Sitting of 15 October 1946

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

    Forestry
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that tree seedlings and transplants for large-scale planting are in short supply and whether, in order to encourage owners of private woodlands to dedicate their land under the Forestry Commissioners' Dedication Scheme and to afford the maximum assistance to those who have already done so, he will arrange for plants which are surplus to the requirements of the Forestry Commissioners to be offered, as a first priority, to owners who have dedicated their woodlands.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I am aware of the general shortage of seedlings and transplants for large-scale planting. The Forestry Commissioners recently met representatives of private woodland owners and of the nursery trade and agreed to release to the trade from eight to 10 million plants from Commission stocks. Maximum retail prices were agreed between the owners and the trade and have been published. The Commissioners do not sell plants surplus to requirements other than through the trade. If owners of dedicated land experience difficulty in obtaining plants within this arrangement they should get into touch with the Forestry Commission whose Scottish office is at 25, Drumsheugh Gardens.
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are
    760
    employed by the Forestry Commission in Scotland; and what is the total annual cost and the total annual revenue.
    Mr. Westwood: At 30th September, 1946, the number of people employed by the Forestry Commission in Scotland was 2,933. In the year ended 30th September, 1946, payments covering all the Commission's activities in Scotland amounted to a total of £750,000 and receipts to £160,000.

    Carradale Harbour
    Major McCallumasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the position now in regard to the development of Carradale Harbour, in view of the announcement recently made public that Carradale Pier is to be closed at the end of this month because of its dangerous condition.
    Mr. Westwood: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave on this subject yesterday.
    Major McCallum: While I apologise for not being in my place yesterday when this answer was given, may I ask the Secretary of State today whether he can do anything to speed up the deliberations of the Development Commissioners, to which he referred yesterday, because this project has been in hand for months, if not years? No progress seems to be made in the discussions and deliberations, and we should like to see whether something cannot be done.
    Mr. Westwood: We must await the result of the application made by the county council, but I shall certainly do all that is possible to help speed up a decision on this particular question.

    Employment Schemes
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the continued increase in unemployment in Scotland, any interim schemes of employment are under consideration by his Department.
    Mr. Westwood: Schemes for which my Departments are responsible, such as housing water and drainage and hydro-electricity, are already providing a substantial amount of employment and will provide more as they get fully under way. In addition, the establishment of new industrial estates now being promoted by my right hon. Friend the President of the

    761
    Board of Trade, the creation of new towns, the recently announced scheme for the rehabilitation of land in the development area, and work in connection with forestry schemes will result in the progressive expansion of employment facilities on a substantial scale. Work on all these schemes is being pressed forward as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the schemes mentioned in the last part of his answer will not bear fruit until probably 1948, and the object of the Question is to ask what is being done to assist the unemployed during this interim period which may extend for two years or more?
    Mr. Westwood: I am speeding up the decisions which are required in connection with the allocation of the grants for rural water supplies, and I have pressed the local authorities to give me their priority schemes by the 31st of this month with a view to starting from £15 million to £16 million worth of work in connection with housing and rural water schemes.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the House to understand that the only land in Scotland which falls to be rehabilitated is that in the development area?
    Mr. Westwood: No, Sir.
    Mr. Scollan: Is it not the case that the bulk of this problem lies in the industrial areas, and that the outline scheme which my right hon. Friend has given will be of no help at all?
    Mr. Snadden: Is it not a fact that in connection with hydro-electric schemes a very large proportion of the work is done by German prisoners of war, and would it not be better if Scottish workers were employed there?
    Mr. Stokes: It is cheaper to employ slaves.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider civil aviation in Scotland as a means of helping to cure unemployment?
    Mr. Westwood: That is not a matter which concerns my Department. As the hon. and gallant Member knows full well, it is the concern of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: How many of these unemployed persons are people who have been demobilised and are in process of being absorbed into industry?
    Mr. Westwood: I cannot say without notice.

    Oil Pipeline Construction (Compensation)
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to alleviate the loss sustained by the tenant of Little Rahane and Meikle Rahane farms at Rosneath by the destruction of dykes and fences during the construction of the Finnart and Rosneath oil fuel pipeline in 1943; and if he is aware that the land speculators, who purchased the estate and subsequently sold out, collected the compensation for damage and have refused to pay the tenant the cost of repairs, as a consequence of which food production is being retarded.
    Mr. Westwood: The settlement of claims for compensation for damage arising from the laying of the pipeline referred to is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. The question of payment to the farm tenants of the cost of repairs to the landlord's equipment would appear to be one for settlement between the landlord and tenant in terms of the contract of tenancy, and I am not in a position to answer my hon. Friend's question on this point. The agricultural executive committee for the district have reported that the state of the dykes and fences affected by the work is having no appreciable adverse effect on food production.
    Mr. McKinlay: Do I take it that my right hon. Friend's Department accepts no responsibility for the agricultural development in that area? Is he also aware that the surveyors to Gabriel Wade and English, the speculators concerned, were awarded £77 compensation on the distinct understanding that they would pay for reinstatement work, that my constituent had no replies to his letters, and, in other words, that they have stolen £77 belonging to the tenant? Could I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will not dismiss this matter in a summary manner and that his Department has an interest in the matter?
    Mr. Westwood: My Department certainly has an interest in agricultural development. All I can do in this case will be done if it comes within the ambit of my Department and within my Department's powers.
    Mr. McKinlay: I wish to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Proposed Road, Isle of Lewis
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is reconsidering the application of the county council of Ross and Cromarty for financial assistance towards the cost of constructing the Tolsta-Ness road, Isle of Lewis, in view of its value to land settlement, tourist and transport improvement.
    Mr. Westwood: I have the county council's application under consideration, and I am arranging for a survey to be made of the area which would be opened up by the proposed road with a view to examining afresh the possibilities of development.
    Mr. MacMillan: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his reply will give the greatest satisfaction?

    Landlord and Tenant Act (Extension)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation for the protection of traders in Scotland as is provided in England under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, or by what other means does he propose to achieve this end.
    Mr. Westwood: When the English Act was passed in 1927, the exclusion of Scotland was deliberate—there did not happen to be a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland—but the then Secretary of State undertook to consider its extension to Scotland if any widespread demand was made. There has been no widespread demand. The matter merits and will receive consideration, but there is no immediate prospect of legislation.
    Mr. Willis: May I take it from that answer that when an opportunity occurs, this omission in the law of Scotland will be remedied?
    Mr. Westwood: I have already indicated that the matter is receiving consideration because we think it merits consideration, but I can give no promise with regard to legislation.
    Mr. Janner: When my right hon. Friend is considering this matter will he bear in mind that the Landlord and Tenant Act is not half sufficient to protect those whom it intends to protect, and will he give his colleagues the benefit of his advice in order to make it a really good Measure instead of the Measure that it is at present?
    Mr. Westwood: My hon. Friend can rest assured that so far as possible we always take into account all relevant considerations.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: What is the value in giving the matter consideration if there is no prospect of legislation?
    Mr. Westwood: I was dealing with the immediate prospects. If we find that it is absolutely necessary there might be time, possibly not next year nor the year after, but some time, to introduce legislation.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

    Aberdeenshire
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Swedish houses are under construction and roofed in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire but cannot be completed for lack of fittings; and how many have been completed.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): In Aberdeen, four Swedish timber houses are completed and 92 are under construction. In Aberdeen County, 32 houses are under construction. All of the houses under construction are roofed and components are now available for the houses as and when required.
    Mr. Spence: Can the Minister give an assurance that, within a reasonably short time, these houses in Aberdeenshire will be completed?
    Mr. Buchanan: I am hopeful that almost all of them will be completed this side of the New Year.

    Isle of Lewis
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason for the delay in making available to the applicants in the Isle of Lewis the temporary houses offered in May to the county council of Ross and Cromarty.
    Mr. Buchanan: The delay is due to difficulties experienced by the county council in selecting a suitable site for the houses. The site recently selected has still to be serviced by the council before house erection can commence.
    Mr. MacMillan: Does my hon. Friend mean that the Scottish Office is going to allow the Ross-shire local authority to delay accepting an offer of houses, or is some action to be taken to hustle them along?
    Mr. Buchanan: I had a meeting with this council at the end of May last. They put forward a proposition for Army huts, and I thought I had improved upon it by giving them an offer of temporary houses instead. They accepted that but, according to my information, they have had great difficulty in getting a site. I have arranged that as soon as they can start servicing, this site will be given as high a priority as possible.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is normally very little difficulty in the Isle of Lewis in obtaining a site, and that much of the land is under public ownership, vested in the Stornoway Trust?
    Mr. Buchanan: That may be, but my hon. Friend has no right to expect me to have power to supersede the local authority. That must be done by the electors.

    Stornoway
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why some of the now completed permanent houses in Stornoway are not yet available for occupation; and what steps are being taken to end this delay in view of the urgency of local housing needs.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am informed that all the houses in Stornoway which have been completed are occupied. There are, however, 26 houses which are complete except for a few essential fittings. I have obtained a note of the materials required and every effort is being made to ensure delivery as speedily as possible.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is my hon. Friend aware that these houses cannot be occupied because of the lack of essential fittings for bathrooms, kitchen sinks and so on, which are in ample supply in Ministry of Works stores, and will he take steps to see that this does not happen again?
    Mr. Buchanan: This is the first I have heard of that. If my hon. Friend had communicated to me where these articles were lying in store, I would have taken steps to have them taken out of store and put into the houses. I have done my best to find out what materials are available, and I have taken the most urgent steps to see that they are delivered as speedily as possible.
    Mr. MacMillan: May I be assured that my hon. Friend does not expect me to supersede in their functions the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Works?
    Mr. Buchanan: I do not expect my hon. Friend to supersede the Ministry of Works, but I expect him to inform me if he knows where these articles are, and to that extent help his constituents.
    Mr. MacMillan: How can my hon. Friend charge me by implication with having neglected my constituents in this respect when he has been out of touch with the local councils with respect to these questions for six months?
    Mr. Buchanan: Far from being out of touch, I went up to Dingwall and met the county council on their own home ground. I made an offer to them which was an improvement on any suggestion which had been made hitherto. Since then I have been in constant touch, continually pressing them for a site. I think that those people who elect the local authority ought to give me a much better one with which to work.

    Military Huts
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the huts in military camps are now being included as an addition to the numbers of temporary houses given in the monthly housing returns for Scotland.
    Mr. Buchanan: No, Sir.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Veterinary and Medical Officers (Pay)
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War what reason there is for the discrepancy in the rates of pay as between officers in the R.A.V.C. and officers in the R.A.M.C.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): The responsibilities of officers of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps are not of so wide a character as those of medical officers, and the new scales of pay reflect this difference of responsibilities.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: As the Secretary of State for War has eliminated the difference between rates of pay in respect of Army trades, why does not he do the same thing in respect of Army professions?
    Mr. Bellenger: The answer is not so easy as the supplementary question implies. It is not a matter entirely for the Army.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: The closed shop.
    Mr. Bellenger: It is a matter for all Service Departments, and there is some civilian guidance on this point. I can assure my hon. Friend that our procedure is in accordance with civilian work.
    Mr. York: Would not the War Office give a lead to the Government upon this matter so that in future we may have some steps taken which are very necessary but which are now lacking?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think it wise to give a lead to anybody, if to do so might create an undesirable precedent.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the veterinary's job is much more difficult than that of the R.A.M.C. as he gets far less help from his patients?
    Mr. Bellenger: I, of course, have no practical experience of this matter, and therefore I have to be advised by those who know.

    Walking-Out Uniform
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether, instead of issuing members of the Army stationed in this country with the proposed blue walking-out uniform, he will issue them with civilian suits which will be more in accord with modern ideas.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. The proposed post-war dress has been designed for use on duty, as well as for walking out.

    Officers (Recording and Posting)
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware
    768
    that the organisation for dealing with the recording and posting of officer personnel was found to be inefficient and out-of-date during the last war; and whether he will set up a committee to investigate the many weaknesses and to suggest the necessary improvements.
    Mr. Bellenger: A committee in the War Office is already dealing with this matter. It has furnished its first report, which is now under consideration.
    Major Cecil Poole: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are quite a few branches of his Department which are long overdue for a good clean out; and is not the time ripe to effect this and introduce some sound business methods into the War Office?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think that is going a little beyond the specific point raised in this Question.

    Education
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War if he has a further statement to make on his plans for Army education.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am not yet able to add anything to the statement regarding our educational plans which was made by my predecessor during the Debate on 27th June. The full implementation of the plans for the future will take some time. They will be developed gradually from the present Army Education Scheme, which is being kept in operation as fully as possible. Under it particular attention is at present being given to the educational needs of the young soldiers who now form so large a proportion of the Army.

    Gratuities and Release Pay (Officers)
    Mr. Basil Nieldasked the Secretary of State for War if he will ensure that officers who have held a certain rank for a substantial period and are, without fault on their part, reduced in rank shortly before release shall be paid their gratuity and release leave pay on the basis of their higher rank.
    Mr. Bellenger: The regulations already provide a suitable safeguard. In such cases, an officer's pay during release leave is assessed on the highest rank held during the 12 months immediately preceding release; his gratuity is assessed on the

    769
    highest paid rank held during the war for an aggregate period of six months, assuming this is more favourable than an assessment based on his final substantive or war substantive rank.
    Major Poole: Will the Minister now consider implementing the reforms which he has undertaken for so long, of abolishing the acting rank in the Army and its conversion to temporary rank after being held for a period?
    Mr. Bellenger: Speaking from memory, something like that is at present under consideration, or being put into practice.

    Leave Transport
    Mr. Nieldasked the Secretary of State for War if he will secure a supply of motor omnibuses or other similar transport for the use of troops in B.A.O.R. who are stationed some distance from a town in order that they may be conveyed in reasonable comfort to such town for their time off duty.
    Mr. Bellenger: Transport for this purpose is already provided, where necessary, to the limit of the resources available. Troop carrying vehicles are extensively used. It would not be possible in present circumstances, to supply and maintain additional motor omnibuses.
    Mr. Nield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very considerable hardship is caused to men who have to travel in the back of a three-tonner to their leave places; that they are actually refusing to go on leave for that reason; and can he do something about it?
    Mr. Bellenger: I would be very surprised to hear of soldiers refusing to go on leave merely because they had to travel on hard seats. We can only work within the facilities that are available to us.
    Mr. Nield: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will receive particulars from me and look into them?
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the train from Austria to Calais which brings troops home on leave or release has only hard seats and no lying-down accommodation for the journey lasting two nights; that the meals provided at long intervals, have to be supplemented
    770
    by food of poor quality in a N.A.A.F.I. buffet, for which the troops have to pay, and that these conditions cause dissatisfaction; and if he will arrange for a responsible officer to travel on this train and report.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am aware that the degree of comfort on these trains leaves much to be desired, but the great scarcity of good rolling stock in the liberated countries makes it impossible to provide sleeping cars or upholstered seating at present. Great improvements have already been made since the service was inaugurated. Well prepared meals are provided at the beginning and end of the journey and at three intermediate stops, and haversack rations are served for use on the trains. No complaint has previously been received about the food supplied in the N.A.A.F.I. buffet cars, but I am having this point investigated.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a recent occasion the only food obtainable in one N.A.A.F.I. car was cake—and that was made of sand? Does he realise that the poor and not free food, and the hard lying down accommodation of this train, are a very poor advertisement for the Army?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I was not aware of what the hon. Gentleman has stated; but he will have observed that I have stated that I am having the N.A.A.F.I. buffet car service investigated.
    Flight-Lieut. Crawley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that cattle cars properly equipped are far more comfortable for the troops than third class continental carriages?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should hope that they are much more improved than when I first used them 30 years ago

    Release Deferment, M.E.F.
    Mr. Martin Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that deferments of officers in M.E.F. will not be for longer than three months.
    Mr. Bellenger: An instruction was issued some time ago to all commands forbidding the deferment of any individual for more than three months without prior War Office sanction. This rule is being observed, and no request has so

    771
    far been received from M.E.L.F. for any exception to be made.
    Mr. Pickthorn: When the Secretary of State says "for more than three months" does he mean for more than one period of three months, or does he merely mean not more than three months at a time?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I mean a total deferment of more than three months

    Postwar Credits and Gratuities (Regulars)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War when he intends to make an announcement on the subject of the payment of postwar credits and gratuities to regular soldiers at present serving.
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that considerable time has now passed since the close of hostilities, if he will state when active Servicemen will receive their gratuities, since these payments are required in many cases to resettle the family side of these men's lives.
    Mr. Bellenger: Arrangements for payment have now been made. These are explained in more detail in a statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As the work of payment will necessarily take some time to complete, I hope the Press will help by giving publicity to this statement.
    Following is the statement:
    War gratuities of serving members of the Forces will shortly be released for payment. As previously announced, service in the Forces after 15th August, 1946, does not reckon for war gratuity, and arrangements have now been made to assess the war gratuity earned by all members of the Forces up to that date, with a view to early payment
    The war gratuity will be paid as at present by means of a credit opened in the individual's name in the Post Office Savings Bank and, as despatch of the bank books will be spread over a period of months, it has been decided that the credit will be opened in each case from a common date, 31st October, 1946, and interest will accrue as from that date The work of assessment and issue will take a considerable time; issues of the Savings Bank books are not expected to begin before
    772
    December, 1946, or to be completed be-fore June, 1947; but in cases where the book has not been sent before the date of release or discharge, arrangements will be made for its despatch within 57 days of that date. The work will be carried out under a regular programme as rapidly as possible; special issues out of turn cannot be arranged.
    The special Service post-war credits in respect of service in the ranks after 1st January, 1942 (6d. a day for men and 4d. for women), will be paid at the same time and in the same manner as the war gratuities. Detailed official instructions will be circulated by the Service Departments to each Service.
    I wish to appeal on behalf of the Government to all members of the Forces who receive this money to delay spending it as long as they possibly can. They will best help their country and themselves by leaving it deposited with the Post Office Savings Bank until they need it for setting themselves up in civil life or for other really necessary expenditure.

    Japan
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for War what British troops are now stationed in Japan; what proportion of these are from the Colonies and from the Dominions; and what are the arrangements for leave, both local and home.
    Mr. Bellenger: It is not the practice to make public figures of the strength of our Forces in particular overseas theatres. The British troops in Japan are eligible for the same leave as those in other Far East commands.
    Mr. Teeling: Arising out of the point about eligibility for the same leave, what is being done about it, because they are not actually getting it? They are getting only one in five men on leave to England at the present moment.
    Mr. Bellenger: In relation to leave in the United Kingdom, that proportion which the hon. Member has stated is correct. But if he has any case where the leave is not properly working, and will let me have the particulars, I will look into it.

    Soldier's Death, S.E.A.C.
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now make a full statement on the death of a

    773
    19 years old soldier in the 4th Battalion Border Regiment, 7th Indian Division, S.E.A.C, who died, on or about VJ-Day, 1046, following the disciplinary action of pack drill without recovering consciousness; and whether pack drill has now been abolished in the Indian Army.
    Mr. Bellenger: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a full statement on this case. The court of inquiry proceedings have now been received, but it has been necessary to cable to ALFSEA for certain additional information. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the investigation is completed. I am informed that there is no such punishment as pack drill in the Indian Army.
    Mr. Freeman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now four months since I called attention to this case? Can he give any indication of when we shall have a full report on the matter?
    Mr. Bellenger: I cannot give any precise information, but I have asked for this additional information to be sent to me as speedily as possible.

    Flogging, Burma
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the allegations at court martial proceedings in June last to the effect that the commanding officer in Burma had authorised the imposition of flogging, and other punishments not sanctioned by Parliament.
    Mr. Bellenger: As the House will wish for a full and detailed statement, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the officer charged in this case successfully pleaded condonation by his superior officer, and will he make clear that the will of Parliament must prevail in these matters, and that no officer, however high his rank, is entitled to ignore the Army Act?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I find no fault with the point of view expressed in that supplementary question. The only thing I can say is that war is a very desperate occasion, and that is the only excuse, if such is needed, that I have to offer for a departure from the literal interpretation of King's Regulations.
    Mr. Scollan: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is justifying flogging being introduced by some officers because there is a war on?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I am not; but I ask that my hon Friend should read my reply in detail.
    Mr. Thurtle: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Parliament has always been very jealous of its right to protect the private soldier?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Berry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the excuse he has put forward certainly was not accepted by the Allies vis-à-vis the Germans?
    Following is the statement:
    As the House knows, an officer was recently tried by general court martial for ordering a roan in his unit to be flogged. The accused, at his trial, submitted a plea in bar of trial on the grounds that his action had been condoned by his superiors. Evidence was produced to show that when the late General Wingate formed the Long Penetration Groups he issued detailed instructions relating to the maintenance of discipline during operations. These instructions were drawn up as the general considered that the conditions in which the operations took place were so exceptional that a special code was essential. In particular he laid down that such offences as sleeping whilst a sentry and stealing rations were punishable by flogging. In the recent trial, therefore, the action of the accused officer was held to have been condoned by his superior officers and his plea in bar of trial was allowed.
    I have considered with great care what further action should be taken in this matter. By instituting a system of punishment at variance with the Army Act and King's Regulations, General Wingate undoubtedly exceeded his powers. The House knows, of course, that this gallant and distinguished officer met his death in the midst of the operations he was conducting. It remained for me to consider to what extent his successor should properly be brought to account for acquiescing in a system of punishment which was contrary to law.
    The conditions in which these Long Penetration Groups operated were without parallel in military history. The

    775
    columns were launched on foot through the enemy and operated deep inside the enemy lines. They were maintained entirely by air, their supplies being dropped by parachute. The force commander visited the individual columns by air as opportunity offered and air strips could be made. Otherwise communications were maintained by wireless in a complicated code at specific times of the day.
    It follows that each column operated as a separate entity, was cut off from the outside world and other columns by great distances, and lived dangerously for periods extending over many weeks. Although, in many places, the local population was friendly, the fact remained that these columns had to be careful not to trade upon the good nature of the inhabitants owing to the inevitable reprisals which would be bound to follow should the Japanese be aware of any help being given in any particular area. The campaign, therefore, was waged in indescribable discomfort, in which the force was permanently isolated, and in which the slightest mistake or lack of vigilance would jeopardise the safety of the whole column.
    It is not unnatural that in these circumstances General Wingate should have considered whether the kind of punishments allowed by law would suit or indeed could be applied in the exceptional conditions in which his force was to operate. Each column commander had the power to convene a field general court-martial which could award such punishments as imprisonment, detention, forfeiture of pay and field punishment. He could himself award the punishments of detention, forfeiture of pay and field punishment summarily, subject to the soldier being given the power of election of trial by court-martial. But in so far as these punishments could be applied at all they would have been less exacting than the hardships suffered daily by all members of the columns. The system of summary punishment which was devised was known throughout the force, was generally accepted by the men under command and was inflicted only with the consent of the culprit.
    The House should appreciate that General Wingate's successor was in India when he was called upon to take over command on the general's death When
    776
    he arrived the campaign was in full swing. I think it will be agreed that, although he inherited and became responsible for the orders of his predecessor, he could not reasonably be expected to turn his eyes from his main task which was to harass the Japanese within their lines. Communications were such that in any event it would have been impracticable for detailed orders on discipline to be issued if the campaign was to proceed.
    I have therefore concluded that no useful purpose will be served in pursuing the question of the responsibility of individuals for what took place.

    Training Areas
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to announce the Government's decision on the size and location of United Kingdom military training areas.
    Mr. Bellenger: Not yet, Sir. As previously explained to hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning has set up an inter-Departmental committee to consider the Services' requirements and proposals as a whole, with a view to recommending which areas shall be made available, having full regard to civil as well as Service interests. The committee are giving urgent consideration to the training areas, and decisions will be reached as soon as their recommendations are available.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that consideration has been given to this matter now for something approaching twelve months, and does he realise that the opinion is growing in these country areas that the pledges given at the beginning of the war to these people, that they would not be dispossessed of their homes, have been broken by the Government? Will he consider making a full statement to the House, if only of an interim character, on the whole position?
    Mr. Bellenger: I understand the interest of the House in this matter, and will endeavour to make a statement as soon as possible.
    Brigadier Peto: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that such common lands as are at present under requisition under the Defence Act will be

    777
    derequisitioned at the earliest possible time, and not be used as training areas in future?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am not aware that they are being used as training areas, but the only assurance I can give is that the whole matter is now being very carefully investigated.
    Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, as far as possible, there will not be training areas in areas where we hope there will soon be national parks?
    Mr. Medland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that there will be no further encroachment on the Forest of Dartmoor which is to be made a national park?

    Discharge Purchase
    Dr. Comynsasked the Secretary of State for War when he intends to reintroduce the pre-war custom of allowing a Regular soldier to purchase his discharge, should he wish to break his term of service.
    Mr. Bellenger: I regret that in view of the present requirements of the Army it is not possible without detriment to reintroduce yet the pre-war system under which men were permitted to purchase their discharge.
    Dr. Comyns: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to examine individual cases where real hardship has been shown to have arisen?
    Mr. Bellenger: Not on the basis of enabling a man to get his discharge by providing money.

    Marriage Allowances (Young Soldiers)
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for War if he is prepared to consider an adjustment of the new pay code whereby marriage allowances may be granted to men called up to the Services who are below the age of 21 and are married.
    Mr. Frederick Leeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that marriage allowances are not being paid to wives whose husbands are being called to the Forces while they are less than 21 years of age; and if he will take immediate steps to rectify this position.
    Dr. Comynsasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the hardship which is occasioned, he will amend the regulation which denies a marriage allowance to the wife of a soldier under 21 years of age.
    Mr. Cecil Manningasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that hardship is suffered by wives of married soldiers under 21 years of age who, under the new Code, are not eligible to receive marriage allowances; that cases have arisen of recourse to public assistance and if he will restore the 1939 position by amending the Code.
    Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friends are presumably referring to men called up under war-time arrangements and not to Regular soldiers who enlist voluntarily. Men called up for service, if they are married and under 21 years of age, are eligible to apply for war service grants. Application should be made in the first instance to the commanding officer.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases I have written in to the War Office and the reply I have been given today is exactly the same as I had before? Is he further aware that this is a ridiculous situation? Cupid does not wait for K.Rs. and A.C.Is., and I think he had better adopt the slogan. "Fit for fighting, fit for marriage."
    Mr. Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the grants referred to are made from the Ministry of Pensions and not from the War Office, and that in the interim of many weeks dependants are compelled to get local assistance boards to give them public assistance?
    Mr. Bellenger: In answer to the first part of that question, that is the normal procedure, because the Ministry of Pensions administers war service grants. As to the latter part of the question, that is certainly not my desire, and I will do all I can to see that as soon as they join up they have facilities for getting these grants.
    Major Bramall: Will my right hon. Friend please say what is meant in the White Paper on the subject of Service pay and allowances by "special arrangements being made for soldiers under 21"?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think that was in reference to the point I have just made.
    Captain Chetwynd: Would it not be simpler and more desirable to make a direct payment to these people, rather than have a war service grant on a means test?
    Mr. Bellenger: It would be simpler, but there are various administrative difficulties in the way, and the effect of this procedure is that these men do not in the main lose any pay.

    Trials, B.A.O.R. (Delays)
    Mr. Grimstonasked the Secretary of State for War if any steps are taken in B.A.O.R. to obviate delays in trials, particularly in cases where officers or men otherwise due for release leave are involved.
    Mr. Bellnger: Yes, Sir. Instructions were recently issued to all commands stressing the need to avoid such delays which were contributed to in the case of B.A.O.R. by the lack of adequate defence facilities. This is being remedied.

    Release Pay
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War the rates of pay issued to private soldiers, paid local corporals and paid corporals on demobilisation; what proportion of these rates is considered as ration allowance; and if he is satisfied that the amounts so paid are adequate to cover demobilised men's needs until such time as postal drafts arrive three to four weeks later.
    Mr. Bellenger: The advances are £10 in the case of corporals and £9 in the case of privates, representing about 21 days' pay and ration allowance. The ration allowance portion of this amount is £3 6s. 6d. Postal drafts to cover the remaining period of leave are issued within 21 days of release. The advance is roughly equivalent to the soldier's entitlement for the period up to the issue of the postal drafts, and I am satisfied that there is no ground for modifying the arrangements. A standard rate of advance is necessary to ensure the rapid despatch of the men through the dispersal centre.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the postal drafts arrive on time, because in many cases men are complaining that they are late?
    Mr. Bellenger: In the main, yes, Sir.

    Courts of Inquiry Reports (Publication)
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make available to hon. Members the proceedings of the two courts of inquiry which preceded the recent courts-martial of men of the 13th Parachute Battalion.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. It is not the practice, and would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the proceedings of courts of inquiry, which are privileged documents.
    Mr. Greenwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Government were elected because the people of this country wanted a Government which was not bound by precedents? Is he further aware that there is grave public disquiet about the conditions under which men in the Far East are living, which will not be alleviated by any apparent reluctance to make the facts known to the public?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. The facts have been made known to the public, judging at any rate by the volume of Press interviews given in one particular case. The hon. Member must leave a certain amount to be dealt with by Ministers.
    Major Poole: Can the right hon. Gentleman now state what were the irregularities at the trial?
    Mr. Bellenger: There is another Question on the Order Paper on that subject.
    Mr. Yates: Do I understand from the reply that we are not to have a report of the dreadful and appalling conditions which obtained there, because that is the question which is worrying the people of this country? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that we can have some official report.
    Mr. Bellenger: I have already given the House some information on that matter. The main thing the House and the country want is that these conditions, where they exist, shall be altered, and altered quickly.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least issue a White Paper indicating what were the irregularities?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I am giving an answer to that question later on.

    Shaving Cream
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for a supply of brushless shaving cream to be made available, through N.A.A.F.I. canteens, to British troops serving on the Continent.
    Mr. Bellenger: That is already done, and I understand that no complaints of any shortages have been received.

    Cigarettes
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for War what alteration has been made in the free ration of cigarettes and the supply of duty-free cigarettes from N.A.A.F.I. for B.A.O.R troops; and what is the purpose of the changes.
    Mr. Bellenger: There has been no change in the free ration. The supply of cigarettes through N.A.A.F.I. has been increased temporarily because of the favourable stock position.
    Mr. Hurd: Are any immediate changes contemplated, because there seem to be many rumours going about?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. The supply of cigarettes has been temporarily increased, as I have said.

    Surplus Ammunition (Distribution)
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Secretary of State for War how many tons of redundant ammunition have been destroyed or disposed of each month since January, 1946.
    Mr. Bellenger: I will circulate the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total for the nine months ended 30th September was about 279,000 tons.
    Mr. Shephard: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much still remains to be destroyed?
    Mr. Bellenger: Not without notice.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the information include the areas where ammunition has been removed or destroyed?
    Mr. Bellenger: The statement I am circulating gives the figures only for months. It would entail a good deal of extra work at the War Office to give the figures asked for. Unless the hon. and gallant Member
    782
    particularly wants them, I would rather he left the answer as I have given it.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As my constituency and that of the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) have hundreds of thousands of tons of this ammunition we are particularly interested.
    Mr. Bellenger: I will see what I can do to help.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister arrange that some of the ammunition is shifted to some of the beauty spots in England for a change?
    Following are the figures:

    1946:

    Approximate tonnage.

    January

    …

    …

    …

    24,000

    February

    …

    …

    …

    25,000

    March

    …

    …

    …

    38,000

    April

    …

    …

    …

    38,000

    May

    …

    …

    …

    43,000

    June

    …

    …

    …

    39,000

    July

    …

    …

    …

    32,000

    August

    …

    …

    …

    21,000

    September

    …

    …

    …

    19,000

  PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War whether priority will be given in the repatriation scheme for German prisoners of war in this country to those whose families resided in the Sudetenland and who have now been expelled to Western Germany, so that the expelled women and children may have the help of their breadwinners before the winter.
  Mr. Bellenger: The repatriation scheme allows for a monthly quota of 500 compassionate cases who will be selected by the Control Commission authorities in Germany. The persons to whom my hon. Friend refers should, therefore, apply to the local Military Government official for registration as compassionate cases.
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend what steps he is taking to make this known to the persons concerned; whether he is aware that literally tens of thousands of people have been turned out of their homeland under the iniquities of Potsdam without anybody looking after them; and that they are now milling about in the British zone without their breadwinners? Cannot he do something about it?
  Mr. Bellenger: I am prepared to help in whatever way I can. I should think this would be a matter primarily for my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  Mr. Stokes: I will try him then.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: Is the Minister aware that the Government of Czechoslovakia itself takes every precaution to prevent families being separated in this way; and that even communities are kept together, and S.S. men have their sentences remitted in order to be allowed to join their families?
  Mr. Stokes: Further to that supplementary question, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that until very recently quite the contrary was the case; that men are being kept back and employed in slave camps under slave conditions?

  ARMED FORCES

    Pyjamas and Handkerchiefs
    Mr. Basil Nieldasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now sanction an ordnance issue of pyjamas and handkerchiefs to other ranks serving in B.A.O.R.
    Mr. Bellenger: The question of issuing pyjamas and handkerchiefs to men of the three Services is at present being considered by the Service Departments and Board of Trade. I am unable to deal with B.A.O.R. as a special case in advance of the general decision.
    Mr. Nield: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is not such an issue in the Far East; and does he hold out any hope for the Rhine Army?
    Mr. Bellenger: Only as part of the general conclusions which are arrived at.

    Combined Services Entertainment
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made for the entertainment of British troops to take the place of E.N.S.A. in India, the East Indies, Ceylon, Burma and Japan; and whether, in view of the distance from home and the small amount of military work to be done, he will insist that good professional talent is sent out to them from home and that their entertainment is not left in the hands, of local talent collected amongst the troops themselves.
    Mr. Bellenger: The Combined Services Entertainment Organization has been set up by the Army and R.A.F. to provide some "live" entertainment in place of that provided by E.N.S.A. Some 70 professional artistes have already been sent to A.L.F.S.E.A., who are responsible for the East Indies, Ceylon and Burma, but it will be understood that time and cost will limit numbers to be sent from the United Kingdom. British troops in India and Japan are administered by the Government of India and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Australia respectively. I understand that both these authorities are including "live" entertainment amongst the amenities which they are providing.
    Mr. Bossom: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by ", live" entertainment? Were not the people who went round with E.N.S.A. alive?

    Courts Martial Appeals (Committee of Inquiry)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he will take immediate steps to confer by Statute a right of appeal, in the ordinary sense of that term, to a higher court from the decision of a court martial of first instance and from the award and order of a military and naval officer involving punishment;
    (2) if he, in conjunction with other appropriate authorities, will take steps to inquire into the advisability of amending the Army Act, the Acts relating to the reserve and auxiliary forces and other relevant law, so as to make them more consonant with the needs and conditions of the present time.
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the question of setting up military appeal courts on similar lines to the Court of Criminal Appeal, to which soldiers sentenced at a court martial may, if they desire, make an appeal against their sentences.
    Mr. Jannerasked the secretary of State for War whether, in view of the position disclosed by the imposition of heavy sentences upon soldiers who were wrongly convicted, he will immediately promote legislation enabling every person serving in His Majesty's forces who is convicted of an offence by a service tribunal to appeal against the conviction

    785
    and/or penalty imposed to a court constituted of at least one civilian judge; and to provide that pending the hearing of the appeal the accused shall be entitled to apply to the High Court to be treed from detention if he is detained.
    Dr. Santo Jegerasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Armed Forces have altered much in character since 1881, he will consider altering the regulations covering the penal code in the Army, as set out in the Army Act of 1881 and its subsequent amendments, and in the notes thereto in the Manual of Military Law, in order to prevent a repetition of the recent paratrooper incident.
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will institute a review of the whole system of trial by courts martial; and an inquiry into the organisation, methods and efficiency in the Judge Advocate-General's Department.
    Mr. Bellenger: The suggestion that under the military code there should be a right of appeal to a court of appeal in the ordinarily understood sense of that term is not new. Two important committees, whose reports were laid before this House, have already considered the question. The first was the Committee presided over by the late Mr. Justice Darling, which sat in 1919, and deliberated in the light of the experience of the Great War (Cmd. 428). The second was the Committee presided over by Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C. (now Mr. Justice Oliver) which reported in 1938 (Cmd. 6200). Both these committees reported against setting up service appeal courts, and gave weighty reasons for their views, which are fully set out in their reports. I will not attempt to recapitulate those reasons here, but would point out that the Darling Committee considered that the existing system of automatic review of court-martial proceedings by the Judge Advocate-General, and further review on petition, furnishes a soldier convicted by court-martial with fuller safeguards against error at the trial than are available to a civilian convicted in a civil court.
    However, as my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for War indicated in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang) on 4th December
    786
    last, it was always contemplated that an investigation should be undertaken in the light of recent war experience, and he suggested that it would be desirable to appoint a committee for this purpose a little later on, when the Judge Advocate-General and other staffs intimately concerned were less heavily pressed with current business. I agree with that view, and after consulting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, I now propose that a committee of similar standing to the Darling and Oliver Committees should be set up forthwith for this purpose. The exact composition and terms of reference of the committee will need consideration and I will make an announcement as soon as I can.
    Questions relating to the administration of justice under naval law would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In setting up that committee, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Acts referred to in Question 36 were passed at a time when the Army consisted of volunteer soldiers, and are quite unsuitable for the Army of today, which consists very largely of conscripted soldiers who cannot be said to have accepted the conditions laid down by those Acts?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think that question is one which the committee would more properly consider.
    Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer that portion of the Question set down by myself relating to the right of a soldier who has appealed against a conviction to apply to the court to enable him to be freed from detention, if he is detained, and will that be considered by the committee at the same time?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, I should think that that would be one of the matters to come under review by the committee.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the terms of reference of this committee will be sufficiently wide to enable them to consider the question of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of indictable offences, to take into account the question of men being kept under arrest for long periods before and after their court martial, and also the

    787
    question of whether some other form of trial than a court martial might not be more speedy and effective?
    Mr. Bellenger: While not giving any specific undertaking, I would desire to make the terms of reference as wide as possible.
    Mr. Walkden: In setting up this committee, will the right hon. Gentleman give heed to the urgent need to include men of the lower ranks, who may have had difficulty with or perhaps been victims of a court martial, and who have had difficulties in having their cases re-examined? There are men of ability who could probably serve very well, as compared with major-generals.
    Mr. Bellenger: Naturally I should desire to get the best possible committee of inquiry that I could.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's answer he has referred to two committees set up to consider appeals from courts martial. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both these committees made many recommendations that would have been most helpful both to courts martial and to prisoners, and that not one of these recommendations has been carried out by the War Office? When any committee is set up in the future will he see that such recommendations as it may put forward receive the attention of the War Office?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I think I can give the assurance asked for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the latter part of his question. We had better let the committee investigate and report, and then this House will be able to take suitable steps to see that I implement the document.

  GERMANY

    British Families (Accommodation)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied with the arrangements made for the accommodation of soldier's families going to Germany.
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. If the Question refers to accommodation in Germany, no soldier's family is sent to Germany until a certificate is received from B.A.O.R. that suitable accommodation is
    788
    available. As regards the type of accommodation, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on 9th October by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). I am sending him a copy of that reply.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely satisfied that this accommodation actually does exist, because there is a very widespread feeling that that is not the case, and that families going there do not know what the conditions are?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have given personal consideration to these matters, and have visited B.A.O.R. to see for myself the conditions awaiting families before the scheme was put into force.
    Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the main question last week was not so much concerned with that aspect of the position as with the finding of the accommodation, and with the position of the German families who would have to be moved in order to find accommodation? I think that the feeling of the House was somewhat more concerned with alternative accommodation for them not being available. It is on that subject that we want to be assured.
    Mr. Bellenger: I think that my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave a fairly complete answer to those points last week.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Cost of Living
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost of living in Germany for soldiers' families in relation to that existing in home stations.
    Mr. Bellenger: I have no information to suggest that there is any marked disparity in the cost of living for soldiers' families in Germany as compared with home stations.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman go into this question very carefully, because soldiers' families are going lightheartedly to Germany as

    789
    though it were a paradise, and I am afraid there may be a good deal coming to them which they do not expect?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know what reason the hon. and gallant Gentleman has for saying that. We have set up an information bureau in London to help the families that are going overseas, and I have not had information on that score.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What is the use of a bureau in London for families going from Scotland?
    Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a look at the N.A.A.F.I. prices and compare the prices existing in Austria and Germany with prices at home?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have already done so.

    Resident British Minister
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a resident British Minister in Germany with Cabinet rank.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No. Sir.
    Mr. Boothby: Will not the Prime Minister agree that the administration of the British zone is one of the most important and difficult tasks which has ever confronted this country? If it was found necessary during the war to appoint a resident Minister in Cairo, surely it is ten times more important and necessary to appoint a resident Minister in Germany to take day-to-day decisions on the spot?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that the conditions are entirely different. I think that there was a case for the appointment of resident Ministers in war conditions for certain overseas posts. As a rule, I think that Ministers should be in this country and should be present to answer to Parliament for their administration. I do not believe in this entire detachment of Ministers.
    Mr. Scollan: Will the Prime Minister consider the implications of this Question and apply it to Scotland?
    Mr. Stokes: Without wishing to press the Prime Minister unduly, may I ask if he really considers that the atmosphere of Norfolk House is suitable in which to judge day-to-day decisions in Germany?
    790
    Is he aware that a considerable number of responsible people, conducting administration in Germany, are of the opinion that their problems would be greatly eased it they had a resident Minister in the country?
    The Prime Minister: That seems to be repeating the same point.
    Mr. Boothby: I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Edelman rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Notice having been given, no further supplementary questions can be asked.

    Electrical Poles (Export)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the first deliveries of poles for electrical transmission lines are expected from Germany, and what the estimated monthly output will be.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The first shipment of wooden poles suitable for carrying telegraph or electrical transmission lines was made on 23rd September. It is estimated that shipments during October will amount to 2,000 poles, and that the rate of delivery will rise to 8,000 per month by April, 1947

  POLISH ARMED FORCES (DISTRIBUTION)
  Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War how many Polish soldiers of all ranks are now stationed in Scotland and England and Wales, respectively; and what further numbers may be expected
  Mr. Bellenger: At present there are about 36,000 Polish troops in Scotland, 64,000 in England and 8,000 in Wales; 52,000 more are due to arrive in the United Kingdom and will be accommodated in England and Wales.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While, naturally, we wish to help these men as much as we possibly can, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the proportion, on the basis of the population strength, between England and Wales and Scotland will be a fair one?
  Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I understand the point fully, and we are endeavouring to meet it.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that about 16,000 of these troops who are stationed in Scotland are acknowledged by the War Office, in reply to a letter by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Gandar Dower), to have been members of the German Forces during the war, and to have fought against us, while others were members of the Todt Organisation? Will he see that something is done to make sure that men of that type are not stationed in Scotland?
  Mr. Bellenger: I am not fully apprised of the point made by my hon. Friend, but I will see we spread these troops as fairly as possible.
  Mr. Oliver Poole: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the maximum notice possible to the local authorities in the particular areas to which these men are sent before sending them, so that arrangements can be made for their reception?
  Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.

  ROCKET TESTS (AUSTRALIA)
  Mr. Dumpletonasked the Prime Minister whether instructions will be given to the British Military Mission in Australia, in regard to proposed rocket-firing tests, that such tests must not in any way interfere with the Central Aboriginal Reserve and its inhabitants.
  The Prime Minister: Any decision in this matter would be one for the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. I understand that the Australian Minister for the Interior has stated that he will personally watch the interests of the aborigines in relation to this question.

  MIDDLE EAST (GENERAL HEADQUARTERS)
  Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the removal of British military headquarters from Cairo, he will state whether active consideration is now being given to the desirability of establishing such headquarters in Kenya.
  The Prime Minister: The question of the location of General Headquarters, Middle East, after its withdrawal from Cairo is under examination at the present time. Kenya is among the possible locations which are being considered.

  PALESTINE (ANGLO-AMERICAN CORRESPONDENCE)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to publish the correspondence between himself and President Truman on the situation in Palestine.
  The Prime Minister: I have no such intention.
  Mr. Gammans: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the question of Palestine is doing more than anything else to poison Anglo-American relations at the present time? Does he not consider that the House is entitled to know what representations have been made by him to the American Government on this subject?
  The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to accept either of the statements of the hon. Member. It is clearly a question for consideration whether or not correspondence between myself and the President of the United States should be published. As far as I am aware, there is no precedent for it.
  Major Poole: Does not the Prime Minister agree that if there is any poison in this matter, it is certainly not being spread in this House?

  DENTAL INVESTIGATION (CHILDREN)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Lord President of the Council if his attention has been called to experiments on 45 children performed by Dr. J. D. King, of the Medical Research Council, over periods of six months and two years, such experiments being calculated in the opinion of medical authorities at the time seriously to injure the teeth of the children; why children from an orphanage were chosen; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The investigation to

  793
  which my hon. Friend refers involved giving a small extra ration of sweets to a number of children whose dental condition was under observation. The children were kept under constant supervision throughout to ensure that they suffered no ill effects from the experiment, which would have been stopped at once if there seemed to be any danger of this. In fact, as had been expected, there were no ill effects, and I gather that the children thoroughly enjoyed the experiment. It was necessary to study children in institutions owing to the need for an adequate number of subjects living under identical conditions on a known diet.
  Mr. Freeman: Is it fair for orphan children to be experimented upon in this way?
  Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is really in danger of losing all the electoral support of the other children in his constituency.

  MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (STAFF)
  Major Vernonasked the Lord President of the Council the numbers of staff employed by the Medical Research Council, and the salaries paid in the categories, administrative, scientific, permanent staff paid weekly and temporary staff paid weekly.
  Mr. H. Morrison: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with permission, to circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the statement:

  STAFF EMPLOYED BY MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.

  Numbers.

  Salaries.

  £

  Administrative Officers

  10

  590–2,750

  Scientific staff, including qualified assistants.

  204

  300–2,500

  Other staff paid monthly

  171

  250–750

  Established staff paid weekly.

  63

  Under 250

  Temporary staff paid weekly (mainly under age 21).

  96

  Under 250

  In addition, there are 15 scientific officers and eight temporary staff paid weekly employed on a part-time basis, with salaries pro rata within the ranges given above.
  Major Vernonasked the Lord President of the Council if the start employed by the Medical Research Council are free to join trade unions and participate union activities, as are civil servants.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

  CIVIL SERVICE MARRIAGE BAR (ABOLITION)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  Mr. JOHN EDWARDS.—To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has yet been reached on the abolition of the marriage bar in the Civil Service.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Might I, Mr Speaker, with the leave of the House, be allowed to give a reply to a Question which I know is of considerable public interest and which was not reached, namely. Question No. 75?
  The answer is: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have decided that the marriage bar in the Home Civil Service shall henceforth be abolished. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement on certain points of detail arising out of this decision.
  Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. Who is the judge of the importance of a Question, Mr. Speaker? I have two Questions on the Order Paper which have not been reached and which, in my opinion, are much more important than the one which has just been answered by the Chancellor.
  Mr. Speaker: We all think that our own Questions are the most important, but the judge in this respect is the Minister concerned, with my permission.
  Sir W. Smithers: With great respect, Sir, why should one Question be answered to the detriment of a hundred others?
  Mr. Speaker: It has been the custom of this House for I do not know how many years. It is one of our rules.
  Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this is restricted to the Home Civil Service and why it is not extended to the Colonial Civil Service as well?
  Mr. Dalton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the statement I am circulating. I think that any question such as that which he has in mind could be more conveniently addressed to the Minister directly concerned.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Will the circulated answer cover the incidental effect of this decision—upon which I think the Government are to be congratulated—upon the marriage bar and superannuation arrangements in the public service?
  Mr. Dalton: Superannuation is a large issue, and I think the hon. Gentleman had better put a separate Question on that point.
  Mr. Walkden: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the decision will include State servants or active school teachers employed by local authorities?
  Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, local authorities are not covered.
  Mr. Walkden: But they are State servants, all the same.
  Following is the statement:
  In future married women will not be ineligible by reason of their marriage for appointment to established posts in the Home Civil Service, and women who already hold such posts will not be required to resign on marriage. Married women who remain in the Service will be required to comply with the normal conditions and practices of their employment, including regular attendance, the working of overtime when necessary and the acceptance of liability to transfer both within the United Kingdom and outside it. Those who, on account of domestic responsibilities or otherwise are unable to comply with these conditions will not be retained in the Service.
  The abolition of the marriage bar will take effect today. It will not give any right of reinstatement to women who have in the past been required to resign from the Civil Service on marriage. Marriage gratuities will be paid, as hitherto, to women who voluntarily resign from established Civil Service posts on marriage. The Government have decided to accept the recommendation of the National Whitley Council Marriage Bar Committee (Cmd. 6886) for improved maternity leave terms.
  In order that married women shall not now be debarred from competing in the main open reconstruction competitions of the Home Civil Service, the Civil Service Commissioners have decided to extend until 1st January, 1947, the last date for applying in certain competitions for which the closing date was fixed at 1st September, 1946. They will publish forthwith a complete list of the competitions affected.
  This statement refers to established posts in the Home Civil Service. The marriage bar will be retained in the Foreign Service. There are a few posts in the Home Service, closely analogous to posts in the Foreign Service, the holding of which involves residence overseas on representational duties. In this very limited field the possibility of retention on marriage will have to be examined on merits in relation to the facts of each individual case.

  MUTINY CHARGES, MALAYA (IRREGULARITIES)
  The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
  Mr. MANNINGHAM-BULLER.—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will now state what were the irregularities which invalidated the trial of 243 soldiers in Malaya, or publish a White Paper setting them out.
  Mr. WYATT.—To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give full particulars of the irregularities which invalidated the proceedings of the court-martial of personnel of the 13th Parachute Battalion.
  Mr. Eden: A little earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for War referred, on more than one occasion, to the reply he was going to make to Question No. 87, in which there is general interest in all parts of the House. Unhappily, Sir, the Question has not been reached, and if the Minister is willing to give the answer now could that be arranged for the convenience of the House?
  Mr. Bellenger: I am perfectly willing to give the answer to Question No. 87, which I will answer with Question No. 97.
  There is nothing irregular in the holding of a joint trial as such, in the

  797
  case of mutiny or any other offence the essence of which is combination between the accused. In a case of mutiny it would generally be convenient for a joint trial to be held, but where the number of accused is very large and where several incidents are involved it must be ensured that injustice does not result from such mass trial. Great care has necessarily to be taken that the trial is so conducted as properly to safeguard the interests of individual accused both as to the manner in which evidence is given and as to the guidance afforded to the court on the extent to which the evidence of one accused may be taken to incriminate or exculpate co-accused.
  It was in the following respects that serious irregularities occurred in the course of the trial in Malaya:
  In the first place, evidence in the majority of cases was allowed to be taken from spokesmen of groups, a method not in accordance with the Rules of Evidence
  Secondly, the Judge Advocate acting at the trial misdirected the court in law as to the bearing of the evidence in its application to each individual case.
  Thirdly, he failed to deal with the case of each accused individually on its own facts.
  In short, the evidence was neither elicited nor applied in such a way as to establish either the guilt of those who were really guilty or the innocence of all those who were really innocent. There was thus no assurance that justice had been done, and in view of the legal opinion I had received that the convictions ought not to be allowed to stand, I felt it my duty to quash the proceedings.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him how many defending officers were employed to defend these 243 men, and whether it was not realised at the outset that any Judge Advocate would have difficulties in dealing with a case in which there were 243 accused? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Judge Advocate-General's Department in London were consulted before this record number of men were put on trial?
  Mr. Bellenger: The answer to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is: One defending officer. The answer to the second part is that I have dealt with the Deputy Judge Advocate-
  798
  General's Department put there realising the necessity for adequate defence—
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: No, my second point was whether, in view of the number of men involved, the Judge Advocate-General's Department in London was fully consulted before the men were put on trial?
  Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I do not think so. The Deputy Judge Advocate-General in India was a very experienced officer in matters of this nature, and it was thought that he was fully able to deal with the situation.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the Department was not consulted before the trial?
  Mr. Bellenger: I should not like to give a specific answer to that question without notice.
  Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, in view of what he said, which must reflect on the Deputy Judge Advocate-General concerned, ought there not, in the interests of justice to him, apart from other considerations, to be an opportunity of judging how serious the irregularities were? Second, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us at what date in his office it was (a) suspected, and (b) known, that there were irregularities so serious as perhaps to involve invalidity?
  Mr. Bellenger: If I may answer the last point first, I think it was when the proceedings of the court martial were received in this country. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have called for a full report on this case.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Can we have an assurance that when a full report of the case is received there will be an opportunity for us to see what the irregularities were?
  Mr. Bellenger: I think I have indicated clearly today what the irregularities were. I am satisfied that the decision I took was the only one I could have taken.
  Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that instructions will be given that no further mass trials should take place without reference to London first?
  Mr. Bellenger: I sincerely hope that there will not be any other occasion for a mass trial.
  Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend answer my question?
  Mr. Bellenger: It is purely a hypothetical question. I should prefer to answer the question as it arises, but I hope it will not arise.
  Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the House that both Question No. 87 and Question No. 97 merely ask what were the irregularities? They do not deal with the conduct of the court martial.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Further to the reply given to—
  Mr. Austin: On a point of Order. If I am not mistaken, Sir, you called my name a moment or two ago.
  Mr. Speaker: And I have just called the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).
  Major Legge-Bourke: Further to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), may I ask the Secretary of State for War why he says that the irregularities were discovered for the first time only on the arrival of the court-martial proceedings in this country when, in the first statement he made to the House on this matter, he said that the proceedings had already arrived, and were being examined?
  Mr. Bellenger: I made a statement then that they had arrived and were being examined.
  Mr. Austin: In the light of the facts which have been revealed, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can take it that as a consequence the Deputy Judge Advocate-General in question will no longer be allowed to preside at further courts-martial?
  Mr. Bellenger: I prefer first to get a full report.
  Major Poole: In view of the concern which may be felt at the fact that there was only one defending officer for all these men, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this was at the request of the men themselves?
  Mr. Bellenger: I was not aware of that, but I must say that I think the defence facilities were inadequate. As a matter of interest, the House ought to know that as soon as I came to the War Office, as Financial Secretary, I started inquiries into the whole question of legal aid in suitable cases. Investigations are now
  800
  proceeding which, I hope, will bear considerable fruit shortly.
  Mr. Pickthorn: This is a matter of great importance. Will the Secretary of State now agree that the last supplementary question asked from below the Gangway put beyond all dispute the necessity of making exactly plain what errors this Deputy Judge Advocate-General made?
  Mr. Bellenger: I think that it is only necessary to explain, as I have done, what the irregularities were which caused these proceedings to be invalidated. I hope that the House will accept that explanation.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say what was the age and what were the experience and qualifications of the particular Deputy Judge Advocate who dealt with the Malaya case; and will he also state what action, in general, is taken to see that duly qualified, experienced, and competent persons are chosen for the very responsible duty of Deputy Judge Advocate?
  Mr. Bellenger: If my hon. and learned Friend wants that information, I think that he had better put a Question on the Order Paper.

  NUREMBERG EXECUTIONS (PHOTOGRAPHS)
  Mr. Eden(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the report that the hanging of those condemned at Nuremberg is to be filmed and whether His Majesty's Government is taking every action which may be in its power to prevent the public exhibition of any such films or photographs.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this report. It is inaccurate. The Allied Control Council, on which His Majesty's Government are represented, decided last week that no cinematograph film or photograph should be taken of the execution. Photographs of the bodies will be taken after death by an official photographer accompanied by a representative of each of the four Powers, for record purposes. This will be the only photograph allowed There has been no decision of the Control Council on the question of publication of these photographs. For my own part I should be strongly opposed to their publication.

  BILL PRESENTED
    ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES) BILL
    "to revoke certain emergency provisions as to licences to drive motor vehicles, and make provision with respect to the grant of such licences to persons who have held such licences under the emergency provision; and to amend the law as to the destination of fees in respect of driving tests," presented by Mr. Barnes; supported by Mr. Westwood, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. George Strauss; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL BILL
Resolution of the House [11th October] relative to the Roosevelt Memorial Bill, and Lords Message [14th October] signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read;
Bill committed to a Select Committee of six Members to be joined with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords: Mr. Eden, Mr. Hicks, Mr. McAllister, Mr. Montague, Mr. Hopkin Morris and Mr. Lyttelton nominated Members of the Committee.
All Petitions against the Bill presented at any time not later than Seven days after the making of this Order to be referred to the Committee.
Petitions against the Bill may be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, provided that such Petitions shall have been prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House relating to Petitions against Private Bills.
Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, to be heard against the Bill, and counsel or agents heard in support of the Bill.
Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the evidence.
Three to be the quorum.—[The Prime Minister.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships, and to request them to appoint an equal number of Lords to join with the Committee appointed by this House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COINAGE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a simple Bill, and one which, I hope, is not controversial. Its purposes are obvious, and, as I hope I shall be able to explain, no grave questions of principle are raised by it. The Bill authorises that in place of the present so-called silver coins—and I will explain later why I say "so-called"—we should, in future, mint and issue coins of the same denomination but made of cupronickel, that is to say of 75 per cent. copper and 25 per cent. nickel, in place of the present alloy of which the so-called silver coins consist, of 50 per cent. silver, 40 per cent. copper, 5 per cent. nickel and 5 per cent. zinc.
  There are two reasons for making this proposal now. In the first place, silver has become more expensive than it was before the war, and, in the view of the Government, it has now become too expensive to be used any longer as a means of currency. The price of silver in 1939 was something below 2s. an ounce, and the price now is more than 4s. 7d. It is 4/7½d. an ounce at the controlled London price, but the supplies are limited, and it is quite possible that the price may rise further, but I base my argument on the figure of 4/7½d. The rise in price is due partly to an increase in the demand for silver during the war, and partly to the permanent increase in the peace-time use of this metal, particularly in photographic and electrical procedures in industry. That is one reason why the price has risen. Another reason is the increased hoarding of silver which is taking place in many parts of the world. In the second place, we have an obligation to repay to the United States a quantity of silver lent by them to us under Lend-Lease during the war. Some 88 million ounces of silver were thus obtained, and this has to be repaid over the next five years, under an agreement entered into some time ago. The Government of India has a similar obligation to make repayment for an even larger amount to the

  803
  United States. We and India cannot possibly buy this silver in the market. It is too ruinously expensive. We must, therefore, economise our existing use of silver, where economy will do least harm—where, I believe, it will do no harm—that is to say, in coinage, rather than to economise in its industrial use, which would be unfortunate.
  The effect of this Bill would be that we should be able to recover about 20 million ounces of fine silver a year for some years to come, through the gradual withdrawal of coins from circulation. It would be a gradual process, spread over a term of years, and it would be our intention to withdraw at, roughly, the rate of 20 million ounces a year. The total saving which would result by replacing the whole of the existing silver coinage by the cupro-nickel coins which we propose to substitute, when the whole operation has been completed, would be in the order of £50 million sterling, and this would be gradually reflected in the Vote of the Royal Mint during the period. The saving of £50 million would be the gross saving, and from this would have to be deducted the amount due to be repaid to the United States under the Lend-Lease agreement, but even after such deduction, there would still be a saving of some £30 million over the period to the public finances. So much for the general reasons for the Bill.
  It may interest the House if I very briefly mention one or two facts of past history. The use of silver as coinage dates back a long way, and the silver coins which we have used in recent times have always been token coins. That is to say, the silver in the coin has always been worth considerably less in terms- of sterling than the nominal value stamped upon the coin, except that in 1920, when Sir Austen Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer, for a short time the price of silver rose so high that it became profitable to melt down the coins in order to obtain and sell the metal, and Sir Austen Chamberlain introduced a new coin. I quote him because I am sure his name will be respected and his conduct command approval on the benches opposite. He was a most respectable Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, his action is a precedent which I can cite today. He felt it was proper and right to dilute the silver coinage, and it was he
  804
  who introduced a new coin consisting of 50 per cent. silver and 50 per cent. copper. The proportions were later altered to the alloy I have just mentioned, which constitutes the present silver coinage; but it was Sir Austen Chamberlain who took the first step along this path.
  The value of the silver in a shilling at the moment, taking the price of 55½d.— 4s. 7½d.—per oz., is 5.22d. It is effectively a token coin now. There has been token coinage in this country since 1816, except for the short period of 1920 which I have mentioned, when the value temporarily rose to equal the nominal value of the coin. Therefore, I think we can feel that what we are proposing today can in no way be described as a debasement of the currency, or in any respect as an act which we should hesitate to take on grounds of national reputation. It is in line with much that has been done before.
  With regard to the new coins, I have arranged for specimens of the new cupro-nickel coins to be placed in the Library, where hon. Members may care to look at them. The cupro-nickel alloy is a bright white metal, looking very much like the present silver coinage at first sight. Indeed, in Eire I am told that a cupro-nickel 6d. is circulating side by side with a silver 6d., and that the inhabitants of Eire, although quickwitted in many matters do not readily distinguish between the two coins as they circulate side by side. They will, of course, circulate side by side in this country, if this Bill is passed, for a number of years to come. The choice of this cupro-nickel alloy is based upon all relevant considerations, as the common phrase goes. The alternatives are all open to certain objections. Tin and zinc and aluminium are all too soft, I am advised, and iron and steel are too hard for use as coinage. The use of pure nickel has been advocated by some people. The Mond Nickel Company, who, of course, will take an entirely detached and scientific view of the matter, have been writing to the newspapers, either on their own account or through subsidiaries and mouthpieces, and they think there is nothing like pure nickel.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the letter in "The Times" of today from the Agent-General for Ontario as coming from a mouthpiece?
  Mr. Dalton: No, I am not referring to him. It is the Mond Nickel Co. who are behind the suggestion that there is nothing like nikel, and why not have 100 per cent. nickel? We have considered whether the coin should be made of pure nickel or of cupro-nickel, and we have formed the view that, without prejudice to further changes in the future, but for the present and as an immediate measure, we should have cupro-nickel rather than pure nickel, because our present machinery at the Mint is adapted to stamp cupro-nickel coins, but would need various modifications and changes to stamp pure nickel, and we are advised that, for all practical purposes, cupro-nickel will do. It is no more easy to counterfeit and forge than the existing silver coins, and we are satisfied that its appearance will be satisfactory. That, however, is without prejudice to further consideration later on, if the powers proposed in the Bill are given, to alternative metal contents for the token coinage.
  Mr. Keeling: Can the Chancellor say whether the cupro-nickel coin's appearance continues satisfactory when it grows old?
  Mr. Dalton: Nobody's appearance continues entirely satisfactory as he grows older, but I think it maintains its appearance as well as most. So much for the general background of the Bill. It is a simple Measure, and I think it would be convenient if I indicated briefly the powers conferred in the various Clauses. Clause I gives the status of legal tender to coins of cupro-nickel on the same basis as the silver coinage has now; that is to say, they are legal tender up to 40s. Clause 2 and the Schedule specify the composition and weight and limits the variation from the standard weight and composition. Clause 3—and I emphasise this point, because it has a bearing upon the argument that pure nickel would be better—gives power to vary in future the composition of nickel coins and to make coins out of metal other than cupro-nickel if the House should hereafter so desire. At the present time, we think cupro-nickel is the best substitute, but if in the future further metallurgical discoveries are made, or it seems on further consideration that some other combination of metals or pure metal would be better, then powers are given to enable that to be done.
  806
  Clause 4 provides for testing standard trial plates of pure metal against which the composition of the new coins would be tested Clause 5 deals with miscellaneous matters which I do not think I need describe in detail. Clause 6 contains a concession to sentimental and historical associations, because it provides that the Maundy money shall continue to be made of silver—silver pennies, twopenny, threepenny and fourpenny pieces distributed on behalf of His Majesty—and that the silver content of the Maundy money shall indeed be increased from 500 to 925-thousandths of pure silver. This is a relatively unimportant thing, but it has historical associations, and I think the House would wish this to be done. Clause 7 provides that the cost of all metal required should be met from issues out of the Consolidated Fund.
  That is the whole of the Bill. I hope the House will look kindly upon it, and that we shall get it with reasonable expedition, because we are anxious not to incur further expense in the purchase of this expensive silver. If we can get the Bill quickly—before the end of this Session—we shall have enough silver in hand and will not need to buy any more. We hope we shall not need to buy any more. If the Bill is delayed, we shall have to make further expensive and unnecessary purchases.
  3.59 p.m
  Mr. Assheton: First, may I say how glad we are to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer back again on this side of the Atlantic? We hope that he has benefited greatly from the contacts he has been able to make over on the other side That, however, is the only happy thing I have to say, because we on this side of the House feel that this is rather a melancholy occasion and I think that the whole House will profoundly regret the passing of our silver coinage, if in fact that is to be. As the Chancellor has told us, silver has been the principal coinage of this country for a very long time, in fact for more than 1,200 years—since, I think, the time of King Offa of Mercia. Twelve hundred years is a very long time and such an association is not something to be lightly cast aside. Of course we recognise that silver has not, for some time, been the standard of our coinage, as the Chancellor has said. In 1816, I think it was, we

  807
  went on to a gold standard, and from that time onwards silver ceased to be the standard, and then the time came when the gold standard went, but the silver standard did not replace it.
  This Bill proposes to do away altogether with the silver in our coins except in the case of the Maundy money to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. It does seem to us that many things in these days are getting nastier and of lower quality, and that nothing seems to get cheaper except money. What is the cause of this rather depressing proposal? The Chancellor has told us, and we are certainly bound to agree, that we have become much poorer, and in the view of His Majesty's Government at least we can no longer indulge in the luxury of a coinage which is at any rate half silver. As the result of the first world war, we lost our gold coinage; as the result of the second world war we are to lose our silver coins too. Someone drew my attention the other day to the fact that the Romans suffered a somewhat similar discomfort; after the first Punic War the value of the as was reduced from 12 ounces of copper to two, and after the second Punic War to one. The Chancellor has told us the main reasons governing his decision. He said that we have borrowed a large quantity of silver from the United States of America and that we have promised to pay that silver back We have undertaken to pay it back within five years, from a date which has not yet, in fact, arrived, but still we have to pay it back and there is no dispute about that. We are not quite sure why the United States wants the silver back; I understand that at the end of last year they had something like 1,720 million ounces of silver tucked away, but that of course is no concern of ours. We have undertaken to give it back and give it back we shall.
  The Chancellor has said that the price of silver is now high That is a fact, and the price in the world market is a good bit higher than the price which the Chancellor named, and is certainly well above 6s. an ounce. That is not, however, as high a price as that which obtained after the last war when Sir Austen Chamberlain made the change to which the Chancellor referred, but it is only right to remember that in Sir Austen Chamberlain's day it had become essential to reduce the amount
  808
  of silver in the coins, because in 1920, when he introduced his Measure, the halt-crown was worth 3s. 4d. No Government could allow that situation to continue, and although the Chancellor bases himself on that precedent, and claims that he is no debaser of the coinage like Henry VIII, I do not think the case he made was quite as cast-iron—or a golden—as he chose to make out.
  As a result of the present proposal a considerable amount of silver is to be acquired over the years. The Chancellor has told the House that this is a sensible thing to do, because we are going to be short of dollars and it would be, in his view—and I daresay the House may agree—rather difficult to justify spending many of our hard-earned dollars in the purchase of silver. We on this side of the House are bound to recognise that there is a good deal in that point of view. We are not, however, altogether happy about the powers given in Clause 3 to vary the coinage because we rather feel that that is something which Parliament should reserve to itself. But perhaps I may come to the question of the actual coinage proposed in a moment or two. I should like, in passing, to say that we do very much approve Clause 6 which once again makes Maundy money what it used to be before 1920—that is to say of real silver of a fineness at any rate of .925, and I feel that the hand of some traditionalist, in the Treasury or the Mint, must have been responsible for such a happy Clause in an otherwise unhappy Bill.
  I do not doubt for one moment that the people of this country would prefer to use the coins to which they have been accustomed. The chink of silver is I think better than the chink of cupro-nickel, although I have not yet tried the latter. The gambler is more tempted to be reckless when he is playing with chips than when he is playing with real money Nevertheless, however much we on this side of the House may dislike the proposal in this Bill, we are not minded to vote against the Second Reading, for the reasons which the Chancellor has given and which I have endorsed. It is obvious to us, however, that it is desirable that the new coins we are to have should be as worthy as possible, and I know the Chancellor agrees about that.
  What are the qualities which are needed in coins? First, I should say they ought

  809
  to be of good appearance and capable of maintaining that appearance. The point raised in an interjection by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) is a very sound one indeed. After the last war, when the silver in coins was reduced to 50 per cent., we had for a certain time a very inferior kind of half-crown. I have one in my pocket now. It was not creditable either to the Mint or to this country, and in the course of time it was altered. We are very anxious to avoid similar mistakes on this occasion. If we cannot wear real silk stockings, let us have the very best lisle thread; let us have an article which is at least serviceable, and will maintain its appearance over a period.
  The things we want in coins then are, first, that they should be of good appearance and that the good appearance should be maintained; secondly, I think they should be difficult to counterfeit, and thirdly, as far as possible, they should be hygienic. There was an interesting letter in "The Times" today to which I thought the Chancellor was about to refer, although evidently he had some other correspondence in mind which I have not seen. The letter in question deals with this very subject of cupro-nickel coins and comes from the Agent General for Ontario. I do not conceal the fact that those in Canada are deeply interested in the future of nickel, but let us look at some of the criticisms which are made and see if they are of importance. The Agent General for Ontario states, for example, that cupro-nickel is
  "drab, dull, and yellowish in appearance, is not stainless, is a soft metal, loses shape, corrodes and pits easily, thereby attracting dirt."
  Those are rather serious criticisms of a coinage, and although the new cupro-nickel coins, the patterns of which the Chancellor has placed in the Library for hon. Members to inspect, look very nice at present, we on this side are anxious to know what they will look like when they have been in our pockets for a few years after, perhaps, being left lying about on a publichouse counter with a lot of beer spilt over them, which may well be the fate of our coins now and then. We want to know whether these coins will stand up to hard wear
  The Agent General for Ontario raised another point; he said that one of the main arguments against cupro-nickel is that the
  810
  coinage is so readily counterfeited. The Chancellor has denied that, but I think it is a matter on which we may press him a little further when we come to the Committee stage. We propose to raise these matters again and to go into them in detail because we feel that it is the duty of hon. Members of this House to see that our coinage is of the very best possible standard. This is in no sense a political matter and I hope, therefore, that the whole House will give its mind and attention to the matter and that hon. Members will do all they can to help the Chancellor in this problem.
  On the question of counterfeiting, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is that cupro-nickel is softer, which makes it easier to deal with. There is one advantage in it being softer, and that is that a higher relief is obtainable, which certainly gives the coinage an added attraction. That seems almost the only point that can be urged against nickel coinage, which in every other respect seems to be desirable. The Chancellor has told us of the practical difficulties. He has told us that the Mint have not the equipment—I suppose that means furnace and rolling equipment—to deal with the job at the present time. We must ask ourselves whether we are right in that case to go ahead with this matter straight away, or whether it would not be wiser to wait and get the equipment, in order to make the very best coins. The Chancellor's answer is that he does not want to go out and buy any more silver, and that if this change is not made here and now, he will be put in the position of having to do so. That matter we shall go into more carefully in the Committee stage. I warn the Chancellor that on this side of the House we shall probably put down Amendments to raise this matter.
  Probably the only way of dealing with the situation immediately would be to buy nickel blanks and use them for the coinage. I think it will be quite possible, although my long-term proposal is that it would be far better if the Mint had the necessary machinery and equipment to make the coins throughout the whole process. The Chancellor may urge that there would still be delays about design and so on, but I do not think they would be very serious. We do not very much like the proposal in Clause 3 that powers to vary our coinage should be exercised by Proclamation. We think that that

  811
  power should not be in the Bill and that the Chancellor should come to the House again if at any time he thinks it desirable to alter the coinage.
  There is one other point I would mention. I appreciate, and I am sure all hon. Members appreciate, that the Bill does not, in itself, involve any alteration in the purchasing value of money. The silver coins we use are already token currency, and not standard currency at all. None the less, these are times in which we must be very careful not to upset confidence. Obviously the Chancellor has that consideration clearly in mind. The confidence of people in the coinage is not so likely to be upset in this country as it would be in an Oriental country, where these problems are regarded perhaps in a rather different light; yet the point about confidence has to be considered. Therefore, it is only right to suggest that, at a time when he is making changes in the coinage, the Chancellor should take very great pains indeed to see that money does not lose its value.
  Many hon. Members on this side of the House, and I dare say on the Government side, have been disturbed by the increasing amount of inflation which has been stimulated recently by the present Government's effort to maintain cheap money through extensive purchases that they have been making in the gilt-edged market. Cheap money is all very well, and is very desirable if it comes from natural causes, but when it comes from the Treasury supporting the market, it must be viewed with some suspicion. The Chancellor ought to be very careful to see that the purchasing power of money is maintained. It is very much easier to produce bank credit than to produce coal. I hope that when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies, he will give us some reassurance on that point. If the new inflationary tendencies are to be checked, various steps have to be taken, into which I will not go now. All I want to say this afternoon is that my hon. Friends will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, but I warn the Chancellor that, when the Bill reaches the Committee stage, which I understand is to be taken on Friday, we shall probably put down Amendments. At any rate, we shall want to go very closely into the manner in which the new coins are to be made.
  4.16 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Smith: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) ever goes into publichouses. I do, and I can assure him that coins of the realm just never lie about on the counter. Indeed, I cannot imagine a more unsafe place for them to lie. I have sometimes admired the ingenuity of publicans in devising apparatus well behind the bar, to accommodate the takings.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London has given us a wonderful exposition of his great genius for emphasising the unimportant, as he so often does in this House. Apart from the obvious matter of Maundy money, to which he referred with emphasis, perhaps the best example of it was when he talked about confidence. He insisted that Parliament must control the coinage, but let us look at the matter. With what is the Bill concerned? It is concerned, certainly, with our money, but only about 2 per cent. of our money assumes metallic form. Coinage is only the small change of business, and I cannot feel that it is very important. The right hon. Gentleman did not say a word about the much wider aspects of the question of our money. I do not propose to go into them now, but I would remind the House that about 20 per cent. of our money is circulated in the form of Bank of England notes over which, until last year, the Government had no control. About 80 per cent. of our money exists in even less tangible form. It exists only as rows of figures in bankers' books. It is created out of nothing and takes the form of bank deposits, which circulate from the account of one person to the account of another, in the form of cheques There is no need to raise the question of confidence in this Debate. We are dealing with coinage, that is, with something which is comparatively unimportant.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in 1920 and he felt impelled, I do not know why, to justify Mr. Austen Chamberlain, as he was then. When Mr. Austen Chamberlain carried through his Coinage Act in 1920 he debased the silver coinage to the tune of 50 per cent. At that time silver was at a very high price, about 82d. an ounce, if I remember rightly. But during that same year, 1920, it fell to 42d.; and

  813
  within two years it was down to 32d. There is not very much in the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whom I also am glad to see safely back from America—has had good technical advice about these cupro-nickel coins. Some of us remember the disastrous results after the Act of 1920, when the coins used to turn brown or green, and some even were known to disintegrate under the impact of everyday use. My right hon. Friend has to face a rather grim possibility. It could happen—I hope it will not—that the circulation of the new cupro-nickel coinage might tarnish not only the linings of our trouser pockets, but also the good name of His Majesty's Government. If that should happen, I have an idea for the Chancellor of the Exchequer which might help him out. Suppose this coinage, which is 2 per cent. of our money, tends to look bad after a few years, and His Majesty's Government begins in consequence to forfeit some of the high esteem in which it is now held, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can quite easily get that esteem back in a very short time. All of us are much more concerned with our bank notes than with small change, and all he has to do is to introduce a nice new design of bank note, restoring the effigy of His Majesty which the Tory Party took off the banknote in 1928. He can also restore to the banknote an engraving of this Palace of Westminster which the Tory Party took off the banknote in 1928. If there is any loss of prestige due to an apparent deterioration of the currency, the Chancellor can get it back in this way.
  Mr. Assheton: The Tory Party have never changed the banknote, as the hon Gentleman knows quite well. They were Treasury notes at that time and not banknotes.
  Mr. Smith: The Tory Party passed the Currency and Banknotes Act of 1928, which suppressed Treasury notes and merged their issue with that of the banknotes. I leave the House to judge between us. I do not think this new currency-is going to be second-rate or unworthy of a great nation. Indeed, I rather welcome anything which tends to destroy the prestige of money. Prestige is something very different from the confidence we want
  814
  people to have in the coinage. Prestige is merely a matter of superstition, unlike confidence which depends on reason. When I first came to work in London before World War I, my weekly wage was five golden sovereigns and a five shilling piece. Money was regarded by most people in those days with something which amounted almost to superstition—[Interruption.] Yes, I was an extremely well paid member of the proletariat. Fleet Street always was comparatively well paid. Money at that epoch was regarded by most people with something like superstition, but we have gone a long way since that time. People are beginning to understand what I want them to understand, that money is not wealth in itself or something which one can hoard in order to keep its value. Money is tickets entitling the holder to consume his share of the goods and services on offer, and I want people to look at it in that way. This Bill helps to remove the illusion that money is something to which we must always bow down.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London said that we are living in an age when things are getting nasty. That is only to a limited extent true. People who are accustomed to privilege will have to face up to some reduction of privilege for a few years, but for most people—the people who sent us on this side here—life, so far from getting nastier, is going to get very much nicer. I have one criticism of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently forgotten to insert any Clause tightening up the penalties against counterfeiters and coiners. After all, coiners are people who take on themselves, without authority, to expand and therefore dilute the circulating medium. It is possible to argue with some cogency that in a serious depression like that in the years 1932 and 1933 forgers, by making more purchasing power available, are performing a public service notwithstanding their purely individualistic and privately enterprising motives. But we have a Labour Government now. My right hon. Friend is sitting on the Front Bench and he is likely to continue sitting there for many years. I believe there will be no more depression for quite a lot of years, and that being so, the anti-social activities of the coiner stand out for what they are, and it is no longer possible to palliate their activities. There is something to be said for tightening up

  815
  the penalties, but if my right hon. Friend does that, as I trust he may, I hope he will make the penalties of universal application and extend them not only to those who as coiners dilute the circulating currency medium, but also to the perfectly respectable people with offices in the City of London who, lending ten times what they have in their tills, swell the circulating currency by creating immense bank deposits. I could never understand why bankers should be honoured for perpetrating the very offence for which heavy penalties are visited on coiners. I hope my right hon. Friend will look into that.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I welcome the opportunity of taking a small part in this Debate. I remember the Coinage Act passed after the first world war and I remember that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was let in for a certain amount of trouble as a result of it. He produced then, not as bad a coin as will probably be produced today, but a really bad coin, and there was a good deal of trouble. I object to this Bill from two points of view. I was not convinced even before the Chancellor's speech that there was any necessity to depart from the basis of silver and since the right hon. Gentleman's speech I am nearer to complete conviction that there is very little reason for leaving silver as a basis of coinage at the present time. I fully realise the difficulties as far as the repayment of silver to the United States is concerned. The proposal is, I understand, that we shall repay to the United States something like 20,000,000 ounces each year for three years—
  Mr. Dalton: For some years to come.
  Mr. Williams: Let us look at it from that point of view. That is a very considerable proportion of the world's production of silver. I am not sure what the world's production of silver is today, but round about 1940 the world production of silver was in the neighbourhood of 210 to 220 million ounces. The main producer is Mexico. Production of silver in the British Empire was something like 37 million ounces. Canada produced 23 million ounces in 1940. The argument for the use of silver is that we are in fact producing a considerable amount of silver within the Empire and that there are
  816
  probably considerable supplies within the Empire. Silver could be produced in this country, though not to a large extent, but when it is possible to produce it in the Empire, is it right, because we have to make this repayment to the United States at the present time, to take away one of the factors which has helped the production of silver in the past by taking the English silver coinage away, and replacing it by some other metal? From the material point of view of producing silver, that is one of the things we ought to weigh against the fact that we have to make this repayment to the American people. After all, anything we can produce ourselves is something to encourage us.
  May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the matter a little clearer to me than he has done? As to this 20 million ounces that we have to hand over in the next few years, is there any immediate demand at the present minute from America to have that silver now? What we shall have to pay in the next few months cannot be very big. I should like a further explanation of whether there is any real pressure at the present time from America that this payment should be made immediately. Might not it be possible, by some Lend-Lease system of silver, to get a transfer of, say Canadian silver to the United States to get over the difficulty?
  It has been pointed out that there has been a considerable rise in the cost of silver and that that is the real reason why the right hon. Gentleman feels obliged to act in this way. Before we consider the other side of it, surely there is some value in having a silver coinage in this country from a purely sentimental point of view? I do not expect that argument to appeal to a dehydrated professor, for instance, but the ordinary person in the street who has a shilling, even if it be worth only 5d. worth of silver, if he hears silver is going up, feels he has something of his own which is of value. I do not believe, any more than the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith), in the worship of money, but the possession of something of real value helps enormously to create a sense of security in the country as a whole. I deprecate that we should choose this particular time to go off silver. I am not in any way depreciating the fact of our debt to America but, from our point of view, I think it

  817
  unfortunate to do this at present. In Clause 6 the Chancellor has made a concession to sentiment with regard to Maundy money; it is true only a very small concession, and it relates only to a very ancient privilege and affects a small number of people. Surely, however, we have the right to put before the House the privilege of the ordinary Briton to hold in his pocket a silver coin which is of some value?
  That is where I stand in the matter of silver. The main object of the Bill—having abolished silver—is to introduce cupro-nickel. I cannot imagine any worse metal of which to make coins, although from the point of view of the good Socialist I cannot imagine any more suitable metal for that purpose. Naturally the Government like it, but let us look at it from some angles, if not all. First, it is very cheap indeed. That, of course, they obviously think an advantage. In other words, the people who hold these coins have something which is only a token, something which is of absolutely no value. That, I can see, would naturally appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It gives nothing in the way of security. Let us look at it from another point of view. By taking away silver and substituting this metal, the Chancellor is really levying a tax which is being borne by every person who holds any silver coin. It is true he is not allowed to do anything with it, but it is something of actual value which he is losing and from that point of view, it is a carefully concealed tax. Then again, I think it is a very great pity, from a purely Imperial point of view, not to use nickel. Nickel has been one of the most valuable exports of Canada for a considerable time. I am not in the least interested in any company, but nickel has been and always will be, of great Imperial value. That is the Canadian point of view.
  Now let me take the home point of view. Is there not in South Wales a nickel factory which could be used for refining nickel at the present time? Can anyone tell me whether that factory is working to its full capacity at present? Is it working to more than 5 or 10 per cent. of its capacity? Might we not, by adopting nickel, which is harder and takes longer to work, do something to help that South Wales factory production? Again, if we could increase the production of nickel in
  818
  this country considerably, it would help to restore what was a valuable trade before the war. I say frankly that a good advertisement in the shape of a first-class nickel coin, is one of the best things to help our export trade, in the manufacture of coins for other countries as we had before the war.
  There is another point with regard to cupro-nickel. It is of comparatively little use in time of war, and I suggest that a reserve of pure nickel coinage is a very valuable war reserve. I believe it was found that in Germany during the last war there was a reserve of coins of practically 95 per cent. nickel. From that point of view it would be valuable, and would naturally appeal to us but obviously would not appeal to the present Government. There are many other ways in which cupro-nickel coins would appeal to the Government, but I would like the Chancellor to tell us before the Debate ends why cupro-nickel was withdrawn from circulation in India. Was it because it got dirty? I have looked at the lovely shining coins in the Library, but how long will they remain in that condition? Would it not be a shame if, in 12 months' time, these bright new coins became filthy and stained? It is almost certain too that this metal is much more liable to carry disease than pure nickel. It is almost certain that it will get very dirty. It would really wring my heart if, after 12 months, all these lovely new coins became to be known as "dirty Daltons," and if the right hon. Gentleman had to withdraw them from circulation. I say that from a friendly point of view. I warn the right hon. Gentleman against this decision, and, if he takes it, I hope he will not blame me later for the consequences.
  There is another angle from which I appeal to the Government. As I understand it, this alloy has been found by experience to be the metal counterfeiters would most wish to have. It is very soft. Is the Chancellor absolutely certain about it? He only said that it was not very good, and I have no doubt he has reams of information on it. Is he certain that a hard nickel coin is easier to counterfeit than a comparatively soft cupro-nickel coin? Those are other reasons why I am against this particular coin. On the other hand, if we have to make a change from silver—which I regard as going backwards almost to prehistoric times—I am in

  819
  favour of nickel. It is the hardest metal and most useful for this purpose. I have no doubt that harder metal can be obtained, but from the practical point of view, and by reason of the fact that it does not wear the pocket to a great extent, it is probably as good as any metal. From the hygienic point of view I think it is far better than cupro-nickel. It is not so likely to pick up stains, dirt and rust. It is clean, and likely to remain in good condition for a fairly long time. That in itself is a value.
  We differ vitally from the Government in another respect. I think that as an Empire product it is far better to encourage the production of nickel than of this alloy. I have no reason to suppose that the Empire production of nickel is not going on fairly well at present. We might do something to help trade and industry and I also think that nickel would be much more satisfactory to prevent forgery.
  I am told that nickel has a further advantage over nearly all other metals in that it is magnetic. By an ordinary magnet one can detect whether a nickel coin is good, or not. That is an advantage worth consideration. Under all these circumstances, although I regret that the Bill has been brought in, and although I hope there will be some Amendments of a substantial nature on the Committee stage and, possibly, on the Report stage, I wish to say nothing which will in any way hurt the position in regard to repayment to America. If that position is as the Chancellor suggested, we have to accept it. But I am sorry that at this tag end of a Session we should be bringing in a Bill abolishing the silver coinage, which has stood for much all over the world, especially in India. I rather wonder why this is not happening in conjunction with India. If there is to be a Second Reading for this Bill, under the circumstances it will not be opposed, although it is a dismal thing at the end of a Session, and I suppose there will have to be an amending Bill in a few years.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Richards: I should like to join in the welcome extended to this Bill by hon. Members on all sides of the House. In doing that, I find myself in the invidious position of agreeing with a
  820
  great deal that has been said by hon. Members opposite. I have considerable sympathy with the view expressed, that it is a pity we are coming to an end of a very interesting chapter in our history, in that we are dispensing for ever with our silver coinage. Silver coinage in this country has had a very long history. Owing to the particularly important position we have always held in financial and commercial circles, our coinage has had a considerable influence on the coinages of other nations.
  I presume this kind of change was bound to come sooner or later. There was a time when we were particularly proud of our gold coinage, and the English gold sovereign was known all over the world. It had a currency which probably no other coin has ever had. But at the beginning of the first world war we found we could not afford to keep our golden coins, and consequently they disappeared altogether. Now has come the turn of silver to disappear also. The explanation, I take it, is twofold, although I did not quite follow the Chancellor in this respect. In the first place, it is too expensive to buy silver and use it as a coin, just as it was in the case of the golden sovereign. The Chancellor said that he does not want to buy any more at the moment, at any rate, and we are very deeply indebted to the United States to whom we have given a definite promise to pay back the silver we borrowed during the dark years of war. The Chancellor thinks, quite rightly, that this is possibly an easy way of recovering a great deal of silver, about £50 million worth, and paying our debt to America by instalments. Silver is expensive to use in coins, and our debt to America is a first concern of the Treasury, and must be. Consequently, we must dispose of our silver coins, and substitute' something else for them.
  The Chancellor has decided in favour of an alloy of copper and nickel. I am sorry he has come to this decision because, judging from the speeches we have heard, and from what little I have read, the un-suitability of nickel is undoubtedly very great. In India, some years ago, this alloy was introduced. There it was found to be very easy to counterfeit the coins. Consequently, those coins had to be withdrawn very shortly afterwards. That is a very serious consideration. We do not want a coin, however beautiful it may

  821
  appear in a glass case in the Library, to be introduced, and then have to withdraw it after a very few years. Another point has been made that it would be a very dirty coin, and in a short time would appear to be quite unworthy of this great country which for centuries has had a first-class silver coinage, and for many years had a first-class gold coinage.
  What probably weighed with the Chancellor was the relative cost of the two. I understand that it will cost the Chancellor something like £2,000,000 a year to get the alloy upon which he has set his mind, but if he had pure nickel, it would cost him another £1,250,000 per year. I do not think that that is a great difference, when all is said and done, in view of the considerable profit which the Treasury will make by calling in the silver coins. I understand that the profit will be in the region of £50 million.
  Mr. Dalton: Thirty million pounds. Might I explain that £50 million is the gross saving due to the withdrawal of the silver coins from circulation? When account is taken of the repayment of silver to the United States that gross saving becomes a net saving of £30 million.
  Mr. Richards: In view of what the Chancellor has said, I do not think that he ought to begrudge another £1,250,000 a year to get a really satisfactory coin. Nickel has considerable merits. It is easily seen and detected, and, as has been pointed out, has certain magnetic qualities which make it still easier to detect. In addition to that, it is particularly hard, it carries an impress for a long time, and it is quite a clean metal. If we are to substitute a very inferior alloy for our present silver coinage, I rather agree with those who have suggested that that is a backward step.
  We may be in serious financial difficulties at the moment. We know our economic position is not what it was 20, 30 or 50 years ago. Yet I think we ought to struggle to produce a coinage—if a change is to be made, and I quite agree with that—of which we can be reasonably proud. Nickel would answer the purpose admirably from that point of view. Stanley Jevons, many years ago, said that possibly the only thing that would survive from our civilisation would be its coins—we have realised, in the course of the last war, that that is quite a possibility—and
  822
  he asked if there was any reason why these coins should not be as artistic and well produced as possible. The Bill that has been introduced by the Chancellor loses an opportunity in not selecting a material that is only a little more expensive than the one he suggests, and which is, on all other counts, far superior to the alternative he suggests Consequently, as I have already said, although I shall certainly not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, I have some feeling about the step which the Chancellor is proposing to take and I think it would be much better if he substituted nickel for the alloy which he has proposed.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: There is unanimity in the House today about the welcome to the Chancellor on his return, and I should like to associate myself with it. There is a great deal of unanimity, too, about the Bill itself. We regret the necessity for it, we regret the passing of silver. I agree with the speeches that have been made on this side of the House, and the speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards). It is one of those Bills which is the measure of our poverty. We have to resort to this in order to discharge our obligations under Lend-Lease to the United States. The simple question is: Which is the better way of doing it? I listened to the Chancellor's speech, in which he said it should be done by the use of cupro-nickel, and I think I am doing him justice in saying that the reason why he objected to nickel was not the question of expense. The hon. Member for Wrexham said that the question of expense was only an additional £1,250,000 a year. No point was made by the Chancellor about that
  The point he made was that the Mint had the necessary plant to deal with cupro-nickel but not with nickel. Very good That is an admission in itself that cupro-nickel is not being chosen on merit, but because of the position at the Mint. The answer to that is we have the facilities in this country, and in South Wales, to deal with it. The plant is there, the labour can be provided, and it would be a great contribution to the unemployment problem in South Wales. Here is an opportunity for the Government to implement its undertakings to South Wales, and an opportunity for the Chancellor to do something to help his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. This is

  823
  a case in which employment could be provided in South Wales, and an adequate coinage secured, although we should not use the machinery of the Mint, because the necessary machinery is not there. Instead of using an admittedly inferior metal, let us use the superior metal and thereby give employment to South Wales. It is not often that I support the arguments of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), but he put forward the best argument that has been put forward for the use of nickel. It will give us a better coinage, and contribute something to the solution of unemployment in South Wales.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. Scollan: I wish to support the Chancellor in bringing forward this Bill. I had intended to deal with the point which was dealt with just now about the machinery in the Mint not being able to mint coins of a different tension. Obviously, unless we can get other machinery for the Mint we require to mint coins of a metal of the same tension as those we are using at present. High tension metal cannot be minted in a machine which is built for the purpose of dealing with medium or low-tension metal. Apart from that, I feel privileged to be here on an occasion which, many years hence, will be regarded as historic—the passing of the silver coinage The first recognised coinage of this country was a silver coinage. Even today, in our most modern coinage, if one looks at a pound note one sees
  "We, the Directors of the Bank of Scotland"—
  or some other bank—
  "promise to pay the Bearer on Demand the sum of One Pound sterling."
  That means one pound avoirdupois weight of silver. It is rather amusing sometimes when one reads in the Press, especially in the contributions of the geniuses who write the City notes, about "sterling," when what is obviously meant is the receipts for sterling.
  We now have a coinage which originates from the date when the first receipt was issued. Incidentally, it may interest the Chancellor, though he may know already, to hear that a Scotsman named William Paterson was responsible. It was he, a goldsmith of the City of London, who founded the Bank of England. When the
  824
  traders of the Continent came to this country to buy wool, which is symbolised in the Woolsack, they brought gold and silver with them. In those days a lot of people—inspired by private enterprise—used to waylay them and relieve them of their responsibility. As a result, they went to a Scot named William Paterson and laid their responsibilities with him. He gave them a receipt which they carried. To this day, we carry receipts in the same way, the only difference being that if we present our receipts, unlike William Paterson who would give us a pound sterling, those responsible could not give us a pound sterling today. From then on, it was discovered by some very astute Englishmen—if the Chancellor will pardon me for this aspersion on the past of his predecessors—that they could issue the receipts without the necessary metal. Then we had inflation—the first inflation.
  I have no doubt but that the cheap type of Tory during the Committee stage will try to get in some kind of skit on the debasement of the currency. I forestall that by reminding them, if they do not know already, that this is only a matter of taking the silver reserve of the country to pay back a debt to the Americans who have not yet learned that real wealth does not lie in useless metal. That great reserve will be sent back, and in the course of time the Americans will learn that they have a great reserve of silver as they had of gold. Then they will have to call the nations together, as they did in the case of gold, to see whether they can find some means of realising the real value of what they buried in the vaults. The Chancellor is not the first who has debased the coinage in our time. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends opposite are laughing. The "caretaker" Government debased the paper coinage. Our paper coinage was issued on the understanding that it would buy gold at 168s. per fine ounce. The "caretaker" Government debased it by raising the figure to 172s. 3d., an increase of 4s. 3d. per fine ounce, to the tune of the 12,000,000 ounces which come out of Africa every year, thus getting 4s. 3d. extra. That is something new to hon. Members. They never thought of that. Their education goes on apace.
  I am concerned at the kind of coinage which we shall have in the future. I think everybody is concerned, including the Chancellor. I wonder whether he

  825
  would be well advised to have another look at this matter and consider again whether we should have a real nickel coin or this cupro-nickel coin. I do not know, but I make bold to say that the finest coining machinery which the world has ever known was made and is worked in this country. I know that specially artistic and very highly skilled people are required to make the necessary dies and machinery. I do not know whether there is a shortage of that kind of labour but, while I am shedding no tears for the passing of the silver which is to be sent to our American friends—who are still in about the same stage of development with regard to knowledge of currency and international trade and commerce as we were about 50 years ago—I am still of the opinion that while the passage of the Bill would not be retarded, the Chancellor might delay putting this into operation until we have the necessary machinery to guarantee to his satisfaction a coinage of a standard that befits a great nation.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. Drayson: I do not consider that the Chancellor has by any means made his case clear. While he has had many welcomes on his return from America, I think the country and the House have got used to Ministers who return from that country usually having given something away while they have been there. On this occasion it would appear that the Chancellor has parted with £20 million worth of silver. At least, we might have expected that he could have made some other arrangement. Recently we had a large dollar loan. Perhaps a little of that could have been given to the Americans in satisfaction of their demands for this metal and we could have retained our present coinage.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it should be made quite clear that this silver amounting to 88,000,000 ounces, to which he has referred, was a loan. We have had the silver and it is now a question of repaying it
  Mr. Drayson: Yes. My suggestion was that we should repay the loan in dollars instead of silver. I regard this clearly as a panic measure. Other hon. Members have described how silver rose to some phenomenal price in the early twenties and how after a year or two it returned
  826
  to normal. Those countries which before the war produced large quantities of silver have been occupied in other pursuits during the last six years and per-haps the silver mining industry has been disrupted. However, it cannot be very long before those concerned who have left their wartime pursuits will return once more to the task of winning silver from the earth.
  Therefore, the high price which exists today will be reduced again to a price which will allow us to retain silver in our coinage. This is one more example of the determination of hon. Gentlemen opposite—and they have expressed this in words and writing before now—to ensure that our currency is nothing but a series of meaningless symbols. There has been no attempt so far on the part of the public to hoard the silver coinage which is now in circulation. When they learn, as a result of this Debate, that the shilling contains only five pennyworth of silver, they will be still less inclined to keep any of this money out of circulation. We have heard that the amount involved in the whole of our silver coinage is £50 million, that only £20 million is required to satisfy the Americans, and that £30 million will be available as profit to the Treasury.
  I would like to put forward a suggestion to the Chancellor for his consideration. Will he consider issuing a five-shilling note? That would account for half the silver in circulation, and, at his will, he can withdraw the other half and from it pay back the silver which he owes to the United States. After all, the great American nation, with more than 100 million population and its vast commerce, conducts this daily with the dollar bill, which is worth, in terms of sterling at the present time, five shillings. If we move to another country which has one of the soundest currencies in the world at the present time, Switzerland, we find there that the lowest paper denomination is that of five francs, worth about six shillings at the official rate of exchange. I do not want a whole mass of paper currency, such as we have found in other European countries, but we have these two precedents worth five and six shillings respectively which we might consider. I feel that there are possiblities there, and that many of us who find our pockets, after many years, getting rather threadbare.

  827
  would be glad to reduce the amount of metal in them while keeping our paper money elsewhere.
  I consider that the public should be able to feel that the coins which they have in their pockets have some value, and we shall regret very much the passing of our silver. The Chancellor is not here, but I would say to him that, rather than go down to history as the man who produced the "dirty Daltons," which we fear these new cupro-nickel coins will ultimately be called, he might produce a "Dalton" five shilling note which could look the dollar squarely in the face. I hope that, after further thought, either my suggestion will be adopted or that that other metal, nickel, whose virtues have been extolled from both sides of the House, will be given full consideration.
  5.13 p.m.
  Major Vernon: There is only one plea which I wish to make and it arises from a remark made by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris). He said that silver, which had such a history in our coinage, was to be abandoned for ever, and those words "for ever" depressed me very much indeed. I can understand the needs of the Chancellor and the importance of getting out of debt to America. Much as I deplore the disappearance of silver from our money, I cannot but say that, for this purpose of partly restoring the balance between ourselves and the United States, it is something which has to be done. But I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will hold out some hope that, when this period is over, silver may be restored to the coinage.
  We have had so many objections from various parts of the House to the proposals that have been made that I think there is a general feeling that the proposals themselves are open to a good many objections. Why is it that I am so attracted to silver? It is that it holds for us historical and traditional links, and it reflects in a way the English character. When I say the English character, I do not mean good character only, because good and bad character, especially in our kings, have been reflected in our currency. In fact, I might say that the kings who were called "good" were those who maintained the value of the currency, and that those, who were called bad kings were the kings
  828
  who let it down. This debasement of the currency, or inflation, as, in our more mealy-mouthed times, it is termed, is a practice which is very old indeed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) said that in Roman times coins were debased by being decreased in size. We in Britain have decreased the quantity of metal in our coins, and also the quality, and it is not only the coin itself to which this traditional interest attaches. It is also the words that are associated with it. The penny was one-pennyweight of silver, or 24 grains, and it was laid down on the subject of the standard of the grain, that it was to be taken from the middle of the ear. The pound was a pound weight of silver, and so, in very many other ways, there are traditional links with English history and the ideas which have been associated with it all the way through.
  There are numerous links with the silver currency which add to the interest, and, I think, to the affection, with which some of us regard this device which we have used in this country. Concerning the decrease in quantity of metal in the money, it is interesting to remember that, in Saxon times, the penny was really a pennyweight of silver and of 24 grains. That quantity of metal in the coin was maintained for about 500 years, when it dropped to 22½ grains. The reason for this decrease in the weight of metal, I believe, came from the fact that the king felt it was his responsibility to his subjects to maintain the coinage at this standard weight or size, and, of course, they had to have his portrait on one side. Whether this portrait was put there as a guarantee of quantity or quality, or as Royalist publicity, I am not quite sure, but in course of time the portrait began to wear off and there was the necessity for calling in those coins and sending out fresh ones. Then the king began to discover that he did not get so many coins to send out again from the silver which he got back, because the silver had disappeared in wear. For a while, the king made up this loss out of his own resources. But there came a day when he said he could stand it no longer, and, instead of 24 grains, they would only put in 22½ grains. Further reductions followed. In 1400, it went down to 18; in 1500 to 12; in 1600 to nine; in 1900 to seven, where it remained until 1920, when, as we have been reminded, Sir Austen Chamberlain reduced

  829
  it to 3½ and now we come to the sad point where it disappears altogether.
  As to the quality, it was maintained steadily at 92 per cent. pure silver, and that standard quality of purity of the British coin gave us some prestige all over Europe for a long period. It was one of our bad kings, financially, who upset the business again, and he was Henry VIII, who was rather an extravagant King and who found it difficult to make both ends meet. He was also an ingenious person and he reduced the percentage of silver in the coins from 92 to 75, and, at the same time, made them smaller. He tried it first on the Irish, and they never seemed to notice any difference and, having found he could do it with the Irish, he tried it on the British. It went down moderately well, because, in those days, if one took it badly, the king took it badly too, and the same thing happened to all those who objected too strongly to the actions of that particular monarch. It was not only by reducing the size and quantity of the coinage that Henry VIII did well for himself. His father made only £100 a year out of turning people's raw metal into coins, but Henry put up the charge by stages from 8d. in the £ until it became 8s. in the £. He also kept people waiting for their money. They brought their gold and silver to the Mint, but, when they came a few weeks later and asked for their coins, it was like getting clothes back from the laundry today. They came again and again, and he kept them waiting for months, using the money in the meantime.
  I am sorry to put all these ideas into hon. Members' heads and hope that too much notice will not be taken of them. But they are really part of the historical story and part of my appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put the silver back into the coins when he gets the chance. It was not only Sir Austen Chamberlain who made a profit out of this proceeding. I have the record of how much Henry VIII gained by handling the currency. From gold he made £40,600 3s., and from silver £186,778 8s. 9¼d. I think I have said enough to explain my attachment to this particular metal in relation to our currency, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give us some word of hope that, in due course, the silver will be restored.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. David Eccles: I am sure the House will join with me in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) on his most agreeable and traditional speech. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) tells me that the ghost of Sir Charles Oman walks again. I agree with him that cupro-nickel is a bad alloy, and I also agree that we have to repay the silver. The only point I wish to make is that I was surprised at the levity with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the Second Reading of this Bill. One would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have regarded the introduction of cupro-nickel into our coinage, very much as the Foreign Secretary regards the introduction of crypto-Communism into the Labour movement. Both are shocking concessions to the poverty of the nation.
  If we were still a wealthy country, and if we still had large export surpluses such as we formerly enjoyed, then I do not doubt that we should still have a gold coinage like the United States of America. It is a stroke of good business for a rich country to have an intrinsic value to its coinage, because all the other countries of the world are more willing to write their contracts in a currency which has an intrinsic value and, therefore, the nation that is already rich, gets richer still. But what we are doing this afternoon is parting with one of the outward and visible signs of British wealth. We have to take this step, but are we wise to pretend—and this is my charge against the right hon. Gentleman—that it does not really matter how cheap and nasty is our coinage? It seems to me that the Chancellor was saying to the British public something like this: "You are in debt and you have very little money. Therefore, you must pawn your silver watch and chain at my Government shop. You really do not need a watch at all. There are plenty of clocks in public places and you can dial 'TIM' on somebody else's telephone, if you want to know the time. As a matter of fact you have been wasting your money ever to have a watch at all. "That is the language of the "Rake's Progress" and the language of the tempter who suggests to his victim that virtue is so far impaired that there is no innocence left worth preserving.

  831
  I am very sorry to see the Government take that line. Surely, the proper course would be to tell the people the truth and to say, "We are desperately hard up—very nearly bankrupt"—and to have explained that, in those circumstances, we had to part with silver, but at the same time making it clear that we were all determined to work unceasingly until we regained the substance and the ornament of respectability and a high standard of life. Getting rid of silver from our coinage is another stage in the deterioration of our standard of life. I do not like the soft way in which the Government speak to the people about the real nature of our difficulties. The House knows that I am a believer in precisely the opposite method. If I were His Majesty's Government, I would tell the people the hard truth and make an appeal to all British men and women for the time being to pocket their fads and fancies, and to work together in order that the country might be put on its feet again. If that were done, I believe that a tremendous response would come from the people. But that is not what the Government do; they ask us almost to welcome this step towards poverty.
  The new coinage, if the Lord Privy Seal will allow me to say so, is going to have a still further drawback. It will be symbolic with a new meaning. The Mint is going to issue bright and attractive coins—attractive to children and magpies. But we know that within a short time such coins will tarnish and that dirt will cloud their shine, and then children will have to be smacked for playing with them, and magpies will refuse to collect them. What a perfect symbol of the career of this Government. Here is a Government which came into power in July, 1945, bright and shiny with promises. Now, only 15 months afterwards, we find them grubby in their performance. In the pocket and purse of every British subject there will, from now onwards, be a symbol of this Government.
  5.28 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: It seemed to me that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this Bill he was almost enthusiastic about debasing the silver coinage still further into the new alloy coinage. To me it is rather a sad
  832
  moment, having seen the passing of the gold coinage. Then we saw reduction in the value of the silver coinage; now we see it passing altogether and the substitution of a cheap alloy coinage. In these days, we must approach the matter from a practical point of view, and we should all recognise that this silver coinage, so called, has been merely a token coinage for very many years. Some years ago, the British Government borrowed a certain amount of silver from America and, at a given time—we have not been told exactly when—that silver must be repaid in kind. I imagine that the Government have the opportunity either of paying back that silver out of our coinage, or by buying in the open market and repaying it in that way.
  As we have been told, the price of silver has increased very substantially. I can imagine the holders of silver in America and other parts of the world carefully watching our position and anxiously looking to see whether we propose to purchase £20 million of silver with which to repay the debt, meanwhile stepping up the purchase price as time goes on. I think we should congratulate the Government on taking this step of removing the silver from our coinage and repaying it in kind. It is undoubtedly one very good thing which they have decided to do. I do not often agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I congratulate him upon taking this step. In conclusion, therefore, although in principle, I dislike the proposed change in the content of our coinage, I think that from a practical and commonsense point of view it is undoubtedly the right action at the present time.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I think most of the points which should be covered in an important Debate like this have already been covered, and I do not propose to detain the House for long. It seems to me that the case for this great and deplorable change has been made out, and we should concentrate our endeavours upon trying to persuade the Government to, make a new coinage which will take the place of our ancient and honourable coinage as something that is worthy of this country. I believe coinage has a most profound symbolic value and a psychological effect. I believe a great deal of extravagance, waste and a sub-

  833
  conscious tendency towards inflation can be traced to the sad days over 30 years ago, when the golden sovereign and half sovereign disappeared, and I believe that if we are now to fall into the same trap into which most Continental countries have fallen, of having a shoddy sort of coinage, it will debase the economic morality of each one of us.
  I am sure the Chancellor will pay full attention to the weighty arguments that have been brought to bear in favour of a nickel coinage, and I only wish to underline those arguments. There are one or two particular points that I wish to make. From the Schedule to the Bill I see that we have finally said "goodbye" to the crown piece. I hope that decision will be reconsidered It has always struck me that the crown is a handsome piece of money. It gives great delight to children, and I do not see why we should not give delight to children, it is a dignified coin and it can be a most magnificent coin. Crown pieces have been the finest objects in anybody's collection. One thinks particularly of one produced under the Commonwealth, and some of the 18th century coins. In the Committee stage I shall try to press for the retention of the crown piece.
  Then there is the question of design. I do not know whether it is the Chancellor's intention to make this an occasion for redesigning the British coinage. I hope it is. It is my conviction that this century has seen a sad decline in the standard of British coin design. One occasionally finds in one's pocket Victorian coins. Contrast with the later designs the style of designing of the sovereign's head in the 'seventies; consider the florin or even the pennies or halfpennies of the 'seventies. Take the obverse side of the coins. What miserable designs these half-crowns today are, compared with the finest specimens of the Victorian era or preceding reigns. This is a great opportunity for restoring the artistic dignity and the psychological and symbolical value of our coinage, and I hope that opportunity will be taken. In a way, this is a humiliating moment, when we sink to the level of so many bankrupt foreign nations, and have to abandon any pretence that our coinage is not debased. However, I think it is a sign of honest poverty, of money spent in a great cause. We may have to live at a cheaper rate
  834
  and wear cheaper and more homespun clothes, but let us wear them with dignity and let us see that they are well cut, and we shall not disgrace ourselves or our forebears.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: I hope I will be excused if I do not follow what appears now to be the established precedent of welcoming the Chancellor back from America. So far as I know, he has already started to go back there, and, in any case, I see no reason for treating him as a sort of Columbus in reverse. His journey cannot have been very dangerous and probably the only risk he ran was that of overstraining his digestion.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not a nice thing to welcome a man when he comes back?
  Mr. Stanley: I have been for a holiday, too, but nobody welcomed me. Nobody said, "I am glad to see you back from Blackpool." It is just as dangerous to go to Blackpool as to America. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) that it is a pity that this Measure should be introduced in a spirit of levity, as if it did not matter at all. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe it is a matter of some concern that we should have had to take this step, although I also agree that the circumstances have justified the step being taken. If this easy way of "collaring" £50 million does not matter to anybody in this country, it is difficult to understand why no Chancellor of the Exchequer in recent times before the present one has thought of doing it. Sir Austen Chamberlain, of course, had to meet a different situation where the metal content was about the nominal value.
  In the course of my time in Parliament a number of Chancellors of the Exchequer have been anxious to pick up an honest penny to help their Budgets whenever they could find one. I remember one described by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer as "a robber of hen roosts." If this method did not matter, I cannot imagine that any one of them would have passed over the opportunity. It does matter. It reduces very considerably our financial prestige. It is a token of our lowered standard of life, and, to some degree, it is also true that the more one's currency becomes a token currency the less people are concerned about econo-

  835
  mising it. I agree that this has got to be done. We are faced with this contract to repay this large sum in silver, and, of course, it would be the worst economy to go out in the markets of the world at a time when silver is in keen demand, and buy up silver in order to repay America. Therefore, we on this side of the House do not challenge the Second Reading of this Bill.
  I am afraid that I cannot share the optimistic feelings of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) who hopes that he will get a reassurance from the Financial Secretary that this abandonment of silver will be temporary. I cannot see any Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down to this House in the future and saying, "I have got a surplus for this year of £50 million. I shall not spend it in reducing Income Tax; I am going to spend it all in restoring the silver currency." I am afraid that when we say "Goodbye" to silver with this Bill, we are probably saying "Goodbye" to it so far as the lives of any of us here are concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich made a most interesting and amusing speech, but beneath his historical tales and his amusing quips there lay a very deep lesson for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that in the old days the goodness or badness of kings was largely determined by whether or not they debased the currency.
  The same effect as bad kings of old produced upon the people of this country by debasing the currency can still be produced today by bad Chancellors of the Exchequer who reduce the value of our money. It may not matter so much today, merely to put more nickel into a shilling, as it did in the times to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, but exactly the same poverty and distress is caused today when the shilling is reduced in value. If we are to judge Chancellors of the Exchequer by that same test which the hon. and gallant Gentleman applied to kings in the past, I shall put the present Chancellor of the Exchequer definitely among those who in "1066 and all that" would be classed as "bad" kings. I think he is just about on a parallel with King John; not yet perhaps quite in the class of Henry VIII, but working that way.
  Mr. Kirkwood: What is the difference?
  Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must read English history and he will see. The main difference between the two was that King John had too many lampreys and King Henry VIII too many wives.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I only wanted to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of telling the House all about it.
  Mr. Stanley: I would certainly advise the right hon. Gentleman when next he goes out to dinner to be very careful of lampreys: oysters, yes certainly; winkles, possibly, but lampreys, no.
  The main point on this Bill is not the fact, which we all admit with whatever degree of regretfulness, that the coinage has got to be changed, but what coin is to be substituted for it. I do not propose to discuss that today, because it is obviously a matter which should be raised, and which we shall raise, in Committee. I make only this one appeal. I do hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary will not meet us when we discuss this in Committee in the sort of spirit that one phrase in the Chancellor's speech today led me to fear; that is, when he described the talk about 100 per cent. nickel currency as coming entirely from the Mond Nickel Company or their mouthpieces. I thought it a little ungenerous, in view of the fact that the principal letter written in the whole of that correspondence has in fact come from the Agent General for the Province of Ontario. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not try to make prejudices of that kind. There is no party question in this at all. We are all anxious, if possible, to get the best possible currency.
  Mr. Kirkwood: My right hon. Friend never intended to put it in the way the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
  Mr. Stanley: Then why did he have to say it? If he did not mean it, why was it necessary to bring in the Mond Nickel Company at all? Cannot we discuss, without that kind of prejudice, the simple fact of whether a currency which is likely to be with us all our lives is better made of 100 per cent. nickel or of this particular alloy which is now suggested? I hope that on Friday we shall be able to discuss this not unimportant question in that spirit, and that the Government will keep their minds open to the appeals which have come from all sides of the House.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I think all of us will agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) that the Bill which we are discussing is not really a party issue at all. I think I can go farther, and say that all hon. Members in every quarter of the House—and I am positive the same goes for the general public outside—regret the proposal that from now on our coinage should cease to have any silver content. We are all proud of our coinage; I think we have every right to be proud of it, and of the craftsmen who make such splendid coins—token coins as they are. They are, I am positive, the envy of many people in other parts of the world. Underlying many of the speeches that have been made this afternoon is the assumption that the new coinage will be something worse than the silver coins to which we have been accustomed. Of course, one enters the realms of prophecy here, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposite, as well as my hon. Friends on this side of the House, that, regrettable though this change is, it will be the endeavour of the Royal Mint to see that the new coins which are issued will be such that we can continue to be proud of them.
  I have been asked if the Government will keep an open mind as to the metal to be used. I readily give this assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I think by general consent we have narrowed the material down to either cupro-nickel, an alloy of 75 per cent. copper and 25 per cent. nickel, or pure nickel. As the House will have noticed, in the Bill we have kept that quite open; although it is the present intention—for reasons which I will give in a moment—to make the new coinage of cupro-nickel, it will still be possible at some future date for the coinage, if the House so desires, to be made entirely of nickel. My right hon. Friend and the Government do not close their minds to the suggestion that we should go over to nickel entirely, should that be desirable. The reason why we cannot do it immediately—and we very much regret it, if nickel is the better material—is that the Royal Mint cannot cope with the work of making coins entirely of nickel at the present time. It would need very special
  838
  machinery. Although it is true that we could get the nickel manufactured and the discs cut outside, it is felt that this work should, if possible, be done inside the Mint. In addition, apart from the fact that we have not the necessary cutting machinery, new dies would need to be cut. I am not a technician, but I am told new dies would be necessary because the image would have to be cut lower than with the material we are going to use.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton); there is no analogy between what the late Sir Austen Chamberlain did in 1920 and what we propose to do now. Times were different then, and the main factor guiding him was that the intrinsic value was greater than the face value of the coin, and with a token coin that always must be very undesirable. Nevertheless, there are factors today which make this change essential. It is worth while remembering the late Sir Austen Chamberlain's action because, during the time that has elapsed since then, it is clear very little harm has been done. In passing perhaps I might answer the question why we were going back so far as the Maundy money is concerned to the old 925 ounces of fineness. The change made by the late Sir Austen Chamberlain was to give the Maundy money the same content as the new silver coins, as the easiest thing to do. Now that silver is to disappear from the coins altogether, we propose for sentimental reason—to which, I think, none of us object—to continue the manufacture of Maundy money, but of its original fineness. We on this side of the House are great believers in tradition and the keeping of old customs. It is just as well that we should go back to the original arrangement. It will not cost the nation very much. I am told the annual cost is something like £46 5s.
  He also said that the coinage should have a good appearance, be difficult to counterfeit, and be hygienic. That, I think, answers the hon. Gentleman who spoke later from one of the Back Benches opposite, who seemed to suggest we ought to have paper money. One of the objections to paper money, one of the alternatives that was thought of, is that, generally, paper money for small denominations is a nuisance, unhygienic and undesirable. I may add, it is generally expensive. It costs little

  839
  to print the notes, but they constantly have to be changed, so that they do become expensive. In addition, they mean a great deal more work—for people who pay wages; also cashiers in banks can weigh money more easily than count notes. So, considered from every point of view, we rejected the proposition that we should make notes of small denominations, and that, I think, meets with the general approval of the House.
  Something has been said by more than one speaker to the effect that cupro-nickel coins will be easy to counterfeit. Again—I speak, of course, not as one who knows, but as one who has gathered his knowledge from the experts—I understand that the new cupro-nickel will be more difficult to counterfeit than the present silver coinage. A good deal has been said about the ease with which the material can be melted down, but, as a matter of fact, I gather that the melting point of the new material is something like 1,350 degrees centigrade, whereas the melting point of the silver used in our silver coins is 200 degrees less. So that, if that is a valid point, cupro-nickel is going to be more safe from the counterfeiter than our present silver token coinage.
  The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) suggested, as also does a letter which has been referred to, and which appeared today in "The Times," that one advantage about nickel is that a magnet can attract it. I believe this is perfectly true, and if we do come to nickel I imagine that all of us will carry magnets about with us on our watch chains to be quite sure that we are being given no counterfeit coins. But, to be quite serious, it is obvious that the risk of having counterfeit coins in wide circulation is very remote, and if it is the fact that a magnet will attract nickel, that, in itself, as I say, is no sufficient reason why we should adopt nickel.
  One of my predecessors in my present office, who sits for the City of London, said that when we came to the Committee stage his party would have objections to offer to the proposal in Clause 3, to change the composition of the coin without reference to Parliament. Quite frankly, the House cannot have it both ways. The suggestion now is that we should not bind ourselves to cupro-nickel, but that, at
  840
  some time to come, we should go over to pure nickel. Therefore, we must take powers in the Bill, so that, if some other metal is discovered—or nickel is found to be the best way—we may have powers to change over. After all, these are purely technical changes. It is only a question of changing one base metal for another; and, providing that the base metal chosen is better than the old, and that Parliament is informed, surely nothing else matters. Even under the existing law it is permissible to vary the composition of metal coins other than silver, and, of course, now that we are getting rid of silver altogether, it is only right and proper that the variation, which is allowed under the existing law with base metals, should be continued.
  We had a very humorous speech, as always, from my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith). He made a point—I think he did it with his tongue in his cheek—that this Bill should include increased penalties against counterfeiters and forgers. It does not need me, perhaps, to tell him that this is not the place to tighten up the criminal law, and I say that all the more certainly and easily because I am sure that he knows it as well as I do, and that he only brought the point into his speech in order to hang a homily to the other side upon it. But, certainly, this is not the Bill to do a thing of that kind. Its object is a very simple one, as my right hon. Friend explained, and that is, to change over our token coinage from silver to an alloy of nickel and copper.
  The hon. Member for Torquay was labouring under a misapprehension so far as the United States of America are concerned. It is true, as my right hon. Friend said, that we have to repay 88 million ounces of silver to the United States within the next five years or so. But the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson), I think it was, suggested that we should pay in dollars rather than in silver, and that that was one way of obviating the change now suggested. But he and the hon. Member for Torquay must have forgotten that we have undertaken to repay this bar for bar in silver. It is one of our obligations under the Lend-Lease arrangements. As we have at some time to start to repay, there is no reason why we should not begin to make arrangements now, particularly as it will

  841
  take some little time for the coinage to be made and put into circulation, and for us to get a steady stream of the old coinage coming in, which can be melted down and used. We could, it we would, leave the repayment of the whole 88 million ounces to the end of the five years, but now is an excellent time for making the change. We have this money to repay in silver, and it is our view—and I hope it is shared by the House—that the sooner we make arrangements for repaying it the better.
  Mr. C. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. I was under no misapprehension at all of any sort or kind. I am grateful also for his explaining part of what I wanted to know. He has told us there is no need to repay this until the end of five years. I am not in the least against him for beginning now, but what I want to know is whether America is asking for present repayment, and if that is the reason for preparing to pay now. As to the fact that we have to pay in silver, is there any pressure from America? Do they want payment now, or could we leave it for two or three years?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am very glad to be able to put the hon. Gentleman right on that matter. The United States are not pressing us in any way. We do know that this obligation exists. There was an understanding that it should be repaid in the course of the next five years or thereabouts, and this was one of the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend as a reason for making an early start. Obviously the alternative is to go into the market and buy silver. That would mean that its present high price, might go even higher. In addition we should be competing with industries which now, more than ever, are using silver in processes which are useful and necessary to the national life, and that we do not wish to do. Therefore, for these reasons, which I think are commonsense, this should be done now, though there is, I should like to repeat, no pressure whatever on the part of the United States for this money to be repaid straight away. The hon. Member for Torquay ventured to think that, with the new token coinage, he and others like him would be robbed of a sense of security when they had money in their pockets. I will not follow
  842
  up that argument, which does not hold water for a moment. I think the right hon. Gentleman who ended the Debate for the other side made much the same point when he indicated, perhaps half by implication, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, like a king who debased the coinage, was a bad Chancellor.
  Mr. Stanley: I said he was a bad Chancellor of the Exchequer because he is lowering the whole value of money, which is the modern form of debasing the currency, which bad kings of old used to do.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I may quite briefly answer those two points together—the point was made in other words by the hon. Member for Torquay—it crossed my mind, and it must have crossed the minds of other hon. Members on this side, to wonder whether he feels the same when he has a £5 note in his pocket, because the £5 note is intrinsically even more worthless than the token coins which he has in his pocket; furthermore the latter are only legal tender up to 40s. and no more. Therefore, so far as the question of value and the security of individuals is concerned, the situation will be just the same when we get the new token coinage as it is now. That, I think, answers the right hon. Gentleman who wound up the Debate. It is unfair, and in my view it is certainly untrue, to suggest that this change in the token coinage of this country in some way—quite how was not explained—lowers the value of our money. That is quite untrue. The value of money lies in what it will buy—
  Mr. Stanley rose—
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I took the right hon. Gentleman's words down: he said that a bad Chancellor, like a bad king, was one who would reduce the value of our money, and when I interrupted—
  Mr. Stanley: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get me wrong. I am not talking about what the Chancellor is doing today, but about what he has been doing for the last year. That is what has been reducing the value of money.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): If so, of course, that would be quite out of Order.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) suggested that the Chancellor

  843
  may some day have it in his heart to restore silver coinage, purely on sentimental grounds, and I think that what he said finds an echo in the hearts of most of us. We rather like silver. The word itself is a lovely word, and we like to think that our token coinage does contain silver. What will happen in the future, of course, is not for me to forecast, but again I think the right hon. Gentleman who concluded the Debate was a little wrong when he suggested that its reintroduction would cost any Chancellor £50,000,000. Of course, it would not cost the Chancellor £50,000,000 all at once. It might in the long run, but the operation would take place gradually and the alteration would come into force over some long period of time. What is quite clear is that the new coinage, whatever it is made of, will have the same weight, and much the same appearance as the coins we now use, and we hope that, as in Ireland, the new coinage will run smoothly side by side with the old for some years, until the present silver coinage is withdrawn.
  That answers another hon. Gentleman who thought that the time was opportune for changing the designs on the coins—I think it was the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). Of course, it is possible to improve the designs on our coins, but it was felt that this was neither the time nor the place to do it. For one thing, it would mean that people who are on other work would have to be taken off to elaborate the designs, also, if we are to change the metal used in our coinage, it is perhaps as well to keep the apperance of the coin as it is now, and then the change over does not appear so drastic to the individual. People will not become frightened, as they might—quite wrongly—be frightened by some of the speeches made on the other side.
  Mr. Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that a competition for new designs of coins would really affect the labour market? I would point out that the coins cannot be quite the same size; they will be slightly different if they are the same weight, because the specific gravity of the metal will be slightly different. It is a golden opportunity to have a really beautiful coinage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Golden?"] Well, a cupro-nickel opportunity, and the Chancellor would go down in history as a sort of Pericles.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to labour that point; we have other business tonight, and I do not desire to keep the House any longer on this matter. It is the desire of my right hon. Friend that this change over should be made smoothly, and that the new coinage which takes the place of the present silver token coinage should be worthy of this country in every respect. He desires that the change should be made with the least possible upset, and for that reason perhaps now is not the time to embark upon either new denominations or new designs. We hope that the new coinage will wear well, and I can give the House my right hon. Friend's assurance that, if we find that some of the worst fears of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are realised, and the coinage begins to look dirty and frayed and unworthy of a great nation, he will be the first to see what changes can be made to improve it—he is taking powers in the Bill so to do—so that the coinage shall continue to be, as it has been in the past, one of the glories of this nation.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask one question? As the silver is to be reduced very considerably, can we be assured that the silver threepenny piece will be restored in the usual numbers, instead of the hideous copper coin which took its place?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are not proposing to make any more silver coins.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Well, cupro-nickel?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The general feeling is that the twelve-sided threepenny piece is a boon and a blessing to men. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is a matter which could perhaps be raised, if hon. Members desired to raise it, in Committee. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have no intention of manufacturing threepenny bits in silver, as he suggests, and it may be a long time before cupro-nickel threepenny pieces are made, because of certain difficulties owing to the size of the coin. That, however, as I say, is a matter which we might perhaps leave until the Committee stage, when it might be argued at greater length.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Friday.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

  COINAGE [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for a coinage other than silver to be legal tender for payments up to forty shillings, and to confer further powers as to the purchase of metal for coinage, it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary for the purchase of any metal required for supplies of coins for the public service, and the payment into the Exchequer of sums received for coin produced from metal so purchased."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Dalton.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Friday.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.12 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 main purpose of Public Works Loan Bills is to authorise a maximum sum of money which may be advanced to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purpose of making advances normally to local authorities, until the next Bill is passed. As the House will probably remember, it is only six months ago since we passed the previous Act. That Act authorised the issue of money up to £150 million, and we hoped then it would suffice until the early part of next year, but certain developments have since taken place which have necessitated our coming to the House again. It is an essential part of the procedure for implementing the Local Authorities Act, 1945, that the Commissioners should give their approval, in principle, to proposed loans at a stage when such advances are put to the sanctioning Departments. As the House will appreciate, this is normally a good many months ahead of the time when the money is actually required as a cash advance by the local authority concerned.
  846
  Doubts were recently raised as to whether the Commissioners were entitled to enter into undertakings for advances in this way, if such undertakings would cause them to exceed the limits for actual advances laid down by the current Public Works Loan Act, unless Parliament had agreed to the advance. The matter was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, who have advised us that it is not lawful for the Commissioners to commit themselves to make a loan at some future date in excess of the amount placed at their disposal by the current Act, although they can enter into a provisional commitment, on condition that the money will be advanced only if Parliament agrees to it. We felt that a proviso like this was not fair to local authorities. It is an unsatisfactory method, and it is unfair to local authorities who naturally want to know definitely where they stand. The position has therefore been reviewed, and in the light of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, it has been decided to introduce this Bill. The reason for introducing it now is that if the views expressed by the Law Officers are accepted, the present amount of £150 million is not likely to last us very long. The Commissioners have advanced something like £33 million in cash, have made unconditional commitments to the extent of another £100 million, which the Law Officers of the Crown say is as good as if the cash had been advanced, and in addition have made provisional commitments, subject to Parliamentary sanction, for a further £22 million.
  As the House will see, the £150 million is more than exhausted. The matter is therefore one of urgency. We have exhausted the powers conferred by the current Act, and it is essential now that we ask the House to grant a larger sum so that the Commissioners can continue their work. The Bill is a very simple and straightforward Measure. It has only three operative clauses. Clause I proposes a limitation of £250 million to be laid down for advances by the Commissioners before the next Act. It has been very difficult to estimate what sum we should put in the Bill. As I have indicated already, local authorities are coming forward and wanting money for all sorts of purposes, especially for housing. We believe that the £250 million will keep the Commissioners going for some time.

  847
  I admit that Clause 2 is an innovation. It has been put in as a result of the opinion recently given by the Law Officers of the Crown. That clause is designed to reconcile the statutory provisions with the procedure of administering the 1945 Act. Under that clause the Commissioners are empowered to enter into a commitment, provided their commitment to advance, when added to the actual cash advances which they have made, does not exceed £500 million. Under the present Act, which will lapse when this Bill is passed, the Commissioners have already entered into commitments, either definitely or for contingent amounts, up to about £130 million. I think that the House will agree that the figures which we have put into the Bill are reasonable.
  Clause 3 is designed to remove an anomaly. In 1935 the general provisions as to the minimum rates of interest which could be charged for an advance were abolished, except in so far as housing associations and analogous bodies were concerned. We have taken the opportunity, in this Bill, to bring the law up to date, and to put all bodies which borrow in this way on the same footing. We think it is desirable in view of the lower interest rates that are now being charged, and that it is only fair to those concerned
  It is a simple and, I hope, a non-controversial Measure, and I trust that the House will be willing to give it a Second Reading without a great deal of trouble or Debate. We shall be coming back to the Bill on Friday but, meanwhile, I assure the House that we have gone into the matter with the utmost care. The Bill is an urgent one, because local authorities, whatever their political complexion, are coming to the Treasury for advances, and we are anxious, in these times of rehabilitation, to be able to meet them. The Bill will help us to do so for some months to come.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: This Bill, as the Financial Secretary has just said, is non-contentious but, at the same time, there are one or two criticisms which I feel bound to make about it. In peacetime a Public Works Loans Bill was an annual feature of Parliamentary procedure. It placed certain sums of money at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners to enable them to make
  848
  advances to local authorities and to certain other bodies, such as housing associations, and the like. During the war, of course, there was very little lending of money by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, but in 1945 I was associated, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we passed through Parliament the Local Authorities Loans Act, which compels local authorities to borrow all their moneys virtually from the Public Works Loans Board.
  Previously, the larger authorities went into the open market in the City, and carried through their issues in the same way as public companies and other undertakings. It was normally only the smaller authorities which approached the Public Works Loans Board. Since the Act of 1945, however, all local authority borrowing has been canalised through the channel of the Public Works Loans Board. That being the position, the Government introduced, in March last, a Bill to enable £150 million to be advanced from the Consolidated Fund and placed at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. Introducing that Bill, the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary said:
  "We are now likely to find that the annual Bill will be necessary again."
  That is, reverting to the prewar practice.
  "The present Bill proposes a limit of £150 million…. It is difficult to estimate the rate at which local authorities will call on the Government during the coming year, but it is felt by us that £150 million should be adequate."
  Then the hon. Gentleman went on to guard himself by the statement:
  "But if that amount is not enough we shall have to come to the House and ask for an additional sum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 2298.]
  It is, therefore, a little surprising that within six months of that Bill becoming law the hon. Gentleman should now come to the House and tell us that the whole of the £150 million has either been advanced or has already been promised, and should ask us to enable the Commissioners to enter into commitments totalling another £500 million. If Members will look at Clause 2 of the Bill, they will see that at any one time the aggregate of the commitments of the Commissioners, plus the actual advances which they shall have made, shall not exceed £500 million.

  849
  For a Government which is supposed to be the acme of perfection so far as planning is concerned, it is very surprising that they should have estimated the requirements of local authorities at £150 million in March of this year, and should now have to rush a Bill through the House to enable the Public Works Loans Commissioners to advance or to promise a further £500 million.
  I really think that this matter requires some more explanation than the hon. Gentleman has given, because the only phrase in his speech which in any way accounted for the enormous increase in the demands on the Public Works Loans Commissioners was that certain developments had occurred. The House is entitled to know, first, how this miscalculation came to be made last March, and, second, upon what objects and for what purposes are these very large sums now to be placed at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners? I take it that this money is required in the main for housing purposes, but surely the hon. Gentleman must have some particulars of the estimated requirements for different purposes. Are there large sums included here, for example, for the purpose of buildings for education, for new roads, police purposes, and other matters of that kind? How does it come about that £150 million was the estimated figure in March of this year for 12 months, and that now something like four times that figure seems to be likely to be actually required? We on this side of the House will offer no objection to putting this money at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. They must have all the money they need, especially for housing purposes, but is it a fact that housing developments are going on more speedily now than the Government anticipated when they introduced their Bill last March, with a limit of £150 million?
  What has happened to upset the Government's plan, and to result in a far larger sum being required than they originally estimated? I should further like to ask how long this new sum of £500 million is intended to last. What is the estimated period over which this £500 million will meet the requirements of the Public Works Loans Commissioners? Are we to have another Bill next March, or is this sum intended to last for 12 months from the present time? So far as we are
  850
  concerned, the hon. Gentleman may by ail means speak again on this Bill because he really ought to give us a little more information as to why this greatly increased sum is now being required.
  A doubt was expressed as to whether under the new dispensation, where all the moneys borrowed by local authorities have to come from the Public Works Loan Board, the Board could say to a local authority, "We will promise to advance you the money in three months, six months, or a year's time, when you require it." Clause 2 makes it clear that they can enter into commitments for the future. That seems to be a natural corollary to compelling local authorities to borrow only through the Public Works Loan Board, if you tell them that they must go to only one source for their money, and they have not the alternative of going to the City and raising their money in the ordinary way. It seems quite reasonable that the Board should have power, if it did not have the power before, to say to the local authority, "We will undertake to lend you this money in six months or a year's time." So far as the legal point covered by Clause 2 is concerned, that Clause has our wholehearted approval.
  In regard to Clause 3, I fully endorse all that the hon. Gentleman has said about it. When the Local Authorities Loans Act was going through Parliament, 3⅛ per cent. was the lowest rate of interest at which local authorities could borrow for long-term housing purposes. It was, in fact, the rate of interest contemplated in that Bill. Now, an announcement has been made that local authorities will be able to get money at, I think, 2½ per cent. for long-term projects of that character. It is perfectly clear that the same benefit of the low rate of interest can be extended to housing associations as is extended to local authorities, and, therefore, Clause 3 of the Bill will, I think, be welcomed in all quarters of the House.
  With these comments, I am prepared to leave the Bill, but, either today or on the Committee stage, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation of how this miscalculation came to be made last March, and explain the main purposes for which the money is now required, and for how long the money which we are placing at the disposing of the Public Works Loan Board is to last be-

  851
  fore the hon. Gentleman comes to the House for some further requirement.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. Tolley: I support the Bill because I realise that the local authorities have, at the present time, to enter into long-term planning. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) paid, I think, rather overdue concern to the fact that in March £150 million was suggested as the sum to meet requirements spread over 12 months. It must be obvious to all of us that in March of last year local authorities had not been able, in the short time since the war ended, to get down to intensive planning. For six years, the local authorities had been prevented from entering into any contract in the way of sewage disposal, new water undertakings, etc. They were held up, and now any local authority which is progressive realises that the time has come, and the opportunity is there, to plan ahead. They will be restricted very much, because their financial commitments will be great, unless they are in the happy position of the Government saying, "Here you are, plan your schemes, and, even in long-term planning, we will be able to guarantee the money you require." The sum of £500 million can soon be absorbed.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned housing. We are all happy in the knowledge that local authorities will be able to develop their housing programmes in more rapid degree, and that under this Bill their schemes will not be handicapped through lack of finance. I think that we can view with satisfaction that the Government desire to give all the financial assistance possible to local authorities to plan ahead and get on with their schemes, and for that reason they have introduced this Bill. As one associated for many years with a local authority, I welcome the fact that, by the changed procedure, local authorities can go to one centralised head to get all the loans they require. The old-fashioned methods of having to go into the City to raise loans afforded no benefit to the local authorities, and, in many cases, they were seriously handicapped. I hope that the House will give unanimous approval to this Measure, because I know that it will be generally welcomed, and enable local authorities to plan ahead and get on with their various duties.
  6.35 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: There is one thing which I wish to say, particularly in view of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley). We seem to be getting into an atmosphere in which we are agreeable to dispose of the taxpayers' money in very large quantities, for apparently very vague and nebulous purposes, in a very brief space of time, and with very little explanation from the Treasury. I think that it would be as well if we pressed for a little more information from the Financial Secretary as to what exactly are the causes requiring this very large increase in the estimate.
  In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, there are a considerable number of local authorities, and one of these, the largest concerned, has never found it necessary to borrow any money. It has financed its way as it went along. It is one of the most up-to-date and efficient organisations in the country. It has, of course, achieved that result by economy and planning.
  Economy, I know, is considered rather a novelty nowadays, but older organisations, run efficiently, have only succeeded in being efficient because they have been well planned. If the Treasury would require more local authorities to plan a little further forward, and encourage them towards that end, I think that we would have greater economy. It is all very well, from the Government's point of view, to talk about these large sums of money, but it is the persons that we on these benches represent who have to find the money. As I pointed out in connection with the previous Measure when it was under discussion, it is by no means certain that because the Public Works Loan Board is going to produce a lower rate of interest, and a greater system of economy for local authorities in their borrowing, it is better than the system which was previously in operation, whereby they could either go to the Public Works Loan Board or competitively to the open market in the City. I still hold that opinion, and I think that the principle is bad. As my right hon. Friend who has spoken in this Debate may bear in mind, I opposed the Government on a previous occasion. I am still an unconvinced heretic as to the merits of this particular

  853
  provision. I feel that if local authorities are being forced into one channel for borrowing purposes, and that the money is being raised in such vast quantities as it has to be raised from the taxpayers in one form or another, and under one system or another, we should have further information and further explanation as to the way in which, and the reasons for which, the Government have so singularly failed to estimate correctly their requirements for a period of six months.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I will answer briefly one or two of the points that have been made, particularly from the Benches opposite. I cannot help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) is under a misapprehension as to what we are trying to do. We are not suggesting in this Bill that money should be taken from the taxpayers; the money will be borrowed by the Government for the municipalities, instead of by the municipalities themselves. That provision was made under the 1945 Act. I was not in the Government then, but I wholeheartedly agree with what was done, because it prevents municipalities from competing in the market against one another and also against the Government. It puts under one hat as it were in an orderly way, the assistance granted by way of loans to local authorities throughout the country. The Public Works Loan Commissioners, in association with the Department concerned, do not fling this money about in a haphazard way to local authorities. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman saw the way in which some of these projects which are brought by local authorities to the Treasury and the Departments are vetted, he would realise that money is not being squandered in the way he imagines.
  I will try to answer the points that were put to me by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). He is entitled to an answer, and it may assist when we come to the Committee stage if I attempt to give an answer now. The development I mentioned and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is the discovery by the Law Officers that the procedure which has been followed up to now could not be said to be strictly legal, and that if the Public Works Loan Commissioners promised money, although the money would
  854
  not be paid over for perhaps 18 months, to the local authority concerned they were nevertheless committed to advance the money and if this went beyond the limits which Parliament had laid down, their act was illegal. That being the position, it put an entirely new complexion on the whole thing, and affected the amount which the House granted last March. At that time, we asked for £150 million, although we did indicate at the time that we were working largely in the dark in naming that figure. As I have indicated, the Public Works Loan Commissioners have used only £33 million in actual cash advances, so that if this difficulty over the procedure had not been discovered, we would not have had to come to the House now in order to regularise the position.
  The point is that the Commissioners have committed themselves to lend at some future time—how soon we do not know; some of the money may be asked for quite soon, and much of the rest may not be needed for 18 months—at least another £100 million. That being so, in the light of this opinion by the law officers it is necessary to regularise the position. That is why we have put the facts before the House, and that is why we ask, in the Bill, that until the next Bill is introduced—I do not know who will be at this Box then—the Public Works Loan Commissioners should be allowed to make cash advances up to £250 million and promises up to another £250 million. We ask for that sum because this Fund is now the only channel through which these authorities can borrow, and they are now, quite properly, beginning to come in increasing numbers for their housing schemes, and so on.
  The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether there were other things which we had not disclosed for which the money is wanted. The authorities come to the Departments, they put their case before the Departments, and what they want is either agreed to, turned down, or modified. They ask for money for a variety of schemes. What those schemes may be it is impossible for me to say, but as far as I know, the vast majority of them will come to the Government for money to assist them to build houses. Later on, I have no doubt some of them will be coming for assistance for the provision of schools, but at the moment, their chief preoccupation is housing. It is for these reasons that we ask the House

  855
  to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill. When we come to the Committee stage there will doubtless be criticisms of individual Clauses, but nevertheless we believe that the general proposals we made in the Bill are reasonable and we hope commend themselves to the House.
  Mr. Peake: Could the Financial Secretary say, first, that he adheres to his original estimate of £150 million as regards the amount that will be issued during the 12 months from last March, and secondly, will he give some indication of how long a period is intended to be covered, by the sums to be granted now?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: To answer the second point first, it is difficult for me to give a categorical reply. I wish I could do so. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, since he once occupied the office of Financial Secretary, it is very difficult to make an estimate with any degree of accuracy in a situation such as that which now faces us. The provision of housing, schools and hospitals, and the changes to which not only this Government but preceding Governments committed themselves, will undoubtedly increase as materials become available and manpower returns from the Forces. It is therefore difficult to say how long the amount for which we now ask will last, but my guess—I think it a not unreasonable one—is that the amount now asked for should last at any rate until this time next year. The other Act of course stops dead immediately this Bill becomes law. Therefore, any commitments agreed to under the old Act will have to be carried on the new £250 million, plus £250 million, making £500 million in all of the present Bill. It is hoped that we shall not have to come to the House with another Bill of the same kind for another year.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: I wish to say a few words in support of the Bill. I cannot understand the apprehension expressed from the benches opposite, either with regard to the amount involved, or the length of time it is intended to cover. I should have thought that any progress in the way of local municipal development in terms of housing, education, and the rest of the social services, ought to be encouraged. As the Financial Secretary so clearly told
  856
  us, with the return of men from the Forces, with the setting up of staffs and the building up of reconstruction committees, it was quite impossible, as early as March of this year, to get anything like a guide as to the sum of money that would be involved, and it is only now, as I can say from my knowledge of the local authorities in my area, that we can be said to be getting down to some of the long-term plans.
  I think it is reasonable that local authorities who are unable to embark immediately upon schemes involving the expenditure of this money should, while the opportunity for borrowing money at reasonable rates of interest is available, lay out their budgets on long-term lines. In the matter of education for example, there has to be a complete rebuilding. I am encouraged to think that the Government, in fulfilment of their policy and principle of making cheap money available to local authorities, especially the poorer ones, are proceeding with this Measure. I can think of no better investment than to encourage our poorer local authorities to replan their areas and give the people who richly deserve so many amenities some of the things we have spoken of for so long and of which they have been long deprived. I believe the Loans Bill of 1945, in centralising the pool in which money should be available, was a good Measure. I know it was welcomed by the poorer authorities who had to compete, very often at a great disadvantage, with the better off authorities, and I hope that we shall, in the course of time, spend not only this £500 million which we are discussing today but many more, because there seems to me to be no finer outlet for the capital resources of this country.
  6.51 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: This is a matter which concerns local authorities and local government, and I should like to express my disagreement with the attitude of the Government. I believe that easy finance is bad finance. It is not a good thing to encourage people to borrow money and it is not a desirable thing to encourage local authorities to indulge in expenditure for which they perhaps have doubtful justification This picture of a centralised finance from the great financial policy of the existing Government is not one which presents any

  857
  ready appeal to me. I happen to be a member of a local authority which could go to the Stock Exchange, or to the public at any time and get all the money it wanted for all purposes, and that authority is now running a great capital city at probably the lowest rate burden in the United Kingdom, 8s. 2d in the £. Under the present device there is no guarantee that the money will be spent in a wise fashion and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for striking the note of the negative.
  Much is said against the Stock Exchange, but what is the Stock Exchange? It is a court where persons can take the commodity they have to sell and have it assessed at its proper value. If a local authority is extravagant and incompetent in its management it gets a very chilly reception if it goes to the Stock Exchange, and has to pay six, seven or eight per cent. for its money. If it is a prudently managed local authority it gets its money for three per cent., two and a half per cent., or even less. This device which I agree His Majesty's Government have inherited from their predecessors, is a device to make doubtful finance easy. It is a device to place money in the hands of people who believe in easy come and easy go, but no doubt this House will approve the Measure because its grandiloquent manner makes that almost certain. Two hundred and fifty million, 500 million, even 1,000 million—these are the figures which delight His Majesty's Government because they are, apart from the first digit, all round O's and to that extent mean either nothing or much. I belong to the old fashioned school of finance which believes that there cannot be any cheap money. So called cheap money is bogus money. The price of money today is not 2½ per cent. at all; the real price in a free market is a good deal more, but owing to devices and manipulations it appears otherwise. This kind of Measure is placed before the House but it cannot be put through without one or two voices being raised against it.
  The centralised planning in Clause 3 is a device, I repeat, to facilitate borrowing by persons who would not otherwise have borrowed and who are only borrowing because the facilities are made easily and readily available to them. Money should not at any time be easily come by; it should be worked hard for and planned
  858
  hard for, not raised by inflationary devices and centralised methods of this kind. I am against any policy which makes it simpler. I detect in Clause 3, too, something which perhaps the Financial Secretary or some other hon. Gentleman opposite can elucidate. It is the repeal of the provision as to the minimum rate of interest on borrowing. All restriction is removed in this matter and while I have no doubt that it is thought hopefully that in the future 3⅛ per cent. and not 2½ per cent. will be the price, when this Clause is passed there is no guarantee that that will be so. If all restriction is removed I take it that it may be two and a half per cent. or one per cent., or that the money may even be loaned for nothing. On the other hand, it might be lent at five per cent., six per cent., or even seven or eight per cent., and I personally should prefer to see some statement as to what is the price at which money may be borrowed. I am conscious of the fact that these are probably exceptional views but they represent the reflection of my personal and public experience that prudence, carefulness and thrift in the management of public money are a public duty and I see no signs of that public duty in this Measure.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EIRE VOLUNTEERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.56 p.m.
  The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is an attempt to deal with a situation which has arisen out of the war. Every person except a regular officer who serves in His Majesty's Forces raised in the United Kingdom is given on his discharge from those Forces a credit of contributions under the unemployment insurance scheme of this country which enables him to receive unemployment benefit if he subsequently becomes unemployed. That benefit is only payable if he is in the United Kingdom and while he is absent from this

  859
  country the credit is of no use to him. The Eire volunteer is in that position. Numbers of these volunteers joined up straight from their home in Eire, they have no home they can call their own in Great Britain, and it is only natural and right that on discharge and demobilisation they should want to return to Eire. But the Eire volunteer who returns home is likely to encounter difficulty in obtaining civilian employment because he will enjoy no special protection in finding work or in regaining his previous employment such as is given in the United Kingdom by the Disabled Persons Employment Act and the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. He may be at a disadvantage in this respect compared with men discharged from the Eire Defence Forces to whom the Eire Government have, naturally, promised preference. Eire insurance contributions will not have been paid for him while serving in His Majesty's Forces, and he is of course excluded from the special benefits of the Eire Unemployment Insurance Act which are enjoyed by those who serve in the Eire Defence Forces. He can thus suffer the worst of both of these insurance worlds because he will not be able to derive advantage from the special rights conferred upon ex-Servicemen in the United Kingdom and he will get no advantages if he returns to Eire.
  Perhaps the best way of dealing with this problem would be, were it possible, to have a reciprocal arrangement, and indeed ever since 1923 attempts have been made to arrange such reciprocity with Eire in regard to unemployment insurance. They have always broken down because we have never been able to arrive at satisfactory financial arrangements and in recent years there has been more difficulty over the difference between benefits, particularly dependants benefits, paid in Eire and this country. However, it is hoped that under the wider powers which we have under the new National Insurance Act it may be possible to set up a reciprocal scheme between Eire and this country, and indeed I am glad to be able to state that discussions to that end are in contemplation. A suitable scheme will not be easy to arrive at for the reasons I have already indicated, but we enter these discussions with the hope that we shall be able to arrive at an early agreement on this subject. That is for the
  860
  future. It is impossible to arrive at final agreement without a great deal of further negotiation and discussion.
  Meanwhile, I think it is a matter of general consent that something should be done now to help men and women from Eire who during the war joined His Majesty's Forces and helped us to beat our enemies. We do not know exactly how many such persons there were, but the number is probably not greatly in excess of 40,000. Of that number, it is estimated that about 10,000 have given home addresses in Eire upon demobilisation and many have already returned home. It will be remembered that questions have been put upon several occasions in this House and in another place. The Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister have expressed sympathy with the Eire volunteers and the statements made by them in reply contained promises that a settlement would be reached as soon as possible. There have been meetings between representatives of the Eire Government and officers of my Department, and I am very happy to say that the principles of working arrangements have now been approved by His Majesty's Government and by the Government of Eire. I am also very glad to be able to say that those principles have also been accepted by the Government of Northern Ireland.
  Ex-Service men and women ordinarily resident in Eire before enlistment, who served in our Forces during the war and have returned to Eire after demobilisation, will be able to obtain when unemployed unemployment benefit at our rates and subject to our contribution conditions, up to a limit of 30 weeks, provided that they satisfy the other conditions for the receipt of benefit in force in Eire. Those conditions approximate closely to our own. The arrangement will run for two years from the date of operation, but can be extended if that is mutually agreed upon and the extension is necessary or desirable. The money to pay the benefit in Eire will come from the Unemployment Fund, into which the three Service Departments and the Treasury pay contributions to enable men and women who served in His Majesty's Forces to be treated on claiming benefit as if they had worked and paid contributions for every week they served in the Forces. The Bill is necessary to make the payments under the new arrangements.

  861
  Clause 1 provides that the date of operation of the Bill shall be fixed by Order in Council. It is hoped that the date can be soon. Clause I also provides, coupled with the agreed arrangement that beneficiaries must be persons ordinarily resident in Eire for not less than 30 weeks before service in His Majesty's Forces. Benefit must not exceed 180 days at the weekly rates of benefit now payable under the general scheme of unemployment insurance in this country. That rate for men of 21 years of age and over is 24s. a week and the usual increases for dependants will be paid. The number of children covered will be limited to two in order to adjust the payments to the family allowance scheme of Eire, which provides an allowance for any children after the first two. The persons covered will be ordinary members of His Majesty's Forces and there will be included the Women's Auxiliary Services, nurses and the medical and dental services. The Bill contains provisions in Clause 4 for making Regulations for any adaptations which may prove to be necessary upon the coming into full force of the National Insurance Act, 1946. Such Regulations will be laid before Parliament in the ordinary way. This special provision for the Eire volunteers is in the interests of men and women who came forward spontaneously to join our Forces during the war. We want to make them feel that the United Kingdom is not unmindful of the services they rendered.
  Mr. Austin: My right hon. Friend has made no reference to volunteers in the Merchant Navy. If there has been spontaneous volunteering into the Merchant Navy by residents in Eire, is provision contemplated for them likewise?
  Mr. Griffiths: The Bill is confined to those who served in the Forces. For those who served in the Merchant Navy, contributions would have been paid by the people concerned. The Bill provides for men and women who served in the Army, Navy or Air Force. I do not think there is anything contentious in the Bill. It enables us to do something for people for whom we have a deep regard because they came forward and volunteered to help us in the war.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: The Bill, like the last, will prove to be of a non-contentious character. Inglorious as
  862
  was the attitude of Eire during the great crisis through which we have passed, we shall all agree that everything possible should be done to safeguard the position of that large number of gallant volunteers who came from Eire to assist us in the struggle. Therefore, we welcome the provisions in the Bill. They are necessarily rather nebulous in character. I do not think I have ever before seen a Bill begin with words like these:
  "It His Majesty by Order in Council declares that arrangements have been entered into, and are in force"—
  for certain purposes, then—
  "the Minister of National Isurance … may during the continuance in force of the arrangements make payments out of the Unemployment Fund."
  Everything turns, not upon what is done in the Bill but upon what is contained in the arrangements into which the Minister is going to enter. The right hon. Gentleman has kindly given us some description of what those arrangements will be. It will be the first opportunity the House has had of endeavouring to appreciate precisely what those arrangements are. The right hon. Gentleman will therefore forgive me if I ask him or his Parliamentary Secretary to answer one or two questions about them. I would say, in the first place, that I am very glad to see that the Bill gives no recognition of any sort or kind to the endeavour which has been made on the other side of the Irish Channel, to establish a separate Irish nationality. The definition of these persons, both in the long Title and in the main operative Clauses of the Bill, is:
  "persons ordinarily resident in Eire."
  I am particularly glad that that is the definition chosen by the Bill. It would have been a great disaster had we given any colour to the claim by Mr. de Valera that persons who reside in Eire are not British subjects. As I understand it, the plan is that these gallant volunteers, if they should fall unemployed at any time during the next two years, or within two years after their discharge from the Forces, draw unemployment benefit, broadly speaking, at the rate which is in force in this country. My only fear is that the arrangements themselves will tend to throw these men out of employment. The Minister said there was a possibility, almost amounting to a likelihood, that there would be some discrimination against these men in Eire.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: It is essential to get this point clear. There have been very amicable discussions and negotiations, and the decision is that these men will get preference because of the fact that they served in our Forces I do not think that that ought to be represented as discrimination.
  Mr. Peake: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making the position clear, but what I am afraid of is this. So far as these men are concerned—I think there are 40,000 of them —if they fall out of employment in Eire, the cost will fall not on the Eire unemployment insurance funds but upon our own unemployment insurance funds. Therefore, it will be seen that if there is to be a certain amount of unemployment in Eire, it is greatly to the advantage of the authorities there that these men should be unemployed, rather than persons who have a claim upon their own insurance funds. I am, therefore, sorry that the arrangements contemplate an actual cash payment by us of the precise cost of paying unemployment benefit to these particular men. I would rather we had made a definite contribution, calculated upon some hypothetical basis, to the Eire unemployment insurance funds. That would not have led to any inducement to discriminate so far as employment is concerned, against men who have served in our Forces.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has considered these arrangements from that point of view. It would be a most deplorable thing if, out of our goodness of heart, in endeavouring to do the right thing by these people who volunteered and served in our Forces, and rendered us help in the war, we did something which, in fact, would turn out detrimental to their prospect of obtaining and retaining a steady job at a good rate of remuneration That is the only thing I fear about the arrangements proposed in the Bill. I hope the Minister has considered it and that he has planned in some way to meet it.
  I take it that the actual administration of these benefits will be in the hands of officials of the Eire Government, and that we shall play no part in the day to day administration. We shall receive, I take it, certain records setting out lists of men who have registered as unemployed and at the end of it all we shall be pre-
  864
  sented from time to time with a bill which we have to pay. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has entered into the only arrangement which it was open to him to agree to in this matter, but I express my own fear that the nature of the arrangements, which are intended to be generous, and generous as I believe them to be, may in fact prove detrimental to the prospects of men upon whom we seek to confer these benefits.
  7.14 p.m.
  Sir Ronald Ross: I have great satisfaction in being able to welcome this Bill, which does no more than justice to a very gallant band of Irishmen who came to fight in the cause of freedom during the recent war. Their position at present is a very unhappy one. I do not know whether hon. Members here realise the very trying position in which they find themselves. As has probably become apparent to some hon. Members in this House, we in Northern Ireland have a disinclination to becoming subject to the state of affairs which exists in Eire, and one of the reasons for that is the extraordinary inadequacy of their social services. Even if these men were getting unemployment benefit on the Eire scale, they would be infinitely worse off than they should be. When one considers that there are frozen wage levels there, and a very high cost of living, one appreciates how necessary it is that these men should have this assistance from us to whose help they came when there was greatest need.
  I am very interested in the figure the Minister has given as to the probable number of volunteers as far as can be computed—40,000—because that is about the figure which I always thought was probable. Some rather extravagant claims have been made from time to time and I have never been able to find any grounds for supposing them to be accurate. That therefore is the quantity, and as regards quality, we can all agree that the contributions received from the fighting men of Eire who were prepared to fight for liberty, was a very grand one.
  I am a little anxious, as the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) was, about the fear of victimisation as regards this class. I do not know that I congratulate myself, or ourselves, very much on citizens of Eire being treated as British citizens because, so far as I know,

  865
  they are only British citizens when it helps them. When they can get any advantage by considering themselves otherwise, they regard themselves as anything but British citizens. But it is very important to see that there is no victimisation of those who fought in the cause of the United Nations. In particular, there is one class who certainly have been practically deprived of all rights of human beings. These were the gallant, if slightly irresponsible, gentlemen who were members of the Eire defence forces and who, instead of carrying out their rather less arduous duties of being neutral, deserted in order to join up and fight. I hope they will not be in any way victimised. I would be interested to know what powers our Ministry have of seeing that these funds are properly distributed to those who are qualified to receive them.
  I have the greatest sympathy with the Minister as regards the negotiations which he had to carry through. I can quite understand that they were by no means easy and I congratulate him on having achieved what appears to be a working agreement. We shall see how it works out in practice. I am glad to have been able to intervene to support the Bill which, as I have said, gives no more than justice to a gallant class of Irishmen.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Austin: I am very gratified to see the reasonable way in which this Bill has been met on all sides of the House. It is also gratifying to see that in the delicate matters of negotiation we have been successful in dealing with the Government of Eire, and we must commend the Minister accordingly. To me this Bill symbolises the gratitude of Great Britain for the services rendered to it in times of stress by nationals or residents, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, of Eire. These residents of Eire performed valiant services in the various Forces, and the only flaw that has arisen is that mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leeds North (Mr. Peake) regarding the unfair position in which some of the 40,000 may find themselves owing to the fact that they will receive unemployment benefit from this country instead of from their own funds. Of that 40,000, I presume there were volunteers from all classes of society just as volunteers in this country were drawn from all classes of society. It may well be that
  866
  10,000 or 12,000 will be in no need of pecuniary assistance. However it may well be that there will be the problem of a solid core of 15,000 or 20,000 of these ex-volunteers who may find themselves in distress, who may find themselves unemployed, and kept unemployed, because of this natural pressure on the part of the Eire Government to pay unemployment benefit to their own nationals only, with the corresponding exclusion of these people.
  If I may suggest it to the Minister, here is an opportunity, when we are short of labour, to set up an office in this country to which those people could apply for employment when in need. To give an illustration, I may mention that at almost every Question time, we have raised the difficult question of Polish nationals being sent to this country purely on the basis of objection to Socialism in their own country. If we want to express our gratitude to these Eire nationals, we would be rendering a service to the volunteers and to this country if we could persuade some of them to take up employment in this country in various spheres. That is a suggestion which the Minister perhaps would do well to look into.
  7.22 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): I feel a deep sense of gratitude that in my first speech from this Bench I should be dealing with a Measure which has received the wholehearted support of the House—no doubt in the future I shall not be in the same happy position. In view of this fact, my task is easy, and I shall confine myself to short replies to some of the questions raised.
  The first, put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), was with regard to the payment of benefit. Various methods were considered and, after due consideration, the present method was adopted because it was felt by both sides to be the best. It is true that the administration of the scheme will be in the hands of officials in Eire, but I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend will watch the matter closely and that there will be a close association between our own Government and the Government of Eire so that a check will be made of the various cases. That point was also raised by the hon.

  867
  Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) and it was good to hear the appreciation he expressed to my right hon. Friend on this matter. My right hon. Friend will have power under the Bill to go into all the detailed arrangements of the supervision of the scheme, and, as I have said, there will be, on both sides, the closest examination of all the various cases.
  Sir R. Ross: May I ask one question? Supposing individual complaints of victimisation should come in, would it be possible to raise them in this House with our Minister, so that he may take them up with the corresponding authorities in Eire?
  Mr. Steele: We can really deal only with benefits; the other matter is outside the scope of the arrangements.
  Regarding the suggestion made by my hon Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) about the employment of these people in this country, arrangements have already been made and there is an office of the Ministry of Labour in Dublin. Anyone who wishes can make application to that office for the various types of employment which are open in this country as a result of the present man-power shortage and we have in fact already about 106,000 workers from Eire here now. My right hon. Friend dealt very ably and frankly with the history of this matter as has been appreciated in all parts of the House. We recognise that it is a special problem which has arisen out of the war, and that it will be for a limited period only. With those remarks I trust that we may now have the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole. House, for Friday.—[Mr. Collin-dridge.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EIRE VOLUNTEERS) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No 69.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Minister of National Insurance to give effect to arrangements for paying unemployment benefit to persons ordinarily resident in Eire who have served in His Majesty's Forces, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, and the National Insurance Act, 1946."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. James Griffiths.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Friday.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932 to the Borough of Redcar, a copy of which Order was presented on nth October, be approved"—[Mr. Ede.]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of South Shields, a copy of which Order was presented on nth October, be approved."
  I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first occasion on which the Secretary of State has had to move an Order relating to his own constituency.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Salford, a copy of which Order was presented on nth October, be approved." —[Mr. Ede.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Seven o'Clock.

GERMANY
  De-Nazification
  De-Nazification
  Ruhr Coalminers (Absenteeism)
  Ruhr Coalminers (Absenteeism)
  British Publications (Trade Union Leaders)
  British Publications (Trade Union Leaders)
  Unemployment Insurance
  Unemployment Insurance
  Civil Offences
  Civil Offences
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
NATIONAL FINANCE
  War Damage Payments
  War Damage Payments
  Purchase Tax (Overseas Gifts)
  Purchase Tax (Overseas Gifts)
  Anglo-American Loan (U.S. Films)
  Anglo-American Loan (U.S. Films)
  Pound Sterling (Purchasing Value)
  Pound Sterling (Purchasing Value)
  Gold and Dollar Holdings
  Gold and Dollar Holdings
  Overseas Borrowing
  Overseas Borrowing
  Bretton Woods Scheme
  Bretton Woods Scheme
  Forestry Development, Scotland (Financial Aid)
  Forestry Development, Scotland (Financial Aid)
  Polish Citizen (Allowance)
  Polish Citizen (Allowance)
  Capitalisation of Reserves
  Capitalisation of Reserves
  Excess Profits Tax
  Excess Profits Tax
  Monetary Policy
  Monetary Policy
  Capital Issues Committee
  Capital Issues Committee
  Forestry Commission (Annual Reports)
  Forestry Commission (Annual Reports)
  Securities (Blocked Sterling)
  Securities (Blocked Sterling)
  UNIVERSITIES (ENTRANTS)
  UNIVERSITIES (ENTRANTS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Palestine (Buildings)
  Palestine (Buildings)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Prisoners' Letters
  Prisoners' Letters
  Release Delays
  Release Delays
  Soldiers' Families (Medical Treatment)
  Soldiers' Families (Medical Treatment)
  Church Parades
  Church Parades
  Movements Branches (Ex-officers' Employment)
  Movements Branches (Ex-officers' Employment)
  Married Quarters, Colchester
  Married Quarters, Colchester
  Films (Voluntary Projectionists)
  Films (Voluntary Projectionists)
  Mutiny Charges, Malaya
  Mutiny Charges, Malaya
  Home Leave (India and Far East)
  Home Leave (India and Far East)
  Judge Advocate-General
  Judge Advocate-General
  Marriage Allowance (Young Soldiers)
  Marriage Allowance (Young Soldiers)
  S.E. Asia and India (Conditions)
  S.E. Asia and India (Conditions)
  Greece (Accommodation)
  Greece (Accommodation)
  Release Draft (Accommodation)
  Release Draft (Accommodation)
  General Demobilisation
  General Demobilisation
  PRISONERS OF WAR (PROTECTED PERSONNEL)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (PROTECTED PERSONNEL)
  N.A.A.F.I.
  N.A.A.F.I.
  MIDHURST COMMON (SAND WORKINGS)
  MIDHURST COMMON (SAND WORKINGS)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Repairs Licences
  Repairs Licences
  Buckingham Palace (Repairs)
  Buckingham Palace (Repairs)
  Master Builders' Certificates
  Master Builders' Certificates
  University of London Institute of Education (Premises)
  University of London Institute of Education (Premises)
  Building Craftsmen (South Wales)
  Building Craftsmen (South Wales)
  Building Materials (Distributors' Stocks)
  Building Materials (Distributors' Stocks)
  Building Firms (Stroud)
  Building Firms (Stroud)
HOUSING
  Taps, Tubes and Guttering
  Taps, Tubes and Guttering
  Baths
  Baths
  Gillingham, Dorset
  Gillingham, Dorset
  Plasterboard
  Plasterboard
  Temporary Houses (Slabs)
  Temporary Houses (Slabs)
  Refrigerators
  Refrigerators
COAL INDUSTRY
  Nationalisation Compensation Tribunal
  Nationalisation Compensation Tribunal
  Tubs and Trams (Ball Bearings)
  Tubs and Trams (Ball Bearings)
  Nationalisation (Compensation)
  Nationalisation (Compensation)
  Bevin Hostel, Crook
  Bevin Hostel, Crook
  Welsh Coal Board (Appointments)
  Welsh Coal Board (Appointments)
  Dealings with Assets
  Dealings with Assets
  Nationalisation (Transfer Vesting Date)
  Nationalisation (Transfer Vesting Date)
  Dust Inhalation Diseases
  Dust Inhalation Diseases
  Compensation Cases (Employment)
  Compensation Cases (Employment)
FUEL AND POWER
  Supplies (Sub-Tenants)
  Supplies (Sub-Tenants)
  Petrol Rationing
  Petrol Rationing
  Oil Reserves
  Oil Reserves
  Electricity Industry (Capital Expenditure)
  Electricity Industry (Capital Expenditure)
  Gas Company Office (Building Work)
  Gas Company Office (Building Work)
  Electricity Poles
  Electricity Poles
  Coal Quality
  Coal Quality
EMPLOYMENT
  Appointments Department
  Appointments Department
  Salford
  Salford
  Foreign Scientists
  Foreign Scientists
  Essential Work Orders
  Essential Work Orders
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Shoe Repairing, Yorkshire (Training Courses)
  Shoe Repairing, Yorkshire (Training Courses)
  Motor Car Industry (Employees)
  Motor Car Industry (Employees)
  Unemployment Books, Luton
  Unemployment Books, Luton
  Catering Industry Placings (London)
  Catering Industry Placings (London)
  Departmental Offices, Paisley (Staff)
  Departmental Offices, Paisley (Staff)
  Iron Founding (Italians)
  Iron Founding (Italians)
  Industrial Disputes (Stoppages)
  Industrial Disputes (Stoppages)
  National Juvenile Employment Council
  National Juvenile Employment Council
  RAIL AND ROAD TRANSPORT (MEMORANDUM)
  RAIL AND ROAD TRANSPORT (MEMORANDUM)
  PHILIPPINES (BRITISH CLAIMS)
  PHILIPPINES (BRITISH CLAIMS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Sheets (Students)
  Sheets (Students)
  Knitting Wool
  Knitting Wool
  Motorcars (Import Restrictions)
  Motorcars (Import Restrictions)
  Imperial House, Regent Street
  Imperial House, Regent Street
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  Boot and Shoe Trade
  Boot and Shoe Trade
  Building Materials (Export)
  Building Materials (Export)
  Motorcars (Export Trade)
  Motorcars (Export Trade)
EDUCATION
  Training Courses (Ex-Service Personnel)
  Training Courses (Ex-Service Personnel)
  Engineering Students (Technical Colleges)
  Engineering Students (Technical Colleges)
  AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY SERVICE (COST)
  AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY SERVICE (COST)
  WAR PENSIONS (TOTAL DISABLEMENT)
  WAR PENSIONS (TOTAL DISABLEMENT)
  ALIENS
  ALIENS
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Dental Benefit
  Dental Benefit
  SCOTLAND (GAS POISON COMPLAINT)
  SCOTLAND (GAS POISON COMPLAINT)

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

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (CITY OF LANCASTER ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ammon, I beg to move the first Motion on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (COUNTY BOROUGH OF PRESTON ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion on the Paper.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF TON- BRIDGE ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move the last Motion standing in the name of my noble friend.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISI ONAL ORDER (NORWICH) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendment proposed by the Select Committee made.
ARDROSSAN GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

CABLE AND WIRELESS BILL.
2.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, I hope that before the Bill is completed in this House we may have some further light from the Leader of the House, or from His Majesty's Government, as to what is proposed for the future organization. There are really two sides to the question. The first is that of our own domestic organization in this country. What is to take the place of the present Cable and Wireless Company? I need not trouble your Lordships by going through the arguments which more than one noble Lord put forward on the Second Reading against the handing over of this Company to the Post Office. We on these Benches are very strongly opposed to that. I hope that His Majesty's Government have been impressed by these arguments, and that we may have some assurance to-day that the course to be followed will be to set up a corporation similar to the corporations which are being set up in all the Dominions except New Zealand (which, I believe, is different in that respect), and that it will not be handed over to the Post Office. I think that to hand it over to the Post Office would make difficulties not only with the Commonwealth organization, but in regard to cable ends and various other rights in foreign countries. There are many arguments. As I said, I will not repeat them, but I hope

205
that before this stage is concluded we may have some information on that point and some assurance that a corporation will be set up. That is, indeed, what we very strongly urge from this side.
The other point is the Commonwealth organization which is to be set up. We are now to have a Commonwealth Communications Council with, I am glad to see, my noble friend Lord Reith as its Chairman. That has been announced and I am sure there can be no more suitable appointment. The service he has already rendered in this matter is very great indeed, and nothing could have given us greater pleasure than to see him selected by all the Dominions and by this country for that purpose. We shall be glad to know what will be the powers, the duties, and the whole set-up of this Commonwealth Council. I understand that unanimous recommendations were made at the Commonwealth Conference last year. Is there any reason, even if the whole of the Report cannot be published, why the recommendations of the Commonwealth Conference cannot be made public? I do not think there would be any objection to that in the Dominions, and it would help us very much in making up our minds as to whether the proposed organization is satisfactory or not. I hope, therefore, that on both the domestic side and on the Commonwealth side, before this Bill passes this stage, we may have a statement from His Majesty's Government.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the great assistance which he and his colleagues have given to the passage of the Bill, and we are extremely appreciative of it. As your Lordships are well aware, this Bill marks only the first necessary steps in the setting up of the new scheme of arrangements. I may say that the agreement which was appended to the Report of the Commonwealth Communications Council will be published quite shortly—I think, as a matter of fact, as soon as this Bill has received the Royal Assent; at all events, quite shortly. As the noble Lord is aware, the Dominions, whilst completely unanimous in the report for which the noble Lord, Lord Reith, was largely responsible, differed regarding their internal arrangements. Canada and South Africa have one set-up, New Zealand have
206
a different set-up, and Australia will have another not quite the same. So, in that respect, they are not of the same pattern, but that fact in no way derogates from the necessity of giving, in good faith, complete effect to the recommendations of the Committee over which the noble Lord presided.
I would join with the noble Lord opposite in his appreciation of our debt to Lord Reith for his services, and in welcoming the fact that everybody wanted him to be Chairman. That is a great tribute to his diplomacy quite apart from his personal ability. As to the future set-up, I note what the noble Lord says and I know that his view is shared by others. At the same time, I am afraid I am not in a position to-day to make any definite statement. There are all manner of considerations to be taken into account, but we are actively considering the new set-up. I am afraid I cannot make any announcement as to its character, which is not yet fully determined. Therefore I must disappoint the noble Lord, otherwise I thank him for his intervention.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, if with the permission of the House I may say another word, I would like to thank the noble Viscount opposite for the statement he made regarding the publication of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Conference. That is most satisfactory. With regard to the other point, on which he is unable to give any satisfaction, I am afraid I can only express my disappointment and repeat that we are anxious that these questions should not become an issue between the parties. I hope very much that the future of the corporation will be determined more or less in understanding of the view which we hold upon this side of the House.
2.42 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I rise to join this happy family which seems to have been built up round this Bill, but in view of the fact that I did raise this question of cable and wireless in the debate which I initiated in this House last May on the general question of nationalization, I feel that I cannot let the Bill pass without saying a word or two to express my anxiety and the anxieties of other people as to what is likely to take place. I would like to ask the Government—I do not propose to be controversial at all; I only

207
want information—one or two rather pertinent questions. As a result of taking over what is admitted by the Government and by all concerned to be a very efficient business, which has built up an organization that has been of immense importance not only to our country but to the world generally, particularly during the war, I would like to ask whether the Government are satisfied that the efficiency side of it all is not likely to be detrimentally interfered with. I ask for this reason. In a great organization like this, which it has taken many years to build up, and on the directorate of which there are many men of great eminence and knowledge of this subject who are going to be dispensed with, is it likely that a new organization such as is suggested by this Bill will be so efficient; and will not the result of it be certain further expense on the taxpayer of this country, which is already very grave?
I do not know whether I am likely to get an answer to this question, but I would like to ask the Government whether the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are satisfied that under this new arrangement the same secrecy and confidential arrangements between the Services and this Company will be maintained, because it seems to me that, while various countries in different parts of the world were satisfied in dealing with a corporation such as Cable and Wireless, they will have quite different ideas when dealing with a Government organization. I can hardly think that those countries which have been giving their confidence and their territory within their own borders to this organization will continue to do so if such business is run by the Government. This will undoubtedly mean putting their nationals into the offices and the conduct of this business. I am wondering whether that is the sort of arrangement which can possibly preserve the confidential and familiar attitude and atmosphere that you want in relation to this very intricate business. There is another feature that touches the taxpayer's pocket. Where now there are certain currencies, dollar and other foreign currencies, which come to the benefit of this country through the services rendered by this organization—a benefit which we so sadly need just now—that advantage will cease. I do not know what amount is involved, but I imagine
208
that it must be something fairly substantial.
I have looked into the question of whether the Dominions were really so keen on this business being transferred from the Cable and Wireless Company to the Government. Although in some cases they say they are quite willing that this should be done, I am rather perturbed that in one case words were used to the effect that they would do it but rather halfheartedly. I do not find that there is that agreement to this transaction on the part of the Dominions which some people suppose to exist. And there is another point. This business, so far as I can see, is definitely an international business. How on earth you are going to nationalize a business which is an international business to the advantage of those concerned, I fail to see. No doubt the Government have looked into all these matters, but in view of the opinions of many people, including my humble self, I do feel that they should be ventilated on the Third Reading of this Bill. If, as some anticipate, this great organization is broken up into parts which belong here and there, to different countries, that will not be to the interests of our own country or to the interest of our own nationals.
I make these few remarks because I do not want it to be felt, if, as we anticipate, these things should happen, that voices were not raised on the subject. I would suggest to the Government that these are questions which are really material and of great importance with regard to the future success of this new and very technical undertaking which is being embarked upon by the Government. I would like also to say one further word with regard to the staff and certain members of this organization who have spent what one might call a lifetime in bringing it to its present great position. So far as I can make out, they are not considered to be worthy of any consideration on being turned out of their jobs. I know of no other organization which has had servants, whether as directors or others, who have given all their past to building up a great business and have quite suddenly found themselves without jobs. I beg the Government to look again into this question of compensating those directors and others who may, through these altered circumstances, lose the positions which

209
they have occupied for so long and with such great efficiency. I hope the Government will forgive me for intervening in what seemed to be, until I got up, a happy family discussion, and I assure them it is only my anxiety with regard to the future which causes me to do so.
2.51 p.m.
LORD REITH: My Lords, as I had so much to do with this matter in its early stages perhaps your Lordships will permit me to make some brief comments now, I was delighted to hear from the the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that something was shortly to be published. I take it that will be the draft Overall Agreement, which was an appendix to the Commonwealth Communications Conference Report.
LORD ADDISONindicated assent.
LORD REITH: That will provide what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, wants, a clear indication of the duties and responsibilities of the new Central Board. That, I think, will meet him and others of your Lordships who want to know what the new Board will have to do. Might I ask the noble Lord who will reply for the Government whether he can give us any idea when the next stage of legislation in this country will be entered upon. As has been said several times, this is only the first stage. When will the next stage come—the one which will implement, I should imagine, that draft Overall Agreement and permit the establishment of the new Central Board? I think your Lordships would be glad to hear when that is to come.
As to the organization here, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, said. I will not repeat what I said on July 25 as to its being taken over by the Post Office. The arguments from him and from me are on record and both he and I stand by them. Might I suggest to the Government that they should examine a proposal I made on return from the tour round the world. I think the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will possibly find an answer to part of his doubts there. The proposal referred to what I called, for want of a better term, Oceanic Assets. The present Company does much work in this country and, as your Lordships know, it does much work in other parts of the world—in the Colonies and in foreign countries. I do
210
not think the Government will have any objection to my referring to this Oceanic Assets idea. I wonder whether it might not be possible to deal separately with the work that the Company does in this country, and have it conducted by one organization, and have the work which the Company does overseas conducted by another organization. The Oceanic Assets proposal was presented to and discussed by the Commonwealth Communications Conference last year, with a particular orientation which need not be referred to now. Personally, I hope the Government will not put anything under the Post Office at all, but they might consider, if they are determined to put something under the Post Office, confining that something to what the Company actually does in this country, and having the rest of the Company's activities—namely, the Oceanic Assets activities in the Colonies and in foreign countries—conducted by some other body; a corporation, I would hope. Those members of the Government and of the Opposition who were in office and who were aware of this proposal in 1945, will understand what I am referring to.
It is not my business to reply on behalf of the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, but I might possibly help a little, because of my early and intimate connexion with this matter, if I mention one or two points he has brought up. As to efficiency, had I thought that the efficiency of the conduct of the telecommunication services, which are obviously of vital importance to Empire and Commonwealth, would in any way be lessened by the scheme which was submitted, after discussion with Commonwealth Governments, to the United Kingdom Government, and which was approved by the Commonwealth Conference last year, I should never have been party to it. I am no less fallible than the next noble Lord, but I would not have been party to a scheme which I did not think would work.
As to the Services being satisfied, the noble Lord may be relieved to know that throughout the proceedings of the Commonwealth Communications Conference last year, there was present a senior representative of the Services, watching what was happening and being given full opportunity to comment at the meetings of the Conference and otherwise. It seemed

211
to me—and I would imagine this still to apply—that the Services were satisfied with what was proposed and what was in fact passed for the consideration of all the Governments by that Conference.
As to the attitude of the Dominions and India, would the noble Lord remember that this business began in 1944, when the Commonwealth Communications Council decided to recommend the nationalization of all the telecommunications interests in their countries. It is true that there was a variation in enthusiasm between the Dominion Governments on that issue, but we cannot get away from the fact that a 1944 meeting of the Council recommended unanimously that the local companies should be nationalized in each country. I was presented with that when I was invited to go around the world in January, 1945, but the United Kingdom Government thought—and I entirely agreed with them—that the arrangements for the central co-ordination of all these separately nationalized bodies were not adequate; and I was asked whether I could devise something in consultation with the Dominions and India which would give a greater measure of central co-ordination with a view to greater efficiency. That is what I felt I brought back as a result of my conversations. I did not bring back nationalization; I was presented with nationalization before I went; but wherever I went I did my best to ascertain what measure of enthusiasm there was locally. Some of the Dominions insisted on it and would have nothing other than that. In one Dominion—the noble Lord is right—they said in effect: "We were content to let the existing system continue, but as the issue had been raised we fell in with the wishes of the majority." You may say, therefore, that they agreed, not enthusiastically but nevertheless fully, to the general scheme of nationalization.
I do not understand the noble Lord's references to a break-up. Reverting to this Oceanic Assets idea, the present Company has of course activities in various foreign countries, but they are not going to be nationalized into the nationalities of those foreign countries; the staff there will be as now. That leads to one of my points about the Post Office: instead of having the United Kingdom Post Office take over the offices and organizations in the Colonies and in foreign countries, it would
212
be much better to put all that under some separate body here—a corporation I would hope—but there is no question of breakup. Does the noble Lord wish to speak?
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am most interested in what my noble friend has said, but does he really think it likely that foreign countries which now have working arrangements with the Cable and Wireless Company are going to continue those very intimate and familiar arrangements with a foreign Governmental organization? I cannot conceive that that is likely at all. If it did happen that there was some arrangement it seems to me that they would insist upon having their own nationals running the show in their own countries and not what I understand it to be now.
LORD REITH: I appreciate the noble Lord's point, and my answer is this. I hope that the United Kingdom Government will not, either through the Post Office or in any other way, directly take over the present Company' activities in these foreign countries. I admit, and always have admitted, the possibility that, owing to nationalization, something might happen that would not otherwise have happened, but I think the danger will be very considerably lessened if, instead of the United Kingdom Post Office endeavouring to conduct this part of the business, the United Kingdom Government should establish a corporation for the purpose; the only obvious difference in a foreign country would then be the heading of the notepaper—if that. Nobody would need to see any difference between what had been and what was. I do not feel that there is any real danger of any break-up or of foreign Governments insisting on putting their own nationals into an office at present run by Cable and Wireless Ltd. but in future to be run by' a United Kingdom Corporation.
I have only one further point to make, and that is to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said about the Company and to repeat briefly what I said on the Second Reading. I was a director of that concern, and, if I had thought that the efficiency of the Company was impugned, I could not, out of loyalty to them, have undertaken the mission I did. As I have already said, if I thought that what emerged from the tour and subsequent Conference would have lessened

213
efficiency, I should not have been party to it. I believed that the new arrangements would have been acceptable to the Company, and it was to my great surprise and disappointment that those hopes were not realized. But as to the Company's record through the long years—and that of the Chairman, Sir Edward Wilshaw in particular—there is no one in this House, either Lord Teviot or any other noble Lord, who would pay to them and to him a greater tribute than I would be willing to do.
3.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Reith, has really answered the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, more efficiently than I could, because he has been right through this business from the very beginning. So far as the objective is concerned, and the machinery of operations, there has been continuity all through. This Bill represents no alteration at all. It is only one stage of the procedure to be carried out. That is all it amounts to, and I can assure the noble Lord that in common with the noble Lord below the gangway we should not be parties to this if we felt there was any likelihood of its diminishing the efficiency of the service or endangering any of the things to which he has very properly called attention. I am quite sure he will be satisfied that it will be the anxiety of the Government that, whatever new company or corporation manage this concern, they will treat with complete fairness and consideration all the staff who have rendered services, as happens in any other case where organizations are changed through legislative action.
LORD TEVIOT: I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but in view of what has been said, and the undoubted opinion of the efficiency of this organization and its value, I wonder if he could give me some good reason, other than the political reason of nationalization, why you should disturb this very efficient service. There may be some other reason which I do not know.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I should have said myself that it is fair to say that the initiation of this scheme could not be rightly described as political. Decisions were arrived at in order to get an organization in being which would work with the Dominions in
214
common with ourselves and, political considerations entirely apart, this was the business-like way of doing it. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no other thought in our minds at all. I believe it will involve some enlargement of the functions of the Council to which the noble Lord referred a few minutes ago, when it comes into being, with regard to the consolidation of operations and the harmonious working of the different parts of the machine throughout the world.
I will say with regard to the future set-up that I have been greatly impressed by what the noble Lord has said, and particularly with what the noble Lord, Lord Reith, has said. I am well acquainted with their views of what they would like to have, but I regret that I cannot go any further to-day than to say that we have not yet come to a conclusion as to what the final set-up will be. It will, however, be reported as soon as possible; we shall waste no time.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, perhaps I might say one word with regard to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. The noble Lord said with regard to this Bill that he could see no conceivable reason for it except the Government passion for nationalization. That is, I know, an impression which has been gained in various parts of the country. I think it only fair to say that this scheme was accepted by the late National Government. I have had no knowledge of the later proceedings, but I had some knowledge of the matter when I was in the Dominions Office before the Leader of the House went there. I must confess that I myself came to the conclusion that it would be impossible for the existing system to go on. I am sure your Lordships will not regard me as an enthusiastic supporter of nationalization; I do not like it. The impression I got was undoubtedly that they would have been unwilling to continue co-operating with us on the old basis. This is to me not a problem of nationalization at all. It is entirely an Imperial problem, and I believe, whether we like it or not, that this new set-up was inevitable and for that reason I have been ready to accept it. I do not pretend that I like it on principle, but I do believe it is the only basis on which we can get an international network of communications. I felt it fair to say that to the noble Lord.

215
because I think he was still under a misapprehension on certain aspects of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HILL FARMING BILL.
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, this Bill has been designed to rehabilitate the hill farming industry. I do not know if your Lordships realize how large is the area of hill farming land both in this country and in Scotland. Something like 16,000,000 acres in the United Kingdom are hill and mountain grazings. That is approximately 34 per cent. of the agricultural land of this country. Over 4,500,000 sheep and about 320,000 cattle graze over wild spaces of which little or no use could otherwise be made. To put it another way, one-sixth of the agricultural land in England and Wales is comprised in hill farms and in Scotland rough grazings account for nearly 70 per cent. of the total farm land.
Now the importance of this system of farming is mainly threefold. In the first place, these farm lands provide valuable pasture for breeding beef cattle, which later move down to the lowlands for fattening. Secondly, a hardy indigenous race of mountain sheep is bred which, when crossed with lowland rams, produces Wether-lambs for fattening. But far more important than this is the fact that these sheep provide a basic stock which by cross-breeding spread their vitality through flocks all over the country. They are the basis of our original stocks for breeding. In other words, I think it is fair to say that home meat supplies are ultimately dependent on the maintenance of these foundation stocks of sheep and cattle in the hill lands of Britain. Thirdly, this hill farming provides a way of life for the inhabitants who depend on their flocks and herds for their livelihood.
For some time, their livelihood has been in an extremely precarious condi
216
tion. This is, unfortunately, one of the most depressed industries of which we know. Undrained pastures, overgrown with bracken, broken fences and tumbledown walls, empty houses, land reverting to its natural state, farms reverting to their owners because no tenants can be found for them—this is what the visitor finds. In the war years, unfortunately, hill farming did not benefit as other forms of agriculture did. There was no improvement during the war in the economic position of the hill farmers. Hill farms, which largely consist of areas of rough grazings with only small areas of land capable of cultivation, could not benefit to any great extent from the improved and secure markets for cereals, potatoes and other arable crops. Nor could these farmers obtain direct benefit from the improved markets for fat sheep or fat cattle. Only a small proportion of the stock sold by hill farmers each year is in a fat condition ready for slaughter. Almost the whole of the sales of this stock are of necessity made to other farmers in lowland areas, who use them either for further breeding or as feeding animals.
Normally, improved prices and secured markets for fat stock would be reflected in better prices and markets for the store animal. Unfortunately, during the war owing to the increase of tillage and cultivation this did not happen, and in fact there was less demand for the stock from the hill farms. So, in practice, the hill farmers hardly benefited at all. At the same time their expenses, as those of other farmers, rose sharply. Wages, which account for something like 30 per cent. of a hill farmer' expenditure, have increased by nearly 100 per cent. Unfortunately, enhanced prices were not available to compensate the farmers for that. This is the picture which has been painted in the two Reports which we received, one from Earl De La Warr and the other from Lord Balfour of Burleigh. These Reports show only too clearly the condition of hill farming today. If I may, I should like to congratulate both the noble Lords very sincerely indeed on these Reports. In fact, I think the greatest possible compliment has been paid to them by reason of the fact that this Bill has been largely drawn up to implement their recommendations.
So dismal is the picture which these Reports paint that it was apparent to the Government that no small palliatives

217
would be of any use. Help of a very substantial kind had to be given if we were going to rescue the industry. Either the industry had to be abandoned, and these areas of hill country allowed to go back to wild scrub with a few strong sheep and cattle grazing on ranches, or else a big effort, with a large amount of finance involved, would have to be made to put the hill farming industry on its feet and build it up again. This is what the Government decided to do and this is what this Bill is designed to achieve. The principle we have adopted—and I should like to emphasize this—is a voluntary one. In fact, this is one of the great differences between this Bill and the recommendations of the two Reports. The recommendations in the Reports had suggested that some measure of compulsion would be necessary. We, on the other hand, have taken the line that we could keep this on a voluntary basis, and in fact the principle that we have adopted is that we are going to help people who help themselves. We do think that these hill farmers, who are perhaps some of the most self-reliant, hard-working and capable people in these islands, if given a chance, can themselves rehabilitate their own industry. That is what we hope, and for that reason we intend to give what help we can.
If your Lordships will turn to the Bill, you will see that in Clauses 1 to 12 is set out the main plan for the rehabilitation of hill farming. Roughly the scheme is this. If the owners of the land and the tenants agree—or anyone else interested in the land agrees—on a scheme that will help that land, and benefit hill farming, then the Minister is empowered to advance—if he thinks the scheme suitable and efficient—50 per cent. or half the expenses of the scheme. That really is the essence of the whole Bill. It is purely voluntary. If the schemes are decided upon and agreed by the parties concerned, the Minister can advance 50 per cent. of the cost of a scheme. These schemes must be concerned with hill farming land, or land suitable for hill farming purposes. And here we run into a difficulty as one is apt to do when one tries to define very precisely an extremely varied matter such as hill farming.
In Clause 1 (3), we define "hill farming land" as
"mountain, hill, and heath land which is suitable for use for the maintenance of sheep of a hardy kind but not of sheep of other
218
kinds, or which by improvement could be made so suitable."
Some of your Lordships may have different ideas and disagree with this definition, but I would urge that on examination you will find that the definition does in practice cover the farms which we intend to benefit. It is purely for the hill farmers; but I should like to point out that if a hill farmer owns both hill land and low land he would not be excluded from this scheme, provided the farms are worked in conjunction for hill farming purposes. He could own considerable areas of different kinds of land but would still qualify for the grant. The actual improvements for which the grant will be available, are set out in the First Schedule of the Bill, but the Minister is allowed, by order, to alter or modify this Schedule if occasion demands.
The total amount which may be used is £4,000,000 over a period of five years, though if Parliament agrees an extra £1,000,000 can be added. There are, of course, various safeguards, as your Lordships will note, to ensure that this money is well spent, and that the schemes themselves will be worth the money—in other words, that they will provide equivalent benefits for the money spent. Under Clauses 4 to 8, your Lordships will see that the Minister has power to revoke or vary schemes, either at the request of the parties concerned or in the public interest, or if by any chance he should decide that the work had been badly and inefficiently carried out. In the last case, he will have power to recover such money as has been spent by the Treasury on the scheme. There are also safeguards to see that there shall be neither increased rents nor increased compensation arising out of the receipt of Government money.
I turn now for a moment to what is probably the most controversial clause of the Bill, Clause 10, which relates to improvement grants in respect of work done for the erection, improvement or reconditioning of cottages. It is only fair to point out that this assistance will not add to the number of tied cottages, and in fact, may lead to a reduction. Cottages built under such a scheme will come under the Rent Restrictions Acts and will have a full grant of 50 per cent., which will be available immediately.
Another most complicated situation is that dealt with by Clause 12, where a scheme is envisaged for common land. Immediately

219
one tries to deal with common land, as your Lordships know, the whole aspect becomes extremely difficult and complicated. Under this Bill, we have tried to keep the voluntary principle, and in order to try to start schemes on land where people have common rights the Minister has power to initiate schemes which he thinks will improve this land. Such schemes will qualify for the 50 per cent. grant. If, however, a commoner should disagree with such a scheme, and his disagreement is neither frivolous nor groundless, then the scheme will tall through. This will not stop the Minister from initiating another scheme if he thinks that that would do. On the other hand, if a scheme is proceeded with, and one or more of the commoners refuse to pay the appropriate amount apportioned to them, the remaining commoners could continue the scheme, dividing up the whole 50 per cent. among them or, alternatively, they could ask for the scheme to be revoked. We have a slight inducement to commoners who might default on a scheme after it had been agreed, in that the Minister has the right to stop payment of the subsidy to those who default.
As well as the grant for such schemes, the Government intend for the time being to continue the subsidies for both hill sheep and cattle. This is provided for in Clauses 13 to 17. This merely continues what is being done at the present time, and I think that the State has already advanced something like £11,500,000, through subsidies, in support of the industry. I think that your Lordships will agree that it will be some years before any real benefit can come from these schemes, and in the meantime the hill farmers must be kept in reasonable economic circumstances.
Clauses 18 and 19 deal with the control of rams in England and Wales. This has already been tried out in Wales with extremely good effect, and I think that there is general agreement among the farmers there that the level of the herds has been improved accordingly. Then we come to the question of heather burning. Clauses 20 and 21 enable the Minister to make regulations for the burning of heather and grass on land in England and Wales, and also to rescind any clauses in leases which might prohibit this burning. Clauses 22 to 27 deal with the question
220
of heather burning in Scotland. The Heather Burning (Scotland) Act, 1926, is repealed, and various rights are given to allow for heather burning in the appropriate season. I may say that the persons chiefly concerned in this have been consulted, and I understand that they agree with the provisions set out in the Bill. Clauses 28 to 31 regulate the valuation of sheep stocks, which for some time has been dealt with in a rather unsatisfactory manner. Here, also, I think that the parties have been consulted and that more or less substantial agreement has been reached.
Clauses 32 to 41 deal with general matters, but I would like particularly to call the attention of your Lordships to Clauses 32 and 33, which deal with advisory and local committees. It must be obvious that any scheme of this kind must be implemented through people with profound knowledge of the industry; otherwise it might be extremely difficult to operate. Your Lordships will see that under these clauses an Advisory Committee will be set up for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a sub-committee of that Committee for Wales and Monmouthshire. Scotland will have its own Advisory Committee. Under Clause 33, the appropriate Minister may also constitute local committees, which will have the power of carrying out the intentions of the Bill. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture intends to use the county agricultural executive committees as far as possible for this purpose. They will have considerable powers delegated to them in order to implement these schemes, except in regard to actual finance and payments, which are reserved exclusively to the control of the Minister.
I am afraid that I have kept your Lordships rather a long time in going through the Bill, but I thought, if your Lordships will allow me, that I would also wind up the debate and try to clarify any point which needs clarification. I hope that your Lordships will recognize that this Bill is a sincere effort by the Government to rehabilitate this industry. We do sincerely want to put the industry on its feet, and I trust that your Lordships will give the Bill a favourable hearing and a speedy passage through this House. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
3.29 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, first of all, on behalf of your Lordships, may I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, on the way that he has laid this Bill before us? May I also congratulate him on the Bill itself? There are certain items which all of us would like to see a little different, but that is usually the case with Bills that are brought before us. I really cannot do other than congratulate the noble Lord on the main provisions of the Bill, because he has been good enough to use a good many of the proposals that were put before his Department by the Committee for Scotland of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and also by the Committee for England and Wales over which I had the honour to preside.
We were all very glad to hear the noble Lord stress both the size and the importance of this section of the farming industry. When he spoke of 16,000,000 acres, he gave us some picture and some considerable idea of just how much of Scotland, England and Wales is involved. I purposely put Scotland first because that country is more interested than England in this particular problem. I think we were also glad to hear that the noble Lord was so fully aware of the state to which this section of the industry has been driven, and of the fact that the hills have not benefited—I was going to say to the same extent, but I think it is perhaps truer to say not at all—from the somewhat greater prosperity of lowland farming during the war. When I went round the country with my Commission I frequently found that some of these unfortunate hill farmers had been compelled to plough up considerable areas of hills and sow them with corn that had not got the slightest hope of ever ripening.
There is one point which I would like to stress and to which the noble Lord referred. He has mentioned the size of the problem and the importance of it. He only just referred to the farmers on these hills and mountains. I do not come from one of these districts, but, during the course of taking evidence, I think we visited every single hill district in England and Wales. We would go and stay at selected spots in a comparatively small area, possibly for a week at a time, motor round that district, stopping every twenty, thirty or forty miles, sometimes five times a day, meeting small groups of farmers, anything from twenty to fifty, who were
222
brought together either in the local schools, village halls or public houses, taking evidence from them and discussing their problems with them as informally as possible. Therefore, we had an opportunity of forming an impression of the calibre of these men. I do not want to use exaggerated language, but they were magnificent. When one considered the extent, up in those hills and on the tops of those mountains, to which they kept in touch with current events, their courage, and toughness, we felt that many of them were almost hewn out of the granite from which they tried to extract a living. It made me feel that, whatever the economic importance of this industry—and I believe it is of tremendóus economic importance—these men themselves, their wives and the human stock that they are rearing, alone make this problem worth tackling and tackling on a wide and bold scale.
Let me say one other word in general terms. I hope that none of us here to-day feel that we are met in order merely to do a good deed to a worthy body of men. As the noble Earl has already told us, these men are part of the very foundation of what in fact is itself the foundation of the British agricultural industry—namely, live stock. At the present moment and for the next few years the most important factor in the food shortage position of the world is going to be in live-stock products. Therefore we are deeply dependent on this section of the agricultural industry if we are going to produce in this country the amount of food necessary in order to feed the people of this country. Do not let us deceive ourselves by thinking that our food problems are going to, be over in three or four years. There may be a period in a few years when there is plenty of food in the world, but I leave it to those who know a great deal more than I do about the economic and financial position of the country to say whether we are going to have the unlimited supply of exchange with which to purchase that food, even when it is otherwise obtainable. So much for the one or two general remarks I venture to make.
May I particularly congratulate His Majesty' Government on the comprehensive nature of the Schedule? So far as I can see, they have included almost everything that can be thought of. I am only sorry that there is no mention of assistance for installing the telephone. I really believe, not only for business purposes,

223
but in the case of illness and so on that the availability of telephones in these areas is one of the most important items. I quite realize that now there may be difficulties about labour and material, but I should like to say that I would appreciate it if the noble Earl in his reply could give me some assurance that, at any rate, in a comparatively short period his Department will consider inserting this item of telephones in the First Schedule.
I have only one or two regrets about this Bill. I am rather sorry that the Government have decided to drop all reference to any compulsory measures. Far be it from me on this side of the House to urge compulsion on the other side of the House. We are only too relieved to find that in some Departments there is at least some belief in liberty left, but I can See some important schemes being held up in a large area, where perhaps 70, 80, or 90 per cent. of the people would like to do something, by the mere fact of a very small percentage standing out. I should have thought it might have been permissible to have some power to bring in that small percentage. But I think one's main regret—I am quite sure the regret of everyone on this side of the House, and I know of some who sit on that side who share it—is about what I can only call this complex that His Majesty' Government have on the subject of tied cottages. I think I am speaking for the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, as well as for myself when I say that both our Commissions came to the firm conclusion that housing and amenities of living in these great hill areas form over 50 per cent. of the problem. It is no good having these schemes unless there is the labour to carry them out. Personally, at the moment, I see no sign of the adequate labour in these areas necessary for the carrying out of these schemes, and unless there are going to be houses this Bill is going to be 50 per cent. a dead letter.
Why, when. the Bill started in its career in a perfectly intelligent form, go and completely spoil it by this Amendment to Clause 10? That is going to mean that houses just will not be built in these areas. His Majesty's Government are making provision, I understand, in their forestry scheme for tied cottages. Why? Because they know perfectly well they are not going to be able to carry out that scheme without cottages. I am not going
224
to say a great deal about it. When you are dealing with a bad case of neurosis one knows that neither words nor arguments really affect the situation at all. We know we are dealing with something in the minds of noble Lords opposite that just cannot be touched by any argument, but I do think it would be wrong to let this debate pass without registering a very grave warning that, though not the whole, a very large proportion of the hopes they are placing on this Bill are being damned by their own action.
My noble friend referred to the Rent Restrictions Acts. Before leaving this subject I think it may be helpful to the House if we try to get the position clarified as to what, in fact, is the position. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether a cottage that is built on a hill farm by an owner who is in receipt of the 50 per cent. grant under this Bill, would be subject to the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts. I think the answer is "Yes." If so, would the owner, in the event of his employee leaving his employment, be able to apply to the agricultural executive committee for a certificate and then, if necessary, to the Court for an order to obtain possession? If he did so, would the Court be able to grant an order if the owner were unable to provide alternative accommodation? I would be very grateful if the noble Earl would answer those questions in his reply. It would not take us very far if the answer to this question is in the affirmative but it will certainly help. The reason why it will not take us very far is that all of us know the machinery of the Rent Restrictions Act is extremely clumsy. If your shepherd leaves you, perhaps tempted to a neighbouring farm by somebody who has outbid you, and you are left without a shepherd for two or three months at a vital period, the matter is not only going to be serious, it is possibly going to be disastrous to the farmer. Therefore, even if the noble Lord can answer "Yes" it is only of partial assistance. But still we are grateful for small mercies. At any rate, I think we all of us would like to thank the noble Lord for not having promised us the so-called "Bevin cottages" in villages that are ten miles away.
I close by making a few suggestions. I hope the noble Lord can give us some assurance that his Department intends to see to it that there is a complete and

225
thorough survey of these areas at the earliest possible moment. We all of us know that the Government, quite rightly, has very large plans for planting in these areas, up to millions of acres. It is right and proper and desirable that great areas should be planted, but it is important that we should know at the earliest possible moment what land is to be permanently used for agricultural purposes and what land is to be put aside for purposes of forestry. Secondly, the noble Lord has spoken about the Advisory Committees. I think we all welcome these Committees, but what the noble Lord did not give us an assurance upon was that there should be members of the hill-farming communities on the executive committees. These are the bodies ultimately that matter, and that is a point that particularly struck my Commission in going round these areas. So often we had these executive committees without a single representative of the hill-farming community. Perhaps the noble Lord can give me an undertaking to look into that matter. These are just a few continents and suggestions upon this Bill that I venture to make, but I close, as I began, by saying I hope that we shall see to it that this Bill—on the whole an excellent Bill—passes into law as soon as possible.
3.47 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, in rising to speak on this Hill Farming Bill I feel inclined to accord it a welcome now that it has come to your Lordships' House. I understand it has had a fairly rough passage in another place, but I am very glad indeed it is here now at last. I do not say that it is a perfect Bill by any means. I do not say that it cannot be improved, and I do not say that the draft is quite as it should be. Still I am prepared to accept it as a genuine attempt to give financial assistance to a very depressed industry. I am prepared to accept it as a genuine result following the very careful research of my noble friend Earl De La Warr, who carried out a research some years ago, followed by research by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I think this Bill embodies a good many of their recommendations.
I said it was a financial aid to a very depressed industry. I am a fairly large hill farmer myself and I remember, some years ago, the terrible depression which
226
we suffered. I can remember the day when ewes were selling at 12s. to 15s., lambs were selling from 5s. to 7s., and wool was selling at 4d. a lb. Never were such prices known before, and the depression was terrible. Now, thanks to the guaranteed prices of agricultural produce on low-lying land, prices are gradually beginning to climb back to a proper height. The low-lying land farmers have their guaranteed prices and their assured markets, and they are now making further demands for the hill sheep and the hill cattle which are the raw material upon which they work. As a result of the growing demand our prices are slowly and gradually climbing back. But we have to face very large increases in wages on the hill, and prices have not yet reached a stage that gives us any definite profit in hill farming. I think I may say that as a result of the depression landed proprietors and tenants have no cash at hand to go in for large rehabilitation schemes on their hill lands and in their houses, and because they have no cash at hand to do that they must seek Government financial assistance. It is because this Bill produces a definite scheme to that end that I accord it a considerable welcome.
There is no doubt whatever that in the past we have been leaning far too much upon importation from overseas, especially in the line of meat—beef and mutton. There is no doubt also that if we can produce more meat—more beef and more mutton—from our own land we should greatly ease the situation, and we can produce more beef and mutton only if we have the money to rehabilitate the land. There are a great many hill farmers to-day who quote the words of our great war leader: "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." I would say: "Give us the finance and we will produce the beef and mutton." I think there is no doubt whatever that we should do something, because the hill sheep and the hill cattle are the foundations of the British live-stock industry. Our sheep on the hills and our cattle on the hills are bought by lowland farmers in order to cross them and produce the mutton and beef which the market desires, and it is essential that we should maintain these sheep and the cattle on the hills.
I think I am right in saying that there are at the moment in round figures about 6,000,000 sheep in the United Kingdom; in round figures about 2,250,000 are to

227
be found in England and 3,750,000 are to be found in Scotland. Therefore this Bill is of particular interest to Scotland, because most of the sheep in this country come from Scotland and most of the hill farming is done in Scotland. But the strange thing is that when you look at this Bill it is not until you come to page 25, Clause 39, that there is a marginal note where you see "Provisions as to Scotland." You have got to go searching all through these pages to try to find out what the Scottish conditions are. I have never heard of such a thing. This is the sort of thing that makes a great many Liberals in Scotland pray heaven that the day may come when we may have a Parliament of our own.
If we did produce a Bill I would say that we could greatly improve on the drafting of this Bill. I have never in all my life seen a Bill drafted so badly as this one. I will give a shilling to anybody who can take page 2, line 33 to line 40, page 3, line 31 to line 39 or page 9, line 9 to line 17, read them once, read them twice and then tell me straight out what it all means. You just cannot do it. That is only a sample of the drafting. I do hope we shall be given an opportunity to try to draft this Bill better than it is so that hill farmers can understand whether or not they come within the provisions of the Bill. Although this Bill provides for giving finance to a hill farm, I cannot see in the Bill any definition of a hill farm. Whoever drafted this Bill has fought shy of defining what is a hill farm. We know there is a high hill farm, we know there is marginal land, and we know there is low-lying land, but so far as this Bill is concerned there is no indication of where a hill farm begins from marginal land.
During the war I had great trouble over this very question of what is hill land and what is marginal land. There was during the war a provision whereby you could appeal to the Secretary of State instead of to the agricultural committee, for a definition of what was hill land which could gain the subsidy then given. When I went to the Secretary of State he said: "I have 7,000 applications to upset the rulings of the agricultural committee as to what is hill land and what is marginal land. There is no definition." He then said: "I cannot upset three quarters of these applications. I do not know what to do." In my case I lost, but that does
228
not matter. The point is that there is no real definition and there will be a great many headaches for somebody trying to define what is hill land as referred to in this Bill. However, I hope that whatever definition is given the lines will not be drawn too tightly and some play will be left to common sense.
Look at Clause 1, subsection (2), paragraph (a). The idea there seems to be that there may be various parcels of land grouped about here and there but if the area is suitable it can be dealt with as a unit provided it is used for hill farming purposes. The question I would like to have defined is: Is wintering ground included in that? Every hill farmer—it is a common practice—takes his hoggs, his six-month-old lambs down to the lower ground for four months of the year. That low ground may be on marginal land or it may be even lower on low-lying land, but it does form part of a hill-farming unit. That is a most important duty, and you cannot farm without taking the hoggs down from the high ground to the low ground for the four months of the winter. It is a very expensive movement of stock. To-day wintering ground costs anything from 15s. to £1 a head and if you move 300 hoggs to the low ground that is £300, which is a very big sum to a hill farmer. It is most important, of course, that the wintering ground should be clean, well drained and the bracken cut. We go on using the same wintering ground year after year because we know the ground. The whole point is whether in forming a unit the Bill allows winter ground to be included, even if it is on lower ground. It is most important that that should be so, because it will be very expensive to keep clean and to rehabilitate, and it forms part of the hill farm.
Now we come to the most important clause of all, Clause 10, upon which there has been more discussion than on almost any other clause of the Bill. I know that this raises the question of the tied house. That is a very old political question; I remember that we argued about it when I was a Parliamentary candidate some forty years ago. I know it is a question about which in Scotland we get; "a'het up." I am not trying to make anybody hot on the subject of tied houses, but I do not quite understand this clause. The clause says that the appropriate Minister will secure, when a grant has been made in respect of an improvement to a cottage,

229
that a condition shall be attached prohibiting the occupation of the cottage otherwise than by the "owner or a tenant thereof." Does that mean that if a cottage is really occupied by the proprietor or his tenant, the proprietor will be able to get a grant for improvements? So far as I make that clause out, that is exactly what it does mean. But what is a tenant? In Scotland when you take a hill farm, you take the land, the farmhouse and the farm cottage. Does the word "tenant" cover cottages occupied by the shepherds or the cattlemen? I imagine it does. Therefore, as far as I can make out, Clause 10 means that in the case of existing cottages, provided they are occupied only by the owner (that would be the proprietor), or his tenant (which would cover the occupation of the cottages by the servants), they will be eligible for the grant. If that is so, then I have no quarrel whatever with it and I am quite satisfied.
Then we come to the muirburn clauses. I think we are all generally agreed upon these, which are the outcome of a good many conferences. There is, however, one point, and that is that the fine for an offence against the muirburn regulations has been fixed at a maximum of £5. A fine of £5 is really nothing when compared with the damage that can be done by bad muirburning and I do not think that as a maximum it is enough. The penalty should be up to £50. I have seen acres and acres of land spoiled by men not doing their duty and not keeping a proper watch on their fires. Then it is provided that the tenant can instruct the proprietor that he wishes to burn heather, and if the proprietor says "No," the tenant can take it before the appropriate Minister for the Minister to give a ruling. I think the same privilege should be extended to the proprietor. He, too, may want some heather burnt somewhere and the tenant may refuse to burn it. In that case he should be allowed, in the same way as the tenant, to go to the appropriate Minister. Whatever the ruling of the appropriate Minister may be, there should be a penalty imposed on either a tenant or a landowner in the matter of muirburn if he does not obey that ruling.
Then there is a question of the Land Court. Some of the references are to be made to the Land Court, some to the Minister and some to the Advisory Committee. I feel that in Scotland they should
230
all be made to the Land Court if possible, and that Court should be used to the fullest possible extent. As it has some of the references made to it, it might just as well have all made to it. I do not think the Minister should be called upon to be judge and jury in any of these cases; I think it would be much better that they should go to the Land Court, where all parties can be properly heard.
I think I have dealt with the principal points. Taking the Bill as a whole, if my understanding of Clause 10 is correct, I very much hope that all my colleagues on these Benches will see their way to support the Bill because I believe that in the end it will be to the benefit of hill farming. I am not out to defeat the Bill; I am out to give it all the support I can and to try to make it as efficient as it can be made in order that it may help this very depressed industry which we must preserve at any cost.
4.8 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Huntington, has given a clear description of the Bill and a justification for it. He has shown that during the war hill farming came in for none of the advantages which accrued to better farms and was, in fact, rather worse off. The proposals in this Bill were at first received with great enthusiasm, but I am sorry to find that this is now becoming very mixed in a number of different places. It seems to me that they represent a thorough endeavour by the Balfour of Burleigh and De La Warr Committees, and by the Government and by all engaged in subsequent negotiations, to revive and to keep going an important section of farming, and to increase and maintain the production of meat and valuable breeding flocks on our hills on terms fair to the nation and to all those who risk their money and labour in the industry.
From various earlier writings and criticisms it might have been thought that there were millions of acres of neglected and derelict land which were really fertile and capable of producing good crops and stock were it not for a few obstructive and incompetent landowners and farmers. Fortunately it is now recognized that there is a very serious economic problem involved. We are in fact trying to deal with vast areas of poorish upland, varying in quality, altitude and

231
accessibility, and capable of producing only a limited quantity of meat and wool, the annual receipts from which are rarely capable of paying the higher wages of the shepherds and other costs. If Parliament and the nation consider that it is important to make full use of this land and that breeding flocks are needed, then the means to ensure that must be forthcoming somehow. A great many different remedies are detailed which, either combined or separately, can do much to improve the productivity and the results of hill farms. Many of these are being carried out, and have been for many years, by farmers and land owners in improvement schemes on their own, quite irrespective of this Bill, and I think it will be agreed that if it were not for the shortages of so many things and the necessity for licences, and the controls which continue under this Government, these programmes of reconstruction would be going on much more rapidly.
I would like to ask the Government whether, with their knowledge of hill farming, they agree that it is necessary for shepherds to live near their ground and near their sheep, and if they are satisfied about the future provision of housing for shepherds. This has been much debated in another place, and has already been discussed here today, and I think it is an unsatisfactory feature of the Bill. I am afraid there is an impression that the Government approach to the problem is almost entirely political and is not guided by requirements on the spot. The Government ask for co-operation in housing, and their supporters are very critical of the conditions of housing on these farms—but the Government are not accelerating the modernization of existing houses or the provision of new ones where they are most needed, which is generally some distance from the villages and even from the smaller groups up the valleys which are now being encouraged. The Government appear to be rendering a great kindness to owners of hill farms in relieving them of their responsibility for housing and putting it instead upon the State and local authority, but in practice local authorities are not able to provide these houses where they are most needed for outlying shepherds. It is a very serious burden upon public funds if they are obliged to do so.
232
I would like to say that if it were not for the cottages which have been provided, and are still being provided, by the landowners there would be no housing available and in this way a great service has been rendered to local authorities and the State. There are many other costly improvements envisaged in the Bill, but if the housing is not provided for there is a danger that they will be wasted. I do feel that with a little encouragement in place of the taunts and discouragement that are more frequent now, the Government could get a great many houses modernized and others built by people in the industry and even without a grant. But if there is a small grant towards this a great service would be rendered and there would be a great saving to the local authorities. I think the Government should remember that whoever has to do the work you are not nowadays going to get cottages in the hills modernized at less than £1,200 each, and probably more, or new houses built for under £1,800 each.
Among the disadvantages suffered in hill farming, in addition to those mentioned by the noble Lord at the beginning, is undoubtedly the fact that whereas by 1939 these cottages were being improved and modernized at an increasingly rapid rate, that was entirely prevented during seven years of war, and we have now the far greater difficulty and cost thrown at our heads. Among the recommendations, and one which is increasingly necessary, is the provision of roads to these outlying houses. I think it is very doubtful whether it is an economic proposition to spend £1,500 or more in making a road to a single cottage up a valley or along a hillside. But such roads have to be made now if the shepherds, in many cases, are to be persuaded to stay at the work, and therefore it becomes an urgent matter. The Government can get caterpillar tractors and bull-dozers for getting surface coal and other public works, but it is almost impossible for individuals to get them for this very important work which may seem of less importance. I hope that if this Bill passes the Government will pay special attention to that point, and that there will be some means of getting these roads made more speedily. In our own case we have only completed three roads during the past year to individual cot-

233
tages, but if the appropriate machinery had been available we would have much preferred it to have been twenty.
Reference has also been made to the shortage of labour which will be available for carrying out these improvement schemes. I would ask the Government if they will give their attention to this and if they are satisfied that enough is being done to encourage the provision of the necessary housing up the valleys where these hill farms are, so that there will be labour available. I am afraid that there will be a serious limitation for some years, and if labour is diverted to this work it will only mean taking it off other work of equal importance.
I am glad to find that there is now agreement as to numerous problems, how costly the work will be and probably how unsound—or, at best, speculative—it will be as a business proposition. I would like to suggest that there are still a large number of farmers and landowners who are prepared to do their utmost to co-operate in seeing that hill farming is improved. I do hope that some encouragement will come to them from these proposals. There is no justification for making extravagant claims, because in any case the amount of money voted for the purpose is limited as is, also the available labour. But a start can be made, and if the proposals are administered wisely, sympathetically and energetically, an increasing amount of good can result and subsequently they can be developed further. I therefore urge support for this measure. I would indicate that in Scotland we would call upon all concerned in the industry to co-operate in its success.
But I do feel it is necessary to say—and it cannot be overlooked—that there was some severe criticism of the Bill in another place and outside, to the effect that the proposals are one-sided and that the advantage is too much in favour of the landowners, and to their advantage out of public funds. That, to my mind, is not so, and the terms of the Bill should be as fair as possible to all concerned. I believe that every effort has been made to secure this end. But if Government supporters and a section of the farming community think otherwise, and if the Bill is not wanted, it seems to me better that it should be withdrawn. We do not want to have it thrown at us that we are taking a wrong advantage of public funds. In the agricultural columns of various publications,
234
wide publicity has been given to the views of a section—a section which I believe to be a small one—which takes this view. But I have found in conferences with the National Farmers' Union (I believe I am correct in saying this) that the majority of those in the agricultural industry favour the proposals and wish to see them acted upon.
Landowners known to me—and I have a wide experience among them—are as desirous as anyone of seeing this done, and a great many of them are obliged to farm these hill farms themselves, because they cannot let them. These people are not asking or expecting any more help than is their fair share, and it does seem strange that when they are working as active partners and taking all the risks which the industry imposes upon them they alone should be debarred from receiving any of the assistance which is to be allowed to others. My impression is that this Bill will assist the industry, but that it will depend for its successful working upon the co-operation of all in the industry and the representatives of the Government and the various Departments. I hope that it will now receive a Second Reading, and that when it has passed into law it will meet with success.
4.22 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, this Bill has already been dealt with by other noble Lords who have had far more experience in this industry than I, myself, have had. It has been dealt with not only from the standpoint of the landowner—as I believe is the suggestion of some people. In the case of the noble Duke who has just spoken I believe it is true that he, himself, has taken in hand hill farms for which because of their economic condition no tenant could be found and has made good going concerns out of them. I should be presumptuous if I suggested that I had had as much experience in this particular subject. Hill farming is perhaps the most incalculable branch of agriculture, the one least capable of being reduced to facts and figures. My claim to speak upon it is based partly on the fact that my father had the honour of sitting on the Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which investigated the condition of the industry in Scotland. Further, I have quite recently had thrust upon me both the ownership and the occupancy of a hill farm in Scotland. As a

235
consequence, I have been brought into contact, somewhat abruptly, with some of the factors affecting the industry.
There are three points upon which I wish to touch briefly this afternoon. The first is the question of marketing. Hill farming is, perhaps, the only branch of agriculture to-day the principal products of which are sold in an open market, subject to all the influences of the laws of supply and demand. The provisions of this Bill are mainly directed to the improvement of supply; that is, to producing more and better sheep and cattle off our hills. That is a very laudable object in these days of world food shortages, but it is no use producing more and better sheep and cattle if the demand for them is insufficient to bring the producer a proper return on his outlay. The trouble is that store sheep and cattle are an unfinished product displaying, as the Balfour Report put it, "considerable variety in their degree of unfinish." Therefore, it is impossible to get guaranteed prices for them. Something must be done to counteract the disastrous fluctuations in the prices of store animals which have been the ruin of so many farmers in the period between the two wars. I know that the Bill goes some way to help in this direction, by encouraging the reseeding and regeneration of hill pasture which, in some cases, will enable the hill farmer to fatten a proportion of his own stock and thus sell them at a guaranteed price. The trouble is that the same season of bad weather which will spoil the keep of the lowland farmer and discourage him from buying the store sheep of the hill farmer, may equally well ruin the keep of the hill farmer and make it essential for him to get rid of his stock at whatever price is prevailing in the market. I do not know what the solution of this problem is, but I think there will have to be a great deal more thought given to it.
My second point is this. The backbone of the hill farming industry, without a doubt, is the hill shepherd, and I say, without hesitation, that there is no finer type of man in this country to-day. He does not need to be spurred on to do his job with any extra meat ration—although if anyone deserves it I am certain that he does. He has no eight-hour day or five-day week. If your Lordships look at the schedule of agricultural wages, you will see that the shepherd is expected
236
to work what are called "customary hours." This means just as long as is necessary for him to see that everything is well with his flock no matter what the weather or the season; in fact, the worse the weather the longer and more arduous is this man's job. Surely nothing that we can do for the material benefit of the hill shepherd is too good for him. He must have water, sanitation, electricity, a road to his home, transport for his children to school and for himself and his wife to the nearest town. I have the honour to come from the Border country where, I believe, more has been done to achieve this end under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts than in any other part of Great Britain. But now those Acts have been scrapped, and this Bill in its present emasculated form gives very little incentive to the owners of these farms to carry out these very improvements when they can have no certainty that they will have the use of the cottages for their own labourers. It is the farm workers who will suffer for this, for, if they have not the certainty of having the cottages for themselves, owners will not build or recondition. And who can blame them?
My third and last point concerns the relationship of hill farming to forestry. During the war, the Forestry Commission, with commendable zeal, bought up a number of these farms as they came into the market. Many of them, no doubt, were much better suited to meet the demands of forestry than they were to hill farming. But a certain number that were bought in this way were good hill farms carrying sound sheep stock, situated not far from centres of civilizations and, generally speaking, more suitable for the production of sheep and cattle than for the production of trees. I suggest that if a survey is to be carried out to determine how hill land should be allotted between hill farming and forestry it should comprise a careful review of those farms which the Forestry Commission have acquired but have not yet planted, with a view to retrieving these good hill farms either by putting them on the open market or handing them over to the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, to be put back to agricultural use.
Before concluding, I would like to tender a word of congratulation to the Ministry and the Department for one thing that has been of the greatest benefit to the

237
hill farming industry. That is, the pools of machinery organized by the Department with the county executive committees. They have provided such machinery as bracken cutters, draining machines, outfits for reaping and ploughing which the farmers have been able to hire. This equipment has enabled the farmers to carry out operations which they could never have done otherwise, and I hope that the scope of this scheme will be extended very considerably in the future. In conclusion, I welcome the Bill with modified rapture—modified because I think that it has been spoiled by this Amendment which the Government has brought in since the original publication of the Bill. I feel that as the Bill stands, many owners of hill farms will prefer to carry on with the existing schemes of assistance for bracken cutting, draining, liming and the various subsidies, without becoming involved in a scheme under this Bill—a scheme which would not give them any assurance that they would be able to house the labour that they require. I wish this Bill well, and I hope, when we have seen how it is working, that in a few years time we may perhaps get a new and better Bill in its place.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I do not propose to detain the House very long, because this debate has gone on for a considerable time. There are, however, one or two points which I wish to raise on the Second Reading, in view of the Committee stage which will follow. May I first of all, congratulate the Government on this Bill? I welcome this Bill. I welcome it because if it is carried out in its entirety I believe that, it will go a long way to save the sheep industry from bankruptcy. I speak from the point of view of the south of Scotland; I do not know it elsewhere. The Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, was extremely helpful in explaining to the country, and no doubt to the Government, the position of the industry. The noble Lord is also to be congratulated on the information which he has supplied. I am particularly glad to think that a great many of the Committee's recommendations have been adopted in this Bill. Generally speaking, subject to what my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch has said, I think that Scotland will welcome this Bill and will do her best to carry it out.
238
My first point is a very contentious one; that is, the question of tied cottages. In my time, I have been on a great many hill farms, but I have never been on one where it was possible for the shepherd to live off it. Consequently, any cottage attached to a hill farm must, of necessity, be in the form of a tied cottage. The shepherd must live in the middle of his job; otherwise he cannot do it. Clause 10 of this Bill says if a grant is given to repair or improve a cottage then it can remain in the form of a tied cottage for twenty years. At the end of that time anything may happen to it. That is what I understand the clause to mean. If I am correct in my interpretation, the shepherd's cottage may find itself in the hands of some other worker at the end of twenty years, and may not be the shepherd's cottage at all. I would like the noble Earl to explain what that means.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Would the noble Viscount mind repeating that? I have not understood him clearly.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: What I interpret this to mean is that for twenty years a shepherd' cottage may be tied, but at the end of that time it comes under the Rent Restrictions Acts. If the shepherd moves or loses his job, or does not want to go on shepherding, or if he is ill or has made sufficient out of his remuneration for him to have six months' leave or holiday, he would be permitted, under the Rent Restrictions Acts, to remain in that cottage at the end of this twenty-year period. From my particular point of view, this clause is the only blot in an otherwise admirable Bill. I hardly like saying it, but it seems to me that this clause has not been governed by common sense and practice, but has been governed by political sense and prejudice. It is, perhaps, a hard thing to say, but every argument that could be brought was brought in another place, in favour of the tied cottage principle. Even one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Party of the noble Earl opposite opposed the principle which is embodied in this clause.
My other point, which I broach with a certain amount of diffidence, is the question of the valuation of sheep stock. I believe that, as worded, the clauses and the Schedule will go a long way to help things in this respect. Sheep valuations in Scotland have been one of the most serious

239
questions, both as regards the landlords and the farmers themselves, for many years. The arbitration on sheep values has been in the hands of the farmers, and the farmers—I say this quite deliberately—have loaded the dice against the proprietors in those valuations. And, incidentally, they have loaded the dice against themselves, owing to the high valuations which they have placed on stock. I should like to give the House an illustration of what I mean. The noble Earl will forgive me if this is a personal illustration, but it is an illustration for which I can vouch. It is not second hand and is, consequently, of more value. I do not give it from any sense of grievance, but merely as an illustration.
About six months ago I had a hill farm which, after long consideration, and owing to its uneconomic condition, I decided to hand over to the Forestry Commission for the purpose of afforestation. At least if the land would not carry sheep economically, it would do its service to the State by being planted with trees which would be required for the future. Last May, the farmer left. The sheep were taken over by myself on an arbitration. A value was placed upon them in two respects. One was for acclimatization and heftings, and the value placed on the sheep was 22s. 6d. per head for three-quarters of them, and £1 per head for the other quarter. Then came the sales. The sales have only just been concluded. I am advised that on these sales I have lost actually an average of £12s. per head of sheep stock carried on that farm. Therefore to-day I have lost actually—or I have had to pay out of my pocket—£22s. on an average for every single sheep on that farm. How did that occur? First of all, because the arbiters, the farmers, have, as I say, loaded the dice against the proprietor and, incidentally, loaded the dice against the farmers themselves, because, if in that case there had been an incoming tenant, the incoming tenant would have had to take over the sheep at the values at which I took them over, plus acclimatization and hefting value at the same value at which I have had to take over. I have suffered that loss. Consequently, there is a dead weight of capital right through the south of Scotland owing to this method.
How did this arise? It really arose because of the fact that these sheep were
240
valued from the point of view of the top-price ewes and the top-price lambs and not from that of the average. In paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to this Bill, the matter of valuation is mentioned.The paragraph says:
"The Land Court or the arbiter (in Part I and Part II of this schedule referred to as the valuer') shall ascertain the number of, and prices realized for, the ewes and the lambs sold off the hill…"
I have spoken on this matter this afternoon so that the Government may have an opportunity of considering the question. The Amendment which no doubt will be moved in Committee will be that it should be the average price of the cast ewes—that is ewes that are sold off the farm: not the sheep stock, not the breeding stock, but the ewes that are sold off the farm every year from the point of view of making profits. This is supported in Lord Balfour' Report, because first of all he says:
"It is undoubtedly the abuse of discretion by arbiters in the past that has brought the present system into disrepute."
Then he goes on to make the recommendation that the valuation for a Whitsuntide valuation—that is different to an autumn valuation—shall be based on the average of the prices obtained for all the cast ewes and all the ewe and wether lambs sold off the hill in the autumn sales in the previous three years.
I am going to ask the noble Lord to consider very seriously indeed whether he could not insert the word "cast" before "ewes" in paragraph 1 of the Schedule. If he is able to do so, it will mean a great deal, not only to the landlord but to the farmers themselves, because stocks will not be passed from one hand to another, or from one farm to another under meretricious and false values. So far as acclimatization and hefting are concerned, I believe I was over-valued by about 7s. Everybody in the district says that I ought to have paid about 15s. instead of 22s. 6d. per sheep. That is neither here nor there, but it does mean that the whole valuation system should be looked into from that point of view. I would only ask the noble Lord just one question about that, and it is this: Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule says:
"Ewes of all ages (including gimmers) shall be valued at the basic ewe value with the addition of fifteen shillings per head."
What is that fifteen shillings? Is that the acclimatization value, or what is it? It is

241
not clear from the paragraph. I apologize for having detained the House in this discussion but the question of valuation is such an important one that I do hope the noble Lord will very carefully consider before Committee stage the suggestion which I have made this afternoon.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am extremely glad that on the whole this Bill has had such a good reception from your Lordships. It is very satisfactory to me and will be to my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture that this Bill, which we hope will be a step towards the recovery of this industry, has had approval from your Lordships and indeed generally a welcome from all sides. There are reservations, I admit.
Now I should like to try to answer one or two questions which noble Lords have raised. I was extremely glad that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, welcomed this Bill. With regard to his remarks about Scotland, I would point out that the whole of the Bill from page 1 to, I think, page 25 does refer to Scotland. The only reason why Scotland comes in on page 25 is that that is a particular clause which does not refer to England. I hope that the noble Duke's championship of Scottish home rule is based on a more solid foundation than that. Let me proceed to deal with the questions that he asked. I will first deal with the definition of the hill farming land. In a way, this is vague, but it is sometimes convenient to have a thing not too exact and precise. I think it would be true to say that any hill farmer would certainly know what land was suitable for a hardy type of hill sheep, and after all these farmers are the people whom we want to understand what the Bill means. With regard to wintering, this, of course, is eligible for the grant, provided that the farmer has both hill sheep land and wintering land as well; that is to say, so long as a farmer has some land which is suitable for that type of sheep he would qualify for the grant, irrespective of whether the grant was for a scheme including lowland areas as well as highland areas or not. I hope I have made that clear to the noble Duke.
With regard to Clause 10, the noble Duke asked me what exactly a tenant
242
means. Well, of course, a tenant would include a cattle man in that sense of the word. If he is a person paying a rent, he is definitely a tenant. With regard to the other question which the noble Duke raised, on the question of muirburning, or the burning of heather, and the scale of fines, this is a very technical legal point on which I hesitate to embark. But I understand, roughly, that the situation is this. There is a scale of fines in relation to prison sentences which has been accepted for a considerable time. It was thought that if a large fine was proposed for this particular offence it might be read in law to mean that the man would also be liable to a much longer term of imprisonment than was intended, and, although some of your Lordships may hold the view that it might be wise that these scales should be adjusted, I think you will agree that this Bill is not the place for such adjustment.
To proceed to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I was very glad indeed that he welcomed the Bill, although I cannot see how he could very well have done anything else in these circumstances. He asked me one or two questions, and, in spite of the fact that he is not here, I should like to give an answer to them. One is the question of committees. He wanted an assurance from the Government that members would be put on the committees who would have a knowledge of hill farming. I would point out that on that point there are Advisory Committees which will be in constant touch with the local executive committees. These Advisory Committees will obviously be almost entirely composed of people who have a knowledge of the industry, either hill farmers themselves or people with a very great knowledge of hill farming, so that the local committees will have at their disposal the advice of people who know all about the industry. Although I can give no undertaking as to the number, obviously my right honourable friend will have in mind that among the members of the local committees in the hill farming district there will be some people who know and have experience of that matter.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: Would it be possible that when members of the Committee visit a farm they could give notice to the farmer? As things are now,

243
members of these Advisory Committees go out and visit a farm without giving any notice at all. That denies a farmer the opportunity of meeting these people and consulting them. It would be much better to give notice, a day's or two days' notice.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That, I think, is provided for in the Bill. I have not got the clause with me, but I think it is 24-hours notice they are obliged to give before visiting a farm. I quite agree with the noble Duke that this is an extremely important and necessary provision. Now to come to what is probably a more controversial clause—Clause 10 on housing. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and several other speakers, including the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, asked questions on this point. There were one or two other questions also, and I will try and deal with these all together. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, I think misunderstood the intention of the clause—these twenty years really have the opposite effect. What we try to ensure is that the cottage will not be tied for twenty years. Under this Bill we cannot be certain what will happen after that. We cannot really tie up the situation for longer than twenty years.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In fact, it is worse than I thought.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am sorry, but I do not think we can in this Bill completely control events after twenty years. The houses will come under the Rent Restriction Acts, which is what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was asking. I would also like to point out, in reply to his question, that this Bill does not amend the Rent Restriction. Acts. It leaves them alone. Its purpose is to bring houses erected or improved under the Bill within the ambit of these Acts. The circumstances under which alternative accommodation need not be proved to the Court are set out in the First Schedule of the Land and Mortgage Restriction (Amendment) Act of 1933.
The other question the noble Lord asked me was with regard to telephones. The Government do appreciate very much the importance of getting telephones to these hill farms. In some ways it is far more
244
important that a remote farm should have a telephone than a cottage in an industrial area, but I think the noble Lord will appreciate the fact that the Post Office is very hard pressed at this moment. Obviously it is a very desirable thing that they should be installed and I would like to point out that the General Post Office will provide a telephone service at the standard rate of £4 per year for residential purposes to any home within three miles of an exchange. This covers a large part of Great Britain, but obviously will not cover a good many hill farms. All I can say is that we do have this in mind, and we should like to help where we can, but I do not think at the present moment, we can give any guarantee. Certainly telephones would not be covered by schemes under this Bill.
Surveys are being carried out. A pilot survey is being done in Wales for the purposes of hill farming and also we are considering this question of forestry which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. This particular Act is not concerned with forestry or with the particular controversy there has been between sheep farming and forestry. The only mention of forestry in it is in Schedule 1 where it mentions "shelter belts." These "shelter belts" would not be the responsibility of the Forestry Commission, but would be carried out by whoever undertakes the work under the scheme and it would not presumably be on a very large scale. So far as I can see, there should be no future difficulties between these conflicting interests. The Forestry Act of 1945 recognizes the need for reconciling these dual interests. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in another place said he is determined, if possible, to avoid any conflict in future between the two different interests. However, it is not a question with which this Bill is particularly concerned.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, also asked me various questions. I was very glad to hear his remarks and, on the whole, his welcome of this Bill because he obviously has great experience of this industry. Remarks coming from him are extremely valuable. We realize, like he does, that the labour position is very difficult, and it is particularly difficult to get things like roads built at this particular juncture.

245
They are vital to hill farming and if a scheme was presented which envisaged roads being built obviously it would be welcomed by the Minister and the grant would be available. I do admit that the preparation and expense would in many cases completely wreck the economic advantage behind it. That is an extremely difficult matter which we will study. I cannot say that anyone in the Government is entirely satisfied with the labour problem or the housing problem. We are doing our best with a great shortage of materials and in this case I think it is a generous grant of fifty per cent. which we are giving to the private landowner towards building his shepherd's house. We do hope it will meet with some response.
In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, I am very glad to hear machinery pools are working well. That is encouraging and I hope it will continue. Marketing is a very important point but it is a little bit outside the scope of this Bill. Coming to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, I think that if he is going to move an Amendment on this valuation of sheep that would be the time really to go into it. The purpose of the alteration in this valuation scheme is to prevent such cases as those about which the noble Viscount told us, and where perhaps some injustice and a wrong valuation have come about. I will consider that question, and if the noble Lord is going to move an Amendment I think that would be the time to discuss it at greater length.
I hope I have on the whole answered the questions and dealt with the matters raised. I can only say again that it is our earnest intention to make the Bill work, but it can only work if we get the co-operation of the landowners and of the hill sheep farmers. The intention of this Bill is not compulsion; it is entirely voluntary. All we can do is to provide the finance and the encouragement, and no doubt in some cases the committees can be very helpful in working out schemes and carrying out work which the individual farmers may not be able to do. I would like once more to stress the importance of this Bill in helping to rehabilitate the industry. I do hope noble Lords in this House will give it a quick and speedy Second Reading and that it will now pass.
246
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
5.2 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, with the permission of the House may I say one word about the business for the rest of the evening. I understand there is a possibility that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, might consider postponing their Motions in spite of the great importance—or I might say because of the great importance—we all attach to the subject to which the Motions refer. I think many of us would consider it rather unsuitable to discuss at the tag end of the day the very wide issues contained in those Motions relating to Germany. I can say on behalf of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that if those Motions are withdrawn now the Leader will do everything possible to find a suitable day for their discussion before the end of the Session. I should mention that if those Motions are withdrawn we should naturally hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, would proceed with their Motions on the Order Paper.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, with your permission I would like to say that I quite accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and with your Lordships' permission I will not this afternoon move the Motion which I have on the Paper. I would like to mention, however, that, while I do this willingly, I am impressed with the urgency of the matters that I cannot help feeling that every day's delay before these questions are submitted to your Lordships is to be regretted.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who also desires not to move his Motion to-day on the understanding that a future opportunity will be provided for its discussion.

TRIALS IN THE BRITISH ZONE OF GERMANY.
5.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM had the following Notice on the Paper:—To call attention to the trials in the British zone in

247
Germany of persons alleged to be guilty of war crimes and of German nationals alleged to be guilty of crimes and atrocities against the laws of humanity and of members of the organizations declared to be criminal by the International Court at Nuremberg, and also to the measures taken against persons described as security suspects; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Motion that stands in my name is one which relates to a most complex and difficult subject. The problems which have to be solved by the occupation authorities in the British zone are indeed not capable of a really satisfactory solution. Like many political problems all you can say, if you advocate a particular view, is that on the whole there are fewer objections taken to that course than to any other. I would like to preface my observations by saying that what I am going to say this evening is not in any sense, in my view, a Party matter at all. My intervention is only an endeavour to help, as far as I can, the occupying authorities who up to date, I have not the slightest doubt, have done their best.
They are operating under a council known as the Control Council, which ultimately owes its authority to the fact that the British are in occupation of their zone and the other great Powers are in occupation of the other three zones. The Potsdam Agreement laid down certain principles which the persons engaged in the administration of this zone have followed. It laid down in section 3 the purposes of the occupation. It says this:
"The purposes of the occupation of Germany by which the Control Council shall be guided are" —
and after some things that are irrelevant to my purpose, it says:
"war criminal and those who have participated in, planning or carrying out Nazi enterprises involving or resulting in atrocities or war crimes shall be arrested and brought to judgment."
That obviously implies that they shall be tried and sentenced as may be thought just. It then goes on thus:
"Nazi leaders, influential Nazi supporters and high officials of Nazi organizations and institutions and any other persons dangerous to the occupation or its objectives shall be arrested or interned."
That second branch of the section deals with people who have not committed any
248
crimes at all in the ordinary sense—I will say something about people who are members of organizations later on—but in the Potsdam Agreement these are people whose freedom is going to be interfered with because they are dangerous. However, they are not criminals. Dangerous or suspected persons without being subjected to any sort of trial may upon examination be held to be dangerous and to have their liberty interfered with. That is a very serious fact but not one with which most reasonable people will quarrel if that power is properly exercised.
It is a huge task. There are 23,000,000 Germans in our zone; there are no less than 8,000,000 Nazis in Germany, and the S.S. people number more than 400,000. We have got to do justice to all these people on the lines which I have already mentioned. A great deal of work has already been done. Over 434,000 persons have been examined and categorized in one way and another. There were originally 67,000 people whom we had in prison in concentration camps. Of those we have dealt with some 27,000 and most of them have been released. There remain about 40,000 people in concentration camps who have got to be dealt with in some way, and it is on the problem of doing that that I wish to say a few heartfelt words. It is just about a fortnight since the judgment of the International Tribunal, which was first established on August 8, 1945, by the Charter of the four nations, and adhered to by nineteen other nations, was delivered after a trial lasting over nine months. Lawyers and laymen alike who have had an opportunity of seeing how justice was administered and how every effort was made to obtain the information on which sentences could be given will not, I think, be inclined to doubt the guilt of those arch-criminals or to criticize the sentences which they have received. We know that eighteen criminals out of twenty-one have 'been convicted and sentenced to death or imprisonment, and that three have been acquitted. Having some knowledge of the facts and having been there, I do not hesitate to say that the Judges of the four nations who took part in these great trials have earned and amply deserve the grateful thanks of all the citizens of the four countries mainly concerned.
I could not forbear paying my humble tribute to their great achievements, but

249
prisoners tried by International Courts, whether it be the Nuremberg Court or any other International Court, are not my concern this evening. I am desirous of discussing the policy of this country in relation to prisoners and detained persons in the British zone, of trying to persuade the Government to do all in their power (and more than they have yet done), to expedite the trial or the categorization, as they call it—horrible word!—of the persons who are not criminals but who are in Germany and whose freedom is supposed to be dangerous to us, and of obtaining some further information on the matter from the Government. The substance of my remarks tonight is the question of how long it is going to take our Government to clear the lists, to try and convict or acquit those who are supposed to be criminals, and to deal as shortly as possible with the vast number of persons whose freedom is thought to be detrimental to the cause of peace. I hope to persuade your Lordships that the questions involved are of very great importance and very great difficulty, because we have no precedent for anything of this sort. There has never been an occasion when after a war duties such as those specified in the Potsdam Agreement have had to be performed by people from this country.
I need not detain your Lordships by telling you anything about our jurisdiction over the Germans in our zone. According to International Law, a victorious army which occupies enemy territory is entitled to act as a sovereign authority until, as a result of the peace, there is a sovereign authority in the country occupied. At the present time there is no such thing in Germany; from the legal point of view, we are still at war with Germany and that is our justification for doing all that is necessary in our view for the administration and the Government of the country. In the British zone—and subject to the Allied Control Council—it is the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army of the Rhine (generally known as B.A.O.R.) who is in charge. He has, with the assistance of not less than some 26,000 British men and women, to administer this great country and to assist in the doing of justice on the lines I have mentioned. We administer it at a cost of £80,000,000 a year. Although I am not going to lay very much stress on that, I think it is one of
250
the reasons for every just expedition in the carrying out of our duties. The longer it takes to try all these various people and to deal with all those in the concentration camps, the worse it will, be for us, because even in these days, when we deal with enormous figures which are almost impossible to realize, £80,000,000 a year is still a very substantial sum.
Before dealing with the actual question of these trials, I would like to mention that we have had a great many difficulties there. I am very anxious that nobody should think I am attacking the occupation authorities. We have demobilized over 3,000,000 members of the German Wehrmacht; we have taken into our zone (much against our will, I think) 1,500,000 persons from Poland—persons described as refugees—and other persons as well as those 1,500,000 from other parts of Europe. These things have been done in a country where the means of communication have been largely destroyed and where in many places they were almost non-existent in June, 1945. I might mention as an example of that in passing that no less than 1,300 bridges had been destroyed, many of which assisted important roads to function. The food supplies are very scanty. I am not going to say anything about that because my noble friends Lord Saltoun and Lord Beveridge are going to deal with it at an early date. I can only say to them that I am sorry I am to some extent interfering with the hearing of their Motions.
Now I come to the subject of trials. Your Lordships will appreciate there are two points there. Firstly, there are the trials of people who are supposed to be criminals and who are in many cases well known to be criminals, and secondly, there is that very much larger body of persons who are not criminals but who it is supposed cannot safely be allowed out at the moment. On the subject of trials, there are trials conducted under British Royal Warrants—trials conducted by British Military Courts under Army Order 81 of 1945. The people who are mainly the subject of those trials are people who have been guilty of breaches of the rules and usages of war. Their offences extend from quite minor ones to mass murders and horrible deeds of different kinds—it is important to realize that they differ enormously—but if the crime proved against any of those persons is a serious one, amounting to a crime as

251
great as murder, the death penalty must be imposed just as it would be imposed here on any person who committed murder in times of peace.
But the British Military Courts who try these cases, and who are not bound by the ordinary rules of evidence, may in fact sentence a prisoner to something much less than the death penalty, to something such as imprisonment, confiscation of property or a fine. In the case of people proved to be guilty of very minor offences, it must be remembered that they will already have been in a concentration camp for a year and possibly for a much longer period. Now I should like to mention that every sentence is subject to confirmation by a confirming officer, and after confirmation the Secretary of State, or any officer not below the rank of Major-General, may deal with the sentences in the direction of remitting them or granting less sentences. There is, therefore, every care taken so far as our trials are involved. The person will have every opportunity of justice and of not being unfairly treated. I may perhaps without too much egotism say that I have read some dozen lengthy documents in connexion with our trials in Germany, and Army Orders of great length and complexity. In my opinion the system which has been evolved in Germany is an admirable system, and will be absolutely just, so far as human justice can be just. But, if the case is as I conceive it to be, that system must necessarily be careful and it will also be slow, and it is on this aspect of the matter that I urge His Majesty's Government to see what can be done. I am given to understand that not more than 100 persons or thereabouts have been tried in Germany since the British Military Courts began to function. I hope it is much larger in number, but I do not know how much larger. At any rate, I am perfectly sure that it is a very small fraction of the total number that will have to be tried by British Military Courts. I did not invent the figure—
LORD PAKENHAM: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to give him the figure which I believe to be the correct one, which is 495.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My informants were in error. I am exceedingly glad, and I can treat that as 500.
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not wish to contradict the remark the noble Viscount made subsequently on the same subject.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: You are not contradicting the remarks I have not yet made.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount went on to say that whatever the figure was it was a comparatively small proportion of the total number. I was not contradicting that remark.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am exceedingly happy to know that. These trials relate only to war trials, and it is very important to remember that that refers to war crimes in the narrow sense—namely, offences against the rules and usages of war. They do not include crimes against humanity which are generally known in Germany as atrocity cases. Those cases involve atrocities committed by Germans mostly in relation to the murder of other Germans, anti-Nazis and others. Those crimes, of course, are often the most horrible, much worse than the ordinary crimes that I imagine are being tried by our people, and they are fairly numerous. There are known to be, I understand, between 450 and 500 atrocity cases already imprisoned in our zone—I hope that figure is not going to be challenged—and it is a little curious that these cases are to be tried by German Courts like a number of other cases I am going to mention.
Now I have some other figures for the noble Lord to digest, if he has not done so already. There are a number of concentration camps in Germany. There is no other name for them except that name, which causes a feeling of horror to run through us, but these camps I understand are very well conducted. I think there are 23,000 war criminals, including not only' those who are guilty of breaches of The Hague Convention and so on, but also other war criminals. All those criminals have got to be tried and every now and then new ones are being brought in. I have some reason to suppose that there is not room for a great many more than at present existing in the concentration camps, and while there is no room I understand that the powers that be are not anxious to have people pulled in. They keep an eye on them and when they can be provided for they are brought in.
There are, or were, 47,000 other persons in our zone in concentration camps, liable

253
for their offences to a maximum sentence of fifteen years, forfeiture of property or fine. The 23,000 war criminals may be criminals of greater or lesser degree and, of course, the worst of them are obviously guilty and have got to be sentenced. Altogether that amounts to some 70,000 persons in the concentration camps in our zone who have got to be dealt with in a legal manner according to the system that has been laid down in various laws, directive orders and so forth. From time to time the Council makes new laws for Germany, especially new criminal laws, and German Courts are allowed to function subject to alterations in their laws which we make for the purposes of the occupation. When the occupation comes to an end all the material things will have to be extended in the Peace Treaty or will come to an end.
Under a plan commonly known as the Heyman Report, very carefully considered both in Germany and here, and approved by the British Minister, there are five categories of the people to be dealt with. I am afraid I made a slip of the tongue. I think there are only 40,000 in the concentration camps at present. I think I gave the larger figure.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was trying to trace the 70,000, thinking it must be my ignorance.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am sorry; I was thinking of something else at the moment, and I was wrong. I should like to put that right at once. There are, however, 23,000 in the first category; in the second category there are 47,000. I do not know what they come to now, although I thought I did. But it was stated in the House of Commons—and I am willing to accept it for this purpose—that there are 40,000 now in concentration camps. Under the Heyman plan there are five categories. The first category consists of war criminals. That, I think, does not include those guilty of crimes against humanity. I understand that there are 23,000 in that category. That is a very important figure. The second category consists of prominent Nazis; for instance, Hitler Youth leaders, Intelligence Officers, senior officers of the Navy, Army and Air Force, Police, Nazi profiteers and others. The penalties prescribed for guilt there are forfeiture of property, fine or internment for fifteen years. Then there are two other categories which consist of
254
less dangerous Nazis, militarists, Regular officers of the Army, persons excluded from office under Control Council Directive 24, air crews and others. These are put in categories 3 and 4 and they are not criminal. They are subject only to restrictions of their personal liberty. For instance, none of them may stand for election. One category of them is not entitled to vote and there are other restrictions on their movements.
This is a very large body, and the largeness of it is important because it means a great deal of work. There are probably over 250,000 of them. They are not in concentration camps at all, they are people on whom an eye is being kept and who are going to be pulled in and placed in the appropriate category when the facts in regard to them are ascertained, and there is accommodation for them. There are people, I need not mention, who have got clearance certificates. People in the first category are to be tried by German tribunals unless accused of specific crimes or crimes against the peace. The first are going to be tried generally by Military Courts, and others, I think, by German Courts. In the second category, everybody, as I understand it, is going to be tried by German Courts. The persons whom I mention, who number 250,000 or more, are people who will be dealt with, for the most part, by what are called denazification tribunals, and, sometimes, by British Review Boards. They are people whose specialized knowledge makes them potentially dangerous, and they may be examined by British Review Boards or by German tribunals. I cannot help thinking that it is important to bear in mind that many of these people are Germans citizens of the very greatest ability, and if they could be let out they would be exceedingly useful in getting German industry back on to its legs again.
I have, so far, been dealing with all the criminals and suspects other than those who are guilty of belonging to criminal organizations—and here comes in the action of the International Tribunal who, by their judgment, have declared that the S.S., the S.D., the Gestapo, and a section of the political corps leaders, were and are criminal organizations. They have also pointed out, which I have no doubt they were expected to do, that criminal guilt is personal. You are not guilty because you were a member of an

255
organization, but because the guilt is personal to you; because you committed some crime. Accordingly, the tribunal have indicated for the benefit of members of the courts who are to be engaged in trying these members of organizations, that under Law No. 10, which has been laid down in the zone by the Control Council, they must be proved to have guilty knowledge of the organization to which they belong. The result of this is that all the members of these organizations who are declared to be guilty have got to be separately dealt with. Of course, you could try half a dozen at a time, but they have got to be dealt with separately because each one must be proved to be a criminal in the sense that he had guilty knowledge of the organization which he joined.
There are, I should think, a very large number of these people. I have endeavoured—this time without success—to obtain the figure. I hope that a good proportion of them are in the concentration camps already and are therefore included in the total which I have already mentioned—40,000. But how many are there not yet in the concentration camp who will have to be dealt with under this ruling of the International Tribunal? I would stress that here we are dealing with very large numbers. The S.S. which has been held to be an illegal organization, the end of the war comprised some 40,000 people. The Nazi Party officials now interned number some 14,000, and how many officials are not yet interned I do not know. It is said that the S.S. and the Gestapo alone consisted of not fewer than 300,000 members—40,000 of that total being members of the S.S.—at the end of the war. Now I imagine that we should be very lucky if we found that there were not more than 10,000 people to be added to those who have to be tried by reason of the finding of the International Tribunal. A great many of the members of these various organizations are guilty men. Now I have already said that they have to be tried under Law No. 10 of the Control Council, and I gather—though I think that details of the machinery of this have not yet been published—that they will be tried by German Courts. The punishments prescribed under Law No. 10 range from
256
fines to imprisonment for life, to death and to confiscation of property.
Thus, as your Lordships will see, we are dealing with a very large number of men, a goodly proportion of whom are going to be tried for their lives, and there are, as I say, an unknown number of people not yet interned who will have to be tried by German judges. One has to be very careful as to trial by German Judges, because we must remember that during the whole of the Hitler régime non-Nazis were not allowed to be Judges, and were removed from their posts. Accordingly, we shall find some of these Judges are wholly inexperienced when they come to the judicial work of a judge. We must also remember that some of them have been so badly treated by the Nazis that they are not quite to be trusted, without careful review, with sentences on people who are Nazis and who are shown to have some guilty knowledge or other. I have no doubt that the decisions of these Judges will be subject to very careful review by British Judges, or by other British persons of experience. No doubt, that will be considered by the occupation authorities; and it has to be done.
A materiality, from my point of view, is that there is work to be done of a very difficult kind, involving the liberty and happiness and lives of great numbers of people. How many years is it going to take our authorities there to try all these people, and to deal with all these suspects who are to be subject to restrictive orders? In particular, we have to try 23,000 war criminals. I doubt whether it is possible that a court, in the ordinary way, could try more than about three a week. I do not know why we should suppose that even that is possible. We know how long it has taken to try the people at Nuremberg. I am quite willing to suppose that we shall take only a fraction of that time in trying some of these people, but one cannot hurry a man who wants to call witnesses in his defence, and one cannot graduate the speech of defence counsel.
It is a slow process, and I have made a very rough calculation as to what we can do with the number of British Military Courts at our disposal. Such Courts have been working in our zone in Germany since we took over, with sometimes two, sometimes as many as eight Courts, sitting at a time. I doubt

257
if these Courts, for technical reasons—such as inability to find Courts for criminals, where all sorts of preparations have to be made for the prisoners to be kept and moved for trial—have the capacity to try a large number. How long will it take? I am a little shaken by the figures, which I am told are to be produced, as to how many people have been tried by British Military Courts under this heading, but I do not think any reasonable person would imagine that all this work would be done in less than five years, if we go on with the system on which we are proceeding at present.
The question is whether in some way we cannot expedite the process. I do not want to be dogmatic as to how long it will take before we can get rid of all these people and have a clean sheet. I have asked several other people what they think and they all agree with me that we ought to finish the whole job in two years from now. That would be over three years since hostilities have ceased. In order to finish in two years from now, every conceivable step must be taken to expedite as far as possible the trial of all these people. Then there are all the persons in Categories 2, 3 and 4, who have to be either tried or examined and made subject to restrictions. How long is it to take to deal with them? So long as this process continues, we shall have many Germans in our zone—23,000,000 in number—looking upon every execution as a sort of legal murder of soldiers and others whom they will not be able to believe are being justly tried and convicted.
Persons in confinement will also be considered, in some cases, as martyrs of the Fatherland. For my part, and I think that a great many of your Lordships would be of the same opinion, I do not believe that the re-education of German citizens can begin while these terrible but just sentences are being given out, week after week, month after month, during a prolonged period. After a couple of years, it will be thought: "This is mere revenge. They have punished the country enough, and we are suffering enough, owing to lack of food and so on. We need no further demonstration of the views of the victorious nations after this terrible war" I am not disposed in the least to criticize the occupying authorities for the present position. It might have been possible to maintain it before the Nuremberg
258
judgments. It has now become much more difficult; and recent events have shown that it is more difficult.
We are going on with a number of German Courts. I do not know what information the noble Lord opposite has as to how these Courts are carrying out their duties, and whether their sentences are being approved. I understand that they have not been operating for very long. You may ask what is to be done. I think that there are various things which could be done. With regard to the trials of these persons I have a number of ideas, although I am not sure that it would be possible for me to ventilate them here. They are technical notions, connected with trials. With regard to people who are found guilty of comparatively trivial offences I have a strong feeling, having regard to the enormous job with which we are confronted, that it would be well if a great number of those were released on a species of ticket of leave. I will not use the word "parole," which is applied to soldiers of very high standing and sense of honour. We do not know that about many of these prisoners. I think it would be possible, however—at any rate I suggest that the possibility should be considered—to release them on an undertaking not to indulge in propaganda, or in politics, or in any munition work whatsoever, and to report to a particular office where they can be registered. We should explain to them, when they give these undertakings, that they will be pulled in if they break them, and will then be guilty of an offence which we should regard as very serious.
Consider that. There may be objections about which I know nothing, but I should like to hear that a great many of this vast number of Germans were treated in this way. Of course, any suggestion is liable to misunderstanding by somebody, and I should like to say that nothing is further from my mind than the notion of allowing anybody charged with the atrocious crimes which were committed and in respect of which evidence was given at Nuremberg, to be treated in any other way than they were, namely, tried, convicted and sentenced to death. That is the only way of dealing with people concerned with horrors such as were disclosed at Nuremberg.
I have given my view. I should like to end by giving the view of somebody whose voice is much more powerful than mine—

259
namely, Mr. Churchill. On September 19, he made a speech at Zurich, in which he said:
"There must be an end to retribution. We must turn our backs upon the horrors of the past, and we must look to the future."
He spoke also of a pact between France and Germany, which, of course, is a useful aspiration, and he spoke of a spiritually great Germany. All these things are things for the future. They are objectives for a distant period. The re-creation of the European family is a vast operation which will take years to accomplish. But that work, in my opinion, cannot begin until we have cleared the decks by putting an end to what I call the monthly executions. I saw in the newspaper yesterday that a Military Court had condemned eleven Germans to death. Those who look carefully in the papers will find that that is going on all the time. While there are tens of thousands of people in prisons for war crimes or in concentration camps, it seems to me impossible to think that the work of regeneration can really succeed. That is my firm belief. It is for that reason that I want us to have done at an early date with the trials, with the sentences and with the detentions in concentration camps. Let us try to persuade all the decent-minded Germans that we have come to an end of retribution, and are now desirous by every means in our power of helping the Germans to become once more a great nation, but a nation without any power again to re-arm or to make preparations for another war. I beg to move for Papers.
5.55 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY,who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the manner in which the case tried before a War Criminal Court at Wuppertal between 28th May and 1st June, 1946, was reported in the Press; and move for Papers, said: My Lords, I have a Motion on the Paper to-day, but for the convenience of the noble Lord who will reply, and with the permission of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I beg to intervene for a few minutes in this debate. My Motion deals with a kindred subject to that raised by the noble Viscount, but it deals with one particular event in the administration of justice in Germany. This year, between May 28
260
and June 1, there took place at Wuppertal in Germany the trial of some ten Germans who were charged with being concerned in the killing of four British women. Those brave women had been parachuted into France and had been captured. After a good deal of preliminary investigation, I understand that ten Germans were brought to trial on the charge which I have just enumerated.
What actually took place I think can best be brought to your Lordships' notice in the words of a letter written to The Times by a member of that court—Mr. Marlowe. These words are extracted from that letter:
"The simple facts proved to the satisfaction of the court were that these women were put to death and subsequently cremated. The only issue before the court was whether the unfortunate women had suffered 'judicial execution' after trial and sentence as spies or not. The court being satisfied that there had been no trial or sentence, the executioner or executioners could be condemned for murder.
"The evidence was clear that some four people were the executioners. Only one of these was before the court; he was duly condemned to death. Of the others, one had committed suicide and the other two had not been apprehended. The remaining accused were proved only to have played minor roles of complicity and (except for three who had clearly not been implicated and were therefore acquitted) were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment."
My reason in raising the question of this trial concerns the reporting of the trial in certain sections of the Press. It seems clear, according to my information, that the Press had some foreknowledge of the trial before it actually took place, and it appears, to put it at the lowest, very likely that some branch of the War Office dealing with public relations had given the Press some information about the prosecution's case. The report of that case was undoubtedly couched in rather lurid and horrific terms and made very glaring headlines in the paper. The court sat, with the result that I have just read out, as stated by Mr. Marlowe, a member of the court. But it appears that the Press was not present during the defence, or at any rate did not report the defence, with the consequence that on Sunday, June 2, there were articles in the Press of which I will, with your Lordships' permission read an extract.
This is from the Sunday Dispatch of June 2. The article is headed: "Oven Murder: Only 1 to die." It says:

261
"Six men who murdered by burning alive four British girl Service parachutists at Natzweiler concentration camp, Alsace, were sentenced by a Military Court at Wuppertal yesterday. Werner Rhode, the camp doctor, who gave the girls drug injections before they were put into red-hot ovens, was sentenced to death by hanging. The camp commandant, Fritz Hartjenstern, received a life sentence, and the chief crematorium executioner, Peter Straub, whom one of the girls fought as he forced her into the oven, was sent to gaol for 13 years."
Then it goes on:
"Straub, who had 'seen 4,000,000 go in smoke up the chimney at Auschwitz,' broke down when his victim fought for her life, as her killers forced her into the oven, the court was told."
The following editorial comment appeared at the foot of the article, of which I have read a part:
"The Sunday Dispatch reports this decision of the Wuppertal Court to the fullest extent made available by agency messages. In the absence of possible further detail, the Sunday Dispatch makes this comment, which it feels will express the opinion of the great majority of British people:
That mere sentence of imprisonment for this horrific crime is an outrage against justice. That there can be no degree of guilt such as is inferred in the varying sentences. That the decision of the Court should immediately be reviewed by an appropriate authority."
In the light of what Mr. Marlowe afterwards wrote, that can hardly be regarded as a satisfactory state of affairs. It may be that the Press used the information, and the only information, that was available to them. But it does raise this question in my mind. How came it about that the Press knew, first of all, beforehand only the prosecution' case? How came it about that they reported only the prosecution's case, that the defence was apparently neglected, and then the wrong conclusions drawn? It seems that there was some lack of liaison in the public relations branch, or whatever branch of the War Office was concerned, and that the good name of British justice in Germany has suffered. Those officers who took part in that trial would naturally feel that they had been misreported and had far less than justice done to them.
To show the extent to which the public can be misled, may I quote from a debate which took place in your Lordships' House in July of this year? The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, was raising a question which concerned Germany, and in his speech he made the following remark:
262
"The most flagrant case of inadequate information was the Wuppertal case. We were considerably stoked up for a long time by being told that four British girls had been burnt alive, and that only one German was to be hanged for it. It turned out afterwards that three more were to be hanged, but that was only because as a sort of sideline they had been murdering British airmen too. So the long arm of coincidence was brought in to reinforce the short arm of the law. Shortly after that we were told that the evidence of the burning alive was quite inadequate, but we only learned that by a casual letter to The Times. Even then, there was no doubt the four girls were murdered, and only one German was to be hanged, a camp doctor. What was the matter with stringing up the camp commandant?"
The noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack, in replying to the debate, said:
"The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, referred to some other trials. I will confess to him, if it is any consolation to him, that I myself have been rather uneasy about some of the decisions I have read in the newspapers. I think in some senses it is a pity that when these military tribunals give their judgment, they do not give their reasons for the judgment. In the result, I am quite satisfied that, not infrequently, their decisions are entirely misrepresented. I agree with him that greater publicity would be all to the good."
It seems to me the noble Lord spoke very justly about the misrepresentation of such a British Court in Germany. I think that perhaps in one sentence he does a little less than justice to that Court because Military Courts cannot, I understand, publish reasons for their judgments; which have to be confirmed by higher authority, and those Courts are not in the position of a Judge in our Courts.
I think no blame can attach to the principal of the Court because greater publicity was not given to the trial as a whole, but I do feel, on the facts as I understand them, that a grave responsibility rests upon the War Office to see that trials are adequately and fully reported, or at least that fair representations are given to the public of what actually takes place, because otherwise unfairness may be done to the members of British Courts and a wrong impression created in British public opinion. I hope we may hear from the noble Lord who replies to this debate that steps have been taken to settle this matter. I hope he will be able to take the opportunity of declaring in public how completely justified

263
these gentlemen who were members of that Court were in reaching the conclusion they reached.
6.4 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there are only two short points I want to make on my noble and learned friend's Motion. One is with respect to these people awaiting denazification, as it is called, in these concentration camps. I think that recently an amnesty was declared for those who were born later than the year 1919, which has resulted in a considerable clearance. I confess that the logic of that decision rather escapes me. There is plenty of evidence that German industry is very much handicapped by the lack of the key men who are still in these camps and whose cases ought, I think, to be dealt with. I should have thought that it was far more dangerous to release the people born since 1919 than the people born before that date. The people born since 1919 have been brought up for most of their impressible years in a purely Nazi régime without any other doctrine. They know nothing, for example, of Christianity, whereas the people born before that date must have been brought up originally in Christian surroundings. It would seem to me much more likely that they would be capable of returning to their first love, and not be so deeply impregnated with the Nazi doctrine. That is only my impression. I should have thought that the older men were the men whose cases could have been more sympathetically reviewed, except, of course, those people against whom there are definite charges.
The other point that troubles me is this. I have not read the whole of this Nuremberg judgment because I am waiting until His Majesty's Government give us the whole text, but I notice that one of the charges stated in the judgment was "planning wars of aggression." Of course, no sensible man can possibly doubt the guilt of the German Government in that respect. I know, as a matter of fact, that in the diplomatic archives of Vienna can be got proof that the 1914 war was planned by Germany as early as February, 1914. There is no question about that, but, with respect to the charge of planning wars of aggression, it appears to me that every soldier doing his duty to the country
264
does plan wars of aggression. If Field-Marshal Viscount Montgomery is doing his duty I am sure that he is either planning, or does plan, wars of aggression because nobody wants to plan a purely defensive war. No soldier worthy of his name would do that. What I am afraid is that, at the end of every war in which any people may unhappily find themselves, the leaders on either side are bound to be liable to that charge. If that is so, then it seems to me the logical development is that wars will become more and more ruthless. For example, the Commandos. The Germans took grave exception to the Commando invasion of Europe and, as you know, they put cur men in chains when they were captured. If the leaders on both sides know that they are for the "high jump" at the end of the war if they fail to win it, then it seems to me that they will not content themselves with comparatively mild measures, but will proceed themselves to judge and to execute judgment.
The logical development of that seems to me to be that in future wars there will be very few prisoners taken at all, and there will be almost wars of extermination. I am not condemning that, I am not saying it is a good thing or a bad. When I was a young man I knew very many good soldiers of very mild tempers who deliberately said they thought the taking of prisoners was illogical and a mistake. I do not know whether it is a mistake or not. All I want to say is that, unless my logic is at fault—and if my noble friend opposite will point it out I shall be very grateful—while we may go forward possibly to a world without war, if war does come, it will be war of greater and greater savagery. That is the only thing I have to say, but I submit it is a question for the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
6.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I want to intervene for one moment on the speech that has just been delivered by my noble friend opposite, because his speech is directed really to the reasoning of the judgment at Nuremberg. It really all rests on that. The question is whether aggressive war is to be an international crime or not. It is a vitally important question. I am not in the least quarrelling with my noble friend for having

265
raised it on this issue, but in point of fact it shows how all these things hang together. My question is simply this: Will the Government in allotting the time which is at their disposal, which I understand is not very extensive at the moment, consider carefully whether there ought not to be reserved a proper opportunity for debating the principles of the Nuremberg judgment and the Court which was improvised—on this occasion necessarily improvised? And also whether that should be the permanent Criminal International Court, or whether there should be some other Court? There are other questions of great importance, but those two questions at any rate seem to me to be of absolutely vital importance to the future of the world. I do hope we are going to have a really serious debate. There is nobody in the Kingdom better qualified than members of this House to debate such a question of mixed law, politics and morals, and I hope we shall have a serious debate initiated in the ordinary way.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, but I must put myself right. I did not say "waging aggressive war"; I said "planning aggressive war," and I was careful to take the words I had read.
6.11 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, with regard to the very serious issues raised by the last two speakers I would just remind the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that the following words are to be found in the Charter under which the Tribunal operated:
"Crimes against peace—namely, planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression."
That is in the Charter, and if I understand the noble Lord correctly he was criticizing the Court for what was outside their power. I am not sure whether he realizes that those words are in the Charter.
LORD SALTOUN: I am not criticizing.
LORD PAKENHAM: As regards what fell from the noble Viscount who spoke last, I am authorized on behalf of the Leader of the House to remind your Lordships that it was stated earlier this evening that it was hoped to provide an opportunity for a full discussion on Germany during this Session. I cannot help
266
wondering whether the noble Viscount will not feel that that will be the appropriate opportunity. The noble Viscount shakes his head. Then he will no doubt wish to raise the matter further with the Leader of the House.
The issues before us to-night are complicated. They are matters upon which the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, has specialized for many years. I lay no claims to any great erudition in this field myself. I ask permission of the House to run rapidly over some of the ground he covered because there may be other noble Lords present besides myself who like to hear figures twice, particularly if they are not the same figures, before they are quite sure they have got them into their heads. Can we not simplify the whole problem—a very acute problem, as the noble Viscount brought out so forcibly—if we look at the people we are trying to deal with under this policy, which we are all agreed on, of denazification under three heads? It seems to me that there are great numbers of people we suspect of being criminals: there are others, even more, whom we suspect of being in some sense dangerous persons; and finally, there are a number of people whom we regard as unsuitable for holding positions of responsibility. I do not know that those categories can altogether be separated; there may be a certain amount of overlapping. However, it may focus thought if we carry them in our heads.
Take first of all the trials. We have tried in our zone of Germany by the Military Courts referred to by the noble Viscount nearly 500—actually 495—war criminals and we have cases against a further 4,000 or thereabouts in various stages of preparation. So the noble Viscount was not far wrong in the latter part of his remarks on that subject where he said we had only tried a limited proportion of the total number which it was thought deserved trial.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: What is the figure of people awaiting trial?
LORD PAKENHAM: Well, there are 3,913 suspects against whom cases are in various stages of preparation, but it is not dear what proportion of those will eventually be brought to trial. Only just over 1,000 of the 3,913 have so far been apprehended and we cannot tell how

267
many of the others perished during the latter stages of the war. Therefore, one has got to be careful in talking of 3,900 or 4,000 coming up for trial under this head. Nevertheless, I think we must all recognize with the noble Viscount the seriousness of the problem. We must all desire expedition. It cannot be very easy, if we are determined to denazify Germany, to carry through a legal or quasi-legal process to which I suppose there is no parallel in history. However, I hope the noble Viscount will be reassured when I say that a review of the whole situation before the Military Courts is to be carried out during the next few weeks with a view to achieving the most rapid disposal of the more serious cases affecting British victims, and to determine in consultation with the Control Commission for Germany and Austria the future policy for dealing with outstanding cases, having in mind the desirability for ensuring that none but trivial offenders should escape. That distinction between the serious and the less serious offenders will, I believe, commend itself to the noble Viscount. So much for the first category.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Those are only war crimes properly so-called.
LORD PAKENHAM: Exactly. I am dealing with the policy that has prevailed hitherto first of all, and then trying to place before you the contemporary situation. In the second category, comprising those whom you might call the people suspected of being dangerous, the noble Viscount provided us with the correct figures, as we knew he would. He pointed out that there are close on 40,000 —38,000 to 39,000—who remain in the camps. Then thirdly—although this does not come up under the noble Viscount's Motion, but it completes the picture—we have dismissed nearly 160,000 persons from office or responsible employment on account of their association with the Nazi Party. In addition, we have rejected as unsuitable applicants for appointments a further 86,000. Including those, we have examined altogether with regard to their suitability for employment about 1,250,000 individual cases. That is the third category, the category of people regarded as possibly unsuitable.
So much for the position as it has been hitherto. Coming to the future, if we take our first category, those suspected of
268
crimes, the noble Viscount is perfectly right in saying that that category has been extended by the recent verdict.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for one moment? I think he has left out another category. The numbers he has given here as being tried by British Military Tribunals can only be persons who are guilty of crimes against the laws and usages of war, because those are the only people our Military Tribunals are trying. But there are others who are guilty of crimes just as great who are not tried in that way at all. He has not yet dealt with those.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I come to that point? May I place before the House the position as it is at the moment? Under our first heading—people suspected of crime—our intention is to dispose as quickly as possible of all minor war criminals against whom we have satisfactory evidence and to hand over to our Allies for trial those other cases which warrant disposal in that way. Still dealing with those suspected of crime, we have now got to deal individually with the members of the organizations declared to be criminal at Nuremberg. That, of course, is a very much larger number. It may include people from the original 4,000 against whom cases were being prepared, but the number will be primarily drawn from the close on 40,000 who are still under detention. Some of these members of organizations declared to be criminal will be dealt with, as the noble Viscount has intervened to point out, by our Military Courts where the crimes are against peace, and where the crimes are crimes against humanity, the procedure will be through the German Courts. I would like to say emphatically on behalf of the Government that we sympathize very much with the concern felt by the noble Viscount on this point. I think the noble Viscount is perfectly justified in saying that the task of giving a proper and fair trial, with opportunity for appeal, to the many thousands of persons involved will present very formidable difficulties. I am in broad agreement with him when he says we should endeavour to limit our action to what can be practicably performed. There the noble Viscount carries us with him. The consequences of the Nuremberg verdict are now being carefully studied and I can assure him that we shall

269
not set ourselves a task which we cannot carry out within a reasonable period. I do not suppose he will wish me to be more specific tonight, but only if because he has drawn that assurance from me I hope he will feel, as I do, that his Motion has been worth while.
I will not deal exhaustively with the remaining categories because they do not concern us so actively this evening. The Motion, your Lordships will recall, was concerned primarily with the trials of criminals, but I cannot close this part of my reply to the points which have been raised without re-emphasizing that the task of denazifying Germany is bound to be prolonged and arduous. It is quite true that we do not, and should not, approach the subject in any spirit of revenge, but nevertheless we are committed to re-educating Germany and we do not believe that that task can be properly concluded until the Nazi elements have been eradicated by one means or another.
I come finally to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord de L'Isle and Dudley. With one of his conclusions I whole-heartedly agree, and from another, with emphasis and, if he will allow me to say so, with a certain amount of heat, I must dissent. I will not traverse all the ground again which he covered so very clearly. I think that broadly, and also precisely, his account of the trial was accurate. It is quite true that some of the allegations of excessive cruelty were not substantiated during the trial. Moreover, as he pointed out, of the four men primarily responsible for the murders, two have never been apprehended and one committed suicide while awaiting trial. Only one was, therefore, actually brought to trial. The remaining accused were concerned only in a minor degree with the crime. The prisoner directly responsible was sentenced to death, five of the others were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and three were acquitted. I think all those points were made by the noble Lord himself. I agree with him wholeheartedly that there is nothing whatever in the case to suggest that the protests made in the Press of undue leniency on the part of the Court were in any way justified. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the proceedings were properly conducted throughout and that the accused were dealt with appropriately on the basis of the various charges made
270
and proved against them. In every possible sense, therefore, the officers of the Court are vindicated.
At the same time I cannot help expressing surprise because, possibly through some misunderstanding on my part, I had not got the impression that the noble Lord was going to levy a charge against the War Office. Of course, I am always open—as anyone who stands at this box should be open—to investigate any charge made against a Government Department, but I say that up to the present I see no evidence whatever to suggest that the War Office were at fault, and I cannot help hoping that the noble Lord, either tonight or on some later occasion, will withdraw the suggestion that there is any evidence against the War Office in this matter. I have attempted to deal with some of the points which have been raised but I feel that there may well be others to which we shall have to return on a later occasion.
6.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to do so, there are two things I should like to say. The first thing concerns this Wuppertal business, though it is really only a sort of picturesque and horrible by-pass so far as my Motion is concerned. I should like to say something, if I may, for the benefit of the Press in dealing with judgments of this sort in the future. Nobody has yet mentioned the fact that trials under Special Army Orders, such as these were—and I hold the Royal Warrant in my hand; it is Army Order No. 81 of 1945—do not leave the decision on the death penalty to the mere, though admirable, Judges constituting a British Military Court. Not only has the convening officer to direct that a finding of guilty and the sentence awarded shall be announced by the President in open court, but he has also to direct that it shall be announced that such finding and sentence are subject to confirmation. It is nothing unless it is confirmed. This question of confirmation has to go before what is called a confirming officer, who often does not confirm. If he confirms, the accused may, within fourteen days, submit a petition to the confirming officer against the finding and sentence, and if he does that within fourteen days it has to go, together with the proceedings of the trial, to His Majesty's Judge Advocate-General or to

271
any deputy of his approved for that purpose in the Command overseas where the trial takes place for advice and report thereon.
Therefore the notion that three military officers, or two military officers and one legal member, made some horrible blunder in this case and let off lightly some brutal murderers, was from the start a ridiculous idea, because it could not take place. I do not know whether these people who were guilty of murders for which they were sentenced appealed or petitioned. The sentence had to be confirmed and it would then go before the Judge Advocate-General, so that really the opportunities of mistake are, I venture to think, almost impossible. That may relieve the minds of a great many people, and it would rather suggest to reporters that before they make a disturbance about the original sentence they should wait and see whether it is confirmed or not, and whether there is a petition or appeal.
May I say one thing about the main subject of my Motions? I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and for the attitude of mind in which he has approached the important subject involved in the debate. I quite conceive that I may have been wrong in one of the figures I gave, although I am a little surprised, and if I have an opportunity I shall tell the noble Lord the source of my information.
LORD PAKENHAM: I only intervene to say that I obtained that figure independently from two Government Departments, so I think it may be correct.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Well, maybe. But however, the noble Lord is wrong in thinking that that disposes of all the people who are guilty of crimes which may deserve a death sentence. That is far from being the case. The list he has given me, and which he says two Departments have given him, is a list only of cases tried by a British Military Court. It is nothing else. There are far more crimes which deserve death which are not being tried by Military Courts at all under the regulations that now exist, but which are going to be tried or have been tried by German Courts. As I said before, nothing is included in his list but what the British Military Courts have done, and crimes against humanity and other murders of all sorts, including murder of
272
German subjects in Germany, are being tried by German Courts and not by British Courts at all. I hope the noble Lord will pardon me for saying that, because I think it is quite possible that I was quite wrong in my first figure and when I am wrong I like to acknowledge it. I think that if the noble Lord would give me an opportunity at some time to spend five minutes on this subject I could persuade him that in other respects I was right. Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I hoped that I might, with the permission of the House, speak again in view of the remarks which fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, at the end of the debate. I had no intention of making an attack on the War Office, but I thought it was a matter which the Government should investigate. There was clearly some pre-information by the Press which proved to be as, I thought, deleterious to the Court, and I thought that whoever was responsible for giving that information ought to have corrected the impression that was made publicly. So far I have seen no statement, official or unofficial, that that impression should be corrected. It was merely a suggestion that the matter should be looked into at the War Office, and if possible what I thought to be an unfortunate occurrence should be set right. I will not now proceed with my Motion.
6.38 p.m.

GERMAN INTERNEES IN DENMARK.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what steps they are taking to enable the repatriation to Germany of about 200,000 German civilian refugees now interned in Denmark, a very great many of whom are women and children.]
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, the question of the return to Germany of the 200,000 civilian refugees in Denmark is under discussion by the representatives of the Four Powers on the Control Council in Berlin, and it is impossible to say when

273
a solution will be reached. The problem should not therefore be regarded as purely Anglo-Danish, but the authorities of the British zone have agreed to receive into the British zone those of the refugees who previously lived there, numbering 10,000.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that answer. I suppose he cannot say when the question will be settled by the Big Four?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am afraid I cannot say any more than I have said.

NUREMBERG TRIAL.
6.40 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE LORD BEVERIDGE asked His Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that full transcripts of the proceedings before the Nuremberg Tribunal including the speeches and evidence for the defence are placed in suitable libraries where they will be accessible to students of history, politics and jurisprudence. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the question which stands in my name may I just say a few words. The judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, and all that is contained in that judgment and the action of the United Nations in setting up that Tribunal, will come up for judgment by the tribunal of history. In order that it should do so, it is essential that the reason for the Tribunal reaching its judgment should be readily available, together with all the evidence for the defence, all the documents put in for the defence and the whole of the proceedings. As that may possibly be very long—I do not know how long it is—I suggested that it would be sufficient if a transcript were available in particular libraries. Naturally, if the Government feel it possible to print the whole and distribute it more widely I shall be only more pleased.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, copies of the transcripts of the official shorthand notes of the entire proceedings at Nuremberg are being periodically published in a series of publications by His Majesty's Stationery Office. Furthermore, I am now able to state that the Government have arranged to publish the transcripts of the judgment and sentences as a Command Paper. These publications will be available for purchase by libraries and other authorities at the Stationery Office in the ordinary way.

ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL BILL.
Report from the Standing Orders Committee that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Bill ought to be dispensed with: read and agreed to.
Message from the Commons, that they have appointed a Committee to consist of six members to join with a Committee of this House to consider the said Bill and request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the members of that House. The said Message to be taken into consideration to-morrow.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
NORTHMET POWER BILL.
Reported without amendment.

BANBURY CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before seven o'clock.