Sitting of 28 January 1947

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

    Family Allowances
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of National Insurance how many different types of forms are being used by the family allowances department of his Ministry.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): If the initial form of application is completely and accurately filled up and the case presents no unusual features, this is the only form that has to be completed. Where, however, further information is needed it has been found more convenient, to the claimant as well as to the Department, to use one of a series of letters or forms prepared in advance, instead of having to prepare a special letter in each case to which the claimant would have to send a separate reply. The number at present in use is 39.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of National Insurance if he will transfer the work of dealing with family allowances payable in Scotland from Newcastle to Edinburgh, and so obviate the delays which take place under present arrangements.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: A large part of the work in connection with these claims, including the determination of appeals against initial disallowances, is already dealt with locally in Scotland. I do not think it would contribute to efficiency or speed to transfer any more of the work at this stage to Edinburgh, but, as soon
    738
    as we have our local offices, we shall, of course, use them for family allowance work.
    Mr. Mathers: Does the Minister realise that his solution of this difficulty will take some time to put into operation, and may I ask him if, in the meantime, he will take immediate steps to see that the obviously large arrears are wiped out?
    Mr. Griffiths: They are not very large arrears. We have been in this difficulty. There are cases of disputes about the composition of the family, and it is not for me as Minister to settle these. It is for the referee. We are awaiting the decisions of the referee now, and, when we get them, I can take immediate steps to clear the arrears.

    Dental Benefit
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of National Insurance if he will give an estimate of the proportion of dentists who normally participate in the existing dental benefit service who have not accepted the advice of the Joint Advisory Dental Council to resume the practice of accepting dental letters.
    Mr. Bairdasked the Minister of National Insurance the percentage acceptance of dental letters by dentists at present as compared with the period before the present dispute commenced.
    Mr. Griffiths: Precise figures are not available. Information which has been received, however, as to the number of dental letters accepted by dentists and returned to some of the larger approved societies during a recent period, suggests that a substantial number of insured persons entitled to dental benefit are now obtaining treatment in accordance with the Dental Benefit Regulations.
    I would add that the Joint Advisory Dental Benefit Council have recently reaffirmed their approval of the terms negotiated in December last. I trust that the professional organisations concerned will now take all possible steps to bring home to their members, in the interest not only of insured persons but of the profession itself, the importance of conforming without further delay to these terms, which were negotiated after full discussion with their representatives.
    Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that branches of the Incorporated Dental Society and

    739
    the British Dental Association have re, fused to accept the new agreement; and in view of the fact that this dispute has now been going on for well over a year, will the Minister take all possible steps to reach a satisfactory conclusion?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am very sorry indeed to hear that any of the members are refusing to accept a settlement negotiated between myself and their representatives. I can only hope that they will accept the advice of their leaders.
    Mr. Baird: Will the Minister make it quite clear that the only reason he cannot give definite figures is that only limited statistics are available? The reason he is not able to give a definite decision is because of that. Furthermore, does he not—
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a question, it is a speech.

    Old Age Pension Books
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of National Insurance why Mr. and Mrs. George Wainwright, 69 years of age and 68 years of age, respectively, who are both entitled to the increased old age pension rate, have not yet received their new books, although they have made the necessary application to his Department at Blackpool eight times since 28th September, 1946; and what steps he proposes to take to hasten this matter.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: New pension order books have now been sent to the Assistance Board for both Mr. and Mrs. Wainwright, who should receive them either today or tomorrow.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the whole question of delay in sending these new books is evidence of the inevitable breakdown of State control and centralised administration?
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the many complaints which hon. Members have had on this issue, will the Minister see that when they make application an acknowledgment is sent to old age pensioners?
    Mr. Griffiths: Last week I made a very full and frank statement indicating the difficulty and the steps which we are taking to expedite the matter.

    Pensioners (Employment)
    Mr. Butcherasked the Minister of National Insurance whether, with a view to encouraging elderly people to continue to assist the national effort for increased production, he proposes to take any steps enabling him to pay pensions irrespective of the total earrings of pensioners.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Action on the lines suggested would require the amendment of the National Insurance Act, 1946, which has only recently been approved by this House.
    Mr. Butcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the economic position of the country has not improved, that we have had further information on the valuable contribution elderly people can make to industry, and will he keep the matter under review?
    Mr. Griffiths: We are very anxious indeed to do anything we can under this scheme to encourage people to postpone their retirement and, as the House will know, I doubled the increment proposed by the Beveridge Report and the Coalition White Paper.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that widows over 60 years of age who received the- recent increase of 16s. per week in their pension and now wish to supplement their pension by working a few hours per week at their former employment, are being informed that they might be considered as not having retired and lose their increase; and whether he will take steps to ensure that no deduction in the pension is made unless the widow earns more than 20s. per week.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Where it has been decided by the appropriate statutory authority that a pensioner has retired from regular employment, that decision cannot be revised unless new facts relating to the position at the material date are brought to notice. A pension which has been increased will not be affected by earnings unless they exceed 20s. a week. It appears that some misunderstanding arose in the handling of the case which the hon. Member brought to my notice. I have taken steps to put the matter in order.
    Mr. Willis: Will my right hon. Friend say what is meant by retirement because it seems to me to be important?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am in a difficulty about that, because the precise definition of the term has also to be decided by the tribunal and the Commissioner and not by the Minister.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Painters, North London
    Captain John Crowderasked the Minister of Labour how many painters in Finchley and Friern Barnet are at present unemployed and what steps he is taking to improve the position.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): On 16th January last, 12 painters were registered as unemployed in this area. Everything possible is being done to find employment for them.
    Captain Crowder: Can the Minister say if he intends to move these unemployed men to work in other parts of London and ask them to change their employers, or is he able to find work for them as painters in the Finchley and Friern Barnet area with their present employers?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. Of the 12, 10 were placed in a day or so, but, since then, others have come along and the last figure was 14. The steps I have taken are that, as soon as there appears to be growing unemployment in these classes, in conjunction with the Ministry of Works arrangements are made for other licences to be issued for redecoration and other purposes.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that establishments employ the statutory percentage of disabled men.
    Mr. Isaacs: The attention of all employers who are subject to the Quota Scheme is being drawn to their obligations, and this is being followed up as necessary by an inspection of their records. If this should disclose any deliberate non-compliance, the full powers of the Act will be used to secure enforcement, including, if necessary, the institution of legal proceedings.
    Mr. Shepherd: As many employers are not conscious of their present obligations, despite the efforts of the Ministry, could
    742
    not a return be sent to the Ministry showing how many of these men there are in a given area?
    Mr. Isaacs: I think we have a shorter way of dealing with it than that. We have conferences with the employers in the various areas round the employment exchanges. The employers come in, and we find them very co-operative.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the fact that the quota is only 3 per cent., whereas many firms are employing 5 per cent. or more, many of the disabled unemployed get no benefit from the Act at present, and can he take steps to raise the quota to a higher level?
    Mr. Isaacs: On the question of raising the quota, some consideration is being given to that. The fact is that some firms are employing as many as 16 per cent. of disabled 'persons. I may mention one example. If hon. Members took the trouble to look at an exhibition in Oxford Street, they would find that there is a famous motor firm with a department completely staffed by disabled men. The question of the quota is under consideration, but there are difficulties about it.
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many disabled persons, who have successfully completed courses of training under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, have had to wait several months before employment has been found for them; what is the reason for such delays; and what steps are being taken to reduce the period of waiting.
    Mr. Isaacs: Every effort is made to find employment for all trainees, and especially disabled trainees, on the completion of their courses at Government training centres, and, on the whole, these efforts are very successful. I am aware that, in particular cases, delays may occur owing to exceptional circumstances, such as a temporary shortage of materials in a particular area, or the fact that no employment can be found at once near the trainee's Home, and he is unwilling to take work elsewhere. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Bernard Taylorasked the Minister of Labour the nmber of persons registered as disabled to December, 1946;

    743
    how many have been accepted for training; the number in training centres; and the number placed in new forms of employment.
    Mr. Isaacs: The number of persons who had registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act at 16th December, 1946, was 729,113, of whom, it is estimated, 650,000 were in employment, and 12,343 were classified as incapable of work under ordinary conditions. The number of disabled persons who had been accepted for training since the inception of the training scheme up to 16th January was 43,167, and the number in training on that date was 4,795. I regret that the information asked for in the last part of the Question is not available.

    Resettlement of Poles
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Labour how many Poles and other Allies were employed in the British coalmines and heavy industries at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Wilkesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, on 3rd January, out of 142,000 Poles in the United Kingdom only 1,750 were employed in civil trades and industries; what steps he is taking to speed the rate at which ex-members of the Polish forces re-enter trade and industry; and whether he will publish a schedule of trades and industry showing the number of Polish ex-Servicemen employed therein.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Labour the number of Poles -in this country available for helping the production drive; how many are now actually employed in industry and agriculture; and how quickly the remainder are likely to cease being a drain on this country's resources.
    Mr. Isaacs: Members of the Polish Forces now in this country eligible for enrolment in the Resettlement Corps number about 142,000, of whom about 52,000 have enrolled. About 58,000 are employed in uniform on Polish administration, maintenance of their own camps, and other War Department and civilian work. Of those enrolled in the Resettlement Corps, some 42,000 have been registered for employment by the Ministry of Labour and about 2,100 so far placed
    744
    in civilian employment. In addition, there are in the country some thousands of dependants and others who have been attached to the Polish Forces in various ways.
    My Department has had discussions with a number of industries and has reached agreement for the employment of Poles. The most important industries concerned are agriculture, coalmining, building and civil engineering, the gas industry, retail bespoke tailoring, and parts of the iron and steel industry, though in one or two cases, final details are now being worked out. There is also a sub-committee of the N.J.A.C. which keeps the representatives of industry in touch with the steps being taken for the resettlement of the Poles. I emphasise to the House the very serious effect of accommodation difficulties on the rapid settlement of this problem. All possible means of using camp and hostel accommodation are being taken, but the lack of accommodation, particularly in the localities of labour shortage, must nevertheless be expected to remain the chief difficulty.
    I have every hope that the arrangements which have been made will prove adequate for handling the difficult problems involved, particularly if we have the goodwill of both sides of industry, and of public opinion. The task is, however, bound to take a very considerable time. In view of the interest of Members in this matter, I propose to keep the House informed from time to time of the progress made.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: While thanking the Minister for that information, may I ask him if he is aware that he has not answered my Question? Does he not consider that, in view of the serious economic position of the country, particularly in regard to coal, the House is entitled to the information asked for?
    Mr. Isaacs: The numbers are spread over so many industries in small groups that it is difficult to get the figures. What I hoped to convey about coal last week —and I am sorry if I slipped up—was that men have been allocated to the coalmines, but that all have to go through their training. I am not sure how many, but a few may have been placed outside the scheme. The coalmining industry has agreed to accept them, and arrangements

    745
    for their training are being made. So far as the heavy industries are concerned, work is beginning now. I am most anxious to give the House full information. May I quote one example which I have in mind? I know of one firm which wants to take 1,000. All the men in the firm are anxious to take these men and would welcome them, but when we start sending the men in, there is nowhere within a reasonable distance to accommodate them, and we have to send them back to the camp.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In view of the fact that it was only on the understanding that these Poles were rapidly absorbed into work of national importance that approval was given to their retention in this country by many hon. Members on this side of the House, will the Minister speed up the machinery for fixing up these men in useful work?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The steps we are taking are intended to speed up this machinery. I am happy to say that negotiations which I have had with industries concerned, which were previously reluctant, have been successful, and, as a result, we hope the process will be speeded up. That is why I suggested that I should keep the House informed, and I would suggest a monthly statement.
    Mr. David Renton: Will the Minister say why there has been a year's delay in coming to a decision of an obviously necessary and satisfactory character?
    Mr. Isaacs: There has been great difficulty in getting the men here and in sorting them out, and there has been a good deal of misunderstanding among the men themselves. There has been the problem of getting the scheme of resettlement into operation and a number of other problems, but every effort is being made and I hope we shall be successful.
    Mrs. Middleton: May I ask the Minister what action has been taken by his Department, or is contemplated, in those areas where local employment committees have passed resolutions against the employment of Poles in their localities?
    Mr. Isaacs: We hope to use some persuasion. May I put this to the House? I took advantage of an opportunity a few days ago to pay a visit to one of these camps and seeing the Poles being enrolled, and I am sure that if anybody with human
    746
    feelings went there and saw these people and realised what fine types of men they are, and the unsatisfactory conditions in which they live, all sorts of opposition would fade away.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is there any industry in which the principle of employing these men has not been agreed to?
    Mr. Isaacs: I think partially, and that is in the iron foundry industry, because at the moment they have agreed to take, I think, 2,300 Italians, and they are anxious to see what the effect will be on their own set-up. There has been no actual objection up to now.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the Minister aware that, in the opinion of many people, his Department is handling this matter with great tact and success and they are anxious for them to get on with the job?
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Cannot we have a straightforward and sensible answer to the Question? Will not the Minister say how many of these men are employed?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: On a point of Order. Owing to the inadequacy of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

    Transferred Workers (Lodging Allowance)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Labour why three days' maintenance allowance was deducted during the Christmas period from the maintenance grant payable under his Department's arrangements to men working away from their homes; and whether he will take steps to restore the deduction, in view of the fact that, in nearly all cases, a full week's rent still had to be paid.
    Mr. Isaacs: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Lodging allowance is, in the ordinary course, not payable if the transferred worker is absent for more than four nights from the area of employment. As a special concession, however, for the Christmas holiday, allowances were made payable for three days, even though the worker was away for five or six nights.

    Work Stoppages (Days Lost)
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Minister of Labour how many days' work were lost owing to strikes from 1st August, 1945, to the most recent date for which figures

    747
    are available; and how many days were lost in the comparable period from 1st January, 1919.
    Mr. Isaacs: The number of days lost 'through stoppages of work arising out of industrial disputes between 1st August, 1945, and 31st December, 1946, was 3,75o,ooo. In the corresponding period beginning 1st January, 1919, the number of days lost was about 40 million.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: While these figures are truly gratifying, and while the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to be pleased with them, is it not a fact that the numerous shortages in production in 1919 were very much less than they are now?

    Factory Department (Annual Report)
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Labour why the annual report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories for 1945 was only presented to Parliament in December, 1946; and whether subsequent reports will be made available nearer the time to which they refer.
    Mr. Isaacs: Owing to heavy pressure of work in the Factory Department, the last annual report was not completed until exceptionally late. I hope it will be found possible to submit future annual reports considerably earlier than during the war years.

    National Joint Advisory Council
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Labour how many meetings of the National Joint Advisory Council have been held to the latest available date; on how many occasions the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade and he, himself, have attended; and what was the average attendance of the 34 representatives of the B.E.F. and of the T.U.C., respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: The National Joint Advisory Council was reconstituted at a special meeting on 15th July last, and has since held four meetings, all under my chairmanship. The Lord President of the Council has attended two meetings, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade were each present on one occasion. These meetings were fully representative of the
    748
    two sides of the council, and I do not feel called upon to give information as to the numbers present.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we can only get increased production at more competitive prices by the good will of all concerned, and would he ask the Joint Advisory Council to conduct an educational campaign among all workers in order to combat Communist interest?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is true that we can only recover our economic position by the good will of all concerned. This council is very helpful, and is undertaking a campaign to make the position clear. I think that their good will will be retained if not so many bricks are thrown at them.

    Unemployment
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women, including ex-Service personnel on release leave, not employed on 31st December, 1946.
    Mr. Isaacs: A count of the unemployed was not taken on 31st December, and I regret, therefore, that the information asked for is not available.

    Building Trade Training
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Labour the number of bricklayers who completed their training at the training centres in Scotland during 1946; the number it is expected will complete their training during 1947; and whether he is satisfied that the present plans will be adequate to meet the needs of the building programme.
    Mr. Isaacs: Up to 13th January, 1947, 565 men had been trained as bricklayers in Scotland. It is estimated that the facilities now being provided will enable 2,000 additional men to be trained as bricklayers during 1947, and I am satisfied that this will be adequate to meet the need of the building programme as now planned.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in Scotland, there are many bricklayers engaged in other trades, and will he devise means of attracting them into the housing drive?
    Mr. Isaacs: Wherever the Ministry of Labour have had knowledge of a bricklayer working in another industry, efforts have been made to get him back, but we have no power to force him.
    Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of bricklayers required in Scotland is much greater than he expects will be trained in the whole of 1947? Can anything be done to expedite the matter?
    Mr. Isaacs: The figures which I have quoted were reported to us as being sufficient to meet the requirements.
    Mr. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Labour the average period of waiting between the acceptance of candidates for training in the building trade and their entry into training centres.
    Mr. Isaacs: The period varies according to the trade and district. In most areas, applicants accepted for training as bricklayers should be allocated within a few weeks. In some other building trades, such as carpentry and plumbing, however, applicants may have to wait considerably longer.
    Mr. Davies: In view of the urgency for obtaining the maximum number of building operatives, may we expect the Minister to take steps to improve the present position? Some men are losing heart and are giving up their chances of entering the trade.
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. During the last few months, we have opened several more training centres and others are in process of being completed. We are hopeful that, by the middle of this year, at any rate, the whole of the training facilities planned for will be available.
    Mr. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Labour how many building trade operatives have been trained up to date at the Government training centres; and the number of accepted candidates who are awaiting training.
    Mr. Isaacs: At 13th January, 1947, 17,473 men had been trained for the building industry, and 16,185 men had been accepted and were awaiting allocation.
    Mr. Eccles: Does not the Minister think that, in view of the prospective supply of building materials, the building trade is being over-manned?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, I can assure the House that the whole scheme has been planned so that we shall not train men and then find them waiting about because
    750
    materials are not available. In that connection, we are making arrangements with the Ministry of Supply.
    Mr. Edward Davies: Is it not the policy of the Minister of Labour to provide building materials and also the labour to use those materials, and does not the figure of 16,000 indicate that there is a great deal of work to be done in providing training?
    Mr. Isaacs: So far as the 16,000 are concerned who have been accepted and who are awaiting allocation, they are included. In addition to those who have been waiting to be trained, there are 23,026 in actual training. So far as the building material position is concerned, every attention has been given to that. The position has been successfully overcome in bricklaying, and the other branches are receiving attention.
    Mr. Beswick: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the responsibility of placing upon him the training facilities for 140,000 Poles will not prevent him from training our ex-Servicemen?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, it will not. Reverting again to the Poles, we are satisfied that we shall find a great number of those men who will not require training. Many are skilled in agriculture, and many are going into industries which do not require much training, but, where training is required, these men, especially those who are disabled, will have the facilities of our training centres. The others will be trained by the employers.

    European Displaced Persons
    Mr. M. Lindsayasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government will invite suitable displaced persons in Europe to work in those British industries which are short of manpower.
    Mr. Isaacs: In addition to the existing arrangements for bringing women displaced persons to this country for domestic work in hospitals, I am considering, with other Departments concerned, the possibilities of meeting current manpower,shortages by the recruitment of displaced persons.
    Mr. Lindsay: But is it not a bit late for the Minister to consider this matter now? Ought not this to have been considered at least 12 months ago?
    Mr. Isaacs: What we are considering is an extension of the arrangements which have already been made. No publicity has been given to them, although, as the hon. Member has put down a Question, I can refer to it. We have already brought in for purely domestic work in private households over 7,000 people, but the question of getting the men over for these other schemes must be taken into consideration with other factors.
    Sir Arthur Salter: Has the Minister already taken steps to see that the displaced persons are classified according to their different skills and eligibility for the work which is required to be done?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I would not like to be too specific about all the camps, but we have had officers of the Ministry of Labour in many of the camps classifying these people and finding out their capabilities, especially the women workers. Well over 1,000 women displaced persons who have come here to work in institutions and hospitals have given the greatest satisfaction, and are an excellent type of person.
    Mr. Hogg: Is not the number required something like 600,000 at present?
    Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say how long these discussions are likely to take and when he hopes to be able to make a statement as to the outcome?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I could not give any definite time, but it is quite obvious that we are governed by another factor, the most worrying factor of the lot, and that is accommodation. It is fairly easy to find a person who is willing to come here and another person is willing to supply that person with accommodation, but, while we have such trouble in finding accommodation for our own people and for the Poles, it would be unwise to bring in other great crowds of people.
    Sir A. Salter: Would the Minister take steps to see that the men are classified as fully and carefully as-the women?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, I will see that that is done.
    Mr. M. Lindsay: I beg to give notice that owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (STUDENTS)
  Mr. Championasked the Minister of Labour if he has concluded his discussions with the representatives of the universities about the arrangements for the release under Class B of the students in groups above 55; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Labour if he is in a position to make a statement on the conditions governing the release of students from the Forces who wish to resume their studies in October, 1947.
  Mr. Isaacs: The discussion with representatives of the universities is taking place on Thursday, and I will make a statement as soon as possible after that.

  SCOTLAND

    Forestry (Wages)
    Mr. McAdamasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the different grades of workers employed by the Forestry Commission for Scotland; the minimum and maximum rates of wages in each grade; and with what trade union, or unions, the Commission negotiates wage rates and general conditions of service.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): Forest workers employed by the Forestry Commission in Scotland are divided into three grades. The first grade receives 5s. per week above the minimum agricultural wage; the second, 2s. 6d. per week above the minimum agricultural wage; and the third, the minimum agricultural wage which is at present 80s. per week. Gangers are paid 11s. per week above minimum agricultural wage. The basic wage of forest workers in Scotland is fixed by the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, and any variations, as well as conditions of service, are negotiated by the Forestry Commission Industrial and Trade Council, the trade union side of which is made up of representatives from the Transport and General Workers' Union, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, and the National Union of Agricultural Workers.

    Hill Cattle Subsidy
    Mr. Snaddenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware

    753
    of the inconvenience and hardship caused to hill farmers in Scotland by reason of the inadequate notice of the final date of application for forms establishing a claim to the hill cattle subsidy; what representations he has received on this subject; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that hill farmers likely to qualify for the subsidy are properly and individually informed of the final date for application.
    Mr. Westwood: Apart from the representations I have received from the very small percentage of people who were too late in asking for forms or submitting applications, I have received no complaint that the method of notice, through the agricultural executive committees, the Scottish National Farmers' Union, and Press and the wireless, has been inadequate in past hill cattle subsidy schemes. As regards further schemes, I shall keep in view the hon. Member's suggestion about individual notification, although there would clearly be disadvantages in substituting such an arrangement for the present practice.
    Mr. Snadden: Is it not a fact that the only intimation is by means of a broadcast or a notice in the Press, and would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unfortunate if, because an applicant does not read the paper on the particular day on which the notice appears or does not hear the broadcast, he does not qualify? Will the right hon. Gentleman send out a form to all people who have previously qualified?
    Mr. Westwood: Even if I sent out a form to all those who had previously qualified, they might not be in a position to qualify under the new scheme. I have already pointed out that I am ready to consider the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman, but I have pointed out some of the difficulties that stand in the way of giving effect to his suggestion.
    Major McCallum: Would the right hon. Gentleman also consider a system of sending automatically to those who have qualified, a form on which to claim payment? There is a great delay in supplying this other form. If the second form could be sent to those who become eligible it would save a lot of misunderstanding.
    Mr. Westwood: I shall certainly keep in view the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

    New Town Inquiry (Report)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is intended to publish the proceedings, of the East Kilbride New Town Inquiry; and when publication may be expected.
    Mr. Westwood: Objectors and other persons interested will be able to obtain a copy of the transcript of the shorthand writers' notes of the proceedings on payment of the appropriate fees. For the convenience of Members, I shall arrange for a copy of the transcript to be placed in the Library. I do not propose any wider publication of the proceedings.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that. there is very widespread feeling about this question of new towns so far as East Kilbride is concerned, would it not be fair to the general public to issue a report of the proceedings?
    Mr. Westwood: There has been a policy of presenting in the national Press very extensive reports of these proceedings. I have already indicated that those interested in securing copies of the report will be able to get them on payment of the appropriate fee. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the fee?"] I could not say offhand. As I have said, in the interests of Members, I am arranging to put a copy of the proceedings in the Library.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this answer will cause great surprise and indignation in Scotland? Why should not the Scottish people, who are already to be charged millions of pounds under this scheme, be able to have the whole of the facts which came out at the inquiry? Why should they have to pay money to find out what ought to be a free public advertisement of the whole facts of the inquiry? There is no excuse for the secrecy.
    Mr. Westwood: I am not aware of any grave dissatisfaction with regard to the provision of new towns in Scotland.
    Captain Crookshank: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know what the fee is, how can he be sure that it is appropriate?
    Mr. Westwood: Surely, it is obvious that as compared with a one-day inquiry,

    755
    there is every chance that an inquiry which took seven or eight days would cost seven or eight times more.

    Regional Water Supplies
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Secretary 01 State for Scotland what consultations have taken place with local authorities on the question of regional water supplies; and if he will state the names of authorities consulted.
    Mr. Westwood: I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement on the various consultations which have taken place with the local authorities.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the biggest water authority in Scotland has no knowledge of such consultations taking place, and that it is proposed to take the water supply from a part of my constituency situated next to the Glasgow water works, and switch it to a new regional board?
    Mr. Westwood: I am not aware of that fact, but after my hon. Friend has seen the full statement that I have promised I will be willing to discuss that matter with him if it arises.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is it not a fact that the Glasgow Corporation have not been a party to any of the consultations?
    Mr. Westwood: It is more than possible that they have not, because I have yet to learn that the Glasgow Corporation is a rural authority under the Act.
    Mr. McKinlay: I desire to give notice that I will, raise this matter on the Adjournment. That is too slippery for me.
    Following is the statement:
    The following local authorities have been consulted about the outline regional schemes prepared by the Department of Health for Scotland:

    Aberdeen.

    Kirkcudbright.

    Angus.

    Midlothian.

    Ayr.

    Moray.

    Banff.

    Nairn.

    Caithness.

    Orkney.

    Clackmannan.

    Perth.

    Dumfries.

    Renfrew.

    Dunbarton.

    Ross and Cromarty.

    East Lothian.

    Stirling.

    Fife.

    Wigtown.

    Kincardine.

    Burgh of Inverness.

    Kinross.

    Consultations have also taken place with the local authorities of the counties of Berwick, Lanark and Roxburgh in connection with regional water supply schemes prepared by these authorities.
    With regard to regional water supply schemes which have been the subject of applications for grant, the county councils of Aberdeen, Angus, Banff, Berwick, Caithness, Kincardine, Orkney and Wig-town have been notified that a part of their regional water supply schemes has been provisionally selected with a view to an offer of grant under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944. The county councils of Dunbarton and Lanark have been informed that I am prepared to consider regional water supply schemes for these counties with a view to an offer of grant under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.

    Potatoes and Cereals, Dumfriesshire
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that while in 1945 Cumber land had a total of 106,269 acres under cereals and potatoes, and the purchase value of the machinery held by its A.E.C. was £84,000, the neighbouring county of Dumfries had 57,354 acres under cereals and potatoes, but the purchase value of machinery held by its A.E.C. was only 24,000; and if he will authorise the supply to the Dumfriesshire A.E.C. of potato planters, potato sorters and grain driers.
    Mr. Westwood: Machinery in committees' areas is intended only as a supplement to that held by the farmers and agricultural contractors themselves, and my information is that on this basis the equipment provided in Dumfriesshire has hitherto been adequate.
    Mr. Macpherson: If I could show the Minister that is not so would he be prepared to examine it?
    Mr. Westwood: Certainly, Sir. I am willing to do everything to help in the development of agriculture in Scotland.

    Harvest Labour
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional labour he intends to make available to farmers in Scotland for harvesting and potato-lifting in 1947.
    Mr. Westwood: The supplementary force of about 90,000 workers which will be required at the peak period will, under present proposals, be made up of 28,000 workers recruited locally by farmers, 40,000 members of the Polish Resettle-ment Corps, and German prisoners of war. Schoolchildren will, I hope, make up the balance of 22,000.
    Mr. Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent so far he has obtained the consent of the local education authorities to the use of school-children?
    Mr. Westwood: The Joint Under-Secretary has just completed a series of conferences in Scotland, at which he has been putting the full facts before the education authorities who were represented there. At the moment, it looks as if we will get co-operation from the education authorities.

    Nurses' Salaries
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the representation made to the Department of Health regarding nurses' salaries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Westwood: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the representation recently made by the Standing Conference of Women's Organisations (Edinburgh) regarding the differences in the scales of pay for male and female nurses. A similar representation has been made to the Wheatley Committee, the body responsible for making recommendations on salaries payable to nurses in Scotland, and I am awaiting that committee's views.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    100 Per Cent. Disability
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in connection with the basic rate of pensions granted to ex-Servicemen in the war of 1914–18, or the war of 1939–45, he will now consider in creasing the present level of 45s. a week for the 100 per cent. disability, since the present rate bears no relation whatever to the rise in the effective cost of living, or to the increase in pay of nearly all other wage-earners throughout the country.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): The present basic rate of disable-
    758
    ment pension for men of both world wars was fixed by the Government only about 12 months ago. Since then there has been no general change in circumstances to justify any further revision. I would remind the hon. Member that pension is paid without regard to earnings, and the great majority of pensioners are able to earn. Moreover, the pensioner may be eligible for one or more of a number of additions to his basic pension. He may qualify for allowances of 10s. a week for his wife and 7s. 6d. a week for each of their children, in addition to any allowances payable under the Family Allowances Act. If, through his pensioned disablement he is likely to remain unemployable he may receive an additional allowance up to 20s. a week, and the allowance for his wife may be increased to 16s. a week. If he needs constant attendance he may receive an allowance up to a maximum of 40s. a week if he is very severely disabled.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister appreciate that this 45s. a week pension for 100 per cent. disability is not in any way related to the rise in the effective cost of living; does he further realise that pledges, both actual and moral, were given that never again would these disabled ex-Servicemen be neglected or be in want; and how can this House tolerate these 100 per cent. disabled ex-Servicemen being given this paltry sum, which is absolutely inadequate for their bare requirements of life? It is an absolute scandal.
    Mr. Paling: We are carrying out our pledges. These men will not go through the same experience again. Most of these men had earnings, and so far as those earnings have gone they will partake of extra benefits. The hardship that arose out of the 1914–18 war was in relation to men who could not earn, for whom we have nearly doubled what they were getting previously.
    Mr. Shurmer: In view of the statement my right hon. Friend has made, will he make sure that every man who is unable to work and is on 100 per cent. disability pension knows of the extra allowances that he can pick up?
    Mr. De la Bère: In view of the fact that these are broken pledges, I give notice that I shall raise this matter again with the

    759
    full force at my command. These dis-abled men have been let down by the Government.

    Reassessment
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that many ex-Service pensioners are being reassessed and, although their disability remains the same, their pensions are either being reduced or cancelled; and what steps he is taking to ensure that these men receive fair treatment.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Where disablement is liable to fluctuation the rate of pension is necessarily subject to periodic reassessment up or down according to any change in the average degree of disablement found on medical examination. Reassessment is not made without such examination, and no pension is reduced or cancelled where the disablement resulting from war service remains the same. On re-survey medical boards are required to consider equally the question whether there has been worsening due to war service or improvement in the accepted condition.
    Mr. Shephard: Whilst I am very glad to have that assurance, may I ask how many ex-Service pensioners have been reexamined during the last few months, or any other period, and how many of them have had their pensions increased?
    Mr. Paling: Obviously I could not state that without notice. If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will do my best to answer it.

    Appeals, Scotland
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Pensions if he will arrange for Scottish War Pensions (Special Review) cases to be prepared and forwarded to the tribunal in such numbers as will justify sittings of the tribunal being held in Scotland, thus enabling these cases to be heard there.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am transmitting cases to the Tribunal Office as rapidly as circumstances permit, but each application involves a considerable amount of work, and at any rate for some time the flow of cases generally cannot be on a large scale.
    Mr. Willis: Are there not sufficient Scottish cases to be submitted at once instead of going singly to the tribunal, so
    760
    that they could be heard in Scotland, because there is some disquiet amongst Scottish ex-Servicemen?
    Mr. Paling: We are trying to arrange that. There is an instance where two cases are being brought up. We did that so that they would not have to wait a long time. If they wait till we get sufficient in Scotland we will do what is suggested.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Officers, Middle East (Leave Allowances)
    Mr. Toucheasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in most cases there is a delay of several months in paying ration allowances to officers granted local leave in Palestine; and whether he will take steps to ensure more prompt payment in the future.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): Officers granted local leave in Palestine are paid their ration allowance at the end of the month in which the Paymaster receives notification of the grant of leave, or the next month if the notification is received too late. In large commands abroad there is bound to be some delay in the transmission of documents, especially from isolated units; but to avoid hardship, officers in the Middle East on leave may draw advances of pay ahead of the normal dates of entitlement.
    Mr. Touche: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this system is not working, because many officers who went on leave six months ago have not yet received their ration allowances?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should be surprised if there were any large number. If there are any individual cases in which the hon. Member is interested perhaps he would be good enough to let me know.
    Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I left the Middle East in December, 1944, and received my leave allowance cheque about 10 days ago?
    Mr. Bellenger: That may not be my fault, but I am glad to hear the hon. Member has received it.

    Cadet Force (Officers)
    Mr. Manninggham-Bullerasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that officers of Sea

    761
    Cadets, J.T.C. and A.T.C. receive the pay of their rank for a maximum period of 15 days a year while on courses of instruction, and that officers of the A.C.F. do nor; and what action he proposes to take with regard thereto;
    (2) whether he is aware that, whereas officers of the Sea Cadets, J.T.C. and A.T.C. are entitled to first-class travel warrants, officers of the A.C.F. are only granted third-class warrants; and whether he proposes to bring the conditions of service of officers of the A.C.F. into line with those of officer, of the Sea Cadets, J.T.C. and A.T.C.
    Mr. Bellenger: I cannot at present add anything to the reply given on 22nd October, 1946, by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, to the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication how long it will be before these anomalies are eliminated?
    Mr. Bellenger: I hope it will not be too long. The matter is, if I may say so, under active consideration.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who are members of Territorial Army associations, or otherwise interested in the cadet movement, are feeling growing disquiet at the length of time which has elapsed before a decision is reached in this case, which is most harmful to the Army Cadet Force?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, we are doing our best. We appreciate that, and we want to do the most we can to encourage these volunteers. I hope some definite decision will be arrived at shortly.

    Long Service Decoration
    Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to institute a long service decoration for officers of pre-Service units.
    Mr. Bellenger: This matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Active consideration?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.

    2nd S.A.S. Regiment (War Crime Trials)
    Mr. M. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for War what action, and with what result, has been taken by the War Crimes Commission in the following cases of German atrocities against officers and men of the 2nd S.A.S. Regiment: execution at Gaggenau on about 25th November, 1944; torture and maltreatment at Rotenfels, Schirmeck and Eaales, November, 1944; the cases of Lieutenant Silly, Sergeant Fitzpatrick, Privates Brown and Lewis, captured in France in November, 1944; and the case of Captain Dudgeon, S.A.S. Regiment, executed in the Passe della Cisa, on 3rd October, 1943, by order of General von Zielberg.
    Mr. Bellenger: So far as this country is concerned, the investigation of war crimes and the bringing of war criminals to trial is the responsibility of the Military Deputy of the Judge Advocate-General of the Forces and not that of the United Nations War Crimes Commission which merely registers war crimes. As the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The Gaggenau Case,which relates to the shooting of four officers and two other ranks of the 2nd S.A.S. Regiment, together with four United States prisoners of war and four French civilians, was tried by British Military Court at Wuppertal between 6th and 10th May, 1946. Of 11 accused, five were sentenced to death, one to 10 years' imprisonment, one to eight years, one to four years, one to three years, one to two years, and one accused was acquitted.
    Torture and maltreatment at Rotenfels, Schirmeck and Saales.There are two cases involving the shooting of 16 members of the 2nd S.A.S. Regiment. There is, however, no evidence of torture or maltreatment of the victims. In the first case eight other ranks of the 2nd S.A.S. Regiment were taken from Saales to La Grande Fosse and shot there on 15th October, 1944. Fourteen accused were tried by Military Court at Wuppertal between 15th and 21st May, 1946. Of these, one was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, two to eight years, three to four years, one to three years, one to two

    763
    years, and six were acquitted. Investigations into the complicity of other sus-pects are continuing.
    In the second case, one officer and seven other ranks of the 2nd S.A.S. Regiment were taken from Schirmeck to St. Die and shot there in September, 1944. Fifteen accused were tried by Military Court at Wuppertal between 22nd and 25th May, 1946. Of these, three were sentenced to death, one to 13 years' imprisonment, two to 10 years, one to seven years, one to six years, one to five years, one to three years, and five were acquitted. Investigations into the complicity of other suspects are continuing in this case also.
    In the following four cases no trials have as yet taken place and investigations are continuing: Lieutenant Silly, who was shot at Moyenmoutier in the Vosges on 21st October, 1944; Sergeant Fitzpatrick, who, together with his two comrades, was shot at Pexonne in the Vosges on 19th September, 1944; Parachutists Brown and Lewis, who were shot at Le Harcholet in the Vosges on 16th October, 1944; Captain Dudgeon, who was shot in the Passo della Cisa, Italy, on 3rd October, 1943. General Heystermann von Zielberg, who is said to have issued the order for the shooting of Captain Dudgeon, was hanged by Hitler's orders after the events of 20th July, 1944.
    In all cases where investigations are not yet complete a number of persons are already in custody, and it is not in the public interest to disclose further particulars which might hinder the apprehension of others involved and prejudice the accused when they are brought to trial

    Recruitment
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbettasked the Secretary of State for War what monthly intake of recruits on regular, short-term, and compulsory engagements is necessary to keep the Army up to strength.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am not at present in a position to give the figures asked for. Hon. Members, however, will receive more information when Army Estimates are Introduced.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Stationery Office (Expenditure)
    Brigadier Maekesonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum
    764
    per head of the working population between the ages of 21 and 65 years was expended in connection with His Majesty's Stationery Office in the first nine months of 1938, 1945 and 1946. respectively.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): 2s. 4d., 12s. 1d. and 7s. 6d. respectively, gross, and 1s. 10d., 11s. 1d. and 6s. 6d. net.

    Sterling Area (Payments)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, as from 8th June next, this country is under an obligation to pay for all current transactions with countries in the sterling area in dollars, at the request of the country concerned;
    (2) which countries within the sterling area have been requested by this country to pay for their purchases from us in dollars as from 8th June next; and which of them have agreed to do so;
    (3) whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to insist that the Governments of British colonies, protectorates or mandated territories shall pay for their purchases from this country in dollars at our request.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Payments within the sterling area will continue to be made in sterling. Our obligation is that sterling proceeds of current transactions should, from 15th July, be available for current purposes anywhere.

    Government Purchases (Prices)
    Brigadier Maekesonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to treat as secret the prices paid by His Majesty's Government, and their agents, for foodstuffs and raw materials purchased abroad.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes,, Sir, save in exceptional cases.

    Small Savings
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £520,000,000 new money in the form of small savings, which the Budget estimates for the current year anticipated, have so far been realised.
    Mr. Dalton: £429 million up to 25th January.
    Mr. Osborne: Does that make any allowance for withdrawals, in view of the fact that only the net figure can help in regard to the Budget estimates? If it does not include the net withdrawals, can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give the amount, and consequently the net amount of savings from the small savers?
    Mr. Dalton: The information has been repeatedly given to the House, and as a rule to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers).
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £520,000,000 target for the year of small savings is net or gross; and if he will state the net result for the current financial year to the latest available date.
    Mr. Dalton: Following the practice adopted under my predecessors, this target, as has repeatedly been explained, consists of gross purchases of Savings Certificates and Defence Bonds, plus the net increase in the balances of depositors in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Bank. The second part of the Question was answered in my reply to the hon. Member last Tuesday.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that I cannot get out of him what, is the net cash result to the Treasury up to date of this year's small savings? Is the position of the country so bad and is the response to the appeal so bad that he dare not publish the figures?
    Mr. Dalton: The figures have been repeatedly published. If the hon. Member has not yet read the figures, the answer is—and there is nothing to conceal; this has been repeatedly stated before, and it was stated last Tuesday— £208 million for the first nine months of the year.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is that net?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

    C.W.S. Bank
    Wing - Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Co-operative Wholesale Society's Bank is offering local authorities an interest rate of 1 per cent. on current accounts, as opposed to no interest from the joint stock banks, and 2 per cent. on deposit
    766
    accounts provided seven days' notice of withdrawal is given, as opposed to one-half of one per cent. offered by the joint stock banks with 14 days' notice of withdrawal; and how he proposes to meet this threat to his cheap money policy.
    Mr. Dalton: I am aware of these facts, and am in touch with the Co-operative Wholesale Society on this subject.
    Wing-Commander Robinson: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what inducements there are to lenders to take out Treasury Bills or long-term Government loans at 2½ per cent., when they can do seven days' business with the Co-operative at 2 per cent.? Does he not think it right that the Co-operative Bank should be put under the same Treasury policy and have to pay the same as the joint stock banks?
    Mr. Dalton: As I have said, I am in touch with the Co-operative Wholesale Society on the subject. I have been in touch with them from time to time on a great number of matters, of which this is only one, and they have given great support to the Government in many respects, not least by holding £200 million Government securities, which is more than most private enterprises hold. As I have said, I am in touch with them on this matter, and they are well aware that I Should welcome a reduction in interest rate—they know that, and I have told them. They did, in fact, at my request make a reduction at the beginning of last year, and I am in touch with them again.
    Captain Crowder: Is it not a tact that instructions have been given by the Treasury to the joint stock banks that they are not to give more than half per cent. on deposit accounts, and if such instructions have been given, why not give similar instructions to the Co-operative Society?
    Mr. Dalton: I do not know whether this House wants me to use my powers of direction under Section 4 of the Bank of England Act, but if that is the request of the Opposition, I will take it into account.
    Brigadier Mackeson: Is it the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that local authorities should bank with the Co-operative Society?
    Mr. Dalton: I would not venture to intervene in what is a matter of choice for the local authorities.
    Mr. Hogg: What we want is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should operate his powers fairly and equally.

    Football Matches (Entertainments Duty)
    Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his inquiries into whether remission of Entertainments Duty is being fully applied to the cheaper stands at football club matches have been completed; and if he will now make a statement.
    Mr. Dalton: Not yet.
    Mr. Allighan: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his concession in the last Budget is not being fully passed over to the public?
    Mr. Dalton: I am in touch, through my officials, with some of the football clubs who have not done what I had reason to expect all the football clubs would do, and which most of them have done. I must not anticipate my Budget Statement, but it may in part depend on what happens between now and then.
    Mr. Michael Foot: While I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not expect me to anticipate the speech I hope to make on that occasion, and while I appreciate his desire that this concession should be passed over to the public, may I ask, if football clubs are not able to build up their funds, whether he can give any advice on how Plymouth Argyle are to get hold of a really good inside-left?
    Professor Savory: Why should not the seekers of amusement contribute their fair share of the burdens of the country?

    Dollar Resources (Purchases)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the U.S. loan so far expended has been used for the purchase of foodstuffs; and the separate values of the main categories.
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of the U.S. loan spent to 31st December, 1946; and the amount so far spent on tobacco, films, food, feeding-stuffs, coal, oil and manufactured goods, distinguishing those manufactured goods required for the re-equipment of British industry.
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the proceeds of the U.S. loan has been used to purchase plant and equipment for British industry; and what percentage on consumer goods.
    Mr. Dalton: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing our payments from all our dollar resources, including the American credit, for supplies from U.S.A. in the second half of 1946. The total drawings on the credit to 31st December was 600 million dollars.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Chancellor give a reply to my Question and say what proportion of the loan has been used for the purchase of foodstuffs?
    Mr. Dalton: I have more than once tried to explain that the question, as now put, does not admit of an answer, because the proceeds of the credit from the United States Government cannot be separated from dollars earned by us in the course of trade. I have tried, therefore, to meet the House and give the information the hon. Member wishes, which is not how the expenditure of the dollar loan, taken separately, is composed, but how the total expenditure, including dollars earned by British traders, is made up.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Does it show the amount spent on American films, and how it compares with the amount spent on food?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, it is all there.
    Mr. Price: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer see, in view of the difficult position in regard to dollar exchange, that we shall spend as much as we reasonably can in re-equipping our industry, and as little as possible on consumer goods?
    Mr. Dalton: I have given the figures, but they may of course give rise to comment and debate.
    Mr. Jennings: In spite of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made his answer as ambiguous as possible, is it not possible to give the proportion of the loan expended on foodstuffs? Surely there should be no difficulty about that?
    Mr. Dalton: Let me try once more. Suppose that the hon. Member lends me

    769
    a dollar, and suppose that I earn another dollar by some honest activity or other. There are then two dollars. Suppose I spend them on something or other, then i cannot usefully say which dollar I spent in one way and which in another way.
    Mr. Osborne: If the loan continues to be used at the present rate, how long will it last?
    Mr. Dalton: That is another question.
    Following are the figures:

    Expenditure in U.S.A. on U.K. civil imports and films

    July—December 1946

    —

    £ million.

    per cent.

    Food (1)

    29·7

    24

    Raw materials

    14·0

    11

    Oil

    15·4

    12

    Tobacco (2)

    39·2

    32

    Machinery

    5·5

    5

    Other manufactured goods

    7·9

    6

    Ships

    3·5

    3

    Films

    8·8

    7

    Total (3) (4)

    124·0

    100

    (1) Cereals products £7·7 million; eggs £12 million; milk products £3·5 million; oils and fats £1·5 million; other £5 million. All the cereals for human consumption.
    (2) Highly seasonal payments, corresponding with crop.
    (3) There were no imports of coal. Expenditure on coal bunkers estimated at £400,000 txcluded from table.
    (4) The table covers only supplies from U.S.A. There are substantial imports from other sources which are paid for in U.S. dollars.

    Surplus War Stores (Proceeds)
    Mr. S. Shephardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount realised from the sale of surplus war stores, both in this country and abroad, since the beginning of the present financial year.
    Mr. Dalton: The total value of such disposals is £214 million, £147 million at home and £67 million abroad.
    Mr. Shephard: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say how much he expects to raise from this source by the end of the financial year?
    Mr. Dalton: I think we had better wait and see; it is coming in all the time, and I should not like to risk an estimate so late in the year.

    Taxation (Suggested Concessions)
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that amateur rowing is the only sport which can always be watched by the public without charge, he will now consider abolishing Purchase Tax on racing boats and oars.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider, when making proposals for his coming Budget, making allowance for those who have bought annuities and who thereby pay tax, not only on income, but also on capital.
    Mr. Bairdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now consider removing the Purchase Tax on toothbrushes, in view of the fact that brushes used for sweeping floors and for other household purposes have always been exempt from this tax.
    Mr. Dalton: The hon. Members will not expect me to anticipate my Budget Statement.
    Sir R. Ross: Is it the policy of the Government that amateur rowing should be reserved for the rich alone?
    Mr. Dalton: We would not lay that down as a principle.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the same procedure in this year's Finance Bill as in the last, by which a form of Dutch auction was conducted regarding concessions from Purchase Tax?
    Mr. Dalton: I will follow the procedure of last year by listening to what is said on the Committee stage of the Bill before finally deciding to reject or accept a particular proposition.

    SERVICES MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (MEN UNDER 21)
    The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper;
    119. Mr. LIPSON,—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is now able to say that, henceforth, marriage allowances will be paid to soldiers under 21.
    123. Mr. GEORGE WALLACE,—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the payment of marriage allowances to soldiers under 21 years of age.
    124. Mr. CHETWYND,—To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to agree to the payment of marriage allowances to soldiers under 21 years of age, including members of the Regular Army.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. Bellenger: With the permission of the House, I will answer Questions Nos. 119, 123 and 124.
    It has been decided that married soldiers under 21 years of age shall be eligible for marriage allowance at the same rates and under the same conditions as men over that age, but that they will not be entitled to any other married benefits such as provision of quarters or passages to overseas stations. The decision will apply equally to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and will take effect from 1st February, 1947. Payment will begin as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. The question of the application of this arrangement to men called up for compulsory service from 1st January, 1949, is under consideration.
    Mr. Lipson: While thanking the Minister for the concession which he has announced, may I ask him whether his answer means that payment will be made retrospective, in view of the fact that the families of some of these men have had to incur debts?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I said that payments would start from 1st February, 1947. I think I should dispose of the point which has been put by the hon. Member, and by other Members, on more than one occasion. So far as my information goes, there has been no wide incurring of debt by these soldiers.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has come out of this back bench battle with distinct personal credit? Further, is he aware that the country will take this as an indication of the earnest intentions of His Majesty's Government 10 improve Service conditions?
    Mr. Bellenger: I ought to say, and I hope it will not embarrass him, that some
    772
    of the credit is also due to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Churchill: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the estimated expense of this concession?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have not the exact figure, but because war service grants, by which many of these men get an allowance, will cease, I think it will balance out fairly evenly.
    Mr. M. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to remedy the anomalous position of married officers under 25?
    Mr. Bellenger: It is not proposed to abolish the present age limit of 25 for officers, but the existing provisions for them are now under consideration.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is it quite clear that this applies to soldiers who are Regulars? As officers are, presumably, soldiers, would not this provision apply to them as well if they were married between 18 and 21?
    Mr. Bellenger: It applies to all soldiers, Regular or otherwise, but in the terminology of the War Office officers are not soldiers.

  PALESTINE

    Jewish Terrorism (Government Action)
    Mr. Oliver Stanley(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make about the recent outrages in Palestine.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I have so far received only summary reports, and in spite of my prompt efforts to obtain the completest information, the fuller report which is expected from the High Commissioner, has not yet reached me. It appears, however, that at 5.10 p.m. on 26th January a British civilian, Major H. A. I. Collins, was abducted by terrorists from his flat in Jerusalem. He is believed to be seriously injured. At 12.35 P.m. yesterday, in Tel Aviv, Judge Ralph Windham was abducted by eight armed Jews as he was leaving the District Court. So far as is known he was not injured. The car used in this abduction was later found abandoned at Ramat Gan. Extensive military

    773
    searches following these abductions have, according to the latest report in my hands, so far yielded no results.
    The question of the evacuation of women and children and the concentration of British civil personnel is under active consideration.
    It is believed that these abductions may be prompted by the desire to take hostages against the execution of Dov Gruner, a Jewish terrorist under sentence of death following conviction by a military court and confirmation by the General Officer Commanding. Yesterday afternoon intimation was received that an application for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council on behalf of Dov Gruner was being lodged. The General Officer Commanding accordingly was obliged to grant a delay.
    Immediately following the kidnapping of Judge Windham, the High Commissioner summoned Mrs. Meyerson, Mr. Rokach and Mr. Kaplan, leaders of the Jewish community, and gave them an ultimatum that unless Judge Windham and Major Collins were produced unharmed within 48 hours, he proposed to withdraw all civil administration and facilities from Tel Aviv, Petah Tikvah and the Ramat Gan area, which would be cordoned off and be placed under the orders of a military commander.
    I know with what detestation the House will have learned of these latest criminal outrages. The abduction of a judge from his own court must arouse a special sense of horror, for such a crime is an attack on the very foundations of society, and of civil government.
    His Majesty's Government have recently brought into review the whole problem of terrorism in Palestine, and, in consultation with the High Commissioner and the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, have issued a strong directive intended to ensure the application of more effective military and police measures for dealing with the situation. Vigorous searches have already been undertaken in certain areas, and the military and the police have actively cooperated. An appeal has also been made to all responsible elements among the Jews to give their full cooperation with the Administration in rooting out this evil. The suppression of terrorism demands the active participation of the whole Jewish community and also a direct cooperation
    774
    by the Jewish Agency which, I regret, has not been forthcoming to the extent essential for preventing these acts of terrorism. His Majesty's Government will continue to give their unreserved support to the Palestine civil and military authorities in applying all possible measures for bringing a speedy end to these despicable evils.
    I make one more solemn appeal to the leaders of the community and to each individual Jew to recognise the end to which such crimes must lead, and to prove that they have the will and the power to maintain the ordinary decencies of civilised life and the essential conditions tor the continuance of civil government. I warn the Jews in Palestine, and those who condone such brutalities, that the course recently taken by events must lead to the placing of the country under full military control with all that that implies.
    Meanwhile, His Majesty's Government, at the Conference resumed in London this week, are making every possible effort to reach a final and permanent settlement of the Palestine problem.
    Mr. Stanley: In view of the deep concern that is felt about this matter on all sides of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman keep the House in touch with developments, and particularly with the result of the expiration of the ultimatum? Secondly, in view of the fact that it is obvious, while the lives of these people are in danger, that hon. Members are in great difficulty, either in putting questions or making suggestions, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, if it should be so desired, to afford an opportunity for discussion upon this matter when the risk to people's lives would no longer be involved?
    Mr. Creech Jones: In answer to the first question, certainly I will keep the House fully informed of developments. With regard to the second question, I am, of course, not in a position to determine the Business of the House, but I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend will give very careful consideration to a proposal of that kind.
    Mr. Churchill: I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman did' not suggest that the death sentence upon this Jew had been respited on account of the hostages which had been taken by the Jewish terrorists. If that were so,

    775
    I should like to ask: Is it not a very serious thing to turn aside from the normal path of justice because of threats of murder by terrorists launched against hostages whom they have taken?
    Mr. Creech Jones: There has been no turning aside from the normal process of justice. It is a respite order which must come into operation when a request for an appeal to be heard before the Privy Council has been made.
    Mr. Churchill: There has been no departure from the normal procedure as a result of terrorist activities?
    Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the judges in Palestine are sitting as usual for the administration of their judicial duties, and, if so, are they not given special protection in the particular circumstances existing there? If they are not given that protection, how can they possibly discharge their judicial functions?
    Mr. Creech Jones: They are discharging their judicial functions, and I have called for a report as to the situation.
    Mr. Thurtle: May I ask my right hon. Friend what was the point in the proclamation about the two abducted persons being delivered unharmed, in View of the fact that he has said that at least one of them was seriously injured?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Obviously, the appeal was couched in such a way as to secure the greatest safeguard for the two men who had been taken away. It is adesigned to prevent further harm befalling them.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: Has the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to the Jewish people in this country, to whom this country has been so tolerant for generations, to exercise their influence to bring to an end this deplorable situation' in Palestine?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, we have represented the situation to responsible Jews, not only in Palestine, but in this country.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British Jews, realising the
    776
    dangerous situation which has been created by these outrages both in Palestine and in this country, will welcome the firmer attitude that is being taken today, and will hope that the measures which the authorities are taking will prove successful? Can he say if the authorities on the spot have now been given a free hand to deal with terrorism, and orders to see that it is made to cease?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The directive is couched in the fullest possible terms, and I think that both the civil and military authorities are fully alive to the necessity of adopting every practical method for suppressing this evil.
    Mr. Usborne: Before the conditional ultimatum was issued, was it known that Major Collins was harmed, and that, therefore, the conditional clause could not be fulfilled?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, it was known that, before Major Collins was abducted, he had suffered some harm.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is satisfactory representation in Palestine, at the moment, of the Press of the United States?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I should imagine so.
    Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Minister —while all of us in this House deplore the taking of these hostages—whether those who have any influence at all with the Jews here or in Palestine have appealed to them to give them up? At the same time, I would like to ask the Minister if it is not the case that the situation has continually deteriorated, and that an intensification of harsher measures has not deterred but worsened the situation, and would it not be better to try some other method of solving the situation in Palestine?
    Mr. Pickthorn: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about making an appeal to the Zionists in Palestine, has there been consideration of withdrawing recognition of the Jewish Agency?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Jewish Agency is, of course, mentioned in the Mandate, but that point has been considered by His Majesty's Government.

UNITED KINGDOM AND BURMA (AGREEMENT)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a statement on Burma.
On 20th December, I informed the House of the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Burma and of the invitation to members of the Burma executive Council to visit this country. Conversations with the Delegation have been proceeding and are now concluded. They covered a wide field.
I am glad to say that agreement was reached both as to the methods by which the people of Burma may, as early as possible, determine the future Constitution of their country and as to the transitional arrangements for the Government of Burma until the new Constitution comes into force. The agreed conclusions are set out in a Command Paper which will be available when I sit down. The main features of the agreement are as follows:
A Constituent Assembly will be elected in April next, elected by and consisting of Burma nationals only. The machinery of the 1935 Act will be used and the Assembly will therefore be elected by over six million adult voters. It is our intention, as soon as the Constitution has been framed, to bring the necessary legislation before Parliament without delay.
During the interim period, which will we hope, be short, Burma will continue to be governed, as at present, under the emergency provisions of the Act of 1935. The legal powers of the Governor and of the Executive Council cannot be altered without legislation, but it has been agreed that the Interim Government should be conducted generally in the same way as the Interim Government of India. Certain matters, at present formally reserved for the Governor, will in future be brought before the Executive Council.
Arrangements have been agreed on the representation of Burma abroad.
With regard to the frontier areas, we have given very definite pledges to the peoples of those areas. Ultimate unification of the frontier areas and Burma proper has always been our policy, but, and in this the Delegation are in agreement with us, whatever action is taken must be in accordance with their wishes and with their free consent. Arrangements have now been agreed to ascertain the
778
wishes of the frontier people. In this connection my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs is visiting Burma and will leave this week.
Agreement has also been come to with regard to interim arrangements on finance and also on defence.
These conversations have been conducted in the most friendly and co-operative spirit, and His Majesty's Government feel sincere satisfaction that so wide a field should have been covered in so short a time. The conclusions set out in the Command Paper have been fully accepted by the majority of the Delegates, but two of the Delegates found, at the last moment, there were certain points on which they did not share the view of the majority. They had no alternative proposals to put forward, but felt unable to sign the conclusions as agreed. His Majesty's Government regret that that should be so, but they have no doubt that these conclusions afford the most practical way of dealing with the problem of Burma, and they are confident that they will have the support of the Burmese people.
Burma has suffered greatly in the war. Great steps have been made in rebuilding her shattered economy. It will now be for her own people, her own Government, to complete that process and build a new Burma. It will be for them to decide the future relations with the Commonwealth. We shall welcome them if they decide to remain members of it, and we think that will be to their interest, but in any event, they will carry with them, I believe, the good will and good wishes of this House. His Majesty's Government look forward to a continuation of the present method of consultation and co-operation in order to deal with all future matters which may arise during the transition period.
Mr. Churchill: Does this statement mean that we pay and we go, or only that we go?
The Prime Minister: The statement does not mean that we go. It means that the people of Burma have the right to decide in the future whether they should stay in the Commonwealth or go outside. Therefore, there is no decision to go. Secondly, with regard to finance, it is interim finance, and it concerns certain interest-free loans, which were decided upon by

779
the previous Government, and have been continued by this Government, for the reconstruction of Burma in the interim period.
Mr. Churchill: We have to pay the money irrespective of whether Burma remains in the Commonwealth and Empire or not?
The Prime Minister: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will remember that at the present moment Burma is within the Commonwealth, and that Burma suffered seriously in the war, both by damage from the enemy and by damage which was ordered by His Majesty's Government for the purpose of delaying the enemy. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable that we should continue to assist Burma irrespective of what future decisions may be taken. The right hon. Gentleman will find the full details set out in the annexe to the White Paper.
Mr. Churchill: The answer to my question is that we are first to pay, and then to go?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's logical faculty seems to have deserted him. There is no decision here to go. There is no decision to pay in the future. There are interim payments which are in the form of loans, and the decision as to whether to go or to stay is for the Burmese people. It really cannot be reduced down to a proposition which is entirely inaccurate.
Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will, in the near future, afford us an opportunity of debating this dismal transaction?
The Prime Minister: Certainly, but I think the House will agree that there should first be given time for the Burmese Delegation to return to Burma and discuss the matter. I am hoping the Debate will be no more dismal than was the Debate of 41 years ago in which the right hon. Gentleman had to suffer from some criticisms from those gentlemen who then sat on that side of the House.
Sir Peter Macdonald: Do the arrangements made with the Burmese Delegation allow for impartial scrutineers to be appointed to see that the elections are conducted in a fair and democratic manner as requested by some sections of the Burmese people?
The Prime Minister: I have not had any suggestion made. I have no reason to think that all proper precautions will not be taken to conduct the elections properly.
Earl Winterton: Has the Prime Minister made it clear to the Burmese Delegation that while His Majesty's Government are fully entitled to enter into an agreement, constitutionally the position is that any agreement is subject to implementation by this House through the mode of legislation, and did he make it quite clear that it is open to any one of us to disagree with the terms of the agreement and to criticise it in this House?
The Prime Minister: The noble Lord is correct. I would not like to say how many times in the course of the discussions I emphasised the point that all we could do was to make an agreement with them, and propose a certain line and make certain proposals, but that the decision must rest with this House.
Mr. Driberg: While very warmly welcoming the Prime Minister's statement, may we take it that the purpose of the Under-Secretary's discussions on the spot will be, while safeguarding the rights of the minorities and ascertaining their views, to ensure that these are not made into a delaying factor.
The Prime Minister: Certainly, there will be no attempt to delay. On the contrary, we hope to get this forward as quickly as possible. There should not be any delay in coming to a decision. There is no intention whatever of delaying.
Mr. R. A. Butler: May I ask, first, whether the representatives of the Karens were consulted about their participation in the proposed elections, and secondly, as I understand that the frontier areas are to be consulted as to their views, which is very right and proper, has there been any advance indication of their views prior to these consultations?
The Prime Minister: No, there have been various statements made, rather contradictory, but there is a conference being held this month in which the various frontier peoples will be meeting, and I hope that, either at that conference or at a subsequent conference, we shall get a full indication of their views. With regard to the Karens—I take it the right hon. Gentleman means the Karens in the

781
plains and not those in Karenni—there was no specific Karen Delegation, because this was a Delegation of members of the Executive Council. The proposal is that the Karens should be represented in the Constituent Assembly.
Mr. Thomas Reid: Who were represented by the two members of the Delegation who could not see their way to sign this report?
The Prime Minister: They were two representatives who belonged to separate parties. I cannot say what numbers they actually represented.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the mission of the Under-Secretary be purely exploratory, or will he have any terms of reference at all?
The Prime Minister: It will be exploratory. There is a double thing here. We want to see that the people of Ministerial Burma and the people of the plains have a full opportunity of discussing the matter with one another, and we want to assure ourselves as to what are the views of the people of the frontier areas, and the mission is merely to facilitate things, and also to collect information.
Mr. Sorensen: How long is the Under-Secretary likely to be in Burma, and will
782
he make a report on his return here? Further, does not the Prime Minister agree that this agreement is merely a necessity to implement the terms of the Atlantic Charter drawn up partly by the right hon. Gentleman opposite?
The Prime Minister: On the first point, I cannot say exactly how long. It would be useless to try to give a timetable, because we do not know. With regard to the other point, I think the agreement is in general accord with the Atlantic Charter.
Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware, or does he not remember, that when we were asked in this House, after the Atlantic Charter, about its application to Eastern countries and. other parts of the British Empire, a very full and precise statement was made by me, from his place, to which he was a consenting party beforehand? Would he kindly refresh his memory some time by reading it?
The Prime Minister: I will certainly refresh my memory on that, but as I remember, it's tenor was that we ourselves were carrying out the principles of the Atlantic Charter in the Empire and Commonwealth, because we were moving progressively towards self-government.

BILL PRESENTED
  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL
  "to authorise the appointment of additional Lords of Appeal in Ordinary," presented by the Attorney-General; supported by the Prime Minister and Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings in Committee on Agriculture [Money] and of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 130.

Division No. 60.]

AYES

4.1 p.m

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

McKinlay, A. S.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Ewart, R.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Farthing, W. J.

McLeavy, F.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Field, Capt. W. J.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Allighan, Garry

Foot, M. M.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Alpass, J. H.

Forman, J. C.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Attewell, H. C.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Gallacher, W.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Austin, H. Lewis

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mathers, G.

Awbery, S. S.

Gibbins, J.

Mayhew, C. P.

Ayles, W. H.

Gilzean, A.

Medland, H. M.

Baird, J.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Balfour, A.

Gooch, E. G.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Barstow, P. G.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Barton, C.

Grenfell, D. R.

Monslow, W.

Battley, J. R.

Grey, C. F.

Montague, F.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Grierson, E.

Moody, A. S.

Bellinger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Benson,G.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Morley, R.

Beswick, F.

Gruffyd, Prof. W. J.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Bing, G. H. C.

Guy, W. H.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Blenkinsop, A.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Mort, D. L.

Blyton, W. R.

Hale, Leslie

Moyle, A.

Bottomley, A. G.

Hall, W. G.

Murray, J. D.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Neal, H. (Claycross)

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

Hardy, E. A.

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

Braddock, T. (Mitoham)

Harrison, J.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Bramall, Major E. A.

Hastings, Dr Somerville

Oldfield, W. H

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Paget, R. T.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Brown, George (Belper)

Herbison, Miss M.

Paling, Will T, (Dewsbury)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hicks, G.

Parkin, B. T.

Byers, Frank

Hobson, C R.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Carmichael, James

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Pearson, A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A

House, G.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Hoy, J.

Piratin, P.

Champion, A. J.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Popplewell, E.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Hynd, H. (Haokney, C.)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Cobb, F. A.

Hynd, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Atterclifte)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Cooks, F. S

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Price, M. Philips

Coldrick, W.

Janner, B.

Proctor, W. T.

Collick, P.

Jay, D. P. T.

Randall, H. E

Collindridge, F.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Ranger, J.

Collins, V. J.

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

Rankin, J.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Reeves, J.

Corvedale, Viscount

Keenan, W.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Cove, W. G.

Kenyon, C.

Rhodes, H.

Cunningham, P.

Key, C. W.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Daggar, G.

Kinley, J.

Robens, A.

Daines, P.

Kirby, B. V.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Kirkwood, D.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Lang, G.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lavers, S

Rogers, G. H. R.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Leslie, J. R.

Royle, C.

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

Lipson, D. L.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Scollan, T.

Deer, G.

Logan, D. G.

Soott-Elliot, W.

Delargy, Captain H. J.

Longden, F.

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

Diamond, J.

Lyne, A. W.

Sharp, Granville

Dobbie, W.

McAdam, W.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Dodds, N. N.

McAllister, G.

Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

Driberg, T. E. N.

McEntee, V. La T.

Shurmer, P.

Durbin, E. F. M.

MoGhee, H. G.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Dye, S.

Mack, J. D.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

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

Edelman, M.

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

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

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Thurtle, E.

West, D. G.

Solley, L. J.

Tiffany, S.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Sorensen, R. W.

Timmons, J.

Wilkes, L.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Titterington, M. F

Wilkins, W. A.

Sparks, J. A.

Tolley, L.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Stamford, W.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Stephen, C.

Turner-Samuels, M.

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

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Usborne, Henry

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

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

Vernon, Maj. W. F

Willis, E.

Stross, Dr. B.

Viant, S. P.

Wilson, J. H.

Stubbs, A. E.

Wadsworth, G.

Wise, Major F. J

Swingler, S.

Walkden, E.

Woods, G. S.

Symonds, A. L.

Walker, G. H.

Wyatt, W.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Yates, V. F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

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

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Warbey, W. N.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Watkins, T. E.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Watson, W. M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

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

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannon

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

NOES

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Haughton, S. G.

Nutting, Anthony

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Head, Brig. A. H.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Osborne, C.

Barlow, Sir J.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Beech man, N. A.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Prescott, Stanley

Birch, Nigel

Hollis, M. C.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

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

Hope, Lord J.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Boothby, R.

Howard, Hon. A.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Bossom, A. C.

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

Rayner, Brig. R.

Sower, N.

Kurd, A.

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

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Renton, D.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Ropner, Col. L.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Jennings, R.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.

Kendall, W. D.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Scott, Lord W.

Butcher, H. W.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Shephard, S. (Newark)

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

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Challen, C.

Langford-Holt, J.

Smithers, Sir W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Snadden, W. M.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Linstead, H. N.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

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

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

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

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Sutcliffe, H.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Darling, Sir W. Y.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Teeling, William

Davidson, Viscountess

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Digby, S. W.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

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

Drayson, G. B.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Touche, G. C.

Drewe, C.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Turton, R. H.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

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

Vane, W. M. F.

Duthie, W. S.

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Eccles, D. M.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

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

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gammans, L. D.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Glossop, C. W. H.

Mellor, Sir J.

York, C.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

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

Grant, Lady

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Gridley, Sir A.

Mott-Radolyffe, Maj. C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Grimston, R. V.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Gommander Agnew and

Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Nicholson, G.

Mr. Studholme.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Motion made, and Question, "That the Committee do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—[Mr. R. J. Taylor]—put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I think I must leave the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. G. Jeger) to arrange his differences with his own Minister, and I do not follow him in the various criticisms he has made with regard to this Bill, other than to say that I do not think that my hon. Friends on this side of the House would agree that the size of the market is envisaged in the Measure as we have it before us today.
The greater portion of the two days' Debate on this Bill has dealt with the provisions in Part I with regard to prices and markets. I think it only right that this should have been the case since, in our view, the success of the whole Measure depends on whether or not the principles contained in Part I can in fact be carried out. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said, we shall not vote against the Second Reading tonight because we agree wholeheartedly on the principles described by the Minister as the "twin pillars of stability and efficiency." But for all that the Minister said yesterday in a very powerful and interesting speech, and apart altogether from what the Parliamentary Secretary said today in another interesting speech, we are not yet convinced at the end of this Debate that the provisions of Part I
868
are anything more than an empty shell, and we are by no means satisfied that a true balance has been struck between stability and efficiency.
Right through this Measure there are the most rigorous Clauses dealing with controls. These are to be applied in order to secure effiiency, but what we still want to know, and what we are still unhappy about, is whether, in fact, the Minister will be able so rigidly to ensure stability in exchange. I have used the words "be able" in this connection because we are perfectly satisfied that it is the intention of the present Minister of Agriculture to do all in his power to establish the twin pillars and that it is his intention that stability shall be given to this industry. But we are still in great doubt as to whether he will be able to do so.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) made reference to the size of the market and the price which is being guaranteed to the farmer. There is no mention of the size of the market or the price in the Bill, and this is what the farmers want to know. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary, in a very interesting passage in his speech, to make reference to the prices today having been announced in the spring of last year and being effective in certain instances as far forward as the spring of 1950, but this is not a short-term Measure. This is the Bill which, presumably, if it reaches the Statute Book, will control these matters for a large number of years to come, and whereas it is perfectly possible at this moment—as it was during last year when the Minister of Food at the end of a period of war bought the whole of the products of the agricultural industry—for the Minister of Agriculture to announce prices for a period ahead, will that be possible in the years to come? We are very doubtful whether it will be possible.
As to the size of the market, the hon. Member for Newbury referred to our changed financial position, and in view of that change, which I think was accepted by the House, surely all our efforts must be directed, from now on, towards making it possible to meet as great a proportion of our food requirements as possible from home sources. During the war the bottleneck, as far as food produce was concerned, was shipping, and because of that fact we had to import food in its most

869
concentrated form. I will give just two examples. Boned meat was very largely imported during that time and also a very large amount of dried eggs. We believe that now and in the future, and certainly in the immediate future, the bottleneck will be foreign exchange. Therefore, we ought to pursue an exactly opposite policy to that which we pursued during the war. We ought to import only when importation is really necessary, and when we do import, we ought to import; not the finished product, but the raw material for producing the finished product here at home. That view was expressed by several of my hon. Friends during the Debate, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, who referred to an answer which he had received last week from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of frozen and dried eggs. It is not that we are in any way desirous of preventing the housewife of this country from obtaining eggs. That is the last thing we want to do. We feel very strongly, however, that it is wrong to spend our millions of money and dollars to import eggs if we could better employ that money on the importation of feeding stuffs in order to produce the eggs in this country. My hon. Friends and I agree that by concentrating on the production of finished products, and importing raw materials in the shape of feeding stuffs, we could increase our home production very materially, even over our wartime peak.
Mr. Alpass: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House where he could get those feeding stuffs now?
Sir T. Dugdalc: I think there are places in the world for which it is perfectly possible to import feeding stuffs instead of importing dried eggs.
Major Tufton Beamish: The Argentine, America.
Sir T. Dugdale: I ask the Government, who are responsible for these matters, to give this question very careful consideration. I am certain that in the interests of agriculture and our dollar exchange it would be the right policy for the nation at this time. If the House accepts that policy, surely it is clear that in the foreseeable future we need every drop of milk, every ounce of meat, every egg that the agricultural industry can produce
870
and the farmers would be much happier if they could feel that this maximum production, guaranteed a fair price, was actually within the framework of the Bill.
My right hon Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) referred to the size of the market with regard to horticulture and kindred subjects, as did many other speakers during the Debate. There is no doubt that the position of horticulturists and producers of commodities now outside the scope of the February price review, and excluded from the First Schedule, must be carefully considered by the Minister. I would make special reference to such commodities as table poultry and wool because they are covered by the provisions of Part II and all the various controls, but are excluded from a corresponding assurance of market and guaranteed price. In passing, I would ask the Government to give urgent consideration to that point.
With regard to the International Conference en Trade and Employment, I do not wish to dwell on that very technical subject further than to express the hope that when the Solicitor-General replies, he will be able to answer the questions on this subject put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden. They are technical questions, and I would not like anything I said from this Box this evening to make the position more difficult for the Government. However, I am certain that they appreciate, as do my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, that unless we can be perfectly clear on this matter, all the provisions of this Bill are moonshine.
I turn for a moment to the price review which is held annually each February, and which decides the whole future guaranteed price for the industry. The House will remember that the special review last July, in the light of the wage increases, was considered unsatisfactory' by the farmers, and, as a result of pressure, the Minister agreed to some reconsideration of the price-fixing machinery. But can we be sure that another Minister would take the same realistic view? I feel that a very real and difficult point must be considered. It is requested by some people that there should be, at this stage, an arbitration, if the prices which are being considered cannot be agreed between the Minister and the representatives of the industry. My hon. Friends

871
and I are perfectly satisfied that the Minister must have the final say in these matters. But we were interested in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) last night, that a special tribunal might be set up to which this agreement on prices could be referred, not to make a final decision, but to give independent advice to the Minister before he makes the final decision. I am not going further into this point this evening, other than to say that my hon. Friends will give careful consideration to this question when we come to the Committee stage.
Before passing from Part I, I wish to ask the Government a definite question. It seems that to ensure the success of this Measure we must have an answer to it. Before asking it, I will repeat a question put to the Government by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) when he asked:
Does he…agree that…the home producer must come first and the Empire farme next?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 651.]
I want to add to that question: Will the Government give an undertaking that, no matter what pressure there may be, in years to come, upon our markets to absorb the export surpluses from overseas countries, British agriculture will be adequately protected? It seems to me that on the answer to that question must depend whether this Measure merits the approval which it has been receiving in the House during the last two days.
The labour position has been referred to with much anxiety by hon. Members on all sides of the House. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett), and the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) have made speeches centred on the problem of labour in the industry. As we see it, there is every likelihood of up to 100,000 workers leaving the industry during the next 12 months. They will be going, for the most part, owing to the repatriation of prisoners of war, at.the approximate rate, so we understand, of 15,000 a month. The important point here is that this labour, which the industry
872
is losing, has for the most part been housed in camps, billets and hostels. The figure required is in doubt. The Government White Paper last week mentioned a figure of 33,000; the National Farmers Union, I understand, mentioned a figure of 100,000. Taking the real figure required as being between these two, these people whom we hope to welcome into our industry, must have accommodation. This is simply not to be found today in our rural districts—[HON. MEMBERS: "It never was."] That does not make the position any better today, when we are considering a Bill in 1947, hoping to put these things on a better footing than they have been on, in the past. The whole position breaks down unless we can get housing for a contented labour force in the industry. Labour depends upon housing.
What, today, is the position so far as housing is concerned? Very few new houses are being constructed in our rural districts, and no addition, in the form of reconditioning, is being made because the Minister of Health has seen fit to repeal the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, which was of great benefit in that connection. I ask the Government if they can give as an assurance that, once again, the Minister of Agriculture can go to the Minister of Health, and try to persuade him to change his decision in regard to 'the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, or, if he is not prepared to do that, to make other provisions in order that there may be reconditioning as well as new building in the rural districts of this country for the workers in the agricultural industry.
I pass from Part I and the general considerations of this Measure, to discuss a few points which have been raised in the Debate by my hon. Friends in regard to other parts of the Bill. We are concerned and alarmed at the volume of work that is to be thrust on the new county committees. We feel, with the Minister, that the success of the machine which is being created under this Bill must depend to a large extent upon the county committees. Right through the war period, the personnel of the war agricultural committees in all the counties gave their services voluntarily, but if we are to get the best people to serve on these committees, it would be most unwise to press them too hard and ask too much of them. Otherwise, we shall not get the best people

873
to serve on the committees, and as a result what we so much desire to see, the efficiency of the Measure, will be much reduced. A large number of my hon. Friends take the view that too much is being put upon these committees. I hope the Government will give this matter consideration when we come to the Committee stage.
There is one point of substance in regard to appeals from this committee. If the Minister relics so largely on these committees, I am sure he will have no objection to their supervision orders and directions being subject to an appeal to the Land Tribunal. We believe that the effective moment for the farmer or landowner, is the moment when he is put under official supervision under Clause 12, and we take the view that an appeal should be allowed under Clause 12 to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, and we shall move Amendments in Committee to this effect.
As far as the landowners are concerned, we consider the measures and powers sought under Clause 15 of the Bill to be very severe, because the powers under Clause 14 particularly are so wide that the Minister could, if he did in fact happen to be ruthless—which we admit he is not—make every landowner in the country bankrupt, and then acquire his land under Clause 81. I ask the Minister to remember this fact when dealing with landlords. The long period since 1939 during which it has been practically impossible for any capital expenditure to be made on fixed assets and equipment, has left the landlord with a long programme of work to be done This must necessarily take time, and it will be' beyond the financial resources of many landlords to carry out the required improvements within the time allotted by the Bill. Very careful consideration should be given to this fact.
As far as Part III and the Agricultural Holdings Act are concerned, we welcome the announcement by the Minister that a consolidation Measure will be introduced as soon as possible. We welcome still more, the fact that after due consideration His Majesty's Government have come down quite definitely on the side of the long-established system of the partnership of landlord, tenant and farm worker. We will consider the
874
detailed provisions in this part of the Bill during the Committee stage.
I should have liked to deal with other Clauses in this Bill, but time is getting short and the Solicitor-General must be anxious to begin his reply. I would, however, refer to Clause 82 which was mentioned by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough and by other hon. Members, particularly by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). This Clause, in our view, is most objectionable in every way, because as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, as it is now drafted the Land Tribunals have no power to set aside the Minister's proposals, and because it is a deliberate breaking of a pledge given in earlier Acts of Parliament during 1941 and 1943. It is difficult to imagine any more foolish Clause in a Bill upon which the Minister is relying to make a success of the industry.
I close, however, upon a different note. I do not think we can end the Debate without referring to the men and women who carry on the great industry of agriculture in this land. As was stated by the Minister yesterday, agriculture provides employment for approximately 1,250,000 people, while the working lives of many others in our rural areas are closely linked with it. This great community has served the nation well, and has deserved that stability which it is the intention of the Bill to give it in the future. Many points in the Bill have caused my hon. Friends some anxiety. But whether the Bill does or does not ensure that stability, we shall try, by Amendments which we hope to have an opportunity of moving in Committee to achieve, with the co-operation of the Minister, the object which we all desire. That object is a countryside populated by a prosperous, contented and efficient people, producing a greater proportion of the food of this nation than ever before. In that spirit, we propose to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, and in that spirit we shall approach its further stages.
9.32 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): We have had a most interesting Debate upon a most important Measure. The points of view of landlord, worker and farmer all over the country have been fully put forward. It is not from

875
any want of respect to the many hon. Members who have spoken that I shall pass over some of the points that have been raised. A number of those points can be dealt with successfully in Committee. In the time at my disposal, having regard to the very vast subject with which the House is at the moment dealing I am, perforce, obliged to pick out what seem to me to be the salient points of principle which have been put by hon. Members in their speeches. I will endeavour to do that, but I shall have to do it fairly shortly.
Hon. Members, in particular, have expressed concern whether the guarantee which is sought to be provided in Part I of the Bill is effective or not. They have said, "Why is there nothing in the Bill which provides for at least a minimum margin?" Hon. Members who advance that argument seem to have misconceived the purpose of that Part of the Bill, which is not designed to regulate output. It is not so framed, and that is not the object of that Part of the Bill. If it were designed to enable the Minister to direct to what ends agriculture should be aimed, it would have to embody such powers as were conveyed by Defence Regulations during the war. In the Bill, the only Clause which contains such powers is Clause 92. It is the only Clause which enables the Minister to give directions with regard to the use to which agricultural land is to be put.
If hon. Members will look at the Clause, they will see that it is designed to be used only in periods of emergency, and that the duration for which the powers of the Clause may be exercised is limited to one year. It is an emergency Clause. If hon. Members desire these very rigid powers to be extended throughout the Bill, the Bill can regulate output. Hon. Members have not been slow to complain that, as the Bill stands, the Minister has taken too much power into his hands. If hon. Members wish to abandon that argument, the Bill can be recast to give him the necessary power to control output, but, as the Bill stands, that is not intended.
When hon. Members ask for some assurance as to markets they should consider the circumstances in which the Bill is proposed. As my right hon. Friend the Minister, and my hon. Friend the
876
Joint Parliamentary Secretary, have stated in the course of their addresses to the House, present day circumstances are such that the motto for the agricultural industry of this country for forseeable time ahead must be, "All out." That is to say, the maximum amount of the products enumerated in the First Schedule will be desirable and can be consumed by the country. As was indicated yesterday by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), there are many factors in the international and national situation which bring about that result. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned three. He mentioned soil exhaustion, the "dust bowl," and also the Hot Springs Conference. He mentioned the undeniable and unfortunate fact that this country is now no longer a great creditor country.
As social progress marches forward, demand for foodstuffs in each country will increase. In our own country there is said to be a shortage of milk, but that is because there is an increased demand for milk. We are now drinking something like one and a half times the amount of milk that we drank before the war. That is a process which will expand and continue as social progress marches forward throughout the world. Since the advent of the Labour Government it is rapidly moving forward in this country and, no doubt, other countries will follow, observing the example they have before them of the Labour Government advances.
Brigadier Peto: The weakening of the beer.
The Solicitor-General: The setting that must be considered is that, for years ahead, agriculture in this country will be called upon to produce its maximum. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) asked what were the international commitments of this country with regard to the negotiations for the agreement on trade. He asked for an assurance on that, and I can give an assurance. He quoted from the report and made reference to the meeting which is to take place in Geneva in the near future. I can give this assurance, and I give it willingly. In the preliminary conversations which are designed to lead up to the more detailed negotiations which will take place at Geneva, the greatest care has been taken throughout to keep full

877
freedom for the United Kingdom to develop unhindered the home agricultural policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 15th November, 1945, and subsequently embodied in the provisions of this Bill. That was deliberately done and I readily give that assurance with which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be content.
Mr. R. A. Butler: Does that include quantitative regulation of imports?
The Solicitor-General: I cannot really embark upon a discussion as to the negotiations and conversations which have taken place. I have given that general assurance. I do not think I should be called upon to go beyond that. It is an assurance which, as I say, I give readily because it is relevant to the matters which were discussed in this Debate.
Mr. Butler: I am sorry to press the hon. and learned Gentleman, but that is the very point. I have been concerned in discussions like this myself. I feel certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman desires to give us the assurance in full. This is the crux of the matter— quantitative regulation of imports. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that it is also included in the instructions to those who have conducted these negotiations?
The Solicitor-General: I am very sorry but I must decline to proceed further as to the precise nature of this discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] Because, in order to do so, one would have to embark upon a detailed investigation as to what was said and the precise effect of it. What I have said, and what I say again, is that care was taken to leave this country free to develop the policy indicated by the Minister in November, 1945, and it is a policy which has subsequently been embodied in the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Butler rose—
The Solicitor-General: I am afraid that I have very little time. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary indicated, or reminded the House, today in his speech as to the measure of the guarantee which has, in fact, been given by this Bill to the farmers. He mentioned the review in 1946, and he
878
reminded the House that it would enable farmers to know what the minimum prices would be right up to July, 1950. Next year, there will be a fresh review, and they will find that, as a result of that review, they will be in a position to know the minimum prices which they can rely upon obtaining right up to July, 1952. They will know at all times at least two years in advance the minimum prices which they can rely on obtaining for their output, and British agriculture will be called upon in the foreseeable future to go all out to produce all it can. There is the answer, and, in view of that, I would ask hon. Members to agree that it is a complete misunderstanding both of the situation and of the objects and provisions of this Bill to say that the guarantee provided for farmers is not an extremely valuable one. Obviously, it is, and it is something which they have never had before.
Hon. Members may remember the provisions of the Wheat Act and the various Acts passed under Conservative administrations in the inter-war period, providing for a limited payment, and they may have the same sort of thing in mind. The figures put into those Acts were simply put in to limit the responsibilities of the Exchequer. What they ask the Government to do now is to put in minimum figures of responsibility, which is quite a different request. I say that that cannot be done unless the House is content that the Minister should have in his hands now the full power of regulation of output which he had under the Defence Regulations during the war. I am sorry that I have had to deal briefly with a most important part of the Bill, but I must now pass to other parts.
Reference has been made to horticulture, and there were other important matters which have also been mentioned. With regard to horticulture, the Parliamentary Secretary has already intimated to the House the position of horticulture, which is, at the moment, not included In the First Schedule to the Bill. It must, however, come up for consideration, and indeed, the Government have closely in mind the interests of all those, engaged in horticulture, but it is the fact that horticulture has its own problems. Its produce is perishable, it is seasonal, and anybody acquainted with the agricultural industry would accept at once the statement that

879
the price-fixing machinery provided for a Part I of the Bill would not be suitable to be applied to horticulture.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan rose—
The Solicitor-General: I am extremely sorry, and I do not want to be discourteous, but I have very little time.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is about wool.
The Solicitor-General: I have to deal with all the various subjects, and I must pass on to other matters of principle with which I have yet to deal. The next point, which is one of extreme importance, is one that was mentioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite—that there is a danger of the county committees being overloaded with work. That is a most important point and it deserves earnest consideration. I do not think these committees are going to be overloaded with work, and I would ask hon. Members, in considering whether they are or not, to reflect upon the duties imposed upon the war county committees by the Defence Regulations during the war—duties which were discharged, and admirably discharged, by the county committees, and which, for example, included, and still include, occasional priorities in the matter of feeding stuffs, machineŘ, building licences and a whole variety of topics of that sort. During the war, they discharged those duties, in addition to the giving of directions, such as are provided for in this Bill. They did the whole lot, and they did it admirably. As the supply position eases, and as machinery becomes easier to obtain and building materials are in easier supply, that work will gradually be lifted from the county committees. For the time being, however, they will have to discharge, or, rather, they will be asked to discharge, the duties imposed upon them by Parts I and II of the Bill, that is to say, the giving of directions, the making of supervision orders, and so on, and their responsibility under Clause 30, and they will also be asked to continue to discharge the duties they have hitherto discharged in the matter of allocating priorities. But, little by little, that work will come to an end.
It is true that the Bill places upon the shoulders of the county committees re-
880
sponsibilities in the matter of land owning which they did not have before. To that extent, it is an added responsibility, a fact which I quite accept. On the other hand, their responsibility with regard to notices to quit under Clause 30 are not new. If hon. Members look at Defence Regulation 62 (2, a)—I think it is—they will see that the county war agricultural executive committees discharged very similar functions. In regard to the giving of directions, as hon. Members will know, there was nothing analogous with the supervision orders under Defence Regulations. That is new and the giving of directions, except in relation to that of fixed equipment is, under this Bill, limited to the cases where supervision orders have been made. In other words, it will be less than it was during the war when there was no such limitation.
With regard to supervision orders, hon. Members will naturally realise, and be aware of the fact, that there was an informal supervision not embodied in the terms of an order exercised under Defence Regulations during the war. While I accept that there are some added burdens in respect of land owning, there are also others which the war agricultural committees had to bear, and which will gradually be lifted from them. Taking it by and large, the responsibilities which they will have to discharge under this Bill should, in the long run, be less than those which they discharged during the war. Therefore, I beg the House to say that there is no ground for the fear that they will be overworked. It is most important that they should not, and I accept that, if they are, one will not get the best type of person on the committees, and, as the committees responsible for such a vital part of the function of this Bill, it is essential that the best shall be obtained. In that connection, I would say that, although under the terms of the Bill they have to abide by such directions as the Minister gives, it is intended that they shall be, so far as possible, completely independent.
Hon. Members will have noticed that the Bill provides that district committees and sub-committees are to be appointed. The object of that is to ensure that the services of those who are acquainted with the circumstances of particular areas of a county shall be obtained. The members of those district committees need not necessarily be members of the county committees. Also,

881
the sub-committees will bring about the position that persons who have special knowledge of a particular aspect of the industry may he called upon for their service and advice. Therefore, I ask the House to say that, so far as that part of the Bill is concerned, it should work to bring to the service of the nation, independent persons with actual practical experience of the problems with which they will be dealing. In the case of this, Bill, there is no need for the fear that one will have a Whitehall regimented agricultural industry in the country. The Bill is deliberately designed to avoid that danger, and I ask the House to say that it does avoid it.
I pass from the question of committees, because there are one or two other matters with which I should deal. Some hon. Members used the words, "breach of faith" in connection with Clause 82, and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), in particular, was very loud in his complaint about it. I do not think that he has accurately conceived the situation. Under Section 10 of the 1941 Act, the Minister was not bound to resell unless he thought that, if he did, the ground that he sold would be properly cultivated. His certificate was conclusive on that matter. If with regard to any land which he would otherwise have been under an obligation to sell back under Section 10 of the Act of 1941, he chose to certify that he did not think it would be so well cultivated, that was an end of the matter. He was no longer under any obligation to sell, and there was no appeal against it. Under Clause 82 what he is called upon to do is to take a wider view of the position. Under Section 10 of the Act of 1941 he could only consider whether the particular individual who claimed to be entitled to buy the land was likely to cultivate it properly. But, of course, that is a completely irrelevant way of dealing with the problem when dealing with great plots of land which have been united into a single agricultural unit, which may have had central buildings placed upon the unit, which may have had roads built through them and which may have had a great deal of money spent on them. If, in those circumstances, the Minister were called upon to dismember an agricultural unit of that sort by selling off to particular individuals portions of it, and if he were obliged so to do, unless he could certify that a particular individual would not cultivate that small portion—
Mr. Turton: The Act is perfectly clear. The Minister has to certify that, in his opinion, the result of the acceptance of such an offer would be that the land would not be properly managed and cultivated.
The Solicitor-General: In fact, of course, that is how it would work out. If the Minister had to take a single agricultural unit, substantial in size, with roads built through it, and he had to parcel it out and sell it back to the individual who has previously owned it in small plots, he would have to consider in relation to each plot whether that individual was likely to cultivate it well or not. That is what I meant. Under Clause 82 what he is called upon to do is to consider the whole agricultural unit as a unit, and that is what the national interest requires. If it is said it is bad luck on the individual who might have cultivated his little plot perfectly satisfactorily, the answer is that the national need must, in some cases, over-ride the interest of the individual, and that is the justification for it. Whereas under Section 10 of the Act of 1941, the Minister's certificate was completely conclusive, under the provisions of Clause 82 of this Bill there is a right of appeal against the Minister's decision. The decision of the appeal tribunal is final, and in arriving at its conclusion it can consider all relevant circumstances and can make a report to the Minister as to whether or not he should exercise his powers The Bill is imperative that if there is a report made by the tribunal, the Minister is bound, by the terms of the Bill, to act in accordance with the report.
Therefore, the Minister is very restricted in his powers under Clause 82. Virtually he cannot retain land which he has acquired compulsorily under the terms of the relevant Acts, unless a completely independent tribunal, presided over by a legal member and containing representatives of the land owning and farming interests, having had the matter referred to it, says that it thinks that it is in the national interest that the Minister should act as he proposes to act. In view of that fact, complaints that this is a breach of good faith are completely beside the point. In my submission, it is not a breach of good faith. It is a provision designed to serve the national interest, and nothing else.
I pass from that matter to deal briefly with the subject of appeals generally. Hon.

883
Members have felt as a matter of principle that there should be an extended power of appeal. Some hon. Members have said that there should be a right to appeal from the appeal tribunal to the courts. If hon. Members would think what that suggestion implies, I think they would realise that it would lead to an utterly impossible situation. It is conceivable that the tribunal will be called upon to decide all sorts of things; for example, a direction given to a particular farmer that he shall do a certain amount of ditching, or that he shall be dispossessed because he has not done the ditching. Suppose there are appeals to a tribunal about matters like that. It would be calling in an inexpert tribunal to review the decision of another tribunal which was entirely expert in that matter, which would be a matter of practical farming expediency and nothing else. Then hon. Members say, "Yes, but farmers and landowners should have the right of appeal to the tribunal in cases in which the Bill does not give that right to them." If hon. Members would look at the cases in which the right of appeal is given and in which a right of appeal is not given, they will see that the right of appeal is given in all cases which can be said to be of real importance from the point of view of the farmer or the landowner. In the case of dispossession there is a right of appeal; in the case of notice to quit under Clause 30 there is a right of appeal; in the case of directions to provide fixed equipment in certain cases there is again the right of appeal.
There is no right of appeal against a supervision order or a mere direction. I understand a direction can be simply a direction to take some practical measure of farming, upon which it would be quite idle to call an appeal tribunal to adjudicate. I ask the House to say the division between the two—and no doubt the House will want to examine this further in Committee—has been correctly drawn. Matters of importance are subject to appeal; matters which are really matters of routine are not subject to appeal. Under the Defence Regulations there was no supervision order at all, as I have already reminded the House. That is simply introduced by the Bill as a sort of breathing space, as an opportunity to the occupier or the owner who has badly managed or husbanded the land for which he is responsible to pull his socks up. It
884
would be quite absurd to ask that there should be a right of appeal against a supervision order. In point of fact, when an order for dispossession is made, as I reminded the House, the court can, by its report, prevent the Minister from dispossessing the owner or the farmer, notwithstanding that there have been directions made against him with a supervision order, and notwithstanding that he has not complied with the direction. It is entirely within the discretion of the court, and I would ask the House to say that that is as it should be.
I must apologise to the House for having run so briefly through matters which, I concede, are of very great importance. However, the time-table made it difficult for me to spread myself further on them. I hope I have dealt with the points about which hon. Members have expressed themselves as most concerned during the course of the Debate. No doubt improvements will be effected in the Bill at a later stage by both sides. This is particularly a Bill which is suitable for detailed analysis in the Committee discussions which will no doubt ensue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have received the Bill as being one of prime importance.
Captain Crookshank: Do the home producers come first?
The Solicitor-General: I have already answered that. I cannot go back now. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I am glad to hear that hon. Members opposite have expressed the intention of not dividing on it.
Captain Crookshank: In the minute that remains might I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman once again to answer the question I put to the Government? Do they or do they not accept the position that the home producer comes first and the Empire producer second?
Hon. Members: Answer.
The Solicitor-General: I have already said that the Government have kept themselves free to implement the policy embodied in this Bill, and that is a sufficient answer to the question.
Captain Crookshank: That is not an answer to the question I put. I can quite see that the Government propose to carry out the policy of the Bill, but the

885
principle that we want to have accepted, if the Government will do so, is whether or not the home producer comes first and the Empire producer second.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AGRICULTURE BILL
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [27th January], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Thomas Williams.]
  Question again proposed.
  4.11 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): Yesterday, in his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Minister gave a comprehensive review of the proposals of this Bill which received a most cordial reception from both sides of the House, and if that spirit continues through our Debates and, what is more important still, permeates the operation of the machinery of the Bill in the country, it augurs very well indeed for the success of this new policy in agriculture. The Minister made reference to the fact that I would be dealing this afternoon in particular with Part IV of the Bill, which concerns smallholdings policy.
  Anyone who recalls what happened after the 1914–18 war will, I think, be of the opinion that we must avoid the mistakes in the smallholdings policy which then prevailed, and the one essential condition for a successful smallholdings policy is clearly to avoid putting inexperienced men on to smallholdings. I think it was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Colonel Boles) who yesterday made special reference to this point. The basis, therefore, of our smallholdings policy, as embodied in this Bill, is that smallholdings should be provided only for men and women with adequate and practical agricultural experience. There are, we know, many such men and women in the ranks of agricultural, workers and the sons and daughters of farmers, and I do not think that there.is any doubt that there is a strong ambition on the part of many of these people to rise to the position of farmers and work a holding of their own. We desire that their ambition should be fulfilled and our aim is to give them the chance to obtain smallholdings to farm themselves. If they make a success of these holdings, as we certainly hope they will, then if they have managed to build up their own resources and wish to advance still further, they will be qualified to take a bigger holding.
  788
  This policy of providing smallholdings for letting to people with agricultural experience represents a fundamental change in the general approach to the smallholdings question. Smallholdings will become part and parcel of our agricultural policy. If a policy along these lines is to be successful in providing suitable openings for promising agricultural workers, we must make sure that none of them is debarred from taking advantage of the scheme merely because he has been unable to save sufficient working capital. Even on present wages, it is far from easy for an agricultural worker to save enough to start working a holding of his own except, perhaps, at an advanced age. We are, therefore, taking power under Clause 52 to provide loans of working capital to suitable applicants up to 75 per cent. of the estimated sum required.
  It is equally important that the smallholdings provided should be of adequate size to provide a reasonable livelihood for the tenant and his family, and should also be on suitable land adequately equipped. Under existing legislation, smallholdings are limited in size to 50 acres, or £100 in annual value. The economic size of a farm unit depends on a number of factors, and more particularly on the quality of land and the type of production. A market garden holding of a few acres may provide an adequate livelihood, while a mixed dairy holding may need to consist of 50 acres or, in some cases, even more.
  While it is, therefore, desirable to keep the size of these holdings relatively small, we have decided to amend the present definition so as to enable holdings to be created, where necessary, up to 75 acres in size, provided that the full fair rent does not exceed £150 per annum. The normal size of a smallholding will not exceed 50 acres, but this new definition will enable slightly larger holdings to be created where this seems desirable in the interest of providing an economic unit. At the same time we are taking powers to control the selection of land for smallholdings, so as to make sure that it is good land suitable for the purpose and that the layout and equipment give the tenant a reasonable chance of success. In other words, smallholdings authorities, like other land owners, will be responsible for managing their holdings in a way that will abide by the rules of good estate management and enable the occupier to attain an efficient standard of production. Many

  789
  county councils have already done this, but when one remembers that the average size of a smallholding is at present about 17 acres, and that some 50 per cent. of the existing holdings are bare land holdings, it can, I think, be seen that there is a good deal of room for improvement.
  Clause 46, therefore, provides that before land is acquired for smallholding purposes, the Minister's consent must be obtained and, further, Clause 48 provides that the Minister's approval must be given to the layout and equipment of a holding, or the alteration of that layout and equipment, whether or not the smallholdings authority are seeking a financial contribution from the Exchequer to meet some of their losses. In addition, powers are taken to enable the Minister, where necessary, to give the smallholdings authorities directions to carry out any alteration in layout or equipment which may be considered necessary.
  I am sure that the great majority of the county councils and the county borough councils, who will continue to be the responsible authorities for smallholdings, will carry out their duties satisfactorily and in accordance with the general policy. We certainly do not intend to interfere with their management of smallholdings except where this is really necessary. We hope that there will be the closest co-operation between these authorities and the Ministry's Land Commissioners who will attend the meetings of the smallholdings committees and subcommittees and will keep in day-to-day touch with the running of the schemes. By this means it should be possible for the administration to be smoothly carried out without any vexatious or irksome delays or the needless exercise of control powers. But where the smallholdings authority, for one reason or another, does not carry out its duties satisfactorily, it is clearly necessary for the State to have the power to see that schemes are properly run. Provision is accordingly made for the Minister, in the last resort, to exercise default powers, and to take over any or all of the functions of a smallholdings authority where these are not being satisfactorily performed. In such circumstances, the Minister would carry out those functions as an authorised agent on behalf of the smallholdings authority concerned.
  Another very important aspect, to which I have already referred and which is, in
  790
  fact, the king-pin of the whole policy, relates to the selection of tenants. Clause 50 provides that smallholdings must only be let to applicants with adequate agricultural experience, and, in accordance with the general policy, lays down, other things being equal, that preference is to be given to agricultural workers. Power is also taken to supplement the general provisions by means of Regulations interpreting who may be treated as agricultural workers for this purpose, thus giving the opportunity to bring in, where appropriate, the sons and daughters of farmers. No preference is given to ex-Servicemen. To give such a preference where they had no previous agricultural experience would be contrary to the general policy. To accord preference to ex-Servicemen with agricultural experience would clearly be unfair to agricultural workers who were, for the most part, tied to the land during the war. Conditions in this war varied considerably from those in the previous war. Men served in the Forces or remained in industry largely at the direction of the Government, and there is, therefore, no longer the same justification for singling out ex-Servicemen for special treatment.
  Power is also taken to make Regulations dealing with general management matters, more particularly the tenancy agreements between smallholdings authorities and their tenants. What we have in mind here is that tenancy agreements ought to enable smallholdings authorities to control the amount of other land which a smallholder may farm in addition to his statutory smallholding. In far too many cases at the present time smallholdings are not let to the people for whom they were primarily intended but to big farmers. For instance, in a case which recently came to my notice, a smallholdings estate of about 80 acres was divided into six separate holdings. No alteration had been made in the equipment of the farm, but the main farm buildings and a small piece of land had been let as one holding, while the other five so-called smallholdings consisted of bare land let in each case to farmers farming anything from 200 to 400 acres of land. Nor is this an isolated case. Again, there are many instances where smallholders carrying on other businesses, such as those of cattle dealers or removal contractors, are devoting very little attention to their smallholdings. Clearly, if the purpose of the Government's smallholding policy is to be

  791
  adequately fulfilled, this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, and we and the smallholdings authorities must have power to see that it is remedied.
  One of the most important aspects of smallholdings is that of co-operation. Experience has shown that co-operative methods both in the purchase of agricultural requisites for smallholders and the selling of their produce can be of the greatest possible value on certain types of holdings. The Land Settlement Association and the Welsh Land Settlement Society have carried out a good deal of valuable work which has shown beyond doubt that on small market garden holdings tenants benefit considerably from this type of organisation. We are accordingly giving smallholdings authorities the necessary powers for the formation of co-operative schemes for the benefit of their smallholders and we are also enabling them to undertake themselves co-operative schemes for the supply of goods and services to the tenants on their estates and to undertake central marketing of the produce.
  There is another form of co-operation which has proved a great success under certain conditions on the estates of the Welsh Land Settlement Society—that of co-operative farming on a profit-sharing basis. Here again power is being given to smallholdings authorities to let one or more smallholdings to a group of persons who want to farm them on a co-operative basis. The necessary powers for co-operation are therefore provided in the Bill. But the extent of our knowledge is at present such that we do not intend to proceed too fast until we have a little more experience in these matters. We want more information on the application of co-operative methods to types of production other than market gardening and of the different forms of farming organisation which can be adopted. We think, therefore, that further experiments should be carried out, and, having regard to their past experience, the Government consider that the Land Settlement Association and the Welsh Land Settlement Society would be the most suitable people to undertake this work.
  We are, therefore, proposing that these two bodies, whose original objective of settling the unemployed on the land no longer exists, should nevertheless be con-
  792
  tinued for the dual purpose of managing their existing estates and of undertaking, on behalf of the Government, experiments in different types of farming organisation, particularly in relation to co-operation. The land which will be needed for these experiments will be bought by the State under powers conferred on the Minister in Clause 54. In addition, the existing smallholdings estates belonging to these two bodies will be transferred to the State in return for the liquidation of outstanding advances by the Exchequer. We consider—and we have reason to believe that both bodies concerned will accept this view— that this arrangement will place them on a far sounder foundation for their future work.
  With the high costs of land and building, it cannot reasonably be hoped that smallholdings schemes can be carried out without some loss, at any rate, for a few years. We are, therefore, proposing to continue the financial arrangements which operate under the 1926 Act, and power is taken in Clause 56 for the Exchequer to contribute up to 75 per cent. of the estimated losses on the smallholdings schemes, leaving 25 per cent. to be borne by the local rates. This seems to us a fair division of the financial responsibility, and provides the necessary incentive to the economic management of the smallholdings estates.
  This approach to smallholdings is, as I have said, an entirely new departure in Government policy. We feel, therefore, that it would probably be extremely valuable to set up a non-statutory Smallholdings Advisory Council to keep a general watch on the working out of this policy, and to advise the Minister on the many questions which will arise from time to time in this connection. We are proposing to set up such a council consisting of representatives of the agricultural workers' unions, the National Farmers Union, the County Councils Association, the Land Settlement Association and the Welsh Land Settlement Society, together with any other people who may be able to give us the benefit of their wisdom and experience on these questions. I am sure that a council such as this can play a valuable part in working out the policy in the years ahead.
  One last point on this question of smallholdings. We are as anxious as

  793
  anybody to get this new policy into operation as soon as we possibly can after the Bill has been passed, but there is a tremendous unsatisfied demand for smallholdings from men and women of the type we want. Equally, however, at the present time, there is a great shortage of building materials and of labour. For the time being, therefore, priority must be given to housing—and I would ask hon. Members to remember that this includes rural housing—and to the modernisation and replacement of equipment on existing farms. We shall start with the creation of new smallholdings under our future policy as soon as we can, but I would ask hon. Members to exercise patience if we cannot proceed as rapidly as they, and we, would like, if we had at our disposal all 'he building labour we need
  Finally, may I make this point, because reference was made to it by several speakers in the Debate yesterday? The third paragraph of the Financial Memorandum refers to 5,000 new smallholdings in the first five years. I rather gathered from the comments of hon. Members who took part in the Debate, that they interpreted that to be some sort of a target or limit. May I make it clear that there is no limit whatever as to the numbers of smallholdings? This reference to 5,000 in five years is merely an estimate, in order to show what the financial commitment may be, so hon. Members can rest assured that we are not handicapped in this Bill by any limitation of numbers over a given period of years.
  Lieut. - Commander Joynson-Hicks: I do not quite follow the point of these 5,000 smallholdings in five years. The hon. Gentleman referred to it as an estimate, but said that it was no guide. Could he be more explicit?
  Mr. Collick: It is merely to show what would be the estimated cost to the Exchequer supposing we had 5,000 in five years; it is not a limit to the number of smallholdings that can be created in five years.
  Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: It is a yard-stick?
  Mr. Collick: Yes. May I now say a word on what many hon. Members yesterday rightly described as the most important part of this Bill, namely, Part I?
  794
  This system for providing guaranteed prices for the main agricultural products is, clearly, the major part of the Bill. Everybody knows the difficulties from which the farmer has suffered hitherto, when he has had no security of price for his products. We know the result on the labour side because, after all, it is nonsense to talk about having decent labour conditions in the industry unless there is some kind of economic stability for the farmer. Therefore, the point of this important principle of guaranteed prices and assured markets, as embodied in Part I of the Bill, is clearly one of the most important of all the provisions. The Government accept that principle as embodied in the Bill, and, as was rightly said yesterday, almost all the parties in the industry who speak with knowledge today lend support to this principle of having stabilised, guaranteed prices in agriculture.
  The machinery for fixing prices is, of course, the annual review which normally takes place in February. The annual review runs over a period of approximately three weeks, in which those who speak for producers organisations come into consultation with those who are acting for the Government. One of the first things dealt with at that stage of the review is this question of possible targets of production. They have the very great advantage of having placed at their disposal statistical data produced by independent economists covering all sorts and sizes of farms in all parts of the country, data which are intended to enable those taking part in the review to get a fairly clear picture of the economics of the industry at the time of the review. One of the successes of this part of the price machinery is the fact that that information is produced by independent economists, and is, therefore, not suspect by any of the parties in the review. Their job is to try to get an overall picture of the economics of the industry. The second stage is when they try to get a global estimate of what is actually necessary in order to create that position of stability by way of prices. There are figures which show farm efficiency, and figures which show the impact of labour costs on different types of farms. Altogether there are all the data necessary to get a correct overall picture. The whole object is to try to get an agreed interpretation of the facts relating to the economics of the industry generally.

  795
  In due course, the stage is reached when it is quite clear, having regard to possible targets, and economic facts accepted by both sides, how much prices may need to go up, and how much prices may stand to be adjusted otherwise. The whole point is to try to get some sort of clear appreciation of the picture. The next job is that of trying to determine to what degree, and by what amount, it- is to be expressed in terms of commodity prices. There, again, all the necessary data are available. One of the advantages of the Bill is the fact that this system is so flexible. Hon. Members will have noted from the Explanatory Memorandum that the Bill enables several systems to be followed. For instance, there can be a straight price arrangement as in the case of milk, or there are the arrangements of the Wheat Acts, or again acreage payments. There is hardly any limit to the schemes for making such arrangements. The great merit of Part I of the Bill is that any of these methods can be used in order to fix the stable price.
  There was some friendly criticism yesterday about the assured market. No one suggests that this is a simple machine, but it has the great merit that it works, and, on the whole, works well. This will be the first time in the history of the country in peacetime, that the farmer will know the price he is to get for his products; in the case of grain long before he sows his seed, and in the case of livestock years ahead. There is hardly a primary producer in the world who enjoys that position. It has advantages which are not in-considerable. Whatever might be put forward as certain disadvantages of the Bill, I think the ordinary farmer understands quite clearly the enormous advantages which the guaranteed price and the assured market give to him. As the scheme stands now, the farmer knows the actual price for his crops at least 18 months before they are harvested, and for livestock products for the ensuing 12 months. In addition, for livestock he knows the minimum prices for two to four years ahead, and also the minimum quantities to which those minimum prices relate. That is a vastly different arrangement from that which was known in prewar days. Up to 31st March, 1950, farmers are assured of a market for all the milk, eggs, fat cattle, fat sheep, and fat pigs they can produce, at not less than the
  796
  minimum prices announced in March, 1946. That is a pretty long time ahead for a guaranteed price.
  When talking of quantities, we should bear in mind that if there is going to be any operation of the Clause in relation to quantity, it is to be determined, as near as may be, at the time when the prices are arranged. That is a very valuable arrangement which I believe almost everybody in the industry fully appreciates. I do not know how much further we could be expected to go in present-day circumstances. I suggest that that gives the farmer all the assurance he needs, and will enable him to plan for his maximum production. I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said yesterday, that in so far as one can see ahead, with adverse balances of payment standing out so clearly, all the prospects are that the agricultural industry will need to produce the very maximum it can produce from the soil of this country, for long years ahead. In addition, one of the main policies of this Government in their policy of full employment will be that, in the future, we shall no longer have two or three millions of people without the means to buy back what they need. We are hoping that, in turn, that should afford a very considerable enlargement of the market. When talking of markets, if we are realists we must face the fact that the prospects are quite good. If we get, as I hope we will, that complete co-operation which was indicated on the general principles of the Bill yesterday, I think the industry is in for a reasonably good time.
  The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough was clearly disposed yesterday to think that we are rather overloading county committees in this Bill. I appreciate that point, and I appreciate the reasoning behind it, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated. But one of the extraordinary things about the agricultural industry is the amount of willing service which such people as serve on the county agricultural executive committees have rendered. There is no parallel I know of in the country, of any bodies of that kind, which render such outstanding service. The real answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is that the farmers organisations, by and large, are parties, in

  797
  the main, to a good bit that is in this Bill. They want the Bill to succeed. They realise the important part that the county committees will play in their various functions. I do not hesitate to say that the success of this Bill depends very largely upon the success with which the county committees do their job. But I equally believe that there are, in the farming community, men who are willing to render a service to the nation such as this Bill envisages, and that we need have no fears on that account.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also made a few criticisms—reasonable criticisms. He, quite clearly, thought that in the case where the Agricultural Land Tribunal comes into operation, there might be a case for having a further appeal. I venture to disagree with him on that point. After all, the whole machinery of such cases is that long before they come to the appeal stage, a man has to be placed under supervision. He has notice; he can make a request; he can be heard in person by the county committee. Should supervision then be decided upon, he may be under supervision for as long as 12 months, during which time he is given every facility by the county committee to improve either his standard of farming or estate management, as the case may be. Then, at the extreme point, if dispossession is decided upon—and I regard this very 'much as a sanction—then he has the right to come up to the tribunal and have his case reconsidered. The chairman of that tribunal is to be a legal chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and on the tribunal will be a farmer and a landowner. There is also provision for assessors. When the whole of that stage has been gone through, particularly when the further concession has been made that the decision of that tribunal is final and binding, and not even the Minister can overthrow it, every mortal thing has been done to make that machinery as effective as possible. If that were not sufficient in itself, I could only suggest, with the utmost respect, to the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough that he was really answered on this point, I think most effectively, by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) who made a most excellent speech on this Bill. He gave the complete answer on this point when he said that if he were a
  798
  tenant farmer who was considered to have done something wrong, he would prefer to be judged by a body of landowners and farmers with a legal man in the chair. That is the real answer.
  A point was raised about horticulture, namely, the fact that under Part I, which gives a list of scheduled products, horticultural products are not included. I well understand the validity of that criticism. The only point one can make in reply, and it is a fair point, is simply that the articles covered by the Schedule are the main agricultural products. They cover at least 75 per cent. of our total agricultural production. I think everyone will agree that what is suitable machinery of price fixing and the like for most of the products grown—corn, wheat, fat livestock, and so forth—is not necessarily the sort of machinery that is suitable for horticultural products. It is for that reason that we have not included them. There is perhaps quite a lot of thinking to be done yet as to what is to be done about horticultural products. Clearly, they are products that will be influenced by marketing operations, and the industry has not cleared its own mind about what needs to be done in that regard. We might keep in mind, when talking about the First Schedule, that where there may be a case for putting further items into the Schedule, the Bill gives us the power to do it. As the Bill is framed, it gives us power to put other commodities into the Schedule, whenever a case can be made out for putting them in.
  I believe that this Bill in its main framework and in its aims is certainly— and this is admitted—the biggest agricultural Bill that has been introduced for a long time. It has been rightly described as a comprehensive Bill, not as the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough rather indicated—a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. It is certainly one of the most comprehensive Bills that has been introduced into this House for a long time. If it is carried through, in broad outline, as it stands, it will give the industry conditions of stability, in which it can prosper, conditions which will remove the bad old days we knew before the war. I ask the House to accept it as the contribution of this Government to building up a stable and prosperous agricultural industry.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. Butter: The Parliamentary Secretary has given us, quite clearly, his own opinions on the Bill. It is now for me to give some opinions which may not entirely coincide with his. I can say at the beginning that the manner in which he presented his case was, to borrow his own term, most thoughtful and comprehensive. He stated quite clearly the main principles of the Bill, which are that there shall be an element of stability, which shall be maintained by a price system, and that, in return, there shall be certain control of those who farm or own our lands, and also certain incentives to the worker to rise. In these various respects, namely, the balancing of rights and duties and the incentive offered to merit to rise, it might well be the case that agricultural policy can give a lead to industrial policy as a whole.
  The Minister said ysterday that industry and agriculture were interlinked. If that is the case, as I hope it will be in our future economy, it is possible, in our agricultural Debates, to foresee to some extent the Debates on the state of the nation which are to take place when the White Paper is published, and discussed some months hence. We are therefore very glad to take this opportunity of stating from this side of the House quite emphatically, that we are unrepentent backers of agriculture as a vital component of our national economy, and that we consider that such claims as were put forward by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), to whose excellent speech reference has been made, should be most carefully and sympathetically examined. The proportion of the national economy represented by agriculture at the present time, with a production of some £600,000,000, is very large, but if it rises to the extent proposed by the hon. Member for Newbury, it may well come up to something like 10 per cent. of our national income. We are, therefore, facing a most important issue today, and I trust we shall do it as a Parliament in which agriculture will take not a back place but a foremost place, and will command even more interest than this Debate is commanding this afternoon.
  What we want for agriculture is a radical change in the country's attitude towards it. In the past, agriculture has had her great days. Mr. R. C. K. Ensor, in his book on England at the end of last and the beginning of this century, said:
  800
  "Down to 1880, despite all the marvellous expansion of mining and metallurgy, agriculture retained a kind of headship; she was still regarded as really our major industry."
  It is high time we returned to those days, and it is high time that she ceased to be regarded as a poor relation, a necessitous country cousin, or, to the liberal or radical economist, not an integral part of our economy but something in the social structure that needed to be bolstered up, a hobby rather than a vital necessity to the country. Let us forget that conception of farming and agriculture and let us, as I have said, regard it as something quite vital in the national economy of the country. I should have thought that anybody examining the vast expenditure which is being carried by the present Government, the inflationary tendencies which exist today, and the weakness of our dollar resources, would regard it as essential to encourage agricultural production as one of the most practical ways of restoring our economy. In fact, I would call the agricultural wealth of the nation our one hidden treasure, in addition to our other open treasure, which is the need to work harder and to produce more. If we can combine hard work and the production of more from our own land, we may have made, from this side at least, some small contribution towards the solution of the economic problems of our time.
  I do not want to speak too long because, despite the excellent speeches heard from the hon. Members for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), Tiverton (Mr. Amory), Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett), and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) on this side of the House, and others from the opposite side. there are still many more agricultural Members to whom this is the great market day of the year, and it would be a great pity if they were prevented by those on the Front Bench from getting a little market merry and from speaking as long as they want. I have therefore divided what I want to say quite clearly into some remarks about prices, and some remarks about tenure— two features of the Bill—and as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary concentrated a good deal in the middle part of his speech on prices, I propose to take that part of what I want to say first. Let us examine this question of the claim of the Government, as put quite clearly by the Minister. I will quote his words:
  "For the first time in history, the farmer will be able to plan ahead with certain knowledge of market and price, and only another

  801
  Act of Parliament can rob him of that security."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 631.]
  Those are fine words, and I think any of us connected with the rural areas, in daily contact with our constituents, will realise that many of our constituents in the farming world are honourable, simple people who have great difficulty in following many of the complexities which beset our lives here. The whole complication of our economic system, of international structure and so forth does not always come their way, and I feel it my business today to try to explain this statement in the light of the international situation as I see it, and of some warnings that we have received from members of the Government themselves. Before I do so, may I say that I hope an opportunity will be offered of bringing horticulture into the Schedule, and of helping it more specifically than has hitherto been suggested. The horticulture industry in Saffron Walden and Stansted is a very remarkable one, and I think it should be given a greater assurance, to balance the assurance given to the rest of agriculture. In the case of market gardening, it is to be noted that the market gardener has to put up with the control side of the Bill, but does not get the benefit of its positive side. I, therefore, hope that both horticulture and market gardening will have rather more consideration than they have had hitherto.
  Let us revert to the Minister's claim that the farmer will be able to plan ahead with certain knowledge of market and price, and that only another Act of Parliament can rob him of that security. This claim was I believe made on the basis that the price-fixing machinery, by being given statutory sanction by us here in Parliament, will secure the farmer that certainty in market and price. I might have been more sure of that had I not read the words on the outside of the Bill in the Financial Memorandum, which run as follows:
  "Considerable uncertainty also attaches to the future level of farming costs, to the prices likely to be charged to consumers and, above all. to the extent to which market prices in this country may be affected by developments a broad.''
  The Government have themselves acknowledged that the very basis of prices upon which the Minister is making this assertion is governed by the most uncertain considerations. If we had had
  802
  any statement from the Government hitherto that their own attitude towards agriculture was that they wished to find it a permanent place in our own home economy, and that they had a positive attitude towards an enduring place for agriculture in any international negotiations which were going to take place, then we could agree with the Government that it is reasonable to regard this Bill as a step forward. But I must make it absolutely plain that, without this general assurance, we cannot honestly recommend to our own constituents and friends, that this Bill gives the whole solution of the market and price situation.
  Let me substantiate this. It is well known that you cannot regard British agriculture, however autarchist or however patriotically agricultural you may be, as a part, by itself, of British economy alone. You have got to take a pinch of the advice of the Manchester School and regard agriculture as being part of world economy. You have to do that if you are facing the facts, simply because we live in a small island and are bound to import a very large amount of our necessary requirements in food. If we accept that fact, let us also face the situation which is confronting the Government. While this Bill is upstairs, and very probably before the Third Reading, there will be discussions in Geneva in April or May on the Report of the Preparatory Commission of the International Trade Organisation, and decisions will have to be taken. What line do the Government adopt towards the discussions already undertaken in the Preparatory Commission, the report of which I have here? There are certain redeeming features in this report, which was published at the end of last year and which vitally affects the future of British agriculture and price structure. In the first place, there is some concession in this Preparatory Report of I.T.O. to the views expressed in the White Paper which was published exactly a year before, together with the Bretton Woods discussion. There is the concession that the Preparatory Commission recognises:
  "that the conditions of production and consumption of certain primary commodities are such that international trade in those commodities is subject to special difficulties not generally associated with manufactured goods."
  That concession puts one into the right sort of spirit to hope that the Government

  803
  have some complementary statement to make which will show that they are adopting the necessary tough line about British agriculture in those discussions. We read further on page 12, paragraph (g):
  "the suggestion was put forward by some delegates that the exception"—
  that is, the quantitative restriction of imports, which is a very vital feature of what may be necessary in agricultural policy—
  "in the case of agricultural products should be widened by permitting restriction of imports without restriction of home production, so as to maintain"—
  these are the operative words—
  "domestic prices at a level sufficient to cover domestic costs of production, and so as to en-able a domestic surplus to be acquired."
  The last point interests us rather less than the former two considerations. It was suggested that this should be accomplished by a revision of the existing Articles of Agreement. This, however, follows:
  "However, it was felt by other delegates that such proposals would extend the scope of the exceptions to an undesirable degree."
  I maintain that unless that exception can be made, and unless the Government give us some indication of their attitude on these subjects, it will be impossible to follow what the Parliamentary Secretary has just been telling us, and to operate the different methods which are set out in the White Paper. There are statements here of subsidies. In certain circumstances a subsidy would he allowed for home production, but there is no definite statement about quantitative restriction of imports. So, if we run over the devices which may be used by, the Government and which are in the White Paper: there is no absolute certainty, but the possibility, of subsidy; there is the possibility of a deficiency payment such as was used under the Wheat Act; there is the possibility of subsidy being given related to the price of feedingstuffs and—this is the phrase which I think is most disquietening in the White Paper—
  "of the other major factors, the most important is the quantity, which has to be covered by a determination."
  It is precisely that quantitative aspect upon which I maintain the Government have given us no answer, and upon which the security of British agriculture will depend. I apologise for going into the extremely technical and abstruse intellectual exercises, which always emerge
  804
  from conferences of this sort..No doubt the Minister understands them perfectly and, with his usual lucidity will be able, through his representative, to give us some reply, even though he cannot give us some general indication that the international factors are not going to undermine and subvert the policy of prices. We hope for further assurances that Dominion understandings are to be promoted on the lines of preferences with the Dominions—for Canadian bacon for ex-ample. If he can tell us, in fact, that British agriculture comes first, the Do-minions second, and multilateral trade agreements third, with proper synchron-isation of the whole position in the international picture, he will have done a great service to farmers.
  My friends the fanners tell me When I go to my markets at home: "It is not the Minister of Agriculture who is our enemy, but the Board of Trade, those foreign blokes and the Minister of Food." The warring dynasties within this Government are even more remarkable than any which took place in the whole history of China put together. I hope that the Minister will not sit there in complete isolation as a gentle and well-trained Minister of Agriculture, but will assure us that, on the Government's policy for agriculture, he is on top of his companions in the Government in this important respect.
  I will now deal for a moment with the questions of tenure which arise in the Bill. The position about tenure is that the Bill acknowledges that there must be an alliance or partnership among the State, the landlord, tenant, owner-occupier and the worker. I want just for a few minutes to examine this bargain from the point of view of each of its partners, to see what further confidence is necessary to be given. My claim over prices was that, unless the Government gave the ordinary small man confidence that the machinations of the international world were not going to undermine the price structure, they would not get ultimate success. I claim also, that unless they give more confidence to those partners than has been given hitherto, they will not have the full co-operation to which the Minister is entitled. Let us take the worker first. The Parliamentary Secretary devoted a great part of his speech to the question of smallholdings. In general we support the principles which he put forward. Perhaps, coming from

  805
  East Anglia I am influenced on this subject. Our landlord-tenant system is less marked than anywhere else in the country, particularly in Essex, where we are trying to develop large-scale experiments in practical farming. I believe there is just as good a chance for young working men on the farm to rise to the position of foremen or managers of large mechanical estates as there is to take up a position on the old-fashioned smallholding. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not believe that view is confined to me and my hon. Friends; it is shared by the workers' representatives. Let us encourage the smallholding method, without letting the holding get too large—the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned a rather large figure —let us give industry a lesson in incentive, and encourage the bright young persons in the industry by giving them a chance to rise in the large mechanical farm, as well as, in the smallholding.
  Other great problems about the worker are mentioned vaguely in the White Paper. Unless we improve the amenities of the countryside, the worker, and particularly his wife, will not fill up the hideous gap. The recent White Paper, first of the duet—which unfortunately has a very poor, thin voice—reveals a 33,000 gap between the labour demands of agriculture and the potential supply. That gap can be provided only if we all approach the countryside in a spirit of real rehabilitation from top to bottom and if we adopt every agency for building cottages and do not just use a certain agency and pillory and hit the others. We should continue to develop water schemes and bring electricity to the countryside. Therefore I believe that, apart from smallholdings there are many other matters' in which we want the worker to be given absolute confidence in order to solve the labour problem of agriculture, which is one of the most important problems.
  Now a word about the owner-occupier. He has not been mentioned very much in this Debate but is another very important factor. We should encourage people to occupy their own land. The owner-occupier comes, in the Bill, twice under the harrow. He is to be had for bad estate management and for bad farming. When examining the position, we see that, under Clause 16, his house can be taken away. That house, I would point out, would be called by hon. Members
  806
  opposite a "tied" house. Like Buckingham Palace and Lambeth Palace it goes from the incumbent when the incumbent goes. If the owner-occupier wants to build a house, what is his position? Suppose he wants to build a house for his cowman. He wants the cowman to live near so as to be at work early for the milking, and not to have to bicycle a long way, perhaps on a cold and wet day.
  He cannot make that a house tied to his cowman and obtain the Government subsidy. On the other hand, if he builds a house with the subsidy and the cowman decides, a week or two later, to change his job, he cannot remove the cowman as a tenant under the Rent Restriction Act. Therefore, he is completely tied and hit all round, in regard to one aspect of the tied house, and, when it comes to his own house, that is taken away if his land is taken from him. It seems to me that we must face in Committee some points of this sort, and try to make them more fair, so as to give some confidence to the owner-occupier.
  It must be remembered that the position of the owner-occupier in finance has greatly deteriorated. There is a sort idea that fariners made a packet out of the war—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that they were able to do away with all their arrears of debt and have a great packet ready for development later. There is no more false idea.
  Mr. Alpass: Ask the accountants.
  Mr. Butler: I do not believe some of my farmer friends will disagree with me. During the boom years of 1941–44, I cal-culate what with tax and the increase in assets for which provision had to be made for one reason or another, not much more than 7 per cent. of the farmer's total profits, would be retained by him in actual cash for day to day affairs. After the 1945 Budget, as a result of the relief, when the war was over, in the demands made upon him, and the smaller amount put into capital assets, I agree that the position improved. But the House has to face the fact that the indebtedness of farmers to the banks amounts to some £78 million and the indebtedness to other quarters apart from banks, private agencies, landlords, and so on, may be calculated to work out at almost exactly the same figure. When we come to examine the

  807
  confidence necessary to be given to the owner-occupier or the landlord, this question of credit must, therefore, come into it.
  I hope that the Government will consider sympathetically every avenue of credit which can be put into the industry to make things work properly. Perhaps the landlords' biggest problem is the question of rent. It is always unpopular in this House for anyone to stand up and say that he thinks the present level of rents is grossly unfair, but I can be backed by any agricultural economist in this country in what I am going to say now. There has only been a 6d. rise in rents, in the general level, since the 1939 period and just before. In fact, since 1939, rent has gone up only 6 per cent., prices have gone up 90 per cent., and wages about 120 per cent. The point I am making is that if we are to have a proper partnership between landlord and tenant, owner-occupier and worker, each must understand the others point of view, and each must understand that the other has to overcome great and increasing difficulties to meet their liabilities.
  Therefore, I myself envisage, if this system is to work, that there will be an accompanying rise in rents and that the Minister himself, through his Land Commission and the Crown Commissioners, will find he has to face this economic question just as much as anybody else. The position of the landowner is not a very attractive one when we examine some of the earlier Clauses of the Bill, in particular when we examine Clause 14 (3) under which an Order can be put on to the landlord at any time, even if he has not got a supervision order at the time. If we compare that with Clause 15 (2), which imposes the financial terms upon this hideous transaction—that is to have an order out of the blue without a supervision order—we find that the frank position is that a landlord can be made to spend, without a supervision order, one year's gross rent every three years, without having any opportunity of going to the tribunal. That is the sort of point which we must examine more closely, because the present level of rents is going to make it extremely difficult to meet that sort of need. I have put some of the practical points from the point of view of the owner-occupier, the worker and the landlord, and I am not going to de-
  808
  vote any further time to the tenant. He is getting security of tenure and I hope he will do well upon it. I hope also that the tenant will accompany that security of tenure with efficiency in farming. Security without efficiency will cut at the very root bottom of this Bill.
  I have attempted, in the short time at my disposal, to run over some of the problems raised in the Bill from the point of view of tenure and of prices. I have tried to make the point that confidence is essential for both of those aspects of the problem. I came across a statement in Lord Ernie's immortal book, "British Farming, Past and Present", in which he says:
  "Politics honourably handled and dealing with principles, not personalities, might and should, play an important part in the recreation of agriculture."
  Politics has now its chance to play its part and it is our intention, on this side of the House, that politics should play its part by improving the Bill, by obtaining Government statements elucidating policy, particularly in regard to the price structure and its relationship to the international scene, and by securing justice and long-term confidence for the farmers. If we can achieve those things, agriculture may not resume its headship as an industry but it will, at least, have secured an enduring position in our economy.
  5.27 p.m.
  Mr. Dye: I rise to support this Bill wholeheartedly and I do so as a practical agriculturist and also as a practical politician. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has a reputation for fair-ness in this House, but I think he was a little unfair in his quotation from the Financial Memorandum which accompanies this Bill. In an endeavour to show that the future of agriculture was less secure than had been stated by the Minister, he quoted the concluding sentence of the second paragraph, whereas, in fact, that is the last sentence of a paragraph the purpose of which is to point out that it is not possible, at present, to define the cost to the Exchequer of this Measure. Therefore, I think the sentence in the Financial Memorandum does not in any way detract from the Minister's statement that this Bill guarantees very largely the future prosperity of British agriculture.
  The Bill does that by the system of guaranteed prices without, of course.

  809
  bringing in any guaranteed quantities or acreages. What, for instance, would be the good of embodying in this Bill a guarantee of both price and quantity, if the industry is not in a position to supply that quantity? After all, there is a labour shortage. Clearly, what we have here is the necessary administrative machine TO adjust prices at sufficiently long notice to enable any commonsense farmer to manage and plan his farm on an extending basis and on a more intensive system of farming, provided he is producing those commodities which the nation requires at the time.
  The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of horticulture not being included in the guaranteed prices. Surely, it must be well-known to all hon. Members that there is no agreement among horticulturists and farmers themselves on this very important matter, and that further investigation is required to produce a system that will enable horticulture to be safeguarded for the future? I am a little puzzled why hon. Members opposite are continually asking for British agriculture to be put first, the Dominions second and somebody else third. Surely, when commodities come on the market and into the shops from the various parts of the world, they will not be labelled in categories—one, two and three. They will all be put together, and the extent to which the British farmer will take his share of our home market, depends upon his ability to rise to the occasion. It is in his own hands. The Government are not here to carve up a section of the home market for the home producer. They are here to produce legislation, and set up the necessary administrative machine to enable all the efficient home producers in this country to claim the largest possible share of the home market, but it will depend both upon administrative efficiency and upon the ability of the farmers themselves to claim that share of the market. According to the demand, on the one side, and the flow of produce on the other, so will our home producers be able to take their full share of what is one of the best markets in the world.
  I want to speak for a short time on the smallholdings section of the Bill. Prior to coming to this House, I was entirely dependent on my small farm for a livelihood, and that small farm, for all
  810
  practical purposes, is classified as a smallholding. Therefore, I have a personal interest in this matter, I would point out, further, that my father before me was a smallholder and that I have for a number of years served on the smallholdings committee of the Norfolk county council. Therefore, I welcome any proposals that are put forward in the Bill for dealing with smallholdings. How hon. Members opposite must envy the Minister of Agriculture his part in bringing forward this Measure, which, in many respects, accords with the previous ideas of the party opposite, so far as it concerns the extensions of property ownership in this country and making more people, as they would say, little capitalists. But how they have failed in that effort in the past. How repeatedly did we from Norfolk, through the smallholdings committee, send up to the former Minister of Agriculture requests for his policy on the future of smallholdings in order that we might make some provision for the period when proposals would be presented. It was knocking at a closed door. We never got a reply, and I think we got the impression that the Minister of Agriculture then was against smallholdings, and in favour of the extension of large-scale farming in this country. When the Labour Party now comes along with a sound scheme for extending smallholdings amongst experienced agricultural workers in the country, I can understand hon. Members opposite looking with a certain amount of envy at the party on this side.
  The scheme for providing a certain amount of capital towards the new smallholdings will be welcome, because it will enable these men, when they make a start, to have the use of modern machinery on their holdings. The idea that only large-scale farms can be mechanised is all wrong. Every farm, however small, in this country can be mechanised to some extent, and, by the use of mechanical power greater production can be obtained from the holding and the holder's time becomes of far greater value to him. I welcome, too, the proposals for watching over the selection of tenants and the choice of the most suitable people as tenants of the new holdings. Again, it has been my lot for a number of years to be chairman of the selection committee in Norfolk in building up a list of suitable

  811
  applicants, which now reaches about 500. Therefore, when I see reference to the possibility of 5,000 holdings in the whole country, I am a little anxious to know whether one-tenth of them may be provided in Norfolk, but I am relieved by the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon that there is to be no fixed limit on the number of smallholdings that can be established in the course of the next few years.
  The Minister has made another departure. I welcome very much the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary in reference to the advisory council or committee which he is setting up in regard to smallholdings, but I am a little anxious, when I see the Minister taking more interest in smallholdings, whether he will get the necessary knowledge to be able to administer the scheme satisfactorily, because it requires not merely theoretical knowledge but practical knowledge to guide the development of smallholdings, just as in the case of other agricultural matters in this country. I should like to see the Minister being advised by a committee in this respect.
  I think we should make rapid strides with this smallholdings development. It seems to me that it should be possible for county councils to go ahead with their schemes to acquire the necessary land during this year and next, so that the tenants of the new smallholdings can occupy their holdings by Michaelmas, 1948. I know that there is the question of house building and so on, but we have only to build a man a house, no matter whether on a smallholding or on a council estate. It is a question of building a house. It seems to me that the question of buildings need not be such a disadvantage. It is possible to prefabricate farm buildings, and, in some cases, to put up temporary buildings to enable a start to be made. What the man does want is the right start, with the necessary implements to work his land. So, I hope that the Minister will push ahead, and will press the county councils to go ahead, with the smallholdings scheme.
  I was also interested to hear the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary point out the need of suitable land for smallholdings, and to hear that the county councils are to have power to acquire suitable land. But I am a little worried about this aspect of the matter. In every-
  812
  thing that we do, we ought to be able to justify our action on the ground of fairness. If, therefore, we are to acquire good agricultural land from the existing occupiers, then it seems to me that we ought to be able to pay these people the market value of their land. It would be penalising them if we did it on any other basis. Under the present Bill, it seems to me that the Minister could acquire the land at other than its present market value. The same applies to demonstration farms or farm institutes, and, again, speaking from practical experience of this matter, I know that it is difficult for any agriculturist when we come along and say, "This land is ideal for the purpose for which we require it. We want good land. There is the land, and the site is suitable. But, if we use our compulsory powers of purchase, or if we negotiate, then it must be on some basis other than the price at which the owner could sell the land to someone else." I would ask the Minister to look into that point a little more closely, so that we may be able to pay the same price as anybody else, and so that the smallholding schemes, farm institutes and demonstration farms should not start on a basis of something being done which is unfair to the person who previously owned or occupied the land.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: That is a very serious statement to make in the House of Commons. Do I understand from what the hon. Member has said, that he wishes a farmer, who is approached to provide a smallholding, to sell the land in question to an incoming purchaser at something less than its market value?
  Mr. Dye: That is not what I wish, but that is the position at the present time. I am asking that it should be changed. I could give a recent example as a member of the agricultural education sub-committee in regard to looking for a farm suitable for use as a farm institute. When the matter was referred to the district valuer, he was limited in the price which he could offer to the existing holder.
  Sir P. Hannon: That is very important. Does the hon. Member mean to introduce a new principle in the acquisition of land for smallholdings, in that a farmer, who now has a piece of land which he is invited to concede for a smallholding, should sell that land at a reduced price?
  Mr. Dye: I am not asking for that; I am pointing out that that is the position under the Bill now before us and the position today. I am asking, on the basis of fairness to existing owners and to agriculture, that, in this Bill, the Minister should give consideration to that alteration. I think that it is a fair point to make, and I hope that in the Committee stage we shall have a chance to put the matter right.
  The continuation of the system of control through the county executive committees is a point on which I should like to make a few comments. During the war, these committees were autocratic bodies. They worked under an autocratic Minister in order to get the food production necessary during the war. But, in peacetime, it seems to me that we must be more democratic in our methods of administration, so far as agriculture is concerned. These committees should act as the servants of the industry, and not as the bosses, and that spirit must be introduced into their operation. I think that the way in which the Minister is proposing to work—by asking for nominations from representative bodies—is a beginning on the right lines. To ask for representative nominations from farmers workers and landowners is a beginning in the way of a democratic approach to the problem, but it does not go far enough. I should like to see the Minister give equal representation to the farm workers as to the farmers, because, whatever might be the investment of farmers and landowners in the industry, unless we can get the workers of this country once more, not only to take an interest in their work on the land, but also a pride in it, we shall not be able to lift agriculture out of the rut into which it has fallen and create for it a clear and firm future. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to keep an eye on the appointments to these committees from year to year, with a view to bringing in more representatives from among the workers and smallholders, and others in the industry, and not just leave it to the two hitherto larger partners, the farmers and the landowners.
  Although I believe that secrecy might have been necessary during the war, I do not think that, for a permanent peace-time method, we should have secret meetings of committees in this country.
  814
  There must be a chance for the committees to make some kind of report locally, so that the people in each county may know what their committees have done and what those members of it whom they have appointed have carried out, and to have a chance of making up their minds as to whether they should nominate the same people again. Therefore, it seems to me that there must be some opportunity for these committees to make a report to the people who originally nominated them. As we know, the county executive committees will be closely tied up with the new national advisory service, and it is most important that the right kind of spirit should operate, both through the advisory ser-vice and the executive committee.
  Quite apart from this Bill, there has been some criticism of the agricultural policy. It seems to me in present circumstances when hon. Members opposite criticise the food policy of this Government, as was done yesterday and as has been done on former occasions, and when they infer that it is unwise for the Minister of Food to purchase dried or frozen eggs abroad instead of the necessary feedings stuffs with which to feed the poultry of this country, they are being a little unfair. Does anybody believe that, at the present time, or during the past year, there have been large quantities of feeding stuffs available in this country—maize, wheat and other cereals—which have not been purchasd by the Government abroad? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Hon. Members opposite have had the chance, time and time again, to give information and facts in regard to that matter. We know quite well that there has been a shortage of feeding stuffs and of human foods throughout the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "And transport."] Yes, and there is a shortage of transport. But when hon. Members, who are farmers and, therefore can have unlimited supplies of fresh eggs on their own breakfast tables criticise the Minister for bringing in the only available eggs in the world at the present time, it seems to me that they are hitting below the belt. We know quite well that all farmers are un-rationed as far as eggs or any other foods which they produce on their holdings are concerned. Therefore, when farmers, and Members of Parliament who are also farmers, speak publicly on this

  815
  matter, as many have done, they ought to be more careful in the interests of fairness, both to the country and to the Government.
  I can understand the feeling of joy with which hon. Members opposite like to see the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture solving the problems of British agriculture which they, as a party, so completely failed to solve in the past. At the General Election, they could not even put before the country a plain, straightforward policy in their agricultural divisions. They have hesitated to come to decisions vital to the welfare of British agriculture and of the country as a whole. Divided they have been among themselves, and incapable of putting forward an agricultural policy for the nation. I was very interested to read a report of a speech made by my late opponent in my division at the General Election who is an expert on this matter, since he was not only for 12 years a Conservative Member of Parliament but was also a member of the party's agricultural committee in this House. I refer to Mr. Somerset de Chair. This is what he had to say about the party opposite:
  "The party lost the agricultural seats in counties like Norfolk"
  they lost a lot there—
  "because they failed to produce a long-term policy tor the industry. Mr. Hudson had promised such a policy, but disagreements in the Cabinet at the last moment prevented it being innounced."
  This is in reference to the last Election.
  "Thus Conservative candidates could only offer farmers security of the 3½ years which was still left to the Coalition Government's four-years plan, whereas the Labour Party made it dear that all the wartime arrangements such as the Ministry of Food and guaranteed prices of production would be continued indefinitely. By the failure to announce the long-term policy the Conservative Party virtually admitted that they were not ready to carry on the conduct of affairs after the war in a field which had always been of fundamental importance to Conservatism."
  Those on the Benches opposite must be feeling happy, sitting there without much responsibility and seeing the Minister of Agriculture wading through his hard task of producing such a splendid Bill as this, trying to solve the problems and making sure the foundations of prosperity for British agriculture.
  5.53 p.m.
  General Sir George Jeffreys (Petersfield): I do not feel that I can join in the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) about this Bill, but I do join with many of my hon. Friends in thinking that this Bill will, undoubtedly, command general support for many of its provisions. It contains a good deal that is open to criticism and much that is intricate and involved. Like my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), I hope that it may be improved as time goes on by Amendments on the Committee stage. It will be generally agreed that the policy of guaranteed prices and assured markets is wise, and so, too, are the system of fixing prices well ahead and also the Government's objectives of stability and efficiency, though I think many of us would like to know in more detail how the Government propose to attain those latter objectives. It is not, however, with these matters that I propose to deal today.
  It is with the question of controls and the county agricultural committees by which, under the Minister, those controls will be mainly carried out, that I wish especially to deal today. This Bill envisages one vast system of control. Nothing can be done, it appears, without the Minister's authority. In every Clause we find "the Minister may do this," "the Minister may authorise that," "the Minister may direct" and "the Minister may give or refuse permission." Every man, woman and child in the industry, every building, every acre and every living or growing thing upon it will be found in the octopus-like embrace of the right hon. Gentleman and his minions and, incidentally, of the Minister of Food who, in certain cases, assists him in that embrace. In wartime a considerable measure of control was, undoubtedly, necessary, and some measure of control may be, and probably is, necessary in peacetime, but to multiply and intensify controls as is done in this Bill is unnecessary and unjustifiable. Control can only be justified where it is proved to be essential. Is there any such proof as regards very many of the controls imposed in this Bill? I think there is not. In return for accepting control, farmers receive an assurance, very rightly, of stable and remunerative conditions. But no such assurance is given to landowners who now also have to accept control and

  817
  under a number of Clauses, as it seems to me, an excessive amount of control. Moreover, besides accepting those controls, in very few cases do landowners get even a reasonable return on their capital invested in the land. An efficient farmer is promised security of tenure, boat there is no such promise for the efficient landowner, and there are many efficient landowners.
  Some of the Clauses, moreover, give excessive powers to the Minister without adequate rights of appeal for the landowner; for instance, those Clauses dealing with dispossession of owners and with compulsory acquisition of their land. While controls will be mainly administered by county agricultural committees, to which I shall have a word to say a little later, yet very much must depend on the attitude of the Minister and the direction which he may give to those agricultural committees. While I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude will always be fair and reasonable, I wonder if we may be equally sure that the attitude of his potential successors, or some of them, will be equally reasonable and fair, and whether the attitude of all the officials who may act in his name will be fair either.
  In effect, the war agricultural executive committees are to continue in their new form as county agricultural executive committees. But they have many additional functions thrust upon them. I think it is acknowledged that in most counties the work of the war agricultural executive committees was very successful, and that their members were indefatigable and self-sacrificing in the discharge of their duties. In some counties, however—I think in the minority of counties—this was not the case, and I believe in those counties the trouble was that the committee members were not, in all cases, practical agriculturists in whom those with whom they had to deal, and especially the farmers, had real confidence. Moreover, some of them, through pressure of work, were apt to leave everything to their officials who in their turn were often not very highly qualified. The supply of the right type of man was not very large; many were engaged who were not highly qualified or experienced, and some of them, perhaps, were not overburdened with tact.
  I suggest, therefore, that the personal factor is of great importance. The mem-
  818
  bers of these new committees, apart from the Minister's nominees, are to be representative of various bodies, and I would say that that is all to the good. But what will really matter most is that all the members should be, as I have said, practical and experienced agriculturists in whom the farming community will have real confidence, whose advice they will gladly take, and from whom they will accept instructions and decisions.
  It is of importance, too, that their officials should be well qualified, and that they should also be tactful in carrying out their duties. But however good the committees may be, there is a limit to the amount of work which they can efficiently carry out, and I believe that that limit is really much exceeded in the proposals under this Bill. In a big county —and the work in a big county is necessarily very much more extensive than the work in a smaller county for a committee of, I think, exactly the same size—the work of the war agricultural committees now occupies at least three days a week, working morning and afternoon. It must be remembered that the members of those committees are unpaid, and have their own affairs to look after. I wonder, then, how they can be expected to cope with the far greater amount of work which it is proposed to throw upon them by this Bill. Is it not almost certain that, even if sufficient of those practical and experienced men can be induced to undertake these increased duties—and it seems to me that in future that is no certainty —they will be bound to leave more and more in the hands of their officials, with the inevitable result of a multiplication of those officials, with their accompanying and unwelcome mass of forms, returns, surveys and restrictions, and with the certainty also that the work will be less well done than if it were done by the members of the committee themselves?
  Everything in this Bill—as I think the Minister has said, and as has been repeated today by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—stands or falls by first-rate committees; they are the backbone, so to speak, of the working part of this Bill. If they are to be first-rate they must not be given more work than they can be reasonably expected to undertake. Therefore, I suggest, as one means of lightening the work of these committees, that the county council agricultural committees

  819
  should not be abolished but should continue to function, thus relieving the county agricultural executive committees of at any rate part of their proposed duties. Provision is made under the Bill for approved forms of contract of tenancy. I suggest that effect should be given to such con-tracts or leases by the parties concerned and their agents, and that only in the case of disputes should the county committees be called in. It seems to me that that again would save much of the time of the county committees, and would ensure that they were only called in to deal with matters which could not be adequately dealt with by the usual means which have been the custom in agriculture. Owner-occupiers, whose difficulties were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), would, I agree, have to be required to satisfy the county committees that they are observing the principles both of good estate management and of good husbandry. However, I do not think there need be any excessive amount of work put upon the committees in that way.
  Finally, I suggest, every county committee should be required to publish annually a report of its proceedings and a statement of accounts. Far more should be made known of these subjects than has been the case in the past. No doubt in wartime it was necessary that these county war agricultural committees should be the instruments of the Minister, and that they should work, so far as the general public was concerned, more or less behind a screen. Very little was known of their proceedings; and I do not hestitate to say that nothing was known of what they spent, which may have amounted to a very considerable sum. I suggest that those reports and those accounts should now be published. The more that is known about the proceedings of the committees the stronger will be their position. Again, I would urge the Minister not to put more work on to the committees than they can reasonably be expected to manage. To do so would be to risk the breakdown of the whole system.
  My object in speaking tonight was to deal with the questions of control and of the county executive committees. I would, however, add a word or two about agricultural land tribunals, which are complementary to the county agricultural executive committees. I believe these
  820
  independent tribunals will be generally welcomed; but in spite of what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, I think there should be a right of appeal to a court having at any rate the status of a high court. It may be the fact:—I think it very likely will be the fact—that there will be very few appeals. None the less, if there are appeals, and differences of opinion on such important matters as, to instance only one, dispossession, then I think it is only fair that a full appeal should be allowed to a person who is to be dispossessed of his property. There will also be some major decisions of the Minister which might well be the subject of an appeal. I have dealt with the two subjects with which I set out to deal: First, controls, which I believe are in many cases excessive both in number and in effect; and, secondly, the county agricultural committees, about which I would again ask the Minister to be sure that he is not putting more work upon them than they can properly do themselves, without the entire work falling upon their officials.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Lavers: It is with pleasure and a great deal of pride that I support the Second Reading of this Agriculture Bill. I have the honour to represent the largest rural constituency in the county of Durham, and I am very confident that responsible farming opinion in the North-East of England welcomes the Minister's effort to legislate for the future of agriculture. I have read many Press reports of farmer's meetings, and they confirm such a viewpoint. I think it is true to say that praise for the Bill extends to many other parts of rural England. Certainly there are points in the Bill which axe subject to criticism, and they can be taken in detail, but they are mainly Committee points. Today, we are debating the general provisions of the Bill. It is pleasant to note that the National Farmers Union and the Agricultural Workers Union, who both represent very important parts of this industry, support the main principles of the Bill.
  As the "News Chronicle" agricultural correspondent stated:
  "The Bill is the outline of an agricultural policy which may endure for a century."
  I claim that the Bill is not just of special interest to our rural community, but is of great importance to the townsman and the industrial worker. The Bill makes a

  821
  great positive contribution to the whole of our economic life. Obviously, a piece of legislation concerned with food production is of great importance to the nation as a whole. Moreover, industry and agriculture are inter-dependent; they are both part of the same economic system, and a breakdown in one has a corresponding effect on the other.
  In the dark days of depression before the war, the lack of purchasing power of the unemployed workers in County Durham, and the other distressed areas, affected the wealth of the farming community. We had the terrible and tragic paradox of people wanting food, and yet farmers were not encouraged to grow it. We should never return to those days. A planned economy calls for a planned agriculture. I am certain that the increasing purchasing power of the British people, through the proposed social services, full employment and a fairer distribution of the wealth of the nation, will lead to an increasing demand for good farm products,' which can be supplied by our national industry. This Bill challenges history. It is the first attempt to plan the agricultural industry and provide a positive peacetime programme. The history of British agriculture has been marked by a series of crises. Between 1875 and 1914, the number of people engaged in agriculture fell by no fewer than 500,000.
  The war of 1914–18, which followed, gave the industry a period of artificial prosperity. Farmers and farm workers became valuable men, and we remember the Corn Production Act of 1917, which guaranteed prices for wheat and oats, and also the giving of some degree of a guaranteed wage to the workers. Then peace came, and with it came the inevitable depression. Hon. Members opposite have a terrible responsibility for the decline and depression of our oldest and greatest industry. Thousands of workers left the land, and farmers were. faced with tremendous financial difficulties. Good land went out of cultivation, farm buildings became derelict, land drains became choked up and acre after acre of good land went out of cultivation. No ardent Tory can say it was due to Socialist planning; it was an indictment of Capitalism. We cannot allow history to repeat itself. Our farmers and farm workers made a great contribution in the winning of this war, and they must never again be let down as they were in the past. I feel
  822
  sure that they will have everything to gain from this comprehensive Measure. As a former member of a county council, I particularly welcome those parts of the Bill which deal with small holdings.
  Mr. McKie: Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Member to read every word of his speech?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is not permissible to read a speech. It is possible, however, to make reference to notes, but one hopes that these references will be short and not continuous.
  Mr. Lavers: I am pleased to note that Clause 45 will permit county councils and county boroughs to undertake smallholding schemes for the localities they administer. As far back as 1892, the Small Holdings Act empowered county councils to create smallholdings. In 1908, another smallholding and allotment Act was passed, and under it county councils were given powers to purchase. In 1919, another land settlement Act came into operation, and in 1926 the Small Holdings and Allotment Act placed upon county councils a certain financial responsibility. In the year 1931, the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act gave the Minister certain powers to provide smallholdings, particularly in those areas where the county councils had proved dilatory in this matter.
  If we look at the history of smallholdings, it will be seen that county councils have had an opportunity to provide for land settlements. Here I would quote a progressive county which has taken advantage of the various Acts to which I have referred. I am referring to Durham, which is progressive in most things, including agriculture. It was only the coming of the war which stopped further progress in the county of Durham. It has 70 estates, covering 6,606 acres. The number of holdings is 526, and the number of tenants 1.557. In addition, they have 76 group-holding schemes, comprising 1,374 plots in operation, where the tenancy of the land is held direct by the local associations; these are equipped, stocked and supervised by the County Council. At the present time the County Council has a waiting list of 852 applicants for 20,172 acres, and it is a safe estimate to say that fully 80 per cent. of these applicants

  823
  would prove successful smallholders. It may be stated that a 50-acre dairy holding was recently advertised by the Durham County Council, and that they received no less than 248 inquiries. The majority of the applicants were of such a fine type, with necessary experience and capital, that the selection committee had an extremely difficult task in selecting the tenant. The man selected on approved merit had been an unemployed miner, who had worked himself up from the Council's quarter-acre holding to a five-acre holding, and now has sufficient livestock and capital for the larger holding.
  I do not want to disagree with the policy of the Minister in bringing in people from the industry. That policy has been followed in County Durham, but I do not see how we are to get the necessary recruits from the farming profession. The policy of the Durham County Council, in dealing with smallholdings, has been to give examiners, who are past working in the mines, the chance to develop a new technique, and I suggest in no uncertain way that they have not let the county council down. My information is that there has been some difficulty in obtaining land in Durham, due to the action of colliery companies in taking over farms in order to pay compensation for surface damage caused by underground working. Much of this land is of good quality, and highly suitable for smallholdings, and now that these colliery undertakings and their land have been nationalised cannot the land now be made available for smallholdings? In the past, smallholdings were regarded as palliatives for unemployment. In 1935 the Commissioner for the Distressed Areas offered local authorities financial assistance for land settlement. I trust that we shall never repeat that experiment, because I feel that with full employment there should, be no need for such palliatives. Moreover, smallholdings policy should be determined primarily by agricultural considerations.
  In conclusion, I suggest that this Bill offers to our farming community something real and positive. It will give the industry that stability which is so necessary. British agriculture must have stability, and the opportunity to provide our people with the best food it can produce. I am reminded of the words of
  824
  Henry George, the great social reformer, who wrote, in "Progress and Poverty":
  "Material progress cannot rid us of our dependence on land. It can best add to the power of producing wealth from the land."
  I beilieve that this Bill will meet the needs of our great population in that direction.
  6.22 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Owing to the shortness- of time perhaps the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Lavers) will excuse me if I do not refer to any of his points in my speech. Like other Members on this side of the House, I welcome this Bill as being a possible framework which will give the farmer the stability that is offered by it, but I must remind the Minister that it goes far beyond the proposals that were made at the joint conference of the Royal Agricultural Society. The frills and bits put on go much further than was envisaged then. Even when this Bill first appeared, support from the farming community was by no means 100 per cent. Farmers are looking and asking for far more outspoken assurances and explanations than have appeared in the Bill. Yesterday, the Minister told us something in his nice, pleasant, way, but there was little more in his speech than has appeared in the Explanatory Memorandum. Many of the doubts which have appeared in the farmers' Press have not been assured. In fact, the Minister appeared to be like a skilful skater who glided around the obstructions and snags that appeared on the ice. Today, his Parliamentary Secretary was slightly more bold, and got a little nearer to those places, but he still did not answer many of the questions which farmers are longing to have answered. I think it is apparent from several speeches which have been made by Members opposite, who quite openly admitted that they were not happy with less than absolute out and out nationalisation of the land, that this Bill is a step to try and placate various individualist farmers. There will, therefore, be more doubt, and more clamouring for detailed explanations.
  Part I of the Bill, as we all admit, is the absolute meat on which the whole Bill depends I hope that tonight the Minister who winds up the Debate will be able to promise that before the Measure becomes law we shall be given a draft programme

  825
  of what this country is expected to produce in, say, the next five years. I hope the Minister will tell us how much our pig, poultry, egg and milk industry is expected to turn out to feed our people. I hope we shall be told how much the country is to provide in the way of horticultural produce, excluding the very special out of season vegetables or fruits that come from hotter climates. Can the Minister give us an estimate of the quantities of grain, sugar beet, and home grown meat which will be paid for under the guarantee during the next five years? If he can do that before the Bill gets much further, farmers will feel much happier. They will feel that there is something behind the guaranteed price, something they can trust, something that will allay the fears that are aroused in them when they hear the Minister of Food making his remarks about buying his food in the cheapest market in the world.
  I would also like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he himself has said that the entire success of this Bill depends upon the maintenance of mutual confidence, and that without good will on both sides its machinery just will not work. He is asking a lot; he is asking for the good will of the farmers and not giving, in return, the information for which they are asking. The whole Bill, in spite of the number of times in which the Minister's name appears in it, and in spite of all the officials he will employ, will depend on the agricultural committees, on the voluntary efforts of the men who will run the show in each county. The right hon. Gentleman has given them a great deal to do, and unless they can have the confidence of the farmers and landowners they will not be able to carry out their tasks. The result will be that they will give up the work, so that the Minister will have to hawk the jobs around and will probably get second-rate men who do not know their counties or agriculture. These men will become the complete "stooges" of the Minister, using the powers which have been given in the Bill to force on to farmers some-thing which they will not have. If that happens the Bill will fail.
  I pass to Part V—Clause 79 onwards— of the Bill, which deals with the acquisition and management of land. Here, again, I feel that we want some drastic amendment and alteration. The Minister
  826
  says that it is necessary to have all this acquisition for him to get full and efficient use of the land. Unless he is very careful it will act in reverse. The State farms are not the only means of providing a ladder for promotion. They will provide the ladder for a few. The smallholding farmer, the tenant farmer and the owner-occupier also provide another step in the same ladder.
  Clause 80 is one of the shortest Clauses in the Bill, and it is the only one in which the word "research" appears. I think that it could not have appeared in worse circumstances. It says that the Minister has power to acquire compulsorily land needed for research. What effect will that have on the mind of the good farmer? The farmer who gets his land in first-class order and has good buildings has a threat hanging over his head that the Minister will say, "This is just what I want for research." I have been screaming for more research, but do not put it under the heading of compulsory acquisition. When I was in Sweden last summer, I was particularly struck with the research work there, and the money being spent on research. I think that the Minister, who was there not long before I was, will bear me out. A great deal of money was being spent there on research. I visited many farms, and the farmers were all most enthusiastic concerning their country's research work for agriculture. They all said that the money was well spent, and that in the long run it saved them thousands of pounds. Further, they said that they looked to our professors and scientists to give them the initial research and data which they could test out. They said that we had the finest men in the world, but they had not been provided with the land on which they could carry out the tests and trials necessary. Agricultural tests and trials for research purposes need a long time to make them fool proof and conclusive.
  One of the excuses for compulsory purchase under Clause 81 is that the Minister says that owners and fanners in the Fen districts and other marginal districts cannot be expected to provide the necessary capital fully to equip those areas. I would point out to him that these men are a very important step in the agrcultural ladder. Many of the Fen farmers came from smallholdings. By hard work, they and their families built up enough to buy a farm on

  827
  more suitable land. If this land gets into the hands of the State, these young entries will not have the same chance as they had before. They may not have the equipment, and they may not be able to pay for the equipment, but in the years to come the Fen lands cannot go on producing the intensive cereal crops which they have done during the war. In many cases, the land is not good enough and is already "blowing" badly. These farms are more suitable for the mixed farm type, where not so much machinery and not many good buildings are necessary. In that area, the Minister will do very serious harm if he insists on compulsorily taking over some of the land which has been farmed by the war agricultural committees during the war. It was promised then that it would go back to the owner, and the Minister will lose a tremendous amount of prestige and support if he breaks the word of the Government.
  Clause 101 deals with the provision of goods and services. I think that during the war we were all agreed that the best way was for the war agricultural committees to run their own machinery and their own agricultural goods. Now that must stop. We must see that the ordinary methods are used for supplying the farmer with his goods and services so that the small man may have a chance to get on. The providers of these implements and goods are already in existence. There are hundreds of thousands of ex-Service men who are first-class mechanics and engineers. We have seen in the Press, quite often, about the mobile workshops moving out to the farms to service tractors. These are the men to be encouraged. It is the men stepping on to the ladder whom the Minister wants. The ploughman who has learnt his job with the tractor, and who has managed to put away some of his wages and buy his own tractor, is the man who will go round to the small farmers who cannot afford their own. He will do it far more.cheaply and economically than this big State machinery service.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): There is nothing to prevent him.
  Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: There is nothing to prevent him, except that once we have a State service there are always
  828
  priorities. There is always the privilege by which the State service can get in by the back door, and get that little bit which the average man cannot get. If the Minister thinks that he can supply the services in that way, he will lose the support of every fanner in the country.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Wells: So far, no hon. Member has been brave enough seriously to attack the Bill. Even the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was very mild in his criticism—so much so that I would not be surprised if before the end of the Debate, the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) appeared in his place to pay a tribute to the Minister of Agriculture for having introduced the Bill. One hon. Member on this side of the House has complained that the Bill contains no reference to the nationalisation of the land, and there has also been criticism that some of the compensation provisions are far too generous, but the criticism has been of a very mild character, and there have been more bouquets than brickbats. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) felt called upon to warn the Minister that when all men speak well of him, he should beware.
  I am not surprised that there has been this unanimity of opinion in regard to the Bill. It is a good Bill, and it is easily the best Bill that has ever been introduced in the House in the interests of the agricultural industry. At the same time, while there has been this pretty general measure of praise and appreciation from all parts of the House, I have detected a veiled undercurrent, if I may so put it, in the expressions of appreciation from hon. Members opposite. I am not surprised at that, because I realise that hon. Members opposite must be thinking what a splendid opportunity they have missed. We are discussing now a Bill which one would have imagined the party which has always claimed to represent agricultural interests would have presented long ago. The Conservative Party had ample opportunity to do so, but they never did so, and now they say how much better they could have made the Bill. The fact remains, however, that they did not do so when they had an opportunity.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday, this

  829
  Measure is proof that the Government intend to keep their promise made to the electors at the General Election. This is no panic Measure brought in prior to a General Election. The General Election is some three and a half years ahead— [Interruption.]I am quite certain of that. This Measure is the implementation of a policy that has been advocated for many years. It represents the Government's determination to give to the agricultural industry, which employs 1,250,000 workers, and the main raw material of which consists of 80 per cent. of the land of this nation, the status and stability which the industry has the right to expect, but which it has lacked up to now. As a Member of a central agricultural wages board and of a county committee, I have been in the fight for decent conditions for agricultural workers for many years. I was in the fight that we had to make, I regret to say unsuccessfully, after the last war, when the then Minister of Agriculture, a member of the party to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough belongs, brought in a repeal Bill to do away with guaranteed prices to farmers and the wages board for agricultural workers, with the result that agricultural workers' wages were reduced from 47s. 6d. to 25s. In those days there was once more to be seen hanging in the village branches of trade unions the text:
  "Lord have mercy on us, and keep us all alive.
  There are nine of us for dinner, and food for only five."
  They remained on those low rates of wages until 1924, when the Labour Government brought in the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act of that year.
  Mr. McKie: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent the situation; I think he ought to say that the Corn Production Act repeal was undertaken by Mr. Lloyd George's Government.
  Mr. Wells: It was a Coalition Government with a Conservative Minister of Agriculture. It was not until 1924, when the Labour Government introduced the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act, that agricultural workers began once more, very slowly, to force up their wages, 6d. here and 6d. there; but not once in the whole of that time did the farmers of their own volition come forward with an offer.
  830
  Any increase that was won was won as the result of the votes of the appointed members of the county committees being cast with those of the workers' representatives. There was, therefore, the position at the beginning of the war that skilled men engaged in agriculture in this country were working a 50 hours' or a 52 hours' week for 36s. I do not blame the fanners entirely for that, because they, too, were let down by the action that was taken immediately following the last war. Thousands of them were in the hands of the moneylenders. I knew of instances where a farmer could not buy a plough, build a fence, or even increase the wages of a cowman, without getting permission from the local bank manager to do so. The position of low rates of wages for agricultural workers was not remedied until the present Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour during the war, told the House and the farmers organisation that he was not prepared to put agricultural workers under the Control of Employment Order unless they were accorded a wage of 48s. a week.
  I have referred to how hon. Members opposite treated agriculture after the last wax, and it is because of that treatment that we lack sufficient skilled men on the land today. It is no good hon. Members opposite blaming this Government for the shortage of agricultural manpower. It is they and their party who drove three out of every ten agricultural workers off the land in the period between the wars. Is it realised that for years it was possible for a farm worker to leave agriculture, go into some other industry for a few weeks, and then, if he had a wife and two or three children, to receive in unemployment benefit more than he would have got for working a full week at his trade of agriculture? It is perfectly true that some men might go back to farming today, as has been stated by hon. Members opposite, if there were more cottages fox them. But wages today are not 32s. a week—they are 80s. a week, and though the treatment now being meted out to agriculturists in these proposals may be thought inadequate by some, no better proposals have been put forth. Certainly there is in them no betrayal of agriculturists. The farmer and certainly the farm worker, will not be slow to draw an obvious comparison. Last time we had a Bill to repeal wages boards and guaranteed prices; this time we have a

  831
  Bill to place them on a permanent basis. I had evidence within the last week of how rapidly the Conservative Party is losing its grip on the countryside. I was at a village meeting in connection with this Bill, and replying to the questioner, I said, "No Labour Government will ever depart from the principal provisions of this Bill. They will never dare to do so." "No," said the questioner, "but my party may be in power after the next General Election."[Laughter.]
  Mr. Gallacher: He meant that hon. Members opposite would let the farmers down again.
  Mr. Wells: If the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) and others are unable to comprehend what was implied by that remark, may I say that this man believed that the provisions of this Bill would be departed from, if the Conservative Party were returned to power.
  Mr. Gallacher: Hon. Members opposite are dull in the uptake.
  Mr. Wells: I am so sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Horsham cannot comprehend the point. That is his misfortune and not my fault.
  I said I did not blame the farmers entirely for the inadequate wages which were paid. I believe there was much in what they said in reply to our frequent applications for increased wages. They said that the industry in which they were engaged was a gamble; that the dice were always loaded against them; and that the uncertainty as to price and market plus unfair competition from abroad, was far too much for them. In this Bill they are being given, in the words of the President of the National Farmers Union, the machinery for a stable future in the industry. This time there is no betrayal, neither is there a blank cheque. There is a recognition of the peculiar position of agriculture, its importance in the life of the State, and an attempt to give it the assistance it deserves so that those engaged in it, farmers and workers alike, will, at least, secure a just return for the skill and labour which they put into it.
  6.55 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: As the time at our disposal this evening is so short, and there are many would-be
  832
  speakers, I will be as brief as possible. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) made some reference to the importation of eggs, and suggested that it was a wise policy on the part of the Government to import dried eggs, instead of importing grain and corn to produce the eggs in this country. I feel, as President of the Accredited Poultry Breeders' Federation, that I cannot let that go unanswered.
  Mr. Dye rose—
  Sir J. Barlow: I am afraid that I cannot give way.
  Mr. Dye: Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) has no right to interrupt.
  Mr. Dye: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) has, I submit, misrepresented what I said.
  Mr. Speaker: If he does not give way there is no remedy.
  Sir J. Barlow: I am informed that 345 dozen eggs can be produced in this country with imported grain or maize at a cost of £15. I am told that the dried egg equivalent of 345 dozen costs some £45 in various parts of the world. I maintain that the feeding- stuffs were available during the past summer and that it was the business of this Government to procure them and bring them to this country to produce the eggs here.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Where were they?
  Hon. Members: In the Argentine.
  Sir J. Barlow: It is infinitely more economical to produce them in this country. I should like to add a word in regard to the reduced number of poultry in this country. Poultry, especially high class poultry, are reduced to a very dangerous level, and the quantity of chick feeding allowed for this spring will probably hardly maintain the accredited flocks in this country, which are most important for the increase of our poultry after the war.
  I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the very excellent speech he made this afternoon. He had a grip of the whole position which I think must have impressed us all. When he

  833
  has the time available I should very much like to see him taking a farm, and doing it all in an equally practical way. That part of his speech which was devoted to smallholdings interested me particularly, because I feel that smallholdings will play a great part in agriculture in this country. We know that production from small farms is far greater on the average per acre than from large farms. The hon. Gentleman has told us that 75 per cent. of the necessary capital can be provided. He has also told us that 75 per cent. of the loss—the annual loss I presume—can be met by the Government, but he did not tell us how long this 75 per cent. loss will be met by the Government. It seems to me that a small owner might go on making continued losses at the expense of His Majesty's Government.
  There is also the case of the small owner-occupying farmer owning perhaps 200 acres, who for some reason may have dilapidated buildings and who may have difficulty in putting his farm or his house into proper working order. According to this Bill, the Government may, quite rightly, ask him to spend money, and a considerable amount of money at that, on his farm. If he does not pay it, they may ask him to vacate the farm and let it to somebody else, or, in the last resort, they may forcibly take it from him. It seems to me that people with farms of, say, 200 acres might be well advised to get rid of them immediately, and go to holdings of rather smaller acreage, when the Government will put up 75 per cent. of the capital required and for an unlimited period 75 per cent. of losses incurred.
  I have no doubt that it would not be quite as easy as that, but I feel that we are entitled to some exact explanation of how this financial machinery is going to work. Yesterday the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) painted a deplorable picture of a landlord who, I gather, almost annually put up the rents, especially against his good tenants. The hon. Gentleman gave us more than one instance, and while I am not questioning the accuracy of what he said, I maintain that it is mischievous to suggest that that is typical of our landlord system in this country. We all know that such things have existed among landlords; there have been bad farmers and bad workmen, but they are not typical of British farming. I believe that British farming and all
  834
  those connected with it have, as a rule, adopted a very high-minded policy indeed, and I personally deplore the fact that such instances should be rut forward as being typical of any one section of the industry, because I do not believe that that is, true.
  This great agricultural industry cannot be regarded as comparable with any other industry in this country. Agriculture was the basis of our national wealth and prosperity before any factory was ever built here. Rather more than a century ago there were nearly a million farmers on the land, probably far more than there are today. British farmers were the leaders of world farming at that time—the Cokes of Norfolk, the Collings, and all the great breeders and improvers of cattle, sheep and horses, were renowned the world over, and British agriculture had a very great name When considering the temporary depression in the recent past we must not think that it is typical of British agriculture It has had a very great past, and I believe it will have a very great future. British agriculture is essentially an industry with a slow turnover; probably the average turnover of the capital concerned on a farm in this country is not more than once a year. To an industrialist that is deplorably slow, but we cannot hasten the seasons; we cannot grow two crops of wheat in a year, and we cannot accelerate the period of gestation of a cow. We can only improve the crops and the strain of cattle, and achieve greater results by those methods. For that reason, it is unwise to think of British agriculture as a modern industry in any sense of the word. It has had a great past and if it has the mutual goodwill of the people of this country I feel that it will have a very great future.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Woods: The Minister of Agriculture must be quite embarrassed by the reception which this Bill has had not only here on Second Reading, but generally throughout the country, particularly among the agricultural industry. I should also like to congratulate him, knowing as I do that he has made agriculture his own baby, as it were, and has made it his contribution in the Labour movement towards an understanding of, and an interest in, the problem of agriculture. It must be a very great source of gratification to him to be able to present the Bill at this time.

  835
  I have listened to the criticisms from both sides of the House, and have read the reports of those which I was not present to hear. I am very much impressed by the fact that many of them are not actually criticisms of the Bill; they show apprehension as to what might be, rather than what is actually contained in the Measure. An excellent illustration of that was given in a recent speech by an hon. Gentleman opposite when he made reference to the Clause which gives the Minister power to acquire land for research purposes. The suggestion was that when a farmer has made a success of his land he will be living under constant fear of its being acquired by the State. That is just stupid reading of the Bill, and seeing that this is a tremendously important matter, it is up to all of us to deal with realities rather than with fictions. One can understand this to some extent. It has been a tradition in this country that the rural areas were in some way naturally conservative, and that they were the strength of the Conservative Party— the stable political element in the life of this country. I have taken part in a number of elections in rural constituencies, including those which I have fought myself, and I was always distressed by the way representatives of the party opposite in their propaganda tried to present an antagonism between town and country, maintaining that they were the party which represented the country and that the Labour Party merely represented groups of factory workers. I had hoped that that was ended for all time and that, as we have come through two wars and are still up against a world shortage in food supplies, it would be realised that agriculture is as much a matter for town as for country, and that the prosperity of the town is vital to the success of the countryside. This Bill is an effective reply to the stupidity that the Labour Party is a party of factory workers.
  Among the criticisms with which I find myself in agreement is that made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with him, although I very often appreciate his contributions to Debate, but I think that his criticism of the Title of the Bill was justified. As I see it this is not an Agricultural Bill in the big sense; it is, as the right hon.
  836
  Gentleman said, rather an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I would suggest that that is almost inevitable as things stand. We have to deal with what is more or less chaos at the present time, and the suggestions made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman have only extended those miscellaneous provisions. The second point made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was that this must be viewed in the light of changed financial and economic circumstances. We are now a debtor nation. I would like to see this problem faced in a much more realistic way as an economic one confronting the people of this nation, both town and country. Whether we like it or not, there are only so many acres available for agriculture. Furthermore, that acreage is totally and utterly inadequate to feed the people of this country, which means that the fullest use has to be made of every acre. It is an economic affair, because not only are the acres limited, but the actual purchasing power of this country is limited, too. What we require to buy abroad should, as I see it, be very carefully assessed, and then that which can be produced on the land in this country should be produced in the most economical way possible. Not only has agriculture to be integrated with the whole of our industry, but I would like to see some Clause in this Bill which provided for the integration of British agriculture with Dominion agriculture, so that we might look at it as a vast English-speaking family with democratic traditions and a standard of living which has to be maintained and improved throughout the whole of the British Commonwealth. At the present stage, this is like asking for the moon.
  One or two aspects of this Bill give me serious misgivings. The first is the implication that agriculture will continue limping on crutches provided by the State. There are subsidies, allowances and provisions for making up deficits and so on. Those may be required temporarily and are probably inescapable during this period of world shortage, but agriculture is a fundamental industry, and we cannot deal with our fundamental industries by providing them with free State funds. They must stand on their own feet. I know many farmers intimately and hold them in esteem and affection, and I can say that the best type of British agriculturist wants to stand on his own feet. He resents the implication that his industry cannot be

  837
  run so efficiently and successfully as to be able to foot the bill, pay decent wages, meet all the outgoings and enable those engaged in the industry to have a good life and to respect themselves as being in no way tainted by any touch of pauperism. This has been clone. In Denmark, where the bulk of industry is agricultural, farmers have held their heads relatively high even during periods of depression and by very efficient organisation and utilisation of all resources available they have made themselves a valuable asset to the whole of Europe. I believe that agriculture can be made economically sound without subsidies.
  We have heard a good deal from the Opposition and the Press of suggestions that agriculture will be subject to dictatorship. I think that is inevitable. There must be some effective control, and the most enlightened farmers recognise their national responsibility to produce those commodities which are necessary. An assessment of those commodities should concentrate on the national foods such as liquid milk, meat, eggs and poultry, fresh vegetables and fruit. There is no reason why we should spend money importing the things we can produce in this country just as well and as economically as they can be produced elsewhere, and that is particularly the argument in reply to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) who spoke about turnover in poultry farming. Incubators can be kept going all the year round, and pig breeding is not just an annual event, so that there could quite speedily be a very considerable increase in the volume of pork, bacon, eggs and poultry in this country if it were laid down as a national policy and prosecuted.
  I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister and the House in view of all this talk of dictatorship. Such considerable concessions have been made to the industry in this Bill that I have a feeling that some interests associated with agriculture as landlords or farmers may be able to hold the rest of the community in the hollow of their hands. I have one or two questions to put to the Minister. Under his scheme the central commission has power to fix prices, presumably to restrict competitive imports and to find assured markets for the home produce. I have seen no provision in the Bill for any effective appeal against the price fixed on
  838
  the part of either the distributive agents or the consumer—
  Mr. Collick: I am not quite sure to what the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Woods) is referring when he talks about a central commission. I am not aware of any sort of central commission under this Bill.
  Mr. Woods: I am referring to the organisation set up under Clause 1. In the Agricultural Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1933 there was provision for the consumers to make representations, and in other Measures which have been passed —such as the Coal Nationalisation Act— there are provisions for the consuming interests to be consulted, but nowhere in this Bill is there provision whereby consumers, as consumers, are consulted or where they can make an appeal against any of these vital decisions. I hope there, will be assurances on this point.
  I am very glad to see the adequate and: excellent provisions for the extension and the consolidation of smallholdings. There have been agricultural enthusiasts who believe that the smallholding is the solution-to the agricultural problem. That is sheer nonsense, but the smallholder can, as demonstrated in the Evesham area, play a very substantial part in solving our problem. I am very glad to see that the Minister will have power substantially to help. It will give satisfaction to a very large number of friends of mine to see that the Government will assist them in applying co-operative principles for making their smallholdings pay.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mr. Turton: It is with great pleasure that I follow my constituent, the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Woods). Most of the speeches today and yesterday have centred round two words, "security" and "efficiency." I suppose the hon. Gentleman's Socialist colleague who sits on the Brains Trust would say, "It all depends on what you mean by security and efficiency." Quite clearly the hon. Member's idea of security is something very different from that put forward by the Minister of Agriculture. It is a security depending upon a strait-jacket, and a Gallup Poll of the members of the Co-operative Society or the nation, as to whether the Minister is right or wrong in his guaranteed prices. We have attached importance not only to the

  839
  security of price, but also to the security of markets. I listened with great interest to the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary on that point. I do not think he dealt with the point as to the extent of the guaranteed market, and I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will try to give us in precise terms, what is the Government's plan for the size of the market for the industry.
  I turn to the third security, the security of tenure Hon. Members may say at once, "Under Part III the tenant-occupier is being given very great security of tenure." I welcome that, but that is not the whole of the argument. Under Part II, both the owner-occupier and the tenant-occupier are having their security of tenure gravely threatened. After all, any one who farms or manages his land may fall out with the Minister or with the committee of the Minister, and then they will be liable to be put under a supervision order immediately. The hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) said yesterday that a good citizen never fears a policeman. That is quite true. If you have a good conscience, you do not fear a policeman. Why? Not merely because you have a good conscience, but also because of the fact that if the policeman acts in a high-handed way, you have your redress in court. The policeman is the embodiment of the law which you respect. Here, in the matter of the supervision order, there is not that redress.
  To my mind, placing a man under a supervision order is very like the system of placing a man on probation in a criminal court. Surely, if you are to take away a man's good name, you ought to give him the right of appeal to a tribunal? It is not enough to say, "After all, it is merely the first step in the expulsion; on the last step we give him that right of appeal." The damage is done at the beginning, directly you take away the man's good name. It is registered as a local land charge. You are taking away something which, to the owner-occupier and the tenant farmer, is more priceless than anything else in the whole world. I beg the Government to reconsider that point and to give anyone affected by a supervision order a right of appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. I believe that to be vital to this Bill.
  Let us be quite sure about one point, that this Bill will place disproportionate
  840
  burdens upon the owner-occupier. There are many cases in which a man has invested his small means in a house and a few acres of land. He is farming those few acres but the prime purpose is the house, which is his home. It may be— I know it is in certain cases—that those few acres are not farmed so efficiently, at such a high standard, as land farmed by a rich owner-occupier, or a tenant farmer under a rich landlord. Under this Bill, that man, after having been under a supervision order for a year, can be forced off those acres and also out of that house. That is a terribly great hardship. When I came back in 1943, I found that some of my constituents were in exactly that position. The smallholding was their home, and had been their home, perhaps, for many generations. These men have an unfair position under this Bill. If they had not got those few acres, they could not be turned out of their home, unless alternative accommodation was found for them. I ask the Government to see that in this Bill there can be an appeal to a county court judge from those parts of the orders that relate to the house, because that, I believe, is the right way of looking at this matter. After all, the present Government cannot claim that there are such large numbers of homes in rural areas under the dispensation of the present Minister of Health that these people will find no difficulty in getting alternative accommodation, and it will mean leaving these men without a roof unless something of that kind is done.
  I want the House to consider for a little what is the most satisfactory system of land tenure in this country. I know that I shall disagree with many hon. Members opposite, but it is a good plan to put our points of view, and voice our disagreements in this Chamber. To my mind, the most satisfactory system of land tenure in this country is that as many as possible should own and farm their own land. I believe that to be good, not only for the health, but also for the character, of the nation. I am distressed to find, in reply to a Question today—hon. Members will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow—that the Parliamentary Secretary said that his right hon. Friend did not think it would be wise to take active steps to encourage farmers to become owner-occupiers. It is clear that in this Bill that step is not

  841
  being taken. When a large estate owner has been dispossessed, in my view we should allow that farm to be bought, first by the occupier. Let him become the owner-occupier and bring that farm round. But that possibility is not in the Bill, and I can see nothing in this Bill, and nothing in the whole of the Government's attitude, towards encouraging owner-occupiers.
  What is the most undesirable form of land ownership in this country? I believe it to be ownership by the absentee landlord, and this Bill will encourage such ownership very largely. The owners who will survive under this Bill are the rich absentee landlords, the corporations and, principally, the State. Why do we regard absentee landlord ownership as undesirable? Because that form of ownership destroys village community life, and you tend to get the position of multiple farming—the position of one successful farmer who has the ear of the agent or the committee of the absentee landlord. He tends to get farm added to farm, until he has a big multiple farm. That is very bad for the social life of the country, and it is equally bad for production, because your small owner-occupier is producing more per acre than your large multiple farmer.
  I hope the House will take thought of that change which will come in the life of Britain if this tendency continues. I know the advantages and the disadvantages of the State absentee landlord. The disadvantage is that the State has not the knowledge of the eccentricities of the particular farm, as has the owner-occupier or the small landowner. The advantages are that a State has, apparently, a bottomless purse, pays no taxation on profits, and never publishes any accounts of its farming or management. I have been over some of these war agricultural committee farms, and I have been astonished at the lavish expenditure on improvements and felt very envious. I have asked what the cost was, and what has been the economic return on expenditure. Hon. Members know that the answer can never be given in figures. Parliament never knows on one farm, or on the whole lot, what has been the economic return. From my experience of management and farming I would be surprised if the State had got a good investment from what had been done. Is
  842
  that not absolutely wrong? We should demand in this Bill, if the State is to come into this great experiment of farming and management of land, that proper accounts should be presented annually to Parliament. If hon. Members believe in nationalisation of land, let us not take the money out of the taxpayer's pocket, if he never sees how it is being spent.
  The Government, under Clause 16, take powers to purchase land compulsorily and give a right of appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. They need not use Clause 16 at all, as they have, in Clause 81, a way of getting all the agricultural land they want without appeal to an agricultural land tribunal, at the fictitious 1939 values which were quite different from those of today. But the Government go further, and, in Clause 82, they commit a breach of promise. I believe that Clause to be a dishonourable Clause. The Minister, when in office in 1941, gave a pledge on Clause 10 of the 1941 Act which he is now repealing. He said at that time:
  "The fact that we are given extraordinary powers to deal with landowners, tenant-farmers or owner-occupiers, scarcely justifies us in ying that in all sets of circumstances the land taken over should not at least be offered back to the original owner, if he can satisfy the advisers of the Minister, and the Minister himself, that he can and will farm the land according to the rules of good husbandry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th Oct., 1041; Vol 374, c. 1313.]
  Mr. Harold Davies: That is the point.
  Mr. Turton: I am glad of the interruption, which shows that the hon. Member never read the Bill I have quoted. Under the 1941 Act, the Minister had only power to resell if he were satisfied that the man to whom the farm was to be sold would farm according to the rules of good husbandry. That is the provision the Minister is now trying to override in this Bill. After all, we want more than security of market, and security of price, we want security of promise. If the Minister breaks that pledge, he can break any other pledge in the Bill. Unless that Clause is removed, I regret that I shall feel compelled to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Kenyon: I would like to take the point made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) and the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) regarding the importation of dried eggs. They appeared to think that

  843
  it is possible at the present moment, if we import food, to feed hens to produce all the eggs that are required. I must point out that there has been a great reduction of poultry stocks in this country, and that before the eggs can be provided, it will be necessary to produce the hens. Something like six to nine months must. elapse before the hens begin laying. The Ministry is faced with either purchasing the food, in order to grow the chicks to produce the eggs in nine months' time, or providing the people with eggs now. Because the people require eggs immediately, and not in nine months' time, the Ministry are making these purchases now. I also believe it is a fact that the transport of wheat was impossible at the time- this foodstuff was required, and could not have been purchased in any case.
  The question has been raised of supervision orders given by the Bill to war agricultural committees. The last 12 months of the supervision order is the last limit which is placed on the farmer under supervision. That is the time when he becomes aware that he is under supervision. As the Minister pointed out yesterday:
  "It must have been noticed that his farm is under-cultivated, and that warnings are of no avail, and the county executive committee must be satisfied that unless the person concerned is placed under supervision he will neglect his land and, to that extent, falsify the principles embodied in this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 634.]
  The county committee must therefore inform the man previously, must have tried previously to get him to increase his cultivation, and finally, as a last resort, place him under supervision for 12 months. In that I think there is ample opportunity for the farmer to recover his position, if he can recover it. In my opinion, if it becomes necessary to place a farmer under supervision he will never recover, because he is one of the type who will make no effort.
  There are many points of interest in this Bill which have been discussed at length, and one finds it difficult to make a new point. I will, therefore, be as brief as possible in order that other hon. Members may take part. I view this as a large administrative Measure, which is balanced on the security of a guaranteed price. Provided that that position can be retained, the Bill will succeed in
  844
  its object, but the test will come when the harvest fields of the world are in full production, and producers are looking round for a market where they can dump their surpluses. In this world of fast contracting boundaries, it is becoming increasingly clear that internal legislation is influenced by international actions, and the action of the World Food Organisation may affect the process of this Measure in our country. I view the Measure, therefore, not only as the foundation of security, but as a safeguard to our farmers and to the agricultural community in general, against the impact of external projects. It places the responsibility of a guaranteed price, whatever the circumstances of the world may be, fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the Government of this country, so that the farmer, in producing his commodity, will no longer be placed in the position of having to combat the imports brought into this country from the surplus of other countries. The Government will have to guarantee the price, take into account the extent of the overseas markets and have to guard against the importation which would undermine the foundation of this Bill. That I consider to be a guarantee of major importance.
  Secondly, there is the assured market. This is also a welcome feature. The urban dweller fails entirely to realise the position of a farmer in making his contribution to the foodstuffs position of this country. Unlike the industrialist, we are not in a position to hold the commodity we produce until the market is ready to pay us the economic price. Our commodities go bad on our hands unless we can sell them when they are ripe, or when they are ready. It is essential, therefore, that we have an assured market, where we can bring our produce, and get rid of it before that takes place. The assured market is of equal importance, to the farmer, as the price, and it is complementary to the price.
  We are apt to underrate the power of natural recovery in this world, even after the most devastating war. The great shortage of wheat, from which all nations suffer, was due not so much to the failure of the wheat harvest as to the failure of the other harvests—the maize harvest in South Africa and South America, the rice harvest in India, in Burma and in China, which made those countries draw upon

  845
  the wheat of the world, which previously they had not taken. It only requires a successful wheat harvest to be obtained in America, and, in addition, a successful maize harvest and a successful rice harvest, and we shall once more have as much grain as we require. That is the position which Sir John Boyd Orr has pointed out—that it is possible for us, in 1947, when the grain harvests are reaped, to have on our hands a surplus of wheat. Therefore, I think that the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture is right in not emphasising too much the wheat harvest of this country at the present time. Even at this moment the difficulty is not so much a shortage of wheat as a shortage of transport. If we had the transport to bring the wheat from the American Continent to this country we should not be in the position in which we are at the present time. So we must recognise that the natural recovery of the grain harvests of the world may come much quicker than we expect.
  I welcome indeed the promise by the Minister in this Bill of an assured market. These factors always operate in peacetime. They will no longer directly affect our agriculture as it concerns the individual farmer. These factors will be caught, shall I say, by the international buffer of the world food organisation, which will act as a balance to spread the surplus over those countries which require it. The assured market is, therefore, dependent on the manner in which the world food organisation works, and part of the responsibility for the working of that organisation rests with the Government. There we have the position so far as guaranteed prices and the assured market are concerned. The responsibility from henceforth rests no longer with the farmer to find his market, to take any price that comes along; it rests with the Government now, in view of the control they are taking over agriculture, to provide both the market and the price.
  May I give one instance of how it has, in the past, affected the agricultural community? Some years ago I remember taking, along with a neighbour, some fat lambs to the auction. The butchers had a ring—they had a ring in many auctions. We took these lambs into the ring, and they reached a figure, prewar, of 26s. each. We talked things over between us, and decided to walk them home. We took them out of the ring and set off to walk home.
  846
  One butcher after another caught us up and offered a little more, until we had reached a figure of 35s. We talked it over again, and decided that if they were worth 35s. they might be worth a little more. We walked them home, and the following week we killed four of the lambs and hawked them from door to door. We made 58s., selling them at the butchers' price, and we had the skins left. We were unable to continue, because it was illegal, and the butchers informed the local authority of what we were doing. We now have a position when we can take our stock to the fat market and know what price we are to get.
  Turning to the primary products which fall under this Bill, the assured market for all these products will undoubtedly rest on the standard of life of the people of this country. The higher that standard the greater will be the demand for those products—milk, eggs, vegetables, meat, etc. The responsibility for the standard of life once more rests with the Government. If they hold the responsibility for the price, for the market and for the standard of life, then they have the right to have some control over the farmer, the landlord and the land. So far as the limitation of this market is concerned, and the demand which has been made by some Opposition Members that the Minister should say how big this market is, it is impossible for him to say that. No one knows how much milk will be consumed when all the milk which is required is produced.
  No one knows how many eggs will be consumed, with the higher standard of life which we have today. We must also look at the fact that today we are teaching children to drink milk in the schools of the country. They are growing to like milk, and they will demand it later on. I wonder if hon. Members know how much milk children will drink if they get the chance? Ask any farmer. We had five children in our home and I remember my wife once telling me that we had run out of milk. I told her that we had had five quarts that morning and she said they had used it. Our family went through five quarts a day. When they get to like milk, children will drink it. We have also to look at the fact that our adult population was also coming to like milk in the prewar years. There were milk bars throughout the country. I once went into a milk bar when milk was plentiful

  847
  and I found a glass of milk cost sixpence. Being a farmer I measured it, and it took three glasses to make a pint—is. 6d. a pint—12s. od. a gallon. The farmer at that time was receiving is. 3½d. per gallon. If the price of milk is brought down to a reasonable figure in milk bars, there will be a tremendous extension of milk drinking. We do not know what the market for that product will be. So I say that for these primary products there is a market which so far cannot be gauged.
  I will close on a point mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) concerning houses and rural amenities. This is a very vital question indeed, and we have to look at this Bill as one part of a great plan which covers housing, electricity, transport and so on. I do not think that we shall solve the labour problem in agriculture simply by building houses; there are so many other factors involved. We are now educating our children up to 14 years of age, or 16 in the grammar schools, and the former limit is to be raised to 15. The children of the countryside are now being educated to like the full amenities which education brings, and are developing a love of art and literature and science. Unless as a nation we equalise these amenities throughout the country, and do not concentrate all our technical and scientific institutes in the towns along with the community centres, libraries, theatres and concert halls, our children, as they are educated, will gravitate towards those centres in order to satisfy the hunger we have created in their minds.
  Therefore, it is essential for us to disperse these things throughout the length and breadth of the country, to create in the countryside the amenities which the towns possess, or else produce such a system of transport that it will be possible for the people of the countryside to take advantage of all the amenities of the towns by means of quick and easy travel. Taking the plans of the Government as a whole, covering agriculture, electricity, transport, water and so on, I think we shall be able to balance our countryside with our towns and produce a happy and contented people, this Bill being part of a uniform and national plan.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr, Gerald Williams: From the opposite Benches we have been
  848
  told to drink more milk. I am all for that, but we have also been told that the party represented on this side of the House has done very little in the past for agriculture. I do feel however that we have had something to say in regard to Part IV of this Bill. The provision of smallholdings was part of our election manifestos, and our Members have spoken on many occasions on this subject. But I noticed that in his speech in November, 1945, when he advocated his agricultural policy, the Minister did not mention smallholdings. I therefore very much welcome his inclusion of this provision in this Bill, and I feel that hon. Members on this side have done something towards putting it there. If the Minister's smallholdings policy is considered to be good, we might have been able to produce something a little better. But I think hon. Members on all sides of the House are agreed that it is difficult for us to compete with the wide open spaces of other countries in growing wheat and other cereals. In this small island, however, we can very well produce the concentrated goods—eggs, table poultry, bacon, vegetables and fruit—and these are the things which can easily be produced on smallholdings.
  Unfortunately, in the past smallholdings have not produced economic results. It is true, as hon. Members have said before, that smallholdings produce more per acre than large farms, but they do not produce more per man or more per pound of capital, than large farms, and therefore are not quite so good in war, owing to the labour situation. But when smallholdings are grouped together, as is proposed in this Bill, they have in the past produced astoundingly good results. I hope that when the Minister introduces his smallholdings, he will see that they are grouped together and run on co-operative lines. If he cannot do that owing to building shortages and other difficulties, I hope he will go very slowly and steadily with them. They have been described by previous speakers as a ladder to better things. The labourer is encouraged to study his job and do his work well, in order that he may eventually become a smallholder. The smallholder is encouraged to become a farmer eventually, and I want to suggest one further stage, namely, that the tenant should be encouraged to become the owner. There is no provision in the Bill whereby a smallholder can ever own

  849
  his own land. If he gets a stake in the land he will become a useful citizen and proud of his possession. I would like to see some provision to enable him to own that land one day.
  I welcome the selection of tenants. It is good that the farm labourer will be given priority all other things being equal. I' notice that the Bill refers to
  "those who, under Regulations made by the Minister, are to be treated as if they are so employed."
  By that we may take it that farmers' sons and daughters are included. I hope that farmers themselves are also included. There may be cases of two farmers in partnership who fall out with each other for some reason. The chance of the man who has to go out of that business getting a smallholding should be seriously considered. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that he hopes to have only full-time people. It will be better for a man who relies on a little business, like a garage, to have a smallholding as a part-time job or a hobby. It will be difficult to legislate for those people, but if instructions are given as to the selection of proper tenants, the trouble may be overcome. It is right that the ex-Serviceman, for reasons given very ably by the Parliamentary Secretary, should not receive special priority. I hope that the ex-Serviceman will be given facilities to learn his job, as an apprentice to a farmer and later at a farm institute. It may take him a year or two to do it, but I hope he will be given every possible consideration. Buildings on smallholdings will be the chief problem. If they are in groups, as they should be, it will be necessary to have houses for the people. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will hold his own in getting priority for these houses from the Minister of Health. Eventually the Minister will want community centres, welfare schools and other necessary amenities.
  I want to bring to the notice of the Minister the suggestion that he should equip the smallholdings with heated glasshouses. Enormous funds are spent at the present time on buying from abroad food which is produced in glasshouses in other parts of Europe. We have to produce a small amount of concentrated stuff. If the Minister will buy heated glasshouses, he will save a large amount of foreign exchange which is at present spent on buying commodities abroad. I hope he will
  850
  also keep tractors centrally, and implements, and even spare labour at the proper local rates. He may also keep seeds and young plants, to be supplied on co-operative lines. I hope that when people apply for these things they will not have to fill in many forms which they will not be able to understand, or which are of such a length that people lose heart and decide not to apply.
  I notice in the Memorandum that it is proposed to carry out experiments in smallholdings. A great deal of taxpayers' money could have been saved by the advisers of the Minister taking trips to parts of Europe, and particularly to Denmark. In that country they started farming on land settlement lines some 20 years before the land settlement scheme was started in this country. I suggest that the Minister should take advice from them; a great deal of money might thus be saved. I would mention, in particular, compulsory purchase of land, in connection with smallholdings, at 1939 values. Values have gone up considerably since 1939. If the land is bought at 1939 values, and is then handed to the county council, that body is told that it must charge a full and fair rent at present-day prices. The county council will thus receive a bonus which it will not have deserved at all. Of course, it might happen the other way round in ten years time, but I do not want the landlord to have any unfair advantage. At the moment, county councils will have an unfair advantage. I, therefore, suggest that if land is to be compulsorily bought it should be at present-day prices.
  I would mention just one general point. This country will never produce enough foodstuffs to be sufficient in time of war. We were caught very short at the beginning of the recent war. Not only had we no reserve of food but we had no reserve of feedingstuffs. I suggest that when the time comes, not now but as soon as possible, large storehouses should be built in this country, to store not only wheat but linseed cake and other cattle food. That will not only be a reserve in time of emergency, but will see us over a difficult period when we have to change from a peacetime economy to a wartime economy.
  In Part V of the Bill I see the Minister is taking power to deal with pests. These powers include the destruction of rodents

  851
  and birds. Some of the pests are very numerous, and do much damage to the agricultural community. The farmer has had instructions already. The trouble is that the instructions are not carried out. Many stacks of corn are threshed in this country. They are supposed to have two feet six inches of netting all the way round, so as to catch and help to destroy the rats, but that has on many occasions not been done. If it is done, the netting has large holes in- it and is not much use. The Minister may make the excuse that he does not kill the rats because he is short of poison, or because his staff may be disinclined to kill rats, preferring to stay in Whitehall. The rats take no notice of these excuses, and, every year, they do £5o million worth of damage to food in this country. I suggest that the trouble is that the killing of rats and other pests is decided between the Minister of Health, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture. Now that a provision to deal with this matter has been written down in black and white in the Bill, perhaps the day may come when the Minister of Agriculture will take it into his own hands, and do the job really well. I hope that we shall get that assurance from the Solicitor-General when he winds up the Debate.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: We have covered quite a lot of ground in this two day Debate, all of which I have listened to with intense interest. It seems to me that the duty of the Opposition is to score points, and at this juncture in the history of the Session they have had great difficulty indeed in scoring any at all. In the short time which I have allocated to myself, I can speak only on one or two broad subjects. I am always very interested when the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) comes to the Box like the Wizard of Oz, because I know that he will take up some of our time in trying to find scoring points. Occasionally he succeeds, and the zombies in the ranks behind him cheer, as the Wizard manages to find a point.
  I have taken the trouble to find the opinion of the National Farmers Union, and others, upon this Bill. It is agreed on both sides of the House that a little polish may be needed here and there. However, it cannot be denied that here
  852
  we have the Magna Carta of the farming community. I am considering the matter from the point of view of the entire countryside. I look first at the agricultural worker, whose conditions I want to improve, and then at the farmer, the owner-occupier and others. I pick up one of the agricultural journals, like "The Farmer and Stockbreeder," and I find it says that the outstanding feature of this Bill is the security of tenure given to the good farmer. We are legislating for the good farmer.
  I have noticed that on three or four occasions during the Debate opposition has been expressed to Clause 82 and Clause 87, as though the Minister of Agriculture or the agricultural committees will use dictatorial powers and the poor farmer, landowner or tenant will have no possibility of appeal. When one examines these Clauses, it becomes crystal clear that the possibility of appeal exists. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) went into what he considered was an intricate analysis of the present price structure. If hon. Members read the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, on 18th January to the Council of Agriculture, they would see that there is not one point made by the Opposition throughout this Debate that was not discussed in that speech. The Minister gave figures of the gradual growth of manpower and discussed the problem of machinery. Hon. Members opposite have produced criticism and said that we were exporting machinery. We are exporting machinery to the extent of 25 per cent. in value, and not 25 per cent. of production. The Minister pointed out to the Council of Agriculture that there has been no difficulty with regard to the supply of dollars for the provision of spare parts for agricultural machinery. He pointed out that he has kept crawler tractors and combines in this country to ensure that the farmer was efficient. If we are asking the farmer to be efficient, we must provide the means to enable him to carry out his work. In this period of shortage the Minister has done that. I have brought that to the notice of the House, in order that the impression that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have forgotten this point, may not be spread abroad.
  I have no time to go into further details about that speech. I know that two right hon. Gentlemen are to wind up this Debate

  853
  so I merely mention two other points in conclusion. The first is that if, in the past, the Opposition always had agriculture at heart, here was a place where they could use their business acumen and their economic talent. To quote figures from Colin Clark, it may be stated that in 1930, to produce £1,000 worth of income, a farmer needed] eight men and £11,000 capital; to produce £1,000 for shareholders and wage earners in industry in 1930, needed only £2,300 capital. My accusation against the Opposition is that they have never, in the past 40 or 50 years, encouraged British capital to go into agriculture. Far from doing so, they sought markets and opportunities for investment in cheap agricultural labour in the Colonies and abroad.
  I am rather interested in this Bill, too, because, if we want a good farmer and a, good agricultural worker, we must see that his home is efficient, and that he has the opportunity of efficient living. I would like to pay a tribute to a section of the women of Britain who have been forgotten. We have remembered the land girls and the nurses, but the hard-working wife of the small farmer was, I think, forgotten during the war, and I would like to pay her a tribute. I know that the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough said that there was nothing about housing or electricity in this Bill, but it is all in the programme, and, when it comes, I presume that hon. Members on the other side of the House will come into the Lobbies with us in one bloc, in view of what they said yesterday on the need of the small farmers for modern amenities, in their homes, including water and electricity.
  I will conclude with some lines which I once found on a tombstone—the epitaph of a poor old farmer's wife. It went like this:
  "Here lies a woman who was always tired!
  She lived on a farm where help wasn't hired;
  The last words she said were Dear friends, I am going,
  Where washing's not wanted, nor sweeping, nor sewing,
  And everything there is exact to my wishes,
  For where folks don't eat, there's no washing of dishes;
  In Heaven, they tell me, loud anthems are ringing;
  But having no voice, I'll keep clear of the singing;
  Don't mourn for me now, don't mourn for me never,
  I'm going to do nothing for ever and ever.'"
  854
  If we look in Virgil's "Georgics," we find the line:
  "Now the time has come to take off the yoke from the smoking horses' necks."
  This Government have done it. The party opposite had 40 or 50 years' chance to do it, but we have made it practicable in the twentieth century.
  8.18 p.m.
  Major Haughton: I am sorry if I have to descend from the high realms of poetry, to the few very simple things which I want to say. The only parts of this Bill relating to Northern Ireland are Part I and Clause 94. The hon. Member who has just spoken seemed to regret that the Opposition was not more pointed, but I would remind him that good things are good, bad things are bad and indifferent things are just indifferent. So far as I am concerned, Part I of this Bill is good, and those for whom I speak in Northern Ireland welcome it wholeheartedly.
  In days gone by, it was usual, in legislation of this sort, for Orders to be made by three Ministers—the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary—but, in the present Bill, orders can be made jointly or severally, and separate orders can, therefore, be made to suit the different countries. A complementary Bill will, of course, be introduced in due course by the Government of Northern Ireland. The inclusion of the Six Counties means that agriculture over there is assured of parallel treatment with that of agriculture in Great Britain, in respect of all the major commodities. Farmers in Northern Ireland will find no objection to the contention that guaranteed prices and assured markets must be coupled with efficiency. There has been a lot of research work over there which has been advantageous. One of the speakers on this side of the House regretted that more had not been said in the Bill about research, but research work has been going on in Northern Ireland on quite an extensive scale. Mechanisation has made headway, and the production per acre has increased. I am glad to say that the relationship between the Minister of Agriculture in this country and the Minister of Agriculture on the other side is effective, and that the relationship between the three farmers' unions cordial.
  As a believer in the fact that the farmers, especially the small farmer, can

  855
  make a great contribution to the problems of the day, I was gratified yesterday evening to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) put up a well-reasoned and, I think, well-merited defence of the efficiency of the British farmer. In my view, he is capable of matching his skill and his production against any farmer in any quarter of the globe, and I think that the so-called inefficiency of farming in the United Kingdom is too often and too loudly spoken of. Therefore, I very much welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said in the course of yesterday's Debate. What we all want. of course, is real stability for agriculture in the future. There, again, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury touched on a vital point when he said that the quantities, as well as the prices, that are expected from British agriculture should be stated. An hon. Member opposite said that it was unreasonable to suggest that maxima could be stated, because we did not know how much milk would be drunk, or how many eggs would be eaten, but I believe that, at any rate, minimum quantities could be put into the Bill.
  The other point which I want to stress, and which led to some controversy and heat in the Debate, is the question of feedingstuffs. Hon. Members on the back benches opposite went so far as to say that information about the localities in which feedingstuffs could be obtained had been withheld from the Minister of Agriculture. That I hotly deny, because I believe that the Minister would be the first to agree that information as regards those things was supplied to him by hon. Members. I think that the two great things which we must strive for at the present time are a long-term policy of stability when cheap imports come knocking at the door and the immediate policy of producing as much as ever we can for the larder of this country. In conclusion I wish to repeat that the inclusion of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland in Part I of this Measure is welcome, and I am sure that the farmers in Northern Ireland thank the Minister of Agriculture for including them.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: As a Member for a Welsh constituency, I am
  856
  particularly glad to speak in this Debate because there is no part of the country in which a sound agriculture is more essential than in Wales. Over large areas in North and Mid-Wales one can see today what the decay of agriculture has meant in the depopulation of the countryside and the growing derelict of hundreds of villages. In my own constituency, the county of Merioneth, over 20,000 people have left the county in a little over half a century. Today, the population is only about 40,000; 50 or 60 years ago it was 60,000. It has been cut by half in 50 years, largely owing to the neglect of successive Governments to devote themselves to the well-being of the countryside.
  As a Welsh Member—and I am the first to speak in this Debate, although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) is also anxious to speak—I should like to congratulate the Minister on forming a separate Welsh agricultural land sub-commission. That is an excellent development which we would like to see emulated more faithfully in other Bills. The only comment I would like to make on the Welsh sub-commission is that I think its membership of three is rather small. The membership of the main commission is five. The Welsh sub-commission will have to deal with the same problems and also with peculiarly Welsh problems. One of the three members of this sub-commission will be a member of the main commission, and I hope he will be a Welshman, but I do not think we can get a really representative sub-commission unless its membership is extended. However, that is a point to be argued further on the Committee stage.
  I must leave several of the extremely good points with which I had intended to regale the House this evening, because I have promised to be brief. Information will be welcomed on the manner in which these land commissions will manage the estates. I hope they will introduce an element of flexibility and sympathy towards the men who farm the land. For example, when repairs are carried out much can be saved in expenditure by delivering materials and using the skill of the farmer and his men, because by keeping cost of repairs down, although at the same time doing the necessary work, the rent can be kept low. My experience of farmers is that, although they prefer to be owner-occupiers, or sometimes to get

  857
  together and farm on a cooperative basis, as they wanted to on a certain estate at Glanllyn, Llanuwchllyn, they would prefer to be tenants of a public body instead of a private landlord, because although the rents are low in Wales, the state of repairs on the estates of the big landlords is shocking and appalling. I was glad to hear from the Bench opposite a tribute to the hard work which the farmers' wives have done and do while facing more inconveniences than any other women in the country.
  We wish this Bill well, designed as it is to provide guaranteed prices and assured markets, but it must be remembered that it is essential to relate agricultural policy to general policy, and the two most important problems of agriculture at the moment are not prices but labour and the land. As regards labour, the White Paper published last week gave an estimate of the requirement as 33,000 men in labour alone. I think the National Farmers Union figure of 100,000 is probably nearer the mark. If we are to make the most of the land and revitalise the countryside, it is essential that this great number of men should be put on the land. I suspect that the policy of the Minister of Agriculture has been thwarted by the blindness of other Departments. In reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd) in the Debate on the King's Speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that farm workers and farmers, with other members of the community, would be called up for compulsory military service when permanent conscription was introduced. That will have a prejudicial, perhaps disastrous, effect on the labour state of the industry. We know there is an essential and urgent demand for men. Yet, in my constituency at the moment there are several farmers who have asked for Italian prisoners of war to be returned to them. They are unable to get labour. The Italians want to come, and yet we cannot get them over here, because the Government Departments will not help. I asked the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Labour, and the Home Secretary, whom I was glad to see listening to so much of the Debate. The matter is being played off between one Department and another, and it is a shocking thing that when the country is short of labour for agriculture the Government should refuse permission for agricultural
  858
  labourers from other countries to come into this country.
  The Minister said agricultural land was scarce, and so it is. Here, I speak with reference to the special position in Wales. Questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) and I have addressed to the Service Ministers have shown that in Wales one acre out of every 10 is held by the Army or the Navy; the proportion is over three times as high as in England and Scotland. That is quite incompatible with making the most of our land for agriculture. I apprehend I would be ruled out of Order if I dwelt further on this subject. However, I wish to make a most emphatic protest, and the House will hear more of this from other quarters; Wales is united against it. It is inconsistent with a good agricultural policy.
  In conclusion, it is essential that farmers should understand this scheme. This is a most complex Bill, difficult enough for a Member of Parliament and a lawyer to understand. I do not blame the Minister for the fact that it is complicated; it must needs be. What I do suggest is that popular handbooks or pamphlets should be published and circulated among the farming community, in English and in Welsh, so that they can understand the nature of the scheme. If farming is to be made a success it is essential that the farmer should not feel himself to be merely a cog or an agent, or the mere subject of directives from Government officials. He should be a willing, understanding factor and it is as such that he can play his part in the rehabilitation of the British and the Welsh countryside.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Watkins: I am sure the House will forgive my taking part in this Debate immediately following another Welshman. First, I wish to welcome the Bill on behalf of the small farmers in Wales. I also wish to make one or two points which I think will be of interest to my own constituency, if to no one else, namely, in regard to the application of the Bill to the small farmers themselves. I hope they will not be forgotten in Part I of the Bill when fixing prices. Security of tenure is a very important factor. Only recently I have been reading the report of the Royal Land Commission in Wales of 1894. Out of 18 sittings in separate centres, in four counties in

  859
  Wales, I found that the largest amount of evidence was given with regard to security of tenure. In 1894, because of political and religious persecution, there was no security of tenure. But coming to 1946, what do we find? The landlords are not so bad about it, but we find that big vested and financial interests, the city people and the trusts, would, if they were able, dispossess our small farmers. I am glad that there is that security at the present time, and that they cannot be bought out.
  I welcome any experimental schemes which will be made by the Minister in some of the uplands of Wales, not forgetting the important point of the production of seed potatoes in Wales, rather than importing them, even from Scotland. I also?wish to say a word of welcome about the goods and services Clause, which will be of great importance, despite what has been said by an hon. Member opposite. The war agricultural committees did a tremendous job in regard to machinery and implements which farmers cannot purchase themselves because of the high cost. That will be welcomed very much, particularly by hill farmers. The same cannot be said* about lime; it is no good saying they can get lime with a 75 per cent. grant when it cannot be got to the farms because of bad roads. On the question whether this Bill will help towards enabling the proper type of people to start on the land and make it a career, I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say such very good things about the smallholdings policy, particularly about the advisory committee.
  Here are a few points to inquire into. Let not the county councils make smallholdings a side line. I ask the Minister to look into the proportion of holdings held under lease by county councils, and into the state of the buildings and equipment of the smallholdings committees. I am not one who wishes to add a great number of officials to the scheme, but please, let us have full-time and qualified land agents. In regard to the selection of tenants, let not the ex-Servicemen be disappointed that they are not on the priority list. The training scheme of the Minister should be made more popular, so that ex-Servicemen can join in this scheme and then get holdings as qualified and experienced men. Before we can ask people to take up a career on the land, we must have regard to the unsatisfactory
  860
  living conditions. I am disappointed, when looking at the reports of the National Farm Survey for England and Wales for 1941–43, to find some appalling facts. In 1941, for instance, there were only 40 farm cottages per 100 adult farm workers. I am disappointed to see, according to the monthly returns of the Ministry of Health, that the provision of houses in Wales is not what it should be. The rural district councils' record is bad, especially one of my own counties. I suggest that something should also be done about the rents which are to be charged for rural houses, and that if the policy of our own Government fails to produce the type of houses required at cheaper rents, something might be done to put the provisions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act into operation.
  Turning to electricity, I find that only 11 per cent. of the holdings have any supply. In Breconshire only eight per cent. of the holdings have a supply, and Radnorshire is at the bottom of the list with only one per cent. of its holdings with electricity. In the case of water, only 32 per cent. of the holdings have a piped water supply, 60 per cent. of the holdings have to depend on wells, the remaining eight per cent. having no supply at all. Surely, if we want people to make a career for them selves on the land, something must be done in these directions, and it should not all be left to the Minister of Agriculture, because some of his colleagues ought to do something in the matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) that the Welsh sub-commission of three is not good enough for a big country like Wales, and I hope that I shall be a member of the Committee so that I can put down an Amendment to increase the number to five. I read with interest the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). I was sorry I was unable to be in the House at the time, but I was isolated because the roads were impassable. I suggest that ha should have ended his speech rather differently, and instead of saying that this Bill "dies at the opening day"—we did not come here to bury the Bill, but to introduce it—it would be better for him to follow Members on this side of the House when going into Committee and we would say "Today is

  861
  the accepted day. Harden not your hearts, and join in having this Magna Carta for the land."
  8.40 p.m.
  Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) will, I trust, forgive me if I do not follow him into the wild fastnesses of Wales in view of the experience which he suffered yesterday. I should hate to be landed there myself in case I had to dig myself out of the snow. I would like to comment on the concluding remark made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. H. Davics). Never have I heard a classical quotation or paraphrase used in less happy or less fortuitous circumstances. The House will recall that in his concluding remarks the hon. Member talked about "lifting the yoke from the steaming horses." The whole gravamen of our objection to this Bill is that far from lifting the yoke, it is locking it more firmly on the agricultural industry and putting that industry in the stocks, and in every other sort of framework which can possibly be imagined.
  The hon. Member for Leek, and other Members too, praised this Bill in extravagant terms. They referred to it as a farmers' charter and as the Magna Carta of the agricultural industry. In fact, it is nothing of the sort. Substantially, Part I of the Bill is merely the legislative perpetuation of the system which has been built up by trial and error during the war, whereby we have striven to attain what has been a recognised need —that farmers should have fixed prices and assured markets. Having said that, we have said about all that can be said in favour of this Bill. It has been referred to as a pillar, a framework, a structure, and a foundation for the agricultural industry, but every Member has avoided calling it anything synonymous with a complete entity. It is obvious that all that Part I of the Bill does is to lay a moral obligation on the Government to implement the pious hope which they have expressed that the future of British agriculture shall be prosperous. I shall not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill because, for a long time, I have striven and preached the need for fixed prices and assured markets for agriculture. But we should realise that until the Government come out open-handed as to the ways and means by which they
  862
  propose to implement the pious hope which they have expressed, the industry will not be a penny the better.
  I would like to concentrate for a few moments on one aspect of the matter. I want to, call attention to the compulsory power of acquisition which the Bill confers on the Minister, and, in doing so, I ask the House to realise that this is no isolated instance of the conferring of compulsory powers. It should be regarded against the background of the other powers of the Government to acquire land, against the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, the powers in other Acts and in the Defence Regulations and those which are foreshadowed in the Town and Country Planning Bill, which we shall be discussing later in the week. I would refer to Clause 16, under which the Minister can compulsorily acquire land on the ground of bad management by the occupier, to Clause 17, under which he can acquire land because of bad husbandry, and to Clause 18, where he can acquire it on the ground of failure to carry out orders. These Clauses have been referred to before, and attention has been called to the fact that they do not make any difference, because the occupant, or landowner, has the right of appeal to the tribunal. That appeal is not worth anything and the Solicitor-General in replying will, I feel sure, show,' from the legal point of view, the sheer hypocrisy of pretending that there is any protection at all.
  Clause 71 is very strictly limited in regard to its terms of reference. It provides:
  "On any such reference the Tribunal shall determine whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking the action are fulfilled."
  The conditions, in fact, are that the Minister gives a certificate that he is satisfied that there is bad husbandry, and the Minister's certificate is the answer to any appeal which the man could have to the tribunal under these Clauses. Before we leave that, I should like to stress the hardship under these Clauses to the owner-occupier. The owner-occupier is in the worst position of any member of the farming community, so far as the Minister's power under these Clauses is concerned.
  I do not think it is generally realised that the agricultural industry is in a deeper state of indebtedness now than at

  863
  any time since 1931. The owner-occupier is generally a person without great financial backing and consequently often has an overdraft. He is, therefore, under-capitalised and over-drawn, and he may, in the event of falling into difficulties with the Minister or his agents under these Clauses, be turned out at 1939 prices and have his home taken away. The Minister can then make a profit on it, by letting it at 1947 rents. It is really not a fair or proper proposition for any Government to put up.
  I skip the remaining Clauses about the acquisition of smallholdings, and come to the acquisition powers under Clauses 79, 80 and 81 References have been made to the acquisitional powers under Clause 80. It has long been the custom in almost every civilised couniry for governments to carry out research work, to bear all the expense of research necessary for the welfare of the community, and to lay the result at the feet of the community, so that they may profit by it. This Government adopt exactly the opposite procedure. They wait until some private individual, or combination of private individuals have made a success of their business, carried cut all the pioneer work and built up some profit-making concern and then they take it over. Is it surprising that we fear the powers conferred on the Government by Clause 80? The Minister said that the object of these powers of compulsory acquisition was to ensure the efficiency of the industry. One thing essential to the efficiency of the industry is confidence, and the one thing which the Minister undermines more than anything else by this Bill is the confidence of the agricultural community. Far from being a charter, this bill is a strait-jacket for the industry. If farmers think it is worth their while to go into the Minister's strait-jacket, let them do so with their eyes open. The Minister has ample powers to nationalise the industry under this Bill. He can acquire anything which he wishes and run the industry either in whole or in part. Let the farmers realise that state of affairs, and go into it with their eyes open.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. George Jeger: The Opposition have been very hard put to it to find logical grounds for opposing this
  864
  Bill. They have struggled very hard from early yesterday afternoon until now, and even now they tell us they are not going to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and will reserve their criticisms for the Committee stage and the Third Reading. I think the most important criticism that has been made, among a number of trivial ones, was that made yesterday by the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), who stated that he wanted to know, and the farmers wanted to know, the size of the market that was to be assured in this scheme for assured markets and guaranteed prices. That request has been repeated by other hon. Members opposite who have spoken subsequently. It seems to me that the answer to the question has been given over and over again, not merely by hon. Members on this side, but by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. The statement has been repeated that in this world of ours there has been, since time immemorial, half the population undernourished for lack of sufficient food, and that in future, if we are to run our affairs as a civilised, community, as part of a civilised world, we must envisage agriculture and the supply of food as being on a world basis under a world organisation, and not a parochial national one.
  That is the issue which must be faced in the future. For the present, as the short-term policy, we can definitely say that in this country we can provide an assured market for every scrap of agricultural and horticultural produce that can be grown in this country. We want to increase the standard of life of our people. That means increasing not merely purchasing power, but the amount of goods, and particularly food, that can be purchased. The people of our country want to eat more meat, vegetables, bread, potatoes, milk, eggs and butter, and this Bill will enable increased production of all those commodities to come about. We want to see to it that our people have a greatly increased standard of life, and we want also to see that the people of the rest of the world share in that increased standard of life, and have greater purchasing power as well as greater consuming power. We want to do away with that narrow national outlook and substitute for it a world outlook, and avoid unmarketable surpluses of certain agricultural products by raising

  865
  world purchasing power, and not, as in the days before the war, by restricting supplies and destroying foodstuffs. In my opinion, the destruction of foodstuffs should be an international crime and should be scheduled as a crime against humanity.
  Let me now turn to a question that has already been dealt with by certain hon. Members, namely, security of tenure. According to Clause 30, the Minister
  "shall not be required to withhold his consent to a notice to quit where the owner wishes to use the land either for his own purposes or to be farmed by a child or grandchild."
  However, there seems to be a slight discrepancy between that and the statement made by the Minister yesterday, and I should be glad if this matter could be cleared up. The Minister said:
  "If the Minister is satisfied that the owner intends to farm himself, or that he intends it for his child or grandchild to farm, then the Minister has power to exercise his discretion."— [OFFICIAL JREPORT, 27th January, 1947; Vol. 432. c. 638/39.]
  There seems to me to be very little discretion if the Minister shall not be required to withhold his consent. I should be glad if this matter could be clarified by the Minister who is to reply. I also consider that Clause 30 (4) requires a certain amount of strengthening. There will be the case of the farmer who will say he wishes to farm the land himself, or by his son or grandchild, and yet will use it for sporting and shooting, and leave the farming to bailiffs. That is happening now and I should like to see the Clause so strengthened so as to prevent it in the future. There are certain classes of farmers who will by-pass the law if it is possible to do so. There is another factor concerned with Clause 30 (4). I consider that protection is needed for tenants who hold tenancies under the Defence Regulations. Under Clause 30 (4) such a tenant can now receive notice from the farmer who washes to farm on his own account, or through one of his children. There are 47 farmers in Hampshire who are farming land under the Defence Regulations and who are wondering whether they will shortly be receiving notices to quit. According to Clause 82 (2) the Minister, who is himself occupying land under the Emergency Powers Defence Acts, is retaining those powers and not giving them up. I wonder whether the Minister would not extend to the farmer that same protection which he is taking for himself under Clause 82 (2).
  866
  We are serving directions and orders on farmers today, and we propose continuing to do so under this Bill, but it will be very difficult for the farmers to carry out those directions and orders unless more manpower is provided. The recent White Paper estimated that 33,000 more workers were needed in agriculture. We are satisfied that the Government plans for the future will bring civilised conditions into rural areas and make good past neglect by the Members of the Opposition. There is a lot to be done, a lot of leeway to make up, but we are going to do it and questions of housing, electricity, water, transport, education and other amenities will be dealt with by this Labour GÓvernment. In the meantime however something must be done to provide more labour almost immediately, and I should like to see more energetic action taken to deprive the Poles at present in this country of their present position as a privileged and leisured class in our society by using them far more on our land. [Interruption.]There are many people in this country who fought for it and we require them to work. We see no reason why the party of privilege opposite, should defend this other privileged class when there is work waiting to be done. A large number of Italian prisoners of war did very useful work in agriculture in this country while prisoners of war. Many of them would be glad to come back here and carry on with their work in agriculture. They would be doing the work for which skilled workers cannot be supplied, either by the agriculture committees or by the labour exchanges. This would be a very important factor particularly in our milk production at the moment. We would naturally expect adequate guarantees to be given to our own workers, that their standards would not be jeopardised by the introduction of foreign labour.
  May I make a brief reference in the time which I have left to the question of horticulture? I am sorry that the Bill contains only a passing reference to horticulture, and I hope the Minister will not lose sight of the importance of that branch of agriculture. The production value of agriculture is about £140 million per annum, or 25 per cent. of the total value of agriculture while the productivity of horticulture yields £40 to £50 per acre as against £10 from general agriculture. I know there are problems of marketing and

  867
  distribution, but I think these can be dealt with and a large amount of encouragement given to the co-operative growers associations to deal with those matters themselves. I think, too, that special attention might be given to horticultural officers and that we should attract young and capable people by providing the right salaries for them, when we will see that the high yield and value of the products of horticulture would give us a good dividend in national wellbeing. The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), who is a neighbour of mine but who is not in his place at the moment, remarked that the Bill gives the Minister more powers than he likes. He referred to it as "extending the octopus-like embrace of the Minister;" I would prefer to say that in this Bill.the Minister is extending to the industry a friendly handclasp, warm and affectionate, that is very different indeed from the "frozen mitt" that the Tories extended to it in the past.
  9.1 p.m.

AGRICULTURE [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (in this Resolution referred to as 'the Act ') to make further provision for agriculture, it is expedient to authorise: —
A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses of any Minister of the Grown incurred under the Act—

(i) in providing guaranteed prices and assured markets for producers of fat cattle, fat sheep, fat pigs, milk, eggs, wheat, barley, oats rye, potatoes, sugar beet or other produce specified by order under the Act;

(ii) in securing good estate management and good husbandry;

(iii) in making contributions to the losses, calculated by reference to estimates or otherwise as provided by the Act, incurred by smallholdings authorities in the provision and management of smallholdings (including expenditure in respect of proposals which are not carried out) of an amount not exceeding three-quarters thereof, in making loans for providing working capital for tenants of smallholdings not exceeding three-quarters of the estimated amount thereof, in making grants or loans to cooperative societies concerned with the conduct of smallholdings, in providing smallholdings, and in the exercise of powers of smallholdings authorities transferred to the Minister;

(iv) in obtaining statistical and other information relating to agriculture (including the payment of allowances to statistics advisory committees);

(v) in acquiring land by agreement or compulsorily, and whether by way of purchase, hiring or taking possession;

(vi) in managing, farming or otherwise dealing with land acquired by the Minister as aforesaid and in providing facilities for tenants and workers on land managed by him;

(vii) in making grants for drainage, the improvement of ditches and the supply of water to agricultural land in making contributions towards the cost of acquiring, transporting and spreading lime;

886

(viii) in respect of the prevention of damage to agriculture by animals and birds;

(ix) in providing agricultural goods and services;

(x) in defraying the expenses of the Agricultural Land Commission, the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission, the Agricultural Land Tribunals and the County Agricultural Executive Committees established under the Act and of sub-committees and district committees of the said Committees, and in paying salaries, wages or allowances to members, assessors, officers and servants thereof or thereto and to members of a committee to advise on the calculation of compensation for tenants' improvements on agricultural holdings.

B. The payment into the Exchequer of any receipts under the Act of a Minister of the Crown or the said Agricultural Land Commission or any other persons exercising functions on behalf of a Minister of the Crown.
C. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums which apart from the Act would be authorised to be paid out of the Small Holdings and Allotments Account, and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums which apart from the Act would be authorized to be paid into that Account and of any balance in that Account at the date of the winding up thereof under the Act.
D. The release in consideration of the transfer to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries of land, or land and other property, belonging to land settlement associations, of debts due to the said Minister from suchassociations."— [Mr. Thomas Williams.] (King's Recommendation signified.)
10.2 p.m.
Mr. David Renton: There are two short points I should like to put before this Resolution is passed. The first arises out of paragraph A (iii) which deals with small holdings. Obviously, we do not wish the Government to show any signs of being niggardly in the provision of small holdings, and it is a little disappointing that no indication is given of either the top or bottom limits of the amount which the Government are prepared to spend. This is a matter upon which we are entitled to call for some elucidation. It has been mentioned in the Debate on the Bill that as many as 5,000 small holdings may be provided, some of which may not cost very much, but some—
The Chairman: The matter to which the hon. Member is referring is one which will be decided by the Bill, and the occasion to discuss it would be on the Committee stage of the Bill.
Mr. Renton: I naturally accept your Ruling, Major Milner, but I was hoping for some elucidation of what the Govern-

887
ment have in mind in asking the House to provide this money. The other question which I wish to ask the Minister is whether it is necessary for us to provide money to defray the expenses of the Agricultural Land Commission, because we find in Clause 65 of the Bill that the Commission shall have among its functions "managing and farming land," and may grant tenancies from year to year. If they grant tenancies from year to year, they will, presumably, have a certain amount of revenue. It would seem logical that any expenses and outgoings should come from that source, and that it would be unnecessary to ask Parliament to grant money to defray the expenses.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The answer to the first question, relating to small holdings, is very simple. If the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) reads the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, he will see that on the assumption that a certain number of small holdings is to be provided, the cost is likely to be a certain sum of money. There is no top limit to the number of small holdings which may be provided. The answer to the second question is equally simple. Under paragraph B, it will be observed that any income will have to be paid into the Exchequer, and arrangements must, therefore, be made to meet any expenses incurred by the Commission.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Minister has given some explanation, but there are various headings in this Financial Resolution which it would be difficult for His Majesty's Government to present in understandable form to this Committee, so wide is the scope of the Measure. If we were given a reasonable field within which the method of accounting of most Government Departments could apply, that would be a different matter, but how is this matter, covering the enormous field of guaranteed prices, restricted markets, and the prevention of damage to agriculture by animals and birds, to be accounted for? For instance, how is the damage done by a sparrow to be accounted for? [Laughter.]This may seem absurd to some Members opposite, but I am putting a practical point to the Committee. How will this money be accounted for to Parliament in practical form?
888
It might be a comparatively simple matter, one imagines, for the Government to evolve a system of accouning for industries like coal and iron and steel, and so on, which are limited to certain relatively narrow fields. But in this case the' field is so vast covering not only actual work on the land, but such things as payments to committees and commissions, and payments in default of debt that we are entitled to ask for some information as to how Parliament will be able to examine it. This is one of the widest fields we have been invited to examine under any Bill which has been put before the House. That is saying a great deal, when we remember what has been placed before the House, since this Government came into power. I am amazed that no Minister has risen from the Front Bench to explain voluntarily, off his own bat, without being invited to do so, what the Government propose to do, and I make no apology to the Committee for inviting the right hon. Gentleman, with all courtesy, to make some explanation.
Mr. Vane: Cannot the Minister give a little more information about the charges to be incurred by the Agricultural Land Commission? In this great new step which is to be taken cannot we be told more about the numbers that the Minister will recruit into this Commission, and its expenses?
The Chairman: That is a question which can be discussed in Committee. It cannot be discussed now.
Mr. Vane: Then may I ask the Minister another question? In what shape, or form, will the accounts of the estates which he will manage be laid before the House? In the country the other day, the right hon. Gentleman said he looked forward to the State becoming a great model landowner. One of the most important things a landowner can do is to show some form of model accounts. Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of the total expenditure involved in this Financial Resolution, or is he just asking us once more to sign a blank cheque?
Mr. York: The Debate which has taken place on this Financial Resolution has certainly had the effect of opening my eyes to the evil—[Laughter.] I was saying, when the ribald laughter of the phalanx opposite interrupted me, that,

889
at any rate, this Debate has had the good effect of opening my eyes to more of the evils of the Land Commission than I thought it possessed. I have no illusions whatsoever about the absurd, extravagant, useless and wasteful organisation which the Ministry is to set up under the Bill, but I thought that that organisation would be run in a businesslike manner. The Government have obviously no intention whatever of running that organisation in a businesslike manner. What do they propose to do? First, they are to have a subvention from the taxpayer to pay its expenses, and under paragraph B of the Financial Resolution any income which they receive is not to be theirs to use, but is to be paid back into the Treasury. Was there ever a more unbusinesslike or wasteful process of accounting than that? The Minister must think again, unless he has some excuse to offer, for that extraordinary process of accounting.
To turn back to paragraph A (vi), the sixth sub-paragraph, we get the words:
"In managing, farming or otherwise dealing with land."
I think that the Minister has to be a great deal more explicit. I can easily understand the fact that the management expenses will have to be paid, but I am astonished to think that, despite the degree of stability of prices and markets which we are reputed to be having under the Bill—although I beg leave to doubt that it will be quite as good as it looks on the face of it—the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the farm losses of the Land Commission and many other organisations which the Government are to use.
During the war there were losses on farming accounts, and they were accepted with a certain amount of good grace. They would have been accepted with a little better grace had the Ministry published some accounts on the subject. But in this case not only will the taxpayer have to pay for all the mismanagement of the farming operations which the Land Commission is to carry out, but the Commission will also have to do another piece of secret farming, from the financial point of view. Nowhere in the Financial Resolution is there any sign whatever that these farming operations are to be accounted for. As far as I can gather, there will be no more possibility in the future—
10.15 p.m.
The Chairman: All those are matters with which the Committee will be able to deal on the Bill. They will be able to decide what powers the Minister shall have, or what steps he must take in regard to accounts, and so on, to deal with payments or receipts.
Mr. York: I should have thought, had you not corrected me, Major Milner, that before passing this Financial Resolution we were justified in asking how we would find out how the money was to be spent. That seems to me to be a reasonable request to make on the Financial Resolution, and that was what I was doing. Of course, if you take exception to my line of argument, I will not pursue it. I was trying to keep very narrowly to the point of the Financial Resolution. I want now to turn to sub-paragraph VII in which I think there is another point of great substance. The Minister will see that the Financial Resolution covers only the supply of water to agricultural land. That is a far too narrow definition, because we know that he will want that water supply to go also to buildings, cottages and farms. I will not elaborate the point now, but I ask the Minister to consider, on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, whether it is not necessary and desirable that that provision should be extended.
Mr. Turton: Surely, my hon. Friend will agree that it will be too late if the Minister waits until the Report stage to extend the Financial Resolution. He will then have no power to do so. He must alter it now in Committee or not at all.
Mr. York: I thank my hon. Friend for opening my eyes. If the Minister agrees with the point I am making, perhaps he could say that it is not in fact a question of extending the financial side of the Resolution, but only the verbal side. What is required is a slightly wider wording to cover what I believe the Minister really intends. I hope that it is merely a matter of making quite clear what is not at all clear now. I cannot, I am afraid, pursue my full argument owing to your Ruling, Major Milner. I do most strongly press upon the Government the undesirability of having settled accounts for dealing with exactly the same kind of payment.
Sir John Barlow: There are one or two points on which I should like some elucidation. Paragraph A (v) provides for:
"acquiring land by agreement or com-pulsorily and whether by way of purchases hiring or taking possession.
I can understand purchase and hiring but what I am not clear about is what is meant by "taking possession." I should like that point elucidated. Then I would like to refer to Paragraph A (vi), which says the money is for
"managing, farming or otherwise dealing with land acquired by the Minister."
There again, I know what managing is and what farming is, but do the Government contemplate dealing in land in certain circumstances? I think from this subparagraph it is possible to interpret that they will be dealing in land.
The Chairman: That again is a matter to be dealt with on the Committee stage of the Bill. As I have said, the Financial Resolution gives general power or authority for the purposes set out in the Resolution which the Committee will decide in detail. These are details which should be discussed on the Committee stage and not on the Financial Resolution.
Sir William Darling: Is it not permissible for this Committee to find out how much money it is proposed to spend upon this particular item? Is that not within the scope of the Financial Resolution? Should there not be some definition?
The Chairman: It is competent for any hon. Member to press for particulars of that sort from the Minister in charge of the Bill, but whether he can answer it or not is a matter for him.
Sir J. Barlow: Naturally, I bow to your decision. Major Milner, and I pass on to Paragraph A (VII) which deals with making grants for drainage. We all know how important drainage is, especially in agricultural land. I should like to know if this is additional to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which, I gather, already provides money for drainage purposes.
The Chairman: That, again, is a matter which can be gone into on the Bill itself, and not at the present stage.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it not a long-established procedure governing the discussion of Financial Resolutions, that matters of this nature can be entered into at whatever length the Member chooses, having regard to the fact that they all bear upon the question of the financial costs?
The Chairman: Not at all. The details will be decided on the Bill itself.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With great respect, I submit that they may be discussed again.
The Chairman: The Financial Resolution gives power to the Committee on the Bill to come to certain decisions on the Bill within the four corners of the Financial Resolution. What decision the Committee may come to as to the details, is not a matter to be discussed at this stage, but to be discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Arising out of that Ruling, do I take it, Major Milner, that you definitely rule out of Order discussions, on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, on points arising on the Order Paper, and bearing upon the financial cost to the Treasury?
The Chairman: No, I am not giving any general Ruling. Each case must be considered on the merits. What I am saying is that for the most part matters raised on this occasion are matters which can be more properly discussed on the Bill itself.
Sir J. Barlow: There is only one other point. I am very sorry if I have transgressed too widely. There is a small point which I would like to raise under paragraph A (VIII), which reads:
"in respect of the prevention of damage to agriculture by animals and birds."
If reference is made to Clause 95 (4) it will be found that provision is also made for dealing not only with animals and birds but with the eggs of birds. I suggest that the eggs ought to be included in addition to the birds, and I think that we should have some elucidation about that point.
10.25 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I think that the one or two questions which have been raised on this Financial Resolution can be dealt

893
with fairly expeditiously, but I feel that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) was not quite justified in declaring that no right hon. Gentleman rose from the Front Bench to make a statement about the Financial Resolution. In fact, no one had a chance before the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) was on his feet and there was, therefore, no discourtesy, actual or intended, on my part. As a matter of fact I do not think the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber for many hours—
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am in the Chamber in order to consider the Financial Resolution which is before the Committee now, and I have been here ever since the discussion of that Resolution began.
Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member is quite entitled to raise any point, but he is not entitled to suggest that there is any discourtesy on the part of a Minister who has been on the Bench since half past three o'clock today. With regard to the points that have been raised, one hon. Member complains that the Money Resolution is too wide, while another says that it is too narrow, so that it is very difficult to decide just what hon. Members opposite desire in this respect. I was asked how the House would learn of the expenditure on particular heads of the Resolution. Clearly, the House will be informed by the ordinary votes and estimates submitted by the responsible Department which, in this case, will be the Ministry of Agriculture.
A question was also asked about the Land Commission expenditure. It is obviously impossible for me to give any estimate either of the area of land to be acquired or of the price of that land, or even of the cost of rehabilitating or developing land. That is fairly set out in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill. Then I was asked how the House would learn just what the Land Commission is costing the State. If the hon. Member who put that question had been good enough to read the Bill, he would have found that Clause 67 states very distinctly that the Land Commission, before a certain date, must provide an annual report to the House concerning costs, so that the operations of the Land Commission will be made known to the House. I was also asked
894
why we compel the Treasury to meet the costs incurred by the Land Commission or the county executive committee, whereas any income derived by one or other of those bodies has to be paid into the Exchequer. All I can say is that that is the accountancy method which has gone on over a very considerable period of time, and certainly for very many decades before there was a majority Labour Government. We are merely pursuing what I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who used to be Financial Secretary to the Treasury, knows is the proved method of accountancy, and which alone makes it possible for hon. Members to see where expenditure actually takes place. I think that deals with all the questions raised with the exception of that put by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York), who asked about land and buildings. Perhaps it is not to be expected that the hon. Member would be aware of the fact, but for this purpose, land includes buildings.
10.30 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I do not think we need take much longer on this Resolution because there is other business of importance to come before the House tonight. But I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that for years past it has been the complaint against these Resolutions that they have been drawn so tightly it was almost impossible, in Committee, to make Amendments which the Committee desired. As I look at this Resolution I think that, while it may be undesirable in the view of some of my hon. Friends on other grounds, on purely technical grounds it has been drawn so widely that we can amend it in the restrictive sense. The difficulty in the past with a Money Resolution was that it was so restrictive; in this case it is so extended, that it can be restricted.
To that extent the right hon. Gentleman has acted in accordance with the recommendation made some years ago to the Government and accepted by the Government of the time. That recommendation was that Financial Resolutions should be as wide as possible. Therefore I do not think it lies in the mouth of any of us to complain that this Resolution is too wide, because that is the will of Parliament, and it is the way in which such Resolutions can best be drawn up in order to secure the maximum of discussion in Committee or in the House as the case

895
may be. On that assumption, I do not think there is much wrong with this Resolution. Although I know, Major Milner, that you cannot control the Rulings of the Chairman of a Standing Committee, I am sure that the Chairman of the Committee on this Bill will be guided by what you have said, and will not be likely to rule out of Order anything which you, from this Chair, said could be discussed upstairs. To that extent, I think that my hon. Friends who have raised points have been justified in having been able to secure Rulings from the Chair which can be quoted upstairs should there be any tendency to rule amendments out of Order.
While as I say the Government have fulfilled the general agreement that these Resolutions should be drawn very widely, I do make one comment, and that is on the very last sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Ripon (Mr. York). He says that land for this purpose includes buildings. The point my hon. Friend had in mind was, of course, that if grants are made for bringing water to agricultural land, the places where some of the water is really required, may be in the farm buildings themselves. The right hon. Gentleman says that, for this purpose, land includes buildings but, of course, it does not do so in this Money Resolution and it does not do so in the Bill. I have only had a minute to glance at the definition Clause, but that does not say that land includes buildings. The right hon. Gentleman evidently means it to do so. I hope, therefore, that if, by chance, his legal advisers were to say that the observation he made, perhaps on the spur of the moment, is not absolutely correct, he will take steps either to make the Amendment which I think he can make as Minister on the Report stage, or will see that a suitable definition is included somewhere else under the general procedure of the House. That was really the point my hon. Friend had in mind. I am doubtful at the moment whether the right hon. Gentleman is correct, but I am no lawyer and I am no Parliamentary draftsman. I understand I have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he intends what I have indicated, and I have every confidence if he intends it to be done, he will find ways and means of doing it.
Mr. T. Williams: That is my intention, and the words cover my intention.
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
10.36 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move,
"That, where under any Act of the present Session to make further provision for agriculture the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries takes possession of land for the purpose of farming it, the enactments relating to income tax and land tax shall apply to payments in respect of the land made by the said Minister or a person to whom he has entrusted the farming thereof, as if the Minister or the said person were a tenant, the recipient of the payments were the lessor, and the payments were rent."
I rise at once to explain this Resolution so that I shall not be charged- a second time with having failed in my duty. Clause 18 (7) deals with the legistion on taxes. Subsection (7) enables the Minister to take possession of land where no other arrangements are being made for working it. Where the Minister is in possession and, for the time being, is neither owner nor tenant in the generally understood sense, the enactment relating to deduction of Income Tax and Land Tax from rent, and the taxation of excess rents, could not apply. Therefore, this Subsection provides that they shall apply as if the Minister were a tenant, or was the owner. Where another person is entrusted with the land by the Minister as the tenant of the Minister, in such a case, the tenant would have to pay the tax to the Board of Inland Revenue. He could then deduct the amount of tax from the rent, and the Minister would have to pay the landowner the rent, and he also could deduct from the landowner the amount paid in tax. It is quite a normal thing to do. We are merely making proper arrangements.
Mr. Turton: The difficulty is that the Minister has confined his explanation to Clause 18, but of course, the Minister is taking possession of land under many other Clauses of this Bill. He is also letting the land to tenants. What will be the position in

897
those cases? There will be some cases under Clause 18 where the tenant will pay tax to the Minister and lessor, and other cases where he-will not do so. There will be cases where the Minister himself is farming land. Will the Minister in that case pay Schedule A and Schedule B tax on the land, so that it will appear on the accounts as the tax payments of an ordinary farmer? If so, is that covered by this Ways and Means Resolution; and, if not, why not? It is vitally important that these accounts should be published showing tax liabilities. I should have thought it a little difficult if the Minister is to be in exactly the same position as the lessor for Income Tax, because, after all, there is a position under Income Tax law where the landlord does not pay Schedule A tax, and then the tenant is liable, and the reverse equally applies. What is to occur when the Minister is either landlord or tenant? It is going to be extremely burdensome for the wretched farmer if he is a tenant of the Minister and finds himself suddenly distrained on for Income Tax because the Minister, having had rather a busy day, has forgotten to pay the tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the kind of thing about which we want to be very careful.
Mr. Alpass: The tenant has the right to claim from the Minister.
Mr. Turton: We are dealing here with an additional position. If the Minister, as landlord, forgets to pay his Schedule A tax, then, under the Income Tax law, the Crown can come against the tenant for the tax. It is very harsh if the tenant suddenly finds himself in the position of having paid rent and not having deducted tax on which he is to be distrained.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is perfectly clear that this Resolution is the first chapter in the "Alice in Wonderland" of the Socialist State. The final chapter will be when the Government owns all the industries and all the land, and pays all the taxes to itself. Then nobody else will be bothered.
Mr. T. Williams: I do not think there is any mystery about this Subsection. It is perfectly clear. A variety of things are likely to happen if the Minister through the county executive committee is obliged to take possession of a farm. It may be that he will be in possession for a week
898
or two, until a tenant can be provided. If the Minister finds a tenant, ultimately the tenant will have to pay the tax, but he will deduct the tax from the next payment of rent to the Minister, who at the moment is responsible to the owner. The Minister will then pay to the owner the rent due to him less tax. I cannot see the possibility of any complication arising under that provision. I do not know whether I have made myself clear—shall I try again? If for a moment there is a change, as a result of a dispossession, arrangements have to be made for Income Tax to be paid. This Subsection, which is very clearly drawn and not subject to any complication, is designed to enable. Income Tax to be paid in the proper way.
Mr. Turton: That is not the point. It is reasonably clear, but not abundantly clear under Clause 18. But there are many other provisions in this Bill under which the Minister will be managing and farming land. What is required is a broad picture of Income Tax law in relation to the Minister in his farming operations.
Mr. T. Williams: Under any other provision of the Bill, where the Minister takes the place of the owner, the Minister will have to fulfil the obligations of the owner. That, surely, is clear? Where the Ministry finds a tenant, who takes possession, then the ordinary obligation of a tenant will fall on the new tenant.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. York: This deals with one of the points I had intended to make on the Financial Resolution, and I think on this question I am perfectly entitled, subject to your correction, Major Milner, to review the question of Ministry accounting on this Resolution.
The Chairman: I do not see how any of these questions can arise at this stage.
Mr. York: I am sorry, but I am not trying to discuss a wide issue here. At the same time, I do want an explanation on one point. If the occupier—I refer to occupation rather than ownership of a farm—is an individual—[An HON. MEMBER: "It might be twins."]—I would point out that I am using the term generically. If it' is an individual, his accounts would be presented under Schedule D, presuming that the Schedule A value was over £100. If the possessor

899
is the Ministry of Agriculture, or the Land Commission, or the county agricultural committee, will those bodies have to submit accounts under Schedule D and will they be taxed on that assessment?
Mr. T. Williams: That question has nothing to do with this Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. York: Oh, yes, it has.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932. to the Urban District of Paignton, a copy of which Order was presented on 23rd January, be approved."
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 Sudbury, a copy of which Order was presented on 23rd January, be approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1032, 10 the Urban District of Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea, a copy of which Order was presented on 23rd January, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

IRONSTONE QUARRYING, KETTERING (ORDER)
10.49 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move,
"That the Kettering Rural Town and Country Planning (Special Interim Development) Order, dated 19th November, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 25th November, be annulled."
This Motion arises on a point of principle of some importance. I shall try to put the points in regard to it quite shortly to the House. This Order, which I am
900
moving to annul this evening, permits the development of a defined area in Northamptonshire for the working and winning of ironstone.
There are, in brief, three points of objection which I have to this Order, and to the form in which it is cast. Two of these points of objection are primarily points of form but the third is a matter of substance. I will briefly refer first to the two points that are mainly points of form. Normally, as the House is aware, interim development orders are made by the local planning authority, in this case the Kettering Rural District Council. This Order, on the other hand, is a special interim development order made by the Minister. I do not, of course, challenge the Minister's power to make an order in that form. It is perfectly within his powers to do so, but I consider that some reason should be advanced for this departure from custom, because I hope that this House will always consider that reason should be Adduced for even a legal usurpation of local functions by the central authority.
The second point, which is mainly a point of form, is the matter of urgency. In this Order the Minister has used his powers to prescribe that on account of urgency the Order shall come into effect immediately. Here again, of course, I am not challenging the Minister's power to do this. He is perfectly within his legal and constitutional rights, but there is no obvious or apparent urgency in this matter. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister comes to reply, he will address himself to the question of defining what is the urgency in regard to it.
I now come to the third point, which, as I have indicated, is the point of substance. I would like to preface my remarks upon it by saying that if it appears that the substance of this matter is in itself unsatisfactory, one does not have to have an unduly suspicious turn of mind to think that perhaps the peculiar form which the Order has taken may owe something to the unsatisfactory nature of the substance. In order to make clear the point in regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the subject matter of this Order, I must briefly refer to the imperative need for the restoration of land which has been used for the extraction and working of ironstone to its previous or normal use. It is a well-known fact that unless ironstone extraction is carried out with a view

901
to its levelling and restoration to other uses, it results in a devastation of the land surface which it is extremely difficult and expensive to repair at any subsequent period. Therefore, one would look, in this Order, for a clear statement of the obligation regarding the restoration of this land. One would look for that with the more confidence because of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Waters Committee, which was a one man committee—Mr. Waters—set up by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. This Report was presented by the Minister to Parliament in September. That being so, I hope I am not making an unduly optimistic assumption when I express the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is well familiar with its contents.
If that is so, he will be aware that, in paragraph 15 of Mr. Waters' Report, a very clear expression of opinion indeed is given in regard to the absolute necessity of the liability for restoration being directly imposed in cases of the permission of development for the winning and working of ironstone. I would refer to Mr. Waters' conclusions as set out:
"The main technical conclusions, at which Mr. Waters arrived as a result of his investigations are as follows: In order to ensure the most efficient and economical use of the necessary machinery, restoration of the surface must be considered as a part of the operation of extracting ironstone and not as something divorced from it requiring subsequent and separate treatment."
It goes on, in subparagraph 3, to say:
"If a legal obligation to effect a 'stated degree of restoration were imposed on the ironstone producers, this would, in all probability, lead to the development of further modifications in excavating machinery and in operational techniques and progress in restoration methods would soon be considerable."
That is a very clear statement of principle, in the Report for which the Minister takes responsibility, having himself presented it to this House; but when we turn to the terms of this Order we find a very different form of language expressed. In paragraph 4 of this Order, instead of carrying out the recommendations of Mr. Waters and imposing an obligation to restore, the wording runs thus:
"The land to which this Order applies may be developed for the purposes of a quarry for the winning and working of ironstone, and all structures and machinery required for the said purposes, including railway sidings may be erected and laid on
902
the said land. Provided that all such structures, machinery and railway sidings shall be removed on the completion of the said winning and working."
There is not a word there as to restoration. This Order imposes a liability only for the removal of the machinery and ancillary structures, without a word as to the restoration of the land to its proper user. I might add that I understand in this case that the mineral lessees offered to restore the land to its agricultural use, and that this undertaking on their part was an important factor in the consent in principle given by the mid-Northamptonshire planning committee to the Minister.
This Order affects only 83 acres in the county of Northamptonshire. The principle, of course, is one of much wider importance, because unless this Order is annulled, or, in the alternative, withdrawn and rewritten in the proper form—or what Mr. Waters considers to be the proper form—there is a clear danger that it will be taken as a precedent for subsequent development of this sort. The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that we are only at the beginning of the exploitation of ironstone in this part of the country. If the liability of the restoration of the land to its original user is not to be clearly enforced and established, we shall have the prospect of great industrial devastation there. I am bound to say that I consider that the Minister in this instance has been guilty of a considerable inconsistency if, while paying lip service to the principles of good planning and to the preservation of the amenities of the countryside, he should attempt to force upon us this Order carrying, as it does, no obligation to restore the land.
It may be that the Minister will say that the Order was rather hurriedly drafted because his Department has been somewhat hard pressed of late producing the very large Bill which the House is due to discuss tomorrow. It may be that the Minister is, to some extent, hoist with his own petard, because the haste with which this Bill has been put forward to the House has led his Department into this blunder and its regrettable consequences. I ask the Minister to face the position frankly, confess his error and withdraw this unsatisfactory Order for amendment so as to incorporate that obligation to restore the land which is so vital to the future well-being of the countryside
11.1 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to second the Motion.
It was so ably moved by my hon. Friend that there is only one statement he made on which I want to comment. He referred to the beginning of the exploitation of ironstone excavation in Northamptonshire. I would not like it to be thought that the excavation which has already proceeded is not extensive. It is, and I make that point because I think that few not acquainted with that part of the country can appreciate the danger to the countryside in Northamptonshire resulting from ironstone excavation without restoration. It is, indeed, a serious problem, and hon. Members of this House have continually pressed for action to be taken with regard to it. We had to press for a long time before we could get publication of the Waters Report, which met with a welcome from both sides of this House. That Report revealed that there are 3,600 acres derelict which have not been restored. It also shows to what extent the owners and those excavating have endeavoured to restore the surface. The Minister of Agriculture talks of the Romney Marshes, but I was sorry that he made no reference to these 3,600 acres of Northamptonshire. Now, there is an opportunity for the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to show their willingness to take action in a matter of this sort. This is, I think, the first of the Orders of this character which has been made. I may be wrong, but we thought this was still an opportunity for the Ministry to show that they were not intending to give permission for excavation unless there was a clear proviso for restoration as part of that process. I understand that the Northamptonshire Planning Committee were influenced by the fact that the company prepared to make the excavations were also prepared to undertake to restore the surface. Why, then, has that undertaking been left out of this Order? It may be that the Minister was satisfied with the undertaking given, but it is still, in my view, desirable that that proviso should be inserted in the Order, so that it is clear that the Minister of Town and Country Planning is not going to give permission of this sort without the persons extracting being under a clear public duty to restore the surface as part of the process of extraction.
With regard to the two other points mentioned by my hon. Friend, it is, I think,
904
a matter on which some explanation should be given of how it comes about that this Order should be made by the Minister when the Planning Committee and the Interim Development Committee were prepared to give the sanction on the undertaking given by the Government. I also understand that there was some question raised with regard to the water supply of Kettering and the preservation of footpaths. Neither of these things is mentioned in this Order, and I think that, if the Parliamentary Secretary, who is going to reply, does not give an explanation of why this matter is not taken to be one of urgency, why the powers of the local planning authorities and interim development authorities have been superseded and the proviso about restoration not inserted in the Order, I hope he will at least agree to withdraw the Order and replace it with one which is more satisfactory in form and content.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: I cannot help regretting that, while this work is proposed to take place in my own constituency, the first I have heard of this Prayer and of the attitude of any of the councils concerned, should be, quite accidentally, today.
Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him, I would point out that it has, of course, been on the Order Paper, and I take it that it is his custom to read it.
Mr.- Mitchison: May I put it more accurately? The first I heard of the attitude of the councils concerned was today. These 83 acres are, I understand, adjacent to some ground which is already being worked by a company called the Lodding-ton Ironstone Company, who are the mineral lessees referred to by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). As he pointed out, they have undertaken to replace the land in proper condition for agricultural purposes, and it was only upon that undertaking, and upon the faith of that undertaking, that the permission embodied in this Order was given. In those circumstances, it seems to me somewhat remarkable that hon. Members opposite should seek to annul the Order, and say that a guarantee given by what appears to be a reputable firm proposing to work the land, a full and complete undertaking to do that which they are so properly re-

905
quired to do in connection with these ironstone works, is insufficient.
I do not for a moment dispute that it is of the greatest importance that companies working iron ore in Northamptonshire, just as companies working similar deposits in orher parts of the country, notably, for instance, gravel deposits in many parts around- London, should be compelled to make good the damage which they do to the agricultural land and to all the amenities of the county. I would point out that, as the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has said, this has been a matter of constant pressure in Parliament for very many years past, long before the present Parliament, and, during that time, nothing whatever was done to deal with the matter. The present Minister of Town and Country Planning is the Minister who has actually published, not the whole Waters Report, but the substance of it. He is, I think I am right in saying, the only Minister who has ever gone down to Northamptonshire and seen for himself exactly what is happening. It is exceedingly difficult to appreciate both the extent of the damage, and also the best means of dealing with it, without going to see the ground and the various ways in which these excavations are carried out, and the different types of machinery that are used for the purpose. He has, in fact, done what any practical person ought to do. He is the first Minister to go and see for himself exactly what is going on.
Further, he has not only gone there, but it has been stated in the public Press—and I have no reason to doubt it—that negotiations have been going on between his Ministry and the iron ore companies concerned with a view to providing for restoration in the future. I would like to point out that that was exactly what the Waters Report recommended should be done. At the end of the Report there are certain proposals made by the iron ore companies concerned. Those proposals are criticised by Mr. Waters, but he does suggest that this should be a matter of agreement and that the proposals are a basis for discussion. Assuming that there is some such agreement in contemplation, then, for my part, I fully understand why, in those circumstances, the Ministry should accept an undertaking from what appears to be a reputable company and should not insist on having the matter embodied in the Order.
906
It seems to me remarkable that hon. Members opposite, who are usually concerned with these Orders being too restrictive, should on this occasion find that they are not restrictive enough, that they should hold an undertaking and an agreement insufficient, that, in a case where the persons concerned have been fully and amply consulted by the Ministry, they should say that that is not good enough, and that they should require the kind of understanding, which I should have thought was so important for the practical working of these matters, to be embodied in the rigid form of an Order. I say that all the more because it is obvious to anyone acquainted with these iron ore workings that the obligations of restoration in one case may differ considerably from those in another case. Indeed, there may be instances where complete restoration cannot be possible. To embody technical matters of this sort and technical obligations in one standard form in these Orders might lead to considerable difficulties, particularly if it were done at an early stage, while negotiations for a complete agreement were still in progress.
Accordingly, for myself, while I yield to no one in my wish to see not only the past, so far as may be, but certainly all future iron ore workings in this area so conducted that the land.may be fully restored to its original use, I cannot think that that consideration ought to lead the House to annul an Order when we have been expressly told by the hon. Member who moved this Motion that there is already in existence a definite agreement upon the faith on which the Order was made.
11.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall): As the hour is getting late, I think it would be as well if I gave the explanations asked for. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) moved the annulment of the Order under three heads. He first wanted to know why the Minister issued the Order himself, instead of allowing the interim development authority to come to a decision. The hon. Member, of course, knows as well as I do that the Minister has very extensive powers of calling in applications for development, and he used those powers on this occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] He used

907
them, I presume, because an application of this character was a very important one. It deals of course, with mineral extraction. Very important consequences may arise out of such an operation, and, in consequence, the Order was called in. The Minister acted quite properly and within his powers in coming to a decision and issuing an interim development Order himself.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is no suggestion that the Minister was not acting within his powers, but why did he exercise those powers and not leave the matter to the local authority? Was there any reason to suppose they would not act properly? Are we to take it that in every case of mineral extraction, although powers will be left to local authorities, they will always be called in by the Minister in the future?
Sir. Marshall: Oh, no. The hon. and learned Member assumes that, but he knows very well that some time ago there were very important negotiations taking place with the interests concerned generally about mineral extraction in the country, after the Minister had issued a general Interim Development Order. The mineral companies, of course, were very anxious that the Minister should take an oversight, at any rate so far as the very early applications were concerned, and I suppose on this occasion the Minister acted in accordance with that desire. The second question is: why was it so urgent in this case? The Loddington firm is a subsidiary of the great Staveley Coal and Iron Company, a firm which needs a vast mass of material to carry on its undertaking. They wanted this particular site for immediate production. I know the Staveley firm very well, and it is true to say that they consume a vast mass of this material in order to carry on their production. From that point of view, of course, the matter was urgent. Another point, put forward by the hon. and learned Member was the question of water and footpaths. I understand the workings will be very shallow. There is no danger to the water resources in the area, so that matter does not arise. On the question of footpaths, the firm is under an obligation, under common law, to maintain footpaths, and, therefore, that will be done.
908
Why was not an obligation to restore the land placed in the Order? I think that is the real ground for the Motion to annul this Order. I am sure there is a common desire on the part of every hon. Member in this House that land should be restored after mineral extraction, and anyone who knows my right hon. Friend knows the very great interest he has taken in this matter, and the steps he has taken to implement his desires. It is a subject that is very near to his heart, and, in answer to the hon. and learned Member, not long ago he gave certain undertakings and indicated his general policy with regard to the problem. It is a very grievous problem; it is a problem of planning which goes back many years—at any rate, before the present Labour Government came into office—and we are working earnestly at it. We have an undertaking from the firm that they will restore this land to its previous state as far as possible by restoration methods. For the benefit of the House I think I had better give the undertaking of the firm. This, I think, will prove that we have got everything we want, and, therefore, it is unnecessary to put this obligation in the Interim Development Order. They were asked to undertake:
"That the surface soil would be removed to a depth to be decided by inspection on the pot, and may be removed in one lift and replaced as soon as possible after the extraction of the ironstone.
That the land should be restored to a reasonable level to enable it to be returned to agriculture.
That any field drainage disturbed should be made good.
That every possible endeavour be made to keep down injurious weeds and the prevention of their seeding."
They were further asked to undertake
"That the Company will approach the occupiers and maintain close liaison with them and the W.A.E.C. throughout the period of working in order to avoid undue interference with cropping plans."
I do not think the hon. and learned Member could have imposed more strict conditions than were dealt with in the request.
Mr. David Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr. Marshall: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to my reply, and then I will be quite willing to listen to him. The firm, in answering that request, said:

909
"We are much obliged by your letter of the 29th instant from which we have noted the points mentioned to you by the Rural Land Utilisation Officer. In general we do not see any objection to the conditions enumerated in your letter and, in fact, they really amount to what takes place in the ordinary course of our workings. In the circumstances we have pleasure in confirming that the conditions put forward by the Rural Land Utilisation Officer as mentioned in your letter are acceptable.
That letter is signed by the management. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that everything that has been raised in this House has been conceded, and it was quite unnecessary, therefore, to impose these conditions in the Interim Development Order.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I just ask the hon. Gentleman this question? When undertakings of this sort are obtained, will he consider making a statement of them in the Explanatory Memorandum, if it cannot be done in the Order?
Mr. Marshall: I could, of course, say more about it, but the hour is getting late. I can, however, give hon. Members this assurance, that in the very near future a statement will' be made by my right hon. Friend regarding the policy in this matter. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find the policy will be very satisfactory. I mentioned a moment ago that my right hon. Friend was taking a very keen interest in this matter, and for the benefit of the House I want to give just one or two figures. I would not like the House to take these figures as absolutely accurate, because they are subject to checking, but the total mineral workings in the country are 136. Full restoration is taking place in 66 of these workings, and there are another 36 where it is very doubtful whether full restoration can be achieved. There are 17 of these workings which are hopeless because of various geological reasons, depth of working, or Tack of machinery. They are hopeless, at any rate, at the present day.
Mr. Speaker: We seem to be extending this Debate now to all the surface workings that may be taking place. We are dealing merely with Kettering and with nothing else.
Mr. Marshall: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry that I introduced this new matter. I was only trying to
910
prove that the Minister is taking a keen interest in this question, and is watching it very carefully. There will be an inspection, and a very adequate inspection, in future, and we will watch all mineral workings very closely. I think I have proved that in this case it was quite unnecessary to impose these conditions in the Order. I know that everybody desires to see that these places are restored to agricultural use, and the Minister of Town and Country Planning is very eager to see this is done. I think that the House, after the explanation, will let it go.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I put this question, which I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite followed? If further Orders of this kind have to be made, and further undertakings of this sort are given, it would save a lot of trouble, and possibly many Prayers, if something about the undertaking could be mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum if it cannot be put into the Order.
Mr. Marshall: I will undertake to convey that view to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr. Renton: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I would like to put this simple question to him. In the unlikely event of an undertaking of the type he has read out being broken, what is the position? Of course, it will not happen as a rule, but it may in one case out of a hundred, so that the point may be important. In the event of such an undertaking being broken, how can it be enforced? It is not a contractual undertaking. There is no contract between the Minister and the person giving the undertaking. There appears to be no penal sanction behind it. It seems important, because the Minister may find himself in great difficulty, and such difficulty could easily be avoided by making provision in this Order.
Mr. Marshall: I must remind the hon. Member that planning is not the only control over the iron and steel industry, of which the firm in this case is a part. Before you can get machinery, you have to apply to the Government. Control can be exerted by the Government over these undertakings apart even from planning control. I have no doubt that it would be exercised where they had defaulted on their agreement.
11.26 p.m.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: There is an important matter of principle involved, and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has given us a good reason why this particular matter should not be inserted in the Order. We are up against the difficulty here which we are always up against in these Prayers, that we would like to pray to amend the Order, but are not allowed to do so. We must pray for annulment. That gives the impression that we are against the Order as a whole; but that is not so. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why this should not be put into the Order; because it has already been included in a letter written by the firm? Why, if it is not necessary to put this vital matter of restoration of the land into the Order, is it necessary to put in such matters as structures, machinery and railway sidings? If the Waters Committee thought it necessary, why is it not considered necessary in this case? Even with the undertaking of the firm, I do not think it is sound legislation not to put into an Order all that it is desired that the Order shall carry out. The Parliamentary Secretary says that he wishes to carry out restoration of the land, and that he thinks it will be done.
That is a slapdash way of operating an Order. If it is necessary to include houses, buildings, railway sidings, I think there is no doubt that restoration of the land, which is very important, should also be inserted. We have, all over the country today, the terrible sight of land which has not been restored, and as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said, he does not want these unfortunate examples to be followed in his area. Therefore, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider this
912
matter, for it is important, in my view, that the land should be properly restored once the minerals have been withdrawn.
Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. and gallant Member say whether he suggests that the whole of the somewhat involved undertaking given by the company should be embodied in the terms of the Order?
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: No; I did not say that. The obligation requiring the restoration of the land could be put in with the other provisions.
11.27 p.m.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I believe that the Staveley Company, which is the firm concerned, is very largely affected by nationalisation already. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the House an undertaking that whatever the firm has said in the past will be carried out by the National Coal Board, and further, that when the remaining activities of this company, which may be affected in the near future by the Government's plans for the iron and steel industry—
Mr. Speaker: That is going right outside this particular Order. I think we must confine ourselves to Kettering, and not discuss further legislation which may take place.
Question put, and negatived.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Joint Negotiating Machinery
  Joint Negotiating Machinery
  Domestic Workers
  Domestic Workers
  Agriculture (Foreign Labour)
  Agriculture (Foreign Labour)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax (Dog Collars)
  Purchase Tax (Dog Collars)
  Consignments of Coin
  Consignments of Coin
  Exported Motor Cars (Ireland)
  Exported Motor Cars (Ireland)
  Films (Dollar Position)
  Films (Dollar Position)
  Dutiable Articles (Carriage Charges)
  Dutiable Articles (Carriage Charges)
  Seized Goods (Sale)
  Seized Goods (Sale)
  Old Age Pensions (Personal Case)
  Old Age Pensions (Personal Case)
  Illustrated Brochure "H.M.S. Vanguard'"
  Illustrated Brochure "H.M.S. Vanguard'"
  Foreign Commercial Transactions (Credit)
  Foreign Commercial Transactions (Credit)
  Anglo-American Loan
  Anglo-American Loan
  B.O.A.C. (Issue of Stock)
  B.O.A.C. (Issue of Stock)
  OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (COPYRIGHT)
  OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (COPYRIGHT)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Evacuated Staff, Llandudno (Return)
  Evacuated Staff, Llandudno (Return)
  Established Posts (Recruitment)
  Established Posts (Recruitment)
  Typists
  Typists
  CANADIAN SECRET INFORMATION (REPORT)
  CANADIAN SECRET INFORMATION (REPORT)
  U.N.O. (TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, REPORT)
  U.N.O. (TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, REPORT)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Paints and Distempers (Government Stocks)
  Paints and Distempers (Government Stocks)
  Linseed Oil
  Linseed Oil
  Locomotives
  Locomotives
  Giant Tyres (Output)
  Giant Tyres (Output)
  Exports to Spain
  Exports to Spain
  Anglo-Argentine Trade Treaty
  Anglo-Argentine Trade Treaty
  British Export Markets (U.S.A.)
  British Export Markets (U.S.A.)
  Sponges
  Sponges
  Clothing Coupons (Distribution)
  Clothing Coupons (Distribution)
  North Wales Development Council
  North Wales Development Council
  Inventors (Materials)
  Inventors (Materials)
  Production Campaign
  Production Campaign
  Canes
  Canes
  Willows
  Willows
  Children's Underwear
  Children's Underwear
  Clothing Supplies (Overseas Forces)
  Clothing Supplies (Overseas Forces)
  Textile Machinery
  Textile Machinery
  Protective Clothing (Builders)
  Protective Clothing (Builders)
  Imperial Preference
  Imperial Preference
  Shirtings
  Shirtings
  Merchant Sailors (Clothing Coupons)
  Merchant Sailors (Clothing Coupons)
  Herring Drift Nets
  Herring Drift Nets
BRITISH ARMY
  Palestine
  Palestine
  s.s. "Empress of Scotland" (Court Martial)
  s.s. "Empress of Scotland" (Court Martial)
  Japan
  Japan
  Singapore (Mails Delay)
  Singapore (Mails Delay)
  Military Messes
  Military Messes
  Lecturers
  Lecturers
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Garrison Engineer, Trentham (Staff)
  Garrison Engineer, Trentham (Staff)
  Malaya (Camp Conditions)
  Malaya (Camp Conditions)
  Training Courses
  Training Courses
  Rare Tree, Wales (Preservation)
  Rare Tree, Wales (Preservation)
  Dartmoor (Danger Areas)
  Dartmoor (Danger Areas)
  Sudan Defence Force, Eritrea
  Sudan Defence Force, Eritrea
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Troopship "Arundel Castle"
  Troopship "Arundel Castle"
  Records Office, Brighton (Discharges)
  Records Office, Brighton (Discharges)
  Regular Commissions
  Regular Commissions
  Trooping Fleet Conditions
  Trooping Fleet Conditions
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Somaliland (Collective Punishment)
  Somaliland (Collective Punishment)
  Overseas Allowances
  Overseas Allowances
  L.I.A.P.
  L.I.A.P.
  Veterinary Corps
  Veterinary Corps
  Leave Centre, Düsseldorf
  Leave Centre, Düsseldorf
  Dominion Army Personnel
  Dominion Army Personnel
  Dominion Training Schools (British Personnel)
  Dominion Training Schools (British Personnel)
  Clapham Common
  Clapham Common
  African Troops (Rioting)
  African Troops (Rioting)
POLISH FORCES
  Ludford Camp (Stokers)
  Ludford Camp (Stokers)
  Code of Discipline
  Code of Discipline
PRISONERS OF WAR
  Repatriation
  Repatriation
  Prisoner's Suicide
  Prisoner's Suicide
  Barbed Wire
  Barbed Wire
  Restrictions, Gloucester
  Restrictions, Gloucester
  JAPANESE WAR CRIMINALS (SENTENCES)
  JAPANESE WAR CRIMINALS (SENTENCES)
  DUTCH TROOPS, GREAT BRITAIN
  DUTCH TROOPS, GREAT BRITAIN
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Wild Life Conservation
  Wild Life Conservation
  Service Land Requirements, Wales
  Service Land Requirements, Wales
  Application Delay, Lichfield
  Application Delay, Lichfield
GERMANY
  British Zone (Cost)
  British Zone (Cost)
  Control Staff (Delayed Appointments)
  Control Staff (Delayed Appointments)
  Ex-Prisoners (Treatment)
  Ex-Prisoners (Treatment)
  C.W.S. BANK (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)
  C.W.S. BANK (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STOCKS
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STOCKS
  TROOPSHIP CONDITIONS
  TROOPSHIP CONDITIONS
  SOUTH SEAS CONFERENCE
  SOUTH SEAS CONFERENCE
  TRAFFIC LIGHTS (REGULATIONS)
  TRAFFIC LIGHTS (REGULATIONS)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Materials (Prices)
  Building Materials (Prices)
  Electrical Components
  Electrical Components
AGRICULTURE
  Grade C Farmers
  Grade C Farmers
  Owner-Occupiers
  Owner-Occupiers
  PALESTINE (FLOGGING OUTRAGE)
  PALESTINE (FLOGGING OUTRAGE)
SCOTLAND
  Water and Drainage Schemes
  Water and Drainage Schemes
  Sunday Fishing
  Sunday Fishing
  POSTAL FACILITIES, FORTIS GREEN
  POSTAL FACILITIES, FORTIS GREEN
  KENT AIR ACCIDENT INQUIRY
  KENT AIR ACCIDENT INQUIRY
  ARMED FORCES (STRENGTH)
  ARMED FORCES (STRENGTH)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Hayter—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
CHESHIRE AND LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCILS (RUNCORN-WIDNES BRIDGE, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
COMMERCIAL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
DUDLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HAVANT AND WATERLOO URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HOVE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
NAZEING WOOD OR PARK BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTH-WEST MIDDLESEX CREMATORIUM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

THE ROYAL VISIT TO SOUTH AFRICA.
2.38 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty on the occasion of His Majesty's departure for the Union of South Africa, with Her Majesty the Queen and Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Princess Margaret, conveying to His Majesty an assurance that this House will follow Their journey with deep interest and loyal affection.
I am sure that the whole House will be in accord with the Resolution that I have the honour to move. I have before

165
me a Report of your Lordships' proceedings for May 3, 1939, and on that occasion Earl Stanhope, the Leader of the House, moved a similar Resolution on the occasion of the first visit of a British Sovereign to a self-governing member of the Commonwealth—namely, the visit to the Dominion of Canada. This is therefore the second occasion on which we are privileged to approve a resolution of this kind. I suggest to your Lordships that the forthcoming visit of Their Majesties and the Princesses to South Africa is an event of great significance. Many noble Lords now in this House can, I imagine, cast their minds back to the time when we were in conflict in that great country. But then we also remember the passage of the South Africa Act only some thirty-six years ago—a great act of British statesmanship which has been followed by the rallying to our help in two great wars of the Union of South Africa with all the assistance it could bring. This is, I think, a unique example of a Sovereign visiting a self-governing Dominion with a history of that remarkable kind.
Their Majesties will undertake a long journey which will be to some extent an arduous one. They are proposing to visit the territories not only of the Union of South Africa but of Southern Rhodesia, the High Commission territories of Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland, and even to go beyond the Zambezi to Northern Rhodesia. It is a remarkable journey. I am sure that all your Lordships wish that Their Majesties and their family may be in good health throughout this long journey and that they may endure any trials and difficulties it may entail with their accustomed understanding and aptitude, and their accustomed response to the appeal of the people to their hearts. Its result, I am certain, will be an even further strengthening of the links between that great self-governing Dominion and all those territories and ourselves. I am sure that all your Lordships will wish Their Majesties a pleasant journey, a happy journey, a successful mission and a safe return.
Moved to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty on the occasion of His Majesty's departure for the Union of South Africa, with Her Majesty the Queen and Their Royal
166
Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Princess Margaret, conveying to His Majesty an assurance that this House will follow Their journey with deep interest and loyal affection.—(Viscount Addison.)
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I rise to express the heartwhole support of those who sit on these Benches of the Resolution of loyal affection to Their Majesties the King and Queen, which has been moved by the Leader of the House on the occasion of their departure for South Africa. It is indeed, I think, hardly necessary for the Leaders of the other Parties to add to 'what he has so well said. He spoke for us all. In our loyalty to the Crown there are in this country no Party differences. We are all, whatever our Party views, His Majesty's devoted subjects and servants. We wish Their Majesties well, with all our hearts, on this historic journey. During the last troubled years, they have won the deep, abiding affection and respect of the people of this country by their graciousness, their kindliness and their innate sympathy and understanding.
We can ill spare them even for these few months, but we recognize that His Majesty is not only King of Great Britain; he is King also of the Union of South Africa and all those other territories to which the Leader of the House referred in his speech. We, whose privilege it is to be citizens of his metropolitan Dominion, appreciate that he has duties to his loyal subjects in the Dominions overseas. It is right that he who is, after all, the keystone of the edifice of the Commonwealth, should visit them and get to know them in their homes, and see for himself their problems on the spot. I think it is also fitting that he, whose home life is a pattern to his people, should take with him the Queen and the Princesses. We do not doubt that they will make themselves as greatly beloved there as here. As I think the Leader of the House has already said, this is the first occasion upon which a British King and his family have visited the Southern Dominions. That is a momentous event, the precursor, one may hope, of many other such visits in the future. On this historic occasion we wish them a happy and prosperous journey and we bid them God-speed.
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the noble Lords on these Benches desire to associate themselves wholeheartedly with the Resolution that has been moved by the Leader of the House. The terms of that Resolution I think are singularly well chosen. It specifies the deep interest and the loyal affection with which your Lordships will follow the journey of Their Majesties and the Princesses through South Africa. Anything that is likely to renew and strengthen the intangible ties that bind together the British Commonwealth, as this journey will surely do, must command the close concern and the deep interest of your Lordships' House. The loyalty of the Parliament and people is the strength of our Constitution, because it promotes and ensures the stability of the State. The affection of the people for His Majesty and the Royal Family is strong and real because it is felt to be mutual. All who have listened to his broadcast addresses at Christmas-time will realize that His Majesty feels for the people a deep personal affection, and that affection on his side evokes a response on theirs. He speaks always of the Nation as a wider family. It is indeed with these feelings of deep interest, loyalty and affection that your Lordships' House will watch the progress of His Majesty and the Queen and the Princesses through the Dominion of South Africa and the adjoining territories.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, in the very briefest terms, I wish wholeheartedly to associate myself, and those for whom I may speak, with all that has been so admirably said in support of this Motion. Their Majesties have so identified themselves with the interests of their people and have so endeared themselves to us all that their absence, even for so short a time, can be no light matter for us. But, as has been said, it is perhaps good for us to be reminded by such an event as this that the King does not belong to us alone but belongs equally to all the Dominions of which he is, in their separate identities, King also. By this visit the King will render a signal service to the Commonwealth and to those highest ideals which the Commonwealth exists to serve. When I was in Canada last autumn it was both a moving and an inspiring thing to see how vividly the
168
memory of the Royal visit of 1939 dwelt in the thoughts and in the conversation of all kinds of people, and how profoundly they felt that the kinship between themselves and us had been perfectly expressed in the character, the personality, and the grace of Their Majesties. And so it is that we pray God that, in this visit, Their Majesties and the Royal Princesses may have a good journey, may have health and strength to stand the very great strain of a most exacting programme, may find spiritual refreshment in the loyalty and affection which will everywhere greet them, and, a happy and fruitful mission having been accomplished, may have a safe return.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BURMA.
2.46 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICKLAWRENCE): My Lords, I propose at this point in our proceedings, with your Lordships' permission, to make a statement on Burma. On December 20 the Prime Minister informed the House of Commons of the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Burma and of the invitation to members of the Burma Executive Council to visit this country. Conversations with the delegation have been proceeding and are now concluded. They covered a wide field. I am glad to say that agreement was reached both as to the methods by which the people of Burma may, as early as possible, determine the future Constitution of their country and as to the transitional arrangements for the government of Burma until the new Constitution comes into force. The agreed conclusions are set out in a Command Paper which will be available this afternoon.
The main features of the agreement are as follows: A Constituent Assembly will be elected in April next, elected by and consisting of Burma nationals only. The machinery of the 1935 Act will be used and the Assembly will therefore be elected by over six million adult voters. It is our intention, as soon as the Constitution has been framed, to bring the necessary legislation before Parliament without delay. During the interim period, which will, we

169
hope, be short, Burma will continue to be governed, as at present, under the emergency provisions of the Act of 1935. The legal powers of the Governor and of the Executive Council cannot be altered without legislation, but it has been agreed that the Interim Government should be conducted generally in the same way as the Interim Government of India. Certain matters, at present formally reserved for the Governor, will in future be brought before the Executive Council. Arrangements have been agreed on the representation of Burma abroad.
With regard to the frontier areas we have given very definite pledges to the peoples of these areas. Ultimate unification of the frontier areas and Burma proper has always been our policy, but, and in this the delegation are in agreement with us, whatever action is taken must be in accordance with their wishes and with their free consent. Arrangements have now been agreed to ascertain the wishes of the frontier people. In this connexion my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Dominion Affairs is visiting Burma and will leave this week. Agreement has also been come to with regard to interim arrangements on finance and also on defence.
These conversations have been conducted in the most friendly and co-operative spirit and His Majesty's Government feel sincere satisfaction that so wide a held should have been covered in so short a time. The conclusions set out in the Command Paper have been fully accepted by the majority of the delegates, but two of the delegates found, at the last moment, that there were certain points on which they did not share the view of the majority. They had no alternative proposals to put forward, but felt unable to sign the conclusions as agreed. His Majesty's Government regret that that should be so, but they have no doubt that these conclusions afford the most practical way of dealing with the problem of Burma and they are confident that they will have the support of the Burmese people.
Burma has suffered greatly in the war. Great steps have been made in rebuilding her shattered economy. It will now he for her own people, her own Government, to complete that process and build a new Burma. It will be for them to decide the
170
future relations with the Commonwealth. We shall welcome them if they decide to remain members of it and we think that will be to their interest; but, in any event, they will carry with them, I believe, the good will and good wishes of this House. His Majesty's Government look forward to a continuation of the present method of consultation and co-operation in order to deal with all future matters which may arise during the transition period.
2.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, it will clearly be impossible for us to make any comment this afternoon upon the very important statement which has been made by the Secretary of State for India and Burma. We shall need to study the White Paper first. I can assure the Government that we will give it full and early examination, and If am sure that they, on their side, will understand if, after such examination, we feel that it will be useful to have some discussion of it in your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the fact that an agreement has been reached is in itself a very gratifying circumstance. As to the terms of the agreement, I agree fully with what has been said by the noble Viscount who has just spoken—that it is impossible to express even a tentative opinion until an opportunity has been given for study of the White Paper. I need hardly say that we welcome the very friendly spirit of co-operation that has prevailed through these discussions. I am sure all members of your Lordships' House will most earnestly wish that the same spirit will continue to be shown in the future.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF SUDBURY ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Sudbury, and laid before the House on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF SALTBURN AND MARSKE-BY-THE-SEA ORDER).
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Salt-burn and Marske-by-the-Sea, and laid before the House on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Forestry dedication covenants (England).
(1) In this Act the expression "forestry dedication covenant" means a covenant entered into with the Forestry Commissioners (in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners") to the effect that land shall not, except with the previous consent in writing of the Commissioners, be used otherwise than for the growing of timber (within the meaning of Section three of the Forestry Act, 1919) in accordance with the rules or practice of good forestry or for purposes connected therewith, being a covenant not containing any expression of intention contrary to the application of Section seventy-nine of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which provides that, unless a contrary intention is expressed, a covenant relating to any land of a covenantor or capable of being bound by him shall be deemed to be made by the covenantor on behalf of himself or his successors in title and the persons deriving title under him or them).
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON) moved, in subsection (1), after "Commissioners", where
172
that word occurs a third time, to insert "or, in case of dispute, under direction of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries". The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the Report stage of this Bill some doubt and anxiety was expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and other noble Lords on one particular question. That was the point that if an owner had dedicated his woodlands and then changed his mind, or if his heir should change his mind, and wish to use his land for another purpose, then under the Bill this could be done only with the consent of the Forestry Commission.
As I understand the argument, noble Lords thought that if that were the case it might be that the Forestry Commission would be so prejudiced on the side of growing timber that they would not accept what might be a reasonable proposal of a change of user, either in the national interests or in some other essential economic interest. For that purpose the noble Lord in his Amendments suggested that this question should be considered by an outside arbitrator. In the meantime I have been giving this matter a good deal of study—and we, on this side of the House, always recognize the deep interest and the desire of your Lordships to improve a Bill and make it as good as possible. We want to meet the wishes of the noble Earl as far as we can, but we have not been able to go quite so far as he suggested. His Majesty's Government have decided that we can introduce an Amendment into Clause 1 which would make it necessary for any question of dispute between the forest owners and the Forestry Commission to be referred to the Minister of Agriculture. This would not be implicit, but definitely stated.
I hope that the noble Earl will recognize that we have gone quite a long way to meet him, and that he will feel that this does remove the fear he might have that, in practice, these matters would be left entirely to the Forestry Commissioners, and that the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland would merely be asked to put a sort of rubber stamp signature to their agreement. I hope that this will meet the points raised by noble Lords, and I ask you to agree to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after "Commissioners" insert the said words.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Earl for the concession that he has introduced at the eleventh hour. As he has just said, it does not go the full length of the Amendment I proposed on the Report stage, but it does go some way. It is true, I suppose, that the Forestry Commission at all times have to act under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture, and therefore, even if the noble Earl had not proposed this Amendment, or if this Amendment were not accepted, it would always have been open to the Minister to have directed the Forestry Commission to give a particular decision in a particular case. In fact, I think my noble friend said as much during the debate.
I do, however, agree that there is advantage in having in the Bill that this matter has, in the case of a dispute, to be decided by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, thereby giving some assurance that disputed questions will not be decided purely on the merits of the proposal from a forestry point of view, but that they will be decided on wider grounds. I think it is a useful Amendment to the Bill, and it may have the effect of inducing more land owners to enter into a covenant. I felt sure that if land owners believed that a covenant once entered into was really irrevocable, no matter how much circumstances may have changed, a great many of them would have been deterred from entering into these covenants.
In any case, the inducements for entering into the covenants are not too great. The subsidy conferred by the scheme, in view of present costs and the likelihood of their rising, is not a generous one, or one that would make very much difference in the budget of most estates. Therefore I doubt very much if the hopes of my noble friend, the Chairman of the Forestry Commission, that a great many land owners will avail themselves of this Bill, will be realized. But I think that the Amendment which the noble Earl has proposed twill go some way towards reassuring some land owners, and I should like to thank him for the concession he has made.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like, in one word, to add my thanks to the Government for the spirit of co-operation which they have shown in this matter. 'There was a slight suggestion—
174
I expect it was unintentional—in the speech of the noble Earl, that this was a matter which appealed to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, alone. That is not the case. It was a point which had been worrying a very large number of noble Lords on this side of the House, and I am quite certain that, while I do not say that this Amendment will relieve their anxieties completely, the fact that the Government have made this modification in the Bill will, as Lord Selborne has said, be a help in securing wider approbation for the Bill in the country.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Forestry Dedication Agreements (Scotland).
(1) In this Act the expression "forestry dedication agreement" means an agreement entered into with the Commissioners by an owner or a limited owner of land to the effect that the land or any' pact thereof shall not, except with the previous consent in writing of the Commissioners, be used otherwise than for the growing of timber (within the meaning of section three of the Forestry Act, 1919) in accordance with the rules or practice of good forestry or for purposes connected therewith.
3.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, the next Amendment is merely to apply the same principle to Scotland, where agriculture and forestry come under the Secretary of State. I hope that your Lordships will pass this Amendment also.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 3, line 6, after ("Commissioners") insert ("or, in case of dispute, under direction of the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, while this Amendment will give some satisfaction, I feel that it hardly goes far enough. Before the Bill leaves this House, there are other points which ought to be raised. Since the discussions which took place before Christmas, there has been more opportunity for consideration of the proposals by those owners of woodlands who will be affected, and a number of disquieting features have become more prominent. I refer to many of the principal things which will help to accelerate or delay re-afforestation: the lack of houses for woodmen, the lack of young trees for planting, and the prices for standing timber. So far as I can ascertain, no single house for any woodman

175
required to work on re-afforestation has been provided by the Government or local authorities, nor does there seem to be any sign of action or interest in this matter, in spite of the representations which have been made.
With regard to plants, the Forestry, Commission are doing their best this winter to help. The planting season, however, is well through, and even the small number of plants required cannot be provided. The Government have made a good bargain for the State. They have imposed terms which are really quite severe, and in return there is all the greater obligation upon them to see that conditions are provided under which re-afforestation may take place. I do urge the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make themselves more aware of the essential conditions and the economic requirements of the industry. I urge that either they make it possible for the work to be done or that they give an assurance that time will be given for re-afforestation to take place. Otherwise, as the noble Earl has just said, many of these people will not enter into dedication, because of the fear that, owing to the lack of houses, they will not be able to get the necessary labour and so will not be able to implement the contract. I think that this is a very necessary step for the responsible Ministers to take.
In connexion with the economic side, I hope that some attention will be given to the inadequate prices that are allowed in this country for standing timber of good quality. Some noble Lords may have noticed that during the recess a very small increase in prices was allowed over those fixed in 1939, in comparison with prices allowed to foreign growers and importers which have been going up by leaps and bounds—in some cases by as much as 100 to 150 per cent., and even higher. It is worth remembering that growers of good quality timber are to-day still receiving prices equivalent to, or lower than, those they were getting in 1938, although the costs of production are much higher. I hope that attention will be given by the Ministers responsible to those and to many other points in the carrying out of the Bill because the Bill in itself is not sufficient. It will depend so much on the way in which it is carried
176
out and on the attention paid to those requirements.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN: Before the Bill finally passes through your Lordships' House, I would like to ask the noble Earl one question which still gives me great uneasiness. I very much regret that I was not able to be here during the previous stage of the Bill. I gather from my papers that a concession has been made and, if it is so, I trust that the noble Earl opposite will save your Lordships' time by interrupting me to tell me so straight away. The point which has given me some anxiety is to be found on page 4, line 35. It is not clear to me whether the "rate of three pounds per cent. per annum with yearly rests" is to be subject to deduction of income tax. If that is so, and if the noble Earl can say that it is so, then of course what I am about to say does not apply. If it is not so, your Lordships will observe that it puts the woodland owner who has received a grant in a very difficult position, because if he had gone to his banker and borrowed the amount of the grant, the interest on that grant would have been deducted from his yearly income, and he would not therefore have had to pay tax upon it. If he has had a grant, and has to pay it back, at 3 per cent. compound interest, without deduction of tax, he will be in a position of having to pay tax for up to thirty years upon the interest of the grant, and will not be allowed to deduct it from his total repayment in respect of that grant.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The noble Lord asked me to interrupt him, otherwise I should not have done so. We went into that question on the Report stage and I stated—as the noble Earl will see if he will look up the report of the debate—that the woodland owner having his woods taken over by the Forestry Commission, and having to repay his grants plus interest, would be allowed to claim the interest as an allowance against his income tax or surtax. We did discuss that and, as the noble Lord asked me to interrupt him, he will no doubt excuse my doing so.
LORD SALTOUN: I am obliged to the noble Earl and beg your Lordships' pardon. I was very anxious about this point.
Bill passed, with the Amendments, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL.
3.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of 7 & 8 Geo. 6 c. 41
1. In the rules set out in the Third Schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944 (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), the following provisions shall cease to have effect, that is to say—

(a) rule 4 (which limits the electorate of a constituency to not more than a quarter above or below the electoral quota and to which rule 5 as to conformity with local government boundaries is subject); and

(b) in rule 3, paragraph (1) (which requires a two-member constituency to be divided or return a single member, if its electorate is not within the limits laid down by that paragraph for such a constituency) and subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (3) (which is supplemental to the said paragraph (1)).

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT) moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "sub-paragraph (ii)" and insert "subparagraph (i)." The noble and learned Viscount said: If your Lordships will be good enough to turn to the Schedule of this Bill on page 3, at line 36 you will see the word "then," followed by some of those little dots which gave us some trouble on the last occasion. Having gone into the matter I find that the dots will not be there in the final form. The paragraph goes on: "it is determined…" and so on. That Schedule is all right, and that is how we want it to be. But its providence is this. The little dots are subsection (i), and the words that there follow are subsection (ii). It therefore follows that what we want to keep in is subsection (ii), which we have in the Schedule, and we want to eliminate subsection (i), which is now represented by these dots.
However, if you turn to the operative part of the Bill itself you will find on
178
page 1, line 7: "… the following provisions shall cease to have effect," and amongst them is: "sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (3) (which is supplemental to the said paragraph (1))." That is the very thing we want to keep in. We have it in, and this wording is merely a clerical error. What we meant to say was that we want to omit sub-paragraph (1) to paragraph (3). In order to make the body of the Bill square with the Schedule, which is all right, we should omit the words "sub-paragraph (ii)" and insert "sub-paragraph (i)."
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1 line 16, leave out ("sub-paragraph (ii)") and insert ("sub-paragraph (i)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.

ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE.
3.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what efforts are being made to put into force the Plumage Act of 1921 which prohibits the import of plumage such as that of birds of paradise and egrets, in an effort to prevent or discourage the cruelties perpetrated on these beautiful birds in the collection of such adornments; what instructions are given to the Customs Authorities on the subject, and what is the number of prosecutions and convictions under the Act in recent years.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in putting to the Government the question which I have upon the Order Paper, I may perhaps be permitted in a few words to remind your Lordships of the circumstances in which the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, was passed, and to explain why I seek to put this question now. The Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, was the result of a long campaign against the barbarities and the cruelties involved in supplying certain kinds of plumage to a section of the plumage trade. The Bill

179
was not passed in haste or under some vague feeling of sentimentality; there had been a close investigation. I have here the Report of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House presided over by the late Lord Avebury which took evidence on the subject and on all the interests. They reported that the evidence proved conclusively that the plumage of many beautiful tropical birds—birds of paradise and egrets, for example—was obtained by reckless slaughter, and that inasmuch as plumes were at their finest in the nesting season, when the male bird puts on all his array, there was not only that extra element of cruelty to the young birds, but the situation was such that certain species were actually being exterminated. I think it was shown that out of eighteen species of humming birds in the island of Jamaica, thirteen had already been exterminated owing to these hunters after plumage.
Consequently, in 1921 the Houses of Parliament—and your Lordships took a prominent part in it—passed this Bill which is now on the Statute Book, a quarter of a century old. The Act prohibits under penalty the importation of certain plumage. There are exceptions, and those exceptions can be further varied by the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade. For instance, ostrich plumes are obtained without any cruelty, and prohibition in regard to them has never been included in the Act. This Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade has been set up, and from time to time has considered whether the plumage of other species of birds should be included or the existing list should be shortened.
I do not think there will be any dispute at all in any informed quarter that in point of fact the cruelty involved is a thing which any one of us would most gravely and firmly denounce. The dorsal filaments of the egret and the sweeping tail feathers of the paradise birds (and those are the two principal methods of adornment, so far as we depend on tropical feathers) are put on only in what may be called the nuptial period and they disappear, at any rate when the young leave the nest. I am sure that nobody in this House would willingly countenance the harsh cruelty that is involved in gathering these so-called adornments in those circumstances. Of course, I fully recognize that the Bill was only intended
180
to prohibit the importation of these things, but I hope I shall express the feeling of everybody when I say that every effort ought to be made to enforce it, at least so far as it goes.
For a short time after the Act was carried an excuse was put up which I daresay was quite genuine. When you went into a shop and challenged the exhibition of a hat so ornamented, it was said: "That is because we are using up our old stock." As it was not possible in such circumstances to prove importation since the Act—and for my part I would have accepted the explanation at that time—there were not at first many obvious cases of abuse. After a short time, according to my information and belief, the practice in this country of using these particular adornments was dropped, and rightly dropped. The reason why I raise the matter now is that, reading in the newspapers some accounts of recent hat shows and seeing some illustrations of the hats, I find that headgear ornamented—and announced as ornamented—by the plumes of birds of paradise or egrets are on show, and are some of the latest models.
I therefore feel that I am thoroughly justified in asking the Government—and I will venture to read my question—"What efforts are being made to put into force the Plumage Act of 1921 which prohibits the import of plumage such as that of birds of paradise and egrets, in an effort to prevent or discourage the cruelties perpetrated on these beautiful birds in the collection of such adornments; what instructions are given to the Customs Authorities on this subject, and what is the number of prosecutions and convictions under the Act in recent years?" I very much hope that we shall not again hear the explanation, now a quarter of a century old, that this is merely using up old stock.
I wish to inform your Lordships before I sit down that since I put this question on the Paper I have received a great many messages in support of it, from, amongst others, members of your Lordships' House, one or two of whom are not able to be here to-day. His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury was good enough to tell me that if he had been able to stay he would certainly have wished to support the question which I put. I would like also to mention the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who would wish to be

181
here for that purpose, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, because it was his distinguished father who did more to secure the passage of this legislation than anybody else. I hope I shall not be thought to be delaying the House when there is other very important business pending if I read an extract from the speech of the noble Lord, the late Lord Buckmaster, when he was moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I think it is worth unearthing it from the pages of Hansard, even if only for the purposes of showing that there was a time when eloquence was commanded in this House and when it was magnificently employed. This is what the late Lord Buckmaster said:
"A horrible thing connected with this trade is not merely that the birds are being slowly exterminated, but that the moment chosen for their extermination is the moment when every living thing, excepting those that are pestilential, has the right to demand and to receive the protection of man. For the time when, in obedience to that strange, mysterious power that moves and vivifies the whole world—at the moment of their nesting season—these creatures put on the full glory of their plumage is the moment selected for their capture, and they are killed in such circumstances as I have mentioned, while their young are left to starve in their nests."
Then the noble Lord used these very moving words:
"I know that the whole of our life is to some extent associated with the pain and suffering of animals, but I am certain that no one whom I am addressing would permit, for a single moment, the infliction of needless cruelty and suffering upon any form of the living creation which has not some full and effective compensation. There is no compensation whatever for the sufferings that these birds undergo. There is not the equivalent of the vigour and the wholesomeness of the life of sport. There is not even the advantage that is gained from the pursuit of scientific knowledge. All this is caused for no purpose whatever, except to ease the ache of a woman's vanity, and to pay tribute to the deity of fashion whom the many worship, and all despise."
It may be that we live in an age when, in recent years, there has been so much cruelty and such frightful, deliberate infliction of torture to man, woman and child, that: interest in these birds is of a very minor order. But I do not think so; I think that to show a sensitive feeling on a subject like this is to preserve one of the characteristics of our people which we should be very sorry to let go. I do not doubt for a moment that the ladies who have been attending these hat shows—fine, gentle, women—would be horrified if they thought they were being
182
invited to adorn themselves at the expense of such cruelty as this. If they contemplate it for a moment, it is because they do not know. I have thought it not an abuse of my opportunity to call attention publicly to this, because they ought to know.
As for the law, I urge the Government (and I invite others to do the same) to use their utmost efforts to see that the Plumage Act is vigorously enforced. I think I am justified in asking, as I do ask, what directions, in the light of this new development of fashion, are being given or will be given to the Customs Authorities whose thoroughness and whose honesty we do not at all doubt, in order that we may prevent a recrudescence of a practice which is horrible and a perfect disgrace to the sentiments so loudly proclaimed when your Lordships passed this Bill a quarter of a century ago.
3.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I feel that many noble Lords are grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having drawn attention to this Plumage Act of 1921. The noble and learned Viscount has presented, if I may presume to say so, with his usual eloquence and clarity of purpose, a very good case for consideration by the Government Department charged with supervision of affairs of this character. There is little I need add, but I hope that we shall receive some satisfaction from the reply when it comes to us from the noble Lord opposite. I think it may be accepted that just at this time there is a fairly general revival in feather fashions, with the result that this plumage, prohibited from import by law and prohibited under this Act of 1921 from being exhibited for sale or being sold, is nevertheless at the present time on view and being sold.
Those of us who are deeply concerned, not only with the cruel methods adopted in obtaining this plumage bat also with the possible and indeed probable extinction of these beautiful birds, cannot be anything but anxious to see the provisions of this Act enforced and the statutory penalties imposed upon those who seek to evade it. I feel sure that we shall be told that steps are being taken to enforce the provisions of the Act, and I can only say in answer that if steps are being taken

183
they would appear at this time to be anything but adequate to prevent the infringement of the law. In other words, may I say that I do not think that it would be giving a wrong impression to say that the Act of 1921 at the present time is somewhat of a dead letter.
3.32 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I will detain the House for only a very few moments. I had the privilege of listening to the whole of the discussion on the Act of 1921, and I remember very well indeed the remarks of Lord Buckmaster which have been quoted by the noble and learned Viscount. The case for the Bill was made out so amply that at that time it certainly received the support of every member of your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that if circumstances have arisen—as apparently they have—which lead one to the conclusion, or rather to the opinion, that this Act does not appear to be enforced as it should be, then I believe that the question which is before the House is one which we should wholeheartedly endorse. I trust that His Majesty's Government will give a satisfactory answer to the question which has been put.
There is no doubt that at the present time there is on the market this means of adornment, and much has been said on this matter far more eloquently than I could say it. The facts seem to be undisputed, and I wish to support the noble and learned Viscount on the question he has asked. For the sake of this country, for the sake of this House and for the sake of the fine feelings which animate our people, it is essential that we should have an emphatic and satisfactory reply to-day.
3.35 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, I also wish wholeheartedly to associate myself with the speech that has been made by the noble and learned Viscount. No one can question the fact that this practice is again growing and that there must be some laxity in the administration of this particular Act. I noticed last Thursday that it was actually reported in the Evening News of that date that birds of paradise feathers and egrets had been on show at a mannequin parade for ladies in London. I should have thought that that would have drawn the attention of the authorities concerned to the growing practice of entirely ignoring the Act. I have
184
in my hand an article which draws attention to the fact that the feathers of these very beautiful birds can be bought almost with impunity at the present time in London. I therefore wholeheartedly support the claim that has been made by the noble and learned Viscount and others that the attention of the Government should be drawn to the fact that this Act must have been evaded very considerably, and I greatly hope that the Government will give the reply that steps will be taken to see that the Act is most rigorously enforced.
3.37 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will join with the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, in expressing our debt to the noble and learned Viscount for having brought this matter to the attention of your Lordships' House. This country has been, I think, a pioneer beyond all other countries in the prevention of cruelty to animals, and it is right that we should be vigilant and that we should take every step to see that the high standard which has undoubtedly prevailed in regard to these matters in the past is maintained, and indeed raised.
We have a public opinion which is very sensitive to these matters, as was quite clear in the speeches in support of the noble and learned Viscount's remarks in question this, afternoon, and the correspondence which has been going on in The Times within the last few days on the subject of cruelty to animals at cattle fairs and slaughter houses is further good evidence of the very proper sensitiveness of public opinion in this country in regard to these matters.
The noble and learned Viscount has properly remarked that it may seem rather strange—and indeed I know from what I have myself heard that it does in fact seem strange to some of our foreign friends—that people in this country can spend so much of their time, at a period when the future of the human race itself appears to be somewhat dismal, on discussing and getting really very hot about questions of this kind. For my part—and I am quite sure I only re-echo the sentiments of many members, if not of every member, of your Lordships' House—I should have little desire that the human race should continue if matters of this kind did not, at any rate to my fellow countrymen, continue to be matters of very great concern.

185
There is in addition in this country a very wide and indeed a growing section of our people who are particularly interested in the bird part of creation, which contains some of the loveliest of all God's creatures, and the Government are well aware that over recent months this section of our people have been particularly anxious on this matter. It was largely as a result of their unremitting work that the Act of 1921, to which the noble and learned Viscount has drawn attention, was put on the Statute Book, and I am quite sure your Lordships will wish to pay a tribute to the work which he himself did at that time and the attentiveness he has devoted to this matter since then. It is well known that he is particularly sensitive to these particular matters. He has, in fact, asked the Government what they are doing to enforce the Act. I must explain to your Lordships that the Act itself was suspended and has been suspended since 1939, so that so far as the Act itself is concerned, the Government cannot take any steps to enforce it.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Will you explain how the suspension has come about? Was it under some Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act?
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Viscount is really concerned to find what steps the Government are taking to prevent the exploitation of bird life, and actually, although the Act of 1921 has been suspended, the prohibition of the import of plumage is still in force. The Act of 1921 was suspended as a result of the import, Export and Customs (Defence) Act of 1939, Section 1 of which conferred the power on the Board of Trade to prohibit the import of any articles and to suspend the operation of Statutes prohibiting the import of certain articles. Under that Act the Import of Goods Prohibition No. 1 Order, 1939, was passed on September 3, 1939, and among other articles it prohibited the importation of plumage and suspended the operation of the Act of 1921. That suspension is still in operation. The Import: of Goods (Control) Order of 1945 maintains the prohibition of the importation of plumage and there is no intention of reviving the Act of 1921 until the currency position improves very substantially. It is intended to continue to operate under this Order of 1945, which from the administration point of view is very convenient. But actually, of course, from the point of
186
view of preventing the importation of this plumage there is no difference between the two.
I should explain that it is possible for parcels to be imported into this country up to the extent of 22 lb.—gift parcels. They have to bear a label setting out what is inside them, and plumage is an article which cannot be imported. It has been suggested that there may possibly have been some leakage in regard to plumage coming in in parcels of this kind. There is no evidence that this has been so, but I think I ought to mention there is this exception to the General Order in relation to gift parcels up to 22 lb. in weight—that plumage is one of the articles which cannot be legally imported in such parcels. Of course, if Customs authorities find plumage in such a parcel they will confiscate it.
No licence was granted to import the plumage of rare birds under the 1921 Act except in a few cases for scientific purposes and for museums. Under the War Emergency legislation, no licences for the importation of plumage of any kind has been given except in regard to ostrich feathers. As the noble Viscount knows, ostrich feathers have always been exempted from the operation of the Act of 1921. Customs inspections and instructions to customs officers in these matters, are quite explicit. Their attention is specifically drawn to the 1921 Act and to the fact that it has been suspended under the Orders of 1939, that these Orders prohibit the importation of plumage. They are instructed that if any plumage is found it is to be detained. Over the last months there has been some anxiety in these matters. Questions have been put to my right honourable friend in another place, and very great care has been taken at the Customs to see that no plumage is coming in. There has been no evidence of any plumage coming in at all. There have been no prosecutions. Searches have been made, but there has been no prosecution, at any rate, during the last ten years.
The noble and learned Viscount has pointed out that this is a Statute which does not prohibit the sale of this plumage or the wearing of it; it is an Act which prohibits simply the importation of it. Now the noble Viscount has said that when a question was asked on the 1921 Act soon after the Act was passed, as

187
to why egrets and birds of paradise feathers were still on sale in shops, it was said that they were imported before the Act of 1921 came into force. I am afraid the official view still is that those feathers which are now on sale are very largely feathers which were imported before that time. The Act of 1921 has a suspense clause by which it did not come into force until nine months after it was passed. No doubt very substantial quantities of this plumage were being imported during that period. There is also no doubt that there was a considerable slump. The fashion changed very shortly after this Act was passed, and feathers went out of fashion; therefore there would be a considerable amount in reserve, so to speak, which never got into the shops.
This phenomenon is quite well known. For example, in textbooks on economic history your Lordships will find, if you care to refer to them, references to ostrich feathers, which were outside the Act. A precisely similar phenomenon took place after the First World War when there was a prohibition on ostrich feathers. In the first years of the century, farms were started in South Africa for the production of them. A year or two before the war the peak was reached, and then suddenly they fell out of fashion, the value of ostrich feathers declined to 25 per cent. and the unsold feathers were put on one side in reserve. Something of the sort must have happened in regard to egret and bird of paradise feathers, for although over the last months the Customs Authorities have been paying particular regard to it and making special investigations to discover whether there has been any leakage, in fact no leakage of any kind has been found.
I am afraid my answer will not be very satisfactory to the noble and learned Viscount, but I would assure him that if he has any evidence which would enable the Government to take steps we would be only too glad if he would put it before us, and every possible step would be taken. The Government will continue, through the Customs officers and through other officers, to investigate and keep a close eye on the situation, in order to make quite sure that none of these lovely birds are, at any rate in the interests of trade in London, being despoiled in the way he described. Therefore if he, or
188
any other member of your Lordships' House, can give the necessary evidence which will enable us to take action, we shall be very glad to have it, and I can assure you that every effort will be made to bring this traffic to an end.
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation which he has given. So far as the general sentiments which he expressed, are concerned, I think that everybody will share his feelings. I must confess, however, that I am not very well satisfied. I blame myself that I had never hitherto realized that for some five years the Plumage Act has been suspended. It seems a very good example of what happens when you rely on Regulations and Instructions which never reach the intelligence of Parliament. Can one imagine a more remarkable case? I think that I understood the noble Lord to tell us that it was done in the interests of the finances of this country, and that until the finances improved it was not proposed—
LORD CHORLEY: It was maintained in the interests of finance.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It was imposed for some other reason, and it is being maintained and will be maintained in the interests of the finances of this country. Really, is a lady who wears these plumes in her hat to have the satisfaction of feeling that, after all, she is helping to support the exchange?
LORD CHORLEY: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount once again? I cannot have made it clear that the importation of this plumage is just as much prohibited now under this emergency Legislation as it ever was under the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Then, I begin to wonder why it is thought necessary to continue it, until the financial situation changes, in the form of a Regulation, instead of restoring the law of the land. At present I have not understood that at all. But it is not a matter for controversy across the Table now, and I will not occupy any more of your Lordships' time. I shall consider most carefully what the noble Lord has said. I confess that it is with a twinge of cynicism that I

189
hear that one of the excuses is that there is still so much old stock about. I begin to wonder, since a quarter of a century has passed, exactly what period of time is likely to elapse before we shall reach the stage when we really may know that the feathers are new. I hope that the ladies are not being sold old feathers for new ones, because that would be another reason for objecting. However, I think that both my question and the answer which the noble Lord has given have served some useful purpose, and I am glad indeed to know that those who speak for the Government are most anxious so far as possible to get the illegal importation of this plumage stopped.
3.55 p.m.

AUSTRIA.
LORD SCHUSTER LORD SCHUSTER rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy in relation to Austria, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would have been preferable if this question had been asked by someone who could claim to speak with more authority in this House, but as no one else seemed inclined to raise the question, and as I think it is very necessary that both your Lordships' House and the country at large should, from time to time, consider, in detail, the Austrian situation, I have been bold enough to offer myself as a victim on this occasion. The speech which I am going to make will contain a great deal of controversial matter, but it is not a Party speech. I am talking, on this occasion only by accident, from this particular Bench, and, so far as I complain of anything, the things of which I complain may be taken as referring to actions not only of this Government but of Governments which have preceded it. My remarks are not put forward with the purpose of making a Party score or gaining a Party advantage.
Although it may seem as if it were irrelevant to what I have to say on the general matter, I feel bound in the first place to refer to the question of the South Tyrol. It may perhaps be that your Lordships think that that is a subject which is now dead and might well be buried out of sight. But it is quite impossible for me, personally, to speak about Austria without referring to that subject. I believe that I can speak of it with complete impartiality. Italy is to
190
me a very much older and very much truer friend than Austria, and for many years before the last war, wandering in the beautiful valleys of the Trentino and in the no less beautiful valleys of what we now call the South Tyrol, I looked forward to the day when the Italian valleys would be restored to Italy. And great as were the apprehensions and evils that sprang from the last war, it appeared to me, as it reached its close, that there would be at least this one great benefit—that that which was Italian in every sense except that of frontier should go within the Italian boundary.
But it was a great shock to me, and I think a great shock to all those who knew anything at all about the subject, that there were transferred to Italy not only the Italian regions but the most Austrian regions that there are on earth. For the country of the South Tyrol, as we now call it, is the most essentially Austrian region within all the confines of Austria—Austrian in character and religion and the tomb of its heroes. By this severance the Tyrol is cut in half, so that part has to be administered by Carinthia. Though that is only a local disturbance it is greatly felt in the country. We have had plenty of object lessons since about that matter. We know quite well what went on in South Tyrol from the conclusion of the bundle of treaties which we call the Treaty of Versailles up to the time of the last war. We know that during that time, the Italians oppressed the inhabitants. They carried their oppression beyond the grave, and defaced tombstones on which the Austrian language was inscribed. It is a smaller matter, but they also changed the names of towns to absurd new Italian versions.
Again, in the war through which we have now passed, I thought that at least there would be one injustice rectified, and that the Austrian Tyrol would be returned to Austria. Of course, that sounds like—and maybe it is—sentiment, and perhaps sentiment, and what might even be called sentimentality, ought not to enter into our view of matters of this kind. But from the British point of view, and from the point of view of British policy, something has happened which goes fair beyond sentiment. I saw the effect on the minds of the Austrian Government and the Austrian population, when this disastrous decision was reached. When we went

191
into Austria it was indeed a conquered country, but we went there still welcomed as deliverers and as friends. As friends we remained and I hope that we still remain. But a most violent blow was struck at that friendship and the whole attitude of the Austrian Government towards us when they learned that that old injustice was not to be rectified.
Why was it that this was done? We are told all kinds of stories about economic needs; that Italian factories, working by water power in the valleys, are necessary to the economy of Italy, and Italian money has been spent upon them. That is a fantastic answer. Surely anyone who knows the Southern slopes of the Alps realizes that water power is available for the use of the Italians for hundreds of miles? Surely everybody realizes that if those works had passed under Austrian dominion nothing would be easier than to arrange that there should be a sufficient supply of electrical power delivered to Italy until Italy could replace them by works of her own?
That was not a reason that convinced any of those who looked at the matter in Austria itself. "No," they said, "you have given this land to Italy as a sop and as a piece of international bargaining, because you intended, and intend, to do a wrong to Italy in the matter of Trieste. You are trying to console her with this." That, I am quite sure, is the view which the Austrians take, and I believe it to be the view which the Italians take. If anyone believes that the Italians are pleased with what has happened, he is very grievously mistaken.
I have been in Italy two or three times during the course of the last year, and the difference in the attitude of the Italian population to British visitors is very marked. They are not grateful for this evil inheritance which has been given them. They know, as well as we know, that however sensible the Governments are themselves, it must remain a cause of ill will between them and between the two peoples. They are by no means consoled by this gift for what they think is the injustice done to them. It is quite impossible to have gone recently through that area, to have started in Carinthia and driven along the obviously Austrian valley which leads you finally to the
192
Adige Valley past the town of Bozen, without feeling that all the time you are in an Austrian area. Then suddenly you pass—it seems almost by magic—into an area that is as thoroughly Italian. Nature has marked the division between the two perfectly clearly, and it is flying in the face of nature and history to attempt to reverse her decision.
One of the reasons why there should be a debate on Austria is that your Lordships now have before you, and have not yet debated, the Report of the Select Committee which visited Austria very recently. That Report, which has only just come before you, I intend to be my main text for what I am going to say, but before I come to it I want to say this. A little more than two years ago I visited Italy in order that I might observe the workings of the Control Commission in that country and gain some lessons from them. I gained a great many lessons, but with these I need not trouble your Lordships this afternoon. Two things struck me in particular, and these, I think, are relevant to the present situation. The first is that it seemed to me obvious that the work of fitting together in one organization both soldiers and civilians, commanded perhaps by a soldier or perhaps by a civilian, was going to be very difficult as a matter of organization.
The Italian Commission, as your Lordships know, was solely military. Although the people who were actually engaged upon civil operations, particularly the lawyers, wore His Majesty's coat and had fought in the field, they were not people who were soldiers by profession, who had devoted their lives to the work of soldiering. Nevertheless, they were a military body. The British element of the Control Commission in Austria is a mixed body of soldiers and civilians working side by side in the same room; there are soldiers under civilians and civilians under soldiers. I was apprehensive that there might be very great difficulty with regard to fitting them together. Indeed, as we started planning, it was on occasion a little difficult for the soldiers to teach us exactly the way they wanted a thing done, and for us to teach them how impossible it was for us to do it in their way. I well remember, in their desire to educate us, that it was thought that we should have attached to the staff of my Division an experienced soldier who was versed in what

193
are called Staff duties. In due course a gentleman clad in the uniform of a famous Regiment came to see me, and we talked the matter over. Not wanting to have anybody on my staff who was not likely to be happy there, I said to him: "Well, thinking it all over, are you quite sure you will like it and find the duties pleasing? You know we civilians are an unruly race." He looked at me quite solemnly, and without a smile on his face, replied, "Yes, civilians are a curse, are they not?"
I do not say that when we were in Austria there were not occasions when these apprehensions and fears of mine were not to some extent realized, but I now know that they were unsubstantial and, ill founded. I now know that the organization which was brought into being, wisely directed from above by soldiers and supported with loyalty by the civilians, worked admirably. The result, so far as my Division was concerned, was a staff such as I was proud to command, and so far as the Division as a whole was concerned, one which I was proud to serve. I believe that a staff organized in that way is the only possible staff by which the particular problems we have to face can be encountered and solved.
That brings me to the Report of the Select Committee. Before I criticize it I want to say this about them: Of all the visitors—and there were many—who from time to time honoured us with their presence in Vienna, I do not think any gratified us so much as the Select Committee. They showed such a zeal to understand our problems, such intelligence in dealing with them, and such courtesy in their relations with us,' that we were all grateful to them. If, therefore, I pick out a particular thing to criticize, and abstain from praising, it is because my praise would take too long. After all, it is the things that I want to get altered which I would draw to your Lordships' attention.
The Select Committee recommended that the Commission should be, as they called it, demilitarized. I hope that I have already expressed—although perhaps not sufficiently—my gratitude to the soldiers under whom I had the honour to serve. Of course, we are all grateful to the British Army for a great many things; and to the American Army, too. There is, however, one thing in respect of which I bear them an undying grudge, and that
194
is their monstrous treatment of the English language. Words like "demilitarization," "denazification" and "hospitalization" caused me to writhe with agony and stamp with temper.
It may be that the Commission are not to continue for very much longer. They may be terminated by the Peace Treaty. That does not matter. But, while the Commission subsist, they cannot be demilitarized in any further sense than that in which they are already demilitarized. The structure of the British element of the Commission—I hope that I am not telling your Lordships something with which you are already well familiar—is as follows. At the top is the Commander-in-Chief. On one side he is called the High Commissioner, and on the other side the Commander-in-Chief, but as it is impossible to go into the room and know which side you are looking at, it does not much matter what he is called. Under him on one side, there are the British troops in Austria, who are called according to the slang of the day, the B.T.A., and, on the other, the British Element of the Control Commission. They are specifically under the command of the Deputy Commissioner, with his Chief of Staff. Below him again there are, I think, thirteen Divisions. Of those thirteen Divisions, three are essentially what I must call military—although I do not want to appear to say something which offends the other Services. There is the Military Division which must necessarily, I think, be commanded by a soldier. There is the Air Division, which must necessarily he commanded by an officer of the Royal Air Force, and there is the Naval Division, which must find the task of showing the flag upon the Danube, it suppose without any flag and without any ship, somewhat difficult. But as it consists of only one man and one assistant, perhaps it does not very much matter.
I have dealt with three out of the thirteen Divisions. Of the other ten, two happen to have soldiers in command of them. One of them is a soldier whose ample presence, and particularly his amplitude of chest, displays to the world at large in magnificent colours that he has served His Majesty in almost every part of the civilized and uncivilized globe and has held positions which were at least as civil as they were military. As he is not only in command of a particular

195
Division, but also has charge of the surrender of ex-enemy personnel, it is very suitable that he should be a soldier. The history of the other soldier I do not know. I have not seen the soldierly side of him, although I have had many occasions to admire his great knowledge of the subject with which he deals, and the extreme subtlety of mind with which he deals with it. All the other eight Divisions are commanded by civilians. What further can be done to demilitarize them I do not know. In some cases they have under their control people who are still serving as soldiers, being fed as soldiers and ranked as soldiers, and if they are taken away there are no replacements for them.
The Committee go on to say that the reason why they suggest demilitarization is that they do not want to reflect upon the work and the efficiency with which the work has been carried on, but "the military habit of simplification is not always an advantage in dealing with the complex problems of politics, for the soldier is rightly trained to evolve quick and clear solutions of which the stuff of politics does not admit." For my part, I wish the stuff of politics could be made to admit of it, because it is only by clear and quick solutions that you can make progress. We are dealing in Vienna, day by day and all day, with other nations. Something has got to be done on Tuesday of which you get notice on Monday. If you cannot get something clear and simple pretty quickly—I do not say a solution, for some things are insoluble—administration becomes impossible. I do not accept this contrast between the military and the civil side. I do not see any particular difference in the way in which the Commission work and the way in which some, though not all, Government Departments in this country work. I do see—and I lament—that when we come to deal with Departments in this country, whose assent and counsel is needed in Vienna, we do not get clear and simple solutions. For that reason, we suffer. What is required is greater simplicity, greater speed, greater help from here, and no interference with the Organization in Austria.
But the matter goes much deeper than that. The Select Committee base their whole Report on the thesis that the Agreement entered into last June, which is the
196
Creed and Bible of the Commission, was an agreement between the four Occupying Powers, on the one hand, and the Austrian Government on the other. It is nothing of the kind. The four occupying Armies are in Austria exercising the powers of a conqueror. The four Commanders-in-Chief, either singly or acting together, are, by international law, supreme. All that the Control Agreement does is to express among themselves which of those powers they shall exercise and who alone shall exercise them. They have tried to give, and the Control Agreement tries to give, more and more functions and more and more power to the Austrian Government. Of course, that is the policy of His Majesty's Government and, if I may say so, it is the right policy. But all that is on sufferance. It is not by contract. It is by the sufferance which these four Powers have agreed to endure that Austria acts at all.
Then see what happens. The Commission is fed by the Army; it is housed by the Army; it is carried by the Army. If it should appear to the Commander-in-Chief that for the safety of his troops certain things must be done on the railway, he orders them to be done, whatever the civil power may think about the matter. If it seems to him that the roads are falling, as they do and have done, into a parlous condition, he can and must and does take labour from other places where civilians are gladly employed, and force it on to the roads, so that those roads shall at all times be usable by troops who may have to be taken from place to place quickly. That is why the two charges of the Commander-in-Chief and of the High Commissioner are best united in one person. When they are so united, then that person can, as the Commander-in-Chief does, look at both sides of the question.
I know very little of what has happened in Germany. My visits to Germany during the last two years were literally of the most flying character, and one was highly involuntary. I am told by all those who do know anything about Germany, however, that it suffered very greatly from the division of functions between the Commander-in-Chief and the High Commissioner. I think it would be deplorable if such a retrograde step were to be taken as to divide the two offices in Austria.
That is all I want to say on my first head of the division between the civilian and the soldier, but I wish to mention something about a matter upon which I think the Select Committee says nothing; and that is as regards the Minister. Nothing was more apparent in Italy than the excellent work, if I may venture to say so without giving the appearance of an improper sense of praise, done by Mr. Macmillan in that country. Whenever the Commission—I use that term for the moment—were stuck, they waited eagerly for the moment when he would come and advise them and get them out of trouble. That feeling ran through the whole administration. I was very unlucky, and I never met him when I was in Italy; I had never met him before and I have never met him since, so I am talking without any sort of personal friendship.
His function was to interpret the mind of His Majesty's Government to the people on the spot and to explain to His Majesty's Government the difficulties which the people on the spot suffered. Those are and should be the duties of the Minister. I was very anxious, there-core, when I came back from Italy, that there should be a Minister who occupied with the British Element of the Commission the same position that Mr. Macmillan had occupied with the Control Commission in Italy, and I was highly gratified when I found that the Government (not on my advice) had adopted that course. I was, however, horrified to find that they had chosen to occupy that position a gentleman who, whatever his personal qualifications might be—and I am not saying anything about the Minister personally—occupied only a minor Government position, who had other Departmental functions, who was not even a Member of the Cabinet, and whose visits to the countries at issue were to be—and in fact they have been—very few, though not, I am sure, through any fault of his. If I had known that he was to be charged in addition with the attendance, nurture and watering of the Upas Tree that grows in St. James's Square, I should have been more horrified still.
I think it is most necessary, first, that there should be a Minister who occupies the position between the Commission and His Majesty's Government which Mr. Macmillan occupied between Italy and this country; and, secondly, that he should have no Departmental respon-
198
sibilities. I do not know what "Minister of State" means, but I think the ideal thing would be that he should occupy some sort of position in the Foreign Office itself for after all, while the Commission are in touch with other Departments—they have some of their affairs managed through Norfolk House, and they must necessarily, to some extent be in touch with the War Office—it is still essentially the Foreign Office which is concerned, and it is foreign policy which they are working out. Then it is said: "The best way to bring that about is to have a Resident Minister." That seems to me to be going to the opposite extreme and to be equally disastrous.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, according to his own account, which I am sure is true, visited Austria and Germany seven times in 1946, and spent twenty-eight days in the British Zone. You cannot, by a couple of days in Vienna and a scamper through the Zones, get to know what the problems are, still less the very intimate and delicate play as between man and man which necessarily governs the relations between the British element and the other elements. Therefore he would have to give to it a great deal of time which he cannot afford, although a more industrious person and one more devoted to his duties I am sure does not exist.
On the other hand, if he were resident, I think the result would be calamitous. In the first place, he must be resident somewhere. As we are continually told by Norfolk House that Germany is very much more important than Austria—it is larger and has more people I assume that he would be resident in Germany. I should expect, therefore, that every problem that turned up would be examined mostly from the German point of view. I do not mean from the German national point of view, but from the point of view of those administering Germany. The share of attention which Austria would get, therefore, which is little enough as it is, would be greatly diminished.
In the second place, if he is resident there he would insensibly become an executive officer. The responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief or the High Commissioner—whichever it is—would be overclouded; there would be a doubt as to where responsibility rested. I think

199
that what is as much needed as anything is that the responsibilities should appear to be held by those who do in fact discharge them. There is another reason. I am quite certain that if you had a Resident Minister, whether in Germany or in Austria, he would very soon gather round him that gigantic crowd of officials who appear to be regarded by Ministers as necessary for their comfort, wherever they are, whether in St. James's Square or elsewhere. (I promised the noble Lord that I would not say anything particularly nasty about Norfolk House on this occasion!)
LORD PAKENHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I hope he will not feel in any way bound by that promise to the extent of being inhibited and not saying things which he thinks would be of interest, because I have come fully equipped to answer him on that subject.
LORD SCHUSTER: Perhaps I will "have a go" later on.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am sure that it would appeal to the sporting instincts of the noble Lord to pass strictures on Norfolk House only when I have a chance of replying to them.
LORD SCHUSTER: It is very difficult indeed to ask the fox to be sporting in regard to the hound. He does his best to get away and bites as many hounds as he can when he is caught up. I must do the best I can to fight my battle in my own way. I do not want to take up too much time on administration, but I do think that it would be a terrible disaster if we built up a huge organization attendant on the Minister in either of those countries. I have sometimes heard Norfolk House described as a "buffer." In order to find out what that word "buffer" meant, I looked it up in the dictionary. This is what it says: "Buffer" An apparatus for deadening by springs or pads a concussion." Then it has another meaning: "Buffer (usually 'old Buffer'). Old fashioned and incompetent fellow."
I would like your Lordships to believe that while I have spent, I am afraid, far more time than I should have done on questions of organization, they are, nevertheless, of very great importance and they do very materially affect the manner in which the policy is carried out, if there be a policy, and they even affect, as it were,
200
the policy itself. I do not think, and the select Committee do not think, they have received as much attention in this country—this is not an attack on Norfolk House—as they deserve.
I want to pass from that to the actual affairs of Austria itself. It is not possible to talk about them in a very light or cheerful manner. The things which overshadow every act and every thought while you are there are famine—lack of food and lack of fuel. I am sure that your Lordships know as much about that side of the question as I know myself. It is not what might be called "my side of the house" and I do not want to say anything about it except these two or three words. In the first place, these stories are true. The Austrian is not being sufficiently fed. As a result of not being sufficiently fed, he cannot do a proper day's work; and because he cannot do a proper day's work and because he has very little fuel, he cannot produce the goods which he must produce if Austria is to be made, in any true sense of the word, a free and independent country with an economic basis of its own. I am convinced, not by statistics but by observation and by continual reports from people who are not concerned with food and fuel, that the Austrian administrative machine is very definitely slowed down because the men operating it and working it have not the physical vigour to carry on, and they lack the physical vigour because they are not getting the right food.
I hope nobody thinks that I am reproaching anybody here for that. We have not sufficient food, or so I am told, in this country. I was told that when I came home I should find it very uncomfortable, but it is not a tenth part as uncomfortable as Austria was then—and I believe conditions there have got worse since I left. The letters I receive from my friends there are more despairing in tone. They complain that while when we first went to Austria the children—though we could never understand how it was—looked rosy-cheeked and stout, they are now beginning to look thin, pale and "peaky." My friends are complaining that they have not got, even for the British offices, enough fuel or light.
I say all that to start with because I do not want you to think that the other two things about which I am going to speak are of equal importance, although

201
they are important. The first of these two things is what is called denazification and the second is what we call by the pet name "German assets." I cannot approach either of those two subjects, nor will the picture I am trying to sketch before you be nearly complete, unless I turn aside at this juncture and say a word about Russia. I know quite well that on this subject I have to walk delicately—as delicately as Agag, although not for the same reason. I will try not to say anything which will make the situation more difficult than it is now.
I suppose that what I am going to say is really familiar to your Lordships; nevertheless I feel that I must repeat it. Until you get to grips with it, it is almost impossible to realize how great is the barrier of language between the Russians and ourselves. We spent hours with the Frenchmen, the Americans and the Germans and could always, however little fluency we had in those languages, manage to understand most at least of what they were saying. We could see the drift, we could correct our own interpreters when they went wrong, and we could see what effect our own words were having on the mind of the man to whom they were addressed. But with the Russians that is not so, and it is not their fault or ours. There are more Russians vim talk English than there are British who talk Russian.
There is not. However, only a difference of language; there is also a complete difference in methods of thought. There are European words (some of which are somewhat doubtful in their meaning When we use them ourselves) such as "democracy," "Fascism," and so on, spattered about their conversation, but it is perfectly clear to anybody who listens that they do not mean by "democracy" what we mean by it. I really do not know what we mean by it, but whatever it is we mean by it, the Russians do not mean the same. In this country people have got into the habit of throwing words like "Fascist" and so on, at their opponents, as if they had a kind of meaning, and I suppose they have in their mouths; but they certainly have not the same meaning in the Russians' mouths.
The whole general attitude caused by this difference of thought interposes an enormous obstacle. May I tell you two stories. A Russian friend of mine—one of
202
the few who really talked fluent English—told me one day how very greatly he enjoyed being in Europe. I said: "Being in Europe? But you were educated at the University of Moscow." He replied:" Yes, but I do not call that Europe." One day they brought in a girl to interpret, and she interpreted pretty badly, poor thing, for a reason which will be clear in a moment. At the luncheon interval I said to her: "Have you had a happy morning?" She replied:" The happiest of my life; I have never heard English spoken before." All that makes things very difficult and it means that the Russian in Austria approaches the problems with which he is faced in a totally different spirit and with totally different methods of thought from those which actuate us. Very often he does not understand things which appear to us to be perfectly clear and I am quite certain in my own mind that the Russians have never understood the more important clauses of the Control Agreement, and I am sure that many of the difficulties which have arisen between us have arisen because the Russians do not look at and do not construe written documents in the manner in which we look at them and construe them.
On the other hand, I must say this, and I cannot help being autobiographical because it brings the matter more clearly to your Lordships' minds. I sat on ninety-three separate days at meetings of my own Directorate; that is to say, where the four elements met together. Each day probably meant six hours of argument and about an hour's lunch, which was as hard work as the argument. During all that time I never received anything but courtesy from my Russian opposite number. During the weeks from the beginning of October to Christmas, when I left the Control Commission—the whole of which time was occupied in the discussion of the denazification law—I was continually helped and I continually helped him; the union between us was perfect.
I do not mean to say that we both wanted the same thing. We were constantly in disagreement as to how a particular clause should be treated, or where we should draw a particular line. We talked to one another as negotiators who desired to come together, but who knew quite well that they desired different

203
things. But we did come together, and we did in fact, largely through this forbearance and this help, arrive at a satisfactory agreement—that is to say an agreement which was satisfactory to our masters—and a clear agreement. As I am going to say something about international agreements in a moment, I want particularly to lay stress on the fact that it was clear, and that we did understand what we were doing and what we wanted. I think we all thought, as these meetings went on and we got together, that there was to some extent a change of spirit that we were beginning to lay the foundations of some sort of mutual understanding. I think that was entirely due to the fact that each of us believed what the other said, and never did anything which could lead us to suppose that were seeking any end except the end ostensibly before us.
I think the Russians must be treated like that. I believe that the Russian looks upon us as extraordinarily clever and diabolical people, always trying to play some sort of trick, and as people who, by our superior cleverness, will trap him unless he makes use of his ruthless force. I think that he feels justified in using any trick that comes his way. That was a preface to what I was trying to say about denazification. I am afraid that I am going to say something which my noble friend will not like, but I am glad he is still here so that he can hear it. There are in Austria a number of people who have committed atrocious crimes. There are not quite so many as there were, because we have hanged many of them, but there are certain people who should be tried and, if found guilty, should be executed. The ones with whom I have been in contact have been guilty of murder in circumstances which, in my judgment, are inexcusable. No doubt there are in Austria people who, before the Anschluss, voted against the existence of the Austrian Republic. There are people who since the Anschluss, although not guilty of murder, were still party to the doing of deeds which were wrong in themselves and harmful to other people. There are, beyond them, an enormous mass of people who were members of one form or another of the National Socialist Party, contributing to its funds and even in some cases, perhaps, receiving some slight promotion in the Party. Let me
204
sweep away at once any talk about the people who are actually guilty, or can be found guilty, of things we call crimes. I am not saying anything about them except that they should be punished.
The denazification law divides the rest of the Nazis into two parties, the more guilty and the less guilty; and it imposes penalties which differ according to whether you were more guilty or less guilty. It does not impose sentences of imprisonment, but it does forbid the exercise of trades and professions. It disfranchises, to all intents and purposes, so far as the more guilty are concerned. It deprives them for ever of any chance of earning their livelihood or practising the professions in which they have been brought up. In all cases it imposes fines; but that is a minor matter. The less guilty are also forbidden to exercise certain trades and professions for a certain length of time. They are fined and they are disfranchised for a certain time. They are made incapable of holding offices, whether Government offices or others, sometimes for ever and sometimes for a certain time.
That was the law which the Austrians themselves put forward and passed, and which the Allied Commission has approved—the law of which I spoke when I was trying to describe my intercourse with the Russian representative. As I understood it, the policy of His Majesty's Government at that time was that denazification was a subject for the Austrians themselves, and that what they desired to do with regard to it they should be allowed to do. Although that is the law which was passed by Parliament, I am not quite sure whether that was exactly what the Austrian people would have desired. The Austrian Government are in a peculiarly difficult position. They are, as you know, a Coalition Government and a Government not composed by reference to the number of their supporters. Furthermore, the Parliament through which they have to pass the law is divided between the three recognized Parties, and Party feeling is no less keen between them because there happens to be a Coalition at the top. The denazification law, therefore, is a compromise. It is not in itself much the worse for that, but it bears the marks of compromise upon it. It lays a most enormous burden upon the Austrian administrative machine. It would never have been passed, and it never would have been

205
produced, if there had not been present in the minds of the Austrian Government and the Austrian people the desire of the Allies that something of this sort should be passed.
What I really want your Lordships to consider—and what I want the noble Lord who is to reply to bring to the notice of the Ministers with whom he sits—is the very doubtful policy which is involved. The result must be directly to weaken the Austrian administrative machine. Practically speaking, between the Anschluss and the outbreak of war you could not hold the smallest Government position unless you paid a tax to the Nazis and unless you became at least a nominal member to that organization. When I speak about the administrative position, I include the Judicial Bench. Your Lordships will realize that a Judge in Austria is very unlike an English Judge. His maximum salary is probably l00 a year, and he very likely has a wife and family. He is a quiet little man, doing his job as best he can, unconcerned usually with politics, working very hard, and—up to his lights—intelligent.
All these people, practically speaking, were forced into the Nazi party. All these people, or nearly all of them, have now been forced off the Bench. The result is that the Austrian courts, with about four times as much criminal work as before the war, are reduced to something like 25 per cent. of their former strength. These figures are estimated; they are not accurate. But the position is something like that. What is true of the courts is equally true with regard to other administrative offices. It is also true of the professions, the doctors and practising lawyers, and, even at the expense of having to bow before the invective of the noble Lord, I want the Government co consider whether this is wise.
You are going to create—you are creating—in Austria a hard core of people who have nothing to do, who cannot earn their living, who will cherish the desire for revenge, and who at the least tilt will be found in any disturbance that arises. I do not believe for a moment (and here again I want to challenge my noble friend) that there is the smallest danger of a recrudescence in Austria—I am not talking about Germany—of the philosophy that is called Nazism. I do, however, believe
206
that there is a very serious risk of a reversion to some form of totalitarianism if things go on as they are at present with a starved, cold, floating mass of discontented people. As it is, people who are quite well-known Nazis and have been displaced in the British or American zones are turning up as good Communists in Lower Austria. That process, I am certain, will continue.
I am sure that the only hope for Austria is that her people should be brought together, that while those who have committed atrocities and crimes should be punished, and punished severely, the rest should be brought back into the fold. The doctors, for example, should not be debarred from doctoring for the rest of their lives; dental mechanics should be allowed to make sham teeth none the less because they have been Nazis. You should not create a crowd of discontented hungry people—your future rebels and your future Communists.
I have been rather long in dealing with this matter. I am sorry for that, and for detaining you to this hour. I must, however, say one thing more about reparation assets, the very problem which gives most trouble. I think that we here are very greatly to blame. The Potsdam Agreement has a great many clauses which concern reparations. Those which have regard to Germany are in great detail. I do not know whether they are being observed, but they are exact and they are intelligible. Those which relate to Austria are completely unintelligible; they have no meaning, and they are strewn with phrases which can be interpreted by the fancy of anyone who reads them. Why it should be the habit of modern diplomats to enter into agreements which have no meaning at all, I do not know. I think it is the great desire to agree until to-morrow, and hope you will not be found out the next day. That is what has happened to the Potsdam Agreement. It is too late to enter into detail upon it, and at any rate some of it is forensic and juridical, and difficult to discuss on the floor of this House. But there is enough to quarrel with there, to keep all the powers of Europe at issue for the next hundred years.
There has been no serious effort made by His Majesty's Goverment to clear it up. While we have wheeled about in doubt and uncertainty, disputing, putting off, trying to save what we can of the

207
Austrian economy, we have had no help. Unless this matter can be clarified and rectified there is no hope for Austria. If the policy is continued of stripping Austrian factories of their machinery, or of occupying vital parts of Austria where there is agriculture or oil, for the benefit of the conqueror, that is a policy which I can well understand. Other conquerors have come in and have despoiled other regions. But our friends promised us they would not. We have gone about saying that we were in favour of a free and independent Austria, and on that footing we have occupied the country in a friendly manner. So have our Allies. But Austria cannot be free and independent if it has no economic hope. It cannot have economic hope until this matter is cleared up.
I do not want to enlarge upon the subject any more because the hour is late. That being so, I come back to the question I put on the Paper: What is His Majesty's Government's policy for Austria? I have looked out from the windows of St. Paul's School over that rather dreary thing they call a garden, into the November fog beyond; from the windows of the Regia Aeronautica in Rome into the clear air of Italy; from those of Schönbrunn or the Schwarzenberg Platz into the varied atmospheres of Austria; in the hope of seeing something, even if it were a cloud, no bigger than a man's hand, which might suggest that His Majesty's Government had a policy, but hitherto I have looked in vain.
It is no good telling me that their policy is that there should be a free and independent Austria, it is no good telling me that their policy is to withdraw from Austria as soon as they can. There is a policy, and we want to know that policy. We are told, and told truly, that peace is indivisible. So is diplomacy, or ought to be. Words that are said to us in St. James's Square and Downing Street, in Schönbrunn, Hof Berg and Schwarzenberg Platz have echoes far beyond those limits—in Athens, in Nanking, and also (the noble Lord will understand what I mean) in Teheran. What is His Majesty's Government's policy?
We have no material interest in Austria. If we say: "We have done our best and we have failed; we cannot make you free;
208
we cannot build you up; as friends, we will go out," I can understand that. Whether that would be a worthy policy I do not know, but it would be a policy.
What is the policy? To that question I have never been able to get an answer. I say that we have no material interest there. We do not desire an inch of territory, and we could not take it if we did. We have no hope of obtaining one ounce of gold. It is of no interest to us that our soldiers should remain some perhaps against their will, in Carinthia and Styria and in Vienna. It is not to our interest that peoples whose energy might be well employed in England should remain in the service of the Commission in Austria. For what object is it? Whatever it is that we are supposed to be doing in Germany, we know that Austria does not need to be kept down. She is not going to attack us; she is not going to attack anybody. She sits shivering lest anybody should attack her. Do we intend to protect her? Do we intend to protect her after we have withdrawn, and by what means? I leave these questions. I cannot answer them myself, so I ask them, perhaps rhetorically but very much more in the fervent hope that I and the English people may receive some answer.
5.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think we ought to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Schuster for having introduced this question of Austria on the eve of the fateful conference which is to take place at Moscow. The fact of that meeting and of the negotiations now going on in London must, I think, make each of us who take part in this debate weigh our words very carefully. I certainly shall do my best not to say anything which could embarrass either the Foreign Secretary or his deputy in their difficult task. At the beginning of his very able and comprehensive speech, the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, rather indicated that the problem of Austria had been somewhat overlooked, and he offered himself as a sacrificial victim so that this overlooking should not continue. But I really doubt whether his fears in this respect were justified. Remember that Austria was specifically mentioned in the gracious Speech from the Throne and that Austria has figured very largely in the debates which have taken place on foreign affairs both here and in another place, quite

209
apart from the discussions on the South Tyrol.
I will take two instances because they are of great importance. One was the very notable declaration made by the Foreign Secretary on October 22 last, a declaration which gave those of us who are concerned about Austria great satisfaction. The other was the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, in your Lordships' House, which is particularly worth while looking at just now, because he gave us a categorical assurance that this country would not stand for any diminution of pre-war Austrian territory. That assurance was of great value. Therefore, to my mind, Lord Schuster's fears about Austria being forgotten in debates in Parliament were not altogether justified. On the other hand, I should like to endorse what he said about the evil effects of the acquiescence of His Majesty's Government in the decision of the Foreign Ministers as to South Tyrol. We, on these Benches, believe that decision to be fundamentally wrong because it violated completely the principles and articles of the Atlantic Charter, and we regard that document as of the greatest importance. In fact, so far as Liberals are concerned, it forms our touchstone by which we test happenings and actions in the field of foreign affairs.
I do not think that I shall be accused of any lack of friendship towards Italy when I make a statement of that kind, particularly because I have always held, and still hold, that the proposed Treaty with Italy is distinctly harsh in many respects and does not take into account sufficiently Italian collaboration in the later stages of the war, nor, indeed, the promises which we made continually through the medium of the B.B.C. to the Italian people. It is quite true that, through the wisdom and good sense of the Italian and Austrian Governments, an amicable settlement has been reached as regards South Tyrol, and certainly that settlement greatly alleviates the situation. Field-Marshal Smuts described that settlement as the high spot of the Paris Conference. It may well be, though I have no definite knowledge on the point, that our Foreign Secretary used his good offices at that Conference at Paris to promote this agreement. Well, if he did, I agree that that is some expiation of his original sin. But when he claims, as he claimed
210
in a broadcast a short time ago, that the Foreign Ministers had got rid of the danger of irridentism in that region, really he is asking a little too much of our credulity. If, as I hope it irridentism does disappear, it will certainly not be due to the decision of the Foreign Ministers; it will be due to the good sense and the wisdom of the two Governments who have reached this settlement.
I am not going to follow Lord Schuster in detail on the question of administration. There are many other points on which I think it would be otiose to expatiate, but I feel that when we are considering the question of Austria we must remember that we are considering a question the roots of which lie in centuries far past. That is the essential difference between the Austrian and the German problems. That difference was very clearly brought out in some admirable articles which appeared in August last in the Scotsman. The writer of the articles concluded, and rightly concluded, that "like a Belgium or a Holland, Austria might be occupied but not conquered." Lord Schuster spoke at some length of the Report presented to Parliament by the Select Committee on Estimates. That Committee visited Austria in September last. Now I, too, have studied that Report with considerable care. It is, if I may say so, an admirable and comprehensive document. That Report also brought nut very clearly the sharp distinction between Austria and Germany to which I have already alluded. It emphasized that the problem of Austria was quite as important as that of Germany and how necessary it was that the two problems should continue to be kept quite distinct. I wish that that recommendation of the Select Committee would be borne in mind by the B.B.C., because they ought to remember that the expert on German affairs may not be at all the right man or woman to broadcast to Austria on Austrian affairs.
I was particularly impressed by the advice given by the Committee as regards the necessity of issuing a comprehensive directive on the main objectives of British Policy in Austria. That is very necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, and other authorities who have visited Austria, agree. There is a certain conflict in the Moscow Declaration itself, and that conflict ought to be cleared up. While the Declaration recognizes that Austria was the first victim of Nazi aggression another

211
paragraph would seem to regard her as an enemy country. This contradiction has already had unhappy consequences on the interpretation of British policy to the Austrians. In particular, there was the Proclamation of General (now Viscount) Alexander, at the time of the entering of our troops into Austria. That was a Proclamation which, frankly, the Austrians did not understand and have never understood. I am quite sure that a new directive is necessary in order to clear up the obscurities which, if perpetuated, would certainly do harm to our relations with Austria.
I have two criticisms to make about the Report of the Select Committee. In one passage they seem to me to over-emphasize the pan-German and Nazi tendencies of Austria. At no time was Austria pan-German. The Party was obliterated at the elections in 1910. In the Parliament of 1923 it held, I think, about eight seats, and in the Parliament of 1930 only three seats. We must remember that the invasion of Austria took place because Doctor Schuschnigg decided to hold a plebiscite as to whether Austria should become part of Germany or remain independent. Hitler, in order to prevent that issue being presented to the Austrian people—he knew quite well what the result would be—occupied Vienna with his armed forces. Surely we now know the truth about the attitude of the overwhelming majority of Austrians in 1938. Mr. Gedge, correspondent of the Daily Herald, has recently testified that there is no danger of a revival of Nazism, even after the withdrawal of the troops of occupation.
This brings me to rather a delicate point which was dealt with at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster—the question of the denazification of Austria. I hope that that question will be liquidated before long, and, in any case, I trust that His Majesty's Government will be guided by the declaration made by Chancellor Figl—a man who has deserved well of his country—when he spoke at Klagenfürt on September 22 last. He said:
"The Nazi problem must be handled exclusively on the basis of the meting out of justice. It is the leaders and those responsible who interest us, not the smaller fry, the railway workers and the doorkeepers."
I am sure that no one in your Lordships' House desires any unnecessary victimization or a persecution hunt. What we
212
want, once the leaders of the Nazi creed in Austria have been rooted out, is that all Austrians shall work together for the good of their country.
I now come to my second criticism of the Report of the Select Committee. That Report suggests that in the year 1938 Austria was in desperate economic straits. That is far from correct, as all available statistics corroborate. Surely there were never 600,000 unemployed in Austria. I know that Doctor Goebbels gave that figure, but then Doctor Goebbels was a master of lies to suit his own purpose. So far as I can ascertain, the actual figure of unemployed in Austria in 1938 was 232,000 as against some 330,000 in 1933.
LORD PAKENHAM: Will the noble Earl allow me to intervene? The figures with which I have been supplied indicate that in 1937 there were 321,000 registered as applicants for work, and 319,000 concealed unemployed, making a total of 640,000.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I do not quite know what "concealed unemployed" is.
LORD PAKENHAM: It is quite a well known term.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I apologize. I am not acquainted with it. Perhaps when the noble Lord replies he will go into it further. If I have drawn your particular attention to these errors in an otherwise admirable Report, it is because they are of great importance in assessing the future prospects of Austria. I think we forget than Austria is richer in resources than a prosperous country like Switzerland. Far too many people still believe that pre-war Austria could not stand on her own legs, either economically or politically. That was quite untrue—it was again a Goebbels invention. This is not my view alone; it is the view of the best economic and financial experts of this country. It is very desirable that in the future economic relations between Austria and her neighbours in eastern and southern Europe should be developed to the greatest possible extent practicable. I remember that that was strongly urged by that wise statesman, Doctor Benes. He wanted close economic relations between Austria and Czechoslovakia, and had definite ideas as to how they could be effected. Unfortunately, owing to internal politics in

213
Czechoslovakia his intentions and plans could not be carried out. I hope that in the future they may be executed.
I fully realize that His Majesty's Government are not able to deal with Austrian matters as if they were alone. Much must clearly depend upon the attitude of the other great Powers, and particularly of Soviet Russia. I cannot forget, and I do not think we ought to forget, that during the years preceding the war—the years 1933 to 1938—the Soviet Government afforded Austria all the support that was possible when Austria was engaged in a life and death struggle against Germany. I trust that that policy may be continued, and that full effect will be given to the Moscow Declaration, which provides for a free and independent Austria. We desire an Austria from which the troops of occupation have been withdrawn, an Austria which can become politically independent and economically prosperous, and which can be admitted at the earliest possible moment—I attach great importance to this—to membership of the United Nations. I want to add one word. The figures I received about Austria's unemployment were from a very reliatble source.
5.20 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I venture a brief incursion into this debate on one specific and concrete point. Before I begin, perhaps I should say how sorry I am that the noble Lord who opened this debate anticipated that his remarks would give me umbrage. His apprehensions only show how much easier it is to acquire a had reputation than a good one, so before I actually come to my main point I will say a few words which may lead him to suppose that I am not quite such an unreasonable person as he appears to imagine.
I remember that in 1937 I made, for my own guidance, as near an estimate as possible of the strength of the pro-AnschŰss movement in Austria. It worked out—I used all available sources for the purpose—at something under 30 per cent. I remember that His Majesty's Minister in Vienna at the time told me that his estimate was lower still; it was about 20 per cent. That also may give some comfort to the noble Lord who preceded me, because I think it shows that the movement for the AnschŰss was very much less weighty than most people
214
supposed. It is true that that minority contained some of the worst and basest Nazis of the lot, but it is fair to say that most of the rest of the people, with some notable and regrettable exceptions on the Left, asked only to be left alone by Germany. They were left alone, and entirely alone, by the Allies, and the result was that they were in due course invaded by the Germans.
It is, therefore, a mistake to suppose that the Second World War began in September, 1939; it began in March, 1938. If the Allies then had been prepared to exercise their veto, there would probably have been no Second World War. As they did nothing, the inevitable happened, and Austrians fought fiercely twice, and for the second time on the wrong side. For that they must bear that measure of responsibility which is laid down in the Moscow Declaration of 1943. Although my official days were long over in 1943, I always imagined some belated recognition of at least a partial Allied responsibility lay behind the other part of the Moscow Declaration which listed Austria as first among the countries to be liberated. It is common knowledge that it did not work out that way for a variety of reasons, chief among them being Russian reluctance to discuss the subject at all. Austria took her place at the tail of the queue instead of at the head. It was a case of inverted priority: the first were indeed last.
Then in due course the country was liberated, but again the operation did not work out quite according to plan or expectation. No reasonable person could have expected the process to be an easy one. At the same time, you have not a very good chance of getting on your feet again if you weigh only nine stone and your narrow chest has to provide seating accommodation for foul people whose weights vary between eleven and fifteen stone. There were also some other minor impediments, such as the claim that all property stolen from Austria by the Germans should belong to the Russians. That, of course, is a rather original and novel conception of justice. I do not think we need go into too many details, but I think this would be a fair statement of the case: Austria certainly has not deserved well of the world, but what she has got in a great many respects has been less a square deal than a quadrilateral

215
occupation, which is not necessarily the same thing.
Then the Foreign Ministers took up this question of liberation in a big way, and, as has already been pointed out, their first decision was to liberate Austria from any earthly hope of ever recovering the South Tyrol. Your Lordships may remember that long before that decision was reached I brought a Motion in this House in which I pointed out in considerable detail that the only right course was the restoration of the South Tyrol to Austria. Well, we may almost understand that almost anyone may try almost anything once; but why anyone should want to try this one twice simply passes comprehension. It is no good going back upon it now. I suppose the evil has been done, and we must make the best of a bad job. The Austrians have made the best of a bad job. They have taken an injustice with considerable philosophy and resignation. They have now come to an agreement with the Italians, and I think we may safely say they have set a good example. It remains to be seen whether this agreement will be any better honoured than all the long string of postwar obligations that have been dishonoured, the latest and most flagrant example, of course, being the Polish elections.
The time has come for another instalment of liberation, and so the Yugoslavs have come forward with a request that Austria should be liberated from any further responsibility for Carinthia and a part of Styria. It seems to me that the appetites of the new world are not so markedly different from those of the old, and that is partly because, under the guise of a new doctrine, we are being confronted with the re-growth of an old nationalism which has some of the acquisitive features of the old nation state—a conception I think which lies at the root of so many of "the troubles of our proud and angry dust." Have any of us ever heard quite so much as recently about national sovereignty? Why, that old pair of high stepping words is trotted out every time we claim the fulfilment of a promise. I venture to think that Tito's Yugoslavia is becoming an example of this metamorphosis, with its ambitions for Salonika, for Trieste and Klagenfürt. Incidentally, the Carinthian frontier is a
216
perfectly good and natural one, although perhaps these considerations play a less part than they used to do.
Anyhow, here we are confronted with another recipe of liberation. You liberate from gaol an admittedly peccant person. You put him on his back. You lop off a limb or two and then say, "With these trifling physical abbreviations, you have a grand chance for a fresh start in life. You are a new man. Go and sin no more." And he does go and sin no more, because he dies. I do not doubt that these claims have been put forward in all good faith, even if in some respects they have been put forward with startling naivety, because, apart from the ethnological considerations advanced, the Yugoslavs in their claim have said in so many words to the Foreign Ministers' deputies: "Look, you must give us satisfaction in this claim, because we did not get quite all we wanted in Trieste." I venture to think that the Yugoslavs did not do too badly in that region. If anybody doubts it, I think we might look at the shape of the new Free State. It reminds me rather ominously of a diseased appendix.
But in any case the argument that because the Yugoslavs did not get an Italian city they ought to have an Austrian Province is rather a remarkable one. It savours to me of the reasoning of the old world in its heyday: it belongs to the era of "swap and bags I." If we were to be guided by that kind of reasoning, it seems to be fairly manifest that Austria could not fulfil the first article of the new Treaty which provides that she is to be independent. If we did follow that reasoning, Austria would be manifestly forced into the Eastern bloc, which is already exercising so much pressure on Greece and Hungary, and if all these things were fulfilled I do not think it would matter very much what paper stipulations were subscribed for the free navigation of the Danube.
The time has come when we should look on this word "liberation" divested of its clouds of jargon. The word should not be contused with the de-liberation of the great, which often has a somewhat contrary effect. It is true Western Europe was liberated by the efforts of the Western Powers. When we come to Eastern Europe we must be candid and say that, according

217
to our Allies, that liberation up to date has meant that 120,000,000 more people have lost a great part of whatever liberties they used to have. Therefore, I think it would be unreasonable to suppose that we should willingly consent to an enlargement of the area of disappointment. I suggest that the moment has come when the Eastern bloc might be reminded that we have all subscribed to the first three clauses of the Atlantic Charter, which the noble Earl mentioned in his speech.
It might be all the more appropriate to make such a reminder as there is now talk of revising the Anglo-Soviet Treaty which confirms those stipulations in the Charter. In any case, although many of us are only too painfuly aware that the instrument has been largely invalidated by the course of the policy of the Eastern bloc, the West has never renounced it—although I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that we put a fairly large blot on our copy book when we agreed to the stipulations about the South Tyrol. But there is more to it. After the first World War we continually met with the reproach and complaint that we had reduced Austria to a state of all head and no torso. I hope that at least the course of this debate will make it clear that we will not completely stultify ourselves by consenting to a yet further dismemberment of an already dwarfed and truncated body. If we do, the word "liberation" will have lost even more than it has already lost of its real content.
5.32 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like to give ray support to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. I am afraid I cannot claim to have the extensive experience and knowledge of the noble Lord, due to his official position in Austria, but I was fortunate in being a member of the Parliamentary delegation that went out to Austria two or three months ago, when I had the opportunity of discussing many problems with members of the Austrian Cabinet, including Dr. Figl who is in this country at the present time. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the British Control Commission for the really excellent facilities put at my disposal, which enabled the delegation as a whole to obtain a complete picture of the conditions in Austria in the very short time available.
218
In my humble opinion, one of the greatest disasters in European history was the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If that Empire had remained in being after 1918 it is quite possible that the Second World War would never have occurred. It is, of course, no good looking backwards, except in so far as it is necessary to appreciate the difficulties which have to be surmounted in Austria at the present time—difficulties which became apparent very soon after 1918 and which are now greatly aggravated by the Second World War. I think that the best description of Austria is in some ways that given by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. Austria is really a species of being with a very large head and no body. Vienna, the capital, is, of course, the head, but the body, which used to consist of the industrial areas of Austrian Silesia, Bohemia and Moravia, has been severed; and, what is much more important, so have the agricultural plains of Hungary. It is on this truncated body that the four Powers are trying to build an economic and self-contained State which did not in fact exist between the two World Wars. I would venture to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on that matter, because we remember the number of loans which were made to Austria by the League of Nations between the two World Wars.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Is making a loan a sign that a country is economically finished? I only put a question.
LORD TEYNHAM: Not at all, but it is weakened very slightly. As I understand it, the aim of British policy is to establish Austria under a democratic Government and on a sound economic basis as quickly as possible. I hope it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to force or to arrange a Peace Treaty with Austria before these two Objectives have really been attained. I cannot help feeling that it will be many months, if not years, before a democratic structure has been built up in Austria and the Austrian Government, Austrian Government circles and the Austrian Civil Service have learned from the devoted band of British advisers the ways and means of Government as we understand it.
If the advent of a Peace Treaty means the withdrawal from Austria not only of the military strength of the four. Powers but also the Allied Advisory Commission,

219
I cannot help feeling that we shall build up in Europe a storm centre which may in years to come lead to another war. Austria is far from being in the clear either politically or economically, and her difficulties are naturally increased by the different ideas and methods of dealing with the various problems which arise, when they must be considered by four different Powers, although it is, of course, true that the Allied Commission do their best to conduct their affairs on an agreed basis.
I propose to refer to one particular aspect which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. By the Potsdam Agreement, Russia became entitled to German assets in Eastern Austria, but for some reason which bas never been explained the Potsdam Agreement did not define either German assets or what is the extent of Eastern Austria. This vague clause in the Agreement has led to many difficulties and misunderstandings with the Russian element, and I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to inform your Lordships that an effort is being made to obtain agreement on this matter. In the economic field there are many difficulties, and the country is really in a serious position. With the permission of your Lordships I propose to read a paragraph from the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. It is paragraph 41, and it reads as follows:
"There is at present little cause for optimism; Austria is approaching an extremely critical situation which must create grave anxiety, both to the Allied Commission and to the Austrian Government."
I do not think the conclusion of this Committee can be too strongly emphasized at the present time.
One of the most difficult problems at the moment is shortage of food, and a depressing feature is the unlikelihood of Austria ever being able to support herself entirely, due very largely to the fact that her country is very mountainous and full of forests. A great deal can be done, however, to increase food supplies. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will be able to assure your Lordships that real steps are now being taken to increase the food supply. It is true that under the new Control Agreement the Austrian Government have a very large measure of administrative freedom, but I am very far from
220
convinced that their writ holds good in all the four Zones. I understand that the general policy of His Majesty's Government, as outlined by the noble Lord; Lord Schuster, is to demilitarize the British element, in view of the fact, that the Control Commission is no longer to have executive power but is merely to act in an advisory capacity to the Austrian Government.
It is our view that as a result of this new arrangement the staffs in Vienna and the provinces may be reduced and the Commander-in-Chief be abolished in favour of a High Commissioner, and possibly a diplomatic mission. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government if it is the intention to proceed with these plans on a unilateral basis. Has Russia agreed to demilitarize her Control staff at a comparable figure with ours? That is a most important question. It can also he argued that the sooner the four Powers are withdrawn from Austria the more quickly she will be able to stand on her own feet and resume her rightful place among the nations. I think it is high time there was a little plain speaking on this matter.
I propose to refer to the trouble amongst the Slovenes in Austria, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. Anyone who has visited Austria recently will know of the Yugoslav problem on the frontier. Propaganda in favour of a union with Yugoslavia is being spread among the Slovenes in the Provinces of Styria and Carinthia and is expanding and increasing in force. Our troops have a very unpleasant duty to perform on this very rugged frontier with Yugoslavia, and in fact it has become necessary to declare a prohibited frontier zone into which only authorized persons are allowed to proceed. What is going to happen if, on the conclusion of the Peace Treaty, the four Powers withdraw from Austria? Is the propaganda going to cease? Is there any reason why it should do so? I feel that not only would it become stronger, but that infiltration from Yugoslavia would undoubtedly take place and that we should have a problem similar to that of the Sudeten Germans once more.
In her weakened economic position Austria is bound to lean on a neighbour for assistance. If all support is removed from her too quickly, before she has

221
achieved stability, it is not difficult to prophesy the direction in which she is bound to lean. She knows that we ourselves are in straitened circumstances and that we are anxious to reduce our commitments as much as possible. It is, of course, true that at the election in the Autumn of 1937 Austria decisively rejected the Communists, but unless she receives continued support from the Western Powers it is difficult to see how she can survive economically except by entering the economy of Eastern Europe. We must not leave Austria to her fate. Although the cost of the premium on the insurance policy may be a heavy one, it may well save us a great deal more money in the future. I hope the demilitarization of the British element will not be carried too far—certainly not on a unilateral basis—and that the Peace Treaty will provide for an Allied Advisory Council to remain in Austria until such time as the country has fully regained its political and economic stability.
I should like to see the Allied Control Commission later replaced by a United Nations Advisory Council for a minimum of ten years, backed by sufficient force to keep Austria's frontiers inviolate. At the present time this idea of a United Nations Advisory Council may be a little beyond the range of practical politics, but I think it is worthy of very serious consideration because in my opinion it might well prove to be the salvation of this rather unhappy country. I hope the Council of the United Nations Organization will not forget that in the years to come their writ will be of little value unless it is backed by force drawn from the peace-loving nations of the world. I hope Austria will receive the fullest support in her struggle for independence both politically and economically.
5.45 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I would like to add my tribute to those which have been paid by your Lordships who have already spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, for intiating a debate on so important a matter. I was very impressed with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who has just sat down and who has first-hand experience of Austria. The fact that we, as a country, and others as well, have an important part to play was very well emphasized by the President, Doctor Renner, in a speech last
222
year, in which he said that the guarantee of Austria's existence and her future did not rest solely, or even in the first instance, with the people of her soil, but rested to a higher degree with the people outside. Your Lordships have spoken, I am sure, with those words very much in mind. I would like to say how much I am in accord with the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who was good enough to give considerable support to the first Motion on Austria which I was privileged to move in February, 1943. At that time, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was the Leader of your Lordships' House. After a certain lapse of time there came the Moscow Declaration, which was, a satisfactory answer to the debate.
There are one or two things I want to suggest, and about which I hope my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, may feel moved to say something when he comes to reply. The first is that we appreciate very much the good work done during the war, and since, by the B.B.C. in regard to Austria. Originally there was an independent section of the B.B.C., in which Mr. Patrick Smith played a prominent part, but now there has been an internal reorganization and there is a German Division, a section of which devotes itself to Austrian matters. As your Lordships have emphasized, it is essential to differentiate very clearly between Austria and Germany, and I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, Nill give attention to the reconstitution of the Austrian section of the B.B.C. as a separate unit, separated from the German Division. Your Lordships have emphasized the need for that separation in the various remarks that have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, emphasized it very clearly, as did the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. The Austrians are not Germans and we should draw a very clear line of demarcation between them.
There is a hazy idea of what has been done in Austria in the resistance movement. Those who are not fully in touch imagine that between that fatal date, March 11, 1938, and the liberation in 1945 very little was done, but the contrary is the case. If your Lordships have not seen it, may recommend that you should take the first opportunity of seeing a red and white book recently published by the Austrian State, giving all details of the resistance movement? It is a big volume and one which makes splendid reading. Your Lordships are

223
well aware that, despite every attempt, the Germans were quite unable to form an Austrian battalion, let alone an Austrian division. The Austrian troops were considered by the Germans to be unreliable; in other words, they did not want to fight for the cause into which they were dragooned. Therefore no separate Austrian units could be formed.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred to the ambiguity of phrasing in the Moscow Declaration. He did not specifically mention the words, and perhaps I might ask your Lordships to allow me to read them. In the first paragraph of the Declaration, Austria is called "the first victim of Nazi aggression." That, of course, is perfectly true, as has been emphasized in your Lordships' House on many occasions. Later on the Declaration says:
"Austria's attention is drawn to the fact that she carries responsibility which cannot be ignored for participating in the war on the side of Hitler Germany and that in the final settlement consideration will be given to her own contribution towards liberation."
Those two passages are completely contradictory. I would ask my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, to say something about that matter when he comes to reply and to make it perfectly clear where His Majesty's Government stands in relation to that specific issue. As I know my noble friend Lord Cranborne is to speak next, may I thank him for the help he gave to those of us who spoke on Austria in your Lordships' House in February, 1943?
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, who raised the debate this afternoon is, I think, outstanding evidence in support of the proud claim of the House of Lords that it can produce experts of the highest eminence on any aspect of public affairs. The noble Lord is not only a public servant of the greatest distinction who has spent his whole life in the service of his country but, as he has told you this afternoon, he has recent personal experience of the subject on which he speaks. In the remarkable speech—and it was an extremely remarkable speech—which he delivered to your Lordships to-day, he talked of what he knows—he has seen it all for himself—and he gave, I thought, a remarkably vivid and absorbing picture of the situation in
224
Austria at the present time. The Government will be well advised—and I am sure they will do so—to give the fullest attention to what the noble Lord has said this afternoon. We have also had many other contributions from noble Lords well qualified to speak, such as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the noble Lords, Lord Vansittart and Lord Teynham, and several other noble Lords with specialized knowledge.
As I listened to the first three speeches, the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Schuster, the Earl of Perth and Lord Vansittart, and as I heard their cogent and caustic utterances, I could not help feeling how much these eminent civil servants must have suffered during the last forty years as they listened to the stumbling utterances of Ministers. In any case, it is not my intention to traverse the ground which has already been covered by noble Lords with so great experience. I want to confine myself, if I may, to a few comments on what I understand to be the main issues facing the Allies in respect of Austria. The first observation I would make is this. There is one thing I think in particular which has emerged from the debate this afternoon. It is that ever since the end of the war a main obstacle to getting a clear-cut, united Allied policy on this particular question has been the existence of the dilemma to which the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, has just drawn your Lordships' attention: Is Austria to be regarded as an accomplice or as a victim of Germany? If she is to be regarded as an accomplice, no doubt there are valid reasons for making the terms of settlement more onerous; but if, on the other hand, she is to be regarded as a victim, clearly there are very strong arguments for treating her more leniently.
This dilemma became apparent—as the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, and the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, have pointed out—as early as the Moscow Declaration of 1943. That document, if I may repeat its words yet once more, spoke of recreating a free and independent Austria. It used the very significant words in this connexion that she should be "liberated from German domination," and that the annexation by Germany should be made "null and void." From that portion of the Declaration it would appear that it was the view of the signatories to the Declaration that she should be regarded

225
as a victim of Germany. But the document went on to indicate that she had a responsibility which she could not avoid for "participating in the war at the side of Hitlerite Germany." That gave her the character of an accomplice. This dilemma has persisted ever since October, 1943, and it has dominated, as I understand it, such questions as reparations, denazification—if the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, will allow me to use that abominable word—and the boundaries of Austria. It has been made even more complicated, as the noble Lord, Lord Schuster said, by the existence of the four Allied Zones of Occupation, which gave unlimited opportunities for differences of interpretation of joint Allied decisions by the Allied authorities in the various Zones, whose minds in any case move in a very different way one from another.
If I may just take the question of reparations, it was, as I understand it, agreed at Potsdam that reparation claims by the U.S.S.R. shall be made from a portion of German external assets in Austria. As the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, said: What are to be regarded as German external assets? It is no good blinking the fact that it is no doubt an extremely difficult and complex question. Some assets, of course, were entirely created by Germany after the Anschlűss. Those clearly are German assets in the strictest interpretation of the phrase, and there is the strongest case for regarding them as available for reparations. But other assets existed before the Anschlűss, and were only improved by Germany for the purposes of the war. I must say that these present a much more difficult proposition. No doubt, if you carry the thing to its logical conclusion, all Austrian assets were used by Germany for the purposes of the war. If all these were to be hypothecated for reparations, the phrase in the Moscow Declaration of 1943 about liberating Austria would become quite meaningless. Moreover any economic recovery of Austria would be made utterly impossible within any foreseeable time. It is quite evident that unless the country is to be left as a kind of slum in Central Europe, poisoning the atmosphere all around, some more limited definition of German assets must be agreed between the Allies.
Here, I suggest, there is a great opportunity for Soviet statesmanship, and I hope very much that it will not be missed.
226
Up to now, the interpretation of German assets in the Russian Zone has been, to our mind, rather harsh. They have acted, as the noble Lord, Lord Schuster said, rather as conquerors than as liberators. A generous gesture by Russia in this matter would be immensely welcomed, both in this country and in the United States, and I believe that it would help very greatly to improve the atmosphere between the great Allies.
Similarly, with regard to denazification, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, and others who have spoken—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart takes the same view—that too rigid an attitude is likely to be extremely harmful. The noble Lord, Lord Schuster, has already spoken so fully upon this aspect that it really need; no more words from me, and I would therefore express only a few sentences in support, because I find myself in very general agreement with everything he said. No one of course, disputes that active virulent Nazis—and undoubtedly there are some, or were some, in Austria—must be ruthlessly eliminated. Convinced Nazis are like mad dogs—nothing can be done with them at all. But there are many people, among them men who are essential to the recovery of their country, who were not genuine Nazis but merely toed the line so as to be able to continue at their ordinary work. If we exclude all those from the service of their country, the result is likely to be deplorable and even disastrous. Here, it seems to me, is an instance where it is surely 'desirable, from every point of view, to show a certain magnanimity and a recognition that cases of that kind are the inevitable result of the forcible occupation of the country by Germany. The present Austrian Government, as I understand it, are operating the denazification law with the genuine desire to see Nazism eradicated. I hope that the Allies, whether it be we or the Russians, or anybody else, will not make their task impossible by too rigid an insistence upon the elimination of everyone who has compromised with his conscience under conditions of very great difficulty.
Finally, my Lords, there is the territorial question. Here I take it that the Allied policy is governed by the statement in the Moscow Declaration of 1943 wherein the signatories recorded that the annexation of Austria by Germany in

227
March, 1935, was null and void and declared themselves as in no way bound by any changes affected in Austria since that date. Of course that in no way prohibits them from making changes if they wish to do so. But I take it to be an indication that they intended at that time to restore Austria's pre-war frontiers. The situation as regards Austria's war guilt has not changed since that date. If it was the intention then to restore the pre-war frontiers of Austria, there has been no new reason since then to alter that intention. The only new clement in the situation—it was referred to, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart—is Yugoslavia's claim to the cession of Styria and Carinthia.
But, my Lords, a plebiscite was held in these two provinces after the last war, in 1920, and the inhabitants declared in favour of Austria. So far as I know there has been no alteration in their view since then. Moreover, the Allies have already decided—whatever view one takes about that decision—to perpetuate the alienation of one Austrian province, the Southern Tyrol, of which the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, spoke this afternoon in such moving terms. To lop off yet more provinces would be to leave Austria a mere rump of her former self. Only the most extreme form of war guilt could justify that. Even then it would probably be unwise, for it would obviously be futile to set up in Central Europe a State so small and so feeble that its future survival was impossible. We need to build strongly and constructively if we are going to have enduring peace in that part of the world. Indeed, my Lords, one's main fear is that, even with Styria and Carinthia, Austria is going to be hard put to it to maintain herself. Many years ago it was said by somebody, I forget by whom, that even if the Austrian Empire were destroyed, it would have to be re-created. Obviously, it is no longer practical politics, even if it were desirable, to restore the Hapsburg dynasty. But of course, economically, there is considerable truth in the remark that I have quoted. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was the Danube basin, and the Danube basin is a single economic unity.
One of the greatest disasters after the last war was the excessive nationalism of the succession states. It is no doubt quite possible to divide Central Europe politi-
228
cally into water-tight compartments. But the economic effect is bound to be disastrous; and so it was between the wars. It is absolutely essential, I believe, if prosperity in that area is to revive, that the Czechs, the Hungarians and the Austrians should cease to cut themselves off from each other, as they did between the wars, like hostile fortresses. They must keep together and work together in sympathy and understanding. This can be done without any sacrifice of their sovereign independence, and with immense material advantage to all of them. I hope this will be made clear by His Majesty's Government, so far as they are concerned, to all the nations in question. Were this achieved and the freedom of navigation on the Danube restored, I believe that a new era of prosperity might even now begin for Central Europe. In the meantime, the first necessary step is for the Allies to withdraw their troops and to get Central Europe on a normal basis again. This of course does not necessarily mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, fears, that all Allied assistance should immediately stop. That is a question, I should have thought, for discussion with the countries concerned. But Allied troops I am sure must go. You cannot have a normal situation while foreign troops are still in occupation of a country, nor can there be any recovery in Central Europe before the troops are withdrawn from these countries. And it is clearly an essential pre-requisite that the Austrian problem should be settled. Austria is the most western of those countries, and while foreign troops are in Austria Russia will naturally wish to keep her troops in the more easterly countries to safeguard her lines of communication.
We are all glad, I am sure, to see that the deputies—that new body of men—have already reached agreement to recreate a free and independent Austria, and I hope very much that that decision will be ratified by the Foreign Secretaries when they meet in Austria. The Government will note that I have not asked any questions this afternoon. I have in fact refrained quite deliberately. We all fully recognize the delicacy of the negotiations now proceeding, and I am sure none of us wish to press them to a statement which might embarrass those negotiations. We are indeed glad to see, after all this long time, that things are beginning to move in regard to the Austrian problem, and

229]
I should like, in conclusion, to wish the Government the very best of luck in the coming discussions, for on the success of their efforts may well depend the future unity, peace and prosperity, of Europe and of the world.
6.08 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I would like first of all to respond on behalf of the Government to the spirit which animated the last words, indeed the whole speech, of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition. We are most grateful for the way in which he in particular and indeed all speakers have tackled this question this afternoon. In response, I will not say to his questions because he asked no questions, but to his plea, I would most certainly assure him that the Government will press on all countries the conviction that the economy of Austria and of all countries surrounding it must be regarded as a single whole.
I am sure every speaker who has addressed you this afternoon knows far more about Austria than I do. Until recently I only once visited Austria, and then I played in the lawn tennis championship of Lower Austria without any marked success. Owing, unfortunately, to a clerical error I was billed as the British Champion, and although I survived three rounds I was then eliminated in somewhat humiliating fashion without: having done much for the credit of our country. I hope this afternoon I shall do something to recover myself in this field. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, for his forbearance up to the time of speaking. He has implied that if my tone is not all he would wish he may adopt a very different manner when he conies to reply. Further, and without prejudice to any reflections, which I may feel called upon to pass upon his reply in some other place, I would like, on behalf of the Government, to congratulate him on the most, impressive contribution which he has made; and, indeed, for initiating this noteworthy debate.
I have been asked to state the Government's policy. No one knows better than Lord Schuster that it is not always easy for a Government to say everything that is in their minds. I visited Austria last week in order to try and fortify myself for this debate, and I came back still more conscious that it would hardly be politic at the present time to lay before
230
the House, in public, every consideration that is bound to be in the minds of the Government just now, though, indeed, one would be perfectly ready to discuss them with Members of the House privately. But I do not think that there is any particular need to be disingenuous or unduly circumspect, and I hope that when I have stated, the Government's policy Lord Schuster will feel that at least he knows what the Government's intentions are.
I would summarize the underlying principles of the Government's policy towards Austria in four prepositions. The first one—and I hope that because it is so familiar to him Lord Schuster will not reject it with contumely—is simply this: Austria should be re-established as an independent State. That is, surely, the beginning of wisdom on the whole matter. Secondly, her frontiers should be those of 1937. That means, of course, in the first place, that she should grow up separate from Germany and completely free from German domination. It means also, I am afraid, that she is not to recover the South Tyrol. That must be a matter for great regret to most members of the House, and I will not pretend, for one moment, that it is a matter for rejoicing to myself. But there it is; that is what has been settled. If has been settled for no narrow reason, but after everything relevant has been taken into account. As the House is well aware, Italy aria Austria have behaved in the most sensible fashion, and have done everything they can to try to lighten the blow to Austria and to make sure that the minority within Italy's frontiers shall be properly looked after. I can assure the House that His Majesty's Government will certainly not disinterest themselves in the fate of the minority in question.
But it also means—and this has been brought up very effectively in the course of the debate to-day—that we are not going to tolerate any further cutting down of Austria's frontiers. I am delighted myself that the speaking has been so plain on that subject this afternoon. I do not pose as an expert of any kind on Austria, but, as I have said, I was there, as it happened, last week. It is plain to anyone who goes there, or, for that matter, to anyone who does not go there but is an honest man and takes the trouble to read a book or two on the

231
subject, that the Yugoslav claims are completely baseless. In my own view, and I hope that I am not speaking more strongly than is proper on an occasion such as this, they are not worth the paper on which they are written. But, of course, they must be investigated as coming from a Government with whom we have friendly relations.
Thirdly, it is clear that Austria must eradicate all traces of Nazism, and she must build a permanent democratic structure on the excellent foundations she has laid for herself since her liberation. I think it would be appropriate here, following the remarks of a previous speaker, to pay a tribute to the work which the Austrian Government have done in very difficult circumstances, and more particularly to the work of Dr. Figl, the Chancellor, and Dr. Schaerf, the Vice-Chancellor. Fourthly, Austria must be rendered a viable economic community and placed in a position where she can work out her own economic salvation.
If these are the ultimate considerations underlying our policy, and I believe that they are, it is worth asking: "What practical steps follow?" I should suggest that the practical steps can also be placed in four categories, and can readily be paired off with the four principles which I have mentioned. If we are to establish, as we are committed to establish, an independent Austria, it follows that a treaty should be concluded as quickly as possible which will enable Austria to take her place as an independent State among the United Nations. As soon as that happens, it seems to me to be common sense, and indeed obvious wisdom, that the forces of Great Britain, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., and France, which now occupy Austria, should be speedily withdrawn. That is certainly the intention of the Government and, so far as I can judge, the intention of all the great Powers. Developments here appear to have been encouraging in the last few months. It seems now a good deal more certain than it was a few months ago that all the great Powers are looking to a time in the near future when, a treaty having been signed, all occupying forces can leave Austria.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who knows a great deal about Austria and who performed considerable services in this connexion last year, seems to me to err in supposing that we shall be well advised to
232
leave some element, at any rate, of the Commission in Austria, after the treaty is signed and when the troops disappear. I think I see what is in his mind, but it seems to me that he was answered by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. It is certainly the proposal of the Government not only that the military forces but that the Commission also should be withdrawn when the treaty is signed. In spite of what Lord Teynham said, and bearing in mind the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I believe that that decision will commend itself to the House; that that attitude will seem a wise one to the great majority of the House. I need hardly mention at this stage of the debate that negotiations are at this moment proceeding in London with a view to the early signature of a treaty which will enable these Forces to be withdrawn in the way I have mentioned. The Austrian Foreign Secretary is already in this country, and the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor should arrive to-night. The Austrian case will be stated on Thursday. It seems to me that the omens are good. Though it is always too early, in these cases, to form any definite impression from the initial talks, the atmosphere, I am told, has been most amicable. There have been no scenes, and, taking it all round, the conversations so far have been, perhaps, the most cordial that have taken place between the great Powers since the war came to an end. That is, at any rate, something with which to encourage ourselves.
The second practical requirement of any successful policy is not one on which the attitude of all the great Powers is known, but, equally, not one on which any disagreement must necessarily arise. The proposed treaty will of course result, if our ideas are implemented, in the withdrawal of the occupying forces from Austria, and it is, in our view, essential that, as soon as possible, Austria should be allowed reasonable means of defence on the same scale as neighbouring countries. The settlement, however, of the long-term problem in this fashion does not entirely dispose of the immediate difficulty. For a little while—it may be a year, two years, or even longer—once the occupying forces have disappeared, Austria will be without any considerable army of her own, surrounded by countries which are somewhat more heavily armed. During this period, which

233
is technically being discussed as the "gap period," we are determined to do all in our power to ensure that Austria will, in fact, be able to give a good account of herself if she should be attacked, and, generally speaking, to hold her own until international machinery such as the U.N.O. can be operated to her advantage. So that during that very difficult gap period we are determined that Austria should not be left defenceless.
Thirdly, we cannot entirely overlook the peculiar relationship which Austria must be held to have assumed towards Nazism during the recent war. The problem has been posed in various ways, and mostly clearly, perhaps, by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. He has asked us whether Austria is to be regarded as an accomplice or a victim. I do not think that one can answer that quite simply, but if one had to say she was either an accomplice or a victim, I should say victim every time. I do not know, however, that one can answer it quite as simply as that.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I did not mean to suggest to the House, or to the noble Lord, that there was a simple answer. Of course, Austria cannot be regarded entirely either as a victim or as an accomplice of Germany. Her position is rather that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
LORD PAKENHAM: I think myself that she has been much more Jekyll than Hyde. Even in the case of Germany, I suppose that most of us, confronted with the sight of some suffering German woman or child, would be inclined to ask, "Did this one sin, or his father?" In the case of individual Germans it is difficult to pin down the responsibility, but the Government is convinced that collectively the German people must bear the responsibility for the recent war and for all its horrors. That is our collective attitude towards Germany. But we do not fasten the same responsibility on Austria. We regard her as more victim than accomplice, and we have no intention of treating her as though she had been a free agent during the crucial years. We take the view that she cannot be regarded as having been a free agent; indeed that she ceased to exist as a free agent in 1938, and will not finally
234
recover her freedom until the treaty is signed.
At the same time a special onus falls on Austria, in view of her recent past, to prove that she has now shaken the Nazi poison out of her system, and all the occupying Powers have co-operated with the Austrian Government in the denazification process. I am bound to say this: the issue of denazification is one of the hardest. It is difficult to know what one wants to happen, and it is almost impossible to discover what has happened in various countries. In Germany and Austria there are so many categories which tend to overlap that it would require a statistical genius, with many other talents, to draw an exact conclusion as to what has occurred. If the House wishes I will willingly, on a later occasion, circulate a written answer setting out the statistics of the matter, but I would just emphasize that the latest Austrian law on denazification, to which the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, referred, has at least the merit that it has been forwarded by the Austrian Government and has received the approval in an amended form of the four great Powers. It is now awaiting final acceptance by the Austrian Parliament. It does, therefore, represent agreement among the four great Powers.
I am bound to confess to a certain small measure of surprise at the attitude taken towards this law by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. The noble Lord knows perfectly well what I am going to say. He obviously detests this law, and I think that is hardly too strong an expression to describe the impression which he gave us. Whatever I may think of the law, I have come down here, as in duty bound, to congratulate a very distinguished public servant on the self-sacrificing way—it appears all the more self-sacrificing after his remarks this afternoon—in which, on behalf of the Government, he negotiated this law with the other Governments.
I do not know whether it is quite plain to the House that Lord Schuster has been the chief architect on the British side of this piece of legislation. No doubt when he comes to make his barbed reply he will have a very crushing retort for me on this point, but at the moment the advantage seems rather to rest the other way. This law, which has been held up to opprobrium this afternoon, is his own work. It

235
is possible to have two views on this law, but at any rate it flows from the very brilliant mind and the skilful pen, so far as we on the British side are concerned, of Lord Schuster, who has made such acid criticisms of it. We can, of course, examine the matter at greater length, but I feel it would be rather otiose to go in greater detail into a law on which the noble Lord is the supreme authority.
The question of denazification is immensely difficult. One set of critics will naturally tell us that we have been too severe, and another set that we have been too mild. We in our zone of Austria arrested and interned over 8,000 people who were regarded as dangerous because they fell within certain specified categories. We have released about 3,000 of them, handed over about 700 to the Austrians for trial on specific charges, and the others will be dealt with gradually. We have been as thorough as it is possible to be, and eventually the whole process will pass into Austrian hands, when, as I hope, our troops and Commission leave the country. The Austrians must operate their own denazification law. We have tried to hold the balance fairly but I am bound to agree that any attempt at genuine denazification is certain to involve some loss in administrative efficiency. We can only hope that in the time to come that loss will be reduced to a minimum.
There is, however, a fourth requirement connected with a successful Austrian treaty which it would be idle to pretend was easy to implement, or, indeed, to work out precisely. I, with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, am far from being a pessimist about the future of the Austrian economy. I hope that neither I nor anybody for whom I am responsible has misled him in any way regarding this subject of unemployment before the war. I do not know whether the question of whether, the unemployment was equivalent to, shall we say, 4,000,000 in this country, or 2,000,000, matters very much. The essential point, and here I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, is that even with that unemployment, Austria was paying her way and balancing her imports and exports. It may be said that the German occupation has twisted and distorted Austria's economy in various ways. I think that is so, but in other ways the German occupation has enormously developed her resources. I need only mention the fields of hydro-electric power and
236
Crude oil, in the latter of which a monthly output of 2,738 tons in 1937 had been increased to 42,600 tons in 1945. That gives some idea of the increase in her crude oil production.
But the point that I would impress on the House is that the Austrian economy at the present time is only benefiting to a very small proportion in this great increase in oil production. The oil wells are in the Russian zone, and the Russians withdraw a very great part of the oil for their own purposes, so its value is lost to Austria's domestic economy and to her potential exports.
That is only one instance, though rather a striking one, of the general Russian attitude towards what are called "German assets" in Austria, a subject to which the noble Viscount devoted a good deal of attention. The House will recall that under the. Potsdam Agreement reparations were not to be exacted from Austria herself. (I forget whether there was any doubt in the House on that point; I do not think that there was.) But the Governments of Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States maintained the right to take title, as part of the reparations to be paid by Germany, to all German assets in Austria, as in certain other countries. It is not that Austria is a unique case. This is a general provision which happens to operate with particular hardship on Austria. At the same time, the noble Viscount will recall that the Western Powers renounced all claims to German assets in Eastern Austria. The trouble, as the noble Viscount explained, is that, following the Anschlüss, Germany obtained such a grip on the economic life of Austria that it is very hard to know where German assets can be said to begin and where they can be said to end. But I am bound to make it plain that where obviously there is a good deal of intricate discussion, and a good deal of give and take, to be embarked on in this field, it would be very foolish to take up a crude stand. I am bound to make it plain, however, that we do regard it as a matter of principle that this clause should not be interpreted in such a way as to conflict with the Declaration of Moscow of 1943, a year and a half before Potsdam, which was a declaration in favour of "giving the Austrian people a chance to find that political and economic security which is the only basis of lasting peace." (I quote the words of

237
the Moscow Declaration.) I hasten to add, lest anything I have said may seem too bellicose, that there seems no earthly reason why this problem should not be settled with good will around the table, if the matter is approached in the same amicable and constructive spirit that has distinguished the treaty negotiations up to the present time. Therefore I should like to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham—as to whether we were in fact taking up this matter strongly—by saying that we are taking it up very strongly indeed, but, at the same time, in a friendly and cordial spirit. It is a matter to which we attach immense importance. He can rest assured of that.
So much for the schematic summary of British principles in relation to Austrian policy, and of the steps required to give effect to them. The principles, I should think, are common ground among the Great Powers and Austria herself. The necessary steps would appear to involve no inevitable collisions of vital interest, though I should be misleading the House if I implied that complete agreement over German assets was likely to come very quickly or easily.
I feel, having made a flying visit to Austria, and having taken an interest in her economy for a good many years, that I should say a few words about the economic position there, although that matter was not raised so forcibly this afternoon as were some others. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, rightly pointed out that the great questions in Austria are food and fuel—those basic necessities of life. Next to Germany, Austria has the lowest food consumption in Europe today. Until November, 1946, the normal consumer's ration was fixed at 1,200 calories per day. In November it was raised to 1,550 calories. Various categories of worker receive larger rations—the heavy worker obtaining some 2,805 calories—and a considerable portion of the population (about 28 per cent., who are full or part self suppliers) receive about the same amount. Nevertheless, it remains true to say that the normal consumer in Austria to-day probably receives something between one half and three fifths—something more than one half and something less than three fifths—of his opposite number in this country, where we do not find the food over-plentiful or over-agreeable.
238
The picture is not entirely black. The experts on the spot have recently produced some interesting statistics. The death rate, for example, has dropped sharply, and is now below not only the 1944 but the 1939 figure. I will not burden the House with a great many figures, but the one which I am about to give is rather striking. The figure for infant mortality was 162 per 1,000 in 1945, and in 1946 it dropped to less than half; that is to say to 75. Infant mortality was less than half as bad in 1946 as in the preceding year. In fact, the figure of 75 Per 1,000 in 1946 compares favourably with 88 per 1,000 in 1944 and 92 per 1,000 in 1939. Whether by good fortune or otherwise, the more dangerous and immediately devastating infectious diseases have not entered the country.
Summing the matter up in the sense arrived at by our experts on the spot, it seems broadly true to say that the position of Austria to-day is no worse than it was in 1944 and a great deal better than it was in 1945. In some respects, including the one I have mentioned—infant mortality—it is as good as, or better than, the position in 1939, but the broad comparison and the fair one would be, I think, with 1944; and to say that Austria has regained the level of that year—admittedly it is an extremely low one—does at: any rate represent a considerable recovery. At the same time, I do not want to leave the House with any kind of feeling that one can return from Vienna in a complacent frame of mind. If I may put it in this way, without figures, I think perhaps one could say that Austria is not starving, but she is desperately hungry; she is not freezing to death, but she is desperately cold; she is not dying, but it is only by concentrating on the struggle for existence that she continues to live. That is putting it as clearly as I can. I do not think that there is anybody who has been in Vienna recently who would not sleep happier in his bed if and when he heard that conditions had improved and Austria were in a much better position than she is to-day.
Now a few words about the prospects for 1947. As the House is aware, U.N.R.R.A. assistance, which alone has made possible the maintenance of such standards as those. I have mentioned, ceased officially on December 31, 1946. A great question mark, therefore lies across the months immediately ahead.

239
The U.N.R.R.A. shipments have not yet all been received, and the residue, coupled with domestic supplies, should guarantee the maintenance of the existing ration till the end of February. Beyond this date there seems little prospect of the gap between imports and exports being covered in the immediate future, except as a result of direct assistance from this country and the United States and, it is hoped, other Powers.
Estimates naturally vary (it would be highly suspicious if they failed to) regarding the adverse trade balance for 1947. That is a thing in the case of any country about which one can make conjectures. The total gap is expected to be of the order of only $160,000,000 to $180,000,000 or something between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000. His Majesty's Government, as is well known, have come forward with assistance to the extent of £10,000,000 out of a probable gap of £40,000,000 or £50,000,000. In view of our straitened circumstances that will seem to most of us as much as we can do. The American Government are known to be considering the problem very closely, and I need hardly say that their decision is being awaited with great eagerness. Let us hope also that other great Powers who take such a keen interest in Austria will see their way to give her positive assistance.
In the longer future we feel convinced that Austria will be able to support herself, when the foreign armies are withdrawn, on two conditions: first, that the claim of the Allied Powers to German assets is not interpreted in such a way as to exercise a stranglehold on the economic life of the country, or to prevent Austria from drawing the revenue from her promising industries. The second condition is that Austria should recognize that the period of help from outside must be brief, and that ultimately she will survive or perish according to the strength of her exertions and the character of her people.
I draw towards the close without having covered all of the points raised, but I would like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, that the question which he raised relating to the B.B.C. will be most carefully considered. He knows that it is not a straight issue for the Government and that the responsibility does not fall directly on the Government. I will do all I can to see whether his ideas cannot be complied with. I am not sure that there was not
240
some misapprehension about the process of civilianization. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, had it in mind that civilianization was, in fact, being carried further as a matter of policy. There is no question of further civilianizing the Commission as a matter of policy. In some cases the soldiers' term of service may come to an end and civilians may be substituted, but there is no question of going in this direction as a matter of deliberate policy. I accept the very cogent arguments brought forward on that matter by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster.
I will conclude by saying that it does seem to me that to-day, almost more than ever, a discussion in your Lordships' House has done immense good. It will have served, I believe, to demonstrate even more strongly than before to our Allies, to the whole world, and above all to the Austrian people, that our concern for her independence and future welfare is very deep and very genuine, and that we shall spare no pains in our power in trying to help her to stand on her own feet, which is surely the best kind of help which one country can render to another. I would just add that it is very pleasing to think that we have been represented out there in Austria by such splendid Englishmen, whether soldiers or civilians, whether they be in high places or occupying humble positions—including I need hardly say, the noble Lord who initiated this debate. The civilians have impressed all by their great earnestness, devotion and knowledge, and the troops, reflecting throughout, I am sure, the influence of the very great gentleman who is their Commander-in-Chief, have shown firmness, a generosity towards a people struggling to their feet and, in the face of much suffering—as in a Displaced Persons' camp which I visited last Friday—a gentleness which is not perhaps surprising to those who know them, but which certainly has been beyond all praise. On behalf of the Government I am very grateful to the noble Lord for initiating a most helpful debate.
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, the House has been extremely indulgent to me in allowing me to take so long when I made my opening speech, and the noble Lord who has replied has also been indulgent and gentle. I am not going all over again the ground which we have traversed, but there are two things which I must say. One is a small point. The

241
noble Lord gave the figures with regard to the production of crude oil. I am not an authority on crude oil, but I would earnestly entreat the noble Lord and those concerned to make some investigation, if such an investigation can be made, into the manner in which those who now occupy that particular oilfield are extracting the oil. It is very easy to increase the output of crude oil in such a way as to destroy its future productivity. That, according to the information which I have received, is what is going on.
I must say something about denazification, as the noble Lord did challenge me. He must not say that denazification flowed from my pen. I should be ashamed for all time if it could be supposed that I could have drafted or been a party to the drafting of such an amazing structure of—I do not know what to call them—sections and things all muddled up together, references extending over fifty years and sentences that begin and do not end. The Austrian has many attributes, and he has my sincere friendship and affection; but as a draftsman he is beyond any kind of description. I am not responsible for the form. I am responsible—and I. dare to assume the responsibility in part—in that, acting under instructions, and believing that they were the right instructions—though I would have acted upon them whether I thought they were right or not—I was a party to initiating a passage of the law. I think that everybody in all elements thought that there ought to be a law, and that it ought to be a law as nearly as possible corresponding to that which the Austrians desired. I was not committed to the proposition that is was a good law. I do not think it is a good law. I think it is a very bad law, but it is much better than no law at all, and it enables the Austrians to proceed, they think they ought to proceed, with the work of what they call denazification. I wanted to look beyond that, and to ask if it really is a policy that: can pay in the long run, to drive a great many of the intelligent part of the population into hopeless misery and resistance, which is, I think, the result of the policy now being pursued? I am not complaining of His Majesty's Government in that respect at all. We have had to do what we were told to do, and what to some extent we contracted to do, but I
242
do not believe that you can in the long run bring peace and contentment to a country if a very large section of the more intelligent part of its population are condemned in this way to a hopeless life of misery and are cut off from giving any national service to their own Government or from taking any part in local or central life. I do not want to go on much longer, but I just wanted to put those facts on record.
The only other thing I want to say is this. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I am sorry that I put him to so much trouble. I think he owes to me the fact that he had a pleasant trip to Austria, and he ought to be grateful to me on that account. What I fear is this. If these policies which have been enunciated, and these means which have been described for giving effect to the policies, were going to succeed, I should be comparatively happy. I am certain that His Majesty's Government—I hope that I am not saying anything that appears to be rude, or anything of that kind—honestly and earnestly desire that those policies should be followed and that the means which the noble Lord has described should be followed to give effect to them. I cannot forget, however, that when he has described those policies, and the means of giving effect to them, he has then gone on to give us the picture of Austria as it is to-day.
What I want noble Lords to ask themselves, and what I want, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to ask himself, is: How are those things consistent? What is the good of talking about withdrawing troops from Austria until we know who is waiting on those beautiful mountains which look down on the valley of the Drau? When will it be that the frontiers of Austria will be secure? We know that if Austria is left alone at present she cannot feed herself. The noble Lord has told us so. We know perfectly well that if she is left as she is at present she cannot get her factories working because, on the one hand, she has no fuel, and, on the other hand, because the factories have largely been sacked.
How, then, can she get on her feet? The £10,000,000 which His Majesty's Government are generously finding is, no doubt, a sum which it is right and proper should be found. I had hoped that that £10,000,000 was going into the restoration of the economic life of the country, But it is not; it is going to fill the gap during

243
which the population will have nothing to eat. Unless capital of some kind, and on a very considerable scale, is supplied, this continual want and need will go on, and this £10,000,000 will be merely gold poured into the Drau and the Danube. What we really want to know is what is to be done to get Austria on her feet. We shall not get her on to her feet by giving her £10,000,000 or £20,000,000—whatever the sum may be—unless that is going into capital works and not into mere consumption. I do not want to run on. I have already taken far too great an advantage of the clemency of the House, and I apologize for it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  TRADE STATISTICS.
  TRADE STATISTICS.