I do not guide the activities of the Public Accounts Committee.

    PEAT INDUSTRY
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to survey the peat areas in Britain regarding quantity and quality; what plans he has for the development of the peat industry; and what research is being undertaken.
    Mr. Shinwell: It is not possible within the limits of a Parliamentary answer to give the hon. Member all the information he asks for in his Question. I am sending him a note on it.
    Sir W. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman underestimates his capacity. What

    1003
    steps are being taken to survey the peat areas? Surely he can answer that question shortly, without writing.
    Mr. Shinwell: I can tell the hon. Gentleman at once that a great deal has been done and is being done, but I wanted to give him a full answer
    Captain MacLeod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable experiments have been made in Ireland for using peat as fuel for generating electricity and has his Department been in touch with the experimental work which has been done there?
    Mr. Shinwell: I know what is going on there, but I have no control over it.

    SHOP WINDOW LIGHTING
    Mr. Westasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will consider relaxing the restriction on shop window lighting for one week before Christmas.
    Mr. Shinwell: I regret that I can see no possibility of any such relaxations.

    ALIMONY (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND)
    Lieut. -Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation during the present Session to improve the procedure for enforcing Scottish orders for the payment of alimony in England and vice versa.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I regret not being able to reply in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that on 18th October, 1945, he told the House that legislation was under consideration, and cannot he do something to expedite action in this matter which affects quite a lot of people?
    Mr. Ede: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has quite appreciated the full effect of my answer.

    JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the rate
    1004
    of the present increase in juvenile delinquency compared with 1939.
    Mr. Ede: The monthly average number of persons under 17 years of age found guilty in magistrates courts of offences of all kinds, indictable and non-indictable, was 4,606 in 1938, and 4,363 in 1939. The corresponding monthly average figures for 1945 and the first six months of 1946 were 6,078 and 4,855.

    BOMBED SITE, CRICKLEWOOD
    Mr. Orbachasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a bombed site cannot be cleared for rebuilding purposes at 64 Tadworth Road, Cricklewood, owing to the existence of a static water tank covering the area; that this static water tank can only be removed by a compressor; and, as the contractors working for the local county council have withdrawn their labour on the grounds that the employment of compressors is uneconomic at the rates laid down by his Department, what action he intends to take to deal with this difficulty.
    Mr. Ede: I understand that the site to which my hon. Friend refers, and an adjoining one also occupied by the water tank concerned have been derequisitioned and authority issued for the payment of compensation to the respective owners. Accordingly, it now rests with the owners to arrange for the removal of the tank.

    ACCUSED PERSONS (IMPRISONMENT AND TRIAL)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that injustice and loss are frequently inflicted by the imprisonment, pending trial, of accused persons who, later, are found not guilty of the charges preferred against them; and if he will take steps, by legislation, to prevent this injustice and loss.
    Mr. Ede: Of the persons remanded in custody a small proportion are subsequently found not guilty, and the possibility that an accused may subsequently be acquitted is one of the many reasons why remands should be on bail unless there is good reason to the contrary. There

    1005
    are, however, some cases where the prima facie grounds for remanding in custody are so strong in the interests of justice and the protection of the public that this course is unavoidable, and if of the persons so remanded some are subsequently acquitted, it does not follow that the decision of the magistrates to remand them in custody was unjustified.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that at present many accused persons are subjected, in effect, to two trials, one in the police court and one before a jury; that publicity given to the first prejudices them in the second by informing potential jurors of the case for the prosecution before the case for the defence is presented; and if he will, by legislation, take steps to obviate this possible source of injustice.
    Mr. Ede: This question has been frequently considered and the conclusion reached that the advantages of publicity outweigh any potential disadvantages. In my view, which was also that of my predecessors in office, justices when conducting a preliminary examination with a view to deciding whether the accused shall be committed for trial on indictment, should not sit in private save in exceptional cases, such as those in which they are satisfied that the publicity given to these preliminary proceedings will prejudice the ends of justice.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a real problem which, although it has been previously considered, should be reconsidered, and in the case of any further reconsideration, will he take into account the procedure in Scotland?
    Mr. Ede: This is obviously a case of balancing advantages and disadvantages. I think that the greatest advantage of all is that the courts should, in all normal circumstances, be open, so that the public can be assured that justice is being properly administered.

    ARRESTED PERSONS (SERVICE DESERTERS)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the persons convicted by civil courts of criminal offences in
    1006
    Great Britain during the year to 31st December, 1945, and during the period from 1st January, 1946, to 31st October, 1946, were persons previously convicted by courts martial; and how many of these were proved to have been absentees from their forces' units.
    Mr. Ede: I regret that the information requested is not available. According to information supplied by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, of the total number of persons arrested for indictable crimes in 1944 in the Metropolitan Police District, deserters from the Services formed 7 per cent., and in the year 1945, 5.7 per cent.

    DISTRESSED RELATIVES SCHEME
    Mr. Orbachasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of distressed persons allowed to enter this country during the past 12 months under the scheme which he announced to this House on 13th November, 1945.
    Mr. Wilkesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of displaced persons who have entered this country under the emergency scheme announced in November, 1945.
    Mr. Ede: I am glad to say that facilities for transport from Germany have now improved, and the number of distressed relatives identified at the ports as arriving under this scheme up to the 18th November is 2,525.
    Mr. Orbach: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on 13th November, 1945, that this scheme was a first step, is he now prepared to extend the categories under the scheme?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir, not at the moment, because it took some considerable time for this scheme to get under way, and we are now beginning to reap the fruits of the visit which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary paid to the Continent a short time ago in order to expedite the flow; but as soon as I feel confident that the machine will not be overwhelmed by fresh applications, I shall consider extending the categories.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the great

    1007
    improvement in recent months, may I ask if he can say how may applications are still outstanding?
    Mr. Ede: Not without notice.

  POLICE

    Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is proposing to take action to improve the rate of pension payable to widows of police officers.
    Mr. Ede: I am at present considering the general question of the effect on the Police Pensions Acts of the new National Insurance scheme and have not excluded from the general review this particular matter.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman is considering the case of existing widows, and not merely future widows?
    Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I am considering both existing widows and those who will become widows in the future, but I would' point out that the police themselves had the opportunity of having this matter dealt with more generously, and declined to make the small additional contribution that would have been required.

    Trade Unionism
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to remove the prohibition that precludes members of the police force from forming, should they so desire, a trade union.
    Mr. Ede: The prohibition was imposed by me Police Act of 1919. No proposal for the amendment of the law in this respect has been made to me by the Police Federation.

    Approach to M.P.s
    Mr. S. O. Davieasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent prohibition now exists that precludes any member of the police forces from making representations to his Member of Parliament on any matter relating to the conditions of his employment; and when he proposes to remove such prohibition.
    Mr. Ede: Under the police discipline code it is an offence against discipline for a member of a police force to divulge any matter which it is his duty to keep secret or, without proper authority to communicate to the public Press or to any unauthorised person any matter connected with the force. It would be for the local disciplinary authority to decide whether in any particular case there has been a breach of the code, but I do not regard it as a breach of discipline for a member of a police force like any other member of the public to write to his Member of Parliament about his conditions of service and, so far as my information goes, this is the view generally taken by police authorities and chief officers of police.

    State Opening of Parliament
    Mr. Orbachasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the comparative figures or the percentage increase or decrease in the number of police and military employed in connection with the State Opening of Parliament for the years 1938 and 1946.
    Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of constables on duty for the opening of Parliament on 12th November and the number of constables on duty for the opening of Parliament on 15th August, 1945.
    Mr. Ede: The numbers of police of all ranks on duty in 1938, 1945, and this year were 2522, 1841, and 1832 respectively. I am not in a position to state the numbers of troops on duty.
    Mr. Janner: In view of what he has stated will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he does not deprecate strongly the sensational publicity which has been given to the precautions which have been taken recently, and may I also ask him whether he is satisfied that the Jewish communities strongly condemn terrorist acts?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question merely asked for the numbers of police and nothing more.
    Mr. Janner: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to revise your Ruling in this matter because the Question on the Order Paper asks whether more or fewer police were used on this occasion, and—
    Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what I pointed out, and it was a simple Question which required a simple answer.

    PRISON ESCAPES
    Mr. Aylesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of escape or attempted escape from prison there have been in each of the last three years for which records are available; in how many of these cases was the offence dealt with and punished by the prison governor; how many by the visiting magistrates; and how many by other methods.
    Mr. Ede: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission. circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    As regards escapes, the figures distinguish between those made from parties working outside the prison wall and those from within the prison. They also show separately the figures for Feltham, which during the period in question was in part a Borstal Institution, in part a Borstal Allocation Centre, and in part a prison for convicted youths.

    —

    1943.

    1944.

    1945.

    1. Escapes.

    From Feltham

    29

    41

    28

    From Outside parties

    11

    38

    80

    From Others

    18

    25

    51

    Total

    58

    104

    159

    2. Attempted Escapes

    69

    100

    110

    3. By whom Punished.

    By Governors

    36

    83

    64

    By Visiting Committees

    87

    108

    186

    By Assistant Commissioners

    2

    8

    2

    FIRE SERVICE (SIREN SIGNAL)
    Mr. Toucheasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding another method of summoning the fire brigade in the country than the use of the air-raid siren signal.
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I regret that I am not in a position to hold out hopes of finding an effective substitute for a siren, but further experiments in altering its note are in progress.
    Mr. Touche: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this noise has a very disturbing effect upon children who have previously been involved in a serious bomb incident?
    Mr. Ede: I really must give consideration to getting the firemen—especially retained men—together when a fire is notified.

    HOUSING DELAY BETCHWORTH
    Mr. Toucheasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that there has been a delay of nearly a year in getting Government approval for building houses at Strood Green, Betchworth, which were approved by the Dorking and Horley Rural District Council in December, 1945, and that this delay is mainly due to a dispute between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning as to the number of houses which it is desirable to build; and if he will take steps to ensure better coordination between the Departments concerned.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I regret that considerable time has been taken to deal with this case, which raised difficult questions in connection with both local planning and the Greater London plan. In fact, however, the first reference to either of the Departments mentioned was on 16th May, 1946, when the surveyor of the Dorking and Horley Rural District Council submitted tentative proposals to the regional office of the Ministry of Health. After discussion with the council of amendments to reduce the cost and improve the layout, a revised scheme was submitted on 12th July. This was referred on 22nd July to the regional office of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning who, after the necessary consultation with other Departments, decided that a part only of the site should be used for housing. At the request of the Ministry of Health, the matter was then further considered by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. They were unable, however, to alter their decision and the council were informed accordingly on 9th November.
    Mr. Touche: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the result of all these negotiations is that no building will take place in this village this year, and that the whole year has been wasted?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that. Of course, there has been a vast number of schemes approved—more than enough to take up the building labour—but I regret there has been a delay in this matter.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we had a similar experience in the Orpington area, where hundreds of houses were held up for over a year because of the inability of four Ministers to agree?
    The Prime Minister: I have not heard of that one. I am surprised the hon. Gentleman has not sent that case to me, since he sends me so many things. If he will do so, I will look into it.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of that answer, I will do so, and I hope I shall get a polite reply.

    CHILD CARE (RESIDENTIAL HOMES)
    Dr. Barnett Strossasked the Prime Minister which Government Department is to accept responsibility for the care of children in residential homes.
    The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (ORDER)
    Derek Walker-Smithasked the Prime Minister if he is now prepared to revise the order of Questions so as to increase the possibility of oral answers by the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir. Today is the end of the first week of a revised order of Questions, and I think more time is required before alterations are made in that order. I would remind the hon. Member that the Minister of Town and Country Planning answered Questions first on the Order Paper on 29th October when he was asked to reply to eight Oral Questions, none of which incidentally were by the hon. Member. If, however, he can suggest any revision of the order of Questions which will improve the chances of one Minister's Questions without worsening the chances of others,
    1012
    I shall be ready to consider it. As I am told that 886 Questions appeared on the Notice Paper in the first week of this Session, I am not very hopeful that the hon. Member's ingenuity will be equal to the task.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that my Questions to Ministers are dictated by a desire for the public good and not for my own personal information? Will he bear in mind that, with the new towns legislation and new towns projects, there is a very wide interest in the activities of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, which might be a reason for recasting the order, at any rate, at some future date?
    Mr. Morrison: I fully accept the assurance given in the first part of the supplementary question. As to the second part, I will keep the matter under observation.
    Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman really, think it suitable that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should answer Questions four times a week and the Minister of Town and Country Planning only once a month?
    Mr. Morrison: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is out of date. The Chancellor of the Duchy has lost the privilege, if it was a privilege, which he had before the beginning of this Session.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that not long ago it was reported that the Minister of Town and Country Planning had said that, before taking office, the nearest approach he had made to the country was a weekend in Windermere?

    BECHUANALAND PROTECTORATE
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Prime Minister what undertakings were sought or obtained with a view to safeguarding the future economic and political interests of the people of the Bechuanaland Protectorate before a decision was taken to support the Union of South Africa's application to U.N.O. for the annexation of South West Africa.
    The Prime Minister: As has previously been explained to the House, it is not considered that the interests of the Bechuanaland Protectorate can be regarded as involved in the question of the

    1013
    future status of South West Africa. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom the views of the inhabitants, European and native, of South West Africa itself are the factor to be taken into account, and as I stated in reply to a Question on 23rd October we are satisfied as to the steps taken by the Union Government to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the need to the Bechuanaland Protectorate for an outlet to the West coast will at any rate be safeguarded?
    The Prime Minister: As I understand it, that matter does not really arise. I understand that is not a feasible proposition. If my hon. Friend has any point to put to me, I will gladly look into it.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Can the House be assured that before Bechuanaland and the other two Protectorates in the same position have either their status or the practical control of their administration altered, there will be a full opportunity for discussion in the House?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course, that is another question, but it has been answered very often.

    DEMOBILISATION (SPEED OF RELEASE)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister by approximately how many the number of those still in the Forces at the end of December will exceed the target figure of 1,100,000.
    The Prime Minister: The target figure in the White Paper on Defence published in February was 1,100,000 plus 100,000 in training—a total of 1,200,000, This target will be exceeded by about 185,000.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this figure, coupled with the very slow group releases forecast for next year, will cause widespread dismay? Is he aware that hon. Members are getting a large number of letters on this subject, and is he satisfied that every step has been taken to secure economy in the use of manpower in the Forces both in home establishments and overseas?
    The Prime Minister: Yes; Sir, certainly. My hon. Friend will realise that the target
    1014
    figure was put forward on the basis that certain commitments would have been got rid of in the course of the year. The long delay in fixing the treaties has meant that our troops have had to be abroad longer than we had expected. There was no target laid down exactly for each individual group. There has necessarily been a certain slowing down, but I have looked into the matter myself, and I am quite sure that there is no waste of manpower.
    Mr. Shurmer: In view of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) regarding the large postbag of hon. Members on this subject, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Debate at an early date, so as to give reasons for this slowing up, in order that the men may know why they are kept in the Army months longer than they should be?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot answer the question put by the hon. Member in the last part of his supplementary question. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Sir W. Wakefield: What steps are being taken by the Services concerned to inform the troops and airmen of the reasons for this delay? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if something of that kind could be done, it might decrease very greatly the postbag of hon. Members?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the question whether something more can be done to inform the troops on this matter?
    Mr. Keeling: Especially about requirements in Palestine?
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend consider taking steps, such as were taken in 1915 by Statute, to increase these figures by revising the numbers of those who are at present in gaol for Services offences?
    The Prime Minister: That does not seem to me to have anything to do with the question.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend look into the question, or ask the Service Ministers to look into the question, of the very uneven length of service required from men in the Army compared with men in the other Services, as this is one of the causes of dissatisfaction of men in the Army?
    The Prime Minister: We are trying to keep the three Services exactly in step, but it is quite impossible to keep them absolutely and exactly in step.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the Prime Minister request the Service chiefs to reconsider this and to provide a general statement which hon. Members will be able to send to people in the Forces from their Divisions?
    The Prime Minister: I am considering a more convenient time to make a statement covering the three Services.
    Mr. Prittasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make a statement as to the prospects if carrying out the aim of the Government to release, during 1947, all men called up before 1st January, 1944.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The prospects are very good.
    Mr. Pritt: Can the Minister tell us why the prospects are very good?
    Mr. Isaacs: I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been satisfied. He asks what were the prospects of carrying out our aims, and I said the prospects are very good.

    SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS (GOVERNMENT MACHINERY)
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Lord President of the Council if he will now state what steps are to be taken to implement his undertaking, given on 29th November, 1945, that, at a later date, the Committee on Scientific Manpower would be asked to make recommendations as to the establishment of permanent machinery for carrying out surveys as to the best use of our scientific resources in the national interest; and whether he will make a statement in this connection.
    Mr. H. Morrison: The Government are considering the question of the central Government machinery for dealing with broad scientific questions in the light of advice received from the committee referred to and from others. I hope shortly to be able to make a statement on the subject.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Am I to understand from that reply that while the Barlow
    1016
    Committee is still in existence it is not being used but it may be used in the future?
    Mr. Morrison: It has submitted certain recommendations to the Government and is still in existence. Obviously a new situation will be created as and when these new committees for home and defence matters are set up.

    B.B.C. (MINISTERS' BROADCASTS)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Lord President of the Council if he will immediately set up an inter-departmental committee to inquire into and report when a verbal directive was issued by the Director-General of the B.B.C, to the effect that Ministers of the Crown were to be discouraged from broadcasting, and its exact terms.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed by the Director-General of the B.B.C. that no directive of the kind mentioned in the Question has been issued in any form.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the seriousness of the accusation made in the House, would my right hon. Friend consider whether an inquiry should be made in order to prove that no directive was issued from any source?
    Mr. Morrison: The situation was that an allegation was made. We have transmitted that allegation to the B.B.C, and they have flatly denied it. I do not see how we can proceed further unless prima facie evidence is forthcoming as a result of which further inquiries can be made from the B.B.C.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that broadcasts by Ministers of the Crown are as severely censored as other broadcasts?
    Mr. Morrison: I would not say that broadcasts by Ministers need to be quite as severely censored as those of the hon. Member, but the hon. Member may be assured that in that respect Ministers are in a no more privileged position than anybody else.
    Sir W. Smithers: What about Lady MacRobert?

    COST-OF-LIVING INDEX
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the revision of the data on which the cost-of-living index is based.
    Mr. Isaacs: This is a matter on which I am hoping to have the advice of the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee which has recently been reconstituted.
    Mr. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what difference in the cost of living index would result if the food subsidy of £360 million were taken off?

  EMPLOYMENT

    Building Workers (Demobilisation)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Labour how many skilled building operatives are still serving in the Armed Forces; and how many of these are likely to be released before April, 1947.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is estimated that the total is about 25,000, of whom more than 7,000 are likely to be released before April, 1947.

    Elderly Workers
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that certain employers are refusing to engage men over 60 years of age in industry; and whether, in view of the labour shortage, he will encourage employers to engage as many such men as are willing and able to work.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am aware that some employers show a disinclination to accept elderly workers. The local officers of my Department are taking every step to overcome this and are meeting with considerable success. The Government want employers to use the services of older workers to the maximum extent possible. As my hon. Friend may be aware, an appeal to this effect was made by the Prime Minister in his broadcast on the 3rd March last.
    Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reply he has given will give great satisfaction, particularly to some of the older men who did such good work during the war?

    Building Trainees (South Wales)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Labour the names of the local authorities in the South Wales development area that are using trainee labour in the building of houses.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the reply is somewhat long I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister satisfied that local authorities generally are taking on as many trainees as they ought to do in their building programmes?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I have here a list of names, but as a Londoner I am not going to chance reading out the names of these local authorities.
    Following is the reply:
    Trainees from Government training centres have been placed on housing schemes being carried out in the areas of the under-mentioned local authorities in the South Wales development area:

    Abercarn U.D.C.

    Merthyr C.B.C.

    Aberdare U.D.C.

    Mountain Ash U.D.C.

    Abertillery U.D.C.

    Neath B.C.

    Ammanford U.D.C.

    Neath R.D.C.

    Barry B.C.

    Newport C.B.C.

    Bedwas and Machen U.D.C.

    Ogmore and Garw U.D.C.

    Bedwellty U.D.C.

    Pembroke B.C.

    Blaenavon U.D.C.

    Penarth U.D.C.

    Bridgend U.D.C.

    Penybont R.D.C.

    Brynmawr U.D.C.

    Pontardawe R.D.C.

    Caerphilly U.D.C.

    Pontypridd U.D.C.

    Cardiff C.B.C.

    Porthcawl U.D.C.

    Cwmbran U.D.C.

    Port Talbot B.C.

    Ebbw Vale U.D.C.

    Rhondda U.D.C.

    Gellygaer U.D.C.

    Risca U.D.C.

    Llanelly B.C.

    Swansea C.B.C.

    Llanelly R.D.C.

    Tredegar U.D.C.

    Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre R.D.C.

    Usk U.D.C.

    Ystradgynlais R.D.C.

    Llwohwr U.D.C.

    Pontypool R.D.C.

    (MILITARY SERVICE (RESERVED WORKERS)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Labour how many men under the age of 30 years, who have worked in reserved occupations during the war, have been called up for military service since 1st January last; and how many have been excused.
    Mr. Isaacs: I will circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take steps to make this information known through his Service colleagues to the troops serving overseas who feel very strongly on this point, especially since their release has been held up?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is an important matter, and we will bear it in mind.
    Mr. Kingsmill: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance under present conditions of people who have learnt their jobs on farms becoming farmers, because under a reserved occupation they are no longer allowed to leave their jobs as agricultural labourers to become farmers?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid that is rather a different question, but I will look at the point the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: How long have they to serve?
    Mr. Isaacs: It all depends on the circumstances. I could not give a definite answer.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Cost-of-Living Subsidy
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, in terms of Income Tax, the £369,000,000 cost-of-living subsidy.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Three shillings in the pound.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw this subsidy as soon as possible so that the money, instead of being under Government control, will go to productive purposes and fructify in the pockets of the people?
    Mr. Dalton: I do not know about fructifying in the pockets of the people, but the cheap food, which is made cheap by these subsidies, fructifies in the stomachs of the people.

    Postwar Credits (Payment)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to continue the repayment of postwar credits by age groups; what is the extent of the next group; and when may they expect an announcement of a date when they may apply for payment of their credits.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is able to announce an extension of the range of postwar credit payments.
    Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friends will not expect me to anticipate my next Budget Statement.

    Old Age Pensions (Means Calculation)
    Mr. Marloweasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the method of calculation of means for the purpose of arriving at the amount payable in respect of an old age pension under the National Insurance Act. 1946; and at what rate per cent. a pensioner is deemed to draw income from capital.
    Mr. Dalton: For non-contributory old age pensions the first £25 of capital is left out of account, the yearly value of the next £375 is taken at one-twentieth of the capital value, and the yearly value of the remainder is taken at one-tenth of the capital value.
    Mr. Marlowe: In view of the fact that that means, in effect, that, after the first £25, it is 5 per cent. on the next £375 and 10 per cent. thereafter, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is excessive in view of the fact that the Government rates are now 2½per cent.?
    Mr. Dalton: The rates Which I have cited in the answer were determined by the Pensions and Determination of Needs Act, 1943, passed in the days of the Coalition Government. It may, of course, be argued that in view of the improvements we have made since we should revise them. I will certainly bear that in mind.

    Commuted Annuities
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is any record at the Treasury of the terms on which the annuities granted to the Duke of Marlborough, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Rodney were commuted; and what these terms were.
    Mr. Dalton: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer:
    The Marlborough annuity of £4,000 was commuted in 1884 for £107,780.
    The Rodney annuity of £2,000 was commuted in 1925 for £42,000.
    The Wellington annuity of £4,000 Was granted to the first Duke and his two next heirs male. It expired on the death of the third Duke in 1900.

    Inland Revenue Staffs (Removal)
    Mr. Sidney Marshallasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the remaining Inland Revenue staffs at Llandudno are likely to be allowed to return to London at an early date.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): I have been asked to reply. The Estate Duty Office will move to Harrow as soon as the accommodation is ready. I am not in a position to say when it will be possible to move the remainder of the staff.
    Mr. Marshall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that might be accomplished in the early part of next year?
    Mr. Whiteley: Yes, Sir. As a matter of fact the reconversion is going on now and it is hoped that in the early part of next year these people will be able to occupy the building.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for East Ealing is receiving a considerable number of letters on this point, and will he make a statement so soon as possible intimating when these people can really expect to return to their homes in London?
    Mr. Whiteley: There is no delay in this matter. The reconversion is proceeding as rapidly as possible, and as soon as it is completed the people concerned can return.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that the feeling among these people is that pledges have been broken? Is he further aware that the delay entails very grave interruption in family life and is imposing a hardship out of all proportion to the hardships imposed on other sections of the civilian population?
    Mr. Whiteley: It is for those reasons that we are hurrying this matter forward as quickly as possible.

    EQUAL PAY (COMMISSION'S REPORT)
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroftasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the action the Government intends to take as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay.
    Mr. Dalton: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave last Monday to my hon. Friend, the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner).

    CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (LECTURES)
    Major Lloydasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what information other than that available to the Government is provided in the lectures available through the Lecture Department of the Central Office of Information.
    Mr. Whiteley: None, Sir. 70. Major Lloyd asked the Secretary to the Treasury the annual cost of running the Lectures Department of the Central Office of Information; how many persons are engaged as lecturers; what fees per lecture they receive; and on what basis the lecturers are chosen.
    Mr. Whiteley: About £50,000 for the current financial year. The list from which lecturers are chosen varies. It contains about 170 names at present. Lecturers receive a fee of from one to three guineas a lecture, subject to a maximum payment in any week, and also expenses on travelling, etc. The basis of selection is the ability to lecture knowledgeably and effectively to public audiences on the subject concerned.
    Major Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the basis of choosing these lecturers is not in accordance with any party bias whatever?
    Mr. Whiteley: Certainly, Sir.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many hon. Members of this House are included in the list of lecturers?
    Mr. Whiteley: I have not the list before me and cannot say.
    Mr. Spence: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the average duration of these lectures, and the maximum per week a lecturer can earn?
    Mr. Whiteley: The maximum in any week is not very large, but of course I cannot tell the House the duration of the lectures. That depends upon the lecturer.
    Mr. Stephen: Are not many of these lecturers members of the Conservative Party?

    PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES
    Mr. Frank Byersasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Parliamentary Boundary Commission's Report is likely to be put into effect; and whether there is any likelihood of these recommendations being postponed in order to await the recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission
    Mr. Ede: I understand that the work of the local Government Boundary Commission is likely to continue for some time, and to postpone redistribution of Parliamentary seats until this work is completed might mean that there would be no redistribution during the lifetime of this Parliament. I am not at present in a position to answer the first part of the Question.
    Mr. Byers: Does the Home Secretary appreciate the absurdity, of the present situation in which the Parliamentary Boundary Commission are told, as part of their terms of reference, to respect local government boundaries at the same time as another Commission is sitting to change them?
    Mr. Ede: I recognise that in this transitional stage between war and peace these anomalies are bound to arise, but I cannot think that this House would be content to await the redistribution of Parliamentary seats until the Local Government Boundary Commission had made their report.
    Mr. Byers: May I ask when that report is expected?
    Mr. Ede: That is no responsibility of mine, and the question should be addressed to the Ministry of Health.
    Brigadier Peto: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any intention to alter the boundaries in the Paddington area?
    Mr. Ede: I sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member in his disappointment, and regret that I cannot anticipate what the Boundary Commission will recommend.

    CHILD ADOPTION
    Mr. Peartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to reform the procedure of adoption societies and the whole system of private adoptions.
    Mr. Ede: The work of adoption societies was reviewed in 1937 by a departmental committee and was subsequently regulated by the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act, 1939, which came into effect in 1943. The Care of Chidren Committee, which recently reported, took the view that it is too soon to review the workings of that Act but they made certain recommendations on the subject of adoption, including private adoptions, which are being examined by the Government.
    Mr. Solley: In considering this matter is my right hon. Friend taking into account two important details: first the particulars entered on the birth registration certificate of adopted persons, and second the law of the devolution of property on intestacy which involves considerable hardship in cases where adopted children are concerned?
    Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. Those are two of the matters to which I am giving very earnest consideration, but the second does present some most astounding complications,

    JURY SERVICE (VETERINARY SURGEONS)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue a general instruction to clerks of the peace that veterinary surgeons should be granted exemption from service as jurors.
    Mr. Ede: I have no authority to issue any such instruction. Exemption from

    1025
    jury service is governed by statutory provisions and legislation would be required for the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Solley: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when such new legislation is being considered, account will be taken of the necessity of adequately reimbursing existing jurors for the expenses they incur when compelled to undertake jury service?
    Mr. Ede: Of course, the whole of the matter will be borne in mind, but I should not propose to pay veterinary surgeons more than doctors.

    ALIENS (NATURALISATION CERTIFICATES)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the present progress of granting British naturalisation to foreign applicants; and when it is anticipated that all desirable applicants will have received it.
    Mr. Ede: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the full statement which I made in this matter on 10th October. It would be premature to forecast the date at which the work will be completed. I would once again mention that the general rate of naturalisation will be improved if applicants and their friends will refrain, so far as possible, from making inquiries into the progress of individual cases.
    Sir T. Moore: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will consider issuing a sort of list of priorities which would give people an opportunity of assessing their chances, and so lessen the inquiries of which the right hon. Gentleman has complained?
    Mr. Ede: I made a very full statement to this House about the various categories that were entitled to priority. I am bound to say that I let myself in for more trouble than I otherwise might have had, because everybody at once seems to have thought of claiming that he came within one of the categories.
    Mr. Gammons: What is wrong with a man asking how his application is getting on?
    Mr. Ede: It means that his file has to be withdrawn from the current in which it is, with the result that not only his application is delayed but other people's are delayed.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is the Minister aware that the only reason for all these inquiries is that many people are very disappointed with the slowness with which their applications are considered?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. An answer I have given today and in which there are figures, will be circulated, and it will indicate the rapid progress that we have made during the last six months.

    AGRICULTURE (PRICE REVIEW AGREEMENT)
    The following Question stood upon the, Order Paper:
    157. MAJOR WISE,—To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has yet completed his negotiations with representatives of the National Farmers Union relative to the dispute on the question of prices to balance increased costs arising from the payment by farmers of higher wages; and if he is prepared to make a full statement on the matter.
    At the end of Questions—
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to this Question.
    Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that as a result of the discussions which have been taking place with the National Farmers' Unions during the past few weeks, agreement has been reached on a number of modifications of the Price Review Procedure designed to lead to a complete settlement of the issues which arose after the Special Review of June last. The proposed modifications are set out in a letter which I have sent to the President of the N.F.U. of England and Wales, which letter, together with the President's reply, I am arranging to be printed in. the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Snadden: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Scottish Farmers' Union were consulted in this matter?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, and they are in full agreement with this statement.
    Following are the letters:
    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries,
    55, Whitehall,
    London, S.W.I.
    18th November, 1946.
    DEAR MR. TURNER,
    Following on my address to the Conference convened by your Union on 15th August we agreed' in an exchange of letters that an investigation should be conducted jointly by representatives of the Agricultural Departments and the National Farmers' Unions into certain anomalies which had become apparent in the methods and procedure adopted for the purpose of annual and special reviews of agricultural prices.
    As you are aware, that investigation has now taken place, and I set out below a proposed basis of agreement designed to lead to a complete settlement of the issues which occasioned the summoning of your Conference in August.
    Proposed Modifications of Price Review Procedure.
    1. Inequalities between fanner and farmer resulting from use of the price instrument to effect adjustment of incomes.
    It is agreed

    (i) That the adjustment of commodity prices is the only satisfactory method which can be generally applied to effect changes in the level of farming profitability, in spite of the admitted inequalities between farmer and farmer which it produces.

    (ii) That the inequalities can be mitigated to some extent by a careful apportionment between commodities of any given global adjustment of farmers' incomes, in the light of statistical and economic data showing the incidence on farms of various types and sizes of changes in costs and conditions.

    (iii) That for this purpose the following additional information will be made available for the next and subsequent February reviews:

    (a) Data showing the incidence of cost changes on the profitability of different types and sizes of farm;

    (b) Data relating the productivity of different types of farm to the wage bill on those farms;

    (c) Data showing the profits of farms grouped according to their wage bill;

    (d) Data from which the incidence of cost changes on the net returns from different commodities may be inferred.

    (iv) That the apportionment proposed in (ii) above will be without prejudice to the right of the Government to take account in fixing prices of any changes that may be required in the character- of the national output.

    2. Farmers' incomes in relation to those of other rural groups.
    It is agreed

    (i) That evidence of changes over a period of years in the relative incomes of fanners and other classes of the rural community will be recognised as one of the factors to be taken
    1028
    into account in assessing, at February reviews, any change in the level of farming profitability to be accepted as an objective in fixing prices.

    (ii) That to this end the following additional information will be made available for the next and subsequent February reviews:

    (a) Index numbers of farming profitability;

    (b) Index numbers of the incomes of the rural population gainfully occupied other than farmers;

    (c)The components of (6) sub-divided in respect of wages, salaries, and profits and interest.

    3. Procedure for Special Reviews, and factors to be taken into account.
    It is agreed

    (i) That on the occasion of any future Special Review occurring between February Reviews (and on those occasions only) the objective should be to effect by means of price adjustments a change in the aggregate gross income of the industry (related to the price review commodities) corresponding to the sudden and substantial change in costs of producing those commodities which has occasioned the review.

    (ii) That the appropriate aggregate figure will be apportioned among the price review commodities with due regard to the considerations mentioned under Item I above and that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, further inter-commodity price adjustments designed to effect changes in the character of the national output will not be introduced at such Special Reviews.

    4. The time-lag between changes in costs and changes in incomes.
    It is agreed

    (i) That a time-lag between changes in costs and changes in incomes is inherent in the system of fixing guaranteed prices in advance, and that while it operates to the disadvantage of the farmer when costs are rising, it operates to his advantage when costs are falling.

    (ii) That so far as normal February Reviews are concerned the effect can and should be reduced (a)by ensuring that the information available at those reviews shall be as up-to-date as possible, (6) by fixing prices for all livestock and livestock products, namely milk, fat livestock and eggs, for a yearly period beginning on 1st April of each year.

    (iii) That so far as Special Reviews are concerned special consideration will be given to the consequences of the time-lag if the change in costs is so substantial as to prejudice materially the capacity of the industry to finance production.

    In accordance with the assurance which I gave in my letter to you of 24th August it would of course be understood that these proposed modifications in the price review procedure would be applied, in so far as they are applicable to a February Review, to the review due to take place in February next, with a bearing not only on the prices that would normally be considered on that occasion but also, if justified, to the prices for 1947 crops and for fat cattle and sheep for the remaining

    1029
    period of the livestock year ending on 30th June, 1947.
    I should add in connection with the proposal set out in Item 3 (i), that Ministers attach the utmost importance to a full recognition on the part of the N.F.Us. that an acceptance of the principle of full recoupment of any increased costs which had led to a Special Review did not in any way imply acceptance of the same principle for the annual February Reviews, and that at these latter reviews the Government must continue to be completely free to reach decisions on the level of prices to be fixed in -the light of all the relevant factors.
    Yours sincerely,
    (Sgd.) T. WILLIAMS.
    JAMES TURNER, Esq.,
    National Farmers' Union,
    45, Bedford Square, W.C.I.
    45, Bedford Square,
    London, W.C.I.
    JT/HMB.
    21st November,1946.
    My DEAR MR. WILLIAMS,
    At a Meeting today my Council duly considered your letter of the 18th November containing the proposed modifications of price review procedure.
    I am authorised on behalf of the National Farmers' Unions to state that they accept the proposals as providing a means which can lead to a settlement of the issues outstanding from the Special Review held in June last, and which will ensure the continued cooperation of our members with the agricultural Departments in carrying out the food production campaign.
    Yours sincerely,
    (Sgd.) JAMES TURNER.
    The Rt. Hon. TOM WILLIAMS,
    Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries,
    55, Whitehall, S.W.I.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: May I ask whether the Leader of the House has any statement to make on the course of Business next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 25th November—Second Reading of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Tuesday, 26th November—Second Reading of the Exchange Control Bill and Commitee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Wednesday, 27th November—Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Bill; and Motion to approve the Potatoes (1946 Crop) (Charges) Order.
Thursday, 28th November—Second Reading of the Civic Restaurants Bill; and consideration of the draft India (Governor's Allowances and Privileges) Order and the Burma (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) Order.
Friday, 29th November—Committee and remaining stages of the Ministry of Defence Bill; the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and the Unemployment and Family Allowances (Northern Ireland) Agreement Bill.
Mrs. Middleton: Will my right hon. Friend grant facilities for an early Debate upon the question of war damage compensation, in view of the fact that Members for blitzed towns desired to raise this matter during the Debate on the Address but were unsuccessful in their attempt; and, further, because of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 1st August, stated that he hoped to discuss the matter with the House during October? It is now nearly the end of November, and some of us are very anxious concerning the matter.
Mr. Morrison: I am surprised that the subject did not come up during the Debate on the King's Speech, which I found to be a very varied series of discussions. I cannot accept the principle that what was not reached during the Debate on the Address is something for which we have to find time. If there is any way, without special provision, by which my hon. Friend's ideas can be met, we shall see what we can do.
Mr. George Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in view of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a number of hon. Members refrained from bringing this matter forward during the Debate on the Address? Will he, therefore, take an early opportunity of affording the House a discussion on this important matter?
Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells me that there will be a statement in due course. It is not ready yet. It may be that it will satisfy the House.
Mr. Molson: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that when the statement is made, there will be ample opportunity for Debate upon it, because

1031
the subject is one of the very greatest importance affecting very specially all the blitzed areas in the country?
Mr. Morrison: That is a quite unreasonable request. Had we not better see what the statement is? It may be that everybody will be happy when they have heard it.
Mr. Snadden: With regard to the Agricultural Wages Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a Scottish Minister will take part in that Debate?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, one of the Scottish Ministers will take part.
Mr. Callaghan: Will my right hon. Friend consider the prospects of a Debate upon demobilisation, in order to clear up many anxieties and misunderstandings which are communicated to us in our postbags?
Mr. Morrison: I should have thought that this matter might have been included in the miscellaneous Debate on the Address. I very much doubt whether a special Debate is useful and necessary at this moment. In any case, the Prime Minister said that he would be making a statement shortly in respect of the three Services. I think it would be better to wait until that statement is made.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is intended that we should have a Debate in the near future on the Army, with special consideration of the statement made a few days ago by the Secretary of State for War upon the future of the Territorial Army?
Mr. Morrison: The Army Estimates will come up in due course. I think it is really a bit premature, when we have had nearly a week's Debate in which many matters were referred to for us to be pressed to find time for special Debates. There is a big legislative programme to go through, and it must go through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Mr. Taylor: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the statement on the Territorial Army was made only two days ago by the Secretary of State for War, and that it included some very important matters related to reorganisation?
Mr. Morrison: That is quite true, but the Army Estimated Debate is precisely the occasion for this kind of topic.
Mr. Oliver Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, realise that these matters of Army organisation have a great bearing on the question of conscription which, we understand, is to form the subject of a Bill. Can he, at least, assure us that when the time comes, either before or after that time, we shall have the fullest opportunity for debating Army organisation?
Mr. Morrison: I should have thought, if the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this has a close relationship to conscription, that it might be in Order on the Second Reading of the Bill for National Service. I think the right hon. Gentleman has answered himself.
Mr. Shurmer: May I press my right hon. Friend to consider what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan)? We cannot burke the fact that there is complete dissatisfaction among wives and mothers of the men whom we have retained in the Forces, and that the time has come when we should debate that matter, and ask why they are being kept in for so long a time.
Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend had better wait until the Prime Minister makes his statement before he assumes that everything is black.
Sir Ralph Glyn; Is it not a fact that the Bill in question will be one for the Ministry of Health? Will it be in Order in that case to discuss the question of Army organisation?
Mr. Morrison: I cannot say. That is a matter for the Chair, and will be considered when the Bill comes before the House. No doubt Mr. Speaker will give consideration to the aspects of the matter that have been raised.
Mr. W. J. Brown: In view of the fact that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will not, this year, cover the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will indicate when a Measure to extend that Act, which expires fairly shortly, will be introduced?
Mr. Morrison: I understand that legislation is intended. Separate legislation will be brought in in respect of that matter.
Mr. Brown: When will that be?
Mr. Morrison: It will not be long.
Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Can the Leader of the House indicate when it may be possible to have a Debate on the report on equal pay for women?
Mr. Morrison: I do not feel in the mood for that at this moment.
Sir T. Moore: As the Leader of the House is no doubt aware, there is a Motion on the Order Paper signed by 150 hon. Members asking for the removal of the restrictions on the purchase of petrol.
[That in the opinion of this House the present system of motor fuel rations should be abolished, because it imposes a needless restriction on the proper use of motor-vehicles for business and private purposes, is a hindrance to the post-war recovery of trade and industry, encourages widespread dishonesty and illicit dealing in petrol coupons and is not justified by considerations of national economy or public necessity.]
In view of today's Questions, which showed how wide is the feeling of uncertainty in the minds of hon. Members in all parts of the House about the reasons why the Minister will not remove these restrictions, will the Leader of the House give an opportunity for debating this matter so that we may get at the truth?
Mr. Morrison: I do not see any prospects of being able to give time for that. I am sorry. If we can do anything in connection with the Adjournment Debates, I am sure the usual channels will be willing to do what they can.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Robert Joseph Mellish, esquire, for the Borough of Bermondsey (Rotherhithe Division).
BILL PRESENTED
  ROYAL MARINES BILL
  "to extend the time limited for service in the Royal Marine Forces," presented by Mr. John Dugdale; supported by Mr. Walter Edwards; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  KING'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [Eighth Day]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [20th November] to Question [12th November,]
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."— [Mr. Henry Usborne."]
    Which Amendment was, at the end of the Question, to add:
    "but humbly submit to Your Majesty that, while your Ministers declare the urgent necessity of increased production, there are no practical proposals in the Gracious Speech calculated to unite Your Majesty's subjects in a free national effort to this end; but, on the contrary, your Ministers, at this time, propose further measures of nationalisation which must confuse and retard the recovery of the nation."—[Mr. Harold Mactnillan]
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

PRODUCTION
3.44 P.m.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: A minute and a half before the House adjourned last night, I was fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in this Debate and I rose to support the Amendment. Since then, I have had the good fortune of being able to read the speeches which were made yesterday. We had speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), which were appreciated and valued on all sides of the House. We had a speech from the Lord President of the Council. It was not a very characteristic speech. He started off in his very best debating style; there was a rather confused middle period, and at the end he did what he does not very often do—he read a very long apologia in the Government's defence. He told us that steel exports had now reached rock bottom, but whether that was to be regarded as a matter for

1035
congratulation, or whether the right hon. Gentleman's (statement was a cry of despair, I never fully made out. One thing was made quite certain by this Debate—that hon. Members opposite have undergone something like a political conversion. It is now common ground that the standard of life of the people of this country depends not on Socialism or any other "ism," but on our production per head of the population. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does that depend on?"] Surely hon. Members will not disagree with that statement. I am not going to read again the sneers of the Minister of Health about the export trade, or the comments of the Minister of Food on the subject of production—before they reached office. I would, however, say about the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, who said these things in earlier days, that their statements were only a pale reflection of what their supporters were saying in every mine, factory and workshop in the country. What is happening now is that the right hon. Gentlemen are coming to what is more or less a political somersault. The sooner that evolution is performed the better. Let them do the thing completely. To hang, head downwards, is an undignified and indecorous position. It is no use paying lip service to production, while at the same time clinging to one's previous line of propaganda. The Lord President of the Council can scarcely see an industrialist without turning aside in the middle of a Debate to make some sneering comments. The profit motive and private enterprise, under the system which the Government are at present managing, are responsible for 80 per cent. of our production. That system is constantly sneered at, but speeches should not be made about the value of production unless those concerned take some of the practical steps which are necessary in order to achieve it.
I wish to refer only to three aspects of this matter. First, I want to examine the question of whether the Government have demonstrated to the people of this country their sincerity in the production drive. Secondly, I want to ask whether they recognise the true gravity of the problem which confronts them. Thirdly, I want to say a word or two about the steps they are taking, or are not taking, in order to achieve the end they desire.
1036
As regards the point of demonstrating sincerity, I would draw attention to the nature of most of the speeches which came from the back benches on the Government side yesterday.' If a great party is going forward on some new line of policy emphasising the need of production, they must carry their back benchers with them. We cannot launch a production drive from the Front Bench only. We had yesterday a speech on the subject of the nationalisation of the steel industry from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), but it did not indicate how the production of steel would go up. Incidentally, are we really going to nationalise the steel industry? What is the position? Why this war of nerves on. the steel industry? Is it a background to the Dunkirk spirit that the Lord President required? Then we had a speech on the nationalisation of transport. If the election manifesto of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in 1918 was read once, it was read several times. I beg the party opposite, if they believe in the nationalisation of transport, to put it forward boldly on its merits. Then we had a speech on electricity, but from the back benches there were very few speeches on the subject of production.
I put another case. One of the ways you produce things is by work. It is a crude and rather rude thought, but it is true. What is the attitude of the Government to such a matter as the 40 hour week? There are arguments both ways about that. Some people think it would increase production, others think it would cause an immediate drop. Some—and I am among them—see no reason why you should not have it in a particular mine or factory, if it can be shown that it will increase production, or not make overall production drop too much. What is the attitude of the Government? Can they really be neutral on a subject of that kind, and at the same time persuade the country that they are genuine in their production drive?
Let me give another example. One way of getting men to work is to hold out some incentive to them. I am not going to talk about P.A.Y.E. or complicated taxation problems, even with the Chancellor of the Exchequer present, because I do not wish to worry him, but there are much simpler incentives. One of the things that men look forward to, and can be persuaded to work and save

1037
for, is a house of their own, a garden of their own and quite simple things like that. It may be they have not a proper conception of their true social purpose, but this consideration was put over in the National Savings Campaign and then withdrawn. What is the attitude of the Government about that? The Prime Minister came down to the House the other day. He would not say he was for it; he was not against it, he just did not care. The Government are just as neutral upon that, as on other matters.
I give still another example. One of the ways of getting production is by making the best use of your manpower, by having a system in which a man finds the job for which he is best suited—and the man only knows that himself. If he is not suited to one job, he should be able to transfer to another. It is perfectly well known today, however, that throughout the whole trade union movement there is a tangle of regulations which make it incredibly difficult to transfer from one job to another, or from one trade to another, or even, may I add, to do the job which you are trained to do. The public has not forgotten about those railway trucks at Swindon which, for nine months sat without roofs on, waiting while the National Union of Railwaymen and the National Union of Vehicle Manufacturers —[HON. MEMBERS: "Builders."]— squabbled as to who should have the right to punch the rivets in them. For nine months the Government were neutral upon that subject. It is very difficult to persuade the public that there is any genuine drive behind this call for production.
That brings me to the subject of manpower. We shall be, and everybody admits it, desperately short of manpower. The demands of the Armed Forces, the need to concentrate a large number of men on making exports, even the raising of the school age—all accentuate the problem which as the Government themselves recognise, will arise. It is what they call a manpower gap. They publish little books about it—"More Production Now, Means Better Living Later On". But what do they say about the manpower problem. It comes to this—that the old age pensioners must be asked to work a little longer, the married women must be invited not to leave industry, and at the end, they say that coal produc-
1038
tion for 1945 was 182 million tons compared with 226 million tons in 1938. That is frank enough anyway. They also say that unless output rises there is a real danger that the coal shortage may act as a brake upon reconversion. What a masterpiece of. understatement. That comes under the heading "Closing the Manpower Gap." Yet it is public knowledge in this country that there are Polish miners here who are being kept out of the pits. There is a practical suggestion for closing the manpower gap. But the matter goes somewhat further. What about other foreign workers? The fact is that with a shortage of manpower in this country, and a Government paying lip-service to production, every kind of administrative and bureaucratic difficulty is put in the way of any volunteer who tries to get into this country to work. I do not want to bore the House with instances from my own constituency, but it so happens that one of my constituents asked an ex-prisoner of war agricultural labourer to come back to this country to do agricultural work. This is the letter I had from the Ministry of Labour:
"The issue of permits to aliens to work here is restricted, with the exception of female domestic servants, to those who possess unusual skill or qualifications not already available in this country. Manual workers in agriculture do not, therefore, qualify for Ministry of Labour permits."
I do not know whether the Minister of Labour has ever tried to lay a hedge, but he should know that there is a certain amount of skill required to do that. The letter continues:
"As you know, the Government is at the present time negotiating with both sides of the agricultural industry for the absorption of a large number of Poles with experience in agriculture who are already in this country"
The date of that letter is nth October, and the farmers, during the previous period, had been making desperate efforts with inadequate manpower to get in their harvest. Yet every effort was made to keep these men out. I find something a little contemptible about a party which preaches internationalism abroad, and on every platform in this country, and yet takes every step to prevent free men coming here to work. I find it the more contemptible, when I notice that they are prepared to use the slave labour of a conquered nation, to bolster up the restrictionist economy that they want. I cannot believe that a Government which does

1039
those things, can really put forward their production drive with very much conviction. It seems to me that they are much more inclined to treat this country, as a whole, as a closed shop. Therefore, I doubt very much whether they have successfully demonstrated their sincerity in these matters.
I doubt, too, whether they recognise the real gravity of the problem that confronts them. What is the picture put forward in most of the documents which one sees in the current propaganda? That if we work a little harder, our standard of living may go up a little; if we do not work hard, it may drop. That does not seem to me to be the case at all. It seems to me to be much graver—that unless we do something pretty drastic in the next two years, it will not be a little higher or a little lower standard of living—it will be a national disaster which will confront this country.
At the same time our whole economy is supported by two transitory things: one is a sellers' market abroad, and the other is the American Loan. Neither of those things will last. With regard to the sellers' market abroad, we hear figures about the way our exports are going up. I do not think that those figures, in relation to lasting export markets, are worth the paper they are written on. Anybody can export and they are exporting a very little coal from South Wales You can sell coal from South Wales with 33⅓ per cent. dirt in it, and you can demand a price higher than has ever been demanded before, and it all goes into the export figures. But it represents nothing in the way of a permanent market. Then there is the Loan. That Loan, that pipeline of credit, will come to an end, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be able to answer the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley yesterday on that subject. Not only the American Loan, but the Canadian Loan, will come to an end and the whole process will probably coincide with the beginning of the end of the sellers' market abroad. Unless really great steps are taken by us as a nation in the next two years, we shall face disaster and if Ministers really want their production drive to succeed, why do they not tell the people the truth, and how grim the situation is? In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that
1040
the steps they have taken to deal with production are not adequate to the task.
May I refer once more to the Loan? This country has accepted a Loan from the United States of America, but, while the Loan is transitory, the conditions under which it was accepted are permanent. One of those conditions was that we should accept a system of multilateral trading, and the obligation to enable other countries, so far as we can, to maintain full employment and the rest of it. Cutting out the jargon of economics, what does that mean? It means that here at home one year we may be exporting cotton pants for the Chinese, and another year they may be making cotton pants themselves, and we may have to export wireless sets to the Mexicans. It is that kind of world in which we shall have to live. Hundreds of thousands of private firms in this country must be ready with enterprise and ideas to step in with a new product any time it is desired. Eight hon. Gentlemen opposite have accepted the Loan, but were they prepared to accept the inevitable consequence, a free economy at home, which is the only way we can live in that kind of world? If they were not prepared to do that, it came very near to getting the money on a false prospectus.
There are proposals for dealing with those industries which are not to be nationalised. They have been the subject of working party reports. Another group of industries have not been subject to any inquiry at all, but are to be nationalised more or less as a matter of party doctrine. I want to say a word about each of these groups. I am not going to decry the efforts which members of working parties have made. I think they have made very valuable suggestions, and the country should be grateful for the work they have put in. The Prime Minister, the other day, said that a Bill is to be introduced—it was mentioned in the Gracious Speech—to give effect to those recommendations of the industries themselves as to how they should be reorganised. I have seen suggestions like these in the past. I have seen suggestions coming from the employers' side and the trade union side. They may be very convenient for the industries them selves, but they would be quite disastrous for the consumers. Instead of that, or at least in addition to that, why could we not see some reference in the Gracious Speech to a Bill which would not put

1041
industries into tighter rings, but would break up one or two of the rings?
What is the use of the President of the Board of Trade getting up and sneering, in an aside, at my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton)—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Lord President of the Council."] I apologise most humbly for what must have been a most deadly insult to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not mean it as harshly as all that, and I withdraw unreservedly. But what is the use of the Lord President of the Council directing his remarks, in an aside, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot on the subject of the lamp ring? If the Lord President of the Council feels that way about the lamp ring, why on earth can we not have an inquiry into it, and a tribunal set up before which anyone can go, be he employer, worker, or consumer, to complain of any practice which he thinks restrictive? That was the policy upon which the Conservative Party stood at the last Election. It was in their Election manifesto. Why do not the party opposite do something about these things? Do they believe in monopolies and price rings, or do they not? If not, why not introduce some legislation to deal with them? That would be getting down to realities on the subject of production. But they do nothing of the kind. Instead of that, we have the usual suggestion for nationalising various industries, a majestic progress of this revolution—coal, the Bank of England, and now transport and all the rest. No doubt that gives some satisfaction to regular subscribers to the Fabian Society, but it does not at all increase the zest of the workman in any of these industries to get on with the job of production.
In South Wales, where I now live, there was, and will be until 1st January, a coal combine called Powell Duffryn. It was not a universally popular coal combine, but now the director of Powell Duffryn has been translated to the head of the National Coal Board. Why do the Government expect the individual Welshman to be thrilled by that? I am not making any reflection on Lord Hyndley, but what cause is there for the individual Welshman to be thrilled? I came from the Black Country before I was defeated there, and I knew that great Midland coalfield. They have got Sir Ben Smith. Now what are we promised? The same great process is to go on. The railways are to be taken over, and someone like Lord
1042
Portal is to be removed from the board room of the Great Western Railway, and put into another room a little further along. I suppose the "Go Slow" strike at Paddington will then come to an end.
I was reading again that most illuminating document, the Socialist Party's "Let us Face the Future." In it I read that in the years that followed the first world war,
"the 'hard faced men' and their political friends kept control of the Government. They controlled the banks, the mines …There are grand pickings still to be had."
The fact is that the British workman sees no future in the system of State capitalism and industrial patronage so ably sustained by His Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. Alpass: He keeps voting for it.
Mr. Thorneycroft: In my view, the Government have failed to demonstrate their sincerity about the production drive. I am not accusing them of insincerity. I am sure the President of the Board of Trade—and I mean him this time—is sincere in his desire for production. He has faced some quite unpleasant decisions in order to bring that about, and I give him full credit for it. But the Government are a long way from demonstrating to the country that they are sincere about it. They do not recognise, or if they do recognise, they have not told the country of the real gravity of the situation which they have to face. Certainly they have wholly failed to take any steps to deal with it. I only want to say this: We shall be faced with a crisis in any case, and in large part, the reasons for that crisis will lie outside the control of any party or any group of parties in this country. But we are a great nation, and we have faced crises of this sort before, and we shall get through this crisis. Of that I have not the slightest doubt. But if we spend the next two years just nationalising an industry here and there or doing something like that, and not facing up to the reality of the situation, then when we come to that crisis the people of this country, the workpeople, will have to go through a degree of suffering which otherwise they might not have to endure.
I do not intend to outline policies or anything of that kind. We do not accuse the Government of planning. No one would accuse them of that. The British

1043
housewife, who reads of the great American harvest and the glut, is submitted to bread rationing; the motor manufacturers who are lectured about producing more motor cars and find that there is no steel, or the Welshman, sitting in his home, who is told to produce more, and cannot get a job—they are not accusing the Government of planning. The Lord President questioned the authority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley on that matter, but I think that we would agree that he spoke for the whole Conservative Party and the whole country. We want planning, we want freedom, but we do not want the planning of political doctrinaires, and we do not want the freedom of the closed shop.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Daines: A short time ago a conference was held at Blackpool, and the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) addressed that conference, on the occasion of its main debate. Preceding his speech, there was a statement from an ex-Member of this House, Sir Herbert Williams, who said, in reply to a request for a policy:
"We have to go bald-headed for the other side, and gradually out of that you build up the policy you want."
I submit to the House that that is precisely what has happened, in this Debate. In reply to that statement, the hon. Member for Monmouth, who has just addressed the House with great eloquence, and, if I may say so, with a considerable amount of charm, and who evidently felt that "to go bald-headed" without a policy was not sufficient, gave vent to this utterance:
"I do not believe a change in the name of the party or an alliance with the Liberals is going to have the slightest effect whatever in providing the leadership and inspiration which this country wants.…What matters is what we stand for—"
and speaking of the Conservative Party:
"What we want is a policy and not a political label."
I am a comparatively young man, as is the hon. Member. When I listened to him I expected him, not to use the whole of his time in "going bald-headed" for the Government, but to give us some indication of an alternative policy to that which is being pursued by His Majesty's Government. I, as well as the right hon.
1044
Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), have been taking an active part in the North Paddington by-election. I submit to the younger section of the Tory Party that what democracy wants today from the Opposition is some real indication of what is their alternative to the policy of the Government. So long as they continue to pursue a policy of "going bald-headed" for the Government, Rotherhithes and North Paddingtons will continue to be their lot.
Coming closer to the Amendment, I would say that it follows two main lines. One is criticism of the Government's policy of nationalisation, and the second is in relation to the question of incentive. I regretted that a third point did not show itself in the speeches of hon. Members opposite—some elaboration of the intentions and programme foreshadowed at Blackpool, particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). If the House is prepared to listen I propose to deal with these points from my angle as a Socialist, and try to take the House a little further on the latter question, than did the hon. Member. I submit that this Government did not approach the question of the nationalisation of the coalmines, nor will they approach that of the nationalisation of the railways, from any political angle at all. The reason we were driven to nationalise the coalmines was because they were in a position that demanded a major recapitalisation. That capital could only come from public funds. Therefore, we were compelled to adopt the policy which we did adopt.
Mr. Osborne: Had the National Union of Mineworkers nothing to do with it?
Mr. Daines: What was the alternative? Let us recall the position after the last war. The alternative was to follow the same policy as that which was pursued then, when a huge amount of public money was poured into the mines, and there was no real attempt at mechanisation or unification. The consequence was the position which we now face. I submit to the House that if this Government had not been returned, the Tory Party would have pursued exactly the same policy as they did previously. The fact which younger members of the Tory Party have to face is that in all their approaches to these problems, they are

1045
primarily concerned with the maintenance of property rights. So long as that position is taken up, that all these questions are to be dealt with on the basis of this determination to maintain property rights, they are bound to be inhibited in their approach to major economic problems. If the hon. Member will get his research department to spend some time analysing what took place in Committee upstairs, he will find out how much of the time of his own party was taken in getting the best bargain possible for financial interests, rather than on suggestions for the practical working of the mines.
I accept some of the best parts of the speeches which have been made from the other side, particularly that of the right hon. Member for Bromley. He, I must say, made an extremely interesting speech. I wish to refer to one passage, which I think foreshadows the problem which all parties in this House will have to face if they are sincerely concerned with the national interest. He said:
"Therefore the psychological legacy of the prewar generation remains with us, and one of the difficulties, it will be generally admitted, of increasing production at the present time lies in the memories among both workmen and industrialists, of those difficult deflationary years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 870.]
The hon. Member for Monmouth referred to that in his speech, in order to rally his own side to utter cheap jeers. I ask him, however, to go a little further and approach this as a real problem. It is true that on 1st January the mines will come under national ownership. The miners will see the same managers and the same foremen. Their mental makeup—and in this the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley has not gone far enough—is not covered by 25 years' experience only. It is covered by a tradition that goes back for 100 years. Is it imagined for one moment, that we are so short-sighted as not to realise the terrific psychological problem that is involved? The plain fact to be faced—'and I, as a Socialist, recognise it—is that Socialism is not only a means of economic change. Unless it also has a spiritual content that is capable of changing men and men's natures, then it is bound to fail. When I had the temerity first to address this House, I made a frank confession that those of us who are on these benches have come here largely be-
1046
cause of social discontent that arises from the struggle of the dispossessed. I know it, and I recognise it, and, to a certain extent, that is bound to mark the mentality of our people. We must change men and their outlook.
Hon. Members opposite can score cheap points at our expense, but, are they then admitting that we talk completely for the working classes, and that they always talk for the employers? Is that their attitude? Am I not entitled to reply, "Are all employers, then, socially and nationally minded?" I do not profess to be an economist. Heaven forbid—we have a sufficient number here and I do not need to join the happy band. When we turn to the Stock Exchange notes and examine the records of increased dividends since the last Budget, can hon. Members opposite say, with sincerity, that great employers who want to be animated by the profit motive are approaching their problems only from the standpoint of the national interest?
Finally, I wish to refer to the question of the creation of a property-owning democracy. I regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, in the latter part of his speech, did not elaborate this particularly intriguing aspect of the new policy indicated by the Tory Party. I submit that what we want from hon. Gentlemen opposite is not a mere statement that they are going to create a property-owning democracy. We are anxious to have the details of how they propose to do it. How are they going to work it out? How would they tackle the problem of the mines; how would they share out the ownership of the railways; and the ownership of the Bank of England? The plain fact is here for us to see. It is we on these benches who are creating a property-owning democracy. The ownership of the mines can only go into the hands of the whole community. The same applies to the ownership of the railways and the banks. It is a Labour Government who are creating a property-owning democracy. I think hon. Members opposite should carry the details a stage further. Suppose they try to sell that policy to the cotton manufacturing areas of this country. After the last war, there was an attempt at diffusing the ownership of the cotton mills and factories of Lancashire. There are enough of them

1047
here who remember the name of Hooley in connection with that.
I am very grateful to the House for the courteous way in which they have listened to me. Perhaps I shall have to be silent for quite a long while, and I want therefore to say a final word to hon. Members opposite. Many of us on this side of the House think quite seriously that there is need for alternative thinking to our own, and that out of the two will come a synthesis that will give us a united nation. I say this—and I say it to them from my heart—if they cannot get away from the policy of confining themselves to brick-throwing at this Government then the younger generation of the Tory Party are doomed to the political sterility of their elder members who sit on their Front Bench.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman the Member for North East Ham (Mr. Daines) dealt with one point of great interest—the spiritual approach to the whole economic life of the country. I will touch upon that later in my remarks, because in one's consideration of Socialist proposals, one very often feels that on paper they are very perfect indeed. The only thing wrong with them is that they completely ignore human nature. However, I do not propose to follow that point up at this stage. I wish to refer to the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council. After the Lord President had finished what I think he called his "exchange of pleasantries," he turned with what I thought was a certain amount of reluctance to his more formal brief. As long as he stuck to his brief I thought he gave us some very interesting information. One was interested particularly in what he told us of the Government's economic survey and planning working, of the Ministry of Labour's reconstitution of the National Joint Advisory Council, and of the working of the National Production Advisory Council on Industry and the regional boards for industry. He said that early in the New Year he hoped we should have a full Debate upon those matters. If it is possible, I hope the President of the Board of Trade, when he speaks today, will give us a little more information upon the working of these bodies which axe exceedingly important.
1048
The Lord President stressed one point in his speech. He hoped through these organisations and bodies to give industry and workpeople increased economic knowledge and background. I hope this will be a two-way traffic and that the Government will benefit equally; that they will ask for, and get, the maximum amount of detailed information from industry and workpeople about their problems. It must not be a one-way traffic. It was rather disturbing that the Lord President of the Council did not say that in his remarks, but that is probably because he had not time to extend them. I am in substantial agreement with what he said in that part of his speech. It has been said several times during this Debate by hon. Members on this side of the House that we must have planning. Of course, we must. A central economic staff is an essential for this country. I would go so far as to say that in between the wars, we suffered desperately from the lack of such a body. People have accused industry of being selfish and of not acting in the best interests of the nation. By and large, I think those of us who have any knowledge of the great bulk of the people running industry can repudiate absolutely that suggestion. The trouble between the wars was that there was no effective machinery in existence which enabled industry to understand the problems of the nation as a whole or any machinery which enabled the individual Government Departments attempting to deal with them to understand the detailed problems of industry. One hopes that a remedy for that will be developed steadily during the coming years. I believe that the machinery described by the Lord President of the Council is a step in the right direction, and, as I have said, I hope we shall hear a good deal more of it, certainly in the full Debate promised for the New Year.
On the subject of a central economic staff and its planning, I think it would be a disaster if it attempted to work in a vacuum. We all make mistakes in our own affairs, and sometimes they are disastrous, but they affect only ourselves. If central planners, with a big influence on the actions of Government Departments, make mistakes, it is not individuals who suffer but the whole nation. If the central economic staff is not to make mistakes, it must have the closest and most constant contact with industry and work-

1049
people. That contact can be effective only if based on full confidence from both sides. If there is one factor which destroys confidence in the relationship of industries and the Government, it is the constant fear of nationalisation. As long as that fear exists at the back of the minds of industrialists, it is bound to affect the closeness of their contact with Government planners, whatever device may be used to attempt to obtain that contact.
The Government propose, in the Gracious Speech, to nationalise transport and electricity. They also intend to endeavour to ensure that the resources of the nation are effectively employed for the common good. My hon. Friends and I, on these benches, have ventured to suggest that these two objectives are simply not compatible. Nothing has been said in any part of the House during this Debate, either from the Government Front Bench or from the back benches, to show that those objectives are compatible. We all agree that both these industries present problems. I will not go into any detail, but I would say that we all agree that the problem of road and rail coordination is difficult, and that that of electrical distribution and supply needs looking into. But why try to delude the country into believing that the difficulties which they present can be solved better by nationalisation than by any other means?
The Lord President said that transport problems could be solved without nationalisation, but that it would involve the creation of a semi-monopoly or a full monopoly, and that that was the reason why the Government were taking over the industry. This is really no reason at all for taking it over, unless it can be proved that, by taking it over, the State will be able to ensure that it is as efficiently operated as before. What is more, the act of nationalisation must have a serious effect on the whole political morality of the country. Can the President of the Board of Trade say—can anyone say—that he is convinced that State ownership can result in efficiency? Can any hon or right hon. Gentleman opposite deny that the creation of a State monopoly will result in an ever-increasing number of State employees, and that this must, inevitably, produce disastrous consequences on the morality of our political life? That is how to judge the case for nationalisation. No case has been made
1050
out on any grounds that State ownership can bring efficiency. On the question of political morality, with a General Election six months off, and a demand for wage increases by sections of the workers of this country, can anyone say that the Government of the day will judge the request for wage increases strictly on its merits? I just do not believe it
Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the joint council dealing with wages in connection with civil servants has done up co now?
Mr. Maclay: I do not think that is quite relevant. I am talking of the days when even those industries now considered ready for nationalisation will mean a very large percentage of State employees.
Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the nationalisation proposals, it is not suggested that the employees are to be civil servants, but are to be employees of the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Board 'To take the case of the Central Electricity Board, has the General Election had any effect on the employees of that Board so far?
Mr. Maclay: I rather hoped that that one would be brought out, because it really is fantastic. Hon. Members must not pretend that, when the State takes over an industry, the employees of the Board are not employees of the State. But I must get on with my speech and not be drawn into these sidetracks. Let us remember what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health told us during the Committee stage of the National Health Bill. He said, in one breath, that the doctors will not be civil servants, and in the next breath, that he could not allow the ultimate court of appeal against a doctor being struck off the panel, to be a judge of the high court, because he, the Minister, was responsible for the doctor, who was the Minister's servant. That is what the Minister said, and the two things are irreconcilable. There is no doubt we are going to have a larger number of State servants, whatever they are called.
If we go in for this very critical programme of nationalisation, I assume that the President of the Board of Trade and all his colleagues have studied all the available information from other countries

1051
and I hope that many hon. Members opposite did so before backing this Government. We ought to consider what has happened in other countries where nationalisation has been tried. I take shipping first, because of the statistics which are available. We find that France went in for State-owned shipping, but came out again in 1924, at a time when the State was losing a million francs a day. That information comes from "The Times" of 30th November, 1927. What about Canada? They gave up their venture in State-owned shipping when they had lost in one year £1,300,000 on a very small fleet of ships. Australia lost £12 million with a very small number of ships and gave it up, and the United States, which made a most extensive experiment between the years 1917 and 1937, lost, according to the- economic survey of the American merchant marine prepared by Mr. Joseph Kennedy, £760 million out of the taxpayers' pockets.. I admit that shipping is not a very good example to take, because it is probably the most difficult industry to operate nationally, but it is the fact that a number of nations tried to operate it and, on a test of efficiency, failed lamentably, while other nations, which did not experiment that way, came through all right
Mr. George Porter: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about shipping, may I ask, Does he not know that, in this country, when ships were being built on the Clyde by free enterprise, work had to be stopped until the Government came to the rescue of free enterprise?
Mr. Maclay: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Queen Mary," because, if so, there is a very easy explanation for that. The company planned a certain programme, but the depression struck the world like a blizzard and all movement of passengers stopped. The company naturally had to stop building until they saw how passenger movements would recover. The Government came in, very largely through pressure from one of the hon. Member's own colleagues.
Mr. Leslie: Is it not the case that Australia took over her shipping, and reduced the rates from the
1052
private companies, and that that helped industry?
Mr. Maclay: The Australians would be the first to admit that they could not efficiently and economically operate their own merchant marine in competition with free enterprise.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Did not scores of shipping companies go into liquidation in this country during (he period for which the hon. Gentleman quoted the American figures?
Mr. Maclay: I must really be allowed to proceed with my own speech, instead of taking up time in answering hon. Members' queries. The British Merchant Marine survived and its efficiency was a vital factor in winning the war. But let me turn to the railways for a minute. I am going to quote only a few cases of countries taking over the railways-Canada, Australia, Belgium, New Zealand, France and Switzerland all sustained very heavy losses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Canada?"] Canada, yes. I will give the figures afterwards.
Mr. Leslie: Read the figures for after the war.
Mr. Maclay: I am afraid I must get on. The net result was that, in the case of three countries—New Zealand, Belgium and Switzerland—substantial changes had to be made. New Zealand put the railways under independent control; Belgium put them under a self-governing body, and Switzerland produced an organisation which was separated from the Government. The fact is that there is evidence all over the world that nationalisation of these two industries which are to be dealt with in this Session cannot produce efficiency. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will produce as evidence the case of at least one railway, which has worked efficiently under State ownership.
Mr. S. O. Davis: What about the-Russian railways?
Mr. Maclay: I must get on with my point. Now on the question of political morality I should like to quote from a debate in New Zealand when they were discussing in 1931 the case for putting the State railways under a non-political Board. In that debate the Minister of

1053
railways declared that in the past he had been subjected to political pressure sufficient to shake the nerves of anyone, and that there was always the risk of such pressure becoming irresistible. He claimed that transfer to independent control was a safeguard to sensible men. In the report of the inquiry into the New Zealand railways at that time it was stated that, the further the functions of Government and control of railways could be separated, the better it would be for the railways.
I now turn to Canada. A Royal Commission on Railways, which sat in 1931, made the following comment:
"When considering the scale on which branch line extensions and acquisitions as well as hocel expenditure were made, it is impossible to avoid the conclusions that the board of directors and the management of National Railways were amenable to political influence and pressure which it would have been in the public interest to have withstood."
There we have evidence. True, it is only a small amount of evidence, but it is evidence by the nations who have tried the experiment.
Mr. McAdam: In regard to the Canadian national railways, is the hon. Gentleman aware that at that particular time the Canadian Pacific Railway was also incurring a loss as the result of their party policy?
Mr. Maclay: That is true, but the point I am dealing with concerns political pressure on the railways. It is inevitable that management under nationalisation will not be free from political influence. I am not going into further details, but the general expression used in a report on the Belgium railways was that the whole business was one of wholesale jobbery and political corruption. That is the evidence of what has been going on elsewhere. Can right hon. and hon. Members opposite give us any evidence whatsoever as to where nationalisation of an industry has been a success? No word has been said from the Government side to show how nationalisatino can possibly be efficient. I have raised the question of political morality, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with it when he comes to reply. Hon. Members opposite must realise that people are going to react in a very human way to the conditions under which they have to live and work.
It has been said from the Government Front Bench that we on this side of the
1054
House have talked too much about rash promises by supporters of the Labour Government during the last election. The Lord President of the Council indignantly denied that, and quoted from "Let us Face the Future." I have no doubt that many responsible, right hon. and hon. Members opposite were very careful in what they said, but can they deny that, right through the country, the impression was given that Socialism could work miracles? To substantiate that, I would like to quote from the address of my own opponent in the last Election. He was a delightful fellow; his objectives were the same as mine; we both wanted the same things for the citizens of the world. Here is what he had to say, and it is this, I think, which is the real charge against the supporters of the present Government. His opening paragraph says:
The future of this country and the future of the world depends upon the attainment of two main objectives: (1) the maintenance of world peace, and (2) the attainment of world happiness for every living soul."
At the end of his address, after saying in between what we would like to see in the world, he said:
"Socialism means an end to world poverty. It means no more starved children anywhere in the world; no more crimes or cruelties caused by bad housing and other evil social conditions. No more forgotten men and women."
Mr. Leslie Hale: All that has been said before in the course of this Debate. That, of course, is international Socialism. International Socialism means just that. That is a long-term international policy which could only be obtained by long-term means and cooperation. No one has suggested that Socialism in England could cure a housing shortage in other countries.
Mr. Maclay: That is just my point. There is a little in this programme about international Socialism, but there is not one practical word about how to achieve this wonderful world in which we all would like to live. The implication was "Vote Labour and all will be well." I am glad to say that the electors who received this address decided by a substantial majority that Socialism was not the easy answer to all their prayers.
4.48 p.m.
Mr. Longden: I think we all agree that the two speeches

1055
made today by hon. Members opposite have been extremely interesting. The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) relieved me of much of what I intended to say. I, too, am concerned about State ownership, about what it means, and to what it leads. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) had as the burden of his speech the question of production. He did not tell us what was happening to the product; he mentioned nothing concerning distribution. When he mentioned incentive, no idea was forthcoming as to what was meant by that word. It is because of omissions of that kind that I placed on the Order Paper the following simple Amendment to the Address:
"But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech fails to foreshadow any Government intention to widen the democratic control of publicly-owned industries."
As one of the oldest Socialists to be found in our movement, I am supremely disturbed at the tendencies which exist in regard to what we call public ownership and control, and I will try to explain that as briefly as I can. There is no intention on my part to stab our Government in the back and I think it was a pity that, in opening the Debate in this House yesterday, the right hon. Member for Bromley. (Mr. H. Macmillan) should have used such a shameful term as a "stab in the back." I know hon. Members on this side of the House fairly well, and I could not conceive of one of them who would wish to stab the Government in the back But every Member on this side of the House has the right to offer friendly criticism of the Government's actions, and that is what I suggest I have the right to do now.
It is no use telling me that this matter of public ownership and its consequences is not important, or is academic. I suggest that Fabian minima of life and administrative orderliness are not by any means all that we require. I could conceive of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite coming to power some time, and using these bases as a means of introducing a totalitarian propertied State-if the electorate was unaware. That is what I fear. To be honest with my colleagues, I must say that I do not like the increasing numbers of differential, varying forms of public ownership. State ownership and State controls. These might well become a menace. Secondly, I fear that failures.
1056
if there be any, will redound to the discredit of the movement which I have supported all my life. If hon. Members opposite were to, come to power again, they would make these forms of public ownership and controls in public utility corporations a sheer menace to future democracy in this country. 'Monopoly is here, whether we like it or not. Liberal Members and the Society of Individualists must realise that private enterprise, which the Liberal Party came in to represent, laissez faire and "cut throat" competition have gone for ever. In their place, monopoly capitalism has come, and for us it is a matter of monopoly capitalism or people's monopoly. That is what we have to face.
If there were time, which there is not. I should like to quote a number of instances in proof of what I am saying, but hon. Members know as well as I do what the "Manchester Guardian" inquiry revealed about monopoly. They know, too, what the Board of Trade inquiry told us in the report on the structure of British industry. It is no use saying, therefore, that monopoly is new It is as old as ancient Greece, Rome, and mediaeval England. It is as old as Napoleon's nationalisation of the tobacco industry, Disraeli's nationalisation of the telegraphs in this country, or Bismarck's nationalisation of the Prussian railways; and the Tories and the Liberals in the last several generations have supported all manner of public ownerships and controls, through sheer necessity to serve the people at large. We know these things, just as we know that the Leader of the Opposition was favourable to railway nationalisation about a generation ago. We have all manner of forms of public ownership, such as the Port of London Authority, the Central Electricity Board, a private company recently created to control the products of atomic energy, and the L.P.T.B., which is the most perfect totalitarian structure in the whole world, serving property rather than the working classes of democracy in our country. We have the Bank Board and the Coal Board, and I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley when, in the Third Reading Debate on the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill, he said:
"This Bill vests the ownership of all the colliery undertakings in a board.…It is not nationalisation in the old sense of the word.…It is State capitalism."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th May. 1946; Vol. 423. c. 132.]

1057
That is quite true. What I wish to know is whether we are going to move forward or not. The right hon. Gentleman went on to state that the workers' representatives on this Board were an abstraction, and that is just what I wanted to say. It is clear to me that when men who previously had been leaders of the trade union movement—members of a caste apart, as Sidney Webb called them—are appointed to a board like this, they become far more abstract, more distant and out of touch with the people they previously represented. It is no use saying that there is no alternative. I remember quite well in the 1920's, the Independent Labour Party putting forward a Socialist alternative to this kind of thing. They said that every industry might be run by the triumvirate of the State, technical staffs, managerial staffs and the workers in every industry. It should be a guild, not a syndicate. It should be linked up with all other industries in a parliament of industry under the sovereign Parliament. Otherwise, it seems to me that Frederick Engels was quite correct when he said that this is a situation in which the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and by the conduct of the process of production. It becomes an inspired robotism or, as the "New Statesman" of 24th January, said:
"The idea of public boards or corporations has now found very wide acceptance when it is desired to produce a form of administration for a public service deemed unsuitable for ordinary departmental control. But, apart from this, politicians are now apt to take the administrative machinery for granted and to assume that when they get power they have no need seriously to adopt it."
That is our difficulty. We have these boards administered by abstract or, rather, remote bodies, and they are simply "run"; there is no coordination at all by the industries, generally speaking.
Again, to save words from myself, let me quote this very illuminating passage from the same issue of the "New Statesman." It says:
"Here two problems arise. In the first place, there are a great many things still to be settled about the way in which public boards or corporations ought to be worked. As long as such bodies were set up only piecemeal, each case could be tackled by itself. But as soon as they become numerous, and are created for the purpose of working in with any sort of general State economic plan, there arises the question of their relations to the
1058
Departments to which they are loosely attached and to any 'control and planning machinery the Government may set up—and therewith the further problem of the relation between the salaries of ordinary civil servants and those to be paid to the members and to the leading officials of the various corporations and boards. The London Passenger Transport Board could be treated as a business enterprise operating with public capital; the new Mines Board and the other boards which are now being called into being can hardly be so treated. They, and their servants, have to be related to the Civil Service set-up as a whole; and their activities have to be coordinated with the general economic plans."
Unfortunately, while the Government which I support are setting up all kinds of boards, there is no such coordination; but the leaders of big business are just as keenly aware of the need to coordinate and command the economic life of our people. We all know what Lord Melchett, Sir Lynden Macassey and other similar individuals have said. They would follow the late Mussolini in organising industry upon industry, linking them together, and commanding the very life of the country. Here is what is asked for in the manifesto of"120 leading business men. "They would link up the F.B.I, and the employers' associations—they are doing it now—they would induce the State to help compulsorily to regroup firms, to eliminate competition, to fix prices and to allocate quotas; they would coordinate all these bodies into a council of British industry for the purpose I have indicated. They would watch monopoly interests, they would watch relationships with the State, they would watch interests abroad, and they would seek to obtain united politico-economic power. They would confine the State to making the plan work, running a commission for complaints, and controlling the currency; and they would induce the State to provide State funds to deal with slumps in the old sense.
What do our side do in this same matter? We have this anarchy of ownerships and controls without any coordination. We offer security for vested interests. We offer careerism for the "self-mades." It means robotism for the many in the lower ranks of society; it means militarism in order to control such a situation, and finally it leads to a situation in which there is capitalist state-ism, and not State capitalism. Therefore, I cannot agree with what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been saying. He has been assuming that the working class is inefficient and

1059
incapable of -running industry. I have no time now to analyse how industry is being run at present. It is not being run by the people.
Sir Patrick Hannon: Are we to understand that the statement which the hon. Member has just made is a criticism of the policy of the President of the Board of Trade?
Mr. Longden: I am simply pointing out that I cannot agree with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that the class to which I belong is incapable of running industry. That is not true. The workers run the very efficient productive societies in the Cooperative movement. The management board is made up of men who use their hands and brains in the factory. No one will dispute the competence of those societies or of the working classes who run so well the consumers' cooperatives. What I am asking is that the boards which the Government are instituting shall be placed in the hands of the people who work, who understand what ought to be done, and how wealth should be distributed. Mankind must have a common purpose and inspiration, and must control a commonwealth proper. Finally, I wish to quote from a book by Dr. Mark Graubard—"Man: Slave and Master"—something which is very pertinent:
"A society in which there is no economic equality and where a divergence of interests exists can never perform its biological function. Such a society ceases to cater to the welfare of each individual. A large section of its population acquires enormous wealth: the community is brought unduly into conflict with ruling groups; and large numbers of people are deprived of the opportunity to enjoy all the benefits of the community's material progress. Society becames a Frankenstein monster of tragic dimensions."
Therefore, I fear that these forms of ownership and control will play into the hands of what some hon. Members opposite have boasted of as being the father? of Fascism. I do not want so loose a control of our national industries that they can easily and cheaply fall into the hands of such people. I want to put an end to this tendency, this misnomer of the socialisation of industry. I want to see industries democratised, I want to see them communalised, and, if I may coin a term, I want to see them culturised, so that our people will not become mere robots under any form of totalitarianism, but human beings, cultured as the best.
Mr. Walker: May I raise a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker made two pointed appeals to hon. Members about the length of the speeches that were being made. I would like to know whether you could repeat that appeal today, because it is very boring to sit here and listen to long speeches
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is not entitled to make that comment. It is true, as all hon. Members know, that Mr. Speaker did make an appeal for short speeches—an appeal which, I hope, will be noted by all concerned.
5.11 p.m.
Mr. Sidney Shephard: I want to bring the House back to the subject of this Amendment, and that is the matter of production. The Lord President of the Council, yesterday, invited criticism, but said, "Let it be constructive." I do not think he will have any reason to take objection on that score to what I have to say today. After all, shortages affect the lives and the standard of living of the people of the nation, and if we on this side had any panaceas to offer the Government we should certainly let them have them. Up to now, we have only had exhortations from the Government. I have yet to hear of any constructive or practical plans that the Government have put forward for increasing production; and, frankly, I am very doubtful whether either speeches or posters will take the place of incentive. What affects the working man or woman in this country is the question, "How much is in my pay packet after I have paid my Income Tax, and what can I buy with it?" I have had many years of industrial experience, and I have noticed that on certain occasions workers will work harder. I have noticed it before Bank Holiday week; I have noticed it before Christmas. I have seen as much as a 30 per cent. increase in production during those two particular weeks. But we do not want a sudden spurt: we want a steady improvement in output. We must remember however that the workers have had a diet of war savings propaganda now for seven years, and that diet is getting very unappetising, and they want a change.
I want to suggest to the Government today one or two approaches they should

1061
consider. The first is this. Have we enougn workers, in manufacturing industry? Out of a total working population of over 20,000,000, we have less than 7,000,000 in manufacturing industry. That is a smaller rumber than we had in 1939. Despite that, we have set ourselves the target, first, of increasing the volume of exports to 175 per cent. of the 1938 figure; secondly, to make good all the arrears of the war years; and then, on top of that, to supply the home market with both our consumer and capital requirements. Taking also into account the fact that there are many goods we must manufacture in this country today which, formerly, we imported, it does seem to me that we have far too few workers in manufacturing industry, and I think we have set ourselves an impossible target. The Government have given no indication of how they are going to deal with this maldistribution problem.
For instance, let me take that group of industries for consideration—the cotton, woollen, textile, clothing and hosiery industries. They are down in labour strength, compared with prewar strength, by some hundreds of thousands of workers, and I tell the President of the Board of Trade, quite frankly, that there can be no hope of an end of clothes rationing, until we get more workers into those industries. The women of this country have worked for seven years to make do and mend, and they are at their wits' end to know how to manage to clothe themselves and their children. I have had no indication from the Government of how they are going to induce the workers to come into those industries. It is not a bit of use saying, "You must improve your conditions in your industries." It is not practicable. We cannot do it. We cannot build new factories or provide more amenities to carry out that programme at the moment. I will say this to the President of the Board of Trade. There are today many thousands of young women, who would normally be in those industries, but who are now employed in Government Departments. There are also many thousands of young women who are having to stay at home to look after the house while the mothers go queueing, and those young women would have been in industry today if we had not had this endless chasing after rations. Why is it
1062
that the Government do not bring more of the foreign workers from Central Europe into this country, if only for domestic service, and so release our young people to work in our factories?
My next point is on the subject of controls. I maintain that many of them are preventing industry making its best contribution. Before the war, a man in industry was kept on his toes by competition. There were free commodity markets, and he bought raw materials when he thought the market was most favourable. If he was efficient he had a good chance of success. If he was inefficient, he went to the wall. What happens today? First he is told where he must buy his raw materials; then he is told the price he must pay for them and he must get a licence to buy; then he is told what he has to make, the price at which he is to sell, and what profit he should make. The consequence is that there is complete lack of initiative, and stagnation in industry. It is hardly likely that industry can put its best foot forward while we have these conditions, and I hope the Government will do their best to get rid of unnecessary controls as soon as possible. I do not want to take too long, and I am racing through this speech.
My third point concerns the restrictions on building in non-development areas. It is well known today that if one wants to build a factory one must go to a development area. That is all right up, to a point; but, surely, if we are to increase production, we want more ways than one, and more ways that that of merely geting the workers to work harder. There is the question of providing modern mills in factories, and the question of new machinery; but unless one is in a development area it is very difficult to get a licence to enlarge an existing building, or to build a new factory, or to get new machinery, because most of it is going abroad. It does seem to me that this is a point that the Government should consider.
My fourth and last point is, that it is high time the Prime Minister gave a directive to Ministers to stop this continual abuse of private' enterprise. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade only the other day said that if private enterprise does not pull up its socks "we will do it for them." There are not many socks to pull up. But who are "we"? Is it the Civil Service? It cannot be the

1063
workpeople, because the President of the Board of Trade said they were not capable. Is it those frustrated quislings of industry who see in control power without ability? Because if the people who are running industry cannot run it, then, I am very sure, indeed, that neither the Civil Service, nor the workers, nor those other people I have mentioned can either. But I do feel that it is time that industry was given confidence. It is confidence it wants. I believe that if there were confidence in industry, industry would cooperate to the fullest extent. Industry is fully alive to the gravity of the situation. It knows that if we are to survive we must subordinate sectional interests and all pull together.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Palmer: I want to speak for only a very short time and, therefore, I shall have to make my remarks quite brief. I agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) on the question of the employment of foreign labour, and it was brought home to me particularly strongly today by a letter I received from a manufacturing firm in my constituency. They are makers of scientific instruments, and this is what they say:
"Even with our existing labour force, we are totally unable to cope with a fraction of the world-wide demand, but if we are to lose our young glass blowers in addition to engineers and tool makers, who are being withdrawn at a rapid rate without replacements, the position will be quite impossible and we cannot express our apprehension too strongly."
Then they go on to say, and they are very restrained about it:
"It does occur to us, as a desperate measure whether it would be feasible to explore the possibility of employing suitable females from the occupied areas of Germany as a means of helping the situation both on the Continent and at home."
I entirely agree with my constituents on that point. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) talked about the Government's spokesmen abusing private enterprise, and said they must give it up. In return, I think private enterprise, particularly employers, should give up abusing the Government in this direction. I have here a letter from the Chairman of the County of London Electric Supply Company to every individual employee. He calls it a personal note, but it runs into two pages. I will not read it all, because it is
1064
too long, but I will read the first and last paragraphs, which are as follow:
"I write this personal note because, whilst I do not want to concern you with my political views on the nationalisation of our industry, I want you to consider the effect of nationalisation on your future and that of the Industry with which you are associated. …"
He ends:
"It you think I am wrong, and that nationalisation will be to your advantage I would prefer you to say so."
Sir William Darling: He is inviting the confidence of the workers.
Mr. Palmer: It goes on:
"If, on the other hand, you think I am right, I would ask you to bestir yourself and ask your local member of Parliament in what way nationalisation is likely to benefit the industry."
I think that is a gross abuse of an employer's special position. It is no good private employers talking about the Government attacking them, if they attack the Government unfairly in this fashion through their employees.
Sir W. Darling: He is not attacking the Government; he is attacking the policy of nationalisation.
Mr. Palmer: I would like to make a few remarks about the electricity supply industry. In general, I agree that public-ownership should not be used as a sort of nasty laxative to frighten costive capitalists. On the other hand, electricity is such a general servant of industry that even the Opposition might have placed it in a rather special category, but apparently they regard the nationalisation of electricity with the same prejudgment that we now take for granted in every direction. Therefore, I do not propose to give any of what they call doctrinaire reasons for nationalisation. I believe that the reorganisation of the distribution side of the electricity supply industry is an urgent matter and it cannot be postponed indefinitely. The recommendation of the 1936 McGowan Committee was that larger distribution units must be formed, and speedily. There is a public demand for the standardisation of both systems and tariffs. All experience since 1919—and great power was given to the electricity undertakings under the 1919 Act—has shown that about 600 separate undertakers cannot cope on a loose, voluntary basis

1065
with these problems. Therefore, we require Government intervention in 1946 for electricity supply on the distribution side in just the same way as Government intervention was needed in 1926 on the wholesale generation and transmission side. That is a practical argument, and I believe that the country as a whole is about to welcome the nationalisation of the electricity supply industry, and that the country as a whole will benefit from it. The rural consumer in particular will benefit because the only hope that the rural consumer has of getting electricity everywhere is by the merging of urban and rural districts and hence the equalising of costs.
If it is to be argued that the industry can do it now, without interference, why did it not do it in the years before the war? It had the power to do it. I believe British industry will gain from electricity nationalisation, that production will gain from it. The nationalisation of distribution should promote increased efficiency, the lowering of costs and, therefore, charges. As far as the industry itself is concerned, the workers, technicians, and engineers in the industry are in favour of national ownership. Hon. Members can put that down to political prejudice if they like, but how do people arrive at so-called political prejudices? Only by basing them on experience and facts. As far as the present owners of the industry are concerned; the municipalities, do not like the change very much but are prepared to accept it under present conditions.
Then who is opposed to the change? It is apparently just the companies and the Tory Opposition. In part of my constituency the companies are sending out with the electricity supply accounts propaganda against nationalisation. I think that to send out propaganda to the consumer when the consumer is about to pay a pretty heavy bill, is a somewhat wrong approach; I cannot imagine that consumers' minds will be very receptive. I hope the Government will not be deflected for one moment from their intention, because I think industry and consumers in general will gain from the public ownership of electricity.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. Marples: In the very short time at my disposal, I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) in his argument
1066
about nationalising electricity. The planning of this Government, as far as I can see, allows for an abundant supply of electrical apparatus, such as kettles, and no supply of electric current. I propose to talk briefly about the lack of productivity in the building trade, and to make an effort to give some measurement of that lack of productivity. There has been a great deal of talk about the lack of productivity, but no one has yet tried to measure accurately the inefficiency in a particular industry. Afterwards I propose to give a constructive suggestion, in accordance with the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House.
The only way of measuring the lack of productivity in a trade is to compare the costs as they ought to be at the present time with the actual costs which are incurred. I propose to try to find out what the cost per superficial foot should be in 1946 for building, and to compare it with the actual price which is now being paid or which is tendered. If the price being paid is greater than it ought to be, then that is the measure of inefficiency in that particular trade. I must ask for the indulgence of the House as I shall have to quote figures which are necessary to prove my argument. In 1938, the cost per superficial foot of building was 8s. 8d. To that must be added three known and ascertainable increases since that date. Firstly, there is the increase in the standard of building, which amounts to 39.4 per cent. The standards now adopted are much better than in 1938. Therefore, to the figure of 8s. 8d., in 1938, should be added 39.4 per cent., or approximately 3s. 4d., making a cost of 12s. The authority for all these figures is the Ministry of Health Report on "Design of Dwellings." In addition, there is an increase in wages amounting to 72 per cent., and an increase in materials of 62 per cent., making an additional cost of 9s. per superficial foot on the 1938 figures. I have allowed 75 per cent. for these two items. I now arrive at the figure which really counts. The cost per superficial foot ought to be 21s. in 1946 if the efficiency in the industry is the same as in 1938. For a house of 856 feet, it would mean that the cost at 21s. per foot should be £900. In point of fact, the tender price is £1,200, which means that at the minimum £300 is lost in efficiency; further-

1067
more, the tender price is not necessarily the final figure. The final bill usually amounts to more than the tender price. At a rough estimate, the inefficiency in the building trade is not less than one-third.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is the hon. Member implying that the increase of £300 is due solely to inefficiency, and is not due to shortages of supplies, such as the shortage of gypsum for plaster in some cases, and the possibility of groups getting together to force up prices?
Mr. Marples: The increase of £300 is due to inefficiency and lack of productivity in the trade. The increase in the prices of materials has been allowed for.
Mr. Harold Davies: In the 8s 8d?
Mr. Marples: No, I added 75 per cent. for increases in wages and materials.
Mr. Diamond: Is the hon. Member aware that at this moment contracts are being let at 21s. per foot?
Mr. Marples: And then they are increased, because additions and variations take place. I am glad to see that the Minister of Health is now here, as he is interested in houses. I now wish to deal with the two main reasons for the lack of production. Firstly, there is maldistribution of materials, and, secondly, there is the low output of labour With regard to the maldistribution of building materials. that has been taken care of, because the right hon. Gentleman appointed a committee to inquire into this and make recommendations. In passing, I would point out that the Committee was appointed in the summer of 1946, and that we on these benches asked for it to be appointed in November, 1945. I will now deal with the low output of labour. There is a block of flats being built in North London for the London County Council. Bricklayers are paid 2s. 7½d. per hour, which works out on a 44 hour week, at about £5 15s. per week. During the war, bricklayers were paid by results under a scheme started by the Ministry of Works, and if they had to justify and earn that wage of £5 15s. on the basis laid down during the war they would have to lay 475 bricks per day. But the work of these bricklayers has been carefully measured over the last five weeks, and they are only
1068
laying 300 bricks per day instead of 475. This is because they are paid on time-rates and not on piece-rates.
That brings me to my constructive suggestion, that until and unless we have payment by results universally applied throughout the industry, the Minister of Health will never solve his problem. It is perhaps better that this suggestion should come from this side of the House rather than from the other. The present wage-structure in the building trade is confused and chaotic. Building under the Essential Work Order carries a bonus system, and if the same building is not carried out under the Essential Work Order, it is on a time-basis. In consequence, we have the position of two or three men working side by side, each doing the same job, and being paid at different rates. There is no greater source of friction than for Mr. Smith, who is performing the same job as Mr. Jones, getting slightly more money for it. The employer, in no circumstances, can make any departures in regard to wages, because if he does, he loses his building licence under Defence Regulation 56, which is applied by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works. And so, it is quite a rigid structure. The history of this wage position in the building trade is very interesting. On 1st January, 1946, the building trade operatives were granted an increase of 15 per cent. on their wages, which was embodied in the "Working Rule Agreement" sent out on 27th February, 1946. The leaders of the men pledged themselves to increase output to the 1938 level at the earliest possible date. They also pledged themselves to appoint a committee to see whether they could devise a workable system of payments by results. They received their wage increase on 1st January, 1946, and no action has yet been taken and no report has yet been made on payment by results so far as I can make out.
When people make promises, there are three courses of action open to them. First, they can support that promise by carrying it out; secondly, they can be rather cowardly and remain neutral; and, thirdly, they can take action which means that they have no intention of carrying out their promise. The trades union representatives who are sitting on the Committee to devise a system of payment by results, in 1945 sent out a pamphlet called,

1069
"Notes for Building Workers in the Forces." On page 6 of these notes, we find that the very gentlemen who are sitting on this Committee to discuss payment by results, in May, 1941, passed this Resolution:
"That this Conference places on record its unalterable opposition to payments by results."
What is the use of trade unionists who express that definite opinion, sitting on a Committee to decide this particular question? I do not think they have any intention of introducing payment by results.
I think that payments by results can only be introduced by those in power, and the question arises. Who are the people in power? The Attorney-General said, "We are the masters now." The Minister of Works was reported on 10th March in the "Sunday Express" as saying:
"We have now become the ruling class, and I hope we shall rule in a way which will raise this nation to the heights, as it has never been ruled before."
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant "depths," but, at any rate, are the party opposite the masters? I remember that when I was in the Army I used to have a batman to look after me occasionally. [An HON. MEMBER: "You would."] Well, I cleaned my boots when I entered the Army as a private. I was given a commission, and a batman, and I remember that the regular batmen got hold of the most dull and backward boy in the camp, and made him what was known as the batmen's batman. He cleaned the shoes of the batmen. He used to strut about the camp, saying that he was a batman, but only when the actual batmen were not present. Is it not the same now? The Treasury Bench say, "We are the masters," but the masters are around the corner, at Transport House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Members opposite say "No," but, if that is so, why are there no Poles in the mines?
Mr. Solley: Because the workers do not want the Fascists.
Mr. Marples: The Minister of Fuel and Power would like to have the Poles in the mines, but he dare not because the Mineworkers' Union would not like it. It is high time that the Opposition arranged a Debate with the masters at Transport House, and cut out the intermediate party, the party opposite. I think it was
1070
Wellington who said, "We must know, beyond a peradventure, with whom we are dealing." The trade unions themselves must introduce a scheme. I am delighted to see the Minister of Labour here, because if the trade unions introduce a scheme they can then safeguard the new aristocracy—their own members—from any exploitation. That is a constructive suggestion. The effort must come from the trade unions themselves. I am serious about that. If they want to start a scheme they can base it on a German' scheme, particulars of which have been published in this country, price 12s. 6d.
I have mentioned the building of a block of flats for the L.C.C., in North London. Recently, there was a strike. A ganger was passing on the ground floor level, and bricklayers were laying bricks on the second floor. Quite by accident, a brick dropped, and hit the cap of the ganger. Turning up to the bricklayer, he had no hesitation in giving what was his considered opinion about the bricklayers and the dropped brick—
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Any quotations?
Mr. Marples: I can only give them outside the Chamber. What the ganger said about the bricklayer was a fairly accurate description, but not very complimentary, whereupon all the bricklayers said, ''Unless you apologise we shall go out on strike". In fact, they did go out on strike. The foreman and the apprentices then got down to work, and were paid on an incentive system by which the output of bricks laid rose from 300 to 400 per day. A report from the agent on the site now says that the foreman bricklayer and the charge-hands got in among the men, worked themselves, and increased production. They said that the stronger and older apprentice lads had done far better than some of the bricklayers who, admittedly, were, in some cases, getting on in years. The report says:
"We recently discussed with Mr.—some method of incentive for maintaining improvement without contravening any rules or regulations."
That is the key to the whole situation. Workers cannot be given any incentive without going against some of the regulations made by one or other of the Departments represented on the Treasury Bench. The employers want to pay the

1071
men more, they want to receive more, the nation wants more output. These men will give that output, but the party represented on the Treasury Bench will not allow us to do it.
I do not want it to go out that I think the men are idle. Only the party opposite are idle. The men are just human. They are the finest raw material' in the world, if properly handled, and the worst if they are not well handled. They are not being well handled at the moment. An hon. Member opposite said that Socialist doctrine would not succeed unless there was a change in the hearts of human beings. They have not changed in 2,000 years but if they can change I agree. At heart, I am a Socialist, too—[An HON. MEMBER: "It sounds like it."]—but not on this earth with these human beings; perhaps in another planet with another type of humar being If Members opposite sat on this side of the House they would never believe in Socialism, especially when they look at the Government benches. The Minister of Health wants, in his own heart, payment by results as much as I do. His period of honeymoon is over and the period known as the treacle moon is about to begin. Unless he brings about payment by results for the building trade, he will never succeed in building houses for our people.
4.48 p.m.
Mr. Harold Davies: I have followed the interesting contribution to the Debate which has been made by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) but I believe with all sincerity that it is not correct to claim entirely that the increase of £300 he talked about is due to inefficiency alone. There are many other reasons to be found in the organisation of the building industry as it is today. I have here a copy of a document called, "The Economic Crisis, Foretold by the 'Daily Mail', 1921–1931", and I find that just as after the first world war, when Members opposite were in power, we had the same type of banner headlines in the Press as we are getting today. But the people of Britain no longer fall for that type of propaganda. The Labour Party knows that it may be face powder that gets the votes, but it is baking powder that keeps them. The reaction of the country at present shows that our people are prepared to give this Government—
Sir W. Darling: The rope.
Mr. Davies: —a fair opportunity to steer industry through its difficulties. I listened to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) yesterday. One does not know whether he was advocating nationalisation or 100 per cent. free enterprise. Eighty per cent, of the industries of the country are run by private enterprise, and 20 per cent. are nationalised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) agreed, many years ago, that this nationalisation was necessary in order to prime the country's production.
My second point is that I believe,' as a whole, this country will have to watch the increasing number of people employed in distribution. There are about 25 per cent. of the people in this country occupied in distribution. I heard an hon. Member whisper, "Too few." Let me qualify that: It is an increasing proportion at the present time, and I believe that it is essential that we, on this side of the House, decide on our priorities so far as the activities in distribution in the future are concerned.
Mr. E. P. Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that 25 per cent. are employed on distribution. Twenty-five per cent. of what—population or those engaged in industry?
Mr. Davies: Working population. My third point is this: The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) said yesterday, in an interruption, when discussing cotton, that the trouble with the cotton industry, as reported in the working party's report, in the inter-war years was primarily due to the impact of external shocks with which no industry, however efficient, by its own efforts could have coped. But he did not point out that the profits in the cotton industry were used not for strengthening the industry but merely to pay high dividends and support share gambles, as was also pointed out in the Cotton Report, and, last but not least, through the entire period that Conservativism and capitalism had run the industries of this country they had not been prepared to put back into industry some of the high dividends that would have modernised them to meet a crisis such as we have at the present time.

1073
So far as cotton is concerned, the Platt report condemns the activities of the cotton people and cotton kings of this country without any doubt. I believe, therefore, that we, on this side of the House, can steer the ship of State through these rough seas better than any of our opponents opposite who with all their rhetorical phrases have done nothing, in all the years, to rehabilitate the country's economy and could not even catch the votes at Paddington last night.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am sure that the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) will forgive me if I do not follow his interesting contribution at great length. I was glad to hear the confident tones in which he prophesied a successful spell of helmsmanship for the administration of this country:
"Let not him that putteth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off."
One must recollect the little experience of navigation in the present seas which has fallen to the lot of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It may be wiser for them to wait a little and to watch a few of the storms and currents which are inevitable in navigation before they indulge in too triumphant a salutation to their powers.
We have come nearly to the end of the Debate on the Address in response to the Gracious Speech. We have discussed a great number of topics during the Debates which have preceded this one. There was, on some of the topics, we regret to observe from this side of the House, a little disunity among hon. Gentlemen opposite. 'That gave us great pain because in the words of the Psalm:
"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"
If I am any judge of the speeches which have taken place on this particular Amendment, I think that it is one which will probably find hon. Members happily united in prostration before the Moloch of State monopoly, and, therefore, it is not with very fervent hopes that one can hope to convince them to go into, what I consider, the right Lobby. While the great majority of hon. Members opposite voted on foreign affairs against the doctrine of one of their number—which I think the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) described as the doctrine of Bloomsbury Bolshevists—they
1074
are all happily united here in applying a considerable slice of that doctrine to our own home affairs, and one can only say of that, as the Prophet Hosea said.' more in sorrow than in anger:
"Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone"
It is quite impossible to over-estimate the importance of the present point of time in our affairs. We have just emerged from a tremendous war, and we are now facing a period which has been truthfully described by the Minister opposite as one of considerable economic danger. Danger is not a new thing to our people. It often brings out the very best that is in them, and this particular danger, it is agreed, can only be overcome by increased production. We, on this side of the House, will do what we can to assist in bringing that about. For us the doctine of actual production is no new thing. The Minister of Health, before he became a Minister, described it in practice as a twist of the Tory mind. Since he has come into contact with reality, it is interesting to observe that his mind shows a similar deflection to the twist which he has described.
When we talk of production, let us remember that production must be the work of the people of the country. The Government by itself can produce nothing; that is to say, nothing but speeches and restrictions upon the activities of others [An HON. MEMBER: "And nationalisation."] The Government must rely upon the people producing, and it is from that angle that I wish to address myself to this problem. That is not to say that the Government is unimportant. It can either hinder or encourage; it can lead us or it can obstruct. The Amendment expresses the views of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House that the legislation which the Gracious Speech foreshadows and threatens is much more likely to hinder and to obstruct than it is to lead and encourage in the drive for production.
For the people to rise to the present emergency, they require more and not less unity, and more and not less freedom. There should be, properly to meet this national emergency, a truce to some of the bigger controversies of the past, and there certainly should be a cessation of that campaign of recrimination which has been so often characteristic of speeches on

1075
industrial topics by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I suppose the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite feel themselves too deeply committed to their nostrum of nationalisation to adopt Measures more suited to the present emergency. Past speeches, made when we were a much wealthier country than we are today, come back to my mind. The good old mandate complex no doubt still inhibits them. I should have thought that they could have been honourably free from these perplexities and inhibitions. Just as, during the war, hon. Members on this side supported many disagreeable limitations on the liberties of the subject, I should have thought that-right hon. Gentlemen opposite could have, in this crisis of production, waived some of their party doctrines until the nation was more out of the wood than it is today.
As for the mandate, the votes cast at the General Election showed an actual majority of votes against nationalisation and Socialism. If the votes cast for the parties other than that of hon. Gentlemen opposite are counted, they total some 13,000,000, and there was actually a minority of Socialist votes at the last Election of 1,167,000. I am not saying that because of those figures hon. Members were not properly elected and fully entitled to form an Administration, but I do say that, at a time like this in our nation's affairs, they ought to remember that they are, after all, minority representatives on this issue, and that it is an abuse of a Parliamentary mandate to rush the country into a controversy of this arid and embarrassing type.
Who can say, on looking at the mandate, that the nationalisation of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange or of road hauliers was really the issue which got hon. Members opposite their majority? We all know that these arid Marxian doctrines were never really the bone of contention. No doubt hon. Members opposite put them dutifully into their Election addresses, but I feel certain that those things occupied far less of their speeches than general abuse of the party to which I belong and promises of the great amelioration which voting for hon. Members opposite would bring about. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council yesterday answered the charge made by my right hon. Friend the
1076
Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) on this matter, and read out, to show how true was his prediction of events, some quite harmless platitudes from "Let Us Face the Future," which did indicate that the times ahead of us might be difficult, and that work was necessary. The most fraudulent prospectus contains some truth. It would deceive nobody if it did not. But abuse of their political opponents is rather embarrassing to hon. Members opposite at this time, when they have to turn round and tell the people that salvation lies in nothing but hard work. Those are the true facts about the mandate. To put it shortly, I think that a mandate which is so negatived numerically, and has been obtained by such dubious means, should not compel Ministers at this juncture into courses which I believe to be very harmful to the production drive, which is so necessary for the country at the present time.
Let us see how the issue stands, on this Amendment. To vote conscientiously against it, hon. Members must feel that these Measures of nationalisation will increase production. That is the point. No attempt to prove this case was made yesterday, and I do not see how it can be proved. Perhaps when the President of the Board of Trade replies, he will prove the case, because he can prove practically any case that has any vestige of substance in it. But consider the railways, with their long history. How will the transference of the railways to what is called public ownership, but which is really State ownership, increase production? There have been many criticisms of the railways in this Debate. The hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) complained about some of the accommodation for clerks who were employed in railway premises. I remember receiving exactly the same complaint from the National Union of Post Office Workers when I was Postmaster-General. There is no magic in a mere transference of property from one owner to another which will produce all these wonderful changes that have been so confidently anticipated.
Sirs. Middleton: Not when there is a Tory Government.
Mr. W. S. Morrison: It was not a Tory Government; it was a Coalition. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us, if he can, how this great scheme

1077
for transferring the ownership of the railways and the road vehicles of the private hauliers will increase production. No attempt has been made to produce any logical chain of cause and effect which would justify that proposition. The same is true of electricity. The record of the electricity companies, and of the great municipalities which have electricity undertakings, is plain for everyone to see, and it is a fact that the electricity companies, between 1922 and 1940, increased, the supply for domestic purposes by fifteen and a half times and reduced prices by 75 per cent. They are at the moment up against difficulties of equipment. We all know that. Poles for carrying the current are one of the difficulties, but the Post Office is up against exactly the same difficulty, and the fact is that whether the thing is publicly owned or privately owned does not in any way alter the facts of the existence or non-existence of the necessary materials for its proper functioning. Nothing has been said yet to show that the electricity companies, by having their capital transferred to other hands, will increase production in any way.
We have to remember that, besides these main proposals, there is one proposal in the Gracious Speech which has not been properly mentioned yet, and that is the proposal to render permanent the closing of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, and to substitute for the operations of that market bulk buying by some Government commission. How will that increase production? It may be right or wrong on other grounds. People will argue, about that. I remember that when we first argued it here, there was a case made against the Cotton Exchange that there was some element of gambling in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to note that strikes an echo. Many of us associate gambling with lurid scenes in a casino where the wicked rich disport themselves, and others are affected no doubt by memories of some schoolboyish tract pushed into their hands, which described the downfall of a boy who started by putting 6d. on a horse, and ended by committing some crime like whistling on the Sabbath.
Whether it be a gamble or not, how does this substitution increase production? That is what we want to know. On the question of gambling, it is only fair to remark that every transaction of insurance
1078
is a gamble. When you take out a policy of insurance of any kind, it is a bet between you and the insurance company. That method of insurance is one of the only ways in which men can, to some extent, offset the hazards of mortal existence; and one of the justifications of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange is that it takes off the manufacturer's shoulders the hazard and risk of an agricultural crop, and conducts for him a service which supplies him with what he wants at the time he wants it, and has done this with a degree of expertness and probity which has given the Exchange an international reputation, and has brought to this country in time of peace millions of pounds of scarce foreign currency. How does the destruction of this intricate, export machine and its replacement by some rudimentary purchasing commission encourage the production of textiles? Already merchants complain that they do not get the qualities they want, nor are they allowed to see the samples before getting the goods. All the evidence seems to be against this new proposal. There is an entire absence of any positive proof that these Marxian measures will increase production, and, if one looks at the probabilities, the chances are almost certain that the opposite effect will be produced.
I take one of the shortages and difficulties at the present time, and that is the shortage of manpower. There is no Minister, who has referred to this subject, who has not told us that we must economise in manpower, and has not asked us to look at the question with which they have to contend as one of difficulty and hardship. There is no doubt that the proposals in the Gracious Speech must mean an enormous growth in the already swollen Civil Service of this country. I do not attack these people in the Civil Service and I do not say that they do not work, but they do not make anything that one can eat or wear or sell abroad. They are withdrawn from the pool of production and production must suffer in the mass by their withdrawal to unproductive toil.
There is the question of coal, and some think we have solved the difficulties here because we have nationalised coal, that we have finished our duty in this House. We were apt to think when we passed the Bill that that would be the end of the matter. But it will be years before the coal business is settled. I was told yesterday that one colliery has 10,000 forms to fill up on

1079
account of the passing of this Bill. It one considers what that means up and down the country, it represents an immense withdrawal of personnel to be engaged on mere form filling and accounting when they could be engaged in production. One can see from this that the nationalisation envisaged in the Gracious Speech must mean, in addition to the civil establishments of the Crown, for years a steady increase in the number of personnel belonging to the companies and firms who are withdrawn from production for the purpose of doing clerical work involved in these transactions.
There are the managements. The managements have been very public spirited, and in most of the great industries which are threatened, they have gone ahead and done their duty in preparing for the future the public services for which they are responsible. It is useless to deny that this new threat of nationalisation, coming at some unknown date and in some unknown form, must be an added complexity to the concerns affected at a time when they ought to be clear in their minds and sailing straight forward. What about the man? How does all this affect him? He will change his master. The coal mines, as we were told today by an hon. Member, will now work for a board presided over by a director of Powell Duffryn. Is it not human nature, when there is to be a change of master for the workers to wait and see what sort of a man he is before making up their minds as to their attitude? I can remember when at school that when there was a change of form master there was a great deal of speculation as to what he would be like. Would he be easy to "rag" or would he have a sense of humour which would save him from such activities? Would he be a strict disciplinarian or one in whose class it would be quite safe to slack? All these things have to be found out by experience and until a new relationship is established with the new master production lags, and it must inevitably be so.
There is another aspect of this matter. One of the premises of our drive for production is undoubtedly to avoid inflation; and inflation means loss in the value of currency and that savings and pensioners' incomes will have less pur-
1080
chasing power. It arises from the disparity of the amount of currency in circulation, on the one hand, and, on the other, real wealth in the shape of goods and services available for that currency. These proposals affect both kinds of inflation. Not only will they, as I think, retard production and reduce the amount of real wealth against the money available, but the sums issued in the way of stock must result in an enormous increase in the amount of Government paper in the market, so that at the one time we are increasing the amount of currency and at the other reducing the amount of stuff which can be obtained for it. I view this tendency from a constitutional angle with some anxiety. In this House our control for centuries depended upon the old doctrine of redress of grievances before the grant of Supply. We have had to keep, as part of our duty, whichever side was in office, a constant watch on the expenditure of the Executive. The Government have now added to the already enormous Government expenditure a number of commercial accounts, and that being so, what are the prospects of any conceivable scrutiny being kept by this House on the accounts of the Government? This weakening of Parliamentary control by the bulk of the financial undertakings embraced by the State comes at a time when these steady encroachments on personal liberty and steady consolidation of monopoly and power in the hands of the Executive, gives the running of industry and raw materials as a monopoly to the Crown. All these things place power in the hands of the Executive which ft never previously enjoyed, and, at the same time, we are rendering control by this House impossible to operate.
If the Government take my advice they will proceed in exactly the opposite direction. I do not expect them to accept this advice, but I am putting forward these ideas as expressing the views and opinions of myself and of a great many of my hon. and right hon. Friends here. There are far too many controls and hindrances to production today. We heard an excellent speech yesterday from the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) who argued that all the tiny little details necessary to get a licence were holding up production. There are far too many offences created by these regulations, and there is the danger of a proper attitude of the Government to the people being lost.

1081
The Government stood before us at the General Election as a fairy queen about to dispense all sorts of blessings, but now, after the passage of this short time, she has became something very like a querulous and fussy old woman, who is prohibiting anybody from doing anything, and who, when she hears of any activity going on, sends one of her enormous army of myrmidons to see what Johnny is doing and to stop him doing it. The Government should rely on the public spirit of our citizens. They should remember that the State is but an organ and they should seek to be the servant of the nation, and not its master. If they followed that principle they would find a store of good will in the country at large, which has carried us through all our difficulties in the past. We were a great country long before hon. Gentlemen opposite were thought of. In the citizens of the country and not in the State is the real strength and capacity of this land to survive. I would ask the Government to trust the citizens and not to pin their faith to too much action by the State.
6.20 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am bound to say that the contribution to this Debate of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) has left me more confused than I was before he began, and I was pretty confused then, as indeed anybody must have been who has listened to the series of speeches from the Opposition benches. The odd thing about this Debate is that it has made obvious, I think, the way in which the Opposition are trying to fish around for a policy. They have expressed the widest range of views from the extreme Right, denying any idea of planning, to the other limit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who opened the Debate and demanded that the Government should form a great master plan. I really do not know whether they believe in planning or not, and I do not think they know themselves either, but one thing is quite clear. They have at last made up their minds that any policy they have had in the past is no good for them in the future, and no doubt, in the course of time, they will work out some new policy. In the meantime, they are having a series of practice Debates in the House of Commons to sound out how these different ideas are
1082
likely to go, and in that confusion some of them are vaguely and tentatively moving in the direction of the common sense of the Government's policy.
The Debate has, however, been enlightened by quite a number of excellent contributions from this side of the House, particularly as regards the necessity for the nationalisation of the two great services which are mentioned in the Gracious Speech. I should like at the beginning to deal with a point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, has just been repeated by his right hon. Friend, and has often been made in this House, despite denials. It is that at the Election we put forward a case of ease and simplicity, and said that little effort was necessary and that Utopia would be likely to appear around the corner.
Sir W. Darling: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said in a fortnight. I did not believe it, but he said it.
Sir S. Cripps: I daresay that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I have denied the accuracy of that a number of times, although that does not stop the Conservative Central Office sending it out.
Major Tufton Beamish: How long did it take the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deny it?
Sir S. Cripps: About half a minute, on the first occasion it was drawn to my attention. I should like, with regard to this suggestion, to cite three short passages from a broadcast address that I made immediately before the General Election, because it was on the same lines as the speeches of other people in the party and of many speeches I made myself:
"The ways of peace will prove themselves as hard, may be, as the ways of war."
That is not a prospect of ease.
"We need the same determination and self sacrifice, and the same sense of values that have brought us through to victory in the war."
Again:
"We, in the Labour Party, want no easily won power or cheap success. We know and we emphasise the difficulties that lie ahead."
I think those quotations make it quite clear that these accusations—which are never put up with quotations—are accusations which have no foundation. Indeed, ever since that time we have stressed the difficulties that this country is now encountering and is likely to encounter in

1083
the months that lie ahead. It is perfectly true, as many hon. Gentlemen have stressed on both sides of the House today and yesterday, that we are up against a colossal job, but that is no reason why we should underestimate what we have already accomplished. There really is no need to cry "stinking fish" about the accomplishments of our own country. I think myself, as I have said on many occasions, that the greatest credit is due to the management and workers and to the administrators of this country for the smooth way in which we have changed over our production and increased our exports now to 117 per cent. of pre-war volume, and many of our consumer commodities for our own people to more than their 1938 volume. That is a great accomplishment in so short a time, and there are few, if any, countries in the world that can show a better record of recovery than we can. Certainly that is the view that has been expressed to me by a great number of foreigners who have been over here in the course of the last few months to examine the state of our industries.
Before coming to the main question of economic planning, with which I want to deal at some length, there are one or two special points which have been raised and with which I am sure those who have raised them would like me to deal. The question of foreign labour has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay), and the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) also referred to it in a speech which, I am afraid, rather disappointed us because we are apt to look for coruscation and interest in his speeches which were lacking this afternoon, although I do not blame him because he had no material upon which to speak. It sounded rather odd to hear the Conservative Party pressing for the introduction of foreign labour into this country, and I think that hon. Members who suggest this apparently easy solution do not realise the difficulties that are entailed.
A fear of unemployment still exists in this country, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley when he was opening this Debate, and the admission of large blocks of labour into particular industries is naturally, therefore, looked upon with considerable caution—let me say no more than that—by those
1084
who are already employed in those industries.
There is also the excessively difficult problem of housing accommodation. It is difficult in the existing circumstances to force any considerable amount of new labour into those areas where it is most required, and camp hutting accommodation is nearly always far removed from the areas where, in fact, labour is required. We are, however, doing our utmost to get over these difficulties, especially so far as the Poles are concerned, and we hope that the growing realisation of the fact that our difficulty is labour shortage and not labour excess will gradually make it possible for amicable arrangements to be arrived at for the utilisation of these extra resources. After all, it really is no good putting say 10,000 Poles into the mines if, as a result of it, 700,000 Englishmen are coming out. It is a matter that must therefore be arranged in accordance with their feelings, and it takes some time to arrange it.
Another matter of manpower which has been raised is that of the manpower employed in the Civil Service. There is a good deal of confusion in some hon. Members' minds between civil servants in Government Departments and that larger lists, including industrial civil servants and employees of such places as the R.O.F. plants and others, who are also, technically, servants of the Government. The fact is that there are today about 700,000 whole and part time men and women employed in the nonindustrial civil service grades. Until we are able to do away with rationing of various kinds and licensing, it will not be possible to make any marked diminution in that number. The tidying up of wartime emergency matters very often takes more labour and more administrative labour than actually ran all those matters while they were on a smooth course. Some time must elapse before we are able to release large staffs which are at present engaged on matters like petrol licensing, clothes rationing, dockets for furniture and all other such matters which are still admittedly necessary while great shortages exist.
Then, of course, one has to bear in mind that we have to man up those new branches of the service which have to do with the new social service legislation, for instance, which all sides of the House agreed should be put through.
Sir Waldron Smithers: I did not.
Sir S. Cripps: I am not dealing with the hon. Member as a "side." He is only a point. The right hon. Member for Bromley asked whether I could give the figures of our American dollar expenditure. He knows the figure which was given the other day of the amount which has been drawn on the dollar loan from America. Of course, one cannot allocate that amount to any particular expenditure. It comes out of the whole of the dollar fund. What I can give him is the percentage of the dollar expenditure in America which has been spent upon different commodities. I think that is really what he wants.
Mr. Harold Macmillan: The figure given was for what was spent. Our question was in relation to what was spent in the sense of the deliveries, of things, or things hypothecated in the sense of orders for goods which have not yet been delivered.
Sir S. Cripps: The figure was for the amount already drawn. It goes into the general pool. One cannot say that it is spent on any particular commodity. AD I can give to the right hon. Gentleman is the proportion in which we have actually spent our dollar resources. That proportion is: On food and drink, 47 per cent.; on raw materials, 15 per cent.; on manufactured goods, 9 per cent.; and on other items, primarily oil and films, 29 per cent.— [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."]—making 100 per cent. in all.
Mr. H. Macmillan: Is the item "manufactured goods" in respect of consumption goods or machinery goods?
Sir S. Cripps: It would be very largely capital goods, machinery, a very small quantity.
Mr. H. Macmillan: The total amount spent of all our resources in the period is under 9 per cent. on capital goods?
Sir S. Cripps: That is true. I now come to the main point in this Debate, that is, to what the right hon. Gentleman referred to as the Government's master plan. First I will pose the question: What does economic planning mean within a democracy? Unless we have that definition fairly clear in our minds in the first instance, it is not very much good dis-
1086
cussing whether we have or have not planned and whether we have spent too much or too little, all of which has been said by various hon. Members on the other side of the House. Economic planning means the laying out of the desirable end, that is the organisation of all the resources, in the national interest and of the methods to be pursued in attaining that end. Having done that, it is using all the means which the people in the democracy are prepared to give to the Government in order to reach the end that should be attained. One can see that planning on those lines is made up of six principal elements—the choice of the products, the supply of labour, the supply of materials, the supply of capacity including the location of capacity, the supply of machinery, and the supply of finance. Those methods will, no doubt, all be discussed much more fully when the Economic Debate referred to by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, takes place a little later in the year. It is true that it is not possible to carry out completely any such plan without compulsions of the most extreme kind, compulsions which democracy rightly refuses to accept. That is why democratic planning is so very much more difficult than totalitarian planning.
Confusion seems to exist in the minds of the Opposition at the present time as to what is really happening. At one moment they say "Why do not the Government do this or that?" whatever it may be. The next moment, they say, "The Government ought to divest themselves of all powers to do anything at all." Hon. Members opposite must make up their minds which of those two horses they are going to run. When one considers planning it is necessary to decide how far we are going with regulation and control, in order to reach the objectives that we have laid down. Planning consists not only in making the plan but also in seeing that the plan is carried out. It is also true that today we, like everyone else in the world, want to do very much more than it is possible for us to do. We cannot make good the deficiencies and destruction of six years of war and raise our standard of living, all in a few months. It will take us years and not months to achieve our objective. That is why it is so easy today for troublemakers to stir up trouble, and why it is so re-

1087
markable to see the constancy and understanding of the British people. Not only are we short of resources of many sorts and kinds but so, indeed, is nearly all the world short of those resources. In that shortage, the danger of a scramble for supplies is very great indeed. That is why we are trying to retain every international method of dividing the shortages as long as we possibly can.
There are certain compulsions against which the people of this country have rightly decided. The principal one is the direction of labour. There are others, such as the direction of materials, the direction of capacity and the direction of finance. At the last Election, the British people expressed their desire to see them utilised in order to carry out a plan of production to give them the things they want. When talking of this planning, the Opposition all the time hark back to regaining what they regard as that happy state of unplanned, free enterprise which existed before the war, but that battle, that question, was the very one which was fought out in the General Election. It was fought out in the light of our experience after the last war, and it is a duty of this Government to carry out the mandate that it was given. We are accused—unlike the general accusation which is thrown against governments—not of failing to carry out our mandate, but of failing to abandon our mandate in favour of the policy—if one can call it a policy—upon which the Opposition were decisively defeated at the General Election. We do not propose to do that, nor indeed do we intend to seek a coalition, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) yesterday—
Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I neither said that nor intended to say it. I certainly would not like a coalition with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Sir S. Cripps: I listened to the hon. Member's speech. Anybody can read it in HANSARD and if their deduction from it is that he does not want a coalition, I will accept their deduction, but my deduction was that he did.
Mr. Hogg:Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do me the courtesy of quoting anything which bears the con-
1088
struction he has suggested? I said that the principle for which I stood and believed in could only be carried out by a Conservative Administration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find those words in my speech.
Sir S. Cripps: If I accept it that the hon. Gentleman did not mean what I suggested, all I can say is that having listened to his speech that is what I thought was behind it—
Mr. Hogg:Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman either quote something which bears the construction he has suggested, or have the decency and courtesy to withdraw his remarks?
Sir S. Cripps: I have stated the impression I gained from the hon. Gentleman's speech. If he says that was not what he meant, I accept itߞ—
Mr. HoggI said that that was not what I said. Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman the decency to withdraw?
Sir S. Cripps: We do not propose to seek a coalition whether it is what the hon. Gentleman for Oxford wants, or not, and we certainly do not intend to seek it on the basis of the policy of the Opposition when they find one. [An HON. MEMBER: "Neither do we."] I am very glad to hear that we are saved from that danger. It is alleged in this Amendment that there is nothing in the Gracious Speech which shows how we are going to encourage production. Of course, except in so far as new legislative measures are required for that purpose over and above the powers now existing, no one would expect to find it in the Gracious Speech. We are carrying on with the policies already laid down and made clear to the country. Perhaps I may explain to the House what it is we are doing in order to encourage production. I have already said that planning consists of six different elements. I will deal in a very few words with each of those to show what we are doing.
The first is the choice of products. That means that we have to decide how much of our resources we think should be expended upon the various productive activities—housing, clothing, exports and so forth. That is done very largely by means of a manpower budget which, just as in wartime, is used for laying down

1089
the distribution of manpower between the different major activities of the nation—defence forces, export manufacture, home consumer goods, building, transport, distribution and so forth. That sets the general pattern at which we aim and limits the various forms of activity to the labour which is available for it. That is the first approximation or target. As I have said, we cannot force or direct labour into those channels but we can persuade and induce it, and it is these latter methods of persuasion and inducement upon which we have to rely. The planning of this choice of products, therefore, carries with it the planning of the distribution of manpower.
So far as materials are concerned, a great many of these are imported—cotton, timber, rubber, among others. In this case the first difficulty that arises is as regards quantity for, as the House knows, there is a world shortage of many of these commodities. Secondly, difficulty arises as regards the country of origin where there is a choice of countries of origin, owing to foreign exchange difficulties and changes. Thirdly, there is the problem of distribution in this country when these commodities have been purchased. The latter must obviously be done on the basis of the planned choice of production and the distribution of labour. I think everybody agrees that the acquisition of the materials overseas, when there are acute shortages, is far better done by one purchasing authority in order to avoid that further degree of competition which is already putting up prices quite sufficiently and which, if it were allowed to operate, would put up prices still more against the people of this country. If those prices went up with only limited quantities of foreign exchange available, we should only get less of those raw materials. The distribution of raw materials in this country is most carefully planned in order to keep up maximum employment in all districts but with a bias in favour, first, of the most essential productions and, secondly, of the development areas where there are already bodies of unemployed.
A good deal has been said about controls, but there is never any particularity in these observations about controls. It is always an argument against controls as a whole. Nobody ever points out what particular control they think should be got rid of. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubber and petrol."] I have not time now to go
1090
into the merits or demerits of individual controls. Controls do, of course, require, and get, constant attention and reexamination to see how far they can be simplified or removed in the light of the changing world situation—
Sir W. Smithers: By whom?
Sir S. Cripps: By the Government. That review is constantly being carried out, and as a result of it a great many controls have been removed. The export controls are an example. Practically the entire lot has gone, and others have been much simplified and modified. Another example is the timber control. This process is continually going on, and will continue until we have been able to get rid of a great many in the future. If these controls were all to be removed in the present circumstances, there would be a completely chaotic situation, in which the national interests would suffer most seriously. I noticed, for instance, in a paper—yesterday I think—a plea by the chairman of the Toilet Preparations and Perfumery Manufacturers Association, who said:
"It must be a great temptation to a Minister, in wishing to increase the supply of consumer goods, to take controls off the cosmetic industry. We ask him not to do so."
The mere fact that some person or industry thinks that they could get more if controls were taken off, means that other people would get less.
Mr. H. Macmillan: This is such an important point and so useful to us, that we are very much indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for telling us, but might I ask him this question? As I understand his argument, it was that where there was a "full" supply, controls were being lifted—he gave many instances where they were being lifted—and that where there was a shortage, they had to be kept on. Is that the principle which the Government intend to operate, and, if so, why is it necessary not to use the temporary powers in the case of cotton but to build the control into the statutory fabric of the nation?
Sir S. Cripps: The answer to that is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, that there are other purposes for controls. [Interruption.]
Mr. H. Macmillan rose—
Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman now says apparently that I have not told him the truth. Perhaps he will withdraw that statement?
Mr. H. Macmillan: I will certainly withdraw it, and apologise, if I have said anything at all offensive, but I gathered from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, perhaps wrongly, that it was the supply question which was the reason for taking them off or leaving them on.
Sir S. Cripps: I had got so far, and I was dealing with the complaint which had been made with regard to the difficulties of the supply of raw material. I was trying to point out, as regards this question of controls, that when the supply of those raw materials reaches a point at which there is no harm in allowing free dealing in them, we either do as we did in rubber—open the market freely—or do as we did in cotton—put it on a more permanent basis of Government control.
Sir W. Smithers: What is the difference?
Sir S. Cripps: I was just saying that it is, of course, quite easy for an individual to think that he would do better if there were no controls. He might or he might not. It would depend entirely on the length of his purse. However, one thing is quite certain, that if we look to the national as against the individual interest, the continuance of these controls is essential at the present time, and it is essential if we are to try to get any sort of planned economy which will make the best use of our resources in the national interest.
I come next to capacity which has been very carefully planned in accordance with the total capacity or factory space that is required in each locality in order to give full employment, and that variety of industry which is a necessity for stable employment. The principle is to take the work to the worker, and not try to export the worker to the work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] A great deal of the provision of new factory space has been undertaken by the Government, and that has been very largely supplemented by the efforts of private enterprise as well. Up to the end of September, some £88 million worth of factory building and extensions had been authorised in various parts of the country. Altogether there were some 2,200 schemes, of which 900 were in the development areas and 1,300 were
1092
outside the development areas in the whole of the rest of the country. That has been planned by a method of licensing building which is absolutely essential in order to see that materials and labour are not wasted on unnecessary construction at a time when we want every man and every piece of material either for new factories or for new houses, whichever the case may be. Here again, of course, we have no power of absolute compulsion. We cannot order manufacturers where they are to manufacture. We try to persuade them and induce them to go to places where the labour is available, such as the development areas, and, by refusing licences, we stop them going to places where there is no labour available and where they would only cause a further congestion if they went there. I must say that, on the whole, manufacturers have been most accommodating and helpful in trying to get this location of industry.
Next we come to the question of machinery. Here the problem is that we need much more machinery, and more quickly produced, than our engineering industry is capable of turning out, although it has 300,000 more employees than it had before the war. We have to bear in mind here, of course, the problem of exports, because though each person who requires an article for use at home might say, "You ought not to export that article," if we applied that all round our exports would disappear altogether. Therefore, we have to keep as wise a balance as we can between the different classes of articles that we export, and the supply of them that we provide for the home market, and consumption as a result has to wait. We try to arrange, also, that the most urgent requirements are dealt with first by a method of licensing so that those who are merely prepared to pay the most do not necessarily get the priority which should go on a national ground rather than on a private ground.
Sir W. Smithers: Why did you export 720 railway engines?
Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Gentleman asks why we exported 720 railway engines. The same argument can be applied to every article that we export. We want it here, but we have to export something and we like to export things that will give us a stable market in the future.
Sir W. Smithers: Those are raw materials.
Sir S, Cripps: As to finance, provision has been made for that under the two Finance Corporations, and I do not think there is any problem today as regards financing industry.
Planning is, of course, only one part of the general scheme. Side by side with it goes the question of the tackling of those major industrial difficulties which private enterprise has proved itself wholly unable to tackle in the past; such, for instance, as the coalmining problem, the transport problem, the problem of power and light and heat, and so on. Whatever views hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may take, these have been national problems, anyway since after the last war Hon. Gentlemen have only to read the political literature of this country over the last 30 years when these have been key problems, and during that period of time it is perfectly right to say that those problems have not been solved under the aegis of private enterprise. We believe that it is quite useless to continue year after year hoping that some miracle will turn up to remedy this state of affairs. The experience of failure is far too longdated already, and it was to deal with these cases that we asked for, and received, the mandate for drastic action at the General Election.
So far from confusing and retarding recovery by this means, these are the fundamental services and industries which must be put right before we can proceed with success to the improvement of production throughout the rest of our industries. They are all, as everybody will admit, absolutely fundamental to the general industrial structure of the country. We do not believe in private enterprise for the sake of private enterprise however inefficient it has shown itself in the past. We believe that in those cases where it has been clearly proved that private enterprise has not, and cannot, do the job required in the national interest, some other method must be tried. It is the internal stresses of competition, the lack of coordination in these great national services that have been so fatal in the past, coupled with the idea that they were merely vehicles for earning profit, instead of being great national services. We are convinced that 10 improvement can come until they are coordinated under one con-
1094
trol, a control which is inspired by the need for national service rather than the need for gain. Indeed, our view was very much confirmed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) yesterday when he said this about transport services:
'Therefore, I want to see the transport system improved so that the men and women—and the children going to school—can have the transport they want; and I have no doubt that in the new era which is coming along in transport, we shall see these facilities provided right throughout the country.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th Nov., 1946, Vol. 430, c 946.]
That is exactly what we want to see.
Let me say a word or two about agriculture. Let us not forget in these Debates that agriculture is a very vital part of our production. Many hon. Members in the course of the Debate have referred to the part which agriculture must play, and the Government are heartily in agreement with its importance. As was indicated in the Gracious Speech, there are proposals to introduce, this Session, a comprehensive agriculture Bill. Among other things it will lay down methods for promoting the efficiency and productivity of the agricultural industry. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said in his statement on 15th November, last year, the Government's long-term agricultural plans, on which this Bill is based, include the need for guaranteed prices, and assured markets to farmers so that, freed from the day-to-day worries of securing an outlet for then-produce, they can plan ahead with some confidence, and devote their energies to increasing the productivity of the land. These provisions for guaranteed prices, and assured markets, will be supplemented by measures for ensuring that the land is not only properly farmed, but is properly managed, and equipped, as well. The Government entirely agree with the idea that there is still scope for considerable increase in agricultural production, especially in certain lines such as milk, eggs, meat, and bacon, but, as hon. Members appreciate, that is a question of world shortage of feeding stuffs, and materials. My right hon. Friends the Ministers of Agriculture and Food are doing their utmost in order to cure those deficiencies.
But, even if we get all these plans for industry and agriculture, and do our best to induce and encourage their implementation as I have suggested, we shall not

1095
have succeeded in getting the maximum of productivity, because that depends as the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, upon the outlook, state of mind and willingness of millions of individual men and women in this country. That is why I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), a very excellent speech, yesterday which was partly repeated by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) today, with regard to the relationships in industry.
It is along those lines of getting a fuller and wider cooperation that we are working. I would like to accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Montrose to elaborate, if I had the time, on the work of the National Production Advisory Council for Industry and other bodies mentioned by the Lord President of the Council, but I am afraid there is not time this evening. We want to get an integration of partnership between the Government as the overall planners, and the employers and employees in industry as the executors of the plan, whether the employers happen to be a national board, as in the case of coal, or private employers, as in the case of cotton. In our view the key to getting that good team work which alone can give the production we need is the close and friendly association of management and labour at all levels, not merely over wages and conditions, but over every problem that arises in the field of industry. It was for that reason that in setting up the working parties we included both sides of the industry as well as independent members. I would like to support the tribute which was paid to members of working parties, for the very great contribution they have made towards our knowledge of British industry. The reports now coming forward fully justify the work that has been put in, and will form an invaluable basis for concerted action in each of the industries which they cover.
There is, however, a corollary to this method of procedure. That is that all of us, all three partners in industry, must be flexibly minded in our approach, and must not be hidebound by old fears—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, we are very well prepared to play our part in that flexibly minded approach to the problem. It is true that we have entered a period in which we—and I think this was the
1096
impression of the right hon. Member for Bromley—live or die according to whether or not we can maintain an expansionist economy. All ideas of restriction and safeguarding against unemployment by restrictive practices must go. Indeed, the one and only safeguard that exists today against unemployment is an expansionist outlook. That is why, as the Secretary for Overseas Trade said the other day, we must be on our guard against the appearance of slump conditions, especially if they come from abroad, not because we anticipate falling a victim to those conditions, but because we must be ready in good time to apply the remedies that we have now got at hand which may prevent them having an adverse effect on our economy. Do not let us live in a fool's paradise thinking that no adverse conditions can develop. Let us, rather, be fully aware of the obvious dangers, so that we can forestall their evil effect.
The truth is that we as a Government, and as a nation, have set out upon what most of us always realised was a new and difficult task. We are attempting, without the extreme compulsions of totalitarianism, to plan and organise our production so as to give a higher and more equal standard of life to our people. The fact that we do not apply extreme compulsions means that it will take rather longer, and that delay is, in our view, well worth while if we preserve our democratic freedom, as we are determined to do.
The more the whole production team in the country works together, the quicker we shall get results. The hon. Member for Tiverton remarked,' in another part of his speech, that it is not a matter of material inducement alone that counts. During the war, managers and workers would have been insulted if we had suggested to them that they could only be induced to give of their best for money payments. I believe that the same principles apply in times of peace. We are not all out to make what we can out of the difficulties of the world and of our own people. That is not the attitude of the British people. They are, one and all, I am convinced, anxious to do their best to help to rehabilitate their country and provide a decent standard of living for the people. They deserve and need reasonable remuneration for their work, whether they are managers or workers, and that ought to be a first charge upon

1097
our production. But beyond that it is good working conditions and team work that will produce the results we want. The idea of an ever rising spiral of inducement wages is one which makes me shudder at the economic consequences that might come.
However one looks at this Amendment, it is clear that there is inherent in it an old out of date theoretical insistence on private enterprise and private profit, and almost, indeed, a threat not to cooperate except upon that basis. My answer to it is that the electorate have decided this issue, and it is too late now to raise it again. We are going forward with our programme, and we are confident that by so doing, we are laying the right foundations upon which to build the future prosperity of our country. In these difficult
days of transition, which may last for some years yet, it is easy to raise up discontent and disappointment by extravagant and unjustified criticism, based often on false promises, and nearly always on false facts. But I am convinced that in the future, whatever may happen today, the people of this country will be grateful to us for the foundations of prosperity we shall have laid by our programme, and it is because we are convinced of the soundness of our methods and the practicability of the programme we have put forward, that we ask the House today decisively to defeat this Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 333.

Division No 10.

AYES

7.14 p.m

Agnew, Cmdr P. G

Gammans, L. D.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Aitken, Hon. Max.

Gates, Maj. E. E

Macpherson, Maj. N (Dumfries)

Amory, D Heathcoal

George, Maj Rt. Hon G Lloyd (p'ke)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Assheton, Rt. Hon R

Glossop, C. W H

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Astor, Hon. M

Glyn, Sir R

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Baldwin, A E

Gomme-Duncan. Col A G

Marples, A. E.

Baxter, A. B.

Gridley, Sir A.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Beamish, Maj T V H

Grimston, R V.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Beechman, N A

Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)

Maude, J. C.

Bennett, Sir P

Hare, Hon J H. (Woodbridge)

Mellor, Sir J.

Birch Nigel

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V

Molson, A H. E.

Boles, Lt. Col D C (Wells)

Haughton. S G

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T

Bossom, A C

Head, Brig. A. H.

Morris-Jones, Sir H

Bower, N

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

Morrison, Maj J G. (Salisbury)

Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan

Hinchingbrooke. Viscount

Mott-Radclyffe, Maj C E

Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col W

Hogg, Hon. Q

Mullan, Lt. C. H.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Hollis, M. C.

Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

Butler, Rt. Hon R A (S'ftr'n W td'n)

Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)

Neven-Spence, Sir B

Carson, F.

Hope, Lord J

Nicholson, G.

Challen, C

Howard. Hon. A

Nield, B. (Chester)

Churchill, Rt. Hon W S

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

Noble, Comdr. A H. P

Clarke, Col. R. S

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N J

Nutting, Anthony

Clifton-Brown, LI -Col G

Hurd, A

Orr-Ewing, I. L

Cole, T L.

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

Osborne, C.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E

Hutchison, Col J R (Glasgow, C.)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Jarvis, Sir J

Peto, Brig C H M

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)

Jennings, R.

Pickthorn, K

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

Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr Hon. L. W

Pitman, I. J

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

Keeling, E. H

Ponsonby, Col. C. E

Crowder, Capt. John E

Kerr, Sir J Graham

Poole, O. B. S (Oswestry)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Darling, Sir W. Y

Lambert, Hon G.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Davidson, Viscountess

Lancaster, Col C G.

Raikes, H V

De la Bere, R

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Ramsay, Maj. S

Digby, S. W

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A H

Rayner, Brig. R.

Dodds-Parker, A D

Lennox-Boyd, A. T

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr P W

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

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

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

Linstead. H N

Renton, D.

Drayson, G B

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Roberts, H (Handsworth)

Drewe, C.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesas)

Dugdale, Maj Sir T (Richmond)

Low, Brig. A. R. W

Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

Duthie, W S

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Ropner, Col. L.

Eccles, D M

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Ross, Sir R

Erroll, F J.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J A

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E L

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Sanderson, Sir F.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

McCallum, Maj. D.

Savory, Prof. D L

Foster, J G (Northwich)

Macdonald, Sir P (Isle of Wight)

Scott, Lord W.

Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

McKie, J H. (Galloway)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D P. M

Maclay, Hon. J. S

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Gage, C.

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

Smithers, Sir W

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

MacLeod, Capt. J.

Snadden, W. M

Spearman, A. C. M.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Spence, H. R.

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

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Touche, G C.

Willink, Rt. Hon H U.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Turton, R. H.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Strauss, H G. (Englih Unlversities)

Vane, W. M. F.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Sutcliffe, H.

Wakefield, Sir W. W

York, C.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Walker-Smith, D.

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

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Teeling, William

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Mr. James Stuart and

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.

NOES.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Davies Ernest (Enfield)

Hubbard, T.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

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

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

Allan, A. C. (Bosworth)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)

Davies, S. O (Merthyr)

Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Allighan, Garry

Deer, G.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Alpass, J. H.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Delargy, Captain H. J.

Hynd, J. D. (Attercliffe)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Diamond, J.

Irving, W. J.

Attewell, H. C.

Dobbie, W.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Dodds N. N.

Janner, B.

Austin, H. L.

Donovan, T.

Jay, D. P. T.

Awbery, S. S.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Ayles, W. H.

Dugdale, J (W Bromwich)

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

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Dumpleton, C W.

Jones, D T. (Hartlepools)

Bacon, Miss A.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Balfour, A.

Dye, S.

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Barstow, P. G.

Edelman, M.

Keenan, W.

Barton, C.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Kenyon, C

Battley, J. R.

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

Key, C. W.

Bechervaise, A. E

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

King, E. M.

Belcher, J. W.

Edwards, N (Caerphilly)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Kinley, J.

Benson, G.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Kirby, B. V

Berry, H.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Lang, G.

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

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Lavers, S.

Bing, G. H. C.

Ewart, R.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Binns, J.

Fairhurst, F.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Blackburn, A. R.

Farthing, W. J.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Blenkinsop, A.

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

Leonard, W.

Blyton, W. R.

Follick. M.

Leslie, J. R.

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Foot, M. M.

Lever, N. H.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Forman, J. C.

Levy, B. W.

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

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Lewis, T (Southampton)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Gallacher, W.

Lindgren, G. S.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Ganley, Mrs. C S.

Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng- Univ.)

Brown, George (Belper)

Gibbins, J.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Gilzean, A.

Longden, F.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Glanville. J. E. (Consett)

Lyne, A. W.

Buchanan, G.

Gooch, E. G.

McAdam, W.

Burden, T W.

Goodrich, H. E.

McAllister, G.

Burke, W. A.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

McEntee, V La T

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

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

McGhee, H. G.

Callaghan, James

Greenwood, A W J. (Heywood)

McGovern, J.

Carmichael, James

Grey, C. F.

Mack, J. D

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Grierson, E.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Chamberlain, R. A

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

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

Champion, A. J.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanellv)

McLeavy, F

Chater, D.

Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Chetwynd, Capt. G R

Gunter. Capt. R J

Mallalieu, J. P W.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Guy, W. H.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Cluse, W. S.

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

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Cobb, F. A.

Hale, Leslie

Marquand, H. A.

Cocks, F. S.

Hall, W G (Colne Valley)

Martin, J. H.

Coldrick, W.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Mathers, G.

Collick, P.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Mayhew. C P.

Collindridge, F.

Hardy E. A.

Medland, H. M.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Harrison, J.

Mellish, R. J.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Messer, F.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

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

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Monslow, W.

Cove, W. G.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Montague, F.

Crawley, A.

Hicks, G.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Hobson, C. R.

Morley, R.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Holman, P.

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

Daggar, G.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Daines, P.

Horabin, T. L.

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

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

House, G.

Mort, D. L.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Hoy, J.

Moyle, A.

1100

1101

Mulvey, A.

Sargood, R

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

Murray, J. D.

Scollan, T.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Nally, W.

Scott-Elliot, W

Ungoed-Thomas, L

Naylor, T. E.

Segal, Dr. S.

Usborne, Henry

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

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A

Vernon, Maj. W F

Nicholls, H R- (Stratford)

Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

Walkden, E.

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

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Walker, G H

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

O'Brien, T.

Shurmer, P.

Wallace, H W (Walthamstow, E.)

Oldfield, W. H

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Warbey, W. N

Oliver, G. H

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Watkins, T E.

Orbach, M.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Watson, W. M.

Paget, R. T.

Simmons, C. J.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

Palmer, A. M. F

Skeffington, A. M

Weitzman, D

Pargiter, G. A.

Skinnard, F. W.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Parkin, B. T.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

West, D. G.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

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

Pearson, A.

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

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

Peart, Capt T F

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

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Perrins, W

Snow Capt. J. W

Wilcock, Group-Capt C A B

Piratin, P

Colley, L. J

Wilkes, L.

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Sorensen, R. W.

Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen

Popplewell, E.

Soskice, Maj Sir F

Willey, F T (Sunderland)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Sparks, J. A

Willey, O G. (Cleveland)

Porter, G (Leeds)

Steele, T.

Williams, D. J (Neath)

Proctor, W. T

Stephen, C.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Pryde, D. J

Stewart Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

Williams. Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Strachey J.

Williams, W R (Heston)

Randall, H. E

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Williamson, T

Ranger, J.

Stross, Dr. B.

Willis, E.

Rankin, J

Summerskill, Dr Edith

Wills, Mrs. E. A

Rees-Willlams, D. R

Symonds, A. L.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon J

Reeves, J.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Wise, Major F J

Raid, T. (Swindon)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Woods G S

Rhodes, H

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Wyatt, W.

Richards, R.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Yates, V. F.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Young, Sir R (Newton)

Robens, A.

Thurtle, E.

Zilliacus, K

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Tiffany, S

Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

Timmons, J

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Rogers. G H R

Tolley. L

Mr. Whiteley and

Mr. R. J. Taylor.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

SUPPLY
Resolved:
"That this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[Mr-William Whiteley.]

WAYS AND MEANS
Resolved:
'That this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[Mr. William Whiteley.]

STANDING COMMITTEES
7.28 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move,
"That—

(1) Notwithstanding anything in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 47. as many Standing Committees shall be appointed as may be necessary for the consideration of Bills or other Business committed to a Standing Committee and in that paragraph, fifteen shall be substituted for twenty as the quorum of a Standing Committee.

(2) Standing Order No. 4S shall read, 'Each of the said Standing Committees shall consist of twenty members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard to the composition of the House, and shall have power to discharge members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged. Provided that, for the consideration of all public Bills relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, the Committee shall be so constituted as to comprise all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire. The Committee of Selection shall also have power to add not more than thirty members to a Standing Committee in respect of any Bill referred to it, to serve on the committee during the consideration of such Bill, and in adding such members shall have regard to their qualifications. Provided that this Order shall not apply to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.'

1103

(3) (a) A Standing Committee to whom a Bill has been committed shall meet to consider that Bill on such days of the week (being days on which the House sits) as may be appointed by the Standing Committee at half past ten o'clock and, if not previously adjourned, at one o'clock the Chairman shall adjourn the Committee without Question put:

Provided that—

(i) the first meeting of a Standing Com mittee to consider a Bill shall be at a time and on a day to be named by the Chairman of the Committee;

(ii) if, in the opinion of the Chairman, the proceedings on a Bill could be brought to a conclusion by a short extension of the sitting, he may defer adjourning the Committee until a quarter past one o'clock;

(iii) if proceedings under the Standing Order 'Closure of Debate' be in progress at the time when the Chairman would be required to adjourn the Committee under the preceding provisions of this Order, he shall not adjourn the Committee until the questions consequent thereon and on any further Motion, as provided in that Standing Order, have been decided.

(b) Government Bills referred to a Standing Committee shall be considered in whatever order the Government may decide.
(c) Nothing in this Order shall prevent a Standing Committee meeting at hours additional to those set out in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (3) of this Order, but not earlier than two o'clock on any day."
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to make a fairly general statement. It is just over a year since, on 15th November, 1955—
Captain Crookshank: 1945.
Mr. Morrison: This progress! We get on at such a rate that one finds it difficult to be accurate as to dates. It is just over a year since, on 15th November, 1945, that the House discussed the proposals for the reorganisation of the Standing Committees which were contained in the important first Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, and it was then that the House approved the Sessional Orders setting up the Standing Committee arrangements which operated last Session. The Government are asking the House today to agree to the continuance of these arrangements during the present Session of Parliament. It will, perhaps, be for the general convenience if I deal with the various Sessional Orders which are to come before us. I think that the whole House can congratulate itself upon the smooth and efficient way in which the scheme, introduced last year, has worked in practice. When I say, the
1104
whole House I mean that, because the ciedit belongs to all parties and sections of the House, for without their cooperation we could not have had the advantage of the smoothness and efficiency with which the system has worked. The system has substantially relieved the House itself and, if I may say so, its effectiveness is a tribute to the commonsense and spirit of cooperation of Members of all parties. We are, I think—and here I know that the Members of Standing Committees will be with me—in particular, indebted to the Chairmen of the Standing Committees for the skill with which they have performed their duties and for the way in which they have shouldered the heavy burden which has inevitably fallen upon them.
The Chairmen of Standing Committees of the House of Commons do not get a great deal of public notice for their labours; they certainly work without fee or reward in that respect, and I think that perhaps makes us additionally indebted to them for the time, painstaking attention and unfailing courtesy and fairness which they give to their duties. To them I would like to express the thanks and appreciation of everybody who works in this House. I am sure that they would agree. however, that without the cooperation 10 which I have referred their task would have been infinitely more difficult; that is to say, the cooperation of hon. Members of all parties. We also owe a considerable debt to the Members of the Committees for the hard work which they have put in because, undoubtedly, the service of hon Members on Standing Committees upstairs is a serious and material addition to their Parliamentary duties. It certainly was the case in the first Session of this Parliament, and we very much appreciate their labours.
Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, since he is being so very effusive, to say that he is not speaking only on behalf of the Government? I hope the Government is not paying us a compliment, but that his remarks are made on behalf of the whole House?
Mr. Morrison: I think that was a most irrelevant and unfortunate intervention. Obviously, I am expressing thanks on behalf of the House. Why the noble Lord in a manner, and with manners which are becoming increasingly common, should want to use an occasion like this for a dig at the Government—
Earl Winterton: I was not having a dig at the Government.
Mr. Morrison: I hope the noble Lord will read what he said. Perhaps I misunderstood him. As I was saying, we owe' a considerable debt to the Members of the Committees for the hard work which they have put in. The average level of attendance has been creditably high and the pressure at times heavy. I may say that the six Standing Committees between them considered 27 Bills, as compared with 56 kept on the Floor of the House, and the Standing Committees met in all on 153 days. The Sessional Orders which the Government are proposing for the approval of the House today, are substantially in the same form as last year, and, apart from purely drafting amendments, the changes which we propose to make are only on points of detail. In paragraph 3 of the Sessional Order on Standing Committees, sub-paragraph (a,ii), the Chairman is given discretion to extend the sitting of a Standing Committee until 1.15 p.m. if it appears that a Committee stage of a Bill could be completed in a short time and thereby avoid the Committee sitting on another day. I understand that there is an Amendment coming up in that respect, and I will say something about it when the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew)—who has great experience—moves it.
A case occurred last Session, in which the time was slightly extended by resolution with the approval of the Chairman. I must say that this experience is perhaps fairly typical of the extraordinary way that British Parliamentarians and others can work round a spot of bother with a little informality. Thanks to the ingenuity of the Chairman, the Committee, which would have required another sitting if he had not been so ingenious, was able to save a good deal of inconvenience by suspending its sitting at one o'clock and resuming it at one minute past one o'clock. The Bill was completed at two minutes past on? o'clock and another sitting was avoided. Credit for that ingenuity belongs to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern, one of our highly respected Chairmen of Standing Committees of the House, who, as I have said, has great experience.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: Should the right hon. Gentleman not also include the good sense of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee?
Mr. Morrison: Quite true. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did it with the cooperation of both sides. I entirely agree, and I am quite sure he would wish to say so himself.
In sub-paragraph (a,iii), provision is made for extending the time beyond one o'clock in order to complete a division on the Closure if in progress at that hour and to complete any contingent Motion arising there from, as provided in the Standing Order (Closure of Debate). In sub-paragraph (c), it is proposed that a Standing Committee should not meet earlier than two o'clock after its Adjournment at one o'clock, or at 1.15 p.m. or at the end of divisions on the Closure. This means, in effect, that a Standing Committee cannot sit continuously without a break. A break is necessary for the sake both of hon. Members and of the reporters.
In the Order about the attendance of the Law Officers in Standing Committees, two changes are made. The Lord Advocate is placed next after the Attorney-General. This is a point which was raised last time by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), in which he caught the Government not quite perfect in its order of precedence as between the Law Officers. Secondly, it is made clear that a Law Officer serving ex-officio does not form part of the quorum of a Standing Committee. This confirms the practice adopted last year. I hope that brief explanation will commend itself to the House.
7.37 p.m.
Earl Winterton: I think the right hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to pay tribute to the action of the House, and I regret that he misunderstood the question which I put to him. The right hon. Gentleman has been in this House long enough to know that it is always unpalatable to an Opposition to have any credit of any kind given to it by the Government. I would like to reply that, while the right hon. Gentleman may have reason to complain of my manners, we also have some reason to complain of his, possibly as the result of events earlier in the week. What I do

1107
want to say, as one who takes some interest in this matter and who was a Member of the Committee on Procedure, is that this new arrangement, which arises out of discussions which have gone on upstairs and behind the Chair, has, on the whole, been to the benefit of the House. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to say that it was a good example of the way in which we adjust ourselves in this ancient and historic Assembly to the needs of the times. I entirely agree with him, and I think that the example which he gave from the Committee upstairs is typical of the way in which we get over our difficulties. Having delivered these observations, and having delivered myself of the fear that the right hon. Gentleman was paying me or someone else a compliment, I resume my seat.
Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that both the Amendments to this Motion which appear on the Order Paper are connected. In that case, would it not be more convenient to discuss them together?
Mr. Bowles: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that they cover different points.
Mr. Mathers: I was going to urge that the hon. and gallant Member who is to move the Amendments, in case he was not taking them together, should do so. They do hang together and both serve the same purpose, that of leaving some latitude in the hands of the Chair.
Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: They could be taken separately, but the idea which I have in mind is that they are connected.
Mr. Speaker: I am in the hands of hon. Members. I want to do what is most convenient for the House. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to take them together, he has my permission to do so.
Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, I think we should be able to come to some arrangement at the end of the discussion. If we could have a general discussion on the two Amendments I think it may be possible to reach agreement.
7.40 p.m.
Sir C. MacAndrew: I beg to move, to leave out lines 26 to 28.
1108
Before doing so, I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman most sincerely for his kind remarks about myself and the Chairmen of the Standing Committees, which, I am sure, will be very much appreciated. The right hon. Gentleman said the new Sessional Orders had worked well last Session. I heartily agree. I congratulate him on the success they have attained. The object of this Amendment and the other Amendments is to keep the first Order as it was previously. They really bring that Order back to what it was last year. This Amendment proposes to leave out paragraph (3a ii) which gives power to the Chairman to defer adjourning a Committee until a quarter past one o'clock. The other proposes to omit the provision regarding a Committee meeting not earlier than two o'clock. The incident to which the right hon. Gentleman referred occurred in the Standing Committee which was dealing with the Hill Farming Bill. It adjourned at one o'clock, met again at 1.1 p.m. and finished at 1.2 p.m. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that there was anything cunning about what was done. On that occasion, we had the cooperation of his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who, I am sorry to see, is not present tonight. If he were, I am sure that he would bear me out that what we were able to do was of immense advantage to all concerned. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), who was also on that Committee, will agree that the Order, as it originally stood, was a great advantage. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the idea of stopping at one o'clock was to enable the Official Reporters to go to lunch. As a rule, the real difficulty in Standing Committees is not to carry on after one o'clock, but to get the people to stay until one o'clock, especially as Standing Committees now start at 10.30 a.m. instead of at 11 o'clock. I hope that I have made the point perfectly clear. What I would like is that the Order should remain as it was originally.
7.43 p.m.
Colonel Ropner: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the Government will accept these two Amendments which have been so accurately described by the Lord President because, as the Order stands at the moment, the Chairmen and Members of

1109
Standing Committees can, as he says, "walk round a spot of bother." The Members and Chairmen of. Committees are very sensible of their own convenience and that of the servants of the House. No Chairman and no Member of a Standing Committee would desire to deny to Members, to the servants of the House, or to the Official Reporters, some break in the middle of the day, or make it inconvenient for them to get their lunch But it seems to me that the Government are making matters more difficult by the proposal about a Committee not meeting earlier than two o'clock on any day. The ingenious procedure adopted during last Session enabled a Committee to adjourn at 16 minutes past one o'clock. If the Government's proposal is agreed to, a Committee would have to meet again at two o'clock, even if it had adjourned as late as 1.15. I believe that the Government can rely on the good sense of Chairmen and Members of Standing Committees, and that they would be well advised to leave the Orders as they are at the moment.
7.45 P.m.
Mr. Bowles: As you, Mr. Speaker, and the House have agreed to take these two Amendments together, perhaps it would be as well if I were to say that I support the first one. As a Chairman of a Standing Committee—although I have only had experience in mat capacity for one year—I think that discussion should be allowed to go on for longer than 15 minutes after one 'clock if necessary and that a Committee should not be tied exactly to 15 minutes. I hope that the Lord President will see his way to delete the words which the Amendment proposes to omit and to insert "within the discretion of the Chairman," or other words to that effect. As regards the second Amendment, which deals with a meeting before 2 o'clock on the same day, I think that that is altogether unfortunate. Could the Committee not meet at some later time in the afternoon, say, after Question time, in view of the fact, already pointed out, that we have to study the convenience of the staff, the draftsmen who sit with us, the clerks and the Official Reporters? I think it would be a reasonable compromise to leave it to the discretion of the Chair man whether or not to go on after one o'clock, and then, to meet the convenience of the House, by sitting again in the after-
1110
noon after Question time, if that is the general wish of the Committee itself.
Sir C. MacAndrew: The hon. Member will not be able to carry out what he wishes to do under the first Amendment, unless the second one is carried. The Committee would have to stop at one o'clock.
Mr. Bowles: I suggest that we should insert the words, "at the discretion of the Chairman." I believe that that is one way of getting over the difficulty, a difficulty of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has had experience. Unless there is an alteration in the sense of giving Chairmen of Committees discretion, it might not be, possible—supposing we have an allocation of time relating to a Bill and the discussion has come to an end exactly at one o'clock—to catch up with and pass the number of Clauses allotted for that particular day. If the Government could see their way to give Chairmen of Standing Committees some discretion, and not limit the extra time to 15 minutes, and not let the Standing Committee meet before, say, 3.30 p.m., then the objection which I foresee, and which the hon. Gentleman opposite foresees, would be avoided.
7.48 p.m.
Mr. Charles Williams: I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment. Apart from the Minister, I believe that I am the only person who has spoken so far who has seen a considerable amount of work in Standing Committees upstairs, but who has never been the Chairman of such a Committee. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government. The strongest reason given for accepting the Amendment was that put forward by the Lord President himself. It has already been proved that, by the ingenuity of a Chairman, we are able to get over the one o'clock difficulty. Therefore, there can be no excuse in the future for a Chairman not knowing how to get over it. As I understand it, a Chairman will only be able to adopt that course so long as he obtains the good will of the Committee. With the good will of the Committee he should be able to get through in a short time.
Under this new Order, a Chairman is able to say, "Let us carry on till 1.15."I have no objection to that, and no

1111
objection to doing it under the present system, but I think that it is going too far to lay down a rule, which, as far as I understand it, has no other precedent in the House, whereby a Chairman has the option to extend the time of sitting of a Standing Committee. A Standing Committee represents the Committee of the House; it is a substitute for it. It is a pity to put in this Amendment which raises rather a new point, that of giving the Chair the option to continue. I would much rather that the Government should maintain the present position, for which we have a precedent, and which enables us to get on with the Bill. If there were no good will and there were opposition in the Committee, I think it would be dangerous to accept the position which would be brought about by the Amendment. I do not wish to go into that, because quite likely it might never happen, but I can foresee that if we begin giving to the Chair the option of extending the time of a Standing Committee it might very well be taken further as time went on; it might extend from 35 minutes on one occasion to half an hour on another occasion. That is the kind of thing which, I think, is likely to happen in the future if we do away with the good will which has enabled us to get over so many difficulties, and, for that reason, I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
7.51 P.m.
Sir Robert Young: I hope my right hon. Friend will find some words other than the last words in the Motion. If we were to settle the time at a quarter past one, and left the matter to the discretion of the Chairman, there would be a possibility that the Committee, if it did not agree, might fail to maintain a quorum at one o'clock, and consequently it would render the position untenable. I would suggest that the last few words should read:
"That the Chairman shall be permitted to extend the time, with the consent of the Committee."
That is to say, at one o'clock the Chairman would say, "It will only take us ten minutes to get through the remaining business. Do the Committee agree?" and if the Committee were in agreement they would get rid of the work.
With regard to meeting at two o'clock, I agree that that is an unfortunate time.
1112
I, for one, am always protesting about committees of any kind meeting during Question time. Whether they are Government committees or private committees, there is always a difficulty in getting a quorum in such circumstances; those who wish to be there turn up, but the majority do not. Members say, "We cannot attend. We have something of more importance; we have Questions down." Therefore, if there is any extension, it should be after Question time in the House of Commons. After all, Question time is really important.
7.53 P.m.
Mr. Mathers: Great tributes have been paid to the Chairmen of Committees for the way in which they conduct the Business upstairs. I entirely agree with those tributes. But these new arrangements for fixed time limits work against the idea of giving the Chairmen of Committees the latitude which it is claimed they exercise with very great ability and, in certain cases, with very great ingenuity. My regret about these proposed Amendments to the previous Order is, that they lay down a rigidity which is not necessary. The Chairmen can exercise considerable discretion, having, of course, to get the approval of the committees over which they preside. My opinion with regard to the two proposed Amendments—and this is why I was rather anxious for them to be discussed together—is that unless both Amendments were given effect to, I would like to retain the position as it is, giving a certain elasticity at one o'clock to enable the Business to be carried through. I realise the difficulty of calling together a Committee at an hour like two o'clock. If it is to be called specially for a time in the afternoon, then by all means, if there is to be a time fixed—although I do not think it is necessary—let us fix a time other than two o'clock.
I regret that I have no Amendment down to state the matter according to my own way of thinking, but my suggestion would be—and I hear it mentioned by other hon. Members on the lines which I have in mind—that in paragraph (3) (ii) the words, "until a quarter past one o'clock" could be deleted and the words "for a brief period with the general concurrence of the Committee" could be substituted. That would cause the second proviso to read:

1113
"if, in the opinion of the Chairman, the proceedings on a Bill could be brought to a conclusion by a short extension of the sitting, he may defer adjourning the Committee for a brief period with the general concurrence of the Committee."
No time is mentioned there. We have a rule, or an arrangement, in this House for the presentation of Private Members' Bills. It is called the Ten Minutes Rule, but there is no mention of ten minutes in it at all. It is only by custom that it has become described as the Ten Minutes Rule. It is a short period allowed for the introduction of a Bill. I am pleading for elasticity here. There might be an occasion when 1.15 would prove equally as irksome as one o'clock, if it were put down rigidly. I think in the majority of cases the extension by a quarter of an hour would save the situation, and would make thinks very much easier than the rigid application of the rule of rising at one o'clock precisely.
My objection to the second Amendment is that if we fixed the time to which the Committee might be adjourned, we would prevent the possibility of the Chairman exercising his ingenuity of adjourning for one minute and calling the afternoon sitting immediately after one o'clock, in order to finish the uncompleted business—the ingenuity which was so greatly praised by my right hon. Friend when he was moving the adoption of this new Order. I am certain that the sense of what I am saying is the right method to apply, and I believe that if the words which I have suggested could be inserted the convenience of the House and certainly of the Chairmen of Committees and of the Committees themselves would be met.
7.59 P.m.
Captain Crookshank: I am afraid it is so often the case that when we discuss procedure we rapidly get into some sort of a tangle. The tangle here, as I see it—and I support the Amendment for the reasons given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. Mac Andrew)—is this: He and other Members want the elasticity necessary to get over what I may, perhaps, call the one o'clock difficulty.
Mr. Mathers: On the last day of the Bill.
Captain Crookshank: Yes, it only arises on that occasion.
Mr. Bowles: We ought to have some definition of the phrase "proceedings on a Bill could be brought to a conclusion," because in my speech I referred to the timetable, and it might be that the proceedings on that Bill for that day would be Clause 16.
Captain Crookshank: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The words "conclusion of a Bill" are quite common form in these matters. They mean the last day. If there is a timetable, it is laid down in the timetable itself what is to happen, and all the business has to be concluded in the period stated. The purpose of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment is primarily to keep the Order as it is now, because under the Order as it is now, when there was a difficulty over a particular Bill, the difficulty was got over by adjourning and having another meeting. Therefore, in order to maintain that position, my hon. and gallant Friend has to move two Amendments. The second Amendment would make the first procedure impossible. That is a separate problem, and on that issue I entirely support my hon. and gallant Friend, because I think that, generally speaking, it is better to leave things as they are now. We are talking only about the last day of the Committee, by which time the Committee will probably have become rather wearied of the Bill in any case, and if it were a question of two or three minutes, it would much rather finish with the Bill than have another meeting.
But there is a subsidiary issue which has arisen because of the wording of the second Amendment, which, if one does not read it in connection with the first Amendment, raises a separate point as well; namely, supposing there was, not in order to get over the one o'clock difficulty, but in the ordinary way, another meeting of the Committee—for paragraph (c) has nothing to do with the last day, but deals with the ordinary business of the Committee-then I think the Government are at fault in putting the period as early as two o'clock. If, as it is now, the time is one o'clock, or if the proposal which has been made is accepted—although I do not think it will be—and it is 1.15 p.m., three quarters of an hour is too short a time, not only for Members to have lunch, but for the number of other people who are concerned with the running of a Standing Committee. There are the officials, the

1115
reporters, and indeed, on a long Bill, there are other people whose interests are affected, and who, as we know, sit in the gallery of the Standing Committee all the time. In present circumstances, particularly if the House itself is crowded on a given day, for other reasons, no hon. Member could guarantee that he would be able to get suitable refreshment, or that the other people concerned could do so, within three quarters of an hour. Moreover, if the Committee has started at half-past ten in the morning and gone on until a quarter past one, to resume at two o'clock would mean very hard work for the Members of the Committee who are concerned with the details of the Bill. One wants a little time not only for physical refreshment, but for a little mental rest, in order to study the further Amendments that will come along.
Furthermore, even if one got over those difficulties, which I think are more of a personal nature both for hon. Members and for the others who attend Standing. Committees, it is absolutely wrong, as the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) pointed out, that a Standing Committee should sit during Question time. Not only does Question time affect everybody, but one has to remember that Standing Committees nowadays are much smaller than they used to be, and if five or ten Members had Questions down on a given day and wanted to be in the House to receive the answers, the Standing Committees would have difficulty about getting a quorum, and there is nothing more annoying than for a Standing Committee to have to hang about waiting for a quorum. From the point of view of the business of the Standing Committee, it would fall for the day. Presumably, those of us who are in Opposition would not necessarily object to that, but we are discussing the Orders of the House, and not dealing with party matters. I think it would be wrong, if there is to be any time mentioned at all, to mention a time as early as two o'clock. I am not sure that it would not be right, irrespective of the other issues, to say definitely that Standing Committees should not meet during Question time, and as, during this Session, Question time goes on until 3.30 p.m., in this Motion there should be a time bar for meetings of Standing Committees.
Sir R. Young: I hope that when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making that valuable suggestion from my point of view, he will go further than 3.30 p.m., because very important statements are often made after Question time.
Captain Crookshank: I was merely following the lead of the hon. Gentleman, who presided over the Select Committee, in which we took his lead on many occasions, including one occasion when he had to give a casting vote. I think that four o'clock would be still better, because then one could entirely dismiss the possibility of many Members being concerned with being in the House. Indeed, the fact that an important statement was likely to be made would wreck the meeting of the Standing Committee. But I put to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President the suggestion of his hon. Friend, that if he wants to tidy up the whole thing, the Order should say that Standing Committees must not meet until four o'clock. But that is another issue, and I come back to the primary point, which is, to get over the One o'Clock Rule. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been able to devise some manuscript Amendment to meet these points, but if he has not, and would like to take back this Motion, and bring it forward again tomorrow, I do not think we will take any exception.
8.7 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: Before this Debate began, I had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, and while we wanted to listen to the discussion and to make any ideas that we had subject to the discussion, we were disposed to accept the first Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. Mac Andrew); but I am bound to say that the more the discussion has gone on, the more I have been disposed to think that would perhaps not be a wise course. I will say something about the provisions of the second Amendment in a moment or two. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman's first Amendment were accepted, it would mean that the Standing Committee would have to adjourn at one o'clock, but that would make impossible, would it not, what was done last year when, by the ingenuity of the Chairman of the Standing Committee, the Committee adjourned till 1.1 p.m., and passed the rest of the Bill by

1117
1.2 p.m.? If the Committee has to adjourn by one o'clock by specific Sessional Order, it seems to me that the discretion of the Chairman is completely taken away. On the other hand, if we take out some reference to time, then we get into the dilemma that the Committee would not be able to adjourn at all—it would have to go on. Therefore, what are we to do, on balance? We are trying to get a bit of elasticity between one o'clock and some reasonable period thereafter. If the Chairman were to put it to the Committee whether it would like to go on until half-past one, many hon. Members would almost certainly object, and it would be inconvenient to them. I think the best guess we can make is that there should be discretion as between one o'clock and 1.15 p.m., and leave it there.
Mr. Bowles: Does my right hon. Friend mean discretion in the Chairman alone, or with the consent of the Committee?
Mr. Morrison: The provision is that if, in the opinion of the Chairman, the proceedings on a Bill could be brought to a conclusion by a short extension of the sitting, he may defer adjourning the Committee until a quarter past one o'clock. That is clearly the discretion of the Chairman alone in actual form, but I should have thought that no Chairman of a Standing Committee, in the exercise of his discretion, would exercise a discretion unless he had the general assent of the Committee. I would not resist words to say with "general consent," but I would be sorry to put them in, because I have such a high opinion of the discretion of the Chairmen of Committees that I am sure they would not exercise that discretion without general consent. Therefore, the problem is what "general consent" means. Does it mean the consent of every Member of the Committee? I should be disposed to leave that wording as it is.
With regard to the second Amendment, I agree that on the face of it two o'clock, as compared with even one o'clock, or as compared with the possible quarter past one o'clock, is rather early; and, therefore, I should be disposed to accept the view expressed by the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and, up to a point—though he went beyond half past three o'clock—with the right hon. and gallant Member
1118
for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). But I would be disposed myself there to put in half past three o'clock which means only that the Committee should not resume earlier than half past three o'clock. Therefore, if the Committee desired to make it four o'clock it would be perfectly free to do so. But I want it to have freedom to meet earlier if it wishes, because it may have substantial business to do and might get it through. Therefore, I suggest that when we come to the appropriate paragraph we could make it "not sooner than half past three," instead of two o'clock. The Committee can then meet again in the afternoon, but not earlier than half past three o'clock. If the Committee like to make it four o'clock or even later it will be competent to do so. Normally, a Committee in the morning will terminate at one o'clock, but in the discretion of the Chairman, who, I am sure, will take into account the general feeling of the Committee, it can go on until a quarter past one.
Sir C. MacAndrew: Only on the last day?
Mr. Morrison: Of course, on the last day. In the ordinary way, if there are afternoon sittings, it can resume not earlier than half past three, but it may be decided by the Standing Committee itself. I think that that is the best way to meet the general agreement of the House.
Mr. Bowles: Are we to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now withdrawing the Amendment?
Sir C. MacAndrew: If, by leave of the House, I may speak again, I would say that this is just exactly what I do not want. I have no wish to be difficult but I think we might reconsider it. This does not meet my point at all.
Mr. Morrison: I think we had better get through this tonight. If we find something wrong as the Session proceeds, I should be perfectly prepared to receive representations on the subject, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or if the House, decides that Standing Committees in the morning must sit later than one o'clock. With great respect to the ingenuity of the Chairman of that Committee and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-port (Mr. R. S. Hudson) he has really no right to ask for ingenuity, outside the Order, and I suggest that this is the best way round. If we come to the conclusion

1119
that this ought to be amended again, we can look at it later.
Sir C. MacAndrew: I am afraid that the stupid English may think that by "afternoon" we mean after lunch instead of 12 o'clock.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?
Sir C. MacAndrew: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, in line 38, to leave out "two," and to insert "half past three."
This would mean that the Standing Committee would meet after the morning sitting not earlier than half past three o'clock, which is coincidental with Question time, but if the Committee wish to take some later time it would be free to do so.
Amendment agreed to.
Ordered:
"That—

(1) Notwithstanding anything in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 47, as many Standing Committees shall be appointed as may be necessary for the consideration of Bills or other Business committed to a Standing Committee and in that paragraph, fifteen shall be substituted for twenty as the quorum of a Standing Committee.

(2) Standing Order No. 48 shall read, "Each of the said Standing Committees shall consist of twenty members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard to the composition of the House, and shall have power to discharge members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged. Provided that, for the consideration of all public bills relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouth shire, the Committee shall be so constituted as to comprise all members sitting for constituencies in Wales and Monmouth shire. The Committee of Selection shall also have power to add not more than thirty members to a Standing Committee in respect of any bill referred to it, to serve on the committee during the consideration of such bill, and in adding such members shall have regard- to their qualifications. Provided that this order shall not apply to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills."

(3) (a) A Standing Committee to whom a (Bill has been committed shall meet to consider that Bill on such days of the week (being days on which the House sits) as may be appointed by the Standing Committee at half past ten o'clock and, if not previously
1120
adjourned, at one o'clock the Chairman shall adjourn the Committee without Question put:

Provided that—

(i) the first meeting of a Standing Committee to consider a Bill shall be at a time and on a day to be named by the Chairman of the Committee;

(ii) if, in the opinion of the Chairman, the proceedings on a Bill could be brought to a conclusion by a short extension of the sitting, he may defer adjourning the Committee until a quarter past one o'clock;

(iii) if proceedings under the Standing Order "Closure of Debate" be in progress at the time when the Chairman would be required to adjourn the Committee under the preceding provisions of this Order, he shall not adjourn the Committee until the questions consequent thereon and on any further Motion, as provided in that Standing Order, have been decided.

(b) Government Bills referred to a Standing Committee shall be considered in whatever order the Government may decide.
(c) Nothing in this Order shall prevent a Standing Committee meeting at hours additional to those set out in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (3) of this Order, but not earlier than half-past three o'clock on any day."

BUSINESS SUB-COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—

(1) An Allocation of Time Order relating, or so much thereof as relates, to the Committee stage, made in respect of a Bill committed or to be committed to a Standing Committee, shall, as soon as the Bill has been allocated to a Standing Committee, stand referred without any Question being put to a Sub-Committee of that Standing Committee appointed under paragraph (2) of this Order.

(2) (a) There shall be a Sub-Committee of every Standing Committee, to be designated the Business Sub-Committee, for the consideration of any Allocation of Time Order or part thereof made in respect of any Bill allocated to that Standing Committee, and to report to that Committee upon—

(i) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill;

(ii) the hours of sittings, if any, additional to those set out in paragraph (3) of the Order of the H6use of relating to Standing Committees;

(iii) the allocation of the proceedings to be taken at each sitting; and

(iv) the time at which proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be concluded.

(b) As soon as may be after an Allocation of Time Order relating to a Bill committed to a Standing Committee has been made, Mr. Speaker shall nominate the Chairman of the Standing Committee in respect of that Bill and seven members of the Standing Committee as constituted in respect of that Bill to be members of the Business Sub-Committee to consider that order, and those members shall be discharged from the Sub-Committee when that Bill has been reported to the House by the Standing Committee. The Chairman of the Committee shall be the Chairman of the Sub-

1121
Committee; the Quorum of the Sub-Committee shall be four; and the Sub-Committee shall have power to report from time to time to the Standing Committee.
(c) All Resolutions of a Business Sub-Committee shall be printed and circulated with the Votes. If, when any such Resolutions have been reported to the Standing Committee, a Motion, "That this Committee doth agree with the Resolution (or Resolutions) of the Business Sub-Committee," is moved by the Member in charge of the Bill, such a Motion shall not require notice, and shall be moved at the commencement of proceedings at any sitting of a Standing Committee; and the Question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate, and, if resolved in the Affirmative, the said Resolution (or Resolutions) shall operate as though included in the Allocation of Time Order made by the House."
8.18 p.m.
Sir C. MacAndrew: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out "or to be committed."
This Amendment and the next Amendment in my name—in line 3,'to leave out from "shall," to "stand," in line 4—hang together. The object of these two Amendments is to make sure that an Allocation of Time Order—that is to say the guillotine—is not applied until it has been found that it is necessary. This Order is the same as the one we passed last Session, but it was never tried at all. I was against it, and I moved several Amendments. I do think that, if there is going to be a guillotine, it ought not to be put on in advance. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the good feeling in these Standing Committees is a great asset in getting the work done. A guillotine always produces ill-feeling. That is my experience. I think if the right hon. Gentleman would wait until obstruction shows itself, that that would be soon enough. I am quite convinced that any of the Chairmen, if there were obstruction, would be willing to say so, and to get an Allocation of Time Order then. I think it is a mistake to put it on in advance. There were two difficult Bills last Session. I was Chairman of the Standing Committee on one—the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill. I do not think there has ever been a more controversial Bill upstairs. We got through it exactly as required, without any idea of a time table. I was Chairman also of the Committee on the Industrial Injuries Bill. Had there been an Allocation of Time Order for that Bill, it would have been absolutely absurd. The Opposition on that Bill came from the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Tom Smith), who defeated the Government. I
1122
do not think we should make up a time table in advance until we see which way the wind is going to blow, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who was not very kind to me on the last Amendment, will accept this Amendment now. The right hon. Gentleman was polite and nice in the previous case, but he did not, accept my Amendment. But, then, I was very polite to him—he broke a rule in my Committee room, as he will remember. But I do think this is absolutely reasonable, and I am sure that I shall be backed by the other Chairmen.
Mr. Bowles: May I ask one question? Suppose a Chairman of a Standing Committee feels that there is obstruction, what happens? Does he go to the House? Is the Committee abolished for the time being? What happens?
Sir C. MacAndrew: Personally, I would go straight to the Lord President and say that there is an obstruction going on in my Committee, and that there should be an Allocation of Time Order.
Mr. Bowles: But what happens to the Committee?
Sir C. MacAndrew: There is a good deal of talk about obstruction, but some of it is not quite fair. On the last Bill I had, which was the Hill Farming Bill, there were a good many hon. Members who were keen to get the Bill, but if I had not known that, I should have said that they were obstructing it, because they talked and talked.
Colonel Ropner: I beg to second the Amendment.
This, I think, is very largely a matter of psychology, and the Lord President, rightly or wrongly, has the reputation of being a great psychologist. It is a threat to any Committee to have an Allocation of Time Order standing over it, or imposed upon it at its first meeting, and I entirely endorse what has already been said, namely, that it is likely to make the work of the Chairman harder; and it is likely, in my view, to expedite the work of the Committee if an Allocation of Time Order is imposed before discussion of the Bill has started. The right to impose an Allocation of Time Order is always there; there can be no question that if there is needless obstruction upstairs, an Allocation of Time Order can be imposed, and I think hon Members on both sides will agree that it is highly undesirable for an Allocation of Time

1123
Order to be imposed unless it has been proved by experience to be necessary.
Mr. H. Morrison: I am very sorry that I had to change my mind about the last Amendment, but I am bound to say that the more the discussion went on, the more convinced I felt that my provisional conclusion was wrong. Therefore, I am the more sorry to have to disappoint the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to this Amendment. As I understand the purpose of the Amendment, it is shortly this. As things are, before a Standing Committee begins its proceedings on a Bill, we can, under the existing Sessional Order which I am proposing to renew, move an Allocation of Time Order which would automatically then stand referred to the Standing Committee, and it or its Business Sub-Committee would then take the necessary consequential action. It is perfectly true that under the Sessional Order, we could take another course also, of letting the Bill make progress or fail to make progress in the Standing Committee and, when it became clear that there was that difficulty in the Standing Committee which is commonly known as obstruction, we could come along to the House and ask for an Allocation of Time Order. In the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, we should adopt the second method, and drop the power to impose an Allocation of Time Order when, or before, the Bill goes to a Standing Committee.
I do not think there is much advantage in the change, and in certain circumstances I can see a disadvantage. It is perfectly true that the Government and the Opposition, by good sense on both sides, had conversations—I will not say made agreements, because that would be going too far—in which hopes and beliefs were expressed on both sides as to the time by which Bills in Standing Committees might reasonably be finished, and in fact I think in every case they were finished within that time. It was an admirable example of cooperation, which cooperation I trust will continue. The Government for their part tried to be reasonable on what they thought was the proper time, and I am also bound to say that the Opposition were reasonable in the time which they thought. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that it is not always the Opposition which may be the source of trouble, and it
1124
is a fact that some of the trouble on one Committee did not come so much from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) but from some of my own hon. Friends who had strong feelings and made themselves a bit of a problem for quite a time. It was assumed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment that we would never think of guillotining Government supporters—I do not mean that literally. especially during this week. I mean that we would never think of having an Allocation of Time Order if we experience I trouble from the Government's own supporters. But if it were necessary, if there were trouble and obstruction from the Government's own supporters, the Government must have an equal right to apply an Allocation of Time Order, as much to them as to the Opposition
Sir G. MacAndrew: I was not trying to be nasty about that—
Mr. H. Morrison: No.
Sir C. MacAndrew:—but if you try to set up an Allocation of Time Order in advance, you have not the slightest idea who are the people who want the most time. Nowadays the draftsmen are very crafty—perhaps that is the wrong word, I should say very skilful—and put most of the contentious points in the first Clause. Once you get past the first Clause, you generally go ahead at full speed, and with, say, a six-Clause Bill, it might very easily be a reasonable thing to give five out of six days for one Clause. You cannot anticipate in advance, that is the point
Mr. H. Morrison: Whenever the guillotine begins to fall, or begins to be sharpened up and prepared for action, in the sense of an Allocation of Time Order, you are bound to have the problem of estimating, as best you can, how much time should be given to the various parts or Clauses of the Bill, whether you do it at the beginning or later on. It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that the tendency nowadays is for the contentious part to be put in at the beginning. That is because legislation starts clean at the beginning by saying that such and such a thing is to be done, and the other clauses tend to be consequential, which is quite logical and sensible. But consider the position from the Government's point of view, in all fairness. We freely

1125
negotiated with the leaders of the Opposition last year, and I think we are both to be complimented on the sense and good feeling with which it went through, but I do not disguise from myself—I do not know whether it bad any effect on the position, but it had an effect on my position and bargaining powers, I think—that to be quite frank I am in a stronger position as things are.
The Opposition know that I do not want to put this in any unkind or brutal form, but we did start on the basis that there could, forthwith, be an Allocation of Time Order, but that if we agreed, there would not be such an Order. If we made an Allocation of Time Order, I, personally, would still seek to be fair to the Members of the Committee. I have got the possibility of an Allocation of Time Order in the negotiations with the Opposition; if I had not got it, and the Opposition were difficult—or indeed, which might be the case, if they made a mistake, because they did not know what the mood of their followers would be, and they cannot tell that in advance any more than I can tell the mood of the Government's followers—we should be faced with a possible loss of time, which we should think a waste of time, over a fortnight or perhaps three weeks, because we should have to let it run a bit before we could say that they were really being troublesome. If having lost that time, we came to the House and asked for an Allocation of Time Order, with the Committee probably in a bad temper and possibly the House as well, it would all be put back on the Committee and the guillotine would fall.
That is how we left it last year, though I admit that we came to an arrangement. We said that the Opposition must understand that if it did not work we could bring in an Allocation of Time Order at a later period. But we might have a Bill—there could be one this Session, there all sorts of Bills about and I know of one that might be very troublesome, though I will not mention it because I am not asking for trouble—on which people might have such deep feelings that they really would fight it line by line and Clause by Clause. If the Leader of the House and the Whips know that that is going to be the situation, we really must face the logical consequences and have an Allocation of Time Order from the beginning. I want the power, not because I wish to
1126
use it brutally or without consideration, but because I am in a stronger position. It may be that in the case of a coming Bill there will be, I will not say "blue murder," but heavy fighting, line by line and Clause by Clause, and then we can say from the beginning that we want this. I am always sorry to resist anything which the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew) wants. I have great respect for his work as a Chairman. He is so kind and reasonable. Moreover, he is one of the Opposition Members with whom no one ever quarrels. There are no excitements between us, but I am afraid, for the reasons I have given, that the Government ought to have the power to bring in such an Allocation of Time Order. If all is well, and we can continue in a reasonable and cooperative spirit, although there must be fighting between the Government and the Opposition, which I believe in, I shall be happy if I can say at the beginning of the next Session that, although I have not used it, we still want it again. I think it will help us in the negotiations. We might have a Bill where it was necessary to apply it in the beginning, and, with regret, I must therefore advise the House to resist the Amendment.
8.32 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I am really sorry that the Lord President of the Council has taken this line. This Sessional Order was new last year. It was experimental, and our experience, as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, was that it was not necessary to have this power. He has gone out of his way to say that all the hopes and beliefs he had about passing the major legislation of the year, as a result, to use his words, of "some talks" with those who sit on these benches, were achieved. He held this weapon in terrorem,but it was not used, and it was therefore not necessary. He now says that there may be a Bill on which there is deep feeling, which may have to be fought line by line and Clause by Clause. What does he think happened with the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act? It was exactly such a Bill, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr and Bute Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew), who was Chairman, will bear that out. This Opposition is a sensible Opposition. We stand up for the rights of the Opposition, but we recognise that just as a minority has a right, so has a majority. A majority not only has a

1127
right, but the power, which we have not, to get them through. There is no doubt that this possibility of putting on a timetable,, before a Bill is even started, is unpalatable. The right hon. Gentleman says that it puts him in a stronger position. Does it put him in a stronger position? The Lord President of the Council has nearly 400 Members to support him. Does he really think that this little weapon makes all that difference? I do not think that it does.
Frankly, the existence of these powers leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Last year this power was found to be unnecessary, and now is the time for it to go. That is the point of having an experiment; otherwise there is no experiment, because if we go on doing the same thing, whether it is necessary or not, it passes the experimental stage and becomes a bad habit. The assumption behind this particular proposal is one to which I must take most exception. The assumption is that before a Committee has ever met, before Members have become acquainted with one another and with the Chair, it is assumed that straight away it is going to be an unreasonable body. A Committee has to be on good working terms with the Chair, but this means that a large proportion of the Committee will pay no heed to the guidance which is so often given by the Chair in these matters.
I think it is an unfortunate assumption to make, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not closed the door to my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. The weapon has not yet beeen used. I cannot say, any more than the right hon. Gentleman, whether it will be necessary this Session, but we had some extremely controversial Measures last Session. We got through without this weapon, or without any complaint to the Lord President from the Ministers in charge of the Bills. They got what they wanted; we did not get what we wanted by a long shot, although we brought forward all the necessary and relevant arguments. The Lord President is apt to lose sight of the point we made strongly in the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, where we re-emphasised the powers which already reside in the Chair. Those powers have been extended in recent years. After all, it is years since the Lord President sat on a Standing Committee, and all the better for him, because there is not all
1128
that fun. It is a long time since he has been either leading the Bill or has been in opposition in Standing Committee, and he may not have realised the cumulative effect of the changes of the last 10 or 15 years, the major one being the greatly extended powers given to the Chairmen of Standing Committees.
This is one of the things which helped the legislation during last Session, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not keep this weapon this Session. He admitted, on the one hand, its employment in terrorem and, on the other, that he needs cooperation. It is hard to be cooperative when someone has a big stick. The right hon. Gentleman has all the stick he requires in the Government's majority, and in his handling of the House, and all the rest of it. He does not need to take these powers, because as soon as the Chair let him know that there was some difficulty I am sure he would not be slow to come forward, possibly with justification, and bring an Allocation of Time Order before the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the experiment of keeping this weapon in the Standing Orders last Session showed that it was not necessary, that Government legislation was not hampered, that the Government got all they wanted—more than they hoped for—and that it is not necessary this Session. If, as a result of its being abolished this Session, that experiment is no good then there is still another year in this Parliament for him to change it.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. Charles Williams: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council whether there is any precedent for this, whether it has ever been used before.
Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Then, in other words, the right hon. Gentleman is introducing an entirely new rule?
Mr. Morrison: It was a Sessional Order last Session. It is true we did not use it but, nevertheless, it was an Order. Last Session was the first time it existed.
Mr. Williams: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I know the right hon. Gentleman had the Order last Session, but is there any precedent for putting the closure on at the beginning of a Bill, directly it leaves here? Has it not always

1129
been, in the past, the practice to let the Bill go from here, have a discussion, and then put on the guillotine if necessary?
Mr. Morrison: Until this Sessional Order was made last Session there was no power to put the guillotine on the Committee upstairs. The power to guillotine has been exercised on the Floor of the House. Sometimes the Allocation of Time Order for the Committee stage of a Bill on the Floor of the House was moved and carried during the Committee stage, and sometimes it was moved and carried before the Committee stage began. There are precedents both ways.
Mr. Williams: As far as precedents are concerned, it does not much matter one way or the other. The main point which I wish to make is that the right hon. Gentleman, earlier in the day, laid down that last year he got on very well, and did very well indeed. Now he is seeking to change this thing—
Mr. Morrison: It is the same as last Session.
Mr. Williams: He is now seeking this power, and I would say, quite frankly, on the argument already put forward, that it is really far better to have your Committees upstairs working well than to have provocation by an Order of this kind. The Opposition is possibly getting a little stronger than it was. I would say that, after having the advice of two or three people; that the right hon. Gentleman should accept this Amendment in the interests of the working of the Committees, with the knowledge that they did work smoothly before. In those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would be far wiser to accept the Amendment and to carry on with this sympathetic working. But, as I understand his present attitude, he is not inclined to be quite so helpful as he was earlier. If he does this, I do not very much mind; but I think that on the whole he is likely as a result to get less cooperative work on the committees upstairs, which may or may not be a pity. He need not come round to some of us and say that we did not warn him: it will be his own fault if there is not quite as much cooperation as he got last year. I think it a pity that, at this early stage of the Session, he should show this very obstinate frame of mind.
Mr. Tolley: I only want to say to the hon. Member for Tor-
1130
quay (Mr. C. Williams) that I think that he has made a case for my right hon. Friend, namely, that if the Opposition is getting stronger, this is all the more necessary.
Captain Crookshank: My hon. Friend was not necessarily referring to the official Opposition being stronger.
Sir C. MacAndrew: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (STANDING COMMITTEES)
Ordered:
"That in order to facilitate the business of Standing Committees a Motion may, after two days' notice, be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, in either of the following forms:

(a) 'That this House do now Adjourn '(in which case, if the Question thereon be not previously agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall put the Question half an hour after it has been proposed), or

(b) 'That this House do now adjourn till seven o'clock this day '(in which case the Question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate):

Provided that if, on a day on which a Motion in the terms of paragraph (a) of this Order stands on the Paper, leave has been given to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, or opposed private business has been set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Motion shall be moved in the terms and subject to the procedure prescribed by paragraph (b)of this Order."—[ Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

LAW OFFICERS (ATTENDANCE IN STANDING COMMITTEES)
Ordered:
That Mr. Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, being Members of this House, or any of them, though not Members of a Standing Committee, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee, but shall not vote or form part of the quorum."—[ Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

MONEY COMMITTEES (MODIFICA TION OF STANDING ORDER No. 69)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That for the remainder of this Session Standing Order No. 69 shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were added 'and any resolution come to by such Committee may.

1131
with the general Agreement of the House, be reported forthwith.""—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
Captain Crookshank: The Lord President mentioned this in his opening remarks. I think that for purposes of record we should have in HANSARD when we are making new Sessional Orders a statement from the Government about them.
8.45p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: I will be frank with the House, and say that I had assumed there would be no trouble about this Motion. I thought it would be all right, and I am not quite ready to explain it. I hope the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) will forgive me. On the other hand, if he insists that he must have an explanation, and if he will give his interpretation of the Motion, I will give him the authoritative version afterwards.
8.46p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I speak by leave of the House. I think this situation is very regrettable, because we are changing a Sessional Order, and, after all, hon. Members are entitled to be able to look up HANSARD and see what has happened, and what it is all about. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should have found himself in some difficulty. If he will look at Standing Order No. 69, he will find that there has to be a period of time between the passing of the Money Resolution in Committee and the House discussing it on Report. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that what this Motion does is to say that there need not be a gap, and that the Resolution can be reported, with the general agreement of the House, forthwith after the end of the Committee stage. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now confirm whether I am right—which I hope to be the case—or will, for the benefit of hon. Members who are not here, and who have not had time to study this matter, give the House a full, lucid, and perfect explanation.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. H. Morrison: Having refreshed my memory, I find that, as I would have expected, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's interpretation is right. This Motion deals with Financial Resolutions, and according to things as they are, the Report
1132
stage cannot follow the Committe stage on the same day, but must come at a later stage. This Motion would enable the Report stage to follow the Committee stage on the same day. I understand that is what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, and I am happy to be able to confirm that he is a wise, sound and judicial interpreter of the meaning of Standing Orders.
Resolved:
"That for the remainder of this Session Standing Order No. 69 shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were added 'and any resolution come to by such Committee may, with the general Agreement of the House, be reported forthwith'."

UNEMPLOYMENT AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES (NORTHERN IRELAND) AGREEMENT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
8.49 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Measure is to give effect to an agreement, dated 18th September, 1946, between the Ministry of Finance, acting for the Government of Northern Ireland, and the Treasury acting for the United Kingdom. That agreement provides for the payments by the two Exchequers to meet a part of any difference arising in the cost of unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance, and family allowances, as between the two countries. The agreement also provides that it shall not come into operation until it has been ratified by the Parliaments of the two countries concerned.
It is sometimes forgotten that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. It pays the same taxes, it maintains the same social services, and the same standards as this country, but, owing to industrial and social conditions, which are different in some respects from those in other parts of the United Kingdom, the cost of the social services there is higher than in this country. Since 1926 Parliament has recognised this and it has accepted the principle that the United Kingdom should assist Northern Ireland by helping to meet some of the additional cost which falls upon that country so far as unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance are concerned. There-

1133
fore, from 1926 onwards provision has been made by agreement for the two Governments to meet the extra cost which might fall according to a formula laid down.
The last agreement was made in 1935 and it covered, as I have already indicated, unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance. That agreement has, however, been rendered unworkable by the Determination of Needs Act which was passed in 1941. In that Act, for example, the Unemployment Assistance Fund came to an end and was closed on 31st March, 1942. This did not matter very much then, because during the war there was full employment both in Northern Ireland and in this country, and there was a war-time financial arrangement between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. That arrangement was such that any balance of cost as between the one Exchequer and the other might have to be borne on Votes of Credit. As the House knows, Votes of Credit came to an end on 31st March last, and, therefore, it is essential that something should be done to put the matter on a proper basis fairly soon.
The House would perhaps like me to say a few words as to the scope of the new agreement. This is attached as a Schedule to the Bill. It is agreed, I think, that a new agreement is now necessary, and we hope that its Second Reading will be non-contentious. It is essential, however, that this new agreement, unlike its predecessor, should be comprehensive. It should cover other parts of the Social Security Code as well as Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance. It is all the more necessary that the scope of the new agreement should be extended when we remember that the finance of the old and only element in previous agreements namely unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance, will presently be merged in a single Fund, provided under the recently passed National Insurance Act. A full agreement covering the whole of the new Social Security Code will not be possible until that can be put into operation in this country in 1948, and, therefore, as the House will see from reading the present Bill, the agreement, which it ratifies, does visualise another and fuller agreement to come.
There are certain changes between this agreement and that which went before.
1134
The most notable perhaps, and the only one to which I will call the attention of the House, is that the 1935 Agreement provided that the United Kingdom Exchequer should pay to Northern Ireland 75 per cent. of the excess cost to Northern Ireland of her expenditure on unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance subject to certain limitations; whilst as the House will have noticed the present agreement provides that the United Kingdom Exchequer should pay 80 per cent. of the excess cost to Northern Ireland of her expenditure under those heads, and also includes, for the first time, payments in respect of family allowances. That excess, as the Financial Memorandum points out, is to be measured as the amount by which the cost exceeds the parity ratio of Exchequer cost in Northern Ireland 2.2 per cent. to Exchequer cost in Great Britain 97.8 per cent. The 2.2 per cent. has been arrived at as the nearest convenient approximate figure to the percentages which obtained before under the old Agreement. It is arrived at by taking the proportion of the Class I figures here and in Northern Ireland—that is, the total employed in the United Kingdom and the total employed in Northern Ireland.
What will the cost be? One word on that. As is stated in the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill, it is estimated that for 1946–47 the cost in respect of unemployment insurance will be £395,000, in respect of unemployment assistance £140,000, and in respect of family allowances £840,000, making a total of £1,375,000. I should, perhaps, add that the estimate for family allowances does not cover a full year because, as the House will remember, family allowances in this Financial Year will run for a period of about eight months only. The possible cost in a full year will therefore not be £840,000, the estimate given here, but something like £1,260,000. The estimates for the future under the other heads are difficult to give because they will depend very largely on the unemployment experience of Northern Ireland as compared with that of the United Kingdom.
Before I sit down I should like to make one or two observations on the subject of our sharing this burden with Northern Ireland, because I understand that in certain circles at any rate there is some criticism, the argument being that Northern Ireland should stand on its own

1135
feet and bear these costs in full. That has not been accepted by this country, and certainly not by Parliament, for at least ten years. What is forgotten by those who argue in that way is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and that its people are British taxpayers like any other citizen living within these islands. They bear the same tax burdens and enjoy the same standards of Government social services as the rest of the United Kingdom. If Northern Ireland appears not to be so wealthy as Great Britain as a whole, that can also be said of parts of England and certainly of parts of Scotland and Wales. If it were possible to analyse the payments to unemployment insurance by various localities in this country as against the benefits drawn, it would be found quite definitely that the balance was a debit one. Simply, therefore, because the balance goes the other way in Northern Ireland at the moment is no reason why anyone should assert that we are subsidising Northern Ireland.
Dr. Morgan: It is a very good reason.
Mr. Hall: We are no more subsidising Northern Ireland than we are subsidising the poorer areas of this country. As a matter of fact, Northern Ireland—I think it is time the House was reminded of this—stood by us during the war. She assisted us materially, from the financial point of view as well as with moral find material support. She assisted us with men and she raised very large sums of money which were of great help. I therefore ask the House to give us the Second Reading of this Measure without a Division.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. Osbert Peake: I must congratulate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on his clear exposition of the terms of the Bill, but I must also express my warm approval of the very generous attitude towards Northern Ireland and its Government which his speech disclosed, compared with the attitude of the Socialist Party to Northern Ireland in days gone by. For our part, we accept the Bill, which represents the result of a freely negotiated agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman stressed the extent to which
1136
there will be contributions under the Bill from the Imperial Exchequer towards certain services in Northern Ireland, but he did not stress very much, or at all I think, the fact that, in certain circumstances the further contribution might, in fact, be the other way. This is an equalising agreement. If unemployment in Northern Ireland falls below he average in this country, and should the people in Ulster limit the size of. their families to something below the average of the United Kingdom as a whole, there will be a contribution drawn from Northern Ireland into the Imperial Exchequer. This provision seems to us on these benches to be a very fair arrangement, and we shall certainly support it.
9.4 p.m.
Dr. Morgan: I rather misjudged the Business of the House today. I did not think that this Bill would be taken. I do not want to oppose the Bill really, because I am very friendly disposed towards both parts of Ireland, North and South. I would like to place on record my opinion that the arguments used by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in support of the Measure seem extraordinary. For example, he made a plea that Northern Ireland was loyal. Well, that may be quite true, but there are other inhabitants of Ireland who were also loyal and who died for Great Britain. By reason of its geographical situation, their country is not to get any advantages under the Bill. They lived in a different part of Ireland. It is also to be remembered that many of the inhabitants of Ulster and Northern Ireland at present suffer many disabilities. Apart from the question of their loyalty, which is not in doubt, they cannot get certain civic rights which the ordinary citizen in Great Britain gets. While I agree that this Bill should be given a Second reading without opposition, I want to say that I differ completely from the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman. They could be riddled absolutely. He could have used better arguments than the ones he employed.
Sir Ronald Ross: Before the hon. Member sits down, could he explain his point? As I understood it, he said that there were other loyal people in Ireland outside Northern Ireland to whom the benefits of this agreement should be extended. Is he making the point that Eire should be brought in?
Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member misunderstands me. There is a tendency in certain parts of Ireland to misunderstand references made in the friendliest spirit. I did not intend to convey that people in another part of Ireland were going to receive or were entitled to receive any benefits. What I was saying is that certain people in Northern Ireland have now many civic disabilities against them. In spite of the fact that we here do not agree with them or suffer from them, we are allowing Bills like this without opposition.
9.7 p.m.
Major Haughton: After the speech by the Financial Secretary in which he explained this Bill with his usual clarity and asked that there should be no controversy, I felt that it would be passed as he would have liked it, as an agreed Measure and one that perpetuates a principle laid down as far back as 1925, which has been honoured and agreed by Governments of different complexions ever since. But one or two things said by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) require answer. As I understand it, he and some of his friends find fault, from time to time, with anything in the nature of a financial subsidy being paid to Northern Ireland, but the extraordinary thing is that on the other side of the Channel those elements which are antipartitionists find the greatest fault with the Government over there for making such tremendous contributions to the Imperial Exchequer—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and gallant Member has gone as far away from the subject as I can allow him He must now come back to the Bill.
Major Haughton: To come back to the Bill, the point which should be clearly understood is that the formula explained by the Financial Secretary does not come into operation until there is an excess payment by either side. It is not sufficiently clearly understood that Ulster meets out of her own resources the unemployment insurance, the unemployment assistance and the family allowance until the cost of those services exceeds the proportion laid down in the formula—2.2 and 97.8. This Bill not only deals with the three items set out in the Preamble, but covers other circumstances, such as retirement pensions, and, in certain circumstances, it could work round the other way and favour the Imperial Exchequer,
1138
as I hope it very often will. On behalf of my friends in this part of the House I would like to say that we accept this Bill as an agreed measure and also as one, which, as I have said, perpetuates a principle dating back to 1925. 9.10 p.m.
Mr. Mulvey: While I raise no objection to the passage of this Bill, at the same time I would like to refer to the question of the loyalty of Northern Ireland. I have had a long experience of Northern Ireland having lived there for 40 years—
Sir R. Ross: On a point of Order. If my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Antrim (Major Haughton) was not allowed to deal with the financial subsidies of Northern Ireland, is this discourse upon loyalty in Order?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member had not gone so far that I could determine whether what he was saying was in Order or out of Order.
Mr. Mulvey: My statements arose out of the remarks made by the Financial Secretary. Loyalty in Northern Ireland is conditional upon what they can get from this House of Commons. There is absolutely no loyalty in Northern Ireland like the loyalty in this country. There is no such loyalty in Northern Ireland if they cannot get anything from this House. We have had evidence in the past that they have been the most disloyal people in any part of the British Empire
9.12 p.m.
Sir R. Ross: I do not know that it is really right for me to follow one who is my Member of Parliament, but I thought that his exuberant feelings would probably overcome him in due course and that on a financial Bill which has been treated generally as a financial Bill we should have a speech dealing entirely with conditional loyalty. I think it is right for me to say that our loyalty is unconditional, that we have given proof of it in this war. We have had our share of bombing, we have paid high taxes, and we have a higher tax than in Eire. I could go on for a very long time—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but—
Mr. Mulvey rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: —if the hon. Member had the permission of the Chair to do so, which will not be forthcoming.
Sir R. Ross: I saw your eye was moving in my direction, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so reluctantly I must leave a theme with which I could occupy the time of the House probably for the rest of the Session. Therefore, I would conclude merely by welcoming the Bill, which I think is a very fair proposition. It is continuing a principle accepted by every type of Government—the Labour Government, Unionist Government and National Government—since 1925. The previous arrangement was rendered obsolete by subsequent legislation, so there had to be a fresh agreement. I would just remind the House that these payments to level up—this equalisation account as we may call it—on social services is by no means the whole picture of the financial relations of the Northern Ireland Treasury with the British Treasury, because the British Treasury receives many millions, and has received very many millions from the Northern Ireland Exchequer during the course of the war and before it.
9.14 p.m.
Captain Delargy: To return to the Bill which the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) appears to have forgotten, I am all in favour of extending the benefits of this Bill to the people in Northern Ireland. I am in favour of extending to the people of Northern Ireland all the benefits to which they are entitled, particularly when they are not likely to receive any benefits from their own domestic Government. I dissociate myself entirely from the somewhat warm—or was it merely lukewarm?—approval which the Financial Secretary appears to extend to Northern Ireland, an approval which is quite at variance with the traditional policy of the Labour Party. I hope that this is not one other principle from which the Front Bench is trying to run away. I might also say that while these smaller pieces of legislation are being applied to Northern Ireland it is high time that other legislation passed in this House was also applied there, which they have refused to apply.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next [Captain Michael Stewart.]

UNEMPLOYMENT AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES (NORTHERN IRELAND) AGREEMENT [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 64.
[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair.]
Resolved:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm and give effect to an agreement made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland with a view to assimilating the burdens on the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and the Exchequer of Northern Ireland in respect of social insurance and allied services, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums payable under the said agreement from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.—[Captain Michael Stewart.]

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair.]
Resolved:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, being expenses which, under either of the two last-mentioned Acts, are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, until the said thirty-first day of March, being receipts which under that Act are to be paid into the Exchequer"—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

MUNICIPAL HOUSES (ALLOCATION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Michael Stewart.]
9.20 p.m.
Mr. Marples: The question I am raising tonight is that of the allocation of houses by local authorities. This question is becoming increasingly important, because the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has laid it down that four out of every five houses in this country shall be built for and owned by the local authorities. Therefore, the question of the allocation of those houses is of the utmost importance to this country. Any scheme must be fair to the man-in-the-street, and not only must it be fair, but it must be shown to be fair to him. He must understand the scheme, and be satisfied in his mind that it is reasonable as far as he is concerned. Tonight, I want to raise two points. The first is the question of the anomalies which are created by the various or differing rules which each local authority makes for the allocation of its houses. The second point is slightly more controversial—the actual amount of the rent which should be charged for these houses.
To take the first point, the present position is that the local authorities have complete control over the allocation of the houses. Some of them have good schemes, some of them have bad schemes. Some of them have a points scheme which is very fair indeed, others have a points scheme which is open to doubts as to whether it is fair to most of the people in their particular area. Some of them publish a points scheme, so that the people in the district will know exactly how they stand, when they can claim a house, and what is their place in the rather lengthening queue for houses. Others do not publish it, saying that it is on the grounds of public interest that they shall not do so. Some local authorities have a residential qualification, others do not. Some have a residential qualification of five or six years, others of two or three years. Some have a provision that on the grounds of health, such as tuberculosis, priority is given, others have no such provision. Some authorities have a compassionate clause, others have not. But the one thread running through all this is that almost every scheme in this country differs. There are hundreds of schemes for
1142
the allocation of these houses, and it is quite certain that no two are alike.
I want to point to some of the anomalies which arise because of the differing schemes which are in force. The first example is that of a man who is in the Royal Navy, and who now lives, or has a room, in my constituency. In 1935 he went out to Shanghai on business for his firm. In 1940, he volunteered for the Royal Navy, and was accepted. In 1946, he came back to the constituency where he was born, and was told that although he wanted to settle in England, in the place where he had spent most of his life, he was not able to qualify to go on the housing list because he had not lived there during the last five years. Therefore, he could not settle in the place where he was born and has spent most of his life, and it is a certainty that no other local authority will accept him. As the Minister of Health has laid down that four out of every five houses shall be owned by the local authorities, his chances of ever getting a house at all are extremely remote. The second example of anomalies created is that of Regular soldiers who have spent most of their years with the Colours perhaps in married quarters. When they are demobilised, they not unnaturally go to the place where they were born or spent their childhood. If the residential qualification is in force, they are not allowed to get into the queue for houses. They cannot afford to buy a house and the local authority will not accept them on their list.
The third example is of a lady who is now 83 years of age. She was evacuated to Blackpool, compulsorily, or certainly urged to go—quite rightly. The house that she left was badly damaged. Recently it has been rebuilt and requisitioned. I have here a letter from a local association which explains that it was requisitioned without her knowledge and that she was promised a flat; but now she has not the slightest hope of getting her own house back or of being placed on the list of the local authority. There may, or may not, be a better case for people who are higher in the list, but, surely, she must have some sort of right either to get her own home back again or to be placed somewhere on the list of the local authority.
A fourth case, which I will quote, is even more serious. It concerns a man who resided at 128, Teviot Street, in Poplar.

1143
He was bombed out on 7th September, 1940, and he has a certificate to that effect. Between 1940 and 1943, his wife was evacuated to Pangbourne in Berkshire. In June, 1943, his wife went to the North of England, to Merseyside, and lived in two furnished rooms. In June, 1945, her husband was demobilised from the Forces, and he joined his wife and three children in the two furnished rooms in the North of England. His roots are in Poplar yet he is now in the North of England living in two furnished rooms with his wife and three children, who are growing older. He is employed as a bus driver. What is his position in the present scheme as far as the local authorities are concerned? The first point is that Poplar say quite definitely that although he was blitzed nothing can be considered until he returns to London, gets a job, and finds a home here. It is a little late to consider a matter like this when he gets down here. I do not want it to be thought that I am blaming Poplar for this. I am blaming the system which allows so many methods of allocating houses. In the North of England he is told that he cannot qualify because he has no residential qualifications. This man is condemned to live for the rest of his life, as far as I can see, in two furnished rooms, firstly, because he cannot get into the queue—and there will always be a queue—
Mr. George Thomas: People have always had to queue.
Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt perhaps he will stand up.
Mr. Thomas: I am interrupting
Mr. Marples: Having explained the case of the man from Poplar, I will give one more example. It is of a soldier now aged about 25 who was 20 when he joined the Forces. If he was an enterprising soldier, he probably would have married during that period—
Mr. James Hudson: A little bit of private enterprise.
Mr. Marples: It is the only part of private enterprise with which the present Government have not succeeded in interfering. The point is that if he had been perhaps a shade more enterprising probably he would have had a family. He will not have a residential qualification, because, being aged 20 when he
1144
joined the Forces, he would be living with his parents, and now he is not entitled to a home. If he goes into furnished rooms and has a family, his productivity will be impeded by the lack of the allocation of a suitable house in which to house the results of his productivity.
I have given five examples of serious anomalies which arise because of the different conditions which operate in different parts of the country. The responsibility clearly is that of the central authority—the Ministry of Health. It is their responsibility, because it is not easy for a local authority, in view of the pressure of local people, to introduce a scheme which is fair for the nation as a whole They are inclined to institute a scheme which is fair for their own particular district, and this criticism applies all over the country. Therefore, I say that it is the duty of the Minister of Health to provide some sort of method of overcoming these anomalies.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should send round to the local authorities one of his very many circulars asking them to incorporate an elastic compassionate clause which would cover some of the anomalies which will no doubt be brought to the attention of the Minister of Health by other hon. Members of this House. Only in that way, can all these difficult cases be dealt with. In my constituency, there are a lot of these very unfortunate people who can neither get a home in their original district nor in my district and the same kind of thing must apply to hon. Members in all parts of the House. Therefore, it is not a party matter, and I do not want this particular point to be treated as such. The direction must come from the Minister of Health, and I hope hon. Members opposite will support me and will press for some direction from the central authority.
Now, to deal with the second part of my speech, which is a little more controversial, I think some attention should be paid to the amount of rent which is being paid, or will have to be paid by the tenants of these local authority houses. The last time I made that suggestion in the House, there were numerous interruptions, including one from the Minister of Health himself. Physical needs should secure physical possession of a house, and financial need should secure financial assistance, but that financial assistance should not necessarily flow from the fact

1145
that a man is given possession of a house. At the present moment, in view of the enormous subsidy granted by the Government, there seems to be some sort of discrimination as to the amount of rent paid by a tenant. I do not say that the amount of rent the tenant can afford to pay should affect the question whether he is to have occupation of the house, but I say that attention must be paid to the fact that, if he can possibly afford it, he should pay an economic rent.
Mr. Keenan: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that, instead of a standard rent, based on the subsidy and the rest, as laid down by the Ministry of Health, there should be a means test, or a test to see whether the individual can pay that amount or more?
Mr. Marples: I am just going to explain exactly what I do mean, which will cover the hon. Gentleman's interruption, and I will explain the system which is in force in the delightful city of Aberdeen. May I give an example to illustrate why I think that a tenant should pay an economic rent in some circumstances? If Lord Nuffield received a local authority house, he would be subsidised by the taxpayer and ratepayer. The hon. Gentleman who will reply and myself, both being humble subjects of His Majesty with very little money, would be subsidising Lord Nuffield. That does not seem to me to be right, and I think it ought to be put on a fairer basis. Some of the people living in local authority flats and houses at the moment have rather large and expensive cars, and I wonder whether the flat is subsidised by the taxpayer and ratepayer or whether the car is subsidised by them. If the hon. Gentleman who is to reply cares to come round with me one Sunday morning to the L.C.C. flats at the White City, I can show him a very large and expensive Buick, a 38 h.p. car, which is outside these flats every Sunday morning.
About 15 or 20 cars are always there. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member means a car park."] Anyhow, the main point is that by receiving a flat or a house at a low cost, a particular person is able to afford a car. Therefore, it is important that the question of the amount of rent which an occupier of a local authority flat should pay should be carefully reconsidered, especially in the light of the present high building cost and the present
1146
high subsidy. I believe that the subsidy is practically half the cost of building. That is a very high subsidy, and it really means that, if the economic rent of a flat or a house is £52, the very fortunate recipient of that flat or house would be receiving £26 a year from the Government. If Income Tax is allowed for on that £26—which is a net figure—he would probably have to earn £40 or £50 to pay the £26 rent which the Government are providing free. Therefore, £40 has been given away by the Government, which really requires a greater test than whether the man needs physical possession or not. In some cases, £40 a year is equivalent to a whole day's wages each week for an artisan, but who is to decide which artisan is to receive a day's wages free each week and which is not? Therefore, there are two separate tests—the physical test for occupation, and the financial need to secure financial assistance.
I will not leave the matter as destructive as that; I will make a constructive suggestion to meet the interruption by the hon. Gentleman. There should be a system of rent rebate where the economic rent is not charged, if a tenant can prove that he wants, and is entitled to, a rebate. This scheme is not a new one and is already in operation in some parts of the country. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) was kind enough to give me the scheme of the Town Council of Aberdeen. Normally, I do not like going so far North for my examples, but, in this particular case, it was such a good one that I thought it ought to be brought to the attention of the House. In Aberdeen a tenant is charged the economic rent, which is the rent which would be charged if there were no Government subsidy, but he is given a rebate if he can prove that that is necessary. It says in the actual document that the tenant shall pay either a sum equal to the weekly rent and rate of the house—that is the economic rent—or a sum equal to one-sixth of the weekly income, whichever is the less subject to a minimum of 4s. 6d. Therefore, he will pay the economic rent or one-sixth of the weekly income. That seems to be a not unreasonable scheme. Various other provisions are made in this document relative to the rebate. For example, there is a period for review. Every rebate is reviewed at the end of six months or such period as the town council may determine.

1147
Another question is that of sub-letting, because that is a most important point. It the local authority give a person a flat or a house at a low cost and he sublets part of it at a high cost, he is making a pretty good thing out of it. In this scheme at Aberdeen, which I shall be pleased to pass on to the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply—
Mr. Sparks: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence of local authorities permitting tenants to sublet? I thought there was no authority entitling them to allow that.
Mr. Marples: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about authority to sublet, or actual subletting itself. They are two different things, especially in these days. A lot of people sublet without authority.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): In council houses?
Mr. Marples: Yes, certainly. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) knows it as well as I do. People in this country, quite rightly in the present circumstances, are subletting. There must be accommodation; people are entitled to a roof over their heads, with or without permission, and there are many cases of subletting at the moment. In any case, there is subletting in Aberdeen. In this form which I have, and which I will give to the Parliamentary Secretary afterwards, it says in sub-clause (d)on page 2:
"In deciding whether a rebate should be granted to any tenant who is known to have sublet any portion of his house, regard will be paid to the amount which may reasonably be expected to be obtained by him in return for such subletting and any such amount will be taken into account in calculating the amount of any rebate which may be granted."
It is clear that it is legal, and it is even clearer that it is done.
Mr. Frank McLeavy: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to houses built under the slum clearance scheme?
Mr. Marples: No, I am referring to all houses owned by local authorities. The hon. Gentleman may have in mind a local authority which has applied rebate to slum clearance, but in some parts of this country rent rebate has been applied to houses let by local authorities. All I ask is that the Minister of Health should take this matter in hand and devise some scheme for eliminating the anomalies
1148
which undoubtedly exist. My second point is that, in view of the great subsidy which is given at the moment by the Government—and that means a great advantage to a tenant—some sort of scheme on the lines of the rent rebate will have to be adopted if fairness is to be carried out over the whole country. At the present moment the scheme is not really fair because the people who are given a modern house receive it at a subsidised rent, and the people paying for that subsidised rent are living in old and dilapidated houses.
Mr. Tiffany: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the suggestion which he is putting forward has the support of his party, and if so would he have a talk with his right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)?
Mr. Marples: I am raising this matter on the Adjournment, not the Conservative Party. As a Member of this House, I am entitled to raise a subject on the Adjournment without going to my Front Bench every time and saying, "What did you do in your constituency?" I am sure that hon. Members opposite, especially the 53 who voted the other night, would be the first to say that this is a free House. This system of rent rebate, although perhaps applied in rather a clumsy and haphazard manner in Leeds, if applied in the delicate and tactful manner which I know will be adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary, would be -a success throughout the country. In the allocation of these houses, a great deal of jealousy will be created throughout the country as to who receives a house.
There is no doubt of that. I have met a number of people who have said, "Mr. Smith had a house, and I ought to have had it"; or," So-and-So has a 'prefab,' and it should be mine. "The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary ought to remember the story of Louis XIV who, when he was giving a medal to one of his friends, said, "I have made one man ungrateful and ten men discontented."
9.46 p.m.
Mr. Dumpleton (St. Albans): I hope that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replies, he will emphasise, as I believe he will, that it is the Government's policy to place this discre-

1149
tion and responsibility for the allocation of houses, and for the application or not of rent rebates, fairly and squarely upon the local authorities. We who serve on local authorities have been feeling for a long time that we are having many of our functions and powers taken away, and if local authorities cannot be trusted to know the local circumstances and the needs of local people, and to allocate their houses fairly, it seems there is nothing left for them to do. That is not to say, however, that I suggest that, in raising this matter, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) has not done something of value, because I believe he has This is a real problem.
There is, and there will be while the shortage remains, a great deal of dissatisfaction and discontent among people who are badly in need of housing accommodation, and particularly those, of whom there are many, who fall between two local authorities. A little while ago I ventured at Question time to suggest to the Minister that something might be done about this, and I think he misunderstood the purpose of my Question. He said very emphatically that he would not interfere with the discretion of local authorities in this matter. I am not suggesting, although the hon. Member for Wallasey did so, that there should be directives, and thereby implied some kind, of compulsion, but I believe it would be useful and helpful to local authorities if the Minister could advise local authorities by suggesting to them some carefully considered, standardised form of points system. Many local authorities have adopted points systems for the allocation of their houses. I have examined quite a number of those systems, and I believe many of them are very faulty indeed I venture, however, to inform 'he Parliamentary Secretary that there is one points system, that of the authority which I have the honour to serve, which I believe is better than any other system that I have seen anywhere. If my hon. Friend wants a model points system, I would present it to him, if he would undertake to circulate it, and to recommend it to other local authorities.
I hope that if this suggestion is taken up by the Ministry, they will stress to local authorities, while giving them the discretion and placing the responsibility upon them, that in the allocation of their houses
1150
they should avoid the adoption of arbitrary rules, some of which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Wallasey, and others to which I will refer, which are entirely irrelevant to the question of need. While the housing shortage is so acute, the allocation of houses, in my view, should be entirely on a basis of need only, and residential qualifications, and other qualifications that are irrelevant to need, should be excluded.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman make his point clear? Is he, therefore, eliminating any war service qualification from the points scheme?
Mr. Dumpleton: No, I would not. But on that question, as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I would say that there is a great deal of discontent, because it is felt that some local authorities have weighted their points schemes too heavily in favour of the ex-Servicemen.
Sir William Darling: Impossible.
Mr. Dumpleton: I say ex-Servicemen should be given a certain amount of weighting in the points schemes, but we have got to face the men who, through no fault of their own, were not in the Services. Perhaps they were directed into munitions industries, and kept there, and could not serve in the Forces; and now they feel themselves at a great disadvantage, and there is considerable discontent because of that.
I wanted to cite an example to illustrate my reference to arbitrary rules, apart from need, entering into the question. Consider two towns in close proximity to one another, where the people live in one town and work in the other, and there is a cross traffic between them. In some instances, those local authorities—rightly, perhaps, because they feel they do not want to build up a priority list, which it is beyond their ability to meet—have made a rule that all people who do not both live and work in the town shall be excluded from the list—shall not be considered. Well, there may be, among those people who work in one town and live in the next, a most acute and urgent need, and yet they are excluded. There are many other examples, of which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned some. I will not weary the House by mentioning others.

1151
But I do hope that this suggestion will be taken by the Minister, that advice could be given to local authorities on standardised forms, whereby many injustices between neighbouring local authorities—or a sense of injustice—would be avoided.
One other suggestion which I would venture to make is, that the local authorities might be requested—or it might be suggested to them—to deal with these matters much more by committee than they do. It happens that many people in urgent need of housing accommodation, dissatisfied, perhaps, with the replies they get from the housing manager, bombard, as they should, of course, their local councillors. That is their remedy. They go and harass the councillors. The councillors have these cases, and begin to use their influence in favour of different applicants. It would be much better, as has been done in one instance, for an allocation committee to be estab-lished, to meet weekly with long sessions. to which those people could go to state their circumstances. If they cannot be helped, they would feel they had been seen by somebody other than an official, and that is a much more satisfactory procedure. Incidentally, if the councillors, or, maybe, the local Member of Parliament, referred the cases they get to that committee, it would relieve them of a lot of trouble, as well.
I want, in conclusion, to refer to one other matter which has not been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I have said that this discretion—although advice and recommendations should be made to them—that this discretion and responsibility should be left entirely to the local authdrities; but there is one matter upon which, I think, there should be some measure of compulsion. I hope that in any future housing legilsation it will be provided that local authorities having houses beyond a certain number will be obliged to engage trained and qualified housing managers to manage their houses and deal with allocations. In fact, too many local authorities leave it to an untrained clerk in the town clerk's or borough engineer's office. I think that women, trained on the lines of the Octavia Hill scheme, are absolutely essential if these schemes are to be maintained properly and fairly.
1152
I will not follow the hon. Gentleman on the question of rent rebates and differential rents; I will only say that, of course, as he has indicated, they have been tried by very many local authorities and very many local authorities wish they had not. They lead to endless trouble, they involve an obnoxious means test, and they lead to dissatisfaction and discontent as between tenants, for if a man gets to know that his neighbour is getting a house at a lower rent, and does not know all the circumstances, it leads to jealousy. But that again is a matter which, in my view should be left to the responsibility of the local authority.
9.56 p.m.
Colonel Wheatley: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton) when he said that these questions should be left to individual local authorities to decide, but that there should be a recommendation from the Minister. That will lead to the same trouble all over again directly one authority prefers its own scheme to that put out by the Ministry of Health. I think that this is an occasion on which the central Government must not only give a lead, but should give directions as to how houses are to be allotted. I do not want to refer to cases similar to those quoted by the hon. Member for Wallasey.(Mr. Marples), but I should like to give one further illustration. In East Dorset, which I have the honour to represent, I have a large borough contiguous to a county borough, which is again contiguous to another non-county borough. On the other side there is an urban district surrounded by a rural district. There is a man working in one of these towns who has a home—you cannot call it a home, he has a room—in one of the other towns, and his wife, because they cannot get accommodation together, is living in the rural area. He can get no points from anybody under the system adopted now. From the point of view of residence he is recognised neither by one nor the other. That is a situation that needs to be dealt with. The man happens to be an ex-serviceman and he happens to be living next to the town where he was born, but he cannot get a room in his own town.
That is a case which brings out the essential reason why the Ministry should lay down a points rule. I am all for the points rule. I do not agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for St. Albans

1153
that there should be a committee to which people could go and state their needs. Who is to decide between the needs of one man and those of another? Each thinks his case is the harder; who is to decide between them? I am sorry for the councillor concerned if they both happen to come from his ward, because neither of them will vote for him at the next election.
Mr. Dumpleton: I am not suggesting a committee in place of a points scheme. The two are complementary and work together. There must be some tribunal to make people feel that they are being properly treated.
Colonel Wheatley: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member, but I cannot see the good of having another committee; Heaven knows, local authorities have enough committees—and I speak from pretty long experience of local authority work. If a points system is laid down which everybody knows and understands, why is it necessary to have a committee, why should anyone need to go to a councillor or anything like that? It is a mistake. I think a points system, laid down by the Ministry and universal throughout the country, would save Members of Parliament hundreds of letters, and it would save that poor wretched man the housing manager—I am glad to say that in my up-to-date constituency we have a housing manager, such as the hon. Member for St. Albans suggested—who has a harassing life. Unfortunately the points system is not published, and every time a house is allotted 50 or 60 people come along and say, "Why has he got the house? I should have had it first." A settled, published points system would save the whole of that.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey over the question of a needs test, because that was what he was really suggesting. Heaven knows we had enough trouble over a needs test some time ago, and as a Member of one of those tribunals, I thanked Heaven when that situation came to an end.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
Colonel Wheatley: We must have one system which everyone understands.
Mr. Marples: Will not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that if the present subsidy is carried on, there will be a lopsided economy in this country?
Colonel Wheatley: I quite agree. My hon. Friend spoke of the millionaire's son as compared with the serving man. That can only be a passing phase, because a millionaire's son is not going to remain in a council house very long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am hoping that even this Government will go some time, and then we can get on with housing. Anyone who has had local government experience knows the difficult case of the man in a council house whose family has grown up, who is now in a better position and no longer deserves to live in a subsidised house any more than a millionaire's son. The difficulty of turning out a tenant of a council house because his needs are not so essential as they were originally is very great. If we are to start a needs test, who is to say the income of the householder? Are we to go back to assessing and taking into account the wages of the sons and daughters, having all the trouble over again of families being broken up? I am afraid that I cannot support my hon. Friend in that part of his speech. I wholeheartedly support him in his suggestion that we should have a points system to cover the whole country, because everyone will then know when his turn will come for a house and why he has his points. Furthermore, it should be made public.
10.4 p.m.
Mr. Bing: Having heard the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) on many occasions, I never thought the moment would arise when I would find myself in agreement with him, as I did on one of his points. It may be because, as he said, he was not speaking on this occasion on behalf of his party. I would urge three principles which my hon. Friend should attempt to encourage local authorities to deal with. First, there should be some common residential qualification. It often happens that many people are qualified in many areas, while other people, such as regular soldiers, do not have any qualifications in any area. For example, anyone born at sea, or anyone who is married at sear is registered automatically in the Parish

1155
of Stepney. If that is taken as a qualification, it would take the combined ingenuity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) to solve the big problem of where to accommodate them all. I feel that it may be possible for my hon. Friend to suggest to local authorities that they should acquaint each other of the qualifications in their areas and come to some arrangement as to what qualifications are desirable
I do not think it is possible to have a standard point system, because the needs of various authorities differ very considerably. There are various conditions which have to be taken into consideration in one area, which need not be taken into consideration in another. I would like to urge on my hon. Friend that local authorities should be encouraged to circulate to other authorities their points systems. There are anomalies and difficulties among local authorities which have been solved by various alterations, and while I do not claim any special virtue for my points system it is a standard which might be of advantage to local authorities. Where there are Government schemes for shifting the population there should be some consultation with local authorities as to how the persons who will be affected by the shifting of industry will be accommodated, and dealt with in any local points scheme. It would be of help to local authorities, where such a move was contemplated, if it were possible for the Ministry of Health to indicate the particulars and questions which are likely to arise.
10.7 p.m.
Mr. Drayson: The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) is one that practically every Member of this House has had to deal with at one time or another. Some of the most distressing letters we get are those from people who are faced with the difficult problem of housing. I have been reluctant to interfere with any scheme that my own local authorities have prepared, because I do not feel that that is the province of a Member of Parliament. If a local authority is having difficulty with a Ministry, then I am only too anxious to
1156
do what I can to ginger up the Department. I know that on housing matters local authorities have given a great deal of thought to these questions. Each locahty has its different problem, and it would be difficult to impose a scheme from Whitehall which would suit the circumstances of the different cases. There is quite enough interference from Whitehall already with local authorities, and I should hate to see any more imposed upon them.
We know that lists have been in existence in various towns for many months and years. Some people have been waiting since 1939, and before, for a council house. The problems have been accentuated by families growing up and increasing, and even by members of families returning home with a war disability. I mention these points to show how extremely complex is the whole problem. In some constituencies, the position has been aggravated by squatters, who have moved into unsuitable accommodation. Some of them have had to be put at the top of the list, or they have jumped the queue, which has been most distressing for those who have been waiting for many years for a suitable house.
When I get letters from people on this matter, I write to the local authority and suggest that the letter they send to the applicant might be a little bit more personal, more conciliatory. I have received these inhuman printed letters, not signed by the town clerk or a member of the housing committee, and I have sent them back, and said, "If only you could put the man's name in, instead of saying, 'Dear Sir, In reference to your application,' and signing it with a rubber stamp, it would make it just a little more personal and human." This especially applies to the returning ex-Serviceman. A man who has been abroad, in Burma, India, or some prisoner of war camp for some time requires perhaps a little bit more human treatment than some of the men who have been in England during the war, and who know what to expect after six years of war and one year of Socialism.
When I reply to these letters to my constituents, I am forced to tell them that, while I know of some of the circumstances surrounding the difficulties of providing suitable houses, I feel that the Minister of Health himself, because of the policy he adopts, is to a very large extent responsible for the misery and suffering that is being caused to them at the present

1157
time. The country is realising only too well that the wages of Socialism is dearth, and, bearing in mind all the difficulties with which the local authorities are faced, I should be reluctant for any more Regulations to be imposed on them from Whitehall.
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Sparks: I would beg leave for a few moments to make one or two points which I think are rather important. I think that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) is to be congratulated by the House on raising this matter tonight, because the complications involved in the whole question of the allocation of houses and rents is one that needs our very careful consideration from time to time. I believe that it is impossible to adopt a universally acceptable standard for all areas. There must be some variety because circumstances and conditions vary so much from place to place. I was a little amused at the hon. Member's reference to Lord Nuffield, or a person in such a station of life, occupying a council house, because I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that today if you have the money, you have no need to be homeless. You can get a house—I was going to say almost anywhere—if you have the money, and are prepared to pay for it. You can come into my constituency at any time and buy a house if you have the money to put down. Therefore, a person in the category of Lord Nuffield would soon be able to find accommodation, if he were really looking for it, without having to resort to a council house.
One other factor which I should like to mention is that of the evicted tenant. We can lay down whatever points scheme we like, but it must provide for emergency cases. One of the greatest headaches of local authorities in the Greater London area is caused by the large number of families evicted from dwelling houses and rendered homeless. They have no one to whom to appeal except the local authority, and the local authority, more often than not, has to vary its points system in order to accommodate families in dire need.
Mr. Marples: Not only in the London area.
Mr. Sparks: The same may apply in other areas, which shows how difficult it is to lay down a universal scheme on points.
Colonel Wheatley: Why not say that the eviction cases should become No. 1
1158
priority, that persons turned into the streets must have houses?
Mr. Sparks: Of course, it depends on the area. In some areas in London, where the problem is acute, hon. Members would be surprised at what people resort to in order to get accommodation. If the precise points basis for allocation is to be publicised it will leave the system open to fraud and misrepresentation. It is very difficult indeed for local authorities to test the bona fides of the cases which come before them. If it is published that so many points are to be allowed for so many children, all sorts of children will be claimed for, which will not be legitimate. [Laughter.] That may seem amusing to hon. Members, but I have had specific cases brought to my notice where additional children have been brought into the family in order to increase the number of points allocated to them. Obviously we give the best information we can, but in view of the shortage of accommodation we want to ensure that as accommodation becomes available it is given to the people who are next on the list, and that the scheme is not left open to misrepresentation and fraud. I hope we shall get some information from the Parliamentary Secretary upon this very important matter which has been raised by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), and I hope he will be able to clear up some of the anomalies and difficulties which many of us see.
10.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I am afraid I felt during this Debate that some of my hon. Friends were getting very near to being out of Order in the things they were saying, because the proposals they have been making would involve a considerable change in the law so far as the control of housing is concerned. Under Section 83 of the Housing Act, 1936, the general management, regulation and control of houses provided by a local authority are vested in that local authority; and no power is given to the Minister of Health to give any directions to the local authority about what they shall do in the management and control of those houses. The duty of allocating their houses and selecting their tenants rests with the local authority. The only restrictions which Parliament has placed upon the local authority's freedom of action in selecting tenants is contained in

1159
the direction embodied in Section 85 of the Housing Act, 1936, that a reasonable preference must be 'given
"to persons who are occupying insanitary or overcrowded houses, have large families, or are living in unsatisfactory conditions."
In other words, Parliament has decreed that the local authorities shall be free to choose the tenants for their houses, save that they must ordinarily choose first those persons whose housing need is greatest.
I am certain it would be a very backward step for the Ministry of Health to try to interfere in any way with the freedom of the local authority to carry out its functions under the conditions which have been laid down by Parliament. It is, of course, for the Ministry of Health to give what assistance and advice they can to local authorities in this matter, and we have done that. In 1945, a Sub-Committee of our Central Housing Advisory Committee was set up to inquire into problems in connection with the management of municipal housing estates. They made a very detailed report to us, and we sent out that detailed report to the local authorities, with a covering circular in which it was definitely stated that the Minister concurred in the Sub-Committee's recommendations, and would be glad if all local authorities would give early consideration to them.
It is surprising how that Sub-Committee covered, very carefully indeed, the vast majority of the points which have been raised here tonight. First of all, with regard to a scheme of allocation of houses, they went into a consideration of various points schemes that had been put before them in evidence, they gave examples, and then, in the end, they made their recommendations with regard to those schemes. They said that where a points scheme was in operation, it should be used as a sieve for sorting applications into priority groups, and not for determining the final order in which the applicants should be offered tenancies. They stressed the point that that final order within the leading group should be determined on the merits of individual cases within the group, after investigation by the officers of the local authority concerned; but they also went on to point out, as has been pointed out tonight, that you can make any points scheme you like, and in the end you will find that there are cases which are bound to be outside that scheme
1160
and will require particular attention in individual cases. Therefore, they said that close attention should be given to the working of the scheme, so that cases in which special consideration is wanted are picked out, notwithstanding that they may not be within the leading priority group. This opinion of the Committee was endorsed by the Minister and local authorities were asked to give particular attention to it.
I also want to point out other recommendations in that Committee's report. For instance, they say:
"We recommend that whatever method of selection is used local authorities should make generally known the principles on which tenants are selected, and the general factors of which account is taken in Individual applications."
The point has been raised here that the people in each area should know the conditions under which houses are given, and that is the Committee's recommendation. With regard to the selection of individual applications that have been sifted through the points scheme, I want to say that as far as my experience in a local authority is concerned, it would be a very bad thing indeed if individual applicants are selected as a result of interview of those individual applicants by a committee, and the sub-committee have made a recommendation about it. They recommend that the local authority should also arrange when applications are brought before the appropriate committee that the names and addresses should be withheld, and the application dealt with under a definite code number in order that no prejudices whatever are allowed to enter into it when the decisions are made.
A great deal has been said about the residential qualifications. This sub-committee gave advice to local authorities with regard to that matter. The recommendation was that local authorities should now review the conditions that they laid down with regard to any residential qualifications, because conditions which the war years have brought about, have been such that residential qualifications required to be looked at very carefully indeed, if injustice to particular individuals—whose service either in a military capacity or an industrial capacity had taken them away from particular areas in which they had lived—was to be avoided. With regard to the point made about newly-married couples, this also was considered by the sub-committee who

1161
recommended that local authorities should allot a proportion of their tenancies to recently married couples without children. The problems, which have here been raised, have been given very careful consideration and suggestions have been made to local authorities with regard to the method in which they should carry out this duty and the allocation of their tenants.
Mr. Osborne: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that, on the whole, local authorities have acted on those recommendations?
Mr. Keenan: Labour local authorities have.
Mr. Key: In the vast majority of cases I am convinced that the local authorities have endeavoured to live up to the recommendations which were made by that sub-committee. A thing we must recognise, however, is that no points scheme can be made, which will be of universal application, and an individual local authority must take account of the conditions in its area and adopt a system to meet the needs of that area. Take the case of the man who had had his roots in Poplar and who now has a job somewhere else and a place there in which to live. Is it suggested that a person with a job somewhere else, and shelter and cover there, is to take priority in an area like Poplar where there are thousands of people who have no accommodation at all and whose jobs and duties mean that they have to carry on there?
Mr. Marples: The gentleman referred to in the question is living in the North of England in two small rooms with his family of three and his wife, making five altogether. I do not ask that he should be given priority, but that he should get on some list somewhere, somehow.
Mr. Key: And some day he may, but at the present moment there are people actually in Poplar working and living under far worse conditions than that, and they should get priority because the man in question has the accommodation which he can use With regard to the question of Service men, the "caretaker" Government sent out a circular to local authorities on this matter and gave advice and
1162
suggestions that consideration should be, given to ex-Servicemen. But they themselves recognised, and said in their circular, that the overriding consideration must be that of need at the particular moment—not merely a question of service or of past history. The thing that should determine the allocation of accommodation should be the need at the particular moment.
There is just one other point, and that is the question of rent. Again, we are being asked to try to impose on local authorities something which Parliament does not permit us to impose. In Section 71 of the Housing Act of 1936 Parliament has placed upon local authorities the statutory duty of providing houses for working class populations in their areas, and in Section 85 they must, in deciding the rents, take into account the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working class in their localities. Having decided the matter on that basis they are then given authority to charge a lower rent in the case of people whose capacity does not rise to the average. But what we are being asked to do here is to use the local authority machine to charge higher rents than those here involved to people with higher wages and salaries.
In other words, we are being asked to use this local authority machine to play the ordinary capitalist game of making the rent depend upon what money the people have in their pockets to pay. Whatever hon. Members may say about the differences which may arise in various local authority areas because of the different characters of the schemes that are involved, it is absolutely certain that the basis on which local authorities are letting their houses, however many grievances there may be in particular individual areas, the carrying out of the schemes results in a fairer distribution of the accommodation that is available than could possibly be the case if it were left to the ordinary monetary market to decide that rent should be according to the ability of the person to pay.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine minutes past Ten o'Clock.

  MOTOR DRIVING SCHOOLS (PETROL)
  MOTOR DRIVING SCHOOLS (PETROL)
  COAL BOARD (CHAIRMAN'S EXPENSES)
  COAL BOARD (CHAIRMAN'S EXPENSES)
ALIENS
  Foreign Domestics (Agency Fees)
  Foreign Domestics (Agency Fees)
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
  Italian Ex-Prisoners of War
  Italian Ex-Prisoners of War
  Distressed Relatives Scheme
  Distressed Relatives Scheme
  Married Women (Nationality)
  Married Women (Nationality)
  PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS (REPORTS)
  PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS (REPORTS)
  COURT ORDERS (BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD)
  COURT ORDERS (BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD)
  PROBATION SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS)
  PROBATION SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS)
POLICE
  Appointments (Released Servicemen)
  Appointments (Released Servicemen)
  Traffic Control (School Crossings)
  Traffic Control (School Crossings)
  STERN GANG (GREAT BRITAIN)
  STERN GANG (GREAT BRITAIN)
  FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES (INFORMATION)
  FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES (INFORMATION)
  WOMEN PRISONERS (CONFINEMENTS)
  WOMEN PRISONERS (CONFINEMENTS)
  BORSTAL INSTITUTION, FELTHAM (STAFF)
  BORSTAL INSTITUTION, FELTHAM (STAFF)
  CAR PARKING, LONDON
  CAR PARKING, LONDON
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX
  ELECTORAL REGISTER
  ELECTORAL REGISTER
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Savings Certificates (Repayments)
  Savings Certificates (Repayments)
  Derequisitioned Houses (Rehabilitation Allowance)
  Derequisitioned Houses (Rehabilitation Allowance)
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Nurses (Travel Warrants)
  Nurses (Travel Warrants)
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS)
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS)
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (POSTERS)
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (POSTERS)
  WAR-DAMAGED HOUSES (REPAIR COSTS)
  WAR-DAMAGED HOUSES (REPAIR COSTS)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Deaf Aids
  Deaf Aids
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Slaughterhouses (Hygiene)
  Slaughterhouses (Hygiene)
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  Water Supply Scheme, Fylde
  Water Supply Scheme, Fylde
  New Town (Water Supply)
  New Town (Water Supply)
  Cough Lozenges
  Cough Lozenges
  National Health Service (Publicity)
  National Health Service (Publicity)
  Catchment Areas (Public Access)
  Catchment Areas (Public Access)
  Dangerous Drugs (Prescriptions)
  Dangerous Drugs (Prescriptions)
  Ex-Service Nursing Orderlies
  Ex-Service Nursing Orderlies
  Diphtheria Immunisation
  Diphtheria Immunisation
  St. Thomas's Hospital
  St. Thomas's Hospital
HOUSING
  Rent Tribunals
  Rent Tribunals
  Derequisitioned House, Hove
  Derequisitioned House, Hove
  Rent Restriction
  Rent Restriction
  Turton
  Turton
  Glamorganshire
  Glamorganshire
  Hangleton, Hove
  Hangleton, Hove
  Flooring
  Flooring
  Local Applicants
  Local Applicants
  Transport
  Transport
  Forms
  Forms
  COAST EROSION
  COAST EROSION
  RATES EVACUATED HOUSES)
  RATES EVACUATED HOUSES)
  IDENTITY CARDS
  IDENTITY CARDS
  DAY NURSERIES
  DAY NURSERIES
EDUCATION
  Devastated Countries (Assistance)
  Devastated Countries (Assistance)
  Museums (Evening Opening)
  Museums (Evening Opening)
  Awards Branch
  Awards Branch
  Canteens (Rural Schools)
  Canteens (Rural Schools)
  B.B.C. Broadcasts
  B.B.C. Broadcasts
  School, Fawkham
  School, Fawkham
  Teachers (Vacancies and Trainees)
  Teachers (Vacancies and Trainees)
  Schools (Capital Costs and Grants)
  Schools (Capital Costs and Grants)
  Nursery School Teachers
  Nursery School Teachers
  Engineering Cadets
  Engineering Cadets
  State Scholarships (Personal Case)
  State Scholarships (Personal Case)
  Training Grants
  Training Grants
  Teachers (Trade Union Membership)
  Teachers (Trade Union Membership)
  RIGHTS OF LIGHT
  RIGHTS OF LIGHT
  POSSESSION CASES (COSTS)
  POSSESSION CASES (COSTS)
  PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CROWN
  PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CROWN
  DIVORCE CASES (PROCEDURE CHANGES)
  DIVORCE CASES (PROCEDURE CHANGES)
  RECORD OFFICES STATUTORY ORDER
  RECORD OFFICES STATUTORY ORDER
  NATIONAL TRUST LAND (ENCLOSURE)
  NATIONAL TRUST LAND (ENCLOSURE)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Glass Exports
  Glass Exports
  Woollen Underwear
  Woollen Underwear
  Cotton Mills (Share Capital, Sale)
  Cotton Mills (Share Capital, Sale)
  Imports from Switzerland
  Imports from Switzerland
  German Potash
  German Potash
  Blankets and Sheets (Dockets)
  Blankets and Sheets (Dockets)
  Clothing Coupons (Demobilised Personnel)
  Clothing Coupons (Demobilised Personnel)
  Cotton Control
  Cotton Control
  DRIVING LICENCES (RENEWAL)
  DRIVING LICENCES (RENEWAL)
  CONGESTED RAILWAY ROUTES
  CONGESTED RAILWAY ROUTES
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Fog Dispersal
  Fog Dispersal
  Steel Exports
  Steel Exports
  Light Engineering Production
  Light Engineering Production
  FLOODING, RIVER EBBW
  FLOODING, RIVER EBBW
  SICKNESS (INDUSTRIAL WORKERS)
  SICKNESS (INDUSTRIAL WORKERS)
  FUEL ECONOMY (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  FUEL ECONOMY (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  SECOND POLISH CORPS (JEWS)
  SECOND POLISH CORPS (JEWS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Recruits (Medical Examination)
  Recruits (Medical Examination)
  Information Office, Trafalgar Square
  Information Office, Trafalgar Square
  Educational Corps (Pay)
  Educational Corps (Pay)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Observer Corps (Recruitment)
  Observer Corps (Recruitment)
  Stranded Personnel (Transport)
  Stranded Personnel (Transport)
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND (AGED PEOPLE)
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND (AGED PEOPLE)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (WINNERSH)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (WINNERSH)
  POST OFFICE (TEMPORARY STAFF)
  POST OFFICE (TEMPORARY STAFF)
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Disability
  Disability
  Parents
  Parents
  FOOD SUPPLIES (DIETARY SURVEYS)
  FOOD SUPPLIES (DIETARY SURVEYS)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Duke of St. Albans—Took the Oath.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, this Bill which is now before your Lordships' House is a short measure and one which is not, I think, likely to cause any contention. But before I come to the detailed provisions of the Bill your Lordships may like to have a short account of the history of the benefits provided by the Royal Hospital of Greenwich. The hospital was founded by Charter of William and Mary in 1694. The objects of the foundation, briefly, were the relief and support of seamen serving in the Royal Navy who, by reason of age, wounds or other disabilities, were incapable of further service at sea and were unable to maintain themselves; the sustentation of the widows and the maintenance and education of the children of seamen killed or disabled in sea service; the further relief and encouragement of seamen; and the improvement of navigation. For these purposes Queen Mary declared, in her husband's name, that the building begun by King Charles II on the site of the ancient Royal Palace of Placentia at Greenwich should be completed as a retreat for seamen disabled in the service of their country and as a noble and lasting monument of the gratitude which Britain felt for the courage and patriotism of her sailors.
In the early part of the nineteenth century the hospital buildings housed 2,710 men, but the numbers gradually decreased until in 1865 the number was only 1,400. The Greenwich Hospital Act of 1865 was then passed authorizing the payment of
280
out-pensions as an inducement to men to leave the Hospital. It was decided to continue this policy and in 1869 the Greenwich Hospital Special Pensions were instituted and the Hospital was closed. For many years the buildings have been occupied by the Royal Naval College. In 1712 the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich, was established for the purpose of clothing and educating the sons of pensioners. In 1933 the School removed from Greenwich to new buildings at Holbrook in Suffolk. Apart from the benefits provided by this School, Greenwich Hospital provides pensions for Royal Navy and Royal Marine officers; grants for the education and the maintenance of sons and daughters of deceased or distressed officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines; special pensions to seamen and marines and for the education and maintenance of their children; the maintenance of seamen and marines in naval hospitals, etc.; pensions to widows and gratuities to parents of seamen and marines killed or drowned in the service of the Crown before 1914.
The object of the present Bill is, broadly, to amend certain of the conditions governing some of these benefits which are laid down in various Greenwich Hospital Acts from 1865 to 1942, in order to make them appropriate to modern conditions. The Bill first proposes to repeal the present maximum limit of Greenwich Hospital Special Pensions. These pensions were instituted in 1869, and the present maximum of 17s. 6d. a week was prescribed nearly fifty years ago in the Act of 1898. The fall in the value of money during this period has made this maximum no longer appropriate and if the limit is removed it is intended to make new regulations to provide for the award of these pensions on a basis more in keeping with present day needs. The present maximum award of 17s. 6d. a week includes any naval pension which may be in force, with the result that almost all naval life pensioners are excluded from this Greenwich Hospital benefit. Section 1 (2) of the draft Bill would remove the obligation to disregard any pension increase awarded under Pension (Increases) Acts but such increases would be taken into account only in fixing the maxima in the new higher scales of Greenwich Hospital Special Pensions.

281
Secondly, the Bill would remove the existing restrictions on the total number of daughters of seamen and marines educated and maintained at any one time at the expense of Greenwich Hospital funds. The present limit is 200 and was prescribed in the Greenwich Hospital Act of 1872. This limit has not, in fact, been reached in recent years, but the late war has brought an abnormal number of applications for the daughters of seamen and marines to be educated and maintained at the expense of Greenwich Hospital funds. It is therefore desirable to remove the restriction laid down in the 1872 Act. Thirdly, it is proposed to abolish the present limit of £20 a year for the expenditure from Greenwich Hospital funds on the education and maintenance of sons and daughters of deceased or distressed commissioned officers of the Royal Navy or Royal Marines. Although the maximum of £20 for this purpose may have been regarded as adequate seventy years ago, it is not appropriate at the present time. For example, grants awarded by the Ministry of Pensions for the education of children may be as high as £80 a year.
Fourthly, the Bill proposes to widen the scope of the conditions governing the award of Greenwich Hospital Pensions to widows and allowances to children and gratuities to parents or dependent relatives of non-commissioned officers, Petty Officers and men of the Royal Navy or Royal Marines, or any Naval Reserve force. The Act of 1883 authorizes the award of pensions, allowances and gratuities to the widows, children, parents and dependent relatives of those killed or drowned in the service of the Crown. No new Greenwich Hospital awards in these respects have been made for many years. The Ministry of Pensions provides for such cases when they arise from warlike operations, and those occurring in peace-time are provided for from Navy Votes. The Bill will enable financial assistance from Greenwich Hospital funds in the form of pensions to widows and allowances to children and gratuities to parents or dependent relatives of non-commissioned officers, Petty Officers and men of the Royal Navy or Royal Marines or of any Naval Reserve force who die or have died from natural causes.
Thus it will be seen that the Bill will extend the field of eligibility for awards as well as remove the present restrictions
282
on the amounts of awards. The Bill would not in any way diminish the benefits payable under existing powers, but would enable deserving cases, hitherto excluded by the regulations, to be covered so far as the funds available permit. Lest it should be thought that by the removal of certain of the restrictions which at present govern the administration of Greenwich Hospital funds, these funds would cease to be under proper control and that their expenditure might be open to abuse, I must emphasize that before we could bring in any new classes not eligible for benefit under present arrangements, the Admiralty would be required to formulate specific regulations which would themselves require to receive the authority of an Order in Council. This procedure would limit the benefits payable in future in accordance with the funds available, and the needs of the times.
It may also be asked why the benefits provided by Greenwich Hospital funds should be necessary at all in view of the comprehensive provision for social needs which is made by the State under the social security scheme. On this point, I would say first that the social legislation that has been passed since the present conditions governing awards from Greenwich Hospital funds were laid down is itself one of the reasons why those conditions now require to be amended and brought to date. Secondly, however comprehensive the provision made by the State may be, there may always arise special, hard cases which are not fully met by social legislation. It is cases of this kind that the funds of Greenwich Hospital can relieve and assist. I should also explain that the funds of Greenwich Hospital are derived in the main from the bequests of many benefactors who have wished in the past to make gifts for the purposes stated in the Charter of 1694. The funds are not in any sense dependent upon provision made by the State.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hall.)
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, on this occasion we are in the happy position of having an entirely non-controversial measure. I am quite certain that there are no noble Lords in any part of this House who do not approve the object of this Bill, and I merely rise to say that we give it our full support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REQUISITIONED AREAS.
4.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE VISCOUNT CRANBORNE rose to call attention to the continued retention by the Service Departments of areas in this country taken over temporarily for the purposes of the late war, thus depriving the inhabitants and the public of the rights and amenities which they formerly enjoyed in those areas; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make no apology to the House for raising this question again. As your Lordships will remember, just before the House rose for the summer Recess we had a debate on the continued failure of the Service Departments to derequisition land taken over for training purposes during the war. We had an interesting and illuminating discussion. It showed beyond all manner of doubt that the Service Departments are still holding on to numerous areas, although in many cases they have given an absolute undertaking to the inhabitants that these areas would be restored as soon as the emergency was over. And some of these areas are of first importance for the preservation of the amenities of the people of this country.
On the occasion of that debate, as the House will remember, the Government spokesman was the then Under-Secretary of State for War, and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, had a most unenviable task. He did his best. His reply was both full and courteous, and he deserved (and I am sure received) the full sympathy of the House. Yet the fact remains that it was a most unsatisfactory reply—so unsatisfactory, in fact, that I was obliged to warn the noble Lord and the Government at the end of the debate that we should return to the attack at an early date and, if necessary, press the matter to a Division. Since then, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has passed to another sphere, and has handed over this most unattractive baby to his successor, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I had intended to put down a Motion for a date immediately after the meeting of the House after the Recess, but, very naturally, I was asked by the War Office
284
to hold my hand. The noble Lord will remember that the then Secretary of State for War was, unhappily, ill, and the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was absent in Canada, so that neither of them had had time to give full attention to all that the question involved. In those circumstances, of course, I agreed immediately to postpone my Motion.
In recent weeks, however, I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible for this matter to be neglected any further. Since the last debate, on July 4, nearly six months have passed, and so far as I know there has been very little improvement in the position. Indeed, in some ways the situation has definitely deteriorated. It appears that the Service Departments are now casting covetous eyes over new areas, including some (such as Ashdown Forest) which are among the most beautiful and interesting in England and, what is more, are among the most important for the general population if the amenities of the country are to be preserved. This is not a Party question. It is a national question; it affects all Parties alike, and I think it right that your Lordships should concern yourselves with it before any final decisions are taken.
Everyone has his own special area about which he speaks with personal knowledge. As your Lordships know, I have in the past expressed my concern with regard to the west end of the Isle of Purbeck. At some length I have urged reasons why this area should be derequisitioned, and I do not want to weary your Lordships by repeating in different words what I have said before. I would, therefore, remind the House, quite briefly, of two conclusive reasons why (to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan) "this beautiful area should be returned to the purposes for which nature ordained it." The first is a consideration of a general character, which affects all those who have at heart the preservation of our national heritage. By common agreement, Purbeck is one of the most lovely and unspoilt stretches of country in the south of England. It is very small but it is perfect. Before the war, it was visited yearly by many thousands of town dwellers, who there found rest and mental refreshment from their labours.
There is evidence that this is no local question, affecting a few hundred people,

285
in the fact that Wareham and Purbeck Rural District Council have the support of the National Trust, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Holiday Fellowship, the Co-operative Holidays Association, the Cyclists Touring Club, the Royal Institute of British Architects and many other national bodies. Nor is it, I would repeat again, in any sense a Party problem. When it fell to my lot last year to lead a deputation to the then Secretary of State for War, one of the most prominent members of the deputation was a noble Lord who now sits on the Government Benches; and I may say that that noble Lord spoke in so forceful and vehement a manner that I was quite nervous of the effect which his remarks would have on the War Office authorities.
There is another aspect of the matter which is, to me at any rate, equally important, if I may say so. That is the undertakings given to local inhabitants. This, too, raises very broad national issues, for it involves the whole good name of the British Government. In this connexion, I should mention that last week I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who is to reply to the debate do-day. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy in writing, and even more grateful to him for saying that I might make what use of his letter I wished. This is what his letter says:
"I have been looking at the Hansard report of the Motion on July 4 on training areas, and I see that you have mentioned that assurances were given to the people of the Isle of Purbeck that they would be allowed to return after the emergency was over. I find that the War Office is very concerned over all these alleged promises."
I would emphasize the word "alleged."
"An examination has been made of the circumstances in which the west end of the Isle of Purbeck was taken over, and I am now informed that no promises whatever were authorized and, to the best of our belief, none were made. The area to which you refer seems to be what we call Studland, the eastern portion of the Island, because, you mention that it was taken over in 1942 and the War Department land agent confirms that definite promises were then made. Studland was afterwards handed over to the Admiralty and it is now awaiting derequisitioning as soon as the blinds have been cleared. East Holme"—
that is the west end of the island—
"was requisitioned as an entirely separate transaction a year later, in 1943, and the same War Department land agent, who was again present, and who has produced the orders issued at the time, stated that no promises whatever were made."
286
I do not in any way blame the noble Lord personally for that letter. He is not responsible for what happened in the past, but I must confess that this seems to be a most extraordinary attitude for the War Office to take up.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD PAKENHAM): May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I am sure that the noble Viscount will recognize that I take full responsibility for anything done by the War Office.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I recognize that the noble Lord takes responsibility for what is done now. I am going to quote what happened in the past, for which the noble Lord personally does not have any responsibility.
No less than two years ago the Wareham and Purbeck Rural District Council published a document entitled "Isle of Purbeck. Wareham and Purbeck Rural District Council Representations." That document was published for the purposes of propaganda. It was intended that as many people as possible should see it. This document said:
"The evacuation arrangements were carried out by officials sent by the Regional Commissioner and the Ministry of Health with the help of the officers of the Wareham and Purbeck Rural District Council and volunteers from the local W.V.S. As directed, they explained to the persons evacuated that this was a war emergency measure necessary for the winning of the war."
Those words "winning the 'war" were based on a proclamation issued by the Major-General in Charge of Administration, Southern Command, on November 16, 1943. The Rural District Council document went on to say:
"It was never suggested to any of the evacuees that there was the remotest possibility that they would not be allowed to return to their homes when the war was over and indeed it was explained that in carrying out the necessary military exercises no intentional damage would be done to the buildings by tanks or otherwise."
No exception was taken by the War Office or the representatives of the War Office to that statement in subsequent debates.
There is much more to come. Some months later the Wareham and Purbeck Rural District Council issued a further publication which gave the following information:

287
"All the tenants were informed by the War Department Land Agent that if they so wished, their tenancies would be maintained and the notice served on each of them contained a statement."
I have obtained, fortunately, a copy of that statement. It was dated, I should say, November 30, 1943. It had nothing whatever to do with the Studland area requisitioning. It was signed by an officer of the War Department Land Agent's Department at Wareham. It was headed—to make things absolutely clear—"East Holme Training Area," which is the west end of the island. I do not wish to quote the whole letter to the House but I should like to quote the relevant portions:
"When the War Department has no further use for the property and it is handed back, you have every right to return to the property. It should not be assumed by you that, because the War Department has turned you out, you lose your right of occupying the premises again… If, however, having been moved out, you have no desire to return, you will have the right to disclaim your tenancy or lease under a recent Act of Parliament, which is known as the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act, 1942… Of course, if you are a service tenant and the house goes with the job, then I am afraid you will have no right to return to the property unless, of course, your previous employer re-employs you when he goes back."
Could any of the inhabitants form any conclusion from that letter than that they could expect to go back?
Finally, if I may give one more quotation, in the last debate, on July 4, in answer to an interjection by me the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, then stated specifically—I have already given a portion of this quotation:
"But I can certainly say to the noble Viscount that we should regard the finding of an alternative site to Purbeck and the return of that beautiful area to the purposes for which nature ordained it, as amongst the first of our priorities."
Under those circumstances, what possible use is it for the War Office now to put forward the claim that no undertakings were given to the people of this district? It seems to me so preposterous a suggestion—if the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will forgive my using that word—hat it can only prejudice their position both in this House and in the country. Yet now they come forward with "permanent requirements"—I have seen a copy of these permanent require-
288
ments—as if they had given no assurances at all. I do beg them to face the fact fairly and squarely that these undertakings have been given, and the question I want to ask the noble Lord is: When are these undertakings going to be honoured?
I have dealt particularly with the Isle of Purbeck. I have no doubt that there are other noble Lords in this House who will speak with regard to other areas. I would, however, before I sit down like to say something of the more general issues involved, because, as your Lordships know, my Motion is not confined merely to the Isle of Purbeck. We, in this House, are a responsible body. It would be quite unworthy of us—I freely admit—if we took up an irresponsible attitude. We must clearly recognize the complex problems here, because there are complex problems, which face not only the areas themselves, but the Service Departments, too. They have been given the task of ensuring the defence of our country and of fulfilling our international obligations, and they must, we freely recognize, have somewhere to train their troops. I do not think there is any difference of opinion about that in any part of the House.
Where I have been sceptical and where I remain sceptical is whether this problem has ever been given what I should call balanced consideration, so as to ensure that the most suitable sites should be chosen from the point of view not merely of the Service Departments themselves but of the population of this country as a whole. All Government Departments, we know, are apt to take a departmental point of view. This, I think, is especially true of the Service Departments. They are apt only to consider what is most convenient for them without reference to the needs of the rest of the population. I do not altogether blame them for this. After all, they are bound to put the administration of their own Service first. But it is a fact which the Government and Parliament are bound to bear in mind.
I should like to give an instance of what I mean out of my own experience. During the war I was given for my sins the very invidious job of allocating doctors as between the Services and the civilian population. I must in all fairness say that the War Office on this particular matter were rather more helpful than the

289
other Service Departments, but broadly speaking, the attitude of all of them was exactly the same. They insisted upon the full establishment of doctors not only for the fighting men and for the men who were abroad—and there was no difference of opinion about that in any quarter—but for the young, healthy and well-fed men and women on the home establishments. That meant—I am going to try to give a figure favourable to the Service Departments—that they got about one medical officer for every 300 men or women as against something in the neighbourhood of one doctor to 1,700 among the civilian population, and that included children, old people, pregnant women, and factory workers working often under difficult conditions. The civilian population only got about one to every 1,700, and there were terrible cases where doctors were looking after 4,000 citizens, or were responsible for them. But nothing that could be said to the Service Departments would make them see how unequal that balance was. They were concerned with their own Service and would not look any further.
In view of this and other cases of which have no doubt other noble Lords have heard, I am sure that the House will not be surprised if I feel a little suspicious when I am told that this problem of requisitioning areas has been carefully considered. Has it been considered, I would ask, from the angle of the Services or from every angle? Has the possibility, for instance, been examined of training in Germany, on the Luneberg Heath, which was one of the main training areas for the German Army before the war? Has the possibility been considered of training 'n the Dominions? We were reminded I think by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in a recent debate, that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff made a statement in a speech to a senior officers' school. The quotation is from the issue Of The Times of August 7 of this year. He said:
"There is no intention—and there never has been—of training British troops in the Dominions. Basic training and such unit exercises as are needed to practice the use of weapons and the co-ordination of services will continue in this country."
I would like to ask whether that is a Cabinet decision or whether the C.I.G.S. was merely expressing his personal view. I hope we may have an answer to that question. If it has been decided by the Cabinet that all United Kingdom troops
290
in future are to be trained within the boundaries of the United Kingdom, has full consideration been given by the Government to alternative areas which do not involve moving populations?
I am told there are a great many of the moorland areas—the noble Lord will no doubt confirm this—which are unsuitable for training owing to their boggy nature. We all of us appreciate that difficulty, but has the possibility been explored of moving artillery ranges, which are not affected by the same considerations, from such places as Salisbury Plain to those moorland areas and using Salisbury Plain, where the ground is hard, for tank training? I fully realize that a change of that nature would take time and would involve considerable expense. It would obviously have to be a long-term policy and could not be done in a moment, but has it even been considered?
Then again, take the lank ranges, where I understand the guns fire out to sea. Is it necessary to choose as a foreground places like Purbeck and Harlech, which are famous and accessible beauty spots? And, so far as the sea itself is concerned, is it necessary to choose the most populated parts of the seaboard to the constant danger of fishermen and others? Noble Lords will have read in the newspapers—I think it was in The Times or some other newspaper—the most pathetic story of a man who was bombarded with his small family on a peaceful trip between Weymouth and, I think, Bournemouth. I am told that in the Harlech area the shells very often fall quite close to the beach at Portmadoc. Could not some more remote place be found for tank ranges?
Then there is another point which I would like to put to the noble Lord who is going to reply. Have the Service Departments taken into account considerations of general town and country planning? I am informed by the Standing Committee on National Parks that no less than seven areas which have now been scheduled for training for Service Departments trench on the National Parks recommended by the Dower Report. These areas include in the Lake District 3,000 acres at Martindale. I think your Lordships will probably have read a letter on this subject by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and the Lord Lieutenant of Westmorland, And there are 15,000

291
acres at Torver near Coniston. I mention these particularly because the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, who is unable to be present, asked me to draw attention to this particular aspect of the problem. There are, however, many other areas in various parts of the country of which the same thing could be said.
Lastly, only this morning your Lordships will have seen a letter in the Daily Telegraph from the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, in which he states that a new area in Dorset has been selected by the War Office including Maiden Castle, which, as your Lordships know, is the finest prehistoric camp in the south of England, and probably in the whole of England. I know Maiden Castle, and possibly some of your Lordships know it too. It is not in the middle of a great training area; it is quite close to the town of Dorchester and only a few yards from a great main road. Surely that could be left out of the scheduled area. All these areas which I have mentioned, and many of those with which I have not had time to deal, include some of the loveliest stretches of country and coast line in the whole of Great Britain. As I have said, their preservation was regarded as essential by the Dower Report. They contain, too, in many cases some of the finest monuments. Has this aspect of the matter been considered by the Service Departments? I fully realize that the military must go somewhere, but I cannot help feeling that in these matters the military authorities—I will put it as best I can—are not uninfluenced by considerations of departmental convenience.
If I am not wearying your Lordships, there is one other aspect which should cause concern to your Lordships' House, and that is the legislative method used to acquire these areas for training purposes. As I understand the position—the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will correct me if I am wrong—there are two Statutes under which action can be taken. First of all, there are two very old laws, the Defence Acts of 1842 and 1845; secondly, there is much more modern legislation, the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. Land can, I understand, be acquired by the Service Departments and by the Ministry of Supply (by an amendment which was introduced in 1945), without public inquiry, without the know
292
ledge of Parliament, and without any vote or control by Parliament.
Under the 1945 Act the procedure is, I understand, as follows: The Minister must publish his intention to acquire; objection can then be laid by anyone with an interest in the land or by the voluntary societies concerned with preserving the countryside or by scientific societies or by the local planning authorities; when such objection is laid, the Minister must refer his proposal to acquire to the War Works Commission, which must either hold a public inquiry or give a hearing otherwise to the objectors. If the Commissioners report adversely on the Minister's proposal, the Minister must either drop his proposal or, if he wishes none the less to proceed with it, must report on it to Parliament, and in that event, if either House passes a Resolution objecting to his wish to override the Commission, his proposal lapses. In the case of commons where these are included in the land proposed to be acquired, they can be acquired by the Minister only after a positive Resolution of both Houses.
The second method under the more modern legislation is, I submit, clearly the better procedure, as it retains the control of Parliament. I understand, however, that the Government are now proceeding under the 1842 and 1845 Acts. Why is this? As I understand it, it was suggested by the Prime Minister in another place on the 6th November of this year that where the 1842 and 1845 Acts are applicable they must be used; but he did concede that there should be consultation through the Ministry of Town and Country Planning with the local authorities and the amenities societies concerned. My information, for what it is worth, is that there is considerable legal doubt about this point, and it is held by very reputable authorities that the two Acts are not exclusive but concurrent, and that they are designed to provide alternative machinery which can be used. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would look into that particular point. Clearly the 1945 machinery is the more satisfactory of the two because, as I have said before, it retains the control of Parliament. If it can be used, I would like an assurance by the noble Lord who replies to this debate that it will be used, and if it cannot be used, surely there are

293
good grounds for some amending legislation, which would be entirely uncontroversial. I would be very grateful if the Government could examine further this point which I have put before them, I can assure them, with every desire to help.
Noble Lords may also have seen a supplementary proposal in the Manchester Guardian to-day. This proposal falls into two parts. The first is—and I think it is a very important point—that the Government should expose both to Parliament and to the country the total needs of the Service Departments. That is a thing we have never known and many of us would like to know. The second is that a Select Committee should be appointed to give informed and unbiased answers before the fate of any particular site is sealed. I think those are excellent proposals and the Government might very properly consider them.
Above all—and this is the last thing I want to say—I would return to my original point. We in this House and the Government must be concerned for the good name of the British Government. I recognize that the rights and liberties of the British people in these days are not quite what they were, but I am sure it will be the desire of noble Lords in all parts of this House that where a promise has been given that promise should be honoured. In many of these cases it is our contention that there have been undertakings to the inhabitants. Not long ago one of the people of West Purbeck wrote to me and in her letter—I am paraphrasing—there was this phrase: "We are being treated as the Germans treated the Poles."It is shameful that it should be possible for such a thing to be said with justice of the British Government's treatment of British people. I hope that this House at any rate will not condone such a breach of faith. We know these people; they are the best that this country produces, and it is up to us to see that at least they get justice. I beg to move.
4.41 p.m.
LORD FARRER: My Lords, no one who has been lucky enough to listen to debates in your Lordships' House can help feeling nervous the first time it falls to him to address your Lordships. I can only promise to be as brief as possible. In the first place I should like to say how very lucky we are and how grateful we
294
should be that the mover of this Motion is the noble Viscount. It is true that in the course of his survey he made nearly all the points I had hoped to make—and very much better than I could ever hope to do—but I will nevertheless venture to put my two points. The first is that it is not much good trying to have a bath and to turn on the taps unless you can put the plug in the bath first. It is not only the delay in returning land which is worrying us; it is also the fact that land continues to be dented to its proper users—I am talking of common land in particular—nd nothing is found out until it is too late. In particular, the use of the Defence Acts of 1842 and 1845 is a rather unsatisfactory weapon in the year of ungrace 1946. I am not by any means attempting to urge that because an Act of Parliament is old it is necessarily bad, but in this case I think those Acts are bad on their merits. I hope that the legal method of taking away our rights in the use of commons, if you are a commoner, or in the use of your property, if you are a lord of the manor, will be put on a more satisfactory basis.
My second point is this. I believe that this question is important because all sections of opinion feel very strongly indeed about it. If you had stood beside one of the footpaths near my house which was closed during the war and watched the ramblers and other people—the poor tired typists, clerks and so on—turned sorrowfully away by festoons of barbed wire which they were unsuitably clad to overcome, I feel certain you would have been pretty angry. I feel very angry about it myself, but: I have noticed that in controversial matters it is better to try not to let the heart get entire control over what, in my case, passes for the mind. In these days when there is great doubt as to what is good and what is not, if a thing is felt very deeply indeed by our people, who are not vocal, surely that is in itself a sign that the cause is a good one. Therefore I have purposely tried not to introduce any controversial Party political issues into it. I think a word is perhaps necessary about the footpaths which, in common with land and other forms of property, have been quite mercilessly stopped up all over the country. The people's right to walk and to pass freely from place to place is a general thing common to all classes of the population. I therefore hope

295
that attention will be given to the question of removing these frequently illegal obstructions altogether.
I am afraid I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time, but my excuse for speaking is that I happen to be the honorary treasurer of an organization—the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society—which has been trying to fight this evil for a very long time. I need hardly say it has no money; otherwise if would have not have made me its treasurer! May I say that it is like a breath of sea air when people like the noble Viscount who raised this Motion come to our help?
4.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I am sure it would be your wish, as it is my pleasant duty, to congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech this afternoon and to say that we wish him the best of luck and hope his voice will be heard here on many occasions in the future. The noble Viscount raised a point with regard to promises given. I am going to quote an example which has occurred since the 10th August when the noble Lord who is sitting opposite, and who was then Under-Secretary of State for War, was kind enough to write to me saying that I was wrong when I said that the tenants in a certain training area of this country had ever been given to understand that they could go back and that the undertaking was that they could go back only if and when the Army no longer required that land. Here it is, in his own handwriting. Yet, within two months, when we take up our local paper we find that the very land we have been asking to have returned to the tenants is to be handed over for use as a cement factory in the near future. I only quote that as an example of what we are going through in our part of the country. I am not insinuating anything against the noble Lord opposite, but, after all, he wrote the letter to me and I must answer him in that way.
We are dealing to-night with the question of requisitioned land. I have had the pleasure of receiving a letter and a message from the noble Lord who is going to reply. For the first time since this Government came into office he, as representing the War Office, is coming down to meet us on our own ground. I
296
can assure him that we are indeed most grateful to him and that we will do everything possible to see that at least he is very well entertained before he goes back to London. I have already given the noble Lord notice that I intend to deal with the aerodrome question at Keevil and Steeple Ashton. Here is a vast area, part of which comes under the Air Ministry and part of which comes under the Ministry of Supply. I raised certain points in the debate on July 4. I stated that this aerodrome was too close to the village. Here, may I say, I have had tremendous co-operation from the noble Lord opposite, Lord Henderson.
I said that the area was one of the worst fog-bound areas in the country, with footpaths that have been stopped, with agricultural land that could be put down to agriculture left lying derelict, and so on. It has been proved that it is the worst fogbound aerodrorme in the country; nevertheless it is still requisitioned. It has been proved that the highway path has been closed. I am so glad that the noble Lord behind me raised the question of highway paths. It has been closed, and we cannot use it. It has been proved that the aerodrome is so close to the village that whilst the pilots under the Air Ministry have been given definite orders that they are to fly at safe heights, nevertheless the Spitfire test pilots—I do not blame them a bit, because it is their job—are allowed to take any risk they like, and of course they must do so if they are to carry out the testing of aircraft. I would point out this fact. One day, because this aerodrome is so close to the village, there will be an accident and then there will be the usual votes of condolence and sympathy and so on. There may be loss of life. If there is no loss of life you will probably lose some of the most beautiful old buildings in the West of England which can never be replaced.
All these facts have been before His Majesty's Government for many, many months. In addition to all those factors, scores of workpeople are brought at the public expense every morning to work in this Spitfire factory and taken back every evening, and yet at the present moment there is a Spitfire assembly factory six miles away in the town, where it could all be done centrally. What I want to ask His Majesty's Government is this: How much longer is this expense going on? We shall probably be told that it is

297
essential and cannot be done away with at the moment. We want an undertaking now from the noble Lord opposite as to exactly what the position is, that is, so far as the Spitfire side, the Ministry of Supply side, of our aerodrome is concerned.
Now let us turn to the aerodrome under the Air Ministry. I pointed out on July 4 that the aerodrome was miles from any decent place for the personnel. It is such a vast aerodrome that the personnel required to look after it—and I do not believe I am exaggerating—would be in the nature of 200 men. I have walked all over it in the last three weeks, and I have seen every inch of it. It is quite impossible for any commanding officer to maintain a grip on that aerodrome unless he has that number of personnel. What has happened? Why, the squatters have got in in one corner. The commanding officer cannot help it, and you cannot blame him. In the other corner of the aerodrome there is nobody at all, and yet all the time this vast area, one of the finest areas in the country, is just lying there requisitioned and none of us know when it is going to be given up, if ever. If it is determined to make it into a permanent aerodrome, then what about it being the worst fog-bound aerodrome in the country? Is that going to be taken into consideration? The noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, has indeed asked for a court of inquiry. I am not going to weary or detain your Lordships at any greater length, except to conclude on this note. I trust that the noble Lord opposite will this time tell us quite definitely that before any decision is taken on these requisitioned aerodromes, or on any other land requisitioned by the Ministry concerned, a court of inquiry will be held at which the local people may give their evidence.
4.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, the point I would like to stress particularly today is one which has already been touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, which is the disadvantage of having no procedure whereby local authorities can express any views on the proposals, or indeed any procedure whereby they can learn what is proposed. After all, local authorities have considerable responsibilities nowadays and they are growing. Among these responsibilities is the duty of preparing complicated town-planning schemes, and providing in them
298
for the preservation of amenities and for open spaces. Whatever the legal position may be I am convinced that town planning simply will not work if Government Departments are going to pursue policies regarding land quite independently of the local authorities and, to some extent, independently of each other.
I do not wish to exaggerate this point because I know that some measures of co-ordination have been taken, but it is perfectly true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said, that the Government last year issued the Dower Report to stimulate thought about national parks. In that document there was no mention of any likelihood of the military or Service Departments requiring any of the areas therein mentioned. But a cynically-minded person might perhaps conclude that the only use to which that Report has been so far put is to help the Service Departments in the choice of training areas. I know that since that Report was issued, the Service Lands Requirements Committee has been set up to co-ordinate the requirements of the Service Departments with the policy of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and I know that conflicts of interest will be settled on a very high level. Therefore, the apparent lack of co-ordination in Whitehall is now, I hope, at an end. But I still maintain that this Committee has not so far evolved any satisfactory procedure for sounding local opinion, and I submit that they ought to do so.
Some mention has been made of Ashdown Forest, about which I happen to know something. That is an area of several thousand acres, a large proportion of which is common land administered by conservators under a private Act of Parliament. Further, it is covered by a town planning agreement under Section 34 of the Town Planning Act t6 protect it as an open space and to preserve it from building. During the war this area was requisitioned and, of course, no kind of objection was made because of the emergency. Moreover, any fears that commoners might have had were largely allayed by a letter from the War Office to the conservators, saying that there was no intention of'claiming it as a permanent training area.
Despite all this, arising from inquiries made by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, it transpired not very long ago that

299
the military authorities had designs on this area as a permanent training area. Naturally there was a good deal of local indignation, and what is now becoming an almost standard routine was adopted. Protests were made by the local authority, letters were written to The Times and deputations were sent to the Ministry concerned. Eventually this agitation did produce some very useful conferences and the possibility of modifications to this scheme were explored, which might be of considerable value to the local people if they were adopted. Naturally, we do not want a scheme at all, but if we are overruled there is still the possibility of improvement. I certainly cannot complain, and neither I think can anybody else, of the lack of co-operation or courtesy either on the part of the military authorities or on the part of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, after this agitation had been started. The fact remains that had it not been for these inquiries made by my noble friend Earl De La Warr, I doubt whether the local people or the local authorities would have heard anything about this until a decision had been taken. I may be wrong, but that is certainly what appears to be the case.
I do feel that this method of doing things is, to say the least, very untidy. My suggestion is that whenever Service Departments or any Government Department want to requisition land, or derequisition land, or do anything that is likely to affect the preparation of a town-planning scheme, the Joint Executive Town Planning Committee should be informed in detail, through the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, of what is proposed. No decision should be taken until their comments have been received. I stress this point because it is possible to requisition land under certain assurances and then change all the conditions under which the assurances have been given.
This procedure would not, I agree, take the place or fulfil all the purposes of a local public inquiry, but it would at least ensure that publicity based on accurate information would be given. It would also ensure that the planning authorities would be relieved of the uncomfortable feeling they now have that only by the exercise of particular vigilance will they learn of developments which may make complete nonsense of everything they are trying to do. Whatever objections may be made
300
to a more elaborate form of public local inquiry, I cannot see what conceivable objections there can be to the suggestion I have made, except possibly in the very rare cases where some security consideration prevents it.
This is only a minor point of procedure, and it will do nothing to solve the major problem. This major problem is how to combine the great extension of military training areas now contemplated with the idea of preserving the country and the idea of national parks. I do feel that something can be done to alleviate the general feeling that, great as these problems are, there is no real reason why they should be solved by methods which may be quite acceptable in times of war but which are certainly not acceptable in times of peace.
5.4 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, so much has been said on this subject that I think very little remains for me to say. We are all deeply grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for introducing this Motion, and I do not think any evidence is needed that this is entirely a non-Party and non-political Motion. We only had to see the obvious sympathy that was accorded the noble Viscount's speech from the Benches opposite, and certainly by us on this side of the House, to realize the extreme difficulty and complexity of the subject. There is really a very great national problem here before us, and a very great national issue is at stake. The problem is that there is just a steady depletion of the few open spaces that are left to us in accessible areas, and with all of us, whether we are in the Government or not, there does lie an extremely heavy responsibility to see to it that no more of the open spaces are taken without a very, very strong case of national necessity and expediency being made out.
At one time I had the honour of being associated with the Board of Education, and there was there no development we welcomed more than the development of the hiking movement and the youth club movement. This showed that the young of this country were increasingly wanting to take their holidays in the countryside. This country does not lack holiday facilities—holiday camps, seaside resorts, and so on. Some of us like to take our holidays at Blackpool and Margate, others like to go to open spaces. It may be that

301
those who choose the open spaces are very much fewer than the others, but I think we all feel that they are an exceedingly important section of our people.
I want to say a word with particular reference to Ashdown Forest. It has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. I think perhaps I ought first to declare my interest as lord of the manor, though noble Lords who have been lords of the manor of these commons will realize that the income from them is not a very large one to declare. Here -we have an open space that has been common land for over 700 years. During the seventeenth century inroads were made 'upon it, and, as a result of protests in 1693, a Chancery decree was issued stabilizing the amount of land that was to remain common property. This area is very close to London. Motoring down from the West End it is, I suppose, thirty-five miles, but, with the way in which London is stretching out now, it would be more accurate to say it is only fifteen or twenty miles from the boundaries of London to-day. I am afraid I can hardly speak of it at the moment as a beauty spot, such have been the depredations, but it really was inexpressibly beautiful in its natural state.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has said, there are important' discussions in progress at the moment with representatives of the War Office, and I am glad to say they are hopeful discussions. I certainly would like to say to your Lordships that we could not possibly have had more help or courtesy from the representatives of the War Office in these discussions. They are under orders, of course, but as individual officers they have shown every desire to meet the feelings not only of our local people, for whom we are speaking, but also our feelings as safeguarding a national property in the vicinity of London.
But there are two general points—I think they are general—that I wish to raise. They arise from specific experience in dealing with matters relating to Ashdown Forest. One of them has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. Unless it had happened that at some time in or about, April of this year the noble Lord had mentioned quite casually to me that he thought it might be wise to try to make some inquiries about the intentions of the military authorities with regard to
302
Ashdown Forest, none of us, not even the town and country planning committee of the County Council, of which the noble Lord is Chairman, would have known about this matter. As the result of that casual conversation, I spoke to Lord Nathan in the corridor of this House. I asked him what was happening. His reply was of such a Parliamentary character that I felt it was; better at once to enter into a form of negotiation with him. I wrote him a letter. His reply to that letter was, of course, quite vague except for one or two phrases which were sufficiently definite to be disturbing. As I say, that is the only way in which any of us, including the members of the town and country planning committee of the County Council, got to know anything about what was likely to happen to Ashdown Forest. I said that I thought this was a general point, and I imagine that this is a question relating to the general machinery which would apply to other areas.
On the second general point, I confess that I feel strong doubt. This point also is with regard to Ashdown Forest. I am very hopeful that we are going to be able to come to a reasonable compromise. Certainly we, representing those who live in that area, are anxious to be as helpful and as reasonable as possible. But suppose it is possible to come to terms with the War Office with regard to what I call a limited user of the forest. Shall we say that an undertaking is obtained from the War Office that track vehicles will not leave the main roads and that live ammunition will not be used? Suppose we are able to come to an agreement of that kind; what guarantee are we going to have that in three or four years time when there is, perhaps, another C.I.G.S. or, possibly, other national requirements, the whole arrangement will not be upset? We have been told 'that these age-long rights can be ruthlessly overruled by reference to the Act of 1842. I am rather inclined to question that, and I am going to give the reasons why I do so. But once that has been said by the authorities, that means total destruction of confidence in any form of security whatsoever.
I do not think I am revealing anything confidential when I mention that it was suggested that we might be satisfied by an Army Council letter. But if three Acts of Parliament can be thrown over

303
what is the use of an Army Council letter? Actually, I very much doubt—and I have taken some legal opinion on this—whether in fact the Act of 1842 will give the War Office exactly what they want in regard to Ashdown Forest. It was not until 1885—and that was later confirmed in another Act of 1937—that the public were given their rights of access to this common. I do not profess any legal knowledge at all myself, but I have been told that it is most unlikely that an Act of 1842 can be used to overthrow rights accorded to the public in 1885 and 1937. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of the Government has legal advice at his disposal, and perhaps he would like a day or two to look into the matter.
But I do not raise this as a legalistic point at all. We are deeply anxious to help the War Office for, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said, ultimately they are servants of the public and we have entrusted to them the exceedingly onerous job of protecting us. I do want to emphasize, however, that it is no use our entering into agreements with the War Office for limited user if, at any moment, the Government claim full right to take anything they want. Before we can agree, therefore, to any weakening of the position, the Government must state the form of guarantee they can give to us as to the permanent limited user of the forest for these purposes. The rights of the commoners and the rights of the public are, at present, defined by Statute and it is my firm opinion that if there is to be any modification of these rights now and any further protection given in exchange for that modification, it must be in some statutory form. I repeat that we are dealing with an area of land that has been at the disposal of the commoners, and later of the public, for over seven hundred years. We are dealing in centuries. Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that if any concession is made we should make that concession with statutory protection behind us.
5.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for more than a minute or two because I think that everything which ought to be said has already been said and said with great force. Really I rise
304
only to speak in support of what has fallen from the lips of my noble friend Earl De La Warr, because he and I are interested in the same part of the world. He has much greater interest in it and much greater knowledge of it than I. I am a mere resident, a looker-on, but sometimes, as we know, it is the lookers-on who see most of the game. I will not say anything now about the beauty of the forest, for most people know all about that. I will not say anything about its nearness to London or the way in which it is used by the people of London as a holiday resort, or the great value which the commoners put upon the rights they have on the forest, spurring them almost to illegal acts if anyone attempts to interfere with them, as Earl De La Warr, no doubt, is aware. But I am very acutely aware of what has happened.
My noble friend has not exaggerated in the least the injury which has already been done to the common. Opposite the little house in which I live, there is a main road and just over that main road there is a great tract of the common about 80 or 100 yards wide, I suppose, and 200 or 300 yards long, which has been completely destroyed. Every vestige of vegetation has been torn up by tanks and other heavy vehicles, and instead of it being a beauty spot it has now become an ugly spot—and a very ugly spot at that. That kind of thing is very harassing to those who live down there but during the war we said: "This is a public necessity. The authorities must do what is essential for the defence of the country." We do, however, resent and protest against the war being exploited to enable them to do something which they would not have the slightest chance of doing in normal circumstances, without the ordinary precautions by which private property—and still more common property—is preserved for the people of this country.
I do not want to dwell too much on our grievances but, after all, this is a very serious matter. Anybody of my age, or even a good deal younger, can remember the ferocity with which the great controversy as to the preservation of commons was carried on throughout the nineteenth century. It was one of the great issues that was raised, and was pressed, on the ground that nothing must be done to interfere with the rights of the common people for ventilation, recreation and other things. It was one of the great "war cries" of

305
the Parties of the Left, that they were going to preserve the commons of England for the use of the common people. And very rightly.
Now we have a Government, for which I have a great respect, which belongs to the Left, and they are the people—of all people—who are leading the attack on the common rights of the people of this country. It is really incredible that it should be so! I venture to say that, in the circumstances described by my noble relative, the way in which the attack has been made makes the matter more acute. There are two possible procedures which could be adopted for the Service Departments to carry out their wishes. One is to have a public inquiry, and at any rate some degree of control by Parliament. The other does not require anything other than lettres de cachet signed by the Secretary of State for War. Unfortunately, although no doubt they were advised by their technical advisers to do so, the Department have adopted the second process. I think that is going too far. I. am most anxious, as is everybody in the district where I live, to do nothing which will interfere with legitimate requirements for defence, but before the Government do such an outrageous thing as to deprive the common people of their commons, they ought in each particular instance to establish their case by public inquiry…It should be done with the assent or the approval of Parliament, either by Resolution or Act, as may be thought right. That is really an essential, and I hope we shall hear from my noble friend Lord Pakenham, who is extremely reasonable in this House, that the Government are prepared to make a concession of that nature. Then, so far as I am concerned, I shall have no serious complaint in the matter.
5.23 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I think it is only right that somebody from Wales should take part in this debate, after a large number of members have spoken for different parts of England, because in Wales the increasing rapacity of the various fighting Services for the beauty spots is now growing far beyond what it ever reached at its peak in the war. We are told that 22,000 acres of the Pembrokeshire coast are to be taken. Only last week, we heard a new proposition, that the whole of the coast from Towyn
306
to the Mawddach estuary, with the slopes of Cader Idris, was to be taken exclusively for training, and that the public were to be excluded.
If make bold to refer to my own neighbourhood, Harlech, may I ask what is the position there? We have had visits from the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I have written long letters to the late Secretary of State but I can get no effective reply. Sometimes the military are there; sometimes they are not. The place is full of rumours. The County Councils of Caernarvonshire and Merionethshire continue to pass resolutions against the continued use of Harlech, and the exclusion of the public from the beach. Rural district councils, societies for the preservation of rural Wales, articles in the Manchester Guardian, have all brought nothing but silence from the War Office. We do not know where we are, but periodically we hear rumours from some local Colonel that they are going on with their schemes, that plans for permanent buildings are being prepared. Every now and again a new party comes down, goes away again, and leaves the place empty; then they start up again.
Our general case is that the authorities ought not to take places like the beauty spots on the coast of Wales without a public inquiry, and without putting their cards on the table before they act. This secretive, grasping policy by the military authorities has really got to be stopped. The case of Harlech raises the whole question of the future of the slate trade, because the continued use of Portmadoc harbour is endangered every time there is firing there. How that problem is to be solved, I do not know. It is most unfortunate that the military authorities, and other Service Departments, wish to take over these coastal areas. Nobody in North Wales has ever complained of the Trawsfynydd artillery range. Nobody would complain of many of the upland, inland areas being used; but do remember that thousands—nay millions—of people go to the Welsh coast during their summer holidays for the superb views of Snowdon and the like. And remember that some of these areas which it is proposed to take are scheduled for inclusion in the Snowdonia National Park, and that the National Trust have been acquiring land in these very areas. Because of the way the Service Departments have proceeded

307
public opinion in Wales is rising against any military occupation. That is undesirable and unfortunately means an absolute clash between the War Office and other Service Departments and local opinion.
It is heart-breaking—this falling back on an Act of 1842, and the way the Departments are ruthlessly taking away land, before local authorities have a chance to know what line of defence to take, and what arguments can be marshalled. I hope that the noble Viscount will press this matter to a Division, unless we are given more satisfaction on this than we have had in the past. I want to appeal to the Government: if the worst comes to the worst, and these places of income parable scenic beauty and pleasure to the civilian masses of the country are taken for permanent military occupation, will the Service Departments do something to prevent the ghastly vandalism of the War Office architects? Look at Aldershot. Look at anything built in the past. The War Office will not employ civilian architects. Buildings are left to some old Sapper Colonel. English barracks in any county town in England are worse than Wormwood Scrubs and Holloway—and rather in the same style. In the past, there has been no attempt to use local materials. The War Office tradition for one hundred years has been to combine the maximum uglification with the minimum of comfort for the soldier.
If you take the beach at Harlech, will you build it of local grey stone or is it to be like Camberley? Are you going to perpetrate the atrocities of military architects, which have too often been perpetrated up and down the country? Because if so, you are going to make permanent eyesores in places which inspired the genius of the great English water-colour painters responsible for several pictures of the finest views of the mountains of North Wales that exist. These pictures are to be found in the National Gallery. I do appeal to the War Office to follow the lead of the Air Ministry who, when they built Cranwell, took the advice of a civilian architect, and did not build a place like Sandhurst. They built a decent building and gave consideration to the comfort and amenities of the people who were to work there. Really, with the War Office tradition in all these matters, if you suggest amenity and architectural beauty you are
308
regarded as namby-pamby by the "Blimps" responsible for the planning of War Office cantonments in this country. It is tragic. The tradition of the War Office in all these matters is one which is rightly feared. The rules with regard to the use of material, planning and layout which apply to other people must apply also to the War Office.
Godspeed to the Minister of Town and Country Planning with his green belts and his beautiful ideas of new towns! Will the War Office ever consult him? Will they, when they build these camps, ever consider that type of question? No. For long ages past, it has been "Hands off and leave it to the sappers." It is tragic. I appeal to the noble Lord who is replying tonight to have some interest and some care for the civilian population of this country, for the historic beauty spots of this country, and not further to exacerbate public opinion, in spite of representations, by proceeding headlong with the demands of the Director of Military Training.
5.35 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but after listening to so many ex-Army officers telling us what a mistake the Army Council are making in requisitioning certain areas, I felt, as a naval officer, that I must say something. I have often wondered why it seems so necessary for the Army to cling to the southern fleshpots of the country rather than to carry out their manœuvres and exercises in the north. We of the Navy, when we were required to carry out exercises, were banished to Scapa Flow. Why cannot the Army be banished to Scapa Flow? I understand that the Army have almost given up the Highlands of Scotland—a very lovely part of the country. Just before D-Day, a most important part of our training was done there and it suited us very well indeed. I cannot help feeling that it would be almost a disaster if the Army were to continue to requisition more land on the south coast of England. One area facing the Isle of Wight which is now under consideration is one of the few remaining beauty spots in that district, having no extensive building and a little good agricultural land. It will be a disaster if that area is taken to be used for military training purposes when many other places could

309
be used instead. I hope that before any more land is requisitioned we shall have a public inquiry. Surely these training areas could be situated where they would cause the least inconvenience to the smallest number of people. That would be where there is a sparse population. I hope that the Army Council will reconsider this matter before requisitioning more land, especially on the south coast of England.
5.37 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, it is a salutary thing to see oneself as others see one, even to see one's Department as others view it. If I may say so, it is, I suppose, permissible for the cat to look back at the King and to ask one's critics to see themselves for a few minutes as they are seen by those in my Department, and from my own standpoint. I can assure them that I am not now speaking mainly of noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, although in one or two cases I thought their criticisms were somewhat intemperate. I am speaking now of the volume of criticism and the sincere public feeling that has welled up. From our point of view, that criticism is extraordinarily ill-informed. It is perhaps true that in certain cases some hardship might arise as a result of our proposals. I do not say it always is so. But no doubt in many cases there might be hardship. I hope that noble Lords—after all, if we cannot look to this House for support for the Services, I do not know where we can look—will circulate throughout the country the general position in this matter as we are now confronted with it. I hope that even if I cannot deal effectively with all the points raised this afternoon, I shall at least leave a different general impression on the minds of most of your Lordships from the one which you had when you entered this Chamber. If I might first of all reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—although I hesitate to compete with him on any subject, and least of all a knowledge of Wales—I am told that he is quite mistaken in thinking the Army is now seeking to acquire land which it did not hold during the war.
LORD REA: Does the noble Lord mean only land in Wales or anywhere in the country?
LORD HARLECH: May I get this right? Are you saying that the land you
310
are seeking to acquire in Pembrokeshire was occupied by the military during the war, and that in Harlech you are not going to take another acre of land which you did not use during the war?
LORD PAKENHAM: Well, too many indications about the future have been given in the past. I am speaking only of the immediate position. I can assure the House that I am informed that neither in Wales, nor in any part of the United Kingdom, are we seeking to acquire lands which were not held by the Services during the war. I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured on that point. If I may further reply to the noble Lord's strictures on the War Office during the last one hundred years, I would point out that I have not been that time at the War Office, and my noble friends have not been that time in any way responsible for the government of this country. Therefore, I think that those strictures on the War Office should be directed perhaps rather to the extremely doughty champion of the War Office in the past, the noble Lord, Lord Altrinoharm, whom we see to-day on the Opposition Front Bench. I can only say that I have not yet discovered a "Blimp" in the War Office, and have no reason to suppose that I ever shall.
LORD HARLECH: May I point out that the "Blimps" are not in the War Office. They are the chaps responsible for those awful buildings. They have never seen the War Office in their lives. They are some Army contractors away in the provinces who build so horribly.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: Since the noble Lord has referred to me, I must say that I have frequently expressed the same opinion as Lord Harlech about War Office buildings.
LORD PAKENHAM: Well, we shall always listen to guidance on aesthetic matters from both the noble Lords who have spoken. I can assure noble Lords that, in my recent experience, in discussing this matter with soldiers at the present time, no one resents more than the ordinary Army officer the suggestion that he is a vandal. I say that deliberately from this House. A good deal of resentment has been caused, and in my opinion, rightly caused, among regular Army officers, who in a great many cases were

311
brought up in the country, at the suggestion that they are blind to the beauties of the countryside. I think it is only right to make that statement.
LORD HARLECH: Hear! Hear! They are not the chaps.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I turn to the extremely thoughtful speech of the noble Viscount who initiated the discussion? There are a number of general questions which it seemed to me ran through his mind and through the minds of other noble Lords. If I may, I will deal with them in the main body of my remarks. I should like to reassure the noble Viscount on one most important point, and I am sure he will regard this as very comforting and heartening. There is no intention at the present time of allowing these important decisions of principle and detail to be taken finally by the military authorities acting alone. They will be taken by Ministers in their corporate capacity, after what seems to us to be the most careful inquiry possible.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Is it the intention that the decisions should be referred to Parliament, or that they should be taken by Ministers without reference to Parliament?
LORD PAKENHAM: That would be a matter for the Ministers, but of course the Ministers' decisions would always be subject to Parliament, as is habitual under the Constitution. But they would be taken on the authority of Ministers after the most careful and expert inquiry open to us.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Will they be presented to Parliament?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid I cannot give a guarantee as to the precise form in which they will be presented to Parliament, but I should be immensely surprised if decisions of this character taken by Ministers were not debated very soon by both Houses.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is rather an important point whether Parliament is to know anything about it before or only after the decisions have been taken. If a decision had been taken and Parliament was then informed it would be very nice to know about it, but it would not really be constitutional.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: When the noble Lord says that the Ministers would present their proposals to Parliament, does he mean that they would not proceed under the Act of 1842 but only under the more recent Act of 1945?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am coming to the Act of 1842. When I was indicating the precise way in which Ministers would act I was relying rather on my general knowledge of the Constitution. What I can assure noble Lords is that decisions will be taken by Ministers on expert advice, and it will be for Parliament to insist on getting the discussion it requires.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain if this committee of Ministers will be a permanent committee, or is it going to decide only questions which are now being put by noble Lords in regard to the areas to be immediately acquired?
LORD PAKENHAM: Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to proceed a little further, because I think I can enlighten them about our attitude more easily that way. The question of a public inquiry has been raised. I am not in a position to-day to announce a final decision of the Government on that matter, but everything that has been said to-day will be most carefully studied by the Government and no doubt a decision will be forthcoming before long. I would like to suggest to noble Lords that the problem is by no means easy. It is not desirable, as I am sure noble Lords will recognize, and hardly practicable, that you should have a public inquiry in every one of the thousand cases where the War Office are seeking to acquire some land or other.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Why not?
LORD PAKENHAM: We are being pressed by noble Lords to-day, and we were pressed on the last occasion, for speed. We are told that it is essential to arrive at a decision before too long. A thousand public inquiries, if they were felt to be necessary, would hold us up indefinitely. I doubt if many noble Lords would seriously suggest that the full machinery of what is called a, public inquiry would be necessary in every single case. As regards the major and what we might call the controversial areas, the areas which appear to interest your Lordships most keenly, the matter is under

313
urgent consideration at the highest level, and while, of course, the interests of security must be preserved, because you could not in every case allow the full Service requirements and the full arguments for the Service position to be stated in public, the Government undoubtedly are far from unsympathetic to the kind of viewpoint which has been expressed by noble Lords to-day. Perhaps I might respectfully suggest to noble Lords that it is more useful to have had this debate to-day before a final decision of the Government on this particular point of a public inquiry is reached. Noble Lords might otherwise have told me that they were faced with a fait accompli. I can assure them that everything that has been said will be studied with particular care while the whole matter is in its transitional stage. I would like to repeat, as some noble Lords may not have heard what I said, that the more elaborate the machinery the longer the whole business takes. One has to balance in this matter, against civilian needs, not only security but also the arguments for elaboration and the fullest kind of hearing, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the arguments for getting a decision before too long a time has elapsed.
May I now try to present a reply to the critics in this form, because I personally have no apology whatever to make for the attitude taken by the Services. I say that, knowing that it might appeal to your Lordships more if I stood here in a white sheet, but quite frankly I believe it would be cowardly of me, knowing what I do, to come here and give the impression that I thought on the whole the House was right in its attitude and the War Office was wrong. I do not think any such thing, and I should be a coward if I stood before your Lordships and tried to put the blame on my military advisers. It seems to me that there are five grounds on which the War Office is being criticized so widely in this House and outside. First of all, it is said that we do not know what we want. I am speaking primarily for the War Office, because the War Office has been mainly under fire this afternoon, but my remarks apply mutatis mutandis to the other Services. We know exactly what we want. We submitted some months ago a detailed schedule of our requirements of land for training purposes, showing the 225 training areas required. If noble Lords ask why we have not
314
reached a decision, the answer is plain from what I said earlier. The questions of principle and detail raised by these requirements are being intensively studied by the Government both at Ministerial and at official levels. While I am not casting the blame on some other Department, I am making it plain that the reason why it has taken some time is because the matter is not being studied merely departmentally, as the noble Viscount feared, but is being studied in the most complete way open to the Government.
The second criticism is that the total of our requirements is too large. I wonder if any noble Lord believes that the total of our requirements is much too large at the present time. Noble Lords may say that they have not got full information, and that it is very difficult to say. That, I am afraid, is true. When the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked why the full Service requirements could not be placed before Parliament at the present time he was raising a most pertinent point. The answer is simply this, and the noble Viscount with his great practical knowledge of the working of the Constitution will appreciate it: These requirements have not been accepted by the Government, and it would be a most unusual thing to have an arrangement under which the requirements of three Departments were placed before Parliament before they had been accepted by the Government as a whole. That is the constitutional hitch, and it is obviously rather a serious one.
Does any noble Lord really believe that we can manage with places in this country, for training areas, of the same order and magnitude as we possessed before the war? I do not suppose there is one noble Lord here who would care to stand up in his place and say that the problem could be settled in that way. I need not tell noble Lords, some of whom saw this much more closely than I did, that thousands of lives are now admitted to have been lost because our training before the war was so unrealistic. It would amount to treachery on the part of the Government if, knowing what they do and with all that advice before them, they took the easy course at the present time and, in deference to public sentiment, in many cases misinformed, allowed the impression to get about that we could somehow scramble through with

315
training areas on the same scale. We require battle training involving the use of live ammunition and we need areas where all arms of all three Services can co-operate. I think everyone will agree that the pre-war mistake, of failure to get off the roads, must never be repeated. The noble Lord, Lord Croft, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, and other noble Lords who were responsible in the past for the administration of the War Office will, I am sure, be among the first to accept that point.
These changes do involve a considerably larger area for training than we possessed before the war. That should go out to the country as a whole because it is not a fact which the country as a whole has yet accepted, and until the country has accepted it—as I think most noble Lords accept it in their hearts now—we cannot really begin to discuss this matter seriously in an enlightened atmosphere. I am quite ready to believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, appreciates the points I have just been making. He comes forward with the suggestion that much more training should be conducted abroad than we intend to conduct at present. Of course, as noble Lords are aware, a proportion of the Army will remain abroad and train abroad, but it is at present intended that eventually a considerable part of the Army will train here, and it is on that assumption that these requirements have been drawn up.
I know that to many noble Lords this is the crux of the matter; they wish to be satisfied on this point more than on any other. I have taken every means open to me to study it and to obtain the best possible advice. I would like to offer respectfully to your Lordships, some of whom are far more expert on these matters than I am, the conclusions which are not just conclusions that I have swallowed intact without understanding them, but which I am convinced represent the gist of the matter. It is suggested as a possibility—and it is certainly one that should be considered—that we should train a much larger proportion of the Army abroad. The first suggestion is that we should train or continue to train in Germany. That, on the face of it, is in all ways a very sensible suggestion as far as the immediate future is concerned. But we must look to the time when the Army returns from Germany, and when that
316
time arrives we should be in a far worse position and we should have wasted far more time and money if we had surrendered these lands than if we had retained them. I do not suppose that any noble Lord will seriously suggest that these areas should be handed back and restored to civilian use and that then, a few years hence when the Army returns from Germany, we should try to get them back from civilian use and turn them over to the military again. Obviously that would be a farcical way of proceeding. If we are going to need these areas when the Army comes back from Germany, we had better plan against that eventuality now.
It may be said that, taking the long view, even after a few years have passed we should still continue to train abroad. There are certain forms of training, however, which clearly cannot be conducted abroad. No one will suggest that the Territorial Army should be trained abroad. Exactly how much training they will do in a year has not been published yet, but we all know that it will be a very short period and that it would be inconceivable that they should be sent abroad for their annual training. No one, I think, suggests either that the Army Schools and connected establishments, in many cases involving research, should be transferred abroad. They are the very nerve centre of the Army and it would be hopeless in the event of an emergency to find that all our Army schools and research establishments were abroad.
I think the problem reduces itself very early in the day to the question of whether or not you could send abroad, on the one hand, recruits and, on the other hand, the Regular Army. I am sure the House will forgive me for going into a certain amount of detail, but it does seem to me that the crux of the matter is this question of whether or not training could be conducted abroad. I hope I carry the House with me in saying that a very much larger area than before the war will be needed for training somewhere. The recruit will first of all do his primary training, which will take him about six weeks. It is quite clear that during that period he cannot be sent abroad. After that, he will have four months further training. If he were sent abroad, to say nothing of the great expenditure of money, difficulties of transport and many other technical factors, it would take up to a month to do so, if

317
you count the whole period involved. I think very few noble Lords again would seriously believe that we should send troops abroad and bring them back during their period of recruit training.
So we come to the Regular Army itself. There are two ways in which it would be possible to train the Regular Army abroad. We could station the whole Regular Army abroad and keep it there the whole time. We would then have to send recruits out every fortnight, which again would involve us in great technical difficulties. But on strategic grounds we are not prepared to accept the responsibility for stationing the Regular Army permanently abroad; we believe it would be most unsound strategically. We are bound, therefore, humanly speaking, to rule that out as a permanent arrangement. There is a second way of doing it—namely, to send the Regular Army abroad for a short period of training each year. The difficulty about that—and it is a very considerable one—is that the Regular Army is responsible for training the Militia as they flow into the ranks of the Regular Forces, and as the Militia only serve with the Regular Army for something less than a year after they have completed their training, what would happen in practice would be that the only serious training the militiaman would get during the whole of his period in the Forces would be in the short period when he was abroad with the Regular Army. That is, in our view, an almost insuperable objection. I am not going to pretend that a short expose of this kind can convince all noble Lords.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but he made a statement which seemed to me to be of very great importance. Did I understand him to tell the House that the whole of the Regular Army, that: is to say the Strategic Reserve of this country, will in future be stationed in this country?
LORD PAKENHAM: I said that we could not accept a position in which the whole of the Regular Army was stationed abroad: I did not go to the other extreme and say it would all have to be here, but I did say that in the long, run a substantial part of it would have to be here.
I hope I have said enough to show noble Lords that this matter has been considered with more than usual care. It has not
318
been approached in any spirit of antagonistic presupposition or prejudice. I hope noble Lords will, therefore, at any rate recognize that the problems are very great. I can only record my own view that they are insuperable. It would not be true to say that the Government have reached an absolutely final decision on this matter, but the difficulties are those I have described and I should be misleading the House if I held out any great hope of any large reduction in the training ground, needed in this country as a result of sending abroad forces which it is now intended to retain here.
Under that same heading—which could perhaps be summed up as the reply to the question "Why cannot the Army go, somewhere else to train?"—one would have to deal with the possibility of going elsewhere in this country. Now noble Lords must believe me when I say that the country has been thoroughly combed. This matter has been under discussion for something like a year, and we have been open to every possible suggestion. Many noble Lords are extremely intimate with different parts of the country, and yet as far as I know few, if any, constructive suggestions have come forward. If noble Lords, with their intimate knowledge of the country, can suggest particular places which are preferable to those which have been selected, the War Office will be only too happy. Apart from the expense involved in moving—and it is a cost which is not negligible—it would be most desirable in every way if we could comply with the wishes of the local population without sacrificing military efficiency. But I am bound to say that the search for this alternative, which has been conducted not only by soldiers and other members of the Services but by the highly expert officials of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, has so far failed to improve substantially on the areas which have been mentioned to your Lordships.
A few weeks ago people said to me: "Why do you not go to Dartmoor? It is a fine place." It might sound to the layman that Dartmoor was a home of criminals, a great bleak expanse where, if I remember rightly, Sherlock Holmes "did his stuff," and it might sound the ideal place. But we are told that we are vandals for going near Dartmoor. No doubt if we go to Colney Hatch the same

319
thing will be said. It is not an easy problem, and I do hope that noble Lords, having let off steam in the most noble and eloquent way, will come to our side and join us in the search—because that is where we need them—and also join us in the process of educating the public.
Now I come to two other questions which I will take together, and I will not detain your Lordships' House very much longer. People say we have been too slow, and at the same time they say we are being too precipitate. The two arguments more or less cancel one another out. They are not absolutely opposed, but it is very close to a contradiction. I do not honestly know which way noble Lords would rather have it, whether they would be glad to be able to approach some of these decisions without all the processes of consultations being gone through, or whether they would wish a great deal of further time to be spent. The question of a public inquiry in certain cases is under consideration. I will not say more about that, but I think it is fair to describe to the House in a little detail the actual machinery which is in force at the moment. The House will recall that as soon as the war came to an end investigations were set on foot within the Service Departments to decide the minimum amount of land required for training purposes. The results of those inquiries were correlated within the Services and sent forward to an Inter-Departmental Committee. This Inter-Departmental Committee, which I think has been touched on to-day but which has not been fully explained to noble Lords, is an Inter-Departmental Committee of officials which is presided over by officials of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. That is the headquarters of the official committee which is studying these matters.
Now this committee on the one hand has the requirements of the Service Departments co-ordinated, as I have explained, and on the other hand it has reports from all the Regional Planning Officers of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning arrived at in consultation with their regional colleagues of the other Departments in order to make sure that all aspects of the case are taken into account. Therefore, on the official side you have an inquiry at the regional level and then, presiding over that, you have
320
the Inter-Departmental Committee which is sitting in London and which receives reports from these inquiries which are taking place on the spot. Now noble Lords may wish to know where the public come in. An opportunity is being given to the local authorities and amenity societies concerned to come forward and state their case to the various bodies which are studying this matter. There will be opportunity of consultation in every case where there are proposals to take over commons or public open spaces, and arrangements for the hearing of views are already being made. The first of the meetings for this purpose is to be held to-morrow to discuss the proposed War Department acquisitions on the Welsh coast, namely, Harlech and Castle Martin. Bodies which have been given the opportunity to send representatives include the Joint Planning Committees and the local authorities concerned with these two areas, the individual local authorities within whose boundaries the areas are situated. There is also the National Farmers' Union. The Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales and the Commons, Footpaths and Open Spaces Preservation Society have also been asked to arrange for a deputation covering the various recreational interests. The first of these meetings is taking place to-morrow.
LORD HARLECH: That is a great convenience, and I thank the noble Lord very much.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am pleased to think that I shall be able to carry the noble Lord with me into the Division Lobby should a Division take place. I should also explain that further meetings are being arranged at the regional level so that local authorities may have every opportunity of consultation.
I was very much impressed by the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, who is such a master of these subjects. What he has to say requires special consideration and I must say I do hope that we shall be able—I will not say to satisfy him on the particular points he raised, but perhaps to convince him that we all want the same thing in this matter. I have tried to show your Lordships that the machinery has been carefully worked out, but that we are still in one respect at a transitional stage. The House should at any rate carry away two impressions

321
to-day: on the one hand that all those who are in the best position to judge are convinced that far more land will have to be devoted to training in this country, if this country is to be properly defended in the future; on the other hand, that the fullest kind of investigation is being conducted, with the final decision where it belongs, on the Ministerial level, the Ministers, of course, in their turn being subject to Parliament. I have not alluded to promises. I agree that I wrote to the noble Viscount in the terms he quoted, but he has brought forward further statements to-day which I shall of course consider with special care because they come from one who speaks on all points of honour with a note of authority.
Now I hope that no one will carry away the idea that we in the Government are blind to the beauties of the countryside or careless of the liberties of the people. There is a tremendous problem before this country, the problem of making sure that not only is the Army trained properly, but that it is equipped properly and gets a fair chance with the public. I implore all of you to bring home to the people of this country, even more than you have been able to do in the past, that there are consequences of this tragic world situation winch confront us to-day,, and that some of those consequences may involve most unpalatable developments which are unavoidable if we are to preserve this country in the future.
6.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, we have all listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, with the greatest possible interest and I think we should all like to congratulate him upon the diplomatic skill he showed in his reply. He was, as always, courteous, and he was, as always, persuasive, and, personally, I genuinely believe he is anxious to do his best for the point of view we have expressed. I cannot pretend that I think his answer was satisfactory, and I do not think he expected me to say I did. I am afraid there was a good deal in what he said which sounded to me like a departmental brief.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount is well aware that any Minister who does not take the trouble to equip himself with the assistance of his advisers
322
is not worthy of a Ministerial positon. If the noble Viscount is suggesting, and I am sure he is not, that I am not thoroughly convinced, myself, of the truth of everything I say, that would be very unlike him.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I of course accept that the noble Lord was convinced. But I repeat that I was not convinced, and I believe there was a great number of noble Lords in the House who were not convinced either. The noble Lord said that criticism on this side of the House was ill-informed. I think, indeed, there may be a measure of truth in that, for we have never been told. Again and again we have had debates on this subject, but the facts have always been held back from us. We have extracted a little more information this time, but there are a great many more facts needed. There is the question of the use of the Act of 1842 and the Act of 1945—a very important point mentioned in practically all the speeches in the debate. We have not had a reply at all about this—not one word. I think there are a great many who would like to know which Act is being applied.
LORD PAKENHAM: I apologize to the noble Viscount and the House. I did not wish to detain the House longer than was necessary. It is quite true that there were many points raised to which I did not reply, although I spoke for some forty minutes. The position is that the 1842 Act is the co-related Act because the part of the 1945 Act to which the noble Lord refers is, according to my information, inapplicable where you are acquiring land for defence purposes; it is only applicable where land is being acquired for economic purposes. The noble Viscount assured us at the beginning that he had had legal advice which suggested a different conclusion and, of course, we shall study it again in the light of any legal opinion, he offers us.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: If it turns out that the noble Lord's view is correct, and I think it is quite possible it is, would the Government consider bringing, in some supplementary legislation to make the 1945 Act the commonly used instrument in cases of Service Departments acquiring land? What worries this House—and the noble Lord will, I am sure, appreciate that it is quite natural—is that under the

323
1842 Act there is no reference to Parliament. It is old legislation, and it was passed at a time when Service Departments took over only very minute areas. Parliament probably was not very much concerned about it. But now that these great areas are being taken over, I should have thought that the machinery of the 1945 Act was far more appropriate. If it is in fact true that the Government, with the best will in the world, cannot use the 1945 Act, can they introduce some legislation to make that possible? I am only asking them to consider it.
LORD PAKENHAM: I shall have much pleasure in laying that before my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Then there is this question of promises. To me, at any rate, and perhaps to other noble Lords, this matter is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, devoted one or two sentences to this question of promises. He said about the Isle of Purbeck that he would take into account anything I said and look into the matter again. I think the case I put was perfectly conclusive and I think the House thought so. Did not the Leader of the House think an undertaking was given to these people?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): I received the impression that the case applied to that particular area, but I have no knowledge of the details. I received the impression that Lord Pakenham said he would go into the case in view of the information. I think that is as far as we are asked to do.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I should be very glad to send a copy of the relevant papers to the noble Lord.
LORD PAKENHAM: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me. I express no opinion because my own apprehension is never quick enough when a statement is read to enable me to grasp the full implication until I have myself read its terms. Anything that convinces the noble Viscount on a point of honour is likely to convince me. I am bound to say that, to the best of my belief, one of the passages read by the noble Viscount
324
consisted of a general form of words used throughout the country, and not one which had any particular or special reference to the Isle of Purbeck.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: That only makes me feel that the undertaking was given for the whole country. On the last occasion we discussed this subject I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who said that every promise was a factor which had to be taken into consideration. To me, and I hope to every member of the House, a promise is much more than that. Even if it is inconvenient to the Government, where the promise is given it should be honoured. Therefore, I say that if it turns out, in regard to the Isle of Purbeck or any other area, that a definite promise has been given, this House should expect the promise to be honoured, even if it means inconvenience to the Government. I want to make that clear, and I am sure it represents the view of other noble Lords on this side of the House.
Then there was a point with regard to the total requirements of the Service Departments. I think that was in answer to a point that I raised. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said they could not be given to Parliament until they had been agreed to by the Government. I think everybody absolutely agrees with that; but when the Government have come to their decision I should think that information might be given to Parliament. After all, we do not want secret information as to the exact purpose for which these areas are going to be used. All we want to know is what areas are going to be taken. That is a matter I hope the Government will also consider. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said, with some satisfaction I thought, that they were not taking any more for the peace period than they had taken during the war. That, I thought, was rather discouraging.
LORD PAKENHAM: I will explain myself. I said they were not taking any places which had not been taken during the war period.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am greatly relieved to hear that. I had been the most perturbed to hear that there were no less than 1,000 cases coming under consideration. But perhaps some are small.

325
Then the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, announced that the decision in future would be by Ministers and not merely by the Services. That is certainly a great improvement. What we have always wanted was a balanced decision, and I think this is a distinct move in the direction of a balanced decision. I still personally feel that when it comes to a final decision about these areas there ought to be some reference to Parliament, either in the form of a negative Resolution or whatever it might be. Here we come again to the issue of the 1842 Act and the 1945 Act. I hope the Government will consider that point, because I think it is very important. These are decisions which affect very large numbers of the common people of this country, and the only protector of the common people is Parliament. Therefore, I think we ought to have a chance of approving or disapproving decisions that vitally concern them.
As to the question of giving training `abroad, that, I know, is a very technical matter and it is probably one which cannot be fully discussed in this House today. But I hope that the Service Departments will not take up what I might call a too rigid or old-fashioned an attitude in regard to this. I remember a good deal about the scheme for air training overseas which was adopted at the beginning of the war. The need was no doubt much greater for intensive training then, of course, but the difficulties of getting trainees to the various parts of the world where they were to be trained was equally very much greater than it is now. I hope that the authorities will bear in mind the possibility of giving men part of their training, possibly the early part of it, in Empire areas overseas.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I break in here with apologies to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. During the war the greatest number of air trainees sent overseas in one year was 20,000. If we took recruits now we should be having, it is anticipated, more than 100,000 coming forward every year for the Army alone.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I appreciate that, but I suggest that it might be possible to train one type of soldier overseas and one type of soldier here. It might be possible, for example, that training for ser-
326
vice with the tanks could be given better in some part of the Empire than here. I do not want to dogmatize on this subject. But so far as the value of overseas training to the young men themselves is concerned, I must say that I think that would be enormous. I have known a number of young men who went overseas under the Empire Air Training Scheme and there can be no question about the benefit which they received. Their point of view was entirely altered and their whole outlook was broadened. As I say, I do hope that the Government will seriously consider the possibility of overseas training.
May I say in conclusion that I was not satisfied by the speech made in reply to my Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I did not expect to be. All of us, however, recognize the very great difficulties with which the Government are faced, and I do feel, at any rate, that by our agitation we have jogged the Government into some activity. We have brought in the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, who were not consulted before—certainly in the case I knew of—and we have got this subject brought up to the highest level. As far as I can make out it has been brought to the notice of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. I beg the noble Lord to take notice of and consider all that has been said here this afternoon and to convey it to his colleagues. It has been said in very good faith and with a real desire to serve the interests of this country.
I would ask, too, that it should be considered with an open mind. It is clear that the Government are giving the matter very serious consideration, and, in the circumstances, I do not think that noble Lords on this side of the House would wish me—and I should not wish myself—to press this Motion to a Division. An announcement has been made of the Government's decision to set up an Inter—Departmental Committee, and we have been given some satisfactory indication; of the kind of bodies which are to be consulted in connexion with that committee, I, therefore do not propose to carry the matter any farther now: but I hope that it will be possible for us to have another debate as soon as the Inter-Departmental Committee has reached its conclusions. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITISH ZONE IN GERMANY.
6.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Viscount Elibank.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider the desirability of placing in the Library in each House of Parliament a sketch plan of the proposed new subdivisions into German States of the British zone of Germany as indicated in the speech of the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons on the 22nd October, 1946, showing simultaneously outlines of the former German States out of which the new subdivisions will be formed.]
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, a map giving this information has been placed in the Library of each House this morning.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing on the Paper in the name of my noble friend.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider the desirability of publishing in the form of a White Paper the correspondence which has taken place with the Government of Denmark regarding the position of the Danish minority in the Schleswig area of the British zone in Germany.]
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, the two most important communications have been published in the Press, and, as the correspondence is not yet concluded, His Majesty's Government see no advantage in the publication of the correspondence as a White Paper.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Borough of Banbury,
Borough of Stamford,
Urban District of Alfreton,
Urban District of Cannock,
Rural District of Ludlow,
Rural District of Sodbury:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (SECOND 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 any further questions of policy and principle other than those which have been accepted already by the House; that the Order is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed 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.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (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 or principle; that the Order is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed 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.
UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1946.
Draft Regulations made by the Minister of National Insurance under Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, and by the Ministry of National Insurance (Unemployment Insurance and Assistance) Order, 1945, laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1946.
Draft Regulations made by the Minister of National Insurance under Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, and by the Ministry of National Insurance (Health Insurance and Pensions) Order, 1945, laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolu-tion,
330
tion,and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

INCUMBENTS (DISCIPLINE) MEASURE, 1946.
Text of the Measure and the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee thereon laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty five minutes past six o'clock.