Sitting of 19 March 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COTTON INDUSTRY WAR MEMORIAL TRUST BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    U-Boats (Generating Plant)
    Mr. Grimstonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) if diesel engine generating plant and batteries were removed from captured German U-boats before these vessels were sunk;
    (2) how many diesel engines and generating sets have been salvaged from German U-boats; and how many have been disposed of.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Diesel engine generating plant and batteries were not removed from captured German U-boats before they were sunk. As stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Sir B. Neven-Spence) on 23rd January, 1946, these U-boats were sunk in accordance with our international obligations. This equipment formed an integral part of the U-boats and it would not have been possible to remove it within the time set for carrying out these obligations. Salvage operations would not be possible.
    Mr. Grimston: Were no efforts made to change the arrangements when it was
    380
    becoming apparent that this generating plant would be extremely valuable?
    Mr. Dugdale: The U-boats had to be sunk within two months of the time of the settlement of the agreement, and the two months included the time necessary for them to be taken to a place where they were to be sunk, and that was over 15 months ago.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Have all the submarines been sunk within the two months, including those allotted to other Powers?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another question.

    Wreckage, River Medway
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the problem in regard to navigation caused by the presence of the wreck of H.M.S. Bulwark in the Medway; that the situation is steadily growing worse by siltation; and if his Department will take the necessary steps to remove this 25 year old menace to shipping in the Medway at an early date.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I am not aware that any difficulties are caused to navigation in the Medway by the wreck of H.M.S. "Bulwark". I am advised that it is not practicable to remove the wreck, and that its dispersal would be a proposition of doubtful practicability, and of prohibitive cost.
    Mr. Dobbie: In view of the difficulty experienced by those engaged in shipping in that area, would my hon. Friend be prepared to receive a deputation to discuss the matter further?
    Mr. Edwards: I would be quite ready to meet a deputation and consider it again.

    Lower Deck Promotions
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if all intending officers have to enter the R.N. as ratings.
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Why should there be this differentiation between the Navy, the Air Force and the Army? In the Army and in the Air Force, the officers rise from the ranks; why not in the Navy?
    Mr. Dugdale: If my hon. Friend was present yesterday, he would have heard in my opening statement that my noble Friend the First Lord is giving consideration to the whole of this matter, and I hope to be able to make a statement within eight weeks.
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the proportion of officers serving in the R.N. who commenced their service on the lower deck.
    Mr. Dugdale: I regret that time does not admit of a complete answer being prepared to the hon. Member's Question. The percentage of permanent officers of the three largest branches, namely, the executive, engineering, and supply branches, who began their service on the lower deck is about 12½.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not much easier for a rating to get on to the Front Bench than to get into the officers' mess?

    Court Martial, Rosyth (Christmas Day Lunch)
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that a commander of a motor minesweeper was court-martialled, dismissed his ship and severely reprimanded for sitting down to Christmas dinner with five of his men; and if he will review this sentence and take steps to see that the Regulations making such conduct an offence are altered.
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the court martial at which Lieutenant John Wardle was sentenced to forfeit three months' seniority, to be dismissed his ship, and to be severely reprimanded for taking lunch with five ratings on Christmas Day; and if he will make a statement on the sentence.
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that a commissioned officer in the Royal Navy was recently court-martialled for taking a meal with ratings on Christmas Day; and, as the disciplinary action against this officer was not in accordance with the new spirit of democracy in the Services, whether he will review the sentence imposed.
    Mr. Austinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty under what K.R.s, and A.I.s., Lieutenant John Wardle, R.N.V.R., recently sentenced by a Rosyth court martial for eating Christmas dinner with five ratings, was convicted; and whether he will review the case, and in future ensure that such treatment prejudicial to the development of a more democratic outlook in the Service will not be tolerated.
    Mr. W. Edwards: I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement which I made during the course of my speech last night.
    Mr. Driberg: Is it proper for my hon. Friend the Civil Lord, with all respect to him, to refer the House back to a statement of which the House is not in possession because it was made too late for inclusion in HANSARD today, particularly as that statement contains a very illogical argument which would really imply the desirability of the total abolition of the sale of alcoholic liquor on board ship?
    Mr. Edwards: If the House desires, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to read the statement again at this moment.
    Hon. Members: Circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Edwards: it is not very long, and perhaps I might as well read it right away. The statement is as follows:
    A considerable amount of misunderstanding has arisen about the court martial at Rosyth on 7th March of Lieutenant Wardle, R.N.V.R. This officer was charged with two acts to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline in taking lunch and intoxicating liquor with five ratings in a ratings' mess of his ship, and in giving beer and spirit to these ratings. The gift of spirits or intoxicating drink on board His Majesty's Ships is specifically prohibited by King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions. Experience has shown that entertainment of ratings by officers frequently leads to acts of indiscipline or other unfortunate results and it has been found in the best interests of both officers and ratings that such entertainment should not take place. The wisdom of this rule was amply demonstrated on this occasion, for I am sorry to say that one of the ratings, who was seen after the meal in an intoxicated state, disappeared from the ship shortly afterwards and while there is no evidence to show how he disappeared, the possibility that he lost his life by falling overboard cannot be discounted. The circumstances of such an incident do not point to the desirability of altering the Regulations.

    383
    I am advised that the trial was properly conducted in every way, and I see no reason for interfering with the sentence of the court martial.
    Mr. Bowden: Is not my hon. Friend aware of the old-standing custom in the Army and the Royal Air Force, for officers actually to wait at table on other ranks on Christmas Day, to take drinks with them, and generally to entertain them?
    Mr. Edwards: I am not aware of the customs in the Army, though I am aware slightly of the customs in the Navy. I feel that this incident alone shows the wisdom of, as far as possible, seeing that a position does not arise whereby ratings may be able to obtain intoxicating liquor on board, and which may result in the loss of life.
    Mr. Gallacher: Could my hon. Friend tell me if this statement was drawn up in collaboration with the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson)?
    Mr. Edwards: I can assure the hon. Member that it was not.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: Would the matter have been in order if it had been a teetotal lunch?
    Mr. Edwards: No, Sir, that is not in order. Under King's Regulations, as they exist at the present moment, it is not permissible for an officer to lunch or to drink with ratings on the fore mess-deck. That actually took place on this occasion. This occasion, as I have tried to point out, illustrates the undesirability of such a practice, in view of the possibility of ratings losing control of themselves.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lieutenant Wardle was successful in his protest at the court martial against one of the judges, who was removed, because he was the informer; that that cannot happen in a civil court, but can happen in a naval court martial; and, surely, the time has arrived when this procedure should be abolished, and a more humane method of procedure instituted than obtains at the moment?
    Mr. Edwards: I can only say, so far as the court martial is concerned, that the accused officer pleaded guilty.

    Technical Specialist Branches
    Mr. Austinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in
    384
    view of the increasing importance in the R.N. of engineering in all branches concerned with ships, gunnery, equipment and aircraft, he will consider the setting up of a special technical branch composed of specialists from each section, as has been done recently by the R.A.F. as set out in A.M.O. A1026/1946.
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The range and complexity of machinery, weapons, and equipment in the Royal Navy is very great, and the separate specialist branches must be retained.
    Mr. Austinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the increasing dependence of the R.N. on engineering technical administration, he will consider representation of a senior officer of the technical branches on the Board of Admiralty comparable to such representation on the Air Council.
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The present arrangements for representation on the Board of Admiralty, under which the Third Sea Lord and Controller of the Navy is responsible to the First Lord for the provision of material of the Fleet, including ships and machinery are wholly satisfactory.

    Loss of H.M.S. "Glorious" (Report)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he has any further statement to make about the Report on the loss of H.M.S. "Glorious" and the attendant destroyers H.M.S. "Acasta" and H.M.S. "Ardent."
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. Since the statement I made oh 8th May, 1946, about this most gallant action, further information that has become available has now established, that one important source of information, namely, the German account of the action, confused the parts played by H.M. Destroyers "Acasta" and "Ardent," and the order in which they were sunk. The account published in the OFFICIAL REPORT is, therefore, incorrect in this respect, and should be amended. I will, with permission, circulate details of the necessary amendments in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Stokes: When are we to be allowed a really full report of what happened; is it not a fact that the proper escort, the cruiser and the other two destroyers, were

    385
    taken away from the "Glorious"; is it not also a fact that neither the officer commanding Coastal Command, the officer commanding submarines, nor, I think, the officer commanding the Home Fleet was told of the movement of the "Glorious," and in consequence thousands of men were left rocking about in the water, and nobody went to look for them?
    Mr. Dugdale: I cannot possibly accept that statement.
    Mr. Stokes: It is true.
    Mr. Dugdale: At the request of the hon. Member we have had a very full statement prepared. I have now merely amended it in certain respects. That does give us as full a statement as we are able to provide.
    Mr. Medland: Will my hon. Friend say whether any orders were received direct from the Minister of Defence, over and above the Admiralty, to divert destroyers away from these men?
    Mr. Dugdale: I am afraid I could not say that without notice.
    Mr. Stokes: Well, it is true.
    Following are the Amendments:
    Column 1053—Second paragraph, first five sentences.
    Amend to read: "The order to 'Abandon Ship' was given about 17.20. Listing heavily to starboard, she sank about 17.40. The 'Ardent', after firing two four-tube salvoes at the enemy, had been sunk about 17.28. The 'Acasta' was still in action with her guns firing, and as she steered to the south-east, fired a four-tube salvo, hitting the 'Scharnhorst' with one torpedo abreast of the after 11-inch turret. A final salvo hit the 'Acasta' at 18.08, and she sank beneath the waves."
    Column 1055—last paragraph, second sentence.
    Amend to read: "The gallant efforts made by her attendant destroyers should also be borne in mind—the 'Ardent' doing her utmost to engage an overpowering enemy and to screen the 'Glorious'; the 'Acasta' in dire straits, turning and launching the torpedo which hit the 'Scharnhorst,' probably saved the approaching convoy and its 14,000 troops from destruction, while her captain on his
    386
    sinking ship cheerfully waved a last farewell to his men on the Carley floats."

    Portsmouth Dockyard (Ex-Trainees)
    Major Bruceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many ex-trainees who have completed courses in Government training centres as bricklayers, plasterers, tilers, carpenters and joiners, wood machinists, plumbers, painters and decorators, respectively, are at present employed in the Royal dockyards at Portsmouth.
    Mr. W. Edwards: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Has there been any objection on the part of the trade unions to the employment of these ex-trainees?
    Mr. Edwards: Not that I know of.
    Following is the answer:
    The following ex-trainees are employed in the Works Department at Portsmouth Dockyard.

    —

    Dockyard.

    Outstations.

    Total.

    Painters

    7

    8

    15

    Plumbers

    2

    7

    9

    Slaters

    1

    —

    1

    Joiners

    —

    6

    6

    Plasterers

    —

    4

    4

    Other Categories

    Nil

    Nil

    Nil

    10

    25

    35

    Air Force Station, Crail (Future Use)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a statement upon the future use of Crail Naval Airforce Station.
    Mr. Dugdale: It has now been decided to use the Naval Air Station at Crail as a boys' training establishment. It is hoped to begin the training of boys at Crail about the beginning of May.
    Mr. Stewart: Can the hon. Member say how many boys are to be brought there; and can he give any indication how the training establishments may develop in the course of the next year or two years?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The details have not been worked out. We have simply agreed the principle. I think the hon. Member will be interested to know that this is the first time boys of the seaman and communications branches have been trained on shore in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his last statement will be welcomed in Scotland, and if he could couple with it some decision about Rosyth, we should be well pleased?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the only time the Navy thinks about Scotland is when there is a war on?

    Writing of Lines
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in what circumstances and for what offences the writing of lines is a prescribed punishment aboard His Majesty's ships or in R.N. establishments ashore.
    Mr. Dugdale: The writing of lines is not a punishment authorised in the Naval Disciplinary Code. It is neither prescribed nor prohibited in Naval educational establishments, but I am not aware that this punishment is imposed in such establishments. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to consider the matter further.
    Mr. Greenwood: Will my hon. Friend make quite clear to the House that he disapproves of this measure of punishment; that he will make his disapproval widely known throughout the Service; and that he will make sure that when men are punished they are put on more productive work than writing lines?
    Mr. Dugdale: Certainly.

    Fishing Vessels (Timber Supplies)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of the shortage of wood, particularly larch and oak, in the boat-building industry, which is holding up the construction of much-needed fishing craft; and what steps he is taking to increase supplies.
    Mr. W. Edwards: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. Owing to the timber shortage, the Admiralty's allocation of timber for the current quarter for the shipbuilding and
    388
    boat-building industry is much less than the amount required by the industries for essential purposes. Every effort is made to increase supplies.
    Mr. Boothby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present shortage will not only prevent ex-Servicemen going to sea, but will deprive this country of valuable food, and even more valuable exports; and can he not make a better effort to divert wood for the purpose of completing fishing vessels?
    Mr. Edwards: I am aware of all the difficulties of the shortage. So far as the builders of fishing vessels are concerned, they have a priority in connection with the Admiralty allocations for timber, in common with other sections of industry. The hon. Member can safely take it that we shall do all we possibly can. I am sure he realises there is a shortage which is affecting all kinds of industries.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several shipyards in Scotland are threatened with complete closing down; that shipbuilders have written to me and to my hon. Friend in the course of the last two or three days to say that they expect to close down quite soon; and is not that a tragedy to be avoided, if possible?
    Mr. Edwards: We are in close contact with all the shipyards in Scotland, and in England as well, and this is the first I have heard of a threatened closing down of any particular shipyard. If the hon. Member will give me any details in connection with a particular case I shall be only too glad to go into it.
    Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Member aware that a large amount of oak which was planted 120 years ago specially for shipbuilding is now being cut into firewood?
    Mr. Edwards: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. Vane: It is a fact.
    Mr. Boothby: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Dockyard Employees (Retirement Age)
    Major Bruceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many persons employed in the Royal dockyards have left their employment during the last six months on reaching the

    389
    age of 65 years; and how many of these were invited to continue their employment in accordance with the Government's declared policy of asking persons to continue at work after their normal retiring age.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Three hundred and seventy-two workers have been discharged on grounds of "age" at 65 from the Home Dockyards during the past six months. A further 68 "over-age" workers were permitted to continue in employment for special reasons. As regards the second part of the Question, the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware that the normal retiring age for industrial workers in Admiralty employment was raised from 60 to 65 in March last year
    Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the Prime Minister's appeal for everyone to stay on as long as they can, why is the Admiralty sticking to the letter of the law and dismissing them at 65?
    Mr. Edwards: I am quite certain that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who will take the view that Government Departments should decrease the number of people whom they have in their employment, so that they may go into other industries. Nevertheless, we have increased the age from 60 to 65 and that has been done in agreement with the trade unions concerned, from whom we have had no complaints.
    Major Bruce: Is there any arrangement with the Minister of Labour for the easy absorption of these people when they leave dockyard employment, whatever the retiring age may be?
    Mr. Edwards: We have liaison with the Ministry of Labour when it comes to the question of discharging people, and where possible, I think the Ministry of Labour tries to place them.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would it not be possible to have a medical examination of all men at 65 who are about to retire, and who want to work on and are capable of being kept on in industry, and so eliminate all the troubles which the Prime Minister referred to in his broadcast last night?
    Mr. Edwards: There is a difficulty in the Royal dockyards. We are reducing the numbers, but the more we keep on
    390
    over the age of 65, the more we shall get complaints by the younger people that there is a lack of opportunities for promotion. We have had that suggestion from some of the trade union people involved, and I cannot see that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is practicable.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Kiosk, Dorchester
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will consider putting the telephone kiosk in the Dorchester Post Office outside in the street instead of in the shop where it is only available to the public during office hours.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): There is already a telephone kiosk within 100 yards of the post office at Dorchester-on-Thames, and I regret, therefore, I am unable to accept the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.
    Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that a number of these telephones in the post offices in these villages in Oxfordshire are unavailable, as they are closed for more than half the day, which causes great inconvenience to the public?
    Mr. Burke: Yes, Sir, but the kiosk is close by outside, and is not closed.

    Waiting List, Orpington
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applicants there are on the waiting list for the installation of telephones in the Orpington area; and if he will take immediate steps to meet their requirements.
    Mr. Burke: There are about 1,500 applicants waiting for telephone service at the seven exchanges serving the Orpington urban district council area. To provide for all of these, it will be necessary to lay over 12 miles of underground duct and nearly 50 miles of cable, as well as to provide a new exchange to relieve the present Orpington exchange. This extensive work is in hand, and is being pressed forward to the limit of our resources in manpower and. materials.
    Sir W. Smithers: In order to help the situation, will the hon. Gentleman do two things? Will he see that the removal of instruments from houses where there is a

    391
    change of tenancy is stopped, and will he make an appeal to the public coming into new houses to send in any redundant instruments?
    Mr. Burke: With regard to the first question, it would not be fair to leave a telephone in a house for a new occupier if there are other people who have been waiting for a telephone in the same district.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is there not an extraordinary expenditure of labour in removing telephones from houses when a new tenant comes in, and would it not be better to leave them there so that that labour might be saved?
    Mr. Burke: It is an expenditure of labour, and, on the face of it, it does seem rather unwise, but, if there is a doctor or some other person in urgent need, and another person happens to get a telephone simply because he is a new tenant of a house, that would constitute unfairness to the doctor.

  POST OFFICE

    Air Mail to North America
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what quantity of air mail was carried by British and U.S. aircraft, respectively, from this country to North America during 1946.
    Mr. Burke: The weights of British mails carried from this country to North America during 1946 by British and U.S. aircraft were 342,738 lbs. and 26,884 lbs. respectively. In addition 102,011 lbs. of British mails were carried by Canadian aircraft. The comparable figures of foreign transit mails re-forwarded from this country were: British aircraft 12,702 lbs., U.S. aircraft 189,071 lbs., Canadian aircraft 11,620 lbs.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: While appreciating the shortage of British aircraft, may I ask the Minister what steps he is taking to see that this country gets its share of this valuable freight on the Atlantic service?
    Mr. Burke: We use British aircraft right up to total capacity at present and only use other aircraft when necessary.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister give an assurance that, when we
    392
    get the aircraft, we shall be able to carry our fair share of the load?
    Mr. Burke: Yes, Sir. We always take British aircraft first, up to their available capacity.

    Part-time Officers, Henley (Dismissal)
    Sir G. Foxasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many temporary postmen and postwomen have been dismissed in the Henley area; and how many years it is necessary to serve to qualify for a gratuity.
    Mr. Burke: The services of five part-time postmen and two part-time post-women in the Henley area were terminated in January last as a result of a revision of postal services. To qualify for a gratuity, an officer must as a rule have served for at least 15 years in a full-time capacity.
    Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that some of these people who have been dismissed feel that they have a grievance in that they have received no gratuity?
    Mr. Burke: The gratuity is given only for full-time service, and these people were employed part-time.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Assistant Postmaster-General why Mr. Sam Healam, a disabled 53 years old ex-Serviceman of the 1914–18 war, who has been full-time postman at Drighlington, near Bradford, for the last 10 years, is now no longer considered suitable for such an appointment; whether there have been any complaints as to the way he has carried out his duties; and, if not, whether he will reconsider the decision to replace Mr. Healam by a younger man.
    Mr. Burke: Mr. Healam has been employed continuously as a temporary postman since March, 1940, and his services have been entirely satisfactory. He is, unfortunately, ineligible by age for a permanent appointment under the postwar recruitment scheme agreed generally with the Service Departments, and I am sorry that, in fairness to other ex-Service applicants, I cannot make an exception in his favour.
    Mr. Sharp: In view of the fact that Mr. Healam has been employed by the Post Office since 1937, and of the fact that

    393
    he has worked satisfactorily, and in view of the shortage of manpower, is there any justification for training another man to do his work and putting Mr. Healam, who is a disabled man from the last war, on part-time employment?
    Mr. Burke: We have a scheme which fixes a certain age limit beyond which a person cannot be offered a permanent appointment. Another ex-Serviceman, who has had nine years' service with the Forces, has taken Mr. Healam's place.
    Mr. Sharp: May I ask the Minister whether he has taken into account that this man has been in public employment since 1937?
    Mr. Burke: It has been continuous employment only since 1940.

    Late Collections (Withdrawal)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how soon the late collections which were cancelled because of the electricity cuts will be restored.
    Mr. Burke: My noble Friend has decided that, in view of the present shortage of manpower, the restoration of these services would not be justified.
    Mr. Keeling: Are we to understand then, that the electricity cuts have nothing whatever to do with it, and that it is a staff difficulty entirely?
    Mr. Burke: These services were withdrawn originally at the time of the electricity cuts. While they were withdrawn the whole matter was reconsidered, and these services and others, in view of the manpower position, are not now considered justified.
    Mr. Keeling: I beg to give notice that, in view of the continued deterioration of the services, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Letter Postage Rates
    Mr. Cuthbertasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if, in view of the fact that the Post Office surplus was £30,000,000 and the cost of the reduction of ½d. on the postage of all letters would he £7,900,000, he will now make this reduction.
    Mr. Burke: I regret that I must not anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

    Food Parcels, Germany and Austria
    Commander Nobleasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the delays that are taking place in the arrival of food parcels in Germany and Austria; and what steps are being taken to expedite their delivery.
    Mr. Burke: Some delay to parcels for overseas destinations has occurred in recent months owing to congestion and dislocation of transport services in this country. There is normally no delay at the present time to parcels for Germany and Austria in the British service.
    Commander Noble: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it takes for a parcel to be delivered to Germany and Austria, respectively?
    Mr. Burke: I have not the exact information, but I should say that parcels should reach Austria and Germany within a fortnight.
    Commander Noble: There have been delays of about three months.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a parcel despatched immediately the restrictions were removed has not arrived at all?
    Mr. Burke: There was some dislocation and congestion earlier on, but as far as we know it does not exist now.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

    Third Programme (Hastings Area)
    Mr. Cooper-Keyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Third Programme is inaudible in the Hastings area, he will consider the reinstatement of the local relay station on 203 metres wavelength and, in the meantime, represent to the B.B.C. that the 261 metres wavelength be used for the Third Programme.
    Mr. Burke: The B.B.C. are still considering the best methods of extending the Third Programme coverage, and they do not contemplate reinstatement of the local transmitter at Hastings at present. The 261 metres wavelength is already in use to give adequate coverage for the Light Programme.

    Radio Reception (Electrical Interference)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he has considered a report from the Institution of Electrical Engineers regarding interference with radio reception caused by unscreened domestic and industrial equipment; and if he proposes to take legislative or other action to deal with the matter.
    Mr. Burke: Legislative action to provide for the compulsory suppression of electrical interference with radio reception is being considered. In this connection, the Council of the Institution of Electrical Engineers have made valuable recommendations, which will be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Collins: Can the Minister say if legislation will be introduced in the very near future?
    Mr. Burke: I am afraid it will not be this Session.

    Television Transmissions
    Mr. Jannerasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether arrangements will now be made to reinstate the television programmes in the mornings and afternoons for testing purposes for the benefit of manufacturers and distributors whose work is held up in the absence of such programmes.
    Mr. John Lewisasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the date when television will be permitted to recommence operations at some period during business hours, in view of the fact that retailers of television receivers have had their business brought to a standstill due to their inability to demonstrate their sets to potential buyers.
    Mr. Burke: An additional television transmission between 1 and 2 p.m. has been started.

    Children's Hour Talks
    Mr. Houseasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many broadcasts have been given over the British radio during Children's Hour this year under the auspices of the Ministry of Health; and if he will give the respective names of the speakers chosen.
    Mr. Burke: None, Sir.
    Mr. House: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the talk given on 25th February by Major Lewis Hastings was anti-Government and anti-Soviet?
    Mr. Burke: I was asked in the Question how many broadcasts there have been under the auspices of the Ministry of Health, and I have answered it.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Is it not a good thing that the B.B.C. sometimes speaks in the national interest?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Electricians (Release)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement regarding the release of electricians from the R.A.F.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): In March, April and May of this year, six groups of Electricians I will be released, and four groups of Electricians II. This will bring them to Group 49. The Royal Air Force will still be short of electricians, however, and at the end of May, they will be five groups behind the general level of release. I hope for an improvement later in the year, but I regret that I cannot now predict when the general level will be reached.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the disappointment these men have suffered, will the Secretary of State try to do all he can to have these men released on the same basis as those in other trades?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Certainly, I will. Unfortunately, we are also experiencing a very heavy shortage of electricians, up to the danger limit; but I hope that as men come out of training the rate of release will be accelerated.

    Benson By-Pass, Oxfordshire
    Sir G. Foxasked the Secretary of State for Air when he will be able to give a decision with regard to the Benson bypass; and how long this matter has been under consideration between his Department and the Oxfordshire County Council.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: It was recently decided that the R.A.F. Station at Benson should be retained, that the by-pass must accordingly remain closed, and that a

    397
    suitable alternative road should be constructed. Until the future of the station had been settled, no useful consultation with the Oxfordshire County Council could be begun.
    Sir G. Fox: The Secretary of State has not answered the last part of the Question—how long have these negotiations been going on? It is something like three years, is it not?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Oh, no, Sir. We could not begin any really useful negotiations until the main decision had been made.
    Sir G. Fox: There has been a lot of correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors and the Oxfordshire County Council. Why is he trying to mislead the House in this matter?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not trying to mislead the House. Of course, there has been correspondence ever since the road was first closed, and my engineer has been in touch with the County Council surveyor. I think it began in 1941. I think that was when the road was first closed. Consultations about the future could not have begun until the future of the station had been decided.

    Luqa Aerodrome, Malta (Facilities)
    Brigadier Mackesonasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps have been, or are being, taken to decrease sleeping, messing and other transit facilities which were, in February of this year, available on Luqa aerodrome, Malta, to both private charter companies and B.O.A.C.; and how much official notice was given, respectively, to private charter companies and B.O.A.C. of any proposed changes in existing arrangements.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: No cut has yet been made in the provision at the Luqa station of the R.A.F. of beds, meals and so on for the charter companies and for the B.O.A.C. It is clear, however, that the R.A.F. cannot continue to carry this burden; B.O.A.C. were warned of this some time ago, and the charter companies have now been told that we want some new arrangement within a month. I am discussing with my noble Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation, and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, how the change can best be made.
    Brigadier Mackeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that charter companies will be treated in exactly the same way as B.O.A.C.?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: We shall do our best to do justice to all. I think it would be probably the case that, under the arrangements finally made, B.O.A.C. will make arrangements with the charter companies and will do their best to help them.

    Weather Forecasts
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give an explanation of the incorrect weather forecasts given by his Department during the recent cold spell.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: To my regret I must admit that the science of meteorology still leaves much to be desired. During the recent cold weather, however, the Meteorological Office issued about 2,000 weather forecasts for the different regions of the British Isles and of the surrounding seas, and many thousands to the crews of British and other aircraft, and I am advised that the vast majority of them were correct. I am placing copies of these recent forecasts, and of the subsequent weather reports, in the Library of the House. If the hon. Member finds among them any to which he takes particular objection, perhaps he will put down a further Question.
    Mr. Gammans: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Air Ministry predicted two thaws which did not come off, and that once they predicted rain and fog, which, fortunately, did not arrive? Will he try to improve the reliability of his forecasts, in view of the great inconvenience this country has suffered from the unreliable forecasts of the Minister of Fuel and Power?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware that, as someone said, one "thawcast was a frost." I am also aware that many people tend to confuse the science and the practitioners of the science. The science is imperfect, but I think our practitioners in the very difficult conditions of the British Isles really do remarkably well.
    Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty that the information which is available will take, at least, six months to collate, and that, like so many other Government plans, that is quite impracticable?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is not at all the case. So valuable is the information that a number of commercial people want to pay us money to obtain it.

    Commissions (Unsuccessful Applicants)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for Air if speedier notification can be given to serving applicants for permanent commissions in the R.A.F. whose applications are unsuccessful, in order that men who desire to do so may claim special release in order to pursue interrupted studies at the universities from the beginning of the academic year.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In an Air Ministry Order published on the 13th February, candidates for permanent commissions in the Royal Air Force were told that, if they had been selected, they would be so informed before the 28th and that, if they heard nothing further by that date, they must assume that their applications had been unsuccessful. This Order, however, did not apply to the Medical, Dental, Legal and Chaplains branches, nor to the R.A.F. Regiment. In these branches, further selections will still be made.

    Cranwell College (Hunt Ball)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Air why permission was given for the Blankney hunt ball to be held at Cranwell; and between what hours and by what authority was the college front floodlit.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Cranwell College was lent to the Blankney Hunt on 7th February, on condition that the Hunt Committee should pay the whole expense. The College front was not floodlit, but lamps connected to mobile generators were used to light up the College drive for half an hour while the guests were arriving, and again for half an hour while they were leaving.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: On whose authority was the permission given to floodlight the front of this college?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The decision was made by the air-officer commanding.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Had he been an ordinary man, disciplinary action would have been taken. Can my right hon. Friend say whether such action will be taken against this man?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that my hon. Friend is mistaken about dates. This was 7th February, the date on which the cuts were announced, but before they came into force.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Was not the serious position which we were then in well known?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The announcement was made at four o'clock that afternoon; this happened at eight o'clock.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the same facilities would be granted to the Agricultural Workers' Union for a rally?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I would consider that with the utmost sympathy.

    Meteorologists (Recruitment and Release)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the improved arrangements for recruiting and training civilians to replace R.A.F. meteorologists have now been made; and whether it is yet possible to raise the level of release of R.A.F. meteorologists to bring them in line with the average of releases in the R.A.F.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Improved conditions have recently been offered to civilians who wish to join the Meteorological Service. Applications are being invited from young men and women who have reached the School Certificate standard, and from those who have already served as meteorologists in the Royal Navy and in the R.A.F. The response has so far been satisfactory, and I have every reason to hope that the arrangements made for training will be the same. I am afraid, however, that I cannot now predict when R.A.F. meteorologists will reach the general level of release.
    Mr. Vane: Would not the right hon. Gentleman admit that this is a very inexact science, and would he say whether he thinks it necessary to keep in the Service so many of these meteorologists who are very anxious to be released?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The main trouble with the science is that one cannot predict far ahead, but anything up to 95 per cent. of our short-term predictions are correct. They have been of immense importance

    401
    to aviators, transport workers and farmers, and we must go on with the service and make it better.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister consider taking on some experienced fishermen, who are much more accurate in their forecasts?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I shall be very glad to consider any nominations which the hon. and gallant Gentleman may put forward.

    A.T.C. (Cadets)
    Brigadier Petoasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the terms of service for cadets joining the A.T.C.; and whether any distinctions gained during such service will count to their credit when subsequently called up for the Forces.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Air Training Corps is a voluntary body. Its members, therefore, do not engage on terms of service like those which apply in the regular forces. Local units can, of course, get any advice and help they may require from the Regional Groups of the R.A.F. Reserve Command, which now administers the A.T.C. The hon. and gallant Member will recall the recent statement by my noble Friend the Lord Henderson that all Cadets in the A.T.C. who qualify for the Proficiency or Advanced Training Badges, and who are medically fit, will be guaranteed entry into the Royal Air Force. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a note on the other advantages they will derive in the R.A.F. from the distinctions which they earn as members of the A.T.C.
    Brigadier Peto: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recruitment for the A.T.C. is falling off, particularly in my constituency, and that I have a resolution passed by the local mayor and corporation in regard to this falling off in numbers? Will he ask the air officer in chief, who is responsible for training, to explain the precise terms of service and what results will be achieved by such service?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope my answer this afternoon and what I am sending to the hon. and gallant Member will serve that purpose. Certainly I will give instructions to the air officer responsible to go into this matter locally. I might add that in many places there are difficulties about the reconstitution of the A.T.C., and shortage of premises is one of the worst.

  AIR DEFENCE (WAR DESPATCH)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Prime Minister whether a despatch has yet been received from the Commander-in-Chief, A.A. Command, on the defence of Great Britain against attack from the air during the war; and when it will be published.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. It will be published in due course, but I am unable to give a precise date.

  FIELD-MARSHAL VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY (SPEECH)
  Mr. Blackburnasked the Prime Minister whether Field-Marshal Montgomery had the permission of the Government to make a speech on 15th March containing his views on the political and economic situation; and whether he will take steps to ensure that Field-Marshal Montgomery does not express political views again while holding the office of Chief of the Imperial General Staff.
  The Prime Minister: The Chief of the Imperial General Staff was invited by his hosts at the dinner of the London Association of Engineers to say some words on the subject of leadership, team work and hard work. He has explained to me that he had no intention of making a political speech, but desired to emphasise to the Engineers points in the campaign of the Government for increased production which had already been made by Ministers in pronouncements on the economic situation of the country. He has expressed to me his great regret that some newspapers should have imputed to him the intention of criticising the Government, a thing which never entered his mind.
  Mr. Blackburn: As such comment was made on a previous occasion, may I say that I entirely accept the statement made by my right hon. Friend? May I ask, however, whether he is aware that there is no intention to disparage Field-Marshal Montgomery, but merely to point out that it is important that commanders should not appear to approach doing things which, if done by their subordinates, would be unlawful?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conviction

  403
  that it is constitutionally improper for the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to make a speech bearing political implications is not confined to one side of the House, and will he give the House the assurance that the present holder of that office fully comprehends the position?
  The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the noble Lord. It is highly undesirable that anyone holding such a position should make a political speech. I have spoken to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, pointing out the danger of making speeches which might be misinterpreted by persons who want to make mischief, and that applies to some organs of the Press.
  Mr. Collins: Would my right hon. Friend convey to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff that the best contribution he could make to production would be to cut down the wastage of manpower in the Army to a minimum?
  Brigadier Peto: Is the Prime Minister aware that Field-Marshal Montgomery was merely trying to portray to the country what millions in this country think—that we lack leadership?

  DUTCH FORCES, NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES (BRITISH EQUIPMENT)
  Mr. Bramallasked the Minister of Defence if he will state the total value of equipment and the numbers of tanks, aircraft and field guns handed over by the British and Indian Forces to the Dutch Forces in the Netherlands East Indies.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to my hon. Friend the Member for Deritend (Mr. Longden) on 18th February. It is not possible to analyse, as regards either value or quantity, the equipment taken over by Dutch Forces in the Netherlands East Indies, separately from the total issues made to the Dutch Government from all sources and for all purposes.
  Mr. Bramall: May we take it that no further arms will be provided for the Dutch Government with which to enable them to carry out a policy less enlightened than that which we are carrying out in India?
  Mr. Alexander: I think that my hon. Friend had better look at the Question to which I am referring. If we make these supplies available to the Dutch Government, we cannot say what detailed use they shall make of them.

  ARMED FORCES

    Desertion (Sentences)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Defence, in connection with the 748 men of the three Services who are serving sentences for desertion, how many of these sentences have been decreased subsequent to review; and whether he will give in detail the lengths of sentences being served by these men.
    Mr. Alexander: I regret that this information is not readily available.
    Mr. Piratin: Could the Minister make it available in due course, for is he not aware that this is a matter of great importance to 748 men, who feel that they are serving longer sentences merely because they have been caught, while others, who are giving themselves up, are getting reduced sentences?
    Mr. Alexander: What the hon. Member asks for is a detailed return of each of 748 cases, which would take a great deal of time. I have already given an assurance in regard to the regular review of all such sentences.

    Local Overseas Allowances
    Brigadier Lowasked the Minister of Defence whether he has co-ordinated the local overseas allowances made to officers and other ranks in each of the Fighting Services; and what local overseas allowance is paid to each of the Services in each of the overseas stations.
    Mr. Alexander: The assessment of these allowances is fully co-ordinated. In most cases, rates common to the three Services have already been fixed, and are being paid. The new scales for a few areas are still under consideration; but they will, shortly, be agreed. In view of the very large number of separate rates, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press for their publication in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where it is possible to find the details for which I

    405
    have asked, and, further, will he say whether any members of the Committee who advised him on the co-ordination of these allowances have, since the war, been to any of these overseas stations to which the allowances apply?
    Mr. Alexander: I should have to have notice of the last part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question before I could say more than that the matter has been dealt with by a committee on which each of the Service Departments is represented and which is presided over by a member of the Treasury staff. With regard to the first part, there are so many different documents relating to rates for different areas and commands that I am not sure where he could find them altogether. I doubt whether he could find them in any one place.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Ceylon Tea (Export Duty)
    Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the Minister of Food to what extent the export duty on tea, recently levied by the Government of Ceylon, will fall on the British consumer or taxpayer.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The full export duty will be payable by the Ministry of Food on all Ceylon tea imported into this country. Consideration is being given to the extent to which this shall be passed on to the consumer.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Does not that mean that the British taxpayer has to bear the duty? Is the hon. Lady aware that, on 11th February last, the Colonial Secretary informed the House that export duties in the Colonies were borne by the producer, and not by the consumer, and that, when sales are made under bulk purchase contracts, provision is normally made in the agreements covering the arrangement to prevent the purchaser having to bear any new or additional export duties imposed by the Colonial Government concerned, and, further, why was that not done in this particular case?
    Dr. Summerskill: I cannot add to it because no decision has been come to.
    Sir P. Macdonald: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has given notice that he proposes to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and, therefore, it cannot be discussed any further now.

    Packed Meals (Forms)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Food how many forms have to be completed weekly, in respect of each employee, by an employer of building labour who provides a service of packed meals.
    Dr. Summerskill: Not more than one for all employees.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Service to Venezuela
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the number of times since the inception of the service that B.S.A.A. aircraft flying between the United Kingdom and Venezuela have arrived at their destination according to schedule.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The British South American Airways Corporation service from the United Kingdom to Venezuela was inaugurated on 2nd September, 1946. Of 21 flights operated on this service between that date and 16th February, 1947, 14 arrived on schedule, and seven were delayed.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does the Parliamentary Secretary consider that such a performance is a tribute to the nationalisation of aviation?
    Mr. Lindgren: It is not a question of tributes or nationalisation, but of the difficulties of the route and the head winds which have to be met, in particular, between the Azores and Bermuda.

    Channel Islands (Agreement)
    Major Bruceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the application of the Civil Aviation Act to the Channel Islands.
    Mr. Lindgren: As I stated in my reply on 12th March to the hon Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and my noble Friend have had under consideration resolutions of the States of Jersey and of Guernsey regarding application of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, to the Channel Islands. In the course of the past year there have been numerous consultations between the Island authorities and the Home Office and the Ministry of Civil Aviation and last week delegations were received from the States of Jersey and of Guernsey, when the representations of the Island States were fully discussed. As a result an Order-in-Council was made on 17th March applying the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, with certain modifications, to the Channel Islands. The main modifications are that the Minister's power of compulsory acquisition of land is not extended to the Islands and that the Insular Authorities are empowered to licence operators to run scheduled air services between the Islands, in addition to the Statutory Corporations.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my hon. Friend say if the agreement now arrived at which he has announced is one which has met with the approval of the authorities in the Islands?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am happy to assure the hon. Member that that is so.

  ACCIDENT INQUIRIES (PUBLICATION OF REPORTS)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if it is proposed to publish the full reports of investigations into accidents to all categories of civil registered aircraft whether operating under private ownership or commercially; and whether such investigations will always be held in public.
  Mr. Lindgren: In order to remove any misapprehension on this subject I should explain that my noble Friend proposes normally to publish the reports of investigations by the Chief Inspector of Accidents into accidents occurring to civil aircraft on the United Kingdom register operating scheduled journeys within the meaning of Section 23 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, or engaged on charter
  408
  in cases where death or serious personal injury has occurred or from which useful lessons may be learnt or when other special features are present. The inquiries into such accidents will normally be held in public when they give rise to matters of real public interest, or when that course would be of technical benefit.
  Mr. Beswick: Will the same policy apply to investigations into accidents which occur in this country but which involve aircraft registered in another country?
  Mr. Lindgren: In that connection my noble Friend is required to undertake consultations with those Governments He will do so in each case and the present indications are that the foreign Governments will take general notice of the desires of His Majesty's Government.

  GERMANY

    Polish Coal
    Mr. Dribergasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware that exports of coal from Poland in 1946 totalled 15,003,000 tons, including 2,180,000 tons to Sweden, 596.000 tons to France, 733,000 tons to Denmark, and 542,000 tons to the Soviet zone of Germany; and whether he is taking steps to obtain coal from this source for use in the British zone of Germany.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): I am aware of these Polish exports. The British zone is an exporting, and not an importing area so far as coal is concerned.

    Requisitioned House, Kleefeld
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why the house of Dr. Adolf Pohlmann, 26, Wallmodenstreet, Kleefeld, was requisitioned in December; whether he is aware that no suitable acommodation was provided; and whether he is aware that on 31st January, 1947, 26, Wallmodenstreet was still unoccupied.
    Mr. J. Hynd: This house was requisitioned to provide accommodation for two British families. Dr. Pohlmann was offered alternative accommodation by the German authorities but refused it. Conversion of the house into two flats has been

    409
    delayed, mainly by inclement weather, but the house is expected to be occupied by the end of this month.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that despite repeated assurances given in this House no suitable alternative accommodation was provided, and will he say, in view of the changed policy, why it is not possible for the owner or tenant of the house to remain in part of it?
    Mr. Hynd: There is no change of policy it I understood my hon. Friend aright. The fact is that this gentleman has been offered alternative accommodation but for some reason he saw fit to refuse it. I have not the information as to why he refused it, but I am following it up.
    Dr. Morgan: Can my hon. Friend say whether this man was a doctor in a medical sense and if he was a medical practitioner, because, if so, his house would be very valuable to him?
    Mr. Hynd: No, I understand he is a doctor of languages.
    Mr. Assheton: Is it not surprising that the Minister uses a large controlled staff in Germany it he is to go into all these matters in detail?

    Control Commission (Staff)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many persons employed by the Control Commission for Germany receive only part salary from his Department and are known to be in receipt of emoluments from other business sources.
    Mr. J. Hynd: 1 would refer to the answer which I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend on 12th February.

    Penicillin
    Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is satisfied that the amount of penicillin supplied from official sources to the British zone of Germany, namely, 95 mega-units a month, enough for 50 or 60 cases only, is sufficient for all needs apart from the treatment of venereal disease; and how many applications for supplies of this drug have been received by the Public Health branch of the Control Commission from the German Public Health Advisory Committee which have not been acceded to.
    Mr. J. Hynd: No applications for penicillin have been made to the British Authorities by the German Public Health Advisory Committee for some months past. I am advised that supplies made available by the relief societies alone have been sufficient to meet recent demands. If is likely, however, that the widening experience now being acquired by German doctors in the application of the drug will lead to a demand for larger quantities and it is planned to increase substantially the present monthly official allocation for non-V.D. cases.
    Mr. Hastings: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the German doctors that more penicillin is available if it is required?
    Mr. Hynd: We are taking steps to encourage German doctors in the use of this drug and to obtain knowledge of its proper use. As I stated, we anticipate that we will be able to meet any commitments likely to be made.
    Mr. Churchill: Is there no way of getting some of these detailed matters settled by the German people for themselves, or have we to intervene in all cases of house accommodation, the issue of penicillin in the treatment of venereal disease and so on? Is there no way of getting the Germans to manage their own lives a little?
    Mr. Hynd: Yes, Sir. The fact is that, as I said in reply to this Question, we supply penicillin on demand to German doctors. At the moment we have to subsidise imports and we have to keep control of them.

    Miners (Food and Consumer Goods)
    Mr. Bramallasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what proportion of the supplies of consumer goods needed to work the points system for German miners comes from imports; and what proportion is diverted from other German users.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Apart from a quantity of clothing already purchased and certain raw materials, the goods concerned will be provided from German sources. In the case of foodstuffs, coffee only will be specially imported.
    Mr. Bramallasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is satisfied that sufficient special food and

    411
    consumer goods will be forthcoming to honour the points earned by miners in the British zone.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir.

    Repatriation Costs
    Lieut.-Colonel Bolesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give particulars of the allowed costs of repatriation from the Rhineland to the United Kingdom via the Hamburg-Harwich and the Calais-Dover routes, respectively; whether these costs should include payment of rail fares from port of disembarkation to authorised destination; and if he will give an assurance that outstanding claims for 1946 will be settled forthwith.
    The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): British subjects are repatriated to this country against their signed undertakings to repay the actual cost incurred. This varies in accordance with the circumstances and there is no fixed rate. Repatriation covers the journey to the port of disembarkation, and railway fares to the point of destination are not included.

  GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (FOOD PARCELS)
  Commander Nobleasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware of the delays that are taking place in the arrival of food parcels in Germany and Austria; and what steps are being taken to expedite their delivery.
  Mr. J. Hynd: I am not aware that delays are now normally occurring in the
  412
  delivery in Germany and Austria of food parcels dispatched through postal channels from the U.K., though some delays were unavoidable during the recent severe weather. I am informed that parcels dispatched through "Save Europe Now" to Germany have been subject to delay which was primarily due to the very large number which accumulated when that scheme was first announced. That accumulation is being rapidly reduced and should be cleared within the next month.

  TRINIDAD (UNEMPLOYMENT)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons and in what trades are now unemployed in Trinidad; how much of this unemployment it is estimated is due to the cessation of military construction work; and what steps he proposes to take to provide a remedy for it.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): As regards the number of persons unemployed, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for St. Pancras, South-East (Dr. Jeger), on 5th March. Employment on United States bases in Trinidad has declined from a peak of 26,600 to 5,300 at present, but many of the men no longer employed there have, of course, returned to their previous employment, and there is no basis for estimating how many of them are still unemployed. Measures to counter any tendency to growing unemployment are being considered locally with special reference to the Colony's long term development plan.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Motion made, and Question put,
"That notwithstanding anything in paragraphs (2) and (4) of Standing Order No. 14, the Proceedings on Consideration of the Second and Subsequent Resolutions reported from the
Committee of Supply of 7th March may be taken before or after Ten o'Clock, and that those Proceedings be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.")—[Mr. Arthur Greenwood.]
The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, III.

Division No. 112.]

AYES.

[3.32 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

McLeavy, F.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Gallacher, W.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Allighan, Garry

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Gooch, E. G.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Austin, H. Lewis

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Awbery, S. S.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Ayles, W. H.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Grierson, E.

Mathers, G.

Bacon, Miss A.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Medland, H. M.

Carton, C.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Mellish, R. J.

Battley, J. R.

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

Mitchison, G. R.

Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Monslow, W.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Gunter, R. J.

Montague, F.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Guy, W. H.

Moody, A. S.

Benson, G.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Beswick, F.

Hale, Leslie

Morley, R.

Bing, G. H. C.

Hall, W. G.

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

Blackburn, A. R.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Blyton, W. R.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Moyle, A.

Boardman, H.

Hardy, E. A.

Mulvey, A.

Bottomley, A. G.

Harrison, J.

Naylor, T. E.

Bowden, Flg.-Offr, H. W.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Haworth, J.

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

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

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Oliver, G H.

Bramall, Major E. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Paget, R. T.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hicks, G.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hobson, C. R.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Holman, P.

Parker, J.

Bruce, Maj. O. W. T.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Parkin, B. T.

Burden, T. W.

House, G.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Burke, W. A

Hoy, J.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

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

Hubbard, T.

Pearson, A.

Callaghan, James

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

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Carmichael, James

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Piratin, P.

Chater, D.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Popplewell, E.

Cobb, F. A.

Irving, W. J.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Cocks, F. S.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Proctor, W. T.

Coldrick, W.

Janner, B.

Randall, H. E.

Collick, P

Jay, D. P. T.

Ranger, J.

Collindridge, F.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Rankin, J.

Collins, V. J.

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

Reeves, J.

Colman, Miss G. M.

John, W.

Reid, T (Swindon)

Cooper, Wing-Cmdr. G.

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

Rhodes, H.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Cove, W. G.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Robens, A.

Daggar, G.

Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Roberts Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Jones, P. Asterley (Hilchin)

Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Keenan, W.

Robertson J J. (Berwick)

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

Kenyon, C.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

King, E. M.

Royle, C.

Deer, G.

Kinley, J.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Kirkwood, D.

Sargood, R.

Dobbie, W.

Lang, G.

Scollan, T.

Dodds, N. N.

Layers, S.

Segal, Dr. S.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Sharp, Granville

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Leslie, J. R.

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

Dumpleton, C. W.

Levy, B. W.

Shurmer, P.

Edelman, M.

Lindgren, G. S.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Lipson, D. L.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Skeffington, A. M.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

McAdam, W.

Skinnard, F. W

Evans, John (Ogmore)

McAllister, G.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

McEntee, V. La T.

Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)

Ewart, R.

McGhee, H. G.

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

Fairhurst, F.

Mack, J. D

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Farthing, W. J.

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

Solley, L. J.

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

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Sparks, J. A.

Foot, M. M.

McKinlay, A. S.

Stamford, W.

Stephen, C.

Tolley, L.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Stokes, R. R.

Usborne, Henry

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

Stross, Dr. B.

Vernon, Maj. W. F

Wilkins, W. A.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Viant, S. P.

Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)

Swingler, S.

Wadsworth, G

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Sylvester, G. O.

Walkden, E.

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

Symonds, A. L.

Walker, G. H.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Williamson, T.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

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

Wills, Mrs. E. A

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Watkins, T. E.

Woods, G. S.

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

Watson, W. M.

Wyatt, W.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Yates, V. F.

Thurtle, E.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Tiffany, S.

West, D. G.

Zilliacus, K.

Timmons, J.

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

Titterington, M. F

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Daires

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Fox, Sir G.

Morris-Jones, Sir H

Allen, LI.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

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

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D, P. M.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Baldwin, A. E.

Gammans, L. D.

Nicholson, G.

Barlow, Sir J.

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

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Nutting, Anthony

Beechman, N. A.

Grant, Lady

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Bennett, Sir P.

Gridley, Sir A.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Birch, Nigel

Grimston, R. V.

Pickthorn, K.

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

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Raikes, H. V.

Boothby, R.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bossom, A. C.

Haughton, S G.

Renton, D.

Bower, N.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Boyd Carpenter, J. A.

Hollis, M. C.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W

Hope, Lord J

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Howard, Hon. A.

Scott, Lord W.

Bullock, Capt M.

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

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

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

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

Smithers, Sir W.

Carson, E.

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

Snadden, W. M

Challen, C.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Channon, H.

Jennings, R.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Keeling, E. H.

Studholme, H. G.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Sutcliffe, H.

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

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Crowder, Capt. John E

Linstead, H. N.

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

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Vane, W. M. F.

De la Bère, R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Walker-Smith, D.

Digby, S. W.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Ward, Hon G. R.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Watt, Sir G, S. Harvie

Drayson, G. B.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Duthie, W. S.

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Eccles, D. M.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Elliot, Lieut.-Colonel W.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

Erroll, F. J.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L

Mellor, Sir J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Major Ramsay and

Major Conant.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Resolution [27th February] reported:

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1947–48 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £780,434,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Education and Broadcasting, Pensions, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance
    416
    and Assistance, Food and Supply Services, Roads and other grants and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948."
    [For details of Vote on Account see OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1946; c. 2293–6.]
    Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

  DISTRIBUTION OF MANPOWER
  3.42 p.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Everyone will agree that the reason for this Debate is obvious.

  417
  It is felt on both sides of the House that the Government have not yet produced a satisfactory solution for the problems of the basic industries which are undermanned. Paragraph 128 of the Economic Survey shows that the Government are at the same time modest and ruthless about the distribution of manpower which is there given. They are modest in that they say it is neither an ideal solution nor a forecast of what will happen. They go on to say that it is an approximate distribution which is needed to carry out the objectives set out in paragraph 118. It is only too clear that these objectives do not produce a roseate picture, either as to payment for imports, capital equipment and maintenance, or as regards food and consumer goods. If that, therefore, is the distribution which is essential to maintain these modest results, it must be treated as a ruthless statement of our immediate needs, and must be examined from that point of view.
  I want to consider five factors of this distribution, namely, coal, agriculture, textile and clothing, metals and engineering and the public services. With regard to the first three, I want to investigate whether there is any real hope of arriving at the distribution aimed at, and what is the supplemental action necessary in order to achieve it. I take first the question of coal. I start from the same point as the Minister of Labour, the present figure of 692,000 which he wishes to increase, according to the White Paper, to 730,000 by December, 1947. It is apparent from these figures, and from what the right hon. Gentleman said on providing for an annual wastage in the coal industry of over 60,000, that 100,000 are required to make a net increase of 38,000. I want to deal shortly with what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to the long-term programme. The right hon. Gentleman did not indicate any specific results which would flow from not calling up men for the return of miners, and the other improvements he mentioned. The only long-term matter on which he suggested he would base some of his hopes was the question of the five-day week, which he did not wish to go into because of negotiations that were pending.
  We want to know, and I am sure the whole House desires information on the point, whether the suggestion for a five-day week does or does not conflict with
  418
  the statements clearly made in the White Paper, that there is to be no diminution of working hours unless there is an increase of output per man-year thereby maintained. The right hon. Gentleman stated on 26th June that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power had agreed in principle to the question of a five-day week. We want to know what were the estimates, and what were the figures on which that agreement was come to, and what is the estimated increase per shift to compensate for the loss of a shift on the sixth day. We want to know the figures on which the Government proceeded in agreeing to this in principle, and how the situation compares with today.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Does the right hon. and learned Member mean the figures for men, or for tonnage?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I want the figures for output, because it depends on that whether the manpower allocation is right or not.
  I want to pass now to what the right hon. Gentleman calls his short-term proposals. I separate this into two categories—into incentives in kind, and the question of foreign labour. May I draw attention to the words the right hon. Gentleman used on incentives in kind, because, in my view, they are tragic? He says:
  "By various means, by publicity, by the giving of housing— promising of houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1161.]
  A sorry statement of a sorry position. He proceeded to pass to the question of special facilities for food, with which I entirely agree—this is something for which I have been constantly pressing for months. I now come to his short-term. suggestion, namely, the question of foreign labour. He said that they had reached agreement with the industry with regard to Poles, and there "is under consideration"—I I stress the words "under consideration," because that is as far as it has gone—
  "acceptance of the same arrangements for other foreign labour should Polish labour not be sufficient to meet the requirements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1161.]
  I suggest that it is an incredible position that this has received only conditional consideration, when it has been said again and again that coal is the basis of our chance for recovery.

  419
  Now I want to deal with the short-term suggestions which have been made. This is the kernel of our criticism: In every one of these, we see the months that the locusts have eaten away. There is Lot one of these proposals whose desirability was not clear 12 months ago. Take housing, and the improvement in the coalfields. We all knew that; it was in our minds 12 months ago, yet nothing has been done to gear up the housing programme with special reference to that position. The same applies to special supplies of food, and to foreign labour. For at least six months that has been quite obvious. I go back further, to the time when I was abroad, and I was considering this problem with a view to the first political speech that I had to make on my return. I took the figures for June, 1946, and they showed that the numbers in this industry were down by 100,000 on prewar, and by 20,000 from June, 1945. That position was apparent in the late summer of 1946. We say that in all these suggestions which have been put forward there has been a time lag which is quite inexcusable, in view of the gravity of the problem and the demonstrable means that might have been taken to provide a solution.
  With regard to the general agricultural position, I agree with what was, said a short time ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), who painted a sombre, but rather striking. picture. There is a desire to increase the number employed in the industry by 39,000 from the starting figure of 1,081,000. I note that there is not much cheer to be gained from the Monthly Digest of Statistics, because the figures from November to December, far from showing a rise, show a slight fall. We must face up to the aspects of this problem, because it is only by doing so that we shall be able to contribute towards its solution. There is, in agriculture, an enormous wastage, about 100,000 a year. It is complicated by the fact that when people go out of the industry they do not leave their cottages. No one would wish to turn them out in such circumstances, but it is a practicable problem with which we are faced. We have this wastage and the question of new entrants coming up imperatively on the departure of German prisoners-of-war.
  420
  What has been done about the employment of foreign labour in the industry? It has been suggested that about 20,000 Salts should be employed. How is that foreign labour to be used? Are they to wait until agricultural housing has advanced? If so, that washes them out. Agricultural housing is one of the most backward aspects of the many backward features of this Government's policy. If we are not going to do that, we are going to put them into camps? Let us be practical. If we employ foreign labour in agriculture we must consider that position. Perhaps we can be enlightened as to what is to be done about keeping foreign labour in the undermanned jobs. It is useless to bring them in if they are going to drift from those jobs into other activities. If they do that they will not pay for their keep. Sir Hubert Henderson has made this point broadly, and I will not elaborate on it today. In the undermanned industries they will pay for their keep, and perhaps one and a half times more. But if they drift to other jobs outside the undermanned jobs they will not assist towards a solution of this problem.
  There is another point, on which there are many different opinions, and about which there is universal concern. Without putting this point one is failing to consider properly all the realities, an essential corner of the picture. I refer to the question of the school-leaving age, a problem I approach with the greatest concern. If the House will forgive a personal allusion, both my parents were school teachers in their time and I have, therefore, a particularly happy and family view about this matter. Unless we can be satisfied, on clear evidence, that the children—especially those in country districts—will benefit, that they will really get advantage of the extra year, that there will be schools and teachers for them, we must face up to the position that there is a possibility of 160,000 more entrants, many for agriculture. The most pressing problem is that our economy, our prosperity, our hopes should survive, on which we can then build, more clearly and hopefully, our social services and educational system. I am sure that millions of people of goodwill approach this problem in the same way, that they want to be quite certain that there will be real benefit from the extra year before they agree to it.

  421
  I now leave the Minister of Agriculture, and go back to the sphere of the Minister of Labour in regard to textiles. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted, immediately, 26,000 more women and girls in the cotton industry, and some 60,000, spread over five years, in the woollen industry. The essential problem today is the attraction of women and girls into industry. I have no bias against the five-day week if it satisfies the conditions that are outlined, namely, that according to the best of one's judgment, it will not result in a decrease of output per man or woman per annum. I believe that married women with home responsibilities would work better, that there would be better output and that you would get more into industry if there was a five-day week. I also think that the right hon. Gentleman should have considered, if he has not done so, the complementary question of day nurseries. That is essential if we are going to get the recruitment we want. There ought to be an adjustment of allowances of wives' earnings in at any rate a limited range of industrial income. All these points are substantially constructive points, which help in the immediate problem of the textile industry.
  Mr. Fairhurst: Is the right hon. and learned Member not aware that at many mills day nurseries are already established?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I know that a number have been established, but at a number of other places they have been closed down. That is an aspect of one side of the problem to which attention should be given. It would greatly help in the female recruitment which we want.
  In regard to metals, I would be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would square up two things. He is asking for an increase of 29,000, from 2,811,000 in the White Paper. We are not only worried, as my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) said, as to the question of whether we will have enough fuel and raw materials to give present manpower full employment, but also about what was said by the President of the Board of Trade in an interruption. It seemed to me he made it quite clear that for the first six months of next year there was going to be a difficulty in keeping man-power in this group fully employed, especially in the steel trade. How that
  422
  can be squared with the desired increase of 29,000 I have very great difficulty in seeing.
  There are two other general questions into which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look, even though we cannot discuss legislative proposals today. He emphasised the retention of older people in industry. I think he will agree that that is important, most certainly in agriculture, textiles and metals, and, perhaps, less important underground in the coal trade, although overground there may be some case for it. At all events, it covers three of the groups which I am discussing, and two of them are the most important undermanned groups. He mentioned the question of adjustment of pension. I put it to him that the proposals have not gone nearly far enough in that direction to be effective; and also that he is bound to reconsider—and that is all I can ask him to do today—the limit of the pound earnings, beyond which the pension is affected at the present time. I believe these two points would have a constructive and helpful effect in securing the retention of elderly people.
  The other matter is the question of the development areas. I understand that the Government are budgeting for an unemployment figure of 400,000 in the development areas, which is equivalent to the loss of 120,000 over the year. If that is so, surely the time has come when we are considering the immediate problem of 1947, and the vital need for manning-up during 1947, that we should develop systems of transfer. I am not suggesting direction; I am approaching the whole problem on the postulate that we are generally agreed that direction as in war-time is ruled out. But, apart from direction, by voluntary encouragement, something should be done to improve the transfer from the development areas for this critical period in 1947. We should be prepared to give increased grants for that purpose.
  Now I come to the other side of the picture. So far I have been dealing with manning up. Now I come to where I suggest there is an absolute and urgent need to man down. That is in the group of public services. The Government have already suggested that that should be manned down from 2,130,000 by 80,000 during the year which will end in December, 1947. I hope the House will

  423
  believe that I am trying to approach this objectively. I do not see how the Government can get that reduction of 80,000 with the present nationalisation proposals coming into effect. I see a number of hon. Members opposite with whom I have the pleasure of discussing transport for several periods in the week in Committee upstairs. There is also electricity, in addition to what has already been nationalised. It will be seen from the Digest that for November and December, 1946, there is an overall increase in industry from 18,015,000 to 18,033,000. In the Government services there is an increase from 1,007,000 to 1,016,000. That comes under the non-industrial Civil Service sub-heading and others. That is an increase of 9,000; so that in an increase of 18,000 in the total employed in industry, no less than half is an increase in the Government service. That shows a dangerous trend and, coupled with the other point, it is very difficult to see how even that meagre decrease of 80,000 can be obtained. I firmly and sincerely believe that that 80,000 is nothing like the decrease which is necessary to deal with the situation today. I believe we ought to aim at an immediate decrease of at least a quarter of a million, rising to half a million within a very short fixed period.
  Mr. D. J. Williams: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that people coming out of the public service will go into heavy industry?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Not all to heavy industry, but they will come into industry. May I remind the hon. Member that the Minister of Labour said in the beginning of his speech that there was an overall shortage, and I am sure he will agree that at present an overall shortage means that we get people going to the wrong slots. One of the reasons why we do not get people into the right slots in undermanned industries is obviously the existence of an overall shortage. If the right hon. Gentleman is right in that, it must follow that, when dealing with that double difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman put to the House of an overall shortage, coupled with maldistribution, to leave Government servants top heavy to the extent of, I suggest, anything from 250,000 to 500,000, is something which the country cannot afford at this time.
  424
  That is a constructive suggestion. The Government ought to put to themselves a short programme of reductions month by month, and see that it is carried out. That will be doing something which would be tremendously helpful to this problem which worries us all at present, irrespective of our political approach.
  Mr. Dumpleton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman postulated the desirability of a decrease of 250,000. Does he not intend to give us some idea which of the public services he thinks should be decreased?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have told the House that I am trying, for the moment, to give the overall picture, and I do not propose to go into details, but clearly, one of the major sections which must be dealt with, and in which a decrease must fall, is that of the non-industrial civil servants. That is obvious, to my mind. On every point I have raised, I have tried to suggest what I think should be done. When one comes to details, it is not quite fair to put on the Opposition responsibilities for the details as to where the Government's own machinery of government could most easily take the load. But it is not only fair, but essential, that it should be put forward, that where the Government say that there should be a decrease, we should indicate that in our view the maintenance—because the Government's figure means that—of employees in the public service at over two million is more than the country can afford at the present time.
  Mr. Henn Levy rose—
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Perhaps the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give way. I have tried to answer every one. I would like to develop my point, and if it is too provocative, and if the hon. Member rises again, I will give way.
  I turn to certain more general points which I think are in the minds of all hon. Members. The first is in connection with the introductory remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman on the re-alignment of industry after the war. Apart from whether we take the view which is held by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that it has been well done, or the more critical view put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for

  425
  Saffron Walden, one must remember that it was an opportunity as well as a difficulty. The fact that there were 4,500,000 people in the Forces and 3,500,000 people in war industries, was an opportunity to see that the distribution could be got right. These people were outside, they had to be brought back, and all these matters with which I have endeavoured to deal in various industries could at any rate have been suggested and put forward for consideration as that gradual throwback and re-alignment took place.
  The second point is the question of restrictive practices. Again, I wish to show hon. Members that I am merely following the White Paper, and that I am not trying. at this point, to make any provocative point. In paragraph 136 it is stated:
  "Action which serves to reduce output per man-year in any industry in directly endangering the attainment of these (national) objectives."
  In paragraph 141 it is stated:
  "Against this background there is no justification for action by either side of industry which limits production."
  The right hon. Gentleman has said many times, in the case of many problems which we have discussed, that the strength of his position has been the reliance he has put upon, and the contribution he has made to, the smooth and co-operative solution of industrial problems. I will not recall the various occasions when he has said that, but I think he will agree that that is a fair statement of his point of view. I do not care which side of industry restrictive practices occur on. I have always, in my political speeches, and in my election addresses, stood for an inquiry into restrictive practices on the employers' side. It happens to be my view, though it was in the manifesto of my party at the last election.
  I suggest that we ought to pull these things out of the darkness and have a look at them. Let us know what we are discussing. Only last week the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), for whom I have intense respect, seemed to express the view that there were no restrictive practices. The White Paper makes quite clear that in the view of the Government they do exist. Let us get clear what they are, and what it is with which we are dealing. I do not mind if the right hon. Gentleman then pursues, for a time, his policy, and see how far it can go—if he
  426
  gets the people together to discuss those practices and see how they can best be done away with. But I feel that we in this House ought to know what the problem is. We have our own ideas which may or may not be correct, about what it is. Apart from knowing what the problem is, what we want to know, and what we are entitled to know, is what the Government intend to do to deal with that problem.
  I make that as a constructive suggestion—that we might be told what are the restrictive practices on either side of industry of which there is fear, and what is to be done. I come to one point on which, again, considerable doubt has been expressed. I only mention it, because I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to dispel the doubt which has existed. We hope there will not be any question of dealing with maldistribution by putting what I would call "fuel pressure" on certain industries, that is, either a threat or an actual cut of fuel or of power. There is a tremendous danger that that might have the result of widespread short-time and part-time, and I cannot imagine any more wasteful and helpless method of using our manpower than having large sections of short-time, as might occur.
  My final point is this: I do not want anyone to think that I ignore for a moment the general basis on which I think we are all agreed—that the greatest contribution, the most helpful contribution, is more and harder work from the individual. Although it may not be an exact figure, roughly one always ought to bear in mind that a 5 per cent. increase on the part of individual workers in the total force of industry, is the equivalent of 900,000 more people when one is working on the force of 18 million. That is a sterling piece of arithmetic which we must bear in mind. If the Government are to make an appeal to industry, especially at the present day, when they are dealing with a most intelligent body of people, they must show that they themselves are taking every possible step to create the conditions in which that work can be most advantageously given. We have passed the stage when we will get the best results by making appeals, I care not who makes them. We must show that this is the path on which we consider the advance is to be made. We must say, "Come and back us. Come

  427
  and follow us along the path. There are our reasons for saying that it is the right path. That is the path you should follow."
  It is in that spirit that I have endeavoured, with regard to what I consider the most difficult problems of the day, to indicate what I consider to be the right paths to be followed in the various industries. I ask that the right hon. Gentleman will consider again this problem of maldistribution in the under manned industries and that he will show us quite clearly not only why hard work is necessary but why that hard work will produce the results we all want if it is directed along the lines which are suggested.
  4.23 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this Debate. I do not intend to indulge in reiteration about things that happened in the past or to scratch old sores. I hope the Debate will develop on lines which are constructive and that we will gain at least some advantages. I wish to speak as one who is critical of the Government's position, and I hope that will not be taken amiss. This is a serious position, which requires very careful consideration, and practical commonsense must be applied by people who understand the various industries. I speak in this Debate as one of the very few men in this House who never in his life has earned a penny piece except under an incentive system which paid on results. I come from an industry which has a specialised set-up in regard to payment. It is an industry which does not publicise itself sufficiently. Our men get on with their jobs. They get results. They are paid accordingly and they cause very little trouble. The industry I refer to is the steel industry, and we are proud of it.
  We have made a contribution in the past and we want to make a contribution to the future prosperity of our nation. We have gone into this matter very carefully. I believe in all that is said in "Let us Face the Future," and I make no apology for that. But at the same time we must always remember that in addition to facing the future we must face the facts as they exist today. I want to put forward some constructive proposals. The question of the numerical
  428
  strength of manpower is one thing; the correct use of our manpower is another. I ask the Government whether they are satisfied that the manpower available to this country—be it ever so small—is being used correctly. I question that. I want to quote from my own personal experience of working for 32 years on a production basis, never receiving a like wage from one week to another. My wage always altered according to what was produced. No man in this House can tell me that it is impossible to devise a system inside Britain's industries which will give, first and foremost, a decent minimum standard of life and, in addition, the incentive which will create output and get things moving.
  I will refer to one figure which goes to prove my point. On the 7th of last month we in our industry brought into being a new national agreement. They are not talk, not hot air, but actual agreements to deal with potential increases in production. Here is a figure which may stagger the House. Men working on a basic open hearth furnace producing 1,130 tons a week, and who now go on to the new method of the continuous working week, in the interest of the State—not a reduced number of hours: the plant is working all through the week for 168 hours—will be paid at the rate of one shilling and 4.2362 pence per ton. That makes hon. Members opposite smile, but it proves how very careful we have been to assess the value of a man producing a ton of steel. We have gone to the extent of two tenths of a thousand of a penny. That is a hint to those people, for instance, in the building industry who say that they cannot work on an incentive basis. The steel industry has had its troubles. We asked for more food. If there is an industry in this country where men slog, sweat, slave, and lose weight, just like the miner, it is the steel industry. We asked for more food, but we did not get it, but our men have not unduly cried out about this fact.
  I suggest that the Government should have applied themselves in the last 12 months to what the Trades Union Congress and the leaders of the trade unions have been thinking. This is my personal opinion. I do not know the opinion of the Government. I am not satisfied that His Majesty's Government,

  429
  of whom we are proud, have done all that they might have done to find out what the leaders of the various trade unions have been up to during the last 12 or 18 months. They may have done that, but there appears to me to have been no real concerted action on the part of the various trade unions with the Government. We get all manner of lack of concerted action. Coal goes on to a five-day week, the engineers ask for a 44-hour week, and the textile industry are asked to work a two-shift system, or so the President of the Board of Trade says in my constituency, the biggest textile constituency in the country. He tells us that we should have a two-shift system, and the people in the industry tell him that they have not sufficient fuel to work a two and a half day week. We must face this position. There are too many contradictory statements. It would be a good thing, when the President of the Board of Trade goes into industrial areas, if he would acquaint the hon. Members who represent those areas with the fact that he intends to go. We can be helpful to him: if we cannot, we have no right to be in this House. We must put up with visits by people stating the Government's case on paper, but I want to state what the Government's case should be in fact. We get all sorts of anomalies, with trade unions making different agreements not in conformity with each other. They do not dovetail in the way in which they should into a proper industrial economy.
  Let us take the position of the miners. I do not want to scratch old sores. In fact I want to compliment the miners on what they have achieved. They have achieved a five-day week. Whether that is in the best interests of the country in its present desperate position remains to be seen. They have achieved better wages. They were long overdue. They have achieved more food and more clothes. That was also long overdue. But I ought to say that that extra food and those extra clothes can only come out of the restricted minimum economy which this country now has. It can only come out of the common pool at the expense of those who have to do without them, and therefore some statesmanship should be shown by the miners' leaders and something should be given in return. The miners have achieved no conscription. I am all for that. I would it were possible to live in a world where there is not even
  430
  a policeman in uniform, let alone a soldier, but that is not yet. The miners are entitled to these things; they should have had them 40 years ago. I did not move about in the mining villages when a boy without seeing what was wrong. But when the miners are given these things, the nation has a perfect right to ask something in return.
  I have a question for the miners—not the miners' leaders but the miner himself—the rank and file, the honest-to-God fellow who slogs and slaves nearly every day of his life: Are you satisfied that you will by working a five-day week bring this country to an economic state which you yourself would desire, and having got these advantages, are you not prepared to see that the rest of your brothers in other industries get that better of life you will now get? I do not say it is too good or good enough—it could be better—but at the moment every miner has a perfect right to do what he can to get for others all that he himself has gained.
  Mr. D. J. Williams: Does the hon. Member realise that all these privileges for coalminers simply have to be accepted by the coalminers because they cannot enter another industry?
  Mr. Jones: I agree. The Essential Work Order still applies to the miner. I am not trying to belittle the right of the miner to the things he is getting. I made that very clear to the House. I would that all industries were getting the same. It was suggested in a very able speech by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) last week that we should go ahead and purchase something like 10 million tons of coal from America this year. I have been going into the question of what that might cost, and I am assured that it would mean the expenditure out of a very restricted dollar purse of something between 150 million to 200 million dollars. I respectfully suggest that no thinking miner would want to see 200 million dollars' worth of coal coming from America if it could be got by our own miners. The question of shipping space is also concerned in that. The miner would prefer to see 200 million dollars' worth of goods other than coal coming into this country every year so that a better standard of life could be brought about.
  I ask the Front Bench, the Cabinet, or even the Prime Minister himself to make

  431
  one last appeal and to ask those grand men in the mines to give us the extra tonnage we so desperately need, at all events for the remainder of this year. I believe it can be done, especially if the request is made to the younger miners, if not to the older miners. If we ask the young, lusty, able, efficient younger miners for some extra shifts for some weeks, we might get a reply to astonish this House. I believe we should make that effort, and at all events we should ask for the absolute maximum output because of this agreement which has been reached inside the steel industry. We say that on a seven-day continuous working week this country can be given 750,000 to one million tons more steel under the present plan, but that cannot possibly be achieved unless we get the coal to do it. That is the point. One million tons extra of steel means one million tons of steel going out partly into light engineering and partly to the Argentine and elsewhere where we can build up our dollar reserves and thereby get better food.
  I make my appeal to the miners, even if it is only an individual appeal. It may meet with opposition, but I care not about that because I am speaking with a conscience that tells me that this can be done and ought to be done. All other workers are watching this position. Nothing has been said by other trade unions about this extra food and clothes, but do not let the House think that the position is not being carefully watched by every trade union in the country. Do not let the House make that mistake. The miners are fully entitled to have these advantages, but do not let us misunderstand the position. The other unions—the men in the foundries, on the railways, in agriculture and in the heavy industries—are saying, "If it can be given to them, why can it not be given to us, particularly to those of us who will increase our hours of production as against those who are decreasing them?"
  It is no use this House burying its head in the sand and blinding itself to the facts. The Opposition are well versed in what is going on in various parts of the country. Of course, there are restrictive practices in certain pockets among certain people arising from lack of co-ordination and understanding. They will only be found
  432
  in the great masses of persons who believe it is right to try to get back some of the things they lost in the past. They should be swept away. There is no such thing as "something for nothing." This House should today concern itself with problems of this description. In this Debate we can make a very useful contribution, if every hon. Member of the House will search his soul and speak the truth. There has been talk from the other side of the House about restriction of this, that and the other. If there was time to discuss it there would be scope to speak of the need for restriction in profits. But the time has arrived for all concerned to get right down to brass tacks and to the survival of this nation as such—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If we do not get down to that we shall have lost this fine opportunity to make a contribution which history will say was worthy of this occasion.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: The House has just listened to a remarkable speech, and speaking for myself, at any rate, it was a speech which brought very great relief. After the Debate was started by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), full of sweet reason and questioning, it seemed to me that we were now set on the possibility of coming to grips with the problems which we failed to meet last week. I had quite a good speech ready last week, but it is now out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I propose to scrap it.
  I suggested in the midnight hours that many hon. Members and a large public outside are rather anxious at the moment that we should plan our own Parliamentary affairs rather better if we are to try to plan the economic resources of the country. Everyone knows that manpower is part of a very much larger problem involving defence, national service, mechanisation, management, training and education. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) in a very interesting speech last week may be right that the phrase "democratic planning" is a contradiction in terms. He said it is quite impossible unless there is a meeting in the middle; in other words, unless there is some common purpose. This Debate depends finally on foreign policy and commitments overseas. It depends on the

  433
  strength of our Armed Forces, and on that question there is very considerable disagreement, not only in the House generally but in the party opposite in particular. Therefore, without the Debate on defence which takes place tomorrow, it is very difficult to get this whole question in proportion.
  I want to refer to one or two points which were mentioned just now. I think it is much better for example to illustrate, if we suggest cuts, where we can make cuts in the precise industries, as the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) referred to the steel industry, which he knows so well. We heard last week that we have in the Army, Navy and Air Force now a shortage of instructors and teachers running into some 2,000 or 3,000. We are short in our own schools of every kind. There are scores of posts overseas and in the Colonial education service advertised and unfilled. What is the position in this country? We have 38,000 applicants accepted for teaching. This is to illustrate my point from the field I know. There are 10,000 men in training, and there are probably another 5,000 doing temporary duties. That means there are something like 25,000, mostly ex-Servicemen, hanging about frustrated or lost to the educational service, and the need for at least 5,000 in the Services at this very moment. At the same time there is growing up a chronic shortage of women teachers, because the ratio in these emergency training colleges is five to one men as compared with women, and there has been an increase in the birth-rate for six years.
  Mr. George Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those 5,000 should be directed to teaching in the Services?
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I did not mention the word "directed."
  Mr. Thomas: No, but the hon. Gentleman is implying it.
  Mr. Lindsay: I did not mention the word "directed" at all. I suggest they should stay where they are and go into the emergency training colleges as soon as there is room. Again, owing to the increase in meticulous controls and paper plans, there is a large increase in the local authority staffs. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to pass this on to the Minister of Education. Nearly one adult
  434
  worker to nine children will be the position when the Education Act gets into operation. For every teacher there are doctors, nurses, administrative staff, organisers, welfare officers, school secretaries, librarians, laboratory assistants, caretakers, cleaners, groundsmen, cooks and meals supervisers, domestic staff, vehicle drivers, psychologists and psychiatrists. This is a formidable pay roll. It is one adult to every nine children and, finally, there will be involved some 600,000 persons, of whom less than half will be actually teachers.
  The danger of mentioning these facts is that Government supporters and I have very lively memories of the May Committee, and much of the undercurrent in last week's Debate turned on memories of the pre-war years. I believe those memories are just as important as the facts which have been put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby. In making, therefore, a plea for reviewing an educational expenditure at the local authority end of the swollen manpower, I would make it perfectly clear that I have decided, on balance, that we ought to raise the school leaving age next April on economic and educational grounds, as well as political. But I think the Government ought to state the case. We shall lose the nimble fingers and the work of something like 130,000 boys and girls next September, and about 400,000 by the following December. Thereafter the outflow will return to normal, so we are taking away for about one and a half years 400,000 children. When I was more familiar with this question in East London, these boys between 14 and 15 were van boys, they carried messages, they did odd jobs, they probably had eight or 10 jobs between the ages of 14 and 18. That is not the position today. A good many blind alley jobs have gone, I hope for good. They are demanding quite considerable wages now. The boot is on the other foot. There is a premium on child labour between 14 and 17 at the present moment. There is a little unemployment at 17 before the call-up for the Services at 18. It is a sort of nervousness if they are out of work. They say, "Why go into another job for a few months?" The fact of the matter is that there is much more careful vocational guidance, much more careful selection for entry into industry at this day. We shall need even more in future.

  435
  After all, we have had six speeches from this side suggesting that we ought to look at this question again and I think it is time somebody said something. If you delay this, you will put teachers out of work because, owing to the speeding up of the training of teachers, there will be, as there are already some Welsh, English teachers unemployed. There are 70,000 building operatives working on educational building and on general educational work. Hon. Members on this side may ask, "Why are they not in the development areas?" We had a speech from one of the North Eastern Members the other night telling us how slow the construction is of the factories on the North East coast, but I warn the Government that if they did do any such thing, they would only be creating unemployment in another field, and that is in the teaching profession. However, I say this after careful deliberation: unless there is a major military operation between now and September, and there is a switch from all canteens to practical classrooms, children will not be sitting down in school next September. I appreciate that means a considerable switch and a considerable operation, but owing to the dislocation caused by the recent crisis, that is the position in my opinion. It would be out of place to say anything more about it, but I think we ought to have had one debate over two years on this question.
  The other point I want to mention is the Barlow Report and the question of higher manpower and technical manpower for both the Services and civil life. This is becoming very serious. We are not dealing only with quantity, we are not dealing only with coal and textiles and agriculture; I give my opinion for what it is worth, that I do not believe it will be practical in this country to raise the school leaving age next April, to have a period of national service and a million people in the Services. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour and the Government quite realise what is happening in the field of secondary and university education due to the call-up. The universities now are swollen to 50 per cent. more than they were prewar, and this is a very remarkable achievement done by closing up and by getting staff, and much of it is bound to be not of the highest order. But the students are at least in the universities.
  436
  I will mention a few small points to show the position of a student who works in the vacation, which is current practice in many countries. Fifty per cent. of his earnings is taken away. I hope that stipulation will be abolished forthwith. I know the wife of a student who works as a doctor two days a week for £5. That is taken off—£100 off the student. This is again completely stupid. I will say one further thing which has come from Manchester and Leeds and the other universities that I represent; that there are now something like 30,000 students who are prepared, if the Ministry of Labour will show them where, to work in the vacation. This is being done in Czechoslovakia. I saw it last year. It is being done in Holland. Will my right hon. Friend say where they can be used? Could the Minister of Agriculture use them? I hear there is a very serious situation in agriculture. Could he organise them to work in groups, and will he also organise them as we organised in the war—I think we had 20,000 working with the help of the Foreign Secretary and Lord Citrine in forestry and harvest camps, young workers who combined a holiday and camp and useful paid National Service. They made a very great contribution.
  I would ask the Minister of Labour to overhaul the Appointments Boards. It is a question I have asked him before. We now have 50,000 students, most of whom receive a Government grant. The Government have to be certain that the industries into which those students propose to go have sufficient absorptive capacity to enable them to enter. There are a number of ways in which the Government indirectly influenced manpower—by grants; extra and better training facilities here and there; and, of course, by the Burnham scales and by salaries. It is true to say that there are many ways in which the Government are influencing the direction of labour from the universities and elsewhere; but 80 per cent. of the metallurgical students and other scientific students are leaving Leeds and Manchester universities this Easter and going into the Services, instead of going into jobs of vital importance to the nation. The Barlow Committee said that we are lamentably short of scientific workers. That is the kind of question in which we are now involved.
  We heard yesterday from the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander

  437
  Noble), who speaks with great knowledge on naval affairs, that the Admiralty have underspent £1,000,000 on scientific services. We do not want vast hoards of manpower in the Services. We have to face the facts of scientific use of manpower in the Services and in industry. Unless we have the right quality of man to teach the next generation we shall find ourselves sadly behind. I do not like to see my young friends going off to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. There are science posts in London at £1,000 a year and there are not the scientists to fill them. There are secondary schools in Manchester and Leeds which have no scientists.
  I speak of what I know. I believe that this is another important part of the whole question of manpower—yes, and womanpower. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, What about womanpower? What about the day-time nurseries? Are we certain that the number of people employed in looking after the children will not be greater than the women released for industry? I am not at all certain. I would rather see good improvised, prefabricated nursery schools for Children from two or three upwards, and the very small children looked after by their mothers. I am not so keen about little children left in creches up to 12 hours a day. There are still tendencies in that direction. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with what I say, and if he can prove that the scheme is economical, will he restore the grant which was given by the Ministry of Labour during the war and set up nurseries as part of a great national service?
  Mr. Isaacs: Can the hon. Gentleman give me instances of creches where children are left for 12 hours?
  Mr. Lindsay: Yes, Sir, I can give the right hon. Gentleman a number of instances where children are left at the creche early in the morning and the mothers do not come back until night. It is happening in the north of England and in parts of South Wales.
  I do not believe in recalling what happened after the last war. We can all be very wise about it now. I remember the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) saying, when somebody during the war began to throw stones: I have never said 'I told you so.' "It is better that we do not start talking on those
  438
  lines. There is now a transference of power in this country. I regard that as the most important thing that happened at the last General Election. One reason why I voted for the Government last week is because I believe it is better during this transitional period that the Government should have behind them the solid backing of a strong trade union movement. I say so with a sense of responsibility. I believe that ultimately, when we have talked all the hot air and made all the paper plans, unless industry is happy, right down into the shops, as we heard yesterday from the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) with regard to a ship's company, it is no good talking about increased production and all the rest of it. Behind this Government, as behind all Governments, there are other powers. Behind the Conservative Government there were powers. At this moment we hope that there is a responsible trade union movement behind the Government. All that the country asks is that that responsibility shall be fully realised.
  4.59 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I want to turn to the wide problem of manpower in the agricultural industry. I would like to know whether there is a general, overall shortage of manpower in the country, or whether there is simply maldistribution. There is an old saying in the North of England that for every mouth there is a pair of hands. It is true in the sense that we all have to be housed and fed, but we are short of labour for producing many goods which we produced until recently. I am sure it is a good proposition to bring in foreign workers. It is common ground that we are not producing enough food, and not as much as we have produced before.
  Since the Debate last week another White Paper dealing with this aspect of the question has been published. It appears to have been a White Paper written during the war and issued recently, I believe as a result of a request made in a Debate in another place. It is entitled "The Post-War Contribution of British Agriculture to the Saving of Foreign Exchange," and there are in it some very interesting suggestions, although I find them a little vague. It is suggested that we should be able to increase production above the wartime level by turning

  439
  to livestock, and that by 1950–51 we might increase the production of food in this country to an extent which, at present prices, might save anything up to £191 million of imports. It would save less than that, of course, if the levels of consumption of food were raised above those that existed during the war, which I think is essential, but nevertheless it is a very large figure. Even if the saving in foreign exchange were £100 million, it would be a very great contribution to our foreign trade situation. In the Economic Survey, on which a Debate took place last week, no increase of that sort in food production was suggested; all that was suggested was that we should maintain our present production.
  The first point I want to put to the Minister is that, when in the Economic Survey it is suggested we must raise the labour force in agriculture by 39,000 workers by the end of this year, I take it that is based on an intention to produce as much food as we produced last year, but not to increase food production. As I read the other White Paper, the 39,000 workers will not, in fact, increase the labour force in agriculture. At present, there are 130,000 German prisoners of war, each of whom is counted as being equal to half a British worker, so that according to the Government's calculations, 130,000 German prisoners are considered to be worth about 60,000 regular British male workers. If half the total number of German prisoners are going back, we shall lose the equivalent of 30,000 British workers, and therefore, if we were to increase British manpower by only 39,000, we should be left with a net increase of 9,000, which, given the very large number of men employed in agriculture, is a negligible figure. Is the calculation right that, on the one hand, we do not really hope to increase British agricultural production this year, and, on the other hand, the increase in manpower which is hoped for will not raise the manpower in agriculture by the end of the year substantially above the level that exists today? If that is so, the other White Paper to which I have referred is merely of academic interest.
  There are, I recognise, other factors which limit agricultural production at the present time, imported animal feeding-stuffs perhaps being the most important
  440
  of those factors. In the second White Paper, some other limiting conditions are mentioned. One of them is that there is no undue shortage of labour, a condition likely to be effected by relative wage rates in agriculture with competing occupations. Another condition is that a high priority is given to farm building work, including cottages, without which the programme could not be achieved as early as 1950–51. It seems that the condition that there should not be an undue shortage of labour is not to be fulfilled at the present time. There is not enough labour to produce the food we are now purchasing, let alone such a large increase as is contemplated in the White Paper.
  I ask the Minister what steps he contemplates to get new labour into agriculture. The increased total labour force in agriculture which, according to the White is 38,000. There is a tremendous drive, as anyone can see, to get miners. One Paper, it is hoped to get is 39,000 by the end of the year, and for mining the figure has only to walk down Bond Street to see a picture of a miner on a poster, with a suitable slogan on it. What is being done to get more agricultural workers? There was a great campaign during the war, and as the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) said at the end of his speech, there were many good ideas for voluntary camps, which might be repeated. I do not think there is recognition among the public, in spite of the bad harvest last year and the desperate weather from which we are now suffering, of the need to give help in voluntary camps.
  Returning to the question of recruiting regular workers, the Government have a scheme which was intended to introduce, perhaps, 100,000 new workers into agriculture from the Forces or elsewhere. The figures which I have been given show that actually 5,200 men went into the training scheme for agriculture, that 1,600 of them did not finish the course, and that, so far, only 500 have completed the course of training. The figures for women, which are perhaps even worse, show that 500 took up the training, that 100 did not finish the course, and that 70 have completed their training. Obviously, there is something fatally wrong with that training scheme. I hope the Ministry will try to learn from past mistakes, that they will not give up the training scheme, but will

  441
  go ahead with it, and try to find out what really was wrong.
  I think there are some general basic matters which prevent people from going into agriculture and which are still worth looking into. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) made an interesting speech, and I put it to him that the conclusion of his speech was really that there must be a wages policy for the whole of the workers of this country; otherwise, some groups of workers will get advantages over other groups, and the groups which get the advantages will not necessarily be those whom one most wants to have advantages in wages, in consumers' goods and so on. I would put it to the hon. Member if he were here that that would be the real conclusion of his speech. We on this bench have advocated a wages policy for long enough.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: The hon. Gentleman is constantly saying that we need a wages policy, but would he be more precise? Does he mean that we should supersede the agreements, or how in fact would it work out?
  Mr. Roberts: I should have said that it would work out broadly like this. You decide which industries you wish to recruit workers into, and, if they are the agricultural, coalmining and the textile industries, you then see that the wages and conditions in those industries are such as to attract workers from other industries. That is a very simple and broad statement, but that is the basic policy, and I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied with the industry with which I am dealing. Although we have had considerable increases in wages in the agricultural industry, still the wages of agricultural workers are below those of any other organised workers.
  Mr. Robens: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me a moment, this is a most important matter. He used the word "you." Whom did he mean when he said "You must decide which are the essential industries," and when it has been decided, how does he propose to prevent the luxury industries which will always be able to pay more than the essential industries, from paying more? How is he going to do this job? Will it be by direction, or how is it to be done, and where do the trade unions come into this scheme?
  Mr. Roberts: On the first question, I meant the Government; they produced the White Paper saying which industries need more workers, and giving the precise figures they want. But they gave no indication in the White Paper as to how those figures are to be achieved, and if it is not to be by some form of wages policy I do not know how it is. They have said quite definitely that they are not going to direct individuals, and I agree with them, but I throw it back to them, if they are not going to follow out the idea of a wages policy, how are they going to get the numbers they want recruited into the various industries? Are the figures quoted in the White Paper merely a pious hope? How are you going to achieve in the agricultural industry a labour force which will be 39,000 more by the end of the year?
  Mr. Robens: In other words, the hon. Member's suggestion boils down to this: the Government should legislate for wages in all industries.
  Mr. Roberts: I did not say legislate; there are other methods of doing things besides passing Acts of Parliament. I should say that this was certainly not a matter for legislation, but rather for administration. We have minimum wages by legislation in some industries at the present time, but I am not suggesting that wages should be fixed generally by legislation in this country.
  Let me go back to the very interesting speech of a man who, I readily agree, knows more about this than I do, the hon. Member for Bolton, whose speech I think was generally approved by the House. What was he saying? He was pointing to the fact that the miner had won a very favourable position. He did not grudge it, but he pointed out that it was so. That is desirable if it is going to mean that he will get the coal, because it will be to the benefit of all other workers. All I am saying is that if you want to get a larger force of agricultural workers, and thereby get a larger quantity of food for all workers and consumers in this country, you have got to see to it that the agricultural worker is not so much worse off than other workers. Unless you have a policy about that, and a wages policy as well as a housing policy for agricultural workers, you will not in fact get agricultural workers. I will not enter into a longer

  443
  argument, taking up more time than I meant to do, on that subject. The only way to get more production for the same number of agricultural workers is to increase output per man; that has gone up during the war, but it will not continue to go up if another Government Department continues to export agricultural machinery. The only way to get a larger output per man is to mechanise agriculture even more.
  I want to say a word about foreign labour. There are many displaced persons still on the Continent, and one analysis I have seen says that there are 60,000 agricultural workers in camps in Austria alone whom we are partly helping to pay and feed. I looked up the Debate on manpower a year ago, and one argument the Lord President of the Council used then about bringing foreign workers into this country was the housing problem. He said that camps were no good because they were not near industrial centres. It is true they are not, but they are near agricultural centres, and you could very well use both aerodromes and old Army camps, which are standing empty all over the country, to accommodate foreign agricultural workers. I hope the Minister of Agriculture intends to do that. I would say this, too. We depend so much these days on the Government having schemes to provide what we need, and I am quite sure that a considerable contribution to this problem would be made if there were a little more private enterprise on the part of individuals in getting foreigners into this country to work on farms. This applies equally to other essential purposes.
  In my county we have an interesting scheme by which Austrian women are working in farm houses, and that would never have been achieved but for the individual enterprise of a few people in the country, especially one or two connected with the National Farmers' Union. It is a drop in the ocean; perhaps a dozen or a couple of dozen girls have been brought over. One or two people were determined to solve the problem of helping the farmers' wives and they have got a few people over. If they were allowed to carry it out I am sure they could get a lot more. In the last two years I have known the Home Office refuse to allow quite a number of foreigners to stay in this country, but I am confident that as a part-time job, as a Member of Par-
  444
  liament, I could fit in quite a number. Those people want to come to this country, but the whole thing is so surrounded by a mass organisation that nothing happens.
  There is the case of the German and Italian prisoners of war here. I know cases of both who would like to stay and continue to work on the farms, but it is not possible because there is no scheme by which they can do so. Whether it is the Ministry of Labour or the War Office who would have to work out such a scheme I do not know, but I would say this to the Minister of Labour. So far as the West and North country farmers are concerned, the relationship between the worker and the employer is a very individual relationship, and if a farmer finds a German prisoner of war with whom he gets on well and who works well for him, that man is worth much more than just a prisoner of war or a deported person who may be brought into this country at some future date. I believe a little more private enterprise in fitting the individual into the right job would be valuable. In the old days when Irish labour used to come over, one Irishman would come in advance to arrange with the farms for the employment of a whole group. That is an arrangement which, perhaps, would help towards solving the problem quickly.
  There are many British people who want to emigrate to the Dominions. I have seen figures amounting to 300,000 people who have indicated their desire to go to the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. What is the Government's policy? Those people are some of our best workers in all fields, and the Dominions want only the best people. I have never been anxious to see large-scale emigration, because I have always believed that there would be full employment in this country, and we want the type of young person who is most enterprising and most likely to go to the Dominions. In the future, the figure may rise to hundreds of thousands, and it is a factor which must be taken into account. So far as this affects agriculture, there is no doubt that those who have already emigrated are the best farmers and farm workers.
  The Agriculture Bill, which the Minister is piloting through the Committee upstairs, is a very good Bill, but the

  445
  fundamental difficulty in getting more and better workers and retaining those we have got is that there is no confidence in the future. In the North of England there is no confidence that there will not be general unemployment again. There is no confidence that the future of agriculture is assured. In my part of the world there is still widespread feeling against women working in industry because it is felt that they are taking the jobs from the men. There is nothing very precise that one can say about that, except that I am sure there is a future for workers and farmers in producing food in this country. We shall never put that over unless the Minister and the Government make it clear beyond doubt, not by words but by actions, that they have a long-term policy.
  If the Ministry can fix a target for increased production, if the Government could restate the policy contained in the White Paper—incidentally, there is no statement as to how much manpower would be required—if the Government could work out the amount of manpower required and would set a high target for the sake of improving the nutrition in this country, and for staving off a food crisis similar to the coal crisis which we have experienced recently, perhaps the public would be persuaded that there is a future for this industry and the Minister would not find it difficult to recruit the necessary men.
  5.26 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): This Debate has roamed over a wide area from mining to textiles, agriculture and so forth, but since the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who opened this Debate, made special mention of agriculture, it may be to the convenience of the House if I deal with that subject at the moment so that the wider aspects of manpower can be dealt with later on. I would like to say how much I appreciate the modest tones of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his effort at constructive suggestions in divers ways. The questions to which I have to reply are fairly short, and I hope to say something about each one of them in turn. I will come back to the points raised by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) later on.
  446
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the Debate referred to the Economic Survey which emphasised the importance of agriculture in the Government's plans for putting the national economy on a sound basis. Recently I announced the cropping targets for 1948 and subsequent years—a thing hitherto unprecedented in this House. The hon. Member for North Cumberland, apparently, had not noticed that. I also made plain what our objective was in restoring the livestock population in this country. We realise, as do hon. Members in all parts of the House, that the attainment of those targets depends upon very many factors, perhaps the chief one being the question of labour. On several occasions, I have assured the House that the Government will do everything within their power, apart from direction, to secure additional labour as well as to encourage the development of machinery and other aids to economy in manpower.
  I am very delighted to note this new found enthusiasm in some quarters for manpower in agriculture. There was a notable absence of enthusiasm between 1921 and 1939 when we lost something like a quarter of a million of our manpower which is causing so much excitement today. It is true that our long-term aim must be to recruit more British labour. That, in turn, depends upon the prosperity and efficiency of agriculture. As far as the Government are concerned, not only for today but, I hope, for tomorrow and for a long time to come, the Agriculture Bill now upstairs represents the Government's part in aiming at long-term prosperity. That is fundamental if we are to procure the necessary manpower, but I should like to turn to one or more of the other factors which are essential if we are ultimately to resolve the problem.
  First, the Government are determined, in order to get the appropriate quantity of manpower, to create satisfactory living conditions in the countryside, especially by providing more houses, which in itself will be a vital factor in producing recruitment to agriculture. As hon. Members recognise, the Government are giving every encouragement they can to rural district councils. They have offered the largest subsidy for houses to be occupied by agricultural workers ever offered in this country. The county agricultural executive committees are co-operating

  447
  with rural district councils, indicating where the houses are most necessary. Wages and conditions in agriculture—
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the proportion of houses being built for agricultural workers at the present time out of the total houses being built?
  Mr. Williams: I am afraid I could not reply to the hon. Member and give specific figures.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied?
  Mr. Williams: What I do know is, that a higher proportion of rural district councils have had tenders approved from the beginning of our housing campaign that have urban areas. But it depends upon the rural councils themselves to determine how many houses they are building, and how many of those houses they allocate for agricultural workers. The Minister can provide the subsidy he can do his best to provide the manpower; but it is the local authority which determines how many houses should be built, and how many houses are to be allocated for the agricultural workers. As far as the Minister of Health is concerned, he has fulfilled his share of the bargain.
  I was about to refer to the question of wages. Hon. Members will recall that for the past few years wages and conditions for agricultural workers have improved considerably. Please remember that in 1939 the minimum wage for the agricultural worker was 35s. per week, for 50 hours or more. Today, the minimum wage is 80s. per week, for 48 hours. Therefore, we can now at all events afford to talk agricultural labour up instead of talking it down, as it has been talked down for very many years. The Government intends to see to it now, that these conditions are improved, that there will be no slipping back, as we slipped back after the 1914–18 war—for that is the period whence most of our present day troubles can be dated. More British labour is obviously a long-term problem. The immediate need is for more emergency measures. The Government have done a great deal in trying to keep agriculture going during the past 18 months or more, and I welcome this opportunity provided by the right hon. and learned Gentleman
  448
  to outline the assistance which the Government have given in various ways, which has not always been appreciated, either in this House or outside.
  For instance, demobilisation and special Class "B" releases have resulted in valuable increases in the number of regular male workers, which now stands at 482,000 as against 448,000 a year ago. That is the highest figure for regular agricultural workers for the last 10 years. I do not think hon. Members opposite really appreciate that. Regular workers in agriculture continue to be protected by the suspension of calling up notices; and to that extent we have helped to maintain our British army of agricultural workers at a higher point than would otherwise have been the case. The Women's Land Army has been maintained in existence. Although at present it numbers only 27,000 compared with over mow at its wartime peak, it is at least an all the year round assistance to agriculture, and we hope the recruiting campaign this spring will increase the present strength of 27,000. We hope to keep the Women's Land Army in existence for at least one more year, and future arrangements are under consideration at this moment. I should like to take this opportunity of making a very strong appeal to women who have not yet made up their minds what occupation or profession they are likely to enter, to join the Women's Land Army.
  The county committees are maintaining staffs of agricultural workers to provide mobile gangs needed to help all sorts of farmers, large and small, but particularly small farmers who have not the labour available to them. Unemployed workers from development areas are being recruited, and very useful results have so far been obtained. However, if more houses had been erected in rural areas in prewar days we should have been able to recruit many more potential agricultural workers from development areas. There are still considerable numbers of German prisoners available in this country, and in their allocation at the coming harvest the highest possible priority will be given to agriculture. It is true, that owing to repatriation the total number will be fewer than the peak figure of 1946. But the number will still be very large, and I am fairly satisfied about the forthcoming harvest. Apart from this—and here is one reply to the hon. Member for

  449
  North Cumberland—as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour announced on 13th March, the Government are prepared to consider an arrangement for farmers to retain prisoners of war on a civilian basis—that is, of course, where the farmers can provide accommodation, and where their employment is without detriment to British workers.
  Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: Does that mean the prisoners will draw the civilian rate of wage, and keep it for themselves?
  Mr. Williams: Once a person becomes a civilian he automatically receives a civilian wage, and would be assimilated into our own population.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Does that include German prisoners as well as Italians?
  Mr. Williams: Certainly. That was what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour announced in this House on 13th March.
  Mr. Paget: It is not so much a question of how many German prisoners we gel for the harvest, but how willingly they are prepared to work. Could the Minister bring some pressure to bear so that those who do a good job this harvest will be repatriated by next Christmas?
  Mr. Williams: I am afraid my hon Friend is asking me to make a promise which I am not in a position to make. If he would like to address any such query to the War Office, perhaps he might get a more appropriate reply from that source. I ought to remind my hon. Friend that a definite improvement was made in the payment of prisoners during the latter months of last year. I hope even that may not be the end.
  Prior to those interruptions, I was about to say that we contemplate recruiting a substantial number of men from the Polish Resettlement Corps. I hope that may yield a valuable addition to the standing labour force in this country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me how we would keep either displaced persons or prisoners in this country, retaining them in certain unattractive or undermanned industries, and whether we should retain them in camps. He asked would we be able to get houses for them,
  450
  or what would we do? It is quite clear that the shortage of housing in the rural areas—a legacy of the evil past—compels us to utilise camps and hostels to the fullest possible extent I, no more than the dockers, want to see agriculture casualised, as we have been trying to decasualise dock labour for the past 20, 30 or 40 years. But in the circumstances, and in the absence of houses for agricultural workers, it is clear that we shall have to make the maximum use of both camps and hostels for this particular purpose. One other point I ought to mention with regard to foreigners is in regard to applications made for Italian ex-prisoners who were employed in agriculture in this country. The farmer with whom such a man was employed makes the application to the Ministry of Labour; and those persons will have it made easy for them so long as they come here to work in agriculture, and intend to remain in agriculture.
  But I want to emphasise, after all 1 have said about this alien employment, that the employment of foreign labour must not operate to the detriment of the British workmen. Their wages and their working conditions must be safeguarded, or otherwise we shall lose more on the swings than we gain on the roundabout. Apart from regular workers, the Government are continuing their schemes for harvest help. School camps have already been arranged; volunteer agricultural camps have already been arranged; and if the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) knows of university students, up to 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000, anxious to render a contribution during the harvest, I can assure him that they will receive a very hearty welcome in the countryside this summer.
  I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for stating that full assistance can be assured from the Service Departments. Hon. Members ought to be aware that the severe weather conditions recently have not only delayed Spring cultivations, but have brought other misfortunes, too. So far as the Secretary of State for War is concerned, he is not only prepared to provide all the assistance he can for emergency flood prevention, but, also, for the getting in of the Spring crop, should that assistance be necessary. With this help, I feel confident that the industry can look forward with confidence, at least, to the

  451
  1947 harvest; and next year, which is going to be more difficult because the prisoners will largely have departed, I hope that the industry will be able to attract more British civilian labour to work on the land, as well as the foreign labour assimilated into the industry. The leaders of the industry have satisfied me, at all events, that they are doing all they can to help themselves by recruiting British labour. I am hoping—hon. Members opposite may smile once again, as they usually do at the mention of this subject, not that they built many houses between 1920 and 1940 themselves—but I am hoping that by 1948 there will be many new houses in the countryside.
  Mr. William Shepherd: How many?
  Mr. Williams: When these houses are available, I am convinced that they will attract more labour to the countryside, now that wages and conditions are better than they ever were in the countryside under Conservative government of this country. The farmers are making steady efforts to recruit labour, and I can assure hon. Members that we are as anxious as they are to provide them with the proper labour to do the job, and so play their full part in the national economy. I would say, therefore, in conclusion, that if hon. Members opposite, from this day on, will start talking agriculture up, as persistently as they have let agriculture down, we shall get the houses, we shall get the men, we shall save the dollars, and, at long last, agriculture will be able to play its full part in the national economy.
  5.44 p.m.
  Sir Ian Fraser: I invite the House to allow its mind to be diverted from the general question before us to a brief survey of the question whether we are making adequate use of our disabled people who could, in certain circumstances, make a notable contribution towards solving our problem of lack of manpower. Only the other day, an hon. Friend of mine in this House, who is a director of an old family business, said to me, "Can you provide me with one of your blinded soldiers from St. Dunstan's as a telephone operator for our business? We will look after him. He would be a lifelong member of this family business." It was the kind of job a man might like to have. I replied, "Certainly." But, on
  452
  inquiry, I found I could not provide him with one for six months, such is the demand for the services of a special category of highly disabled men, if suitably trained for a particular job. In spite of that, the examination which I have made has satisfied me that, in the wider field of the disabled generally, there is a considerable wastage of most valuable material.
  I want to call the attention of the House to this matter, and ask the Minister of Labour to correct me if I am wrong, or, if I am right, to sympathise with some of the proposals I am going to make to bring this labour into use and to distribute it properly throughout the country. I want to take the House back to the days before this last war, before we had the Disabled Persons Act, when we relied, at least, upon voluntary machinery called the King's Roll National Council for securing employment for disabled soldiers, sailors and airmen. I happened to be vice-chairman of that body for 20 years. I recently looked up some of its figures, and I found that, during those 20 years, the unemployment amongst disabled men averaged about 9 per cent. During the most severe year of all, 1932, when the unemployment amongst male adults generally was 25 per cent., unemployment amongst the disabled was 10.5 per cent.—a notable achievement on the part of that voluntary body. During the years from 1936 to the outbreak of the recent war, the unemployment amongst disabled persons fell to between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. In 1941 and 1942 it fell to 1 per cent. That was, no doubt, exceptional; but it is clear, I think, that between the war years, by voluntary methods, disabled soldiers, sailors and airmen, of whom there were over 400,000 on this voluntary register, were employed in proportions which were, on the whole, better than those applicable to the adult population as a whole.
  May I bring the House to the present position? We passed the Disabled Persons Act with the good will of hon. Members in all parties. The existence of a register, a compulsory register, compelled firms to give 3 per cent. of their employment to disabled persons, and there are at this moment 720,000 persons, including ex-Servicemen and other disabled persons, on the register set up under that Act. Of those 720,000 persons roughly

  453
  72,000, or 10 per cent. are unemployed. But if we contrast the present figures with the figures which I have given for the years before the war, it will be seen that four-sevenths of the numbers on the register are the men of the great war. Only 300,000 have come on to the register since the Disabled Persons Act was passed.
  The House will remember that, under the Act, all the men on the old register automatically came on to the new. Moreover, if the unemployment amongst men of the great war was down to 1 per cent. in 1941–42, and even if it rose to 2 or 3 per cent. now, it has not gone up to 10 per cent. It appears, therefore, that unemployment amongst disabled men during the second world war must far exceed 10 per cent., and may even be as much as 15 or 20 per cent. Under the voluntary system of the inter-war years, the unemployment amongst disabled men was less than half of what it was for the adult population, and it is now probably three times as great, and we do not know how many men who have come out of the recent war are not on the register at all.
  For example, I am told that there are 120,000 unemployed cases of neurosis and tuberculosis who are not on the disabled persons register at all. Included in the 70,000 unemployed disabled persons at the present time are 6,000 who are disabled in the highest degree, and who are listed as requiring very special employment. What is meant by that is that they can only be employed in a factory in exceptional circumstances if a very particular and suitable job is chosen. Probably, they will have to be employed in special factories, and there is provision in the Act for the setting up of special sheltered factories, called "Remploy" factories, to take these men. There are 6,000 of them out of work, and the Government have started with four of these factories, providing places for 250 men.
  Contrast that with what St. Dunstan's has been able to do. There are still some hundreds of blinded soldiers being trained by St. Dunstan's, but there are 351 who have been trained and settled in remunerative jobs, and over 90 per cent. of them are now out in the country earning their living in full competition with sighted workers, while the Government plan to provide work for 250 out of
  454
  6,000. It is surely time that this valuable labour, perhaps not capable, in the case of same of the most severely disabled men, of doing the greatest and hardest work, but certainly capable of making a valuable contribution, should be brought into active work by the proper use of this scheme by the Ministry of Labour.
  May I revert to the question of these neurotic people? There are over 120,000 and they vary from extreme cases almost of psychosis to the mildest cases of neurosis. These men are not incapable of work. They are difficult subjects for the ordinary day-to-day bustle and life of a factory, but, if they are properly placed in congenial surroundings, where they will be sympathetically understood, they very soon recover from the anxiety state in which they find themselves, and become as faithful, as vigorous and as active workers as any. I have been wondering whether agriculture might not be greatly helped by some scheme which would give training to some scores of thousands of these men. The quiet agricultural life is one that is soothing to torn nerves and shattered temperaments, but it is by no means my suggestion that agriculture should have persons less than the fittest, because agriculture needs the fittest, but, in the time of great shortage, could we not ascertain whether or not a large proportion of these men would be capable of training to fit them for work in our fields? Of course, they will need housing, but I do not want to develop any argument with regard to that, because I have enough to say in the time at my disposal on this special matter, but I suggest that, in this field, there is a source from which fresh labour could be found.
  The Government could get more help from psychiatrists if they set up more clinics where these men could be trained and if they set up big farms where they could also receive instruction. I am told by my friends in the British Legion that they are offering the Government help in the matter of psychiatrist treatment, and I earnestly hope that that offer will be accepted and used by the Government, because I believe there is a big field of additional labour to be found there. I am sure the whole House will feel that a man whose nerve has been shaken by arduous war service, as it has in many cases, deserves to be helped in order that

  455
  he may get back into a decent job, rather than be allowed to linger and languish as the result of his disability.
  Yesterday, I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a Question, and he told me that the Government Departments were employing 5 per cent. of their number of disabled persons. That is a good figure. The Act says they must employ 3 per cent. and Government Departments are actually employing 5 per cent., and are therefore doing more than they are compelled to do. I think we must congratulate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on being able to make that statement, and also the Minister of Labour and his officers on having made so many places. I would like to know, however, whether the local authorities have done as well. I hope so, but I must say I doubt it. I know a good many private employers, particularly among the big firms, who have schemes for carrying out their obligations under the Act, and they are employing their full 3 per cent., and, in many cases more, but I wonder how many firms throughout the country are not employing their full 3 per cent. I wonder if the Minister of Labour would cause some kind of check to be made to see whether the local authorities are carrying out their duties, and whether private firms generally are doing so. I am not suggesting that he should look at all firms, but he might investigate the situation in sample firms of different kinds, as well as different kinds of local authorities, rural and industrial.
  I want to say a word now in criticism of the Appointments Board. The Ministry of Labour has, no doubt, tried very hard to set up an Appointments Board which would give aid in finding jobs for men who have come back from the war and who have administrative or executive qualifications, but it has not a good name amongst employers. I do not know why, but it does not seem to be getting jobs for many thousands of young men who did extremely well in the war and whose labour we most certainly need in our present shortage.
  My last word is to call attention to the fact that, during the war, we had what was called the Tomlinson Committee, which did notable work in reviewing the whole position of the disabled, and upon whose report the Disabled Persons Act was passed. I am not sure whether that
  456
  committee is still in existence, whether it was disbanded or whether the Report was really an interim report. If the committee is still in existence, although it might have to have a new chairman, since the then chairman is now a Minister in this House, could it not be called together again and asked to review the position and to see how far we have succeeded in providing employment for disabled people and how far we have failed, and whether there is a substantial pool of unemployed disabled men and women of whom we could make use at the present time?
  In times gone by, one had to appeal to employers and to Governments to find jobs for these people, because of the hardship involved in adding unemployment to severe disability. The situation has now changed a little for, as I told in my opening words about the telephone operator, there are some categories of disabled persons where the demand for labour is greater than the supply. But there remain, I believe, many thousands, not only among our ex-Servicemen, but also among the casualties from industry, and one of the bars which stand in the way is the bad old system of paying compensation for injury on a sliding scale, so that, if a man does any work, he loses some of his compensation money, and, if he were to get a full-time job, like my telephone operator, he would lose his compensation money altogether. Even if a man can earn a full wage as a telephone operator, he is still a blinded soldier, and ought to have his compensation as well as his salary. That old system is not only unjust, but it puts a premium on idleness.
  I am glad to think, owing to representations which I had the honour to make in an earlier time, that that system has gone from our legislation, and that next year, or this year, when the appointed day comes, we shall no longer have it. But there must be scores of thousands of men, all over the country, sitting in idleness because of the fact that if they were to do a job they would lose their compensation money. Cannot the Government consider, not merely altering that for the future, but regulating this pool of unhappy unemployment which is a legacy of the past?
  As my last word, I want to say that, within the Ministry of Labour, there is a body of expert civil servants skilled in

  457
  their work, and that, in the employment exchanges throughout the country, there is a body of experts who are growing to understand this job, and who are cooperating very well with the British Legion, and other voluntary agencies. The Minister himself, so far as I have had to do with him outside this House, is a sympathetic Minister, doing his best, but the fact remains that there is here a great wastage of manpower, and that, in the interests of the persons themselves and of the country, we should make use of it.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Williamson: I listened last week to the Debate on the economic survey, and I gained the impression that there was some criticism at any rate, and, in parts, some condemnation of the British worker. I want to say, at the outset, that I believe the broad field of British labour, in skill, resourcefulness, adaptability, and devotion to duty, to be as good as any in the world. If there is to be some criticism of parts of the British labour force, we must be careful not to condemn altogether the British worker as a British worker, because, if we are to make exhortations for greater effort, we must do it in the right spirit, and gain the confidence of labour. I am amazed that in the speeches made in last week's three-day Debate, and in this Debate, not one word has been said about mechanical processes—machines, equipment and all the rest of it. We are living in a machine age. I always thought that, with science and invention, we were trying to do away with drudgery and physical effort, and to bring in the machines to do all that. At any rate, the worker has been led to believe so, hence his claim for a shorter working week. But now we are arguing 'that the worker must put in a greater effort.
  I should like to refer to the speech made last week by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). He said that there were certain fallacies, one of which was that, somewhere, there was a fund from which the workers' reward could be increased. He went on to say that surpluses had to be used for maintaining equipment, capital replacement, and so on. May I quote from the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in April, 1946, when he referred to his decision to discontinue the Excess Profits Tax. He said:
  458
  "Last autumn I expressed the view that postwar development should come before increased dividends, and I invited industry to plough back increased profits rather than to distribute them to shareholders. The response to this invitation has been patchy… Therefore, it would be premature for me to decide now whether or not, next year, it would be in the general interest to introduce a new tax designed to check these, as I think, unfortunate practices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1946; Vol. 421, C. 1834.]
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities also said that capital must have its reward. I hope that I might interpret to this House the mind of the worker on this question, because we must understand, if we are to get his confidence, what he is thinking and what are his views. Is capital having its due reward? Let we quote one or two recent public announcements of dividends. I do not think they are extravagant; I think they are indecent.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Are we in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in this Debate, in going into a report on dividends?
  Mr. Williamson: I am trying to bring to this House the mind of the worker, because we are asking him for greater effort and greater output. If I may say so, with due modesty, I am one of those who are entitled to do that. The following are a few examples of the dividends 'being paid. Plastic dividends, 120 per cent. Two shilling shares have increased from £5 to £5 17s. 6d. One family owned 650,000 shares—I believe they were bought at 22s. 3d.—which are now worth £3,500,000. This is published in the London "Evening Standard." There is another example headed "Store Profit," and it comes from a Conservative newspaper. It asks, "Who makes money from the leap in the profits?" I will not mention the name of the store, unless hon. Members opposite want me to, but I will say that it is a London store. Three years ago, the ten shilling shares of that store stood at 15s. 6d. Today, the price is 70s. 6d. The profits have jumped from £164,000 last year to £500,000. I could go on but I will not take up the time of the House. I have got the evidence here.
  I am not worried about profits if the profits are going to be ploughed back into industry, but if they are going to be used to increase dividends then the British workers are not going to be restrained from putting forward demands for increased wages. Let us not forget how the

  459
  profits are made. Plastics are a case in point. It is a positive scandal the price that is charged to British workmen earning £4 or £5 a week for plastic materials. Let me give an instance. A woman who has not got the coupons to buy curtains is asked to buy plastic curtains at 12s. 6d. a yard, and on the first day, if they are pulled, they tear into ribbons. That is the plastic industry, and the British worker is paying these sums in order that one family's income might increase from £165,000 to £3,500,000. This House must take note of that, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his next Budget will do so.
  The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) mentioned the unattractive industries. The fact of the matter is that if we are to attract the British workers into these unattractive industries we have got to make wages and conditions attractive. I mention this concerning agriculture, and I submit it to the Minister of Agriculture, that it is not wages only which are going to attract men into British agriculture. In a substantial part of my Division which includes agricultural areas, there is no water, no electricity and no sewerage while many of the workers are living in houses which are 300 years old. I am not blaming the present Government for not bringing these services to the countryside. That is going to take years. I do say this, however—and I do not wish to be provocative to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell-Fyfe)—that I am one of those who believe that until we make these improvements we are not going to attract the fine, upstanding men and women out of the Services on to the land.
  I want to make one or two constructive suggestions to which, I submit, it is essential that we should pay attention if we are to get the greatest effort. What about the pockets of unemployment? There is no mobility of labour. The workers are static. I understand—and here the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) will correct me if I am wrong—there are something like 28,000 unemployed in Liverpool today. I think by persuasion we could attract some of those unemployed into the other areas if the Government are prepared to be bold and provide them with housing accommodation. In
  460
  my view, having regard to the difficulty of output, it is essential that they ought to have preference, at any rate in temporary housing, in those areas. We moved millions during the war and we built accommodation in weeks not months. Therefore, I hope that the Government will pay some attention to this.
  Another point which in my view and from inquiries which I have made—and I have evidence on the matter—is having a bad effect on output and production is in connection with the transport services of the country. They are in great difficulty because substantial numbers of buses belonging to transport companies are out of commission as a result of there being no spare parts. In my Division, in the steel trade time and time again, the workers are not getting to work because the buses do not arrive to take them and they have to travel over long distances by other routes. In a comparatively small company out of a fleet of 80 buses 30 of them are often out of commission at one time. The company is being highly criticised by the workers and by the management for not providing transport but one of the reasons for these buses being out of commission is that spare parts cannot be procured for them. Throughout the country there must be thousands of buses out of service for the same reason, and I suggest that it is the duty of the Government to examine this question and see whether, rather than keeping the undertakings waiting until they can get new rolling stock, they should not provide spare parts in order that these buses, which are eight, nine and 10 years old should be put into commission.
  There is one other example of transport which has been brought to my notice and which I wish to bring before the House. Steel workers in Scunthorpe totalling approximately zoo are having to finish an hour earlier in the afternoon in order that they may be transported home a distance of 20 miles. The workers say that the train ought to be adjusted in order that they may put in this extra hour at the works. Though they have made representations on the subject they do not seem to get any further. Therefore, I am hoping that the Minister of Transport will examine this question, because I calculate in this one instance there is a loss of something like a thousand

  461
  hours a week which is equal to the output of 20 men.
  There is one other point which I think is vitally important, and that is the question of consumer goods in the shops. I have here a letter which was written by a mill girl in Lancashire and sent to a friend in London quite recently which states the position more eloquently than I can do it and I propose to read it. This is what she says:
  "We are all so tired of being told what to do and getting very little in return. I think if people could buy a little more either in food or for their homes they would work harder. I hear people say, 'Why work? There is nothing to buy when we get our money'."
  I submit quite seriously that there are great reasoning and great sense in that letter and I would say to the Government that they ought, even if it is at the expense of exports, to put more consumer goods into the shops. What a fillip to morale it would be if the womenfolk could buy some curtains, carpets or some other furnishings and certain household goods to brighten up their homes. I submit that the Government must give consideration to this question.
  In these matters the subject of a wages policy has been introduced and I do not intend to enter into it, but I do suggest that if British industry, including the trade union leaders and the employers and the Government, really got down to this question they could do a great deal towards the recovery of the country. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take early steps to consult the trade unions—and after all we must rely on the trade union leaders to do this job of greater output to a great extent—and I feel sure that we could get British production on the road to recovery. There has been too much defeatism and too much Jeremiahism. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) talk of this country approaching ruin. It is not approaching ruin, and it can be inspired. The people of this country can rise to the occasion as they did in 1940, and I have suggested some of the lines which I think we should take.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In opening my remarks may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brigg (Mr. Williamson) who must surely be the
  462
  only representative in this House coming from any part of the country who can claim to have contact with an agricultural constituency without water. It would be a very pleasant thing to engage the hon. Gentleman in debate on the question of the profit motive about which he spoke to the House, but frankly I would prefer to confine my remarks to the question of the distribution of manpower. I hope, therefore, that I may be forgiven for not following the hon. Gentleman. Except that I shall have something to say presently with regard to the consumer goods in shops, I should like to go straight on to the main question of the distribution of manpower at the present time.
  One thing which I think has emerged abundantly clearly, both from the course of this Debate and also from the Debate last week, is that in regard to this question of manpower the Government are quite unable to express any opinion which they may or may not have as to what is in their minds. The second point is that if they have any opinion at all as to our distribution of manpower at the present time they do not know what they want to do about it, and still less do they know how to do it. The Minister of Labour smiles at that remark; I am very grateful to him for having listened, but I listened to him last week when he was discussing this question at great length in his speech, and there is a point to which I should like to call his attention. It arises out of a question which was put to the Government by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) in which he besought the Government to avoid misunderstandings.
  The people of this country, as he pointed out, are continually being bewildered by different statements from different Ministers of the Government, and I would remind the Minister of Labour that when he was speaking last week he made it quite clear that in his opinion there was no real shortage of manpower. The President of the Board of Trade, however, when he spoke the previous day, made it quite clear that in his view there would not be an overall shortage of manpower until the time came when, owing to the improvement in the fuel situation and the raw material situation and so on, full production could be envisaged. That is the first point at which we have an issue between two representative Ministers speaking on the manpower problem in

  463
  that Debate. It is only a question of referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT and the records of the right hon. Gentlemen's speeches are there to be read.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Woodburn): There was no contradiction.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I did not say that there was contradiction, but they are bewildering statements. I am a very common or garden member of the public. I have not the advantage of being a Member on the Government benches, whether in front or at the back, and therefore in the inner understandings of the Government's mind.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: You would be more bewildered if you were.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: My hon. and gallant Friend says that I should be more bewildered if I were, but the fact remains that an ordinary member of the public hearing the President of the Board of Trade imply that there is no shortage of manpower at the present time and the Minister of Labour stating that there is, is definitely bewildering. I urge that the Government should qualify their statements and at any rate try to speak with one voice so that they at least will know what they are trying to put across. I congratulate them on making clear one thing which has to be satisfied—the attainment of the target figure of 140 per cent. exports over the 1939 figure by the end of this year. That is a point upon which I wish to make some comment because the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was most emphatic about this and the. House will probably remember that he went so far as to say in his speech:
  "We conclude, therefore, that our home consumption must be so adjusted as to enable us to reach our export target of 140 per cent. by the end of 1947."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 977.]
  The important words there which I wish to impress upon the House are that in order to achieve this target "our home consumption must be so adjusted." That is a point which will strike hard at the hon. Member for Brigg. He is already complaining that there are insufficient consumer goods in the shops to meet the demand at home. I wonder if he has
  464
  realised that the President of the Board of Trade has made it quite clear that in order to achieve his export target figure by the end of this year it may be necessary for the Government to adjust home production still further—and it can only be an adjustment downwards—in order to limit home consumption? There is a further point, again from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in which he said that the distribution of our labour force—and he was referring at that time to the distribution by the end of 1947—
  "will not by any means restore our prewar position in a number of consumer commodities, particularly the textile group, where there will still remain a very serious and marked deficiency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 990.]
  I want to draw the attention of the House to the cumulative effect which will arise from the difficulties which the Government have already envisaged and, further, to the fact that the Government have not propounded to this House, either in the White Paper or elsewhere, any plan to meet and overcome those difficulties. What exactly will arise? We have the position at the present time that consumption is admittedly low on all sides because the production for the home market is insufficient. We have the problem arising that production for the home market may be still more limited and the admission that even on the target figure the manpower situation and distribution will not be sufficient to produce the necessary quota and quantity of goods. It is quite obvious, therefore, that even if everything were to go right the production of consumer goods in this country would remain at a very low level indeed, and the probability is that if anything at all goes wrong the production of consumer goods in this country during the current year—and, as it has necessarily a cumulative effect, in succeeding years—will continue to decrease.
  I want to draw attention to another point, and that is in regard to the attainment of our export target. The House will remember the figures quoted by the Minister of Labour, and in this connection I should like to make exact reference to them. In reference to the production of exports at the present time, he stated:
  "In manufactures for export in mid-1939, the figure was 990,000, and at the end of 1946 it was 1,466,000, an increase of 476,000, or 48 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1162.]

  465
  I accept that figure entirely. It means that to achieve an increase of 13 per cent. in our exports between 1939 to 1946, it has been necessary to increase our labour force by nearly 50 per cent. I cannot accept or believe these figures. I know it has been stated that man-hour production is not what it was in 1939. There are various reasons for that. We all know the distressed state of affairs, the dreariness of life, the effects of postwar lethargy, and above all that people have looked forward for years to a period of shorter hours, less work, and an easier life by gaining Socialism in their time; it stands to reason that now they have Socialism in their time, they should put into practice those principles for which they have been working, because this is what the British workman has been fighting for, and having won, he has the commonsense to take advantage of those principles for which he has fought. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a reflection on the British working man."] I refuse to believe that the British workman has so reduced his man-hour output, that to achieve a 13 per cent. increase it is necessary to have a 50 per cent. increase in the total labour force. I do not know what the answer is, and I ask the Minister whether the figures are wrong. I have quoted the figures correctly, but perhaps the Ministry of Labour have failed to ascertain the correct proportions of the labour force devoted to export production.
  Mr. Jay: The answer is that there is a time-lag. If the hon. Member looks at the figures, he will see that the volume of exports six months later reached the same percentage as the increase in the number of men.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: How can the hon. Member say that, when six months later has not been reached? I am dealing with the figures for the end of 1946.
  Mr. Jay: It all happened last year.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The answer is still the same. The corollary is that if we are to achieve the target of 140 per cent. by the end of 1947, then the labour force will have to be still further increased by a total of 1,500,000 people. That, of course, is utterly out of the question. It cannot be done by a distribution of manpower, because the President of the Board of Trade has said that the Government will have the utmost difficulty in
  466
  redistributing the figures shown in the White Paper of some 260,000. Obviously, even if the manpower were available, it will be impossible to redistribute the vast number which would be necessary to procure the target figure for total exports at the end of 1947.
  I now wish to deal with the first potential breakdown in the Government plan. To get exports, the Government intend to get coal. We entirely agree with that; it is vitally essential. In order to get coal, they are to give incentives to the miners, and that is a policy we have advocated for a very long time. In granting incentives to the miners, as has been pointed out, very human questions will be raised in the minds of other people in essential industries. The mines are vitally essential to the economy of the country, but so are the merchant seamen, the industry of agriculture and the industry of fuel and power. The Government will be up against the problem of where they can draw the line in giving additional incentives to industry. That is where the proposals, as far as they have been envisaged by the Government, are likely to break down. The third point is in regard to the special incentives the Government propose to give to encourage people to go into the mines by diverting prefabricated houses. If the Government divert prefabricated houses already allocated to other industries, they will again create mental strife and stress, and great feeling as between one industry and another. That is a bad thing. It will create disappointment and a difficulty in the distribution of manpower. Where are these prefabricated houses coming from? It will be very difficult to divert them without affecting the textile industry, the seaports, and agriculture. All these three industries need additional incentives to attract labour to them as much as any other, and that is another point on which the Government's plans are liable to break down.
  Mr. Alpass: Does not the hon. Member agree that some incentives should be offered to the miners and o men to come into the mines? If he does not agree with that, how does he propose to get the increased labour and production? If he admits that incentives are necessary, what kind of incentive would he offer?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I appreciate the question of the hon. Member. As one of the oldest Members of this House, and as one who has graduated from an urban to a county seat, I would like to repeat his question to him in the case of agriculture What incentive is he prepared to offer for agriculture?
  Mr. Alpass: Let the hon. Member answer my question first.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I have accepted the incentives which the Government are preparing to offer to the miners, but I say that they are doing it much too late.
  Mr. D. J. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that these concessions are not being offered to the miners, but to other people, to induce them to go into the mines?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Of course I do. I have just asked the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) what concessions he is prepared to offer to get people into agriculture.
  Mr. Alpass: May I answer?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: No, not now. It is clear that the redistribution of the limited number of people, which is the Government's target figure in order to attain their object this year, is entirely insufficient. A critical examination, not only of the White Paper, but of the monthly Statistical Digest on which it it based, makes it clear that to achieve anything like a balanced distribution of manpower throughout the export and essential home production industries it will be necessary to redistribute something like one million people at least. Therefore, the proposals of the Government, to attempt to distribute a comparatively limited number of people, will have no substantial effect whatever on the increase of essential production.
  We have heard today from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) about the vast number of people in non-industrial Civil Service employment, and we had a constructive proposal from him as to redistribution of a very substantial surplus of those people. I want to follow that up by asking the Government how many people they estimate are employed in industry today entirely on the Government's work, and in supplying them with
  468
  information. I have made myself as critical an examination of this matter as is possible, but I have not the facts or the figures, and so I ask the Government whether they can improve upon my estimate that about 365,000 people are employed in industry today on absolutely non-productive work, in filling in forms and in doing work in connection with P.A.Y.E. and other matters to meet Government requirements? I should be glad if the Minister who replies to the Debate will deal with that point.
  I apologise to the House for having detained Members longer than I had intended, owing to interruptions, but I will now conclude by calling attention to the fact that the Government have had the greatest opportunity for the distribution of our manpower that any Government have had in history. They have had 7,500,000 people coming out of the Forces, and out of employment, and they have lamentably failed to take any steps whatever to ensure that these people went into essential industries. The recent crisis through which we have been passing is only a symptom of further crises of cumulative effect which are coming one after the other and I warn the Government of the resulting unemployment which will follow from these crises as a result of their complete failure to produce any satisfactory plan at all. The Government have been warned that the country is dissatisfied with the way in which they have handled the existing crisis, and I add my warning that if they again fail the country they will receive absolute public condemnation.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Scollan: I am rather surprised at the tone which has been adopted by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). He did not seem to realise that during the past week this House has been doing something that it has never done in its history before—indulging in a national stocktaking. We have been trying to find out the actual supply of manpower, how it can best be utilised, and what kind of incentives must replace the old ones of poverty and despair in order to get workers to go into the various industries in which they are required in the national interest. Now, this is not a party matter; it is a business proposition. What can we do? The hon. Member for Chichester dragged out the

  469
  old shibboleths about Socialism. I would remind him that Socialism means the national ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. It does not mean the national ownership of the railways, or the Bank of England, and every other productive capacity in private hands. Members opposite are not getting a taste of Socialism at all. No real Socialist is under any illusion about that. What we are trying to do is to make the capitalist system, which completely broke down because of two world wars, work.
  How are we to make it work? I am not concerned, as many Members seem to be, about the immediate policy of getting 43,000 more miners into the pits in order to produce the coal necessary for an increased export drive. What I am concerned about is the long-term policy. When the Government produce a White Paper, and the Minister of Labour says that he wants 20,070,000 people to be engaged in industry so that we can increase our exports by 175 per cent. over our prewar figure, I ask the Government: How long are we going to hold to 175 per cent. above our prewar figure? How long will it be before the increased productivity of other countries competes with us in other markets? How long will it be until we are back to the scramble we had before the last war?
  I represent a Scottish constituency, and I hope that nobody will make the mistake of thinking that I am suffering from the narrow kind of nationalism that has come out in blotches in certain parts of the House since the last election. The average working man in Scotland has the impression, rightly or wrongly, that in some way a centralised Government in London is responsible for the large pocket of unemployment in Scotland, and that that centralised form of Government takes no cognisance of his needs. I do not agree with that, and I spend much of my time trying to teach otherwise. But it takes a bit of doing to try to keep down arguments like this: from 1921–31 there were 392,000 people who migrated from Scotland, because they could not get work, to Canada and the United States. The natural increase of Scots people was 352,000, but the population dwindled by 40,000 through lack of employment. Admittedly the Government have a scheme, and I have examined it
  470
  to see how far they have a solution by the redistribution of industry. By going into that question, I have discovered that even if all the new industries, and all the factory space they are proposing to provide, are fully employed, allowing for the rate of 100 per acre, we would still have 10,000 unemployed in Scotland. We see unemployment creeping up to 100,000 at the moment. The fact that we have 80],000 people there doing nothing at all, and that we want 40,000 more in the mines, and 26,000 in the cotton mills, is no fault of the Government. They inherited the situation, they did not make it.
  What incentive have we to get these people to come in? During the war it was easy to say to them that national needs determined that they must come in, but then we immediately sent before them someone to provide accommodation for them. We had to get housing, and built huts. The man in the street asks that if the needs of war determined that huts and camps and food and clothing could be provided, why can they not have them now? That is a very natural question to ask. Either we have to decide to give the man freedom to go where he likes or to direct him. There is no other way. What kind of direction can we have? All kind of palliatives have been put up, and one of the palliatives is the building of houses. I have advocated that myself. As a matter of fact, the bait which can draw a young married couple to any part of the country is a house. I would say concentrate on house building, and you will get the labour. But, that is not the only thing. The problem is worse in mining because that is the fundamental basis on which all the others rest. I can speak from experience, because I worked for two years in a coal pit. There is no job which is more onerous, or more strenuous than working in a coalmine. If a man is not put into it when he is young, it is a very difficult matter to get him to go into it when fully grown. It is difficult for him to adapt himself to the new situation. I know that some men have done it, but it was a tremendous effort, and I do not know that it would be a general success.
  In taking stock, and finding out what we can do, I have been quite frank to the Government. This is my opinion. I would say to the nation quite frankly, "There is the situation. We want 657,000

  471
  employees to take the nation out of the danger in which it is at the moment." We want that for the purpose of getting our heads above water, or we are likely to be sunk by the exigencies of the situation and by those who were our good friends during the war. I do not know what to call our friends in America. One minute they are friends, and the next minute they want their pound of flesh. They cut off Lend-Lease as soon as our real friend President Roosevelt died, and left us with no resources. Then we had to negotiate a loan. If we want to maintain the position we have held hitherto throughout the world, 657,000 must be prepared to go where they are wanted.
  I would give a guarantee that their needs would be looked after when they went there, in the same way as when they went into the Army and the Navy. There is no other way of dealing with the problem. If people in my constituency in Port Glasgow are asked to go here and there by exhortation, or by a fireside chat over the wireless on a Sunday afternoon, they remember when 56 per cent. of them were unemployed, and they want to know what is going to happen next year, and the year after. They want to know what their chances are.
  "Where there is no vision the people perish."
  Up to the moment we have lacked vision; for God's sake let us pull ourselves together. Our people will go anywhere, but they require a lead and direction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and I do not want any "Hear, hears" from the other side. It was hon. Members on the other side who were responsible in their industrial policy for sending 392,000 of my people across the pond. That is not the industrial policy which I want. I want the Government to raise the morale of the people by telling them the truth. Do not be afraid of it. The people will be behind them, but for God's sake tell them that we will take—not ask for, but take—the wealth of the nation and build the houses where they are needed, and will give them food and clothing, and look after them if they will do the nation's work. If we did that, I have not the slightest doubt that we would regain ascendancy, and become once again one of the greatest nations in the world.
  6.57 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Salter: I want not so much to put a theme of my own before the House this evening as to comment on some of the speeches which have been made. I shall not say much about the speech of the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) because, to be quite frank, I find myself unable to adjust my mind quickly enough to his rather novel view that the primary purpose of the present Government and the prevailing character of its policy is to make the capitalist system work. I will however remark in passing that perhaps it may be some consolation to him when he thinks of the great number of emigrants from his country that, although from some points of view that may be regrettable, it has been of considerable value both to the individuals concerned, to the United Kingdom and I think to the world, that they have carried their skill, industry and enterprise through the world as they have.
  Mr. Scollan: Will the right hon. Member allow me to point out that he has evidently forgotten the pain and suffering they went through when they were in this country?
  Sir A. Salter: I quite agree, there has been incidental suffering but looking at the whole history of emigration from Scotland and immigration into other countries of the world I think there is something to be said on the other side. But that is by the way. I will turn for a moment to the speech of the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Williamson). I do not propose to follow him in his argument about the profit motive or counter his instances of specially high dividends or increased shares with instances which might be given, in some cases from hon. Members' personal experience, of equally striking losses. But I greatly regret that in explaining to us, as he did quite accurately, what is in the minds of many workers he did not also add with great emphasis what he knows to be true and what my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) emphasised the other day, namely, that there is no fund, no rich pool of wealth out of which it is possible for any Government or any system to raise the standard of living of the workers of this country, without increased production. I wish the hon. Member had said that as a counterpart to what he said—
  Mr. Williamson: What I did say was that the worker wants to know that he is getting at least his fair share of what he is producing.
  Sir A. Salter: I quite agree, and I agree that that is an accurate statement of what is in the minds of many workers. I do not object to the hon. Member quoting his instances. But I wish he had not stopped there and had gone on to make it clear that these were a few selected instances, and that there was no possibility of any general increase in the standard of living of the workers without an increase in production.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather misjudging my hon. Friend. One of the points which my hon. Friend made was that if these vast profits were ploughed back into industry so that new machinery and equipment could be used in the industries which were short of manpower, we should raise production and get this added wealth. That was the way in which he suggested that it should be done.
  Sir A. Salter: I agree with that part of what the hon. Member said. I only expressed regret that he did not also state what I said just now. He also said, and 1 agree with him, for on both sides of the House we agree that workers must be attracted into the industries where they are most wanted without compulsion or direction, that these industries must be made sufficiently attractive. I would add however that it is not enough to make them absolutely attractive. They must be comparatively attractive. That means not only additional incentives in the vital industries; it means restricting or diminishing incentives in the industries from which it is now desirable that they should move. It means a great deal more than that. It means that there must be a wages policy for industry as a whole and a method of making that wages policy effective. That is a great deal more in the way of a wages policy than one sees signs of the Government having at present.
  Mr. Williamson: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain whether or not he means a wages policy imposed by the Government?
  Sir A. Salter: I was about to say that that in turn means an association with the trade unions of such a kind that under the influence, and with the co-operation,
  474
  of the Government, the trade unions will positively help in applying a wages policy which will make the attractive force of the incentives offered in the most important industries prevail, as against the attractions to other forms of employment.
  The White Paper says quite clearly that the present situation is not such as to enable wages to be raised, unless the rise is accompanied by an increase in production. I think that the White Paper was timid in putting it in that way. It should have said "unless preceded by an increase in production." Bearing that in mind, I think that it is essential to have a wages policy, with the co-operation of the trade unions, which will damp down all wage increases in what are now the less vital industries until there has first been a considerable general increase in production.
  Turning to the main subject of manpower, it is a matter of real surprise to many of us, who have tried to study all the papers and statistics available, that it should be possible, at this time, to speak in any sense of an overall shortage of labour. The President of the Board of Trade told us a few days ago that in this last 18 months no fewer than 7,500,000 men and women had been released from the Forces and from munitions manufacture—4,250,000 from the Forces and 3,250,000 from munitions manufacture. A great proportion of these are available for civil production. It is extraordinary, in those circumstances, that there should be, in any sense, an overall shortage of workers. Indeed, in the sense in which that phrase may popularly be understood, that we have not enough people in the country, it is obviously not true. We should not be better off if our population was just duplicated—we should be worse off. The truth is that perhaps we have not enough people with precisely the skill and experience which are wanted in the industries which are now most important at this moment, or that many of those who have that skill and experience are not in those industries, but elsewhere. But it is not true that there is a general shortage of population. There is an unbalance in the distribution of skills and of unemployment.
  That has an important bearing on the question raised in the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) about

  475
  the employment of foreign labour. I am one of those who have been pressing the Government to bring in foreign labour from some of the displaced persons' camps in Germany and Austria. But I have never for a moment contended that if the whole 250,000 or so displaced persons in the British zone in Germany were brought over in a mass it would assist the economy of this country, though it might serve a humane purpose and reduce our expenditure in the British zone. But if we could, from their number, and from other sources, select a considerable number of people in the prime of life who have the requisite skill of just the kind which is wanted, and of which there is a shortage in our basic and most important industries, it would undoubtedly greatly assist the economy of the country as well as serve the other two purposes. Any such selected persons would, as soon as they were fitted into a job, be producing a great deal more than they, or even they and their families, would consume. And both the scale and the pace might well be greater than the Government have announced.
  As I say, the trouble is not overall shortage in the popular sense; it is a lack of distribution. But we should not be candid if we did not also add that the phrase is commonly used as a polite euphemism to disguise the fact that what it wrong is a shortage of output per man-year on the part of workers already employed. I say that, not as an accusation, but as a statement of economic fact. Indeed, to a large extent, though not entirely, that shortage of output is due to causes completely outside the control of the individual worker—to such things, for example, as the inadequacy or irregularity of coal supplies or raw materials for his factory. Those are not, however, the only causes. Very often there is a bad tradition in a particular union, or trade; and this and irregularity in the supply of raw materials, react upon and increase each other.
  I have sometimes thought that in Debates on housing in this House there has been a great deal of shadow boxing as between private and public enterprise. Everybody knows that the main reason why we are not getting more houses is that the output per man in the building industry has for many years been poor,
  476
  and is now poorer. That has been aggravated at present by the difficulties of supply of materials, timber and so on. But there is a long tradition of ca'canny going back to an earlier stage in the building industry. For example, take one criterion, which I know cannot be applied without some qualifications, of the number of bricks laid per hour. I believe the number mentioned in the Essential Work Order was 30 per hour or 240 in a full day. There are countries in Europe and America where the rate and the whole tempo of building is at least twice or three times that. When we are talking about a shortage of manpower we must remember that a great deal of what is really wrong, disguised by that phrase, is that there is a shortage of output per man year.
  What should we do about it? We must get a better balance in the distribution of both men and raw materials. This problem is aggravated and made much more serious for the Government by the existence of suppressed inflation, by the fact that there is in this country, as we all know, more expendable money, after taxation and savings have been deducted, than there are goods to be bought by it. I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day dealt very inadequately with this question. He did not address himself to what is the really serious trouble at this moment. It is true that there is no runaway inflation in the sense of the vicious higher-wage-higher-price spiral with which we were familiar at one stage after the last war.
  Inflation of that kind has been suppressed largely by means of the food subsidies. Those subsidies, however, and the way by which they were financed, have not removed inflation. They have just forced it underground. Suppressed inflation is very much like a suppressed fever, which is not necessarily less dangerous, and is usually more lasting, than the sudden crisis and climax of a sharp illness. What this kind of suppressed fever of inflation does is to upset the whole metabolism of the economic body. I seriously suggest to the Minister of Labour that his troubles really are being greatly increased by the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not so far effectively started—I would not call it a deflationary policy—but a counter-inflation policy. This is as much needed at this moment as a "re-flationary"

  477
  policy was when we were suffering from deflation at a certain period between the two wars.
  Many of us at that time very much objected to being accused of preaching inflation when we wanted to get an increase of prices. We were preaching "re-flation." I am not sure that I did not myself invent the word at that time. I suggest now that the contrary policy which we need is one of counter-inflation and not deflation.
  Mr. Jay: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Budget was to be balanced, or very nearly balanced, in the coming financial year, this inflationary pressure would be very greatly relieved?
  Sir A. Salter: Certainly that would be a very great help. It would however be out of place if not out of Order to develop my ideas on that subject further. Perhaps I shall have a chance during the Budget Debate.
  I will turn to the question of incentives mentioned by several hon. Members and particularly by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) in his very remarkable speech, to which we listened with the greatest interest. We remember that the President of the Board of Trade the other day said that he was intending to do what he could to increase incentives on much the same lines as the hon. Member had in mind to-day. We are all of us conscious of the difficulties and limitations of individual piece work. At the other extreme, I do not think that an increase in wages based upon an increase in production in a great industry of, say, half a million men, constitutes a direct incentive to the individual worker. But a great part of the economy of this country is organised in small units. There may be perhaps a single factory with 100 or 200 men working in it. I believe that if on top of the basic wage—I agree that we must have that to start with—we could have a percentage increase to every one in the factory proportionate to any increase in production by that unit, it would be of enormous advantage to many parts of the economy of this country. I have not sufficient technical knowledge to know whether that same system could be applicable to individual pits in the coal industry. But I am sure that taking the country as a whole, incentives of that kind would be of the greatest possible value.
  478
  I wish to return for a moment to a question which I have already mentioned, the possibility of the co-operation of the trade unions in an increased output drive. All of us know of the enormous benefits which trade unions have conferred during the last century not only upon their own members but to the whole social progress of this country. Those benefits have been obtained by pressing for increased wages, shorter hours, and so on. It is natural that those traditions should remain in the minds of trade union leaders. Concentration upon this traditional role is however now bound to do more harm than good not only to the country but to the union members themselves. So long as there are fewer goods available for purchase than expendable money seeking to purchase them, it is certain that an increase of pay or reduction of hours that a particular union may get for its own members is doing, and will continue to do, more harm to members of other unions than good to members of the particular union.
  It is undoubtedly the case now, and it will be for some years, that it will benefit union members as a whole much more to increase the cake to be divided than to scramble, even if for the moment successfully, for a few more crumbs from a diminishing total cake. In my last words, therefore, I would express the very sincere hope that the Government will be able to enlist the co-operation of the trade unions and that the unions will themselves be the instrument and spearhead of a drive for increased output.
  7.19 p.m.
  Captain Peart: The senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) reminded me of the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones), and before I come to my main theme I wish to take up one point which I detected in that speech. It was in regard to his attitude to the miners in the present production drive. I hope that hon. Members will not lecture the men in the coalfields. I say that not only to hon. Members opposite but to some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. The miners are responding magnificently. They responded magnificently during the crisis and I believe they will respond in the same manner in the future battle for coal. On the question of trade union co-operation it has been proved in the coal mining industry that the National Union of Mineworkers—I do not speak as a member but

  479
  there are many members here—have co-operated with the Government and are co-operating with the Government now on this important question. I am confident that with the five-day week and the incentives we are now offering in that industry, the coal crisis will be solved and we shall be able to fight the major economic battle.
  This Debate, like the Debate last week, has covered a wide series of economic problems. We have had questions of finance, exports, industrial planning, defence, etc., and we all agree that manpower is fundamental to our industrial recovery and future prosperity. We agree on two things; there is, first, an over-all shortage and, second, an uneven distribution. We must address ourselves to the question of how to repair that overall shortage and how to attract into un-attractive industries the manpower which we require. Some people have from time to time put forward the suggestion that the solution lies in foreign labour. That is not an immediate solution; certainly it is not in the coal industry. Others, like the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), probably giving the official Liberal point of view, advocate a nebulous wages policy. As yet we have had no details as to how the wages policy will operate from those people who advocate it so eloquently in this House.
  But we do agree that the problem of manpower must be tackled in a democratic way. That is emphasised in paragraph 8 of the "Economic Survey for 1947." We reject direction of labour. We believe that that is a totalitarian method, and it does not commend itself to the British people. But I believe that the maldistribution of manpower can be solved by the direction and the control of materials. We should have an even more rigid control of materials in the building industry where unfortunately a black market has now developed. If we had a more rigid control, I am confident that building labour would follow the material.
  I was glad when the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) raised the question of Development Areas, although I could not agree that the problem of the distribution of population and of manpower could be solved by a voluntary transfer of workers
  480
  from Development Areas in 1947. Such a principle would cause great concern in areas which were formerly distressed. In the "Economic Survey for 1947," following the series of objectives for 1947, we have paragraph 120 containing the following words:
  "Moreover, the present distribution of the labour force, by industries and by places, is not satisfactory; a wide range of industries are under-manned, while others are getting too much manpower in relation to the raw materials available; in Wales, unemployment before the power crisis was 7½ per cent., while in London and the Midlands it was 1 per cent., and the number of new vacancies notified to the Labour Exchanges every week far exceeded any possibility of filling them."
  That extract from the White Paper has a tremendous psychological effect not only in Wales but in other Development Areas like West Cumberland, Durham and parts of Scotland. The seriousness of this maldistribution and unemployment is even further emphasised in the White Paper in paragraph 123, which states:
  "For the purpose of estimation, the Government has assumed that unemployment at the end of 1947 will be 400,000, or 2½ per cent. of the insured population. In the Development Areas, where unemployment results from the fact that there arc not enough factories, the percentage will be higher than this. The cost to the nation in 1947 of this legacy from the past of un-balanced geographical distribution of our industry is equivalent to the loss of the labour of 120,000 men throughout the year."
  It also says:
  "… until the new factories have come into full operation, unemployment in the Development Areas will nevertheless be well above the rate in the rest of the country."
  This emphasises the seriousness of the situation in the Development Areas. In 1947 we shall have a manpower loss of the equivalent to 120,000 men. That is important, especially when hon. Members go out into the country and appeal for more production. In many parts of Britain we have pools of labour, labour which is sometimes highly skilled but unable to make a contribution to our national effort. That state of affairs is, as the White Paper stresses, an indictment of past policies and certainly an indictment of the lack of planning and the failure to appreciate that the State had a responsibility to control and direct industry before the war. I speak very feelingly on this because I represent a constituency which lies in the Develop-

  481
  went Area of West Cumberland. We still have pockets of unemployment in that area.
  In the Debate on the economic situation the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said that the greatest tragedy which he saw between the two wars was the social and economic history of France. The greatest tragedy I saw between the two wars was the exodus of good labour from our distressed areas, such as the counties of Durham and Cumberland. Unfortunately we are still suffering from that heritage. I hope that the problem of the Development Areas will be treated with the urgency of a military operation. During the past 18 months much has been accomplished. New factories have been built. Many of the workers who would formerly have had to leave those areas have adapted themselves well to new trades and new skills, but the White Paper stresses the urgency.
  When he presented his Budget last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that £10 million more would be given for constructive schemes in the Development Areas. To use his words:
  "… the Treasury was henceforth to be, no longer a curb but a spur."
  But as the Chancellor of the Exchequer then said:
  "The battle of the Development Areas is not yet won…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1946; Vol. 421. c. 1807.]
  Those words are still true today in this manpower shortage. Their battle is interwoven with the major battle for economic prosperity. How can we help? How can we create employment for these people who are urgently requiring work for the national effort?
  I would have liked to deal today with the Distribution of Industry Act because I believe that if we solve the distribution of industry, in the end we solve the distribution of manpower. This Act was a Coalition Measure. It was inspired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was President of the Board of Trade. Unfortunately that Act was mutilated by the Caretaker Government when Clause 9 was removed. If I am not out of Order, I would like to ask the Government to look seriously at that Act to see if it is strong enough to enforce that distribution of raw materials and resources which we require so much in the Development Areas.
  482
  It is not just a question of the Development Areas. In other areas too we have pockets of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) has in this House pleaded eloquently for the needs of his own constituents. Recently he addressed a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland which showed that on 22nd February this year there were 2,054 insured males registered as unemployed at the Stornoway employment exchange—48 per cent. of the estimated total number of insured males in the area at July, 1946. That is a serious problem. I believe we should tackle it by attracting industry to the worker. I do not believe that we should go on wooing our industrialists. If we could direct industry in wartime to the workers, we can do it now.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I appreciate what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying, but does he mean attracting industry or directing industry?
  Captain Peart: I believe we should both attract and direct, but I emphasise that the Distribution of Industry Act has certain weaknesses, and I would like to see the restoration of a Clause similar to Clause 9 which was taken out by the Caretaker Government. In wartime, workers responded and factories were put up overnight. I give the example, which the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) knows quite well, of Distington. There a new light engineering industry was introduced; key workers were brought in from outside, local labour was trained, and after a few months that factory was turning out intricate aeroplane component parts. It was in itself a wartime miracle. If it can be done in war, it can be done in peace. The old argument that we should concentrate on localities where traditional engineering skill is high has been disproved by our wartime experience.
  I would like to see the Government conducting a vigorous distribution of industry and an increased implementation of the limited Act of 1945. This would absorb the unemployed we have at present. Our old distressed areas want more light industries. We want, certainly in Cumberland and other development areas, not just factories for female labour, but our fair share of heavy industry. I believe it is possible. I ask my right hon. Friend

  483
  the Minister of Labour to see if his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, could not delegate some responsibility to a junior Minister in that Department who would concentrate solely on manpower in the development areas and the need of factory development too. They are in themselves of major domestic importance. Not only must we have factories, we require the basic services, gas and electricity supplies, and above all we require new houses to attract workers. In West Cumberland, as the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth knows, we need considerable improvement in our transport services; both our roads and our railway services need a drastic overhaul. If we are to have that planning, we must have also a greater co-ordination between Government Departments, not just at a high level but at a low level. I hope that the Front Bench will look into that question of the co-operation of Whitehall and the local authorities. At present, too many Departments are going their own way without looking at the problem as a whole, and if we could have that coordination and co-operation between Government Departments and the local authorities, I am confident that this battle against unemployment would be won.
  In my short speech I hope I have emphasised the needs of the Development Areas. I would not tolerate another exodus from the old distressed areas. We do not want history to repeat itself. We do not want, as the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby said, a voluntary exodus out of our areas; we want to attract more men and women into these areas so that we can create locally an expanding economy which offers a brighter future to our people. I believe it can be accomplished if we have the will to accomplish it.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. Baldwin: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Workington (Captain Peart) will excuse me for not following his argument except to say that I agree fully with what he said about lack of co-operation between Government Departments, and that no Department suffers more than the one he helps to administer—for instance, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer decides to assist Denmark in the purchase of feedingstuffs
  484
  and the Minister of Agriculture is doing his best to obtain those feedingstuffs.
  Last night the Prime Minister broadcast to the nation and he said that our lives and jobs depend on the three great industries of coal, transport and power. I do not imagine that the B.B.C. will be wise enough to ask me to broadcast in reply. If I had the opportunity, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that he missed out the most important industry, and that is agriculture. As a matter of fact he did say as an afterthought:
  "Then we come to agriculture … we must have more workers on the land."
  That is becoming rather a commonplace. We hear on all sides that we must have more workers on the land, but neither the Prime Minister nor, so far as I know, any other Minister has said how those increased workers are to be found. I would remind the House that for about 12 months we heard of the shortage of workers in the mines. No notice was taken of those warnings until we drifted into a fuel crisis. The same warnings are now being given with regard to the shortage of workers in agriculture, but no serious attempt is being made, so far as I can see, to meet that problem. Are we to drift on in this dream world until we come to a food crisis? Are we to wait until the "tick" on which we live has been exhausted, or are we to face up to the fact that food production in this country is the most important problem with which we are faced? The problem, therefore, is that before we can get this increased food production, we must get more men.
  I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) when he came all out for the direction of labour. It is a thing that I have said has to come some day. He has put it over in a forthright speech and, in my opinion, it was a much more honest suggestion than that labour would be directed by being starved of material in a certain district. The honest way is to direct labour if it becomes necessary, but that at the moment is not a practical proposition, so I do not propose to enlarge on it. Therefore, we have to think of some other method of getting farm workers on to the land. There are two ways: first and foremost is the provision of homes with urban amenities, built in the countryside and not necessarily in the villages.

  485
  There are great differences of opinion in this House as to where cottages should be built. In my constituency 14 cottages were built in the village, but only one was allocated, after a great struggle, to a farm worker. Those cottages therefore will not help agricultural production in that area. Cottages should be put close to the farms so that men will not have to walk miles to their work.
  I ask the Government seriously to consider the fact, which has been outlined in the Hobhouse report, that 100,000 cottages now need reconditioning. It was a great mistake to do away with the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I know that was done because of pressure by Members of the party opposite, who stated that no money should be spent upon tied houses. If hon. Members will refer to the report in question they will see that only 12,000 of the 100,000 houses that need reconditioning are tied cottages.
  The next matter which is of great importance is wages. It is high time that the agricultural industry was given a different status from that which it has had during the last 100 years. For too long has agriculture been looked upon as the lowest form of life instead of as the premier industry of this country. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture raked over the ashes of the past and put many of the present difficulties down to the misdeeds of Tory government. I was sorry that he raised that party spirit, which had hitherto been kept out of the Debate. Since it has been raised, I would only remind him that the present position is the fault of no party.
  Our present difficulties are due to the fact that this country has for more than 100 years looked upon industry as the only thing that mattered and upon agriculture as a nuisance. Between the wars, more than 250,000 men left the land. The exodus was greater in the period 1929–31 than at any other time. It must be remembered that the agricultural worker is entitled to some recognition of the fact that for the last seven or eight years he has worked with a minimum of absenteeism, for the lowest wages of any industry, and without any strikes. That is a record even better than that of the steel workers to whom the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Jones) referred. In passing I would say how delighted I was to hear that speech from the hon. Member. In
  486
  my opinion it will rank with some of the big speeches that have been made in this House. It was factual, and honest-to-goodness commonsense.
  The raising of the wage of the agricultural worker will be accepted as necessary by all hon. Members. Whether we are to provide the money by increasing the prices of the produce is entirely another matter. It is high time that food were put upon a more economic basis and that some of the increase was pumped into the agricultural industry so as to raise it to the position of the highest industry in the land. Until that is done, no effective improvement of conditions in the countryside can take place. The price reviews that have taken place do not admit of our doing what we want for our men, and will not assist in increasing output. The industry has a claim for more consideration, yet wheat has actually been reduced by is. per cwt. for the harvest of 1948. Instead of a reduction, we should put up the price of wheat to £25 a ton for the next three years.
  There is no shortage of labour in this country.
  Mr. Walker: Where does the hon. Member get that from?
  Mr. Baldwin: Labour in this country is misplaced. We should bring out of the offices hundreds of thousands of people who are doing unproductive work. Until we do that, there will be no solution of the crisis into which we are going. We have to make the agricultural industry and other industries that are important more attractive to men who have to live by the sweat of their brow, and who should be paid accordingly. Agriculture is the industry which yet will pull this country out of the slough of despond. The hon. Member opposite said that our exports should be raised by 75 per cent. There is something easier than that; to raise the home production of food by 75 per cent. That would be a certainty, whereas the raising of the export trade is a gamble related to the continuance of the sellers' market. There can be no overproduction of food in this country and no unemployment in the agricultural industry. A solution of the present crisis must come from agriculture, but only when the industry is raised from the lowest rank to one of the highest.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mrs. Braddock: I sat through the whole of the three-day Debate last week and I have sat practically through the whole of the Debate today. Up till 1939 I was one of those Socialist agitators who made it their business to inform the workers on every possible occasion that the harder and the longer they worked the more profit they made for the employing class. I realise how successful those of us who were agitators of that sort have been. Both Debates laid much stress upon the supposedly terrible difficulty which we have got into in relation to manpower.
  Something has been said about coal. I do not want to say very much about the coal position, only one or two fundamental things. Coal provided two lessons, under democratic freedom. The first is the failure by the investing class to re-organise the nation's necessities when the profit motive was missing. The second was the same failure by the working class when the returns, in wages and working conditions, were unattractive. I believe that the problem is exactly the same today as it has been throughout the years.
  Unless we make our industries, particularly the disliked industries, very attractive, we shall still fail to attract people to those industries. The basis of economic planning must be that the income, conditions and old age security for workers engaged in the most essential industries shall not be below those of any other occupation. I put the categories of those industries in the following way: First, mining, then transport, then heavy engineering, then textiles and clothing, and then building and construction. I am not dealing with agriculture, because that has already been dealt with, and I come from an industrial area which has had, and still has, a terrible amount of unemployment. I am concerned mainly with that aspect of the problem which affects highly industrialised areas.
  It is useful, particularly in a Debate of this sort, to find out why we are short of productive workers. I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that there is not a shortage of labour power, but there is a shortage of productive labour power. I have been watching the situation for some time, and I have almost reached the conclusion that it is necessary to get a magnifying glass to discover where the productive workers
  488
  are. The reason for this is most important. The reason is the attitude that was adopted by essential industry for 25 years prior to the war.
  Let me put the matter in this way. Let us take railway vehicle building, a craft in which we are definitely short of workers today. During the last war, railway vehicle building was a sheltered occupation, and a railway vehicle builder was not called into military service; he was considered to be so highly essential that his work was taken in place of military service. Because of that position, the wages of railway vehicle builders increased very much, due to the fact that they were able to dictate terms during the last war. Those people who became the leaders in this desire for an increase of wages were scheduled by the railway companies and the private owners for moving out of the industry as soon as it became less essential than it was during the war.
  Railway vehicle builders of very pronounced Left Wing opinions throughout the country were earmarked, and they were pushed out of the industry as soon as ever the necessity for war products disappeared. This meant that highly skilled people in the industry had to find some other means of earning a livelihood. Because they were blackmailed in every railway shop or privately-owned railway vehicle building shop throughout the country, they had to find some other way of making a living. That applied not only to skilled railway vehicle building, but throughout industry, at the end of the last war, and it has applied throughout industry during the last half-century. If any capable, skilled worker dared to agitate for better conditions, and gave assistance to his fellow workers in agitating for better conditions, he was immediately earmarked by the "boss" responsible and put outside the industry as soon as ever it was possible to do so. That applied up to 1939.
  Many other highly skilled workers found themselves compelled to drop their skilled occupation and find some other way of earning a living. What did they do? They got into industries that were less controlled by the employing class in relation to terms of employment. Where did they get? Let hon. Members look through the thousands of insurance agents, and they will find in their ranks the cream of the skilled workers, pushed

  489
  out of industry between the wars, collecting insurance, and doing what, in effect, is an unessential job. I could point to hundreds of them who, because of their agitation, because they wanted better conditions and wages, and were prepared to say so, were moved out of industry, and found themselves totally unable to earn a livelihood in their skilled occupation. Let hon. Members also consider the commercial travellers—any number of them—in unproductive work. I notice that they are not scheduled in the Economic Survey for 1947; I do not see anywhere in that Survey the people who are commercial travellers, insurance agents, and people of that type, who are increasing in numbers at present, because it is an easy way to earn a living, and there is a decent living to be obtained out of unproductive industry of that sort. Let me say quite honestly that, to me, the fact that we change the Government does not mean that we change the situation in relation to industry. We have to change that situation very definitely before we shall be able to attract back into essential industry those people who have been driven out of it by economic conditions and the need for trade union organisation between the two wars. There are plenty of people who are capable of production but are doing unproductive work, and we must find some way of attracting those people back into the various necessary industries.
  I have listened to the pleas which the Opposition have made to the Government to drop the nationalisation schemes. The working class of this country are demanding nationalisation, and any attempt by the Government to withdraw any of the nationalisation schemes will completely defeat the ends of the Economic Survey for 1947. Does anybody mean to say that if the coal mining industry had not been nationalised, we would be having the terrific response to appeals for increased production that we have today? Does anybody mean to say that if the Conservative Party had come into power in 1945, there would have been more coal today than there is? I believe that we would have been in such a state, due to the fact that the Conservative Party would have attempted to worsen the conditions of people in the coalmining industry, that there would have been a lock-out or a strike within six months of the Conservative Government taking political power in this country. The
  490
  Government have realised—it may be that they did not like to have to realise it, but I am one of the people who believe most sincerely that the Government of this country are the miners—not the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, but the miners at the coalface. It is just as well that that retribution has come. It is just as well that the present Government are in control, because those people are behind the Government at the present time. I believe that increased coal production is the one and only increased production that can save the industrial situation of this country. Without coal we can pack up completely and get out of existence altogether. The miners are perfectly justified in asking for any concession that we can give them to make up for the terrific hardships they and their families had to suffer between the two wars, and they are perfectly justified in having it.
  We have been talking about incentives and about restrictive practices. Lots of questions have been asked about restrictive practices. I believe that there ought to be more restrictive practices. The restrictive practice which is the most essential is the control of the profits that are being made out of the increased productivity of the workers. I believe that if the Chancellor in his next Budget would say that all profits were to be restricted to 5 per cent., the response of the working class in this country in increased production would be something that would surprise everybody. I am among the ordinary, poorest section of the working class of this country every week-end; I keep among them so that I do not lose touch with what they are thinking, and this is what they say: the gap between those who are making all the profits and those who are out of work is still far too great. We must go on narrowing it very much more quickly than we have been doing up to the present moment.
  I have listened to what has been said about what has been done for the un-employed. I am very sorry to have to say it, but I cannot see that anything has been clone up to the present except to pass an Act of Parliament, because the rate of unemployment pay, 24s. for a man and 16s. for his wife, £2 a week, is still the same as it was when the war ended. So nothing at all has been done in relation to increasing the amount paid to those people who are unemployed, not because they want to be unemployed, but because

  491
  at the moment in certain areas of this country we have not got the employment to offer them.
  Let me give here a rather interesting situation in relation to the Liverpool area. I have here a schedule of figures, of 9th December, 1946. They are the nearest figures I could get that are sorted out in relation to age groups and periods of unemployment. There are additional figures up to 12th February, but they are only aggregate figures, and are very much increased as compared with the figures I shall give in a moment. Unemployment at present in the Merseyside area is just on 30,000, and the number I have scheduled here is just over 22,000. I am quoting these figures for a very special reason. It is very difficult for those of us who know that additional production is absolutely necessary to go and say so on public platforms in an area where there is continued long-term unemployment. In Liverpool, emergency tally holders on the docks are being told that they are not required as dockers after the age of 50, and when there is a situation like that, in an area which has always been a depressed area with a very high unemployment rate, it is very difficult to tell people who have been out of work for a long time that they ought to produce more and work a bit harder. That is why I am quoting these figures.
  Let us have a look at the age groups of the unemployed on 9th December in Liverpool. Males, 56 to 64, 2,795; 41 to 55, 5,316; 21 to 40, 9,471; 18 to 20, 771; 16 to 17, 657; 14 to 15, 104. These are males only, I am not quoting the female figures. Let us have a look at the duration of unemployment, and this to me is most significant. Males unemployed, more than one year, 1,430; between nine and 12 months, 1,801; between six and nine months, 2,063; between three and six months, 3,264; between eight and 13 weeks, 2,600, and so on down to less than four weeks. There is something wrong somewhere when one section of the community is shouting out "Produce more and work harder" while a percentage of the community somewhere else is unable to find employment for a period of anything between six months and one year. I have only quoted the figures for men because I do not want to bore the House, but the total of women unemployed is 3,474 as against 19,114 men.
  492
  There are suggestions which can be made in regard to this matter. We have in Liverpool a lot of single young men who have been in the Forces and who are unskilled. That is one of the difficulties in the Liverpool area, a lot of unskilled temporary labour. They are prepared to go out of Liverpool as a temporary measure and work somewhere else, but they are not prepared to go out of Liverpool and keep their parents out of the income they can get by working somewhere away from home. Married men are in a particular difficulty, though single men are in a different position. Let me quote a typical type of case we have in the Liverpool area, of a man with a wife and four children. He is a skilled man and is asked to go to Coventry or Birmingham. Being fed up with drawing unemployment pay he decides to try anything once and, at the request of the Ministry of Labour, he goes. His total wages will be in the region of £5 per week. It costs him at least £25s. to live in Birmingham or Coventry. He is left with just over £3 a week, if he does not keep anything for himself for cigarettes or entertainment, for his wife and four children, who probably have a rent of anything up to 17s. 6d. a week in a corporation house. He has to suffer all the disadvantages of remaining in lodgings, his family have to suffer the disadvantages of not having him at home, and he finds it totally impossible to remain. He goes back to Liverpool, and in very many instances, having left the job on his own accord, he is refused unemployment pay.
  That sort of thing creates a very difficult situation, and we have to find some way of getting these people to go to the areas which are short of manpower or woman-power without losing the amount of money they do lose through having to maintain themselves in one place and their families somewhere else. As a temporary measure it ought to be quite easy. Knowing the Liverpool working people as I do, most intimately, I am certain that most of them do not want to be unemployed. They do not want to hang around the street corners, as they did between the two wars when there was no work to offer them, they want to make use of what ability they have and are prepared to do it if the incentive is offered them. Where there are pockets of able bodied youths anxious to work, whether they are married or single, I am certain that some method could be arranged through the

  493
  Ministry of Labour whereby their expenses for living in an area away from their own homes could be paid as well as some way of seeing that their railway fares travelling back to their homes at weekends were provided for.
  Mr. Marples: Would the hon. Lady not agree that it would be a great help if light industries were immediately introduced into the Merseyside area by the Government?
  Mrs. Braddock: That is long-term policy, and I have no doubt that the long-term policy of the Government will achieve something which the Conservative Party, through all its long years of control, failed to do at all. I am certain that the Government's long-term policy will solve the hard core of unemployment which we have had, in Liverpool, to my knowledge, since 1914, but it is the immediate problem of having almost 30,000 men and women out of work which we have to tackle. It is this short-term policy which is causing a tremendous amount of concern to those of us who know the situation in the Liverpool area.
  There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, because I think it is very important. We still have in the Liverpool area a number of shipbuilders and repairers who are out of work, and a matter which is causing great concern is the report that—as was intimated to me during the week end—not very many days ago a ship belonging to the Holt Line was loaded with a cargo scheduled as "ships' stores." Those "ships' stores" turned out to be the spare parts for the repair of another Holt ship which was already at Hamburg. Whether the description of the cargo as "ships' stores" was likely to help to get it out of Liverpool I have been unable to find out, but the fact that a ship repair is going from Liverpool when there are ship repairers unemployed there, and that the spare parts necessary for such a repair can be sent by ship to Hamburg is creating a very great deal of feeling in the Liverpool area.
  Although I have no definite proof of that, I have the details of how the ship was loaded and of the composition of the cargo from the dockers who actually did the work. As I say, it has caused a great deal of concern and it tends to create the feeling among the workers that
  494
  perhaps an unofficial strike now and again may do something which they are unable to achieve in any other way. That is a spirit we cannot afford to foster in any direction. I hope that the Government Front Bench will ascertain exactly what is the situation with regard to shipbuilding and repairing in the Liverpool area. If repairs are being sent out while there is unemployment there I hope that some steps will be taken through the Minister of Transport to alter the situation and to retain the ship repair work in Liverpool.
  I have tried to be as unprovocative as possible, and if I had been able to take part in the Debate during the previous three days I might have been much more provocative. In conclusion, I would say that although we have all kinds of plans the fact remains that plans very often go wrong, and I should like to suggest to the Front Bench that they begin now to prepare a new plan which can be put into operation if the present one fails. I suggest also that the new plan should be founded on the true basis of Socialism—the public ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
  8.15 p.m.
  Major Tufton Beamish: In the interests of good Debate I should have liked to follow some of the arguments which have already been put forward by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. I agree with one remark made by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) when she said that we would be expecting too much of this Government if we expected them to change their plans. I quite agree, and I would add that in my view the only thing that matters is to change the Government. I should have liked to associate myself at some length with the very eloquent plea put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on behalf of disabled ex-Servicemen, although that was only one facet of this problem. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the fact that in the course of a very short speech he managed to blame all the mistakes of this Government five times on 20 years of Tory misrule. He came second only to the Minister of Health who, in an equally short speech, once managed to blame Tory misrule on seven occasions.
  After three days' economic Debate and the discussion today I am still hoping

  495
  that some hon. or right hon. Member opposite will explain to me how it is possible for this or any other Government to plan everything from traction engines to babies' rattles, and how it is possible for non-experts to interfere in the day to day running of industry without taking powers of compulsion and powers to direct labour which, to my way of thinking, at least, are utterly incompatible with the fundamentals of democracy as I understand it. To me it still remains an unexplained mystery how the vast and untried experiment—because it is untried and it is an experiment—of whole-hog Socialism can possibly work. I hope it will, but nothing I have seen in the last 18 months has done anything to convince me that it can.
  I want to concentrate on one very important part of the manpower problem which has been extremely inadequately dealt with during this Debate—the question of the employment of foreign labour, and I intend to ask the Minister of Labour a number of questions to which I hope he will be in a position to give me an answer. The President of the Board of Trade was reported as having said in Bradford that our overall labour shortage may be as high as 750,000, and he went on to add that he could not over-emphasise the seriousness of the situation. In paragraph 124 of the White Paper I read:
  "The prospective labour force of 18,300,000 men and women at December, 1947, falls substantially short of what is needed to reach the national objectives."
  In the same paragraph it is stated:
  "This need to increase the working population is not temporary; it is a permanent feature of our national life."
  I know that several distinguished hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken during this Debate have sought to show that the labour shortage is not so serious as that, but I must believe it to be the case. The President of the Board of Trade said, too:
  "There will be an overall deficiency of, labour as soon as supplies of fuel and material are available."
  Again, I believe in the White Paper, I find:
  "There is far more work to be done than there are men and women to do it."
  I am not in a position to judge whether that is the case or not, but I can but believe that it is. In other words, the
  496
  Government admit that there is a very serious labour shortage indeed. If that is the case I feel quite sure that hon. Members on both sides will be in complete agreement with me when I say that unless the gap is filled our national recovery will be seriously imperilled. I am not aware of any way of filling that gap except by the employment of foreign labour. In paragraph 125 of the economic White Paper I read again:
  "Foreign labour can make a useful contribution to our needs. The old arguments against foreign labour are no longer valid. There is no danger for years to come that foreign labour will rob British workers of their jobs. The Government intends to seek every means of employing in civilian work the Poles who are here or who are coming here and who are unwilling to return to their own country. It also intends to extend the recruitment of displaced persons from the Continent to work here."
  Further on in that paragraph mention is made of language and accommodation difficulties and the suitability of displaced persons to do the work that they are wanted to do, and the paragraph concludes—and this is the last quotation I will make and I apologise for having made so many—with these words:
  "But foreign labour is the only substantial additional source of manpower which is open to us—especially for the under-manned industries—and the Government intends and believes that with the full co-operation of British employers and workers these difficulties can be overcome."
  If that were the only voice in which people in authority in the Labour movement were speaking that would be all right, but unfortunately that is not so as I propose to show in a moment or so.
  There is a great deal of prejudice in this country against the employment of foreign labour. Some of it may be well founded but in my opinion it is out of date. Some of it is uninformed, ill-founded and arises largely from our inherent insularity. Some of it has been inspired by Moscow propaganda. [Laughter.] Yes, and I propose to show how in a minute or two. The President of the Board of Trade said that prejudice exists where competition or unemployment is feared. I am not quite sure why he used the word "competition" in that context, because to my way of thinking a little foreign competition might be quite healthy. Let me hasten to add that the fear of unemployment is a very natural and very understandable reason for this

  497
  prejudice. In fact, the memory of the dole and unemployment in the interwar years is something which people will never forget.
  Mr. Shurmer: Cheap Japanese goods.
  Major Beamish: I am putting both sides of the case.
  Mr. Shurmer: But the other side is the worse.
  Major Beamish: This out-of-date and uninformed opinion can be overcome by good leadership which we lack most seriously today, and if the facts were put across in an intelligent and modern way. If labour becomes cheap I would emphasise that there are the Dominions and Colonies who are now eager for labour and they will be even more eager for labour in years to come. We know already that something in the nature of half a million enterprising young people from this country wish to emigrate to the Dominions and Colonies, but one of the main reasons why they cannot go at the moment is a shortage of houses in the Dominions and Colonies.
  Mr. Shurmer: No.
  Major Beamish: That is a fact. When those difficulties are overcome I believe the demand for labour from the Dominions and Colonies will increase. The trickle which it is now will become a steady flow. There are quite a number of serious difficulties in the way of employing foreign labour here and of getting it here. One of them, of course, is transport from Europe. I do not know if the Navy is in a position to put to sea but judging from a recent Debate I am doubtful whether many ships are in a fit state to do so. If the Navy could be used as it was during the war, and particularly aircraft carriers, for short runs, I do not see why in an emergency—and this is an emergency—the Navy should not be called in to help. As regards accommodation in this country, that is often put forward as a serious reason against employing foreign labour, but General Morgan who is a great friend of the displaced persons said in an article which he wrote recently that a pig-sty is a palace to a displaced person. I have spent the last five weeks going round displaced persons' camps and my contention is that what General Morgan has said is
  498
  true. I say that a tented camp would be a luxury to these people. I believe that the accommodation difficulties could be largely overcome—
  Mr. Shurmer: I will put the hon. and gallant Gentleman to live amongst them.
  Major Beamish: I would not mind living amongst them, for there are a great many excellent people living in these displaced persons' camps. I believe that this difficulty in regard to language is over emphasised. All farm people have much the same language for on any farm a spade really is a spade. Such farm tasks as milking cows do not need any particular language. Indeed we have only got to set these people to plough a field and they will get on with the job. The German prisoners of war managed very well when they were here as did the Italians. I do hope that no effort will be made to over emphasise the language difficulty. I appreciate that in a skilled job, particularly coal mining, the language difficulty is a very serious one indeed, but perhaps I can put forward one solution which may not be too popular with hon. Members opposite. In connection with people being trained to do these jobs I have a number of facts and figures which I hope will not weary the House but without which my argument would be incomplete. Let me say in this connection that the possibilities of vocational training have been very largely neglected. I saw some excellent work done in Austria and Germany by U.N.R.R.A. There is room for a great deal of expansion in that field.
  I was reading in the "Daily Telegraph" recently an article by Sir Robert Burrows in which he said:
  "Two or three months would enable any able-bodied man to do half if not two-thirds of the tasks in coal mining."
  He specifically excluded from that extract which I quote the highly skilled underground jobs. That the fourth difficulty which could be raised and I hope will not would be exaggerated is the length of time it takes before a man can do a useful job of work in industry. As I said before, the Government's voice is not unfortunately the only voice in this connection. During last year voices were raised at the T.U.C. Conference at Brighton and things were said which made me squirm. They seemed to me to dub the Poles, our

  499
  first and last allies in the war, automatically as Fascists because they would not return to their own country—a thing I disliked very much. These voices were unanswered. When I referred to Moscow-inspired propaganda one of the things I had in mind was a report I read on the 18th February in an evening paper. It was a statement attributed to Mr. Will Lawther, the Mineworkers' President. This statement says:
  "Mr. Lawther, the mineworkers president, told me, 'We are surprised there should be suggestions to introduce D.Ps. into the coal mines without consultation with our union'."
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Major Beamish: Hon. Members say "Hear, hear" too soon. The interview goes on:
  "Speaking as a member of the T.U.C. General Council, he said, 'So far as I know the T.U.C. has never been consulted'."
  In the same extract I find that Mr. Collinson is quoted as saying for the Agricultural Workers' Union:
  "We have heard nothing at all about the arrival of D.Ps. for British industry but our executive would not agree to taking any into the industry. I am quite sure the agricultural workers would not consent."
  I do not know whether these statements were actually made, because I only believe about half of what I see in the newspapers. The statements have not been denied and the report was made as recently as 18th February. What I cannot understand is how it is possible as recently as three weeks ago for any spokesman of the mine workers or the agricultural workers to make such statements as these It seems to me to show a complete lack of co-ordination between the Government and the unions. I really thought if there were any Government capable of working with the unions it would be this Government, supported as it is by 130 union Members. They have had many months to think these things over. I would remind the authors of this Moscow inspired propaganda who seem to be adverse to the employment of foreign labour of any sort, let alone displaced persons, that the one gentleman to whom they owe their whole creed, Mr. Karl Marx, was a displaced person who enjoyed asylum in this country.
  The figures are sometimes conflicting with regard to labour shortages, but I hope that the ones I am going to give are
  500
  more or less correct. I understand that it is the intention this year to get a further increase of 30,000 in the coal mines. That is a very low target. Again, all the farmers of my acquaintance tell me that they are short of labour. Of the 130,000 German prisoners who are going back to Germany, half are in regular employment. The Minister tells us that there are outstanding shortages in the textile industry, and also that the cotton industry, which employs 252,000, wants 88,000, and that there is an immediate demand for 26,000, mostly women and girls. He states that as regards the woollen and worsted trades, the Government hope to recruit 60,000 during the next five years. As regards displaced persons, however, there are not many unattached women who are available. In the British zone of Germany, there are 94,000 employable men and 52,000 employable women, and these are low estimates. Nine thousand people in the British zone of Germany are employed in forestry, and are already highly skilled. Seven thousand two hundred are employed in other industries, and 8,500 are doing vocational training, including agricultural, engineering, carpentry and nursing. There are only 0,000 skilled miners in the whole of the British zone, and these people are being taken up by those who are quicker off the mark than us.
  As regards agriculture, there are now 24,000 Poles skilled in the industry, and 10,000 Balts who are very excellent people. In the British zone, 35,000 people are skilled in the key industries in which we lack manpower. The figures I have quoted cover only the British zone in Germany and do not refer to Austria or Italy at all. The Ministry of Labour has been very slow off the mark in this connection, but I welcome what is apparently now being done. France has been much more realistic, and are taking 50,000 displaced persons from Germany. The French have had a Minister plenipotentiary going around for months. The Belgians are taking 20,000, and the Brazilians are taking 1,000 who are mostly highly skilled. I appeal to the Minister to show more drive and initiative about this problem, if what the White Paper says really counts for anything. At the moment the British taxpayers are footing a very large bill, running into millions of pounds, to keep displaced persons in idleness, whereas those countries which are

  501
  not footing the bill are skimming the cream.
  As regards Poles in this country, 1 understand that out of 140,000, some 80,000 are in the Resettlement Corps, and that only 4,000 have been placed in regular employment. Some 75 per cent. of them are skilled in agriculture, and I really cannot understand why something more effective has not been done. If a farmer applies for a Pole, how long does it take before the man is available? Many of the best Poles over here are tired of hanging about, and a lot of highly skilled wireless technicians and pilots are looking for opportunities elsewhere, and finding them, because we have been so slow. I know of people who have waited six months for answers to their request to employ some of these people.
  I am not sure why we were so quick to make certain that none of these Poles should serve in a Polish division under British command. Maybe we were afraid of offending Russia, and if that is so I think pertinent inquiries about General Paulus and his activities would not be out of place. How does it come about that this minimum figure of 100,000 foreigners to be employed this year was selected? The Minister of Labour has told us there were reasonable hopes of offering jobs to all those in the Resettlement Corps in the coming months, and that means a figure of 80,000. If he is to reach his minimum target figure, he has to employ 20,000 displaced persons, and yet we are told it is the intention to allow 4,000 displaced persons to come to this country each week, which is 16,000 a month. If we start in May, that is a figure of 128,000 for this year. It seems to me there is something here which is extremely contradictory, which ought to be cleared up. I hope the Minister will explain exactly where this discrepancy arises. The displaced persons employed here so far have been a mere pinprick—about 8,000 for domestic service and some 2,000 Baltic women for hospital work and so on.
  I have a few fundamental suggestions to make in connection with this question of foreign labour. I understand that a special department has been set up by the Minister. I hope it is not just another department of the Ministry of Labour, and that a really big man is to be put in charge, because it is a big job. Our whole national recovery depends to a large ex-
  502
  tent on this problem, and I appeal to the Minister to stop dabbling with this question of foreign labour. I ask him to look into this question of vocational training, and to get his officials to go round the U.N.R.R.A. training camps, as such visits would be most profitable. In regard to miners, as the Germans are so short of these people, we might well take over one or two German mines to teach displaced persons the job. The men are available, and there would be no language problem. Having gained the experience, would it be impossible to place them in mines over here, perhaps not quite so up to date, and let them carry on the job of mining themselves? it would introduce a little healthy competition between their mines and some of our own.
  I beg the Minister not to split up families. If we are going to take an employable man who has an unemployable wife, I hope we shall take her as well. Having decided in which industries they will work, I hope they will be employed on equal terms with our labour, will become union members and be paid the appropriate wage and will not be considered as everlasting industrial outcasts. I hope he will not succumb to the blandishments of some people connected with industry in Germany who would like to keep displaced people in Germany to benefit German economy later on. I hope the Minister will cut out this screening. These people have been screened over and over again. They have been screened by the N.K.V.D., by the Germans, and by our own security people. Maybe a few have served in the Wehrmacht, and a few even in General Vlasov's Corps, but I believe it is about time that we accepted them as human beings and took them at their face value. Lastly, I appeal to the Minister to get the co-operation of the unions. The most serious mistake has been the lack of co-ordination between this Government and the unions, as exampled by the two quotations I have given. If I have misquoted Mr. Lawther or Mr. Collinson, I hope the Minister will say so. These displaced people do not want charity and they are not asking for charity. All they want is an opportunity to start afresh and become human beings again. It is in their interests that they should come here and it is in the interests of the short-term and long-term policy of this country.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Macpherson: We are suffering from a shortage of many essential things, but the greatest shortage of all is the shortage of manpower. That is why we are short of coal, steel, houses, clothing and many other things. This is quite understandable after six years of total war. We need not be ashamed of these shortages. Neither the Government nor the country have anything for which to apologise. We might look upon these shortages as some of the honourable scars of war suffered by the British people in the all-out effort during the war years. We have heard how the Government propose by every expedient open to a democratic and free people, to try to increase the manpower force in British industry. I doubt, however, whether after all these methods have been tried, we will be successful in attracting into British industry a sufficient number of additional workers to bring about any substantial increase in essential production which is so vital this year. I am inclined to agree with my hon Friend the senior Member for Bolton (Mr. J Jones) and would like to see more emphasis placed on making the most of our present manpower.
  The only substitute for manpower is horsepower. I ask the Government if they appreciate sufficiently the importance of more horsepower. It is said that the average American worker has four times more horsepower than has the average British worker. I sometimes wonder how it is that the American worker, often working shorter hours, can earn more, and frequently produce more, than his counterpart in Great Britain. No one can tell me that the American miner is better than the British miner, or the American engineer a better worker than the British engineer. I think the answer is that the American worker has more power, more powered tools, and more mechanical aids, in the mine, factory and workshop, than we have here.
  I had a letter the other day from a constituent of mine illustrating this point. It says:
  "Dear Sir,
  I am a fitter on the L.N.E.R. During the war it was said, ' Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.' Well, I am saying the same. I have never been mole disgusted with the way we have to work. I have only been at Stratford one month, and all the tools I have been issued with are two chisels, and two
  504
  spanners, and even they are not fit to use. I went to see the foreman and he told me they had been on order for three months. Surely, the railways are as important as the mines. If you saw the conditions in which we have to work you would agree with me."
  As one who has to travel regularly on the L.N.E.R. from Liverpool Street to Romford, and being aware of the deplorable conditions on that line I can well imagine that those conditions exist in the locomotive repairing shops.
  I will give another illustration about the need for more horsepower by making a comparison of what has happened during the past few years in agriculture and in mining. I have looked up the figures of 1938 to the end of 1946. During the war years there has been no material increase in the mechanical equipment in the mining industry. There has been some increase, but no important material change, up to the end of 1946. We know the position regarding production and manpower in the industry which is broadly speaking about the same. In agriculture, on the other hand, there has been almost a revolution in British methods of farming. Some 100,000 new tractors, combine harvesters and no end of new mechanical aids have been provided for the agricultural industry. As a result, bearing in mind the fact that the number of workers in agriculture has increased by about 20 per cent. at the end of 1946 compared with prewar, production has gone up TOO per cent. I am referring especially to arable farming. That is definite proof of what can be done with our available manpower forces when given adequate and proper mechanical aids.
  The shortage of manpower has been most acutely felt in the coal industry, and our immediate need is for more coal and power. That is fundamental to the whole production problem. We must have more coal and more power for next winter. The most practical way to go about producing more coal and power—indeed the only way if we are going to do something this year—is to give our manpower more horsepower, and to do it now. To do it now, we must concentrate on three things.
  The first is the production of more mechanical equipment for our coal industry. Secondly, there is the production of more engine and generating plant for power, and, thirdly, the repair and production of more railway locomotives and wagons.

  505
  I am not an industrialist, but an ordinary business man. During the last few weeks I have been present at a number of conferences on this crisis with experienced leaders of the engineering industry. I am assured that there is engineering capacity available in this country to provide additional mining machinery and equipment. There is engineering capacity available which could make a substantial contribution to existing shortages in the repair and new construction of engine and generating plant, and also of railway locomotives and wagons. This would involve putting the work out to firms which do not normally go in for that type of production. But, in an emergency like this, as in the war, I think all will agree that every bit of engineering capacity should be used to its maximum.
  The regional boards, which did such splendid work during the war, could also he used by the Government for this purpose. They have knowlege of the capacity and ability of firms in their area to make this equipment, or to switch over from less essential work and the production of luxury goods.
  Wrapped up with this question of manpower is the all-important question of priorities. I do not think we will get the production of power and equipment we need, unless we tackle the question of priorities and put it on a proper coordinated basis. Today, industry does not know where it stands regarding priorities, and a good deal of confusion exists. This is probably the key to our production problem. There must be a master plan for priorities, as, indeed, there should be a master plan for the whole of our industrial production during the continuance of the present emergency.
  We are facing this year a problem of the greatest magnitude. The maintenance of the standard of life of our people, our industry, our exports, and our food supplies all depend on a bold, imaginative, and businesslike handling of this problem in our economic affairs. I do not believe that to appoint some super planning staff committee of high civil servants—no matter how eminent—is the right way to go about this job. We must have a master plan, it is true, but we must have a master planner. Very often the success of something depends just as much on the man who is going to be in charge of it, as
  506
  the efficacy of the plan itself. Therefore, we must have a master planner to do the job. I think that a master planner should be a member of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister should choose the biggest man he has available, and a new post should be created. I am not suggesting that there is any reflection on present Ministers.
  This problem of production is probably the most important work ahead of this Government today. On the success of our handling of this problem will depend the success of this Government. We should have the best man we can get for this job. Fortunately, there is, in the Government, a man of outstanding qualifications for the post—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that he is the man for this post. As soon as he can be spared from Moscow and the Foreign Office he should be put in charge of this tremendous task, the rehabilitation of British industry. The Foreign Secretary, like no other man, has the confidence of the organised workers of this country, and I am sure that he would have the good will and support of employers and of industry as a whole.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Gammans: I think that our Debate today, and the three-day Debate we had last week, can be summarised in a very few words. They come down to this, that the volume of production from British industry today is not sufficient to do three essential things: first, there is not enough to balance our essential imports with exports; second, there is not enough to provide the British people with anything except a miserable standard of living; and, third, there is not enough to pay anything of the debts of £4,000 million which we owe to countries abroad.
  What we are investigating is the reason for all that, and what we can do about it. Various suggestions have been made today, one about the employment of foreign labour and another that British industry must be mechanised to an extent at least comparable with that in America. Means have been suggested for increasing the output of our existing industries and workers. Wherever we go today we hear complaints that the output of industry per man year, or week, is not, by and large, what it was in 1938. What we have to remember is that even if we get back to

  507
  a 1938 standard of output that will not bring us back to a 1938 standard of living, because, since that time, we have lost a large part of our overseas investments, which made such a great contribution to the standard of living of the British people. We also owe the staggering sum of £4,000 million abroad, every penny of which has to be paid back from the work of British workers, from which there will be no corresponding return.
  I should like to refer to what I might term the "misuse" of our manpower. There are, shortages of men in mining, in foundries, and in agriculture, and of women in cotton and woollen factories, and so on. But, at the same time, we all know that hundreds of thousands of people are today being employed in wholly unproductive industries such as, for instance, football pools and gambling. I ask the Minister of Labour the other day if he knew how many were employed in football pools, and he confessed that he did not know. The large number of people employed in these unproductive industries will not help in any way in the present crisis. I am hoping that the Minister will tell us what the Government's plans are for getting these people into productive industries. He could, of course, reimpose the Essential Work Order, but we are all against that, although I warn Members opposite that when they talk about a planned economy and a planned society they may find that before long there cannot be a completely planned society without planned labour.
  Another way in which we might get labour from unproductive to productive work is by devising a scientific method of wage rates, imposed by Statute, which would automatically attract people from one type of labour to another. But to this the trade unions, rightly, would not agree. We might try to see what can be done by exhortation. There is a great deal of that going on now but, in the long run, exhortation will not take a man from an attractive job to an unattractive job. Have the Government considered this revolutionary suggestion? Have they considered the negative direction of labour? By that I mean that a certain number of industries would be scheduled as unessential. Football pools would be one, the luxury hat trade another. The Minister could then say, "This is the
  508
  quota of labour which you can have in this industry, but you cannot have any more." Automatically, we hope, the people who would not be able to get a job in that industry would go to more essential industries. There should be no difficulty in preparing lists of essential and non-essential industries. We did it in 1939, when we imposed the Military Service Act. We had a long list of exemptions of people who were supposed to be in the most essential industries.
  I do not see any physical difficulties in it. I confess that I do not like it very much, because I do not like any sort of restrictions or any sort of unnecessary controls. But it seems to me that unless he can, by exhortation and by purely voluntary means, get people from these quite useless industries—useless to us now—to the absolutely essential industries, he may have to consider some method of this sort. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House whether he thinks that this is in any way feasible.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that this Debate has served a valuable purpose in that the opportunity has been given for the putting forward of many points of view upon what the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) rightly described as the biggest problem facing the Government. I wish that I could pay the same tribute to the only Ministerial intervention which the House has yet had the privilege of hearing, that of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, who is a Minister directly concerned with the subject matter of this Debate. Paragraph 128 of the White Paper prescribes his task for 1947—the obtaining of an additional 39,000 men for agriculture. Indeed, the Prime Minister, in his broadcast last night, told the country that it was essential to obtain an increase in agricultural labour. When the Minister of Agriculture came to the Box, he did not make one single concrete practical proposal as to how that additional labour was to be obtained. He made four references to events between the wars which seemed to give him great satisfaction, but when faced, by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) with the straight question as to how he was to get this additional labour, he could give no concrete and precise answer.
  Mr. Collins: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture made no less than eight different proposals and gave eight different means whereby the agricultural labour force would be recruited during the year, and he gave an assurance that as far as he could ascertain, there would be sufficient labour this year for gathering the harvest.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his no doubt helpful intervention. May I bring to his attention, and to the attention of the House, the words of his right hon. Friend, because I am sure that the House would prefer to take the words of the responsible Minister even to those of the hon. Member who has been so anxious to intervene on his behalf? I made a note at the time, and the right hon. Gentleman ended his summing up of this aspect of the matter by saying, "I hope there is going to be an increase in British civilian labour." The House will note the word "hope." He did not say "As the result of these specific measures X thousand additional labourers will be obtained." He concluded his observations, to which I regret the hon. Gentleman apparently did not pay great attention, with an expression of hope.
  I repeat that throughout the speech of the right hon. Gentleman there was no concrete suggestion as to how he was to carry out the task imposed by the White Paper, to be carried out in a year, a quarter of which has very nearly passed. He referred to the Women's Land Army—a diminishing asset; he referred to prisoners of war—a diminishing asset; but never did he face up to the problem. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that it is the essential problem today as to how this necessary inflow of labour into agriculture is to be obtained. I hope, though perhaps it is the triumph of hope over experience, that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour replies to the Debate as a whole, he will be able to be a little more helpful, a little more precise and even a little more constructive.
  The problems raised by this Debate are really three—how to secure the proper distribution of the existing labour force, how to secure that that labour force is of adequate size, and how to secure from it the maximum of productivity. I think that the Parliamentary
  510
  Secretary will agree that that is a fair summing up of the grave and serious problems with which he and the Minister are confronted. The first of these problems on which I should like to touch is the problem of redistribution. As the House is by now almost painfully aware, the Government have set a target, in Paragraph 128 of the White Paper, a target which involves a certain redistribution of labour. I do not propose to address myself to the question as to whether that redistribution is itself a proper and intelligent one. I am prepared to leave it that it is the target which the Government have set themselves, and to which they are naturally committed. How is that redistribution to be obtained? It is quite useless and a waste of the time of the House and of hon. Members, to set a target of this sort unless the means by which that target is to be hit can be brought forward. It would be a sheer waste of paper to propose a beautiful plan of redistribution unless reasonable methods could be set out by which that redistribution could be obtained.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, in our recent Debate, set forth what he suggested were the means to this end. He said:
  "We are doing it"—
  that is, effecting the redistribution—
  "by giving priority to vacancies in those industries, by bringing those vacancies to the attention of persons seeking employment, by publicity drives, by improvements in the working conditions and attractiveness of these industries—that is the main way to overcome this difficulty—and by training in Government centres."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1156.]
  I am sure that the House would be more impressed by the belief in the effectiveness of those measures were it not for the fact that all these measures have been, in greater or lesser degree, in effect for the past 18 months. There is nothing new in those measures. I am certain that to the best of his ability the right hon. Gentleman has been applying them already, and applying them at a moment of unparalleled opportunity, at a period when 7,500,000 people were in any event changing their jobs from the Armed Forces or war industries, and going into other employment. If a method of effecting this redistribution is to be put forward, one is surely entitled to be just a little doubtful as to its effectiveness when one recollects that it has been applied in

  511
  easier and more favourable circumstances for the last 18 months, and has ended in a state of affairs in which the Government themselves regard substantial redistribution of industry as necessary. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will tell the House the answer to two questions. First, why is it that he anticipates that these methods, which have had only limited success when applied during the easier circumstances of the last 18 months, will be more successful in the future? Second, has he nothing else to offer?
  I feel that this is the fundamental point of the whole matter, and the fundamental point of the whole policy of His Majesty's Government. It is useless to have the plan to which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister referred in his broadcast last night, if the will or the means to carry it out are lacking. I suggest to the House that the fundamental difficulty is that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have twisted and distorted the normal price mechanism, by price controls, by limitation of every sort and by nationalisation. [Interruption.] There is no question about it. I really should have thought that hon. Members opposite would agree. I understood it was their object. That has been done and the normal working of the price mechanism upset.
  I suggest that the Government are up against this difficulty Having ceased to obtain the working of the price mechanism in the normal way, they are up against an alternative which they will not face. The alternative is that Socialist planning, and the Socialist plan necessarily involves direction of labour. I do not suppose that that will be very palatable to the Government Front Bench. I believe it is intellectually acceptable to some of their supporters who really believe in the policy of Socialism. But whether or not it is acceptable to the Government Front Bench, I suggest to them that unless they are able to show how they can implement the Socialist plan without direction of labour, they are in this dilemma: Either they must swallow their natural and very proper repugnance to direction of labour, or they must abandon the Socialist plan.
  Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can tell the House how he can implement this part of the plan without direction of labour, I am sure the House will be in-
  512
  terested to know what are his alternative and his escape from this dilemma. There is one aspect, and one only, of this redistribution of labour which the Government can handle without facing this dilemma, and that is the question of the public service. The White Paper admits to a 50 per cent. increase in the numbers engaged in the public service since before the war. The planned redistribution involves a small decrease. There are two points I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. The first is whether there is any reason to believe that this impoverished and battered country can afford to maintain 50 per cent. more Governmental machinery and personnel than it could maintain in 1938. Second, is there the slightest indication of any tendency today towards obtaining even the limited reduction during the present year, which the White Paper contemplates? The most recent issue of the return of Government staffs shows that notwithstanding a substantial reduction of nearly 10,000 in the Service Departments, so great has been the increase in the other Departments that that decrease is swallowed up and there is a net increase of 4,140. What has the House to go on to support the belief that a cut in Governmental staffs can be effected during the current year when the tendency up to a month or two ago was in the opposite direction? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that.
  Then there is the second question which I posed to the House, the question of the quantity of labour. I appreciate, and I do not propose to touch on it as it was so well set forth by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), the question of women labour. L would like to deal with it from the point of view that the only possible increase in male labour available to the Government is from older people and from foreign labour. In regard to older people, the Government are setting a very bad example. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty at Question Time today admitted in a reply to the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) that the Royal Dockyards had in the last six months dismissed 372 men who had reached the age of 65 and and had only retained 65. That does seem, from a Government Department, a bad example, but that is a drop in the ocean.

  513
  The important source of additional labour is foreign labour, and I desire to ask the Government one or two questions on that. First of all: why is it that when the Minister of Labour spoke last week he could only tell the House that 3,900 Poles were yet in employment in this country? There are 80,000 Poles in the Resettlement Corps. There are some 70,000 more not yet in that Corps. Most of these men have been in this country for many months. Why is it that when there is this—as the Minister of Labour called it—"overall shortage of labour" looming up, thousands of men for whose maintenance this country has been financially responsible have not been put before into proper employment? There are only two alternative explanations. One is that the Government have surrendered to pressure from the unions. It may well be that the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) was right, when she said a few minutes ago that the Government of this country was the miners. Either the Government have not faced up to union opposition on this matter or they have been quite incredibly lax in making arrangements. I hope we may be told why even today only five per cent. of the men in the Resettlement Corps have been put into productive employment.
  There is then the question of other foreign labour. I did not understand from the speech of the Minister of Labour last week whether a decision had yet been arrived at or not as to the employment of foreigners other than Poles in the mines. May we be told the answer to that? There is yet another question. Four or five months ago a statement was made to this House that a number of Italians were to be brought to this country for work in foundries. What has happened to those men? Are they here? Are they coming, or has something happened? May we be told something about that?
  On this whole question of foreign labour I would like to know, I must confess, a great deal more. What arrangements are being made for this foreign labour? May I put that question quite specifically? Is this foreign labour, when it is brought here—displaced persons, Baits, Italians, whoever they may be—to be confined to the particular industry for whose purposes it is brought? Are those men to be confined to that industry, and, if so, for how long? What sanctions
  514
  are to be applied if they abandon work in that industry and go elsewhere? Has it been realised that it may well be impossible to send them back to their countries of origin because their countries of origin may not take them? What arrangement has been made to prevent men brought in for work in the undermanned industries transferring themselves to some other form of activity, such as the football pools, which so interest the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally)?
  It is clear that this important step of importing foreign labour cannot be taken without thought and, if I may use the almost sacred word "planning" in these matters, what is the plan? Are these people to be confined to particular industries for life? Is a man of 25 brought in, shall we say, for agriculture to be confined to agriculture for life? What will the right hon. Gentleman do if he does something else, say, goes in to politics? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that? These are serious questions, of importance to this House in its responsibility, of importance also to members of the trade unions in this country, and of importance particularly to these men who are being brought over. Perhaps I may be told what the plan is?
  Finally, there is the question of the productivity of our existing labour. A good deal of loose talk has been indulged in on this subject, not least by hon. Members who have referred, for example, to increased productivity in the mines. There has been—and I am sure all hon. Members have been glad to hear it—an increase in the last few months over the output per man year in 1945, but do hon. Members opposite realise that the level in 1945 was the lowest for a great many years, that it was roughly 50 tons per man year less than 1941, and marked the lowest stage of a steadily descending staircase? [An HON. MEMBER: "Private enterprise."] An hon. Gentleman refers to private enterprise, and I am obliged to him. The figure of 300.8 tons per man year—the highest figure reached in recent years—was obtained in 1941—the year before the Government took over the management of the mines. It has been followed by a steady decline in every year under Government management down to 1945, so if hon. Members really want to discuss this important matter on that basis, I am quite ready to deal with them.

  515
  I hoped, however, that hon. Members opposite were prepared to discuss this matter on a somewhat higher level than the "who dunnit" level. The point surely is to face the fact that there has been a decline in productivity, not only in the mines but throughout our industrial system, and if hon. Members do not like to accept that from me, perhaps they will accept it from a member of the Coal Board, Mr. Ebby Edwards. He said this last week:
  "Output in 1941 was 206,344,300 tons. In 1946, when nationalisation was guaranteed, output dropped by 26 million. The manpower in each year was nearly equal, but the overall rate of absenteeism rose from nine per cent. in 1941 to 16 per cent. in 1946."
  The real point, surely, as an hon. Member opposite said, is psychological. In his broadcast last night the Prime Minister made it quite clear that it was essential that everybody in this country should realise that what an hon. Member opposite called national survival depended upon everybody putting their heart into their job. I hope that hon. Members opposite will support the Prime Minister's appeal in that respect, and I hope that they will not hark back to their speeches of not so long ago when they advocated somewhat different courses. I do not want to go into that—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite so desire, I am only too willing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do."] As the hon. Gentleman has asked for it, I will invite his attention to certain observations made by the Minister of Food. I invite attention to certain observations made by the Minister of Food in a book entitled, "Why You should be a Socialist," which was republished as recently as 1944. It contains these words:
  "Our conclusion is that, however hard the workers work, they will remain workers, and poor workers at that. Hard work will not make the workers any richer, but it will make their employers much richer … Allied with this propaganda for industriousness, you remember the old 'produce more' cry. I suppose we shall get it again after this war, too."
  Mr. Shurmer: It is true.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Hon. Members opposite must make up their minds on which leg they stand. Do they stand with the Prime Minister in his appeal for hard work, or do they take the attitude of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), who says, "It is true"? They must face that.
  Mr. Shurmer: It is true.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member has faced the problem. I do not know whether his colleagues have.
  Mr. Shurmer: Let the hon. Gentleman give me a chance to reply.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I respect the hon. Member's viewpoint, but other hon. Members must make it clear whether they support the Prime Minister in the appeal for work, or whether they do not, because they are here, as all of us are here, as representatives of the people, to whom the people of this country are looking for a lead. I am obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention. I hope hon. Members opposite will clear their minds on this matter, and be quite sure where they stand. The responsibility for all this rests on the Government. The Opposition have only one duty, as I see it, and that is to utter a warning. That we have tried to do. We have tried to say—and history must be the judge of whether we are right—that the measures so far taken by the Government are pitifully inadequate to deal with the gathering storm. There is no need to argue that. The next year or two will show who is right, and I pray to Heaven hon. Members opposite are right, and we are wrong.
  Mr. Shurmer: I would not put it past the hoe. Gentleman to try not to make it so, to meet his own political ends.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I pass over that observation, because I am certain that no responsible Member of the House would make it.
  Mr. Shurmer: I am as responsible as the hon. Member is.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No one envies the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour his responsibility. In his hands, and in those of his colleagues, lies the whole future of our people, and I am sure he knows that, doubt as we do the efficiency of what he has done, and grave apprehensions though we feel as to the immediate future, our only wish is that he may prove—what he has not proved so far—capable of mastering the tremendous difficulties of his task. If he can do that, he will carry with him the blessings of millions in this land and of millions yet unborn.
  9.29 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): This Debate has been more or less a spill-over from the three days' Debate last week. It has followed and flowed naturally from the Debate on the general Economic Survey. I want to say how pleased I was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who opened the Debate for the Opposition, maintained the same high standard as was shown last week, almost throughout the Debate, in dealing with this very grave problem. I had the advantage, in 1944, of hearing a Debate in the House on a previous White Paper, introduced by the Minister of Reconstruction of that time, who is now the chairman of the Conservative Party. Subsequently, I was involved with my right hon. Friend in the discussions which took place, at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, with the National Joint Advisory Council, consisting of 17 representatives of the British Employers' Confederation and 17 representatives of the Trades Union Congress. Out of those discussions we got the White Paper which was issued in January on the economic considerations.
  What I want to draw to the attention of the House is this. It was highly important that that Paper issued by the National Joint Advisory Council should precede the economic survey which was the subject of the discussion last week, and which again was the subject of the discussion today, because in that White Paper there is an overall recognition of the fact that the deployment of labour in this country was wrong, that steps had to be taken to improve it, that there had to be an increase in production on the part of industry, and a general recognition of that fact by both sides of industry. It was on the basis of the conclusion contained in that White Paper that we were able to get those more or less successful discussions which we had in the House last week on the economic survey. Apart from that, there has been throughout the Press of the country a recognition of the facts contained in the Economic Survey, and, perhaps more serious thought has been given to the economic situation of the country in the last three months than has ever been given before in our history. I think that is all to the good.
  518
  As I was saying, I had the advantage of listening to the Debates on the first White Paper in 1944, then I was present at those negotiations, and I have heard the Debates in this House on the Economic Survey. Looking back to the White Paper on Employment Policy of 1944, it is amazing to see how inadequate was that Paper in its scope. I am not blaming anyone, I do not want at all to make a party or partisan point, but it is amazing today to realise how limited that paper was in its scope, and how quite inadequate to deal with the problems that we have to face in the postwar period. The Paper on Employment Policy which was then issued, it will be recollected, was issued without any consultation with either side of industry. The Government of the day did not carry both sides of industry with it in the issue of that White Paper. In these recent negotiations the reverse process has been adopted. With regard to the White Paper on economic considerations both sides of industry were brought in and agreement was arrived at with regard to general principles, and that agreement is essential if we are to get out of the difficulties in which we now find ourselves. The Economic Survey has been made fully known to industry, and has been the subject of discussions in this House.
  This, if I may say so, is a policy of democratic planning, in which both the industrial and political sides of the nation have been wholly taken into our confidence, and have been given full opportunity to make their contribution in the diagnosis of our difficulties and in the formulation of plans for the future. The House has lived up to expectations and has put forward in this Debate, and in the Debate last week, contributions that must be of assistance to the Government in going on with this policy. The way in which this subject-matter has been treated, both in the National Joint Advisory Council and in the House, shows that we are, in our belief, on the right road to finding a solution between the totalitarian method and the method of unrestricted private enterprise. That is our belief, and I hope to deal with it later on in what I have to say. If we can succeed in this, we shall make a great contribution to the advance of mankind, and once again, provide an example that other nations may copy.

  519
  For some years ahead it is obvious that we have urgent tasks to perform which outstrip both our present manpower and our resources. During the course of the Debate that view was not taken by a number of hon. Members. It was the view of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) that we had ample manpower for the tasks ahead. I think he is quite wrong. We have not sufficient manpower in this country at present to meet all the demands that are now being made upon our economy. The loss of our foreign investments has been regarded as roughly the equivalent of the product of 300,000 men per annum. In addition we have to make up for our American loan, we have to import, with nothing there to pay, we have to deal with the back-log of demand from the period of the war, we have all the repairs and new building to do, and we have the social commitments that have been decided upon by this House, and in that sense we have naturally an inadequate labour force to meet the demands that are being made upon us. This was a problem which was set out in the National Joint Advisory Council White Paper on the economic considerations. Equally, it has been recognised throughout the Debates that our economy is distorted and some of our basic and manufacturing industries have been seriously undermanned. In other words, not only are we short of manpower over the whole field, but what we have is wrongly deployed. I think there is general agreement upon that. [Interruption] I am trying to make a purely non-party speech on this matter. I think the House ought to be at its best in dealing with the grave problems that face the nation, and I hope the standards which have been set by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate on that side of the House will be maintained by his colleagues.
  The National Joint Advisory Council's paper illustrates the position by saying that, at a time when we are in full employment, we are short, compared with 1939, of some 600,000 workers in certain basic and vital services. In the days between the wars, when we had millions of unemployed, we might have scraped through even with our present supplies of fuel and power, but we can only provide for full employment if we expand the basic industries, and the basic industry of
  520
  coal in particular. It is this problem, the necessity for manning-up our basic industries and redeploying our manpower, which is now being seen, I think for the first time, in its totality, and the Debate has been on that basis in the House. It has been attacked from sectional angles before but I do not think that the problem has been looked at in this total way previous to this Debate. Progress is being made in dealing with our problems. I was asked how the Government anticipate deploying labour in such a way as to get the most efficient results? How are they going to do this planning? Is it going to be a plan imposed by the Government? Is it going to be democratic planning or totalitarian planning?
  I had better run over what the President of the Board of Trade said in his opening speech in the Debate last week. This is the picture as I saw it and I think as the House saw it. For some time there has been an official Committee working in close association with the Economic Section of the Cabinet office and the Central Statistical Office. These were working under the Lord President of the Council who had got us so far in our present economic survey.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Our present economic mess.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: It is a matter of regret that the Lord President himself has not been present in these Debates. This work has largely been done under his direction, and I am sure the contribution he could have made to the House would have been extremely enlightening. The Government now propose to appoint a Joint Planning Staff which will consist of the planning officer of each Department working in the closest co-operation with the Economic Section of the Cabinet office and the Central Statistical Office. This will function under the general observation of a planning board which will consist of representatives of the Joint Planning Staff and of employers and workers. By this way both sides of industry will be closely in touch with every step taken by the Government to develop resources to the full. The National Joint Advisory Council as I have said consists of 17 members from the Trades Union Congress and 17 from the British Employers' Federation. They will be kept fully informed of the way which it is

  521
  intended to use the resources of this nation.
  Thus, at the top level, we shall be carrying the country both politically and economically in each step that has to be taken. There will be no gulf between theory and practice, nor between planning and implementation. The charge is very often made that we bring in our economists who plan on paper and then pass it on to industry. By this set up we have our economists and, sitting with them, representatives of both sides of industry, so that the principles of the implementation of the plan are kept in mind in making the plan itself.
  I would suggest that that is a very useful step forward. In this way both employers and workers will have a social responsibility for the success of the plan and will also decide jointly what steps are necessary to use our manpower resources of manpower and materials in furtherance of the general plan. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) said in his speech that we ought to have a plan and a representative of industry making it. It need not be a very precise plan but a sort of general and rough outline, and the representatives of both sides of industry should be in on its making. It seems to me that this kind of structure is one that will use the best experience in the country, combining it with the best knowledge of the general theory of planning.
  In this way, as I say, we shall obtain on the part of the employers and the workers a sense of their social responsibility. They will have made the plan and they will implement it, and one would hope that in that implementation they will be as much concerned about the success of the general plan as of their own particular part. In that respect a sense of social responsibility will over-ride their narrow, sectional industrial interest. The annual Economic Survey will be discussed in this House and will be made available to industry. The information as to the tasks and allocations of manpower with roughly available material resources will syphon through down to each industry. Both sides of each industry will then consider what is expected of it, and each unit in the particular industry must look at the size of the contribution the industry is to make. It is important for the success of our efforts that the man at the
  522
  Bottom—in the pit—or at the shop level—should know what we are about as well as the man at the top.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: I know the hon. Gentleman is coming to it later, but I hope he will not omit to answer the questions put to him by hon. Members during the Debate.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I have made notes of the points raised by hon. Members on all sides of the House. I intended no discourtesy, but there are certain considerations I want to put over. I do not want to dodge a single question which has been put. Coming back to the recommendations of the planning board, each industry will know what it can do, having regard to the manpower resources available. It will then be for industries to make their own plans and work with each other to make the most of the situation. I do not want to see an industry run by civil servants. I want to see both sides running industries to the best advantage, not only to the industry itself but to the nation as a whole. This briefly outlines what, in our view, is a general democratic plan, which makes available for the first time information which will enable industry to make the most efficient use of its resources, and to plan firmly with the least damage and greatest advantage to the general economy.
  I come back to the question of redeployment. Our great problem is to man up the under-manned industries, and unless we do that we are sunk. It has been suggested that this should be done by a number of methods. The House has agreed that we should not use direction of labour, that has been generally accepted, with one or two exceptions, and in view of that, I do not intend to deal with the point. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby thought it was wrong to try and control by allocations of fuel and power. I imagine that he objected to the Government controlling in a direct way and on a planned basis. I am sure he will agree, no matter what may be said, in the last analysis it is the supply of fuel and power which controls all other activities. Perhaps he would leave it to chance, and let the people in luxury industries have the same quantities as the vitally necessary industries. I do not know how he squares that with the general argument for redeploying manpower in connection with the under-manned industries.

  523
  Another point raised was in regard to making more attractive the undermanned industries by a new wages policy. The advocates of this policy obviously forget that employers provide employment and wages. A Government wages structure might be considered side by side with a Government profit structure, which would, in my view, be equally effective or ineffective. I cannot understand why those who advocate a vaguely defined wages policy confine it to wages. Why not include salaries and other incomes? If we are to have a grading of incomes, let it cover the whole field, and let citizens get out of the pool something which bears relation to what they have put into the pool. This has been put vaguely, and I think it ought to be answered. First of all, it is not certain that increased wages alone can solve the problem of the labour shortage. The worker is concerned with something more than the mere level of wages. There are other things which he cannot be expected to sacrifice simply for the attraction of high wages. In my judgment, security of employment has a high place in the consideration of the worker when he is choosing his work. Then there is the question of good conditions in the factory, whether there is proper lighting, ventilation, and hygiene, and welfare arrangements. I do not suggest that a high level of wages has no influence on the attraction of workers to industry, but I want to impress on the House that other things do count, in many cases, more than mere wages.
  The proposition has been put forward that we should increase wages in order to attract workers to undermanned industries. That is a proposition which is both impracticable and fraught with danger. Presumably, one industry must be taken at a time, and wages increased to a sufficiently high level to attract workers from other industries. The attraction must be both considerable and indiscriminate, and may well hit some most vital industries. But, apart from this, what happens when you have your industry manned up. Do you keep wages up or reduce them? In our view, this is no real policy for attracting labour to undermanned industries.
  Sir A. Salter: Surely, if you want to attract people from an industry to another which is more vital you must make
  524
  the vital industry more attractive than the other.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: But once that has been done what must then be done with the next undermanned industry? Put wages higher still?
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: That is what is being done.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Wages must be fairly equal in industries to attract workers. The dirty, hazardous industries must have compensation in the way of wages in order to attract workers. The Government's view is that we shall stand by the system that now exists, that discussions and negotiations on wages shall be a matter between both sides of industry. It is the policy of the Government to pass to both sides of industry the fullest economic information, on which they can take a decision which will not militate against general economy while still serving the needs and interests of their own industry.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: What about answering some of the questions which my hon. Friends have put during the Debate?
  Mr. Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary has now only about six minutes left in which to reply. There cannot be any extension of time.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I am missing questions which were raised on this side in order to try to satisfy Members opposite. As regards the question of negative control, there is something in that, and my right hon. Friend is meeting representatives of certain luxury industries to see if he can get them to agree to take on workers who are not available for the ordinary normal, or heavy, industries, to see if they will take on disabled people and women, and not take on those who would otherwise be available for industries which are undermanned. That matter is being explored, and we hope to get some results from it.
  The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who is not in his place now, put a number of questions about disabled persons. In this matter, we are advised by the Disabled Persons Advisory Council and there is the Disabled Persons Corporation We are also getting valuable assistance from Sir Brunel Cohen, an

  525
  ex-Member of this House, who has a distinguished record in relation to disabled Service people in this country. With regard to labour in agriculture, I am sorry that I was not able to be here when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture replied. I understand that he made a complete reply to the questions which have been raised. I have not time to go over the details of the position, but we are satisfied that there will be available, for the agricultural industry this year, more labour than was available last year. The same number of prisoners of war will be available, 180,000; there will be additional numbers of Poles available; displaced persons will be coming in, and some Italians? and we have agreed to let remain in this country certain categories of German prisoners of war to work continuously in agriculture.
  Another point put was about manning-up the mining industry. I should like to have told the House the full effects of what we have gained from the working of the present machinery. In the four weeks ending 15th January, 1947, we recruited to the mines 7,500 men; in the week ending 22nd February, we recruited 7,750. I would remind Members opposite that we are trying to recruit back to the industry men who were driven from it by their past policy. It was not done by the control of labour but by the whip of poverty and victimisation, which drove out the men we are now begging to come back into the industry.
  Major Lloyd George: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of what the wastage will be in the mining industry this year, as compared with last?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I have only a few minutes left. I made no reference to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and, in any case, I have not got the information with me at the moment. We were asked about the effectiveness of our present machinery. We have built up mining until, on 8th March, the number of men in the industry was 701,000. In the clay industry, from December, 1945, to December, 1946, there was an increase of nearly 30,000 men; in the building industry there was an increase from 895,000 to 1,250,000; in the cotton industry there was an increase from 221,400 to 251,600. Those are some of the effects resulting
  526
  from the operation of the present machinery.
  I am sorry that I have no time left in which to deal with foreign labour, or other questions which have been raised. In our view, we are moving in the right direction to make our economy one which will give our people greater happiness. We want to give to their lives a new purpose. We know all about this tiredness. We want to let the man at the bottom see that he has a place in the nation, and contribute to the rehabilitation of the nation. Far too frequently the call has been to the workers alone. It must go out to the employers as well. They must show more initiative, and a greater desire to co-operate in this matter. Companies should exercise restraint in their pursuit of profits also. Everybody should try to show an example to each other sector of the nation. In this matter, all sections of the nation can make a contribution. There is a great task in front of us but we are satisfied that we can get through.
  It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution.

  SUPPLY [7th March]
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS; SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1946–47
    Resolutions reported:
    Class VI
      BOARD OF TRADE
      2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,134,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and subordinate departments, including the cost of certain trading services; assistance and subsidies to certain industries; certain grants in aid; and other services."
    Class II

      INDIA AND BURMA SERVICES
      3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £66,881, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course

      527
      of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India and His Majesty's Secretary of State for Burma, and for sundry India and Burma services, including certain grants in aid."

      COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES
      4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid."
    Class VII
      HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
      5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding.£58,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament buildings."
      PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN
      6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for expenditure in respect of secondary public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes.'
      PUBLIC BUILDINGS OVERSEAS
      7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding. £87,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for expenditure in respect of public buildings overseas."
    CLASS I
      TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS
      8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,631, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including additional salary payable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the salary and expenses of the Minister without Portfolio, 'the expenses of representation in India and a grant in aid."
    CLASS X
      ADVANCES TO ALLIES, ETC.
      9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1947, for advances to the Governments of Allied, etc., Countries and for the expenses of the Interim Treasury Committee for Polish Questions."

      REVENUE DEPARTMENTS POST OFFICE
      10. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,400,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      10.1 p.m.
      Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in line r, to leave out "£3,134,000," and to insert instead thereof "£3,133,500."
      I have put down this Amendment in order to make quite certain that the Minister would realise that my hon. Friends had some questions to which they would like replies, unlike what we have just been treated to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who came with a prepared brief and ignored all the questions which had been raised during the Debate. On this occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will not be able to do that, because he does not yet know what we are to ask him. We will be in a better position, because everything he says will have to be in the nature of a reply to those questions. In point of fact we are quite confident, having had experience of the hon. Gentleman's debating skill in the past, that he will be able to deal with any situation which may offer during the next half hour or so, quite unlike his colleague who preceded him.
      The particular point on which we wanted to say something relates to Subhead 0, because when we discussed this in Committee stage on Friday week, I specifically asked how it came about that the Board of Trade was taking power here, when they specifically say, in relation to the Subhead:
      "It is not expected that any expenditure will be incurred during the current financial year…."
      The note goes on to say:
      "but token provision is included in this Estimate in order to obtain Parliamentary approval in principle for the grants in question."
      Does that mean that the Board of Trade think that by obtaining the Estimate under this Subhead this House will have

      529
      approved in principle the whole policy which is briefly described as "Assistance to the cotton spinning industry," or does it merely mean, as the language could directly mean, that we are approving in principle the grant rather than the policy? I was not quite certain about that. If, in fact, there is to be no money expended under this Subhead, and if, in fact, we are to have legislation during the next financial year, it is quite wrong and unnecessary to take any token sum here. Should any small expenditure be required this year there are other ways in which it can be defrayed. But if the object of this Subhead is to raise the question of assistance to the cotton spinning industry in this way, my hon. Friend behind me has certain questions which he wants to address to the Minister. It was to make quite sure that he would have the opportunity of doing so that this Amendment was put down—so that the Minister should be here and that other Members could, if necessary, take part in the Debate.
      10.4 p.m.
      Mr. Erroll: I am glad of this opportunity of raising in the House the Government's proposals to make certain re—equipment grants to the cotton spinning industry, based upon certain conditions. I experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining information about the scheme announced to the spinners. Apparently, the original proposals were announced behind closed doors. The only information I could find was "The Times" report of the subsequent Press conference, which the Board of Trade held.
      I hope, therefore, that if I quote from "The Times" of 4th December, the Minister will tell me if I am drawing wrong deductions from inaccurate information. As far as I know, it is the only information yet made available to Members of Parliament and the public at large. Some of my remarks may appear to be critical, but I do not wish it to be imagined that I am wholly critical of this scheme. The fact is that we have so little information upon which to work that it is very difficult to make anything other than interrogatory remarks of a somewhat critical tone.
      First, we should like to know from the Minister whether it really is the right scheme for the industry. Is giving a 25 per cent. grant for new machinery in
      530
      the cotton spinning industry the right way to advance this industry? It is particularly significant that the Cotton Working Party advised on quite a different system. They advised on a levy to be obtained from all spinners in the industry towards a re-equipment fund. This levy, admittedly, was not a unanimous recommendation of the Working Party. Apparently it has been shelved entirely without so much as a single word of explanation by the Minister. We would like to know what is wrong with the system of the levy and why it has been shelved so lightly.
      In dealing with the re-organisation of the cotton industry, we are all in general agreement that a, great deal of new machinery is necessary, but I query whether it is machinery for the spinning section of the industry which should have the most urgent priority. I think it is much more likely to be true that it is really weaving machinery which is the most out of date in the industry of this country and in which there has been the greatest improvement over the last 25 years. I understand that apart from the change-over from mule to ring frames there have been relatively few opportunities of improvement in the spinning machinery. It would not be wise to pump money into the spinning side of the industry alone. A survey of textile machinery is still taking place and, as far as I know, the recommendations have not yet been submitted to the Cotton Board or the Board of Trade. One of the conditions of making this kind of machinery available to the spinning industry is, to quote from "The Times," that there shall be:
      "The introduction of two-shift working as and when the mills were progressively modernised."
      Two-shift working is a very popular phrase at the moment, but apparently it is not generally realised that double shift working means very much shorter shifts for each individual worker per day. In the spinning industry the bottleneck is not machinery but labour. Therefore, we want to get the most out of labour rather than the machinery. What we really want is to make sure that every hand who goes into a spinning mill actually does 44 hours work per week on the machine rather than only 32 hours per week on the machine, even if it is on a more modern machine. It would mean that the more modern

      531
      machine would have to be 30 per cent. more efficient to maintain the position. One must assume that there will be a tremendous advance in design of spinning machinery before one is able to reap any benefit from two-shift working. I would very much like to hear the views of the Minister on that point, because I do not see what merit there is in a re-equipment scheme which insists on two-shift working at a time when labour shortage is the real bottleneck in the spinning industry.
      Another condition for attracting the grant refers to amalgamation. I will read out the condition. It is:
      "(a) the extensive re-equipment and modernisation of the mill within a reasonably short space of time; and (b) the grouping of mills into manoeuvreable units."
      I do not know what a manoeuvreable unit is when applied to a group of mills. I find that the President of the Board of Trade, in his explanatory remarks to the Press in Manchester on 3rd March said that the industry must manoeuvre in divisions and not in regiments and platoons. What does that mean in relation to the spinning industry? It sounds grand stuff to anybody who knows nothing about the industry, but it is pure nonsense to anybody who does. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can explain what that phrase meant, particularly as it is repeated in a more moderate form among the specific conditions which must be fulfilled before the grant can be attracted, namely that:
      "… the mills must be grouped into manoeuvreable units."
      Apparently a section of the spinning industry becomes a manoeuvreable unit when it has reached the size of 500,000 spindles. That is only a provisional figure, but it is what the President of the Board of Trade has in mind. Unless the amalgamation is of such size that no fewer than 500,000 spindles are grouped together, no grant will be made. Why 500,000 spindles? What particular merit is there in that figure? The Cotton Working Party Report gives some very interesting statistics of the breakdown of the spinning industry. It points out on page 39 in regard to the size of spinning firms that there are only 26 firms having 200,000 or above spindles and only five having more than one million spindles. The firms with over 200,000 spindles comprise only 20.4 per cent. of the total
      532
      industry. Undoubtedly there is to be a great deal of manoeuvreing to get these manoeuvreable units before they will be eligible to attract the grant.
      Many of the smaller producers are extremely efficient and they resent having to amalgamate with their less efficient competitors in order to get a grant. Many of the smaller firms have gone ahead with re-equipment without waiting for a grant, and they will be penalised to the extent that the less efficient competitors who did not modernise will now by modernising attract a 25 per cent. grant. Any firm which desires to remain outside the scheme—the President of the Board of Trade said there would be no compulsion—will suffer when it tries to get new machinery, which may already be on order. The President quite clearly stated in the same Press interview that this re-equipment would carry preferential treatment for textile machinery and the scheme would only apply to groups of mills, etc. In other words, those who amalgamate and attract a grant go to the top of the queue for spinning machinery. That is a most unfair form of preference to be given to what may prove to be the relatively inefficient producers over their more efficient competitors.
      One of the more unpleasant features of this grouping and amalgamation of the spinning industry is that it is producing horizontal combinations within the industry. I know it exists already but this is perpetuating it and stratifying the industry more than ever. What is wanted is something more in the nature of vertical combinations rather than in an increase in the horizontal combinations. That was brought out in the Working Party Report where they referred to a movement which was taking place towards vertical combinations as opposed to horizontal combinations. On pages 36 and 37 it points out that while>:
      "the lines of horizontal demarcation are cut across by several vertical organisations, some of them of considerable size …"
      In fact the majority of firms are not connected. There is, however, in fact, a definite tendency towards vertical integration,
      "either in the form of converters reaching back to previous manufacturing interests or, conversely, manufacturers taking control over the distribution of their products. This tendency, however, has not been strong enough to bring about a radical change in the sectional structure of the industry."

      533
      I think we are all agreed that that sectional structure needs modifying and the President's proposals are preventing that from taking place and will, in fact, fossilise the present stratification. I was glad to see that the President made it a condition of the grant that there should be extensive redeployment in the industry. Condition (d) states:
      "The acceptance and encouragement of new methods of labour deployment and utilisation by both sides of the industry …."
      That amounts to an admission that there were restrictive practices in the industry at all times, and still are at the present moment, if deployment is to be made a condition for attracting grant. However, we are all glad to see that the problem of redeployment is being tackled vigorously, and few of us will find any reason to quarrel with that condition.
      I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary what will happen to this scheme if the employers agree to the grant but the workers refuse to accept their conditions, namely, double shift working and extensive redeployment. Does the scheme go by the board, or what happens then, because it is sinister that although the scheme was announced on 4th December, there is still no announcement of any agreement having been reached? I would like to obtain some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that agreement is very near, and if it is not near, what is holding up the matter? Because three and a half months is a very long time to wait in a matter of this kind without hearing anything whatever. In fact, this will be the first statement in the House, when the Parliamentary Secretary replies, from the Government about a scheme of this great importance. If it is the fault of the employers, why are they holding back? I submit that if they are holding back, and I do not know whether they are or not, but if the charge is made that they are obstructing the issue, I suggest it is because the Government has not given a firm guarantee as to the future of the industry. Many men in Lancashire are reluctant to put money into the spinning industry and the rest of the cotton industry, even if it is only 75 per cent.
      Mr. Jack Jones: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is well versed in what is happening, that the unions concerned are in the course of discussions at this very minute?
      Mr. Erroll: I shall be surprised if they are working a night shift, although I know what the hon. Gentleman means.
      Mr. Jones: I have been at trade union meetings that have lasted until well on in the morning when the hon. Gentleman was fast asleep.
      Mr. Erroll: I much prefer discussions which take place early in the morning rather than late at night, but I will not pursue the point except to say that I appreciate that discussions are taking place. However, time is passing and we do not seem to be getting forward at all and we have no information on the matter, which is one reason why it is being raised tonight. As I was saying, I suggest that one of the possible reasons is that the firms wish to know a little more about the Government's intentions towards the future of the industry. The importance of this matter was clearly brought out in the Cotton Report and I hope the Committee will bear with me while I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of several of the most important recommendations in that Report:
      "Recommendation No. 21. The Government must play its part in creating conditions which will afford a proper basis for confidence."
      Have the Government done that? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain what part the Government have played in creating such conditions? Recommendation 22 states:
      "The British Government must create confidence that it will work for the maintenance of fair conditions in international trade."
      Then there was that very weak statement about the resumption of trade and manufacture in Japan from the President of the Board of Trade only a few weeks ago. Did that create very much confidence in Lancashire? I do not think it did. Recommendation 23 states:
      "There should be a clear statement of policy in regard to Japan."
      I suggest that all that the Government have said about their policy towards Japan has created alarm and despondency almost throughout the whole of the Lancashire industry. We cannot accept assurances that there is a world shortage of textiles, and therefore, there is no need to worry. We know there is a world shortage, but some of us know that very energetic steps are being taken by other countries to overcome that shortage, particularly in Brazil, where a large and

      535
      flourishing textile industry is now under way. I have already made reference to Japan. We all know how rapidly Japan is coming on, and how much yarn is being produced in Japan at the present time. Even in our own British Colonies, I understand that the Government have been considering the possibility of setting up a spinning and textile mill in Nigeria, in West Africa, and that it is only held up for the moment over some small matter of Excise Duty. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies is back after his recent visit to West Africa. I hope he will stay a little longer in the country for a change. He may be able to help us, perhaps, on the point about Nigeria. Of course, the shortage of textiles can be overcome in West Africa, but West Africa was one of our best and greatest markets in the past. I submit that the shortage may disappear very rapidly, and Lancashire may be on the rocks once again.
      Finally, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there are several alternative methods, all of which might well be preferable to the method which the President of the Board of Trade has chosen. First, what about a levy? It was very seriously considered and put forward by men who had given a great deal of thought to the subject. I know that it is not universally popular, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not the right thing to do. Secondly, what about a system of taxation relief? Why not allow more rapid depreciation allowances for new machinery? There would not then be any of this bother about amalgamation and the manoeuvreable units, and so on. Thirdly, what about the method adopted in the shoemaking industry? It is a private arrangement, but it is one which the Government might well copy. The British United Shoe Machinery Co., as is generally known and to which reference was made in the Working Party's report, leases the bulk of its machinery to the shoemaking industry, and does it so efficiently that if it hired this machinery free of charge to the shoemakers it would only reduce the cost per pair of shoes by 1¾d. There is something to be said for the method of hiring, because it would avoid the high capital charges of spinning firms and ensure that the hirer makes certain that the machinery he hires is
      536
      modern and up-to-date and continuously in a high state of repair. I will not weary the House with the details of that alternative. I suggest that it is another proposal which might well be considered and which might well have proved better than this hotchpotch grant about which we can find out so little.
      10.24 p.m.
      Mr. Osborne: I want to concentrate my remarks on Subhead J, which refers to cotton and wool utility cloth rebates. I have a number of questions to put, and if I am critical, I hope the Parliamenary Secretary will not object, because my questions are not put in an unfriendly spirit. Under that Subhead, we are asked to provide an additional £6½million required to meet the increase in the rates of rebate in pursuance of the general cost of living stabilisation policy. That policy is already breaking down, not only here, but in respect of food. The subsidies are going to break down altogether, and will have to be abandoned. In the light of that, I want to ask a few questions. The original amount that was asked under this Subhead was £8 million. We are now asked to provide another £6½ million, an increase of 75 per cent. If that is planning, I call it very bad planning. If we planned in that way in private industry, we should soon be out of business.
      Mr. Gallacher: You will be out of business soon anyhow.
      Mr. Osborne: Some of us would wish to see the Government out of business just as soon. Unless I get definite answers to the questions I wish to put under this heading, I shall want to vote against the Supplementary Estimate. I consider it is not only bad planning but shocking bad guessing. It may interest the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to know that if he thinks his Government are made up of well meaning old gentlemen, I think they are frightfully inefficient old gentlemen, and the sooner we are rid of them the better. This amount is put down as rebates, but the Parliamentary Secretary, when he spoke during the Committee stage, was much more honest—too honest almost for his Government. He did not call them rebates and try to hide them; he used the proper word "subsidies," and I would rather have them called subsidies. Tonight we are asked to vote an extra

      537
      £6,500,000 in subsidies for wool and cotton utility cloth. I am against subsidies generally, because they are like drugs, the more you have the more you have to have. They are also like drugs to this extent, that they make the nation which takes them live in a fool's paradise, and what is needed is for this country to be shocked into a realisation of its real position. Therefore I feel that these subsidies ought not to be increased, as we are asked to increase them tonight, but ought to be gradually and slowly eliminated.
      May I make this clear before I ask my practical questions? I am not against the idea of utility garments or goods. Utility goods, as the House will remember, are among the good things that came out of the war. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that utility goods are generally mass-produced, they are the best quality for the money, they are produced at a very low rate of profit, they do not attract Purchase Tax, and they give the buyer the very best value he can get for his money. They are, as I have often said in my own factory, an attempt to produce a Rolls Royce article at a Ford price. That I think is a very good idea. We produce in utility goods the maximum quality at a minimum price, and the housewife cannot buy better quality than utility. Therefore I am not quarrelling with the idea of utility products, but what I do complain of, and that is why I am against this extra £6,500,000, is that, having produced something which represents the best value for money, we then sell it at less than the cost of production. To my mind it is the height of folly. I want to see proper prices paid for the goods we produce.
      May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that his Department and the Government cannot say that utility prices ought to be subsidised because there is a shortage of money. We on the back benches are often recommended to read Government reports, and I have had a good weekend with them. In the White Paper Cmd. 7018, page 6, Section 18, we were told by the Government that the wages bill compared with 1939 had risen by £1,200 million per annum. Therefore, there is no shortage of purchasing power; that argument cannot be used to justify selling utility goods below their cost of production. It cannot be used as an argument for agreeing to spend a further £6,500,000
      538
      of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. On page 7, Section 19 of the same White Paper issued about a month ago, the Government told us that there was £7,000 million of purchasing power chasing £6,000 million worth of goods, and the Government were at great pains to explain to us that the great danger was the inflation that might come because of the £1,000 million gap.
      Surely if that be so, then it is the height of folly for the Government to be selling these utility goods at less than the cost of production and thereby increasing the gap. They ought to be charging the proper price and so absorbing some of the surplus purchasing power. In selling these utility goods at less than cost and in asking for this £6,500,000, the Parliamentary Secretary is doing a dangerous thing. He is increasing the amount of unexpended money. When the Parliamentary Secretary spoke in Committee on Friday, 7th March, he gave two reasons to justify the grant that we are asked to pass tonight. In the first place, he said that £2,000,000 of it was required for utility cotton cloth and household textiles. He said that of that £2,000,000 which was required for cotton utility goods, the bulk of it was required because cotton had gone up sixpence per pound in price during that period. If we are to subsidise this increase of price of cotton during this period just past, can the Parliamentary Secretary give me any idea whether he thinks, or his experts think, that cotton will go up again? Shall we be faced with a still greater subsidy for the next period? He does not know, but I think he ought to know. At least, he ought to have a much more intelligent guess than his original guess, because that was 75 per cent. out.
      The Parliamentary Secretary also went on to say that part of the £2,000,000 was to offset the increased labour costs in the production of yarn and cloths. I want to ask him if part of that £2,000,000 was for the increased wages in the cotton industry. Can he assure me there has been no increase since then, or whether any further increase is likely? I would like to refer him to the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for January, 1947. On page 4 the Government Department said that in February, 1946, there was a wage increase of l0s. per operative per week in the spinning section, and there was a reduction in the working hours from 48 to

      539
      45. I want to know this: is there any likelihood of a further reduction in working hours in the cotton industry and, if so, is it going to cause labour costs to increase so that we shall be faced with a still greater subsidy? If so, how much?
      May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of this? In the "Daily Telegraph" yesterday, the Industrial Correspondent gave the news on the front page that the four big railway unions were asking for an all-round increase of £I a week, and, in addition, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen were asking for a reduction in hours from 48 to 40, and the railway clerks were claiming a reduction to 35 hours a week. If the railway clerks get a 35 hour week granted—[Interruption] I am in Order.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think that is a matter for me to decide.
      Mr. Osborne: All I am asking is this. If one union gets a 35 hour week granted, the cotton spinners are going to ask for a 35 hour week as well, and will not be satisfied with a 44 hour week. If the cotton spinners get a reduction in hours, the cost of production will go up and up, and this House will be faced with a demand for a still bigger subsidy, which will run into sums much greater than we have under consideration.
      The Parliamentary Secretary's second reason for asking for this £6,500,000 was that he required an extra £4,500,000 on the wool side. These were his words:
      "This subsidy on utility wool, which was originally estimated to cost £3,250,000, was introduced in order to offset a wage increase in the heavy clothing industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 886.]
      Three-and-a-half millions was the estimate to begin with—and one has to remember that this Government said it could plan. It now turns out that it was 100 per cent. wrong. I should not like to employ planners like that, and I do not think that the nation wants planners of this sort. To justify asking for an extra £4½ million, the Parliamentary Secretary said—it is recorded in column 886 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—that it was to offset the increase in the price of men's suits and overcoats. That, he said, was why he wanted the extra £4½ million. He demands a vote of
      540
      £4½ million to subsidise wages, and sell men's coats and overcoats at less than cost of production. I would ask, if men are prepared to pay real prices for their beer and tobacco, why not for their clothes? —[Interruption.]—Why not? If they do pay a proper price, why does the hon. Gentleman ask for more money? His original demand for £3¼ million was purely for wages. He asks for another £4½ million for wages.
      What about the increased cost of wool? The hon. Gentleman said that cotton had risen by sixpence a pound, so he wanted two millions extra, but I would ask if he has considered the cost of wool. If not, then this House is faced with a terrible financial shock. The wool position with which we are dealing now is a most perilous position, and I want a specific explanation of this position. In the last few days, as is well known to the hon. Gentleman, the Wool Controller has authorised the top makers to increase their 64-tops prices from 4s. to 4s. 3d. a pound. Continental top makers are selling their tops at 8s. a pound—just about double our price. This unwise, this foolish Government, which controlled the whole of our wool, has allowed the Joint Organisation to sell freely the scarce quantities of merinos. They are being sought by the continental top makers, who can sell at 8s., contrasted with our controlled price of 4s. 3d., and the hon. Gentleman will find that the English top makers in the next period will not have the wool to produce. As a result of that we are faced with a clothing breakdown. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to deny it. I am told that tomorrow the President of the Board of Trade will probably make a statement, and it is my guess that he will say that there are not enough clothes to honour the coupons issued.
      Mr. Randall: Another crisis.
      Mr. Osborne: Well, without clothes, hon. Members opposite would think that it was a crisis. First, we hear that we have no coal, and then no food, and soon we shall hear we have no clothes. All this—and these are the planners; planners at a thousand a year. The supply of merino wools to our top makers in the face of competition from the French and the Belgians is a serious matter, and I want to know if they are going to get their supplies for the autumn.

      541
      In the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" which the Lord President recommended back benchers to read, for February, page 34, it sets out that the home consumption of wool for the last quarter of 1946 was at the rate of 750 million pounds weight of wool per annum; and on page 53 it shows that 80 per cent. of that was used for utility. Therefore about six hundred million pounds weight of wool is used in utility in a year. These statistics do not show us in the wool trade the same wealth of detail that we get in the cotton trade. Why is it that the Wool Controller is a law to himself and does not give the information? Why are we not given it? Why are we not given the same details from the Wool Control as we get from the Cotton Control? The Parliamentary Secretary cannot tell me, and no one can outside the Wool Control. I rang up the other day to try to get to know how much of the Merino we had used went into utility. We do not know; we should like to know. If we take the extreme case and say that our merino tops have to rise to the same price as Continental tops in order that we may get the yarn, it means is. a pound rise. That is, I know, an extreme case.
      That, on six hundred million pound weight per annum, means a subsidy of £120 million. That is the bill this country may have to face, and the Parliamentary Secretary well knows it. We are not dealing with chicken feed in money now, but with a great crisis which this Government has brought on by its bad handling of the wool position. The people of this country, whom an hon. Member seems to think it a joke to underclothe, will have something to say about it. If it is said by the Parliamentary Secretary that 4s. rise is an extreme case, I will agree with him, but I am told by reputable top spinners that a shilling rise is the least that they can expect to pay if we are going to have wool supplied for the autumn. That means another subsidy of £30 million, and I want to know what the Department is going to do about it.
      I do not think the remedy is to increase the cost of the article unreasonably. I think the solution is to say, as the Minister of Labour or the Parliamentary Secretary said a little while ago, for both sides of the industry to produce more. The answer is production, more production, and still more production. But the Par-
      542
      liamentary Secretary well knows that it is not the employers who are standing in the way of production today. It is third rate trade union leaders who are demanding shorter hours all the time, and I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to deny it. In the "Economic Survey for 1947," Command 7047, page 33, the Government told us this. They said that the textile and clothing industry before the war employed 1,803,000 Today it employs 1,405,000. That is, we are 400,000 work people short of our prewar total. Of course, what they are doing is making electric fires in order to burn the electricity that the Ministry of Fuel and Power cannot provide, and they are not providing clothes that would keep our people warm. And that is planning.
      What I want to know is this: if we are to attract these 400,000 people back into the textile and clothing industry we can-not do it on the grounds that our factories are modern and up to date, because the industry is old, especially the spinning side. We cannot expect girls to come from modern wartime factories willingly to go into the old fashioned mills. [Interruption.] I am glad that for once the hon. Member for West Fife has shown some sense. They will only come in on one ground and that ground is higher wages. If we are going to get these 400,000 back into our industries we have to attract them by paying higher wages. I should like to remind the House that in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for October, 1946, which is the last one to give us any comparable figures for any of our industries, on page 273, these average wages are given—Cotton, 805.; wool, 775.; hosiery, 675. [Interruption.] Those right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Government Front Bench have a chance to speak at any time. They should give an opportunity to us who are back bench boys to speak when we do get the chance, which is not often. As I was saying, in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" on page 273 these figures are given—Cotton, 805; wool, 775.; hosiery, 675. Then on the other side there are—Papermaking, 1045.; printing, rots.; rubber, TITS.; Government industrial establishments, 1075. 6d. We are not going to attract girls back into our mills and factories unless we pay higher wages.
      Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member just now said that third rate

      543
      trade union leaders were responsible for these conditions. Are not these third rate trade union leaders trying to get the higher wages which he is now advocating?
      Mr. Osborne: What the hon. Member does not understand—it is obvious he has not spent much time in industry—is the difference between high wages that are paid on a static job and the high wages based upon output per unit. The hon. Member who is sitting behind him will enlighten—
      Dr. Morgan: I know more about industry than does the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the latitude which I have allowed the hon. Member has been greatly exceeded. We cannot have a discussion on this Supplementary Estimate on a wages policy.
      Mr. Osborne: With very great respect, what I am trying to show—and I think I am in Order in so doing—is that if we are going to produce the clothing which the people of this country require, which they would have got under an efficient Government—that is the reason why they are not getting it now—we will have to encourage these 400,000 people to return to the industry.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not argue against my Ruling. What the hon. Member has just said is perfectly in Order, but his remarks previous to it were not.
      Mr. Osborne: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I must, of course, obey your Ruling. May I finish by saying that higher wages without higher production will involve us in bigger subsidies. We are asked to agree to an extra £6,250,000 subsidy which is going purely on wages. I am against using the taxpayers' money to increase wages, and then selling the products at less than the cost of production. I think it is the height of folly so to do. I would like some answers to my questions from the 'Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Board of Trade, and unless I get some reasonable answers and some assurance that next year greater subsidies will not be required, I am determined to vote against this demand for an extra £6,250,000, which I think is being flittered away.
      10.50 p.m.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I listened with great interest, as I am sure the House did, to the very many remarks of the hon Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), including, his reference to the railway clerks, which I did not understand as coming within the purview of the House on this Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Gentleman has spent a great deal of time arguing about subsidies. I am inclined to agree with him that if they can be avoided subsidies are not desirable things, but there are reasons for having them. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman, also, that subsidies were not invented by this Government. They existed long before this Government came into power, and I would refer him to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday in the course of the economic Debate when he said that he proposed not to omit the subject of subsidies from his Budget Speech. It would not be right for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget speech.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about the price of wool. He said that in this Supplementary Estimate we had mentioned the increased cost of cotton as being partly responsible for the increased requirement of finance. Wool had also increased in price; why had I not mentioned that in the Committee stage of this Supplementary Estimate? The answer is that wool was freed from Government control three or four months ago, since which time it has increased in price, but by careful adjustment of blends it has been possible to avoid an increase in the ceiling price of utility cloth. There is, therefore, no increased cost to be met out of this Supplementary Estimate. I would suggest that many of the detailed points which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman in connection with the Supplementary Estimate should properly be reserved for the full Board of Trade Estimates, and if he cares to raise these very multifarious questions of detail when we reach that point I, or whoever else is handling the matter on behalf of the Board of Trade, will be only too pleased to meet him.
      May I turn now to the points raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) about the scheme for assisting the re-equipment of the cotton

      545
      industry? I thought the major point which emerged from his speech and the most important question which he asked me was that concerning the levy which was suggested by the working party. We are proposing this 25 per cent. grant to the industry for re-equipment and he suggested that the proposal of the working party for a levy on the industry was a better way of dealing with the problem. The idea of the levy was very carefully gone into, and after full consideration it was dropped for two reasons. The hon. Gentleman himself has mentioned the question of increased competition in the future from other countries in the cotton industry. A levy on the cotton industry must inevitably mean an increase in the costs of that industry, and in the face of the increased potential competition that would be most undesirable and should be avoided if possible.
      Again, there is the cost of the ultimate product of the cotton industry to the home consumer, and it was felt—in my opinion quite rightly—that a better way to deal with the re-equipment of the industry was by a Treasury grant which would be spread over the whole of the country and its impact on any particular part of the country thereby lessened. I am quite sure that this is a better way than a levy which would increase costs and weaken Lancashire in the face of world competition.
      Mr. Erroll: Does that mean a levy on all sections of the industry or only on the spinning section? Are we, therefore, to expect re-equipment grants to apply to other sections of the industry in addition to the spinning section?
      Mr. Belcher: The hon. Gentleman should not prejudge future issues. We are dealing now with a specific issue, and anything I say about it tonight should not be taken as prejudging any other issue.
      I should like to spend a few minutes on what we are proposing to do about the cotton industry. The Working Party, in its report, stressed very strongly the urgent need for a considerable expansion of output, and pointed out that the industry is unlikely to achieve any great increase in manpower in the near future. That means that the increase in output would only be possible if the industry was immediately re-equipped with modern machinery on
      546
      a very considerable scale, and if the conditions were created in which modern machinery could be used to the best advantage. In order to stimulate this process, my right hon. and learned Friend announced, towards the end of the year when he paid a visit to Manchester, that the Government would be prepared to pay 25 per cent. of the cost of new machinery and equipment in cases where they were satisfied that the firms involved were making a genuine effort to re-equip their plant on modern lines, and to form units which were sufficiently large to face the stresses of the next few years. Some play was made about the mills being grouped into manoeuvrable units.
      Using modern machinery is no economy if you split it into tiny units which cannot possibly make the best advantage of it. You want large-scale production and long runs to make the best use of modern machinery. The best way is to group the units so that you can have economic producers utilising the best machinery available. There is nothing doctrinaire about it. As to what is a precise unit, that is a matter for discussion and agreement between the trade. We do not intend to compel people to close part of their production and amalgamate themselves with others.
      Mr. Erroll: Does that mean physical regrouping under one roof, or financial regrouping?
      Mr. Belcher: It might mean either or both. This is still in its infancy. If they can be grouped under one roof it might be an advantage, but it might not be possible owing to physical difficulties, in building, labour and so on. This offer of 25 per cent. towards re-equipment was made conditional on acceptance by both sides of the industry of the scheme as a whole. Since that time there have been discussions between the Government and both sides of industry, and we are still awaiting the final decision of the industry. I assure hon. Members that the sooner both sides make up their minds, the better we shall like it. We do not want to press them unduly. It is our firm intention that the scheme must be accepted as a whole, or not at all; that is to say, the 25 per cent. is conditional on both sides bringing the industry into line with the most modern conception of the cotton industry. There is no question of paying any subsidy

      547
      unless the industry are prepared to play their part. If the reaction from both sides is favourable—and we have very good reason to hope that it will—we shall be anxious to press ahead with this effort to build up the industry, and in particular, to do our share by putting up such money as may be required as quickly as possible.
      The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was inclined, on the Committee stage and again today, to question the form of this Supplementary Estimate for a token Vote of £10. It is true it is stated that this is an Estimate to obtain permission to spend a sum of £10 and to obtain Parliamentary authority, in principle, for a new service, to be followed by substantial provision in the main Estimates for the succeeding year. During the Committee stage it was suggested that there was something unusual in the procedure of this House, and I said that I would be prepared to provide some precedents on the Report stage. I have done so, but I do not propose to quote them all. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be satisfied with one. It is a precedent from the financial year 1938–39, from the Vote for prisons in England and Wales, and, singularly enough, is under Subhead O. It is for new buildings and alterations, and I was surprised to find that the wording was identical. The Vote was for the sum of £10, and the object of the token provision was to secure Parliamentary approval for that transaction.
      We are as anxious as any Member in any part of the House to do all we can to assist the cotton industry—indeed all industries—to get on to its feet as rapidly as possible. We have made this offer to the industry: that if they will try to put themselves in order we will, by financial provision up to 25 per cent. of the cost of re-equipment, assist them. They have been a long time making up their minds, and it appears unlikely that we shall be called upon to make this financial provision during the current year. We would not want anybody in that industry to be frustrated in their legitimate desire to modernise and reorganise because of our inability to make the necessary financial grant. Therefore, we ask for this token provision, which will put the matter in order, and will enable us to do what we ought to do,
      548
      should a legitimate request come forward. We have just had a three-day Economic Debate, during which Members on the other side of the House have urged on the Government the necessity of day to day assistance to British industry to get on its feet. We have been accused of being doctrinaire, of not concentrating sufficiently, day to day, on British industry. Here is an example of a Government Department, the Board of Trade, seeking the authority of the House to give this assistance if it is called for. I hope that the explanation I have given, and the precedent I have quoted, will enable the House to agree to the Report stage of this Supplementary Estimate.
      Captain Crookshank: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I would like to express our thanks to the hon. Gentleman for the very full way in which he has replied to the questions which have been put from this side of the House. We all realise that this has been a valuable Debate, because this is the first time in which we have had these details, which will be important to Lancashire and other parts of the country. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, particularly in view of the previous behaviour of his colleague, but I must say that the precedent he quoted did not seem to be a precedent at all, because he did not say that any legislation was foreshadowed in Subhead 0 in 1938–39. The whole point—
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is the right hon. and gallant Member withdrawing the Amendment?
      Captain Crookshank: I am asking the leave of the House to withdraw it, Sir. It is not for me to withdraw it unless the House allows me to do so.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  FOOD OFFICES (EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Michael Stewart.]
  11.7 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I assure the hon. Lady that

  549
  I should not have requested her presence at this late hour, or, indeed, detained you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the Chair but for the fact that I have been balloting for this Adjournment since before Christmas. Having at last been successful, I cannot throw away this golden opportunity. In October last, an important organisation in my constituency, the Beverley Service Welfare Bureau, which handles all problems which concern the proper conduct of assistance to Servicemen, expressed anxiety about the difficulty of returning soldiers in finding employment. Their investigations covered a wide field, including Government Departments. I was approached to try to find out what sort of percentage of ex-Servicemen and women were, in fact, so employed. The two Departments in which they showed primary interest were the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food.
  I accordingly tabled the necessary Questions. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture was immediately forthcoming, and supplied me with a figure of 67 per cent., which I admit at once is entirely satisfactory. I was not so fortunate with the Minister of Food. I tabled a Question to him last Session, on 4th November, asking what percentage of ex-Servicemen and women were employed by his Department, giving separate calculations for each sex, and distinguishing between those temporarily and permanently employed. He replied that the information could not be supplied without an undue expenditure of time and labour. However, when the new Session came upon us, I tried again. The right hon. Gentleman was the first Minister on the list, I put the Question down again on 2nd December. The right hon. Gentleman referred me to his previous reply, and I then put this supplementary question:
  "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put down an identical Question to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and an informative reply was forthcoming in seven days?"
  To this, the Minister of Food replied:
  "Yes, but my right hon. Friend has the good fortune to have a very much smaller staff and Department to deal with."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, and Dec., 1946; Vol. 431, c. 2.]
  It was at that point that I gave notice that I intended to raise the matter on the Adjournment, which at long last has now come my way. First of all, I must comment on the revealing nature of that reply. It really is rather interesting that a far
  550
  smaller staff are engaged in the work of production of food than is engaged in what I must describe as its maldistribution. I have endeavoured to make some inquiries into the situation, and the first evidence I could get came from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech in the House on 7th March. Replying to some observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), she said:
  "He must take into account that we employ very many married women. I think I gave the figure for Liverpool the other day—there are about 40 per cent. married women there—and throughout the country many of these workers are part-time, and we are very glad to have their services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 871.]
  That takes us a certain distance along the road. Yesterday, we had some more information. It was, perhaps, fortunate that I was not able to raise the matter until tonight, after all. Yesterday, we were informed that there are 2,000 more officials in the Ministry of Food, and that there is an increase in the Estimates on account of salaries of this Department of £563,000. I am bound to remark that in this Ministry the staff appears to increase in inverse ratio to the supplies available to the public, and I think we should know a bit more about it. There is a famous nursery rhyme about the old woman who lived in a shoe, and had so many children she did not know what to do. No one would be so unchivalrous and so far divorced from the truth as to apply that description to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, but I think it could reasonably be applied to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food. He has so many children that he does not know what they do, or at least is not prepared to tell us in the House. I submit that the House is entitled to know to what extent ex-Service men and women are getting opportunities of employment under this Ministry. I would like to say, in parenthesis, however, and in all good temper, that I hope none of them is engaged in the task of snooping. I hope they were not concerned in the instance in Brighton where an official and his typist went to dine at a restaurant—in agreeable circumstances—in the hope of coaxing the waitress into committing some breach of the regulations from which a prosecution could result. That would be abhorrent to ex-Service men and women of all kinds. I hope they are not engaged in the scrutiny of anonymous letters, which we have been

  551
  informed form an important part of the intelligence system of the Ministry of Food, but which every hon. Member puts into the nearest wastepaper basket.
  There has been a veil of secrecy over the Ministry of Food for some time. My hon. Friends have endeavoured on many occasions to obtain information about some of these bulk purchase transactions, and they have not been fortunate in that matter. I hope that the hon. Lady will see fit to lift at least one corner of the veil when she makes the observations which I know she will make tonight. I wish to make a further observation. I am sorry that the Minister is absent from the House. Had the right hon. Gentleman been here, I would like to have said it to him, but perhaps the hon. Lady will be good enough to convey to him what I am about to say. During the war, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food performed an important function as one of the publicity experts of the Royal Air Force. We all remember those excellent broadcasts he used to give from time to time on the work of that very great body of men, the Royal Air Force, and it is very disappointing to me that one who was so successful in that sphere should have closed up like an oyster—oysters are still obtainable, I believe, in luxury establishments—in the matter of giving information about the Ministry over which he presides. I think it is a very disappointing development, and one which the House is entitled to probe, because we really are interested in this matter of the placing in employment of ex-servicemen and women. I make it a matter of complaint that the right hon. Gentleman did not think it worth while to give this information when the question was first tabled in November, or when it was tabled again in December. I cannot believe that this information is unobtainable. It is forthcoming from other Departments, and I suggest that if it is really unobtainable, it reflects upon the efficiency of this Department. However, I have come down here more in a spirit of hope, than in a spirit of criticism. I have a feeling that the hon. Lady is going to satisfy my curiosity. I believe she sits there armed with the necessary information, at least, in general, which we are seeking, and it is with that hope that I raise this matter.
  11.16 p.m.
  Mr. Raikes: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) for having raised, at this late hour of the night, a matter of considerable public importance, and one which deserves an answer from the Ministry. One of the tragedies at the end of a great war is to find so many ex-Servicemen walking the streets—as they were even before the crisis—totally unable to get employment, particularly men with small disability pensions. A short time ago I asked the hon. Lady what was the percentage of married women employed in the Food Office in the city of Liverpool, and what was the percentage of ex-Servicemen. The hon. Lady, with her usual charm, gave a perfectly frank answer, the figures being 40 per cent. married women and about 14 per cent. ex-Servicemen. I asked the hon. Lady as a supplementary question would it not be better, in view of the need of ex-Servicemen for employment if the percentages were reversed. She gave a twofold answer. She said, first, that we were dealing with a food office where there were permanent and non-permanent staff, and it would be quite improper that permanent workers, who had been there for years and had pension rights and so on, should be displaced simply because there were ex-Servicemen needing jobs. That was a perfectly reasonable part of her answer, but the second half was that married women were now being encouraged to go into industry. That, in regard to this particular case, was bunkum, because, whatever a food office is, it is certainly not a productive industry—far from it.
  Of course, permanent employees with pension rights and everything else cannot be displaced by persons from outside. On the other hand, there is a considerable number of temporary jobs where a far greater preference should be given to ex-Servicemen than is given at the present time. We have on one side married women, whose husbands are in reasonable jobs, engaged in some Ministry or other, though, of course, we are only dealing with one particular Ministry tonight. On the other hand there are these married men who have fought either in this war or the last, some of whom have got a slight disability pension but who are suited to take small clerical jobs, who are debarred from these jobs which will

  553
  give them money. They are cut out, in some instances, by women whose husbands already have substantial jobs. It seems to me that that really is a tragedy. The Ministry ought to be made to give a greater preference to ex-Servicemen and particularly the ex-Serviceman with a small disability pension.
  The House no doubt remembers the old story of prewar days—I am afraid that it could not happen today—of the man who went into the butcher's shop and asked for some mutton. The butcher replied, "Oh, yes, here is a beautiful leg of mutton, as tender as a woman's heart." To which the man answered, "Oh, good heavens, take it away then, and give me a pound of sausages." I hope that the hon. Lady will remember that, and will indicate in her reply that there is no set war as between married women and ex-Service men; that she and her Ministry are anxious to give a real opportunity to the men who have suffered and struggled, either in this war or the last, and to remember that all women who are married—or most of them—are lucky in that they have husbands earning good money.
  11.19 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Most hon. Members will join with the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) in desiring to see all ex-Service men and women settled in suitable jobs. but I should point out that, whether men and women who have not served in the war should be replaced by those who have, is not a matter for my Ministry. It is a matter for the Treasury in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour. I think that the hon. and gallant Member should explain very carefully to the organisation which asked him to raise this matter that, on 8th October, 1946, the Ministry of Labour reaffirmed the policy against giving any preference to ex-Service personnel, and this was sponsored by the Coalition Government in 1945. Therefore, my Ministry, although it views with great sympathy an application for an ex-Service man or woman for a job, and tries always to place that man or woman, cannot shoulder the responsibility for settling all these ex-Service people who apply for jobs. This is a matter to be settled by
  554
  the Government as a whole and, of course, this has been decided.
  Mr. Raikes: Does the hon. Lady suggest that this House is entirely bound by a statement made by the Coalition Government before the end of the war?
  Dr. Summerskill: No, but it is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Food to settle ex-Service men and women. I think, when I give the explanation and the figures, the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness will understand why my right hon. Friend said that the conditions in the Ministry of Food are entirely different from those in the Ministry of Agriculture. In the first place, there are only 5,900 people in the Ministry of Agriculture, against 46,000 in the Ministry of Food, and those in the Ministry of Agriculture are mostly permanent officials.
  I should also explain that the reason why it was administratively difficult for us to give this information was that our officials are distributed throughout the country, while those in the Ministry of Agriculture are mostly at headquarters, and I am told that these files are kept at headquarters. The Ministry of Agriculture consists chiefly of permanent officials. The Ministry of Food is comprised as to the great majority of temporary workers, in fact 98 per cent. In order to obtain some information for the hon. and gallant Gentleman I asked our officials to examine and break down the numbers of staff employed at headquarters and in the headquarters offices, that is, excluding Oxford. There are 6,000 people employed, of whom 1,890 or 30 per cent. are ex-Service, and of the permanent staff, 356 out of 962, or 37 per cent. are ex-Service personnel. Now, if we tried to obtain the figures for the whole country it would mean examining outside headquarters, the personal files of 40,000 people who are distributed in 13,000 or more offices and I think the hon. and gallant Member would agree with me that our staffs at the moment are very hard pressed. We have not calculated how many man hours that research would take but when my right hon. Friend said that the task which he was asked to undertake was of much greater magnitude than that of the Ministry of Agriculture he was quite correct.
  May I say a word for those serving in our local food offices? I think hon. Mem-

  555
  bers will agree with me that in a total war is is not necessarily the individual who wears uniform who faces the greatest danger, and those people throughout the country working as they did in many vulnerable areas, kept this food machine of ours working without, I think, any serious breakdown of any kind. I know myself of a number of food offices which were blitzed. I know full well many of the people, including married women, who faced up to all sorts of perils, and I hesitate to say that because these people were not called up, they should not at this stage be given the same consideration as those who were called up. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that those who experienced war on the Home Front showed as great a degree of bravery as those who were abroad, and it is very difficult today to say that a person who had not been directed to the Services should receive different treatment. Many of the men and women with the Food Ministry and other Ministries were directed there during the war. An individual could not choose his or her work. Many were encouraged to stay in the Ministry of Food and some were directed there, rather than to the Services. The hon. and gallant Member surely would not ask us to displace these people by ex-Service personnel.
  May I say a word about married women? In the "Evening News" tonight I saw a cartoon which I think was very appropriate and to which I would like to direct the attention of the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes). I must confess I was very surprised to hear the hon. Member's remarks because I remember that during the war he and I attended an unforgettable meeting in the North of England where he encouraged married women to learn to shoot and I supported him. We presented a united front on that occasion. We felt that if the Huns came, married women would be quite as capable of shooting at them and defending their homes, as would single women or men. I know the enthusiasm which the hon. Member expressed for the attitude which the women were showing in those days. Yet he comes to the House tonight and says, "These women must be replaced." I would direct his attention to the cartoon in the "Evening News". It depicts an official from the Ministry of Labour going into the
  556
  kitchen of a harassed woman standing over the sink, and offering her a bouquet and a large box of chocolates, to tempt her to come out of the kitchen and into industry.
  Mr. Raikes: But not into the Ministry of Food.
  Dr. Summerskill: But if we remove a woman from the Ministry of Food, it may simply be creating a vacancy which will be filled by somebody who could be doing a job in a factory perhaps or in some place which would be more productive than the Food Ministry. I should have thought that after last week's Debate it would be a retrograde step for us tonight to say that married women are prohibited from working. I can assure the hon. Member that married women today are not doing a job for the sake of whiling away a few hours or for a little pin money. The married woman who works today is, in fact, doubling her output by doing a job in the factory or the Ministry of Food and doing a job at home. After she does her job in the Ministry of Food, she has to queue for food very often, and has to go home and do a physically arduous job scrubbing her house and doing the chores. I have never observed restrictive practices operating to prevent married women overworking. I would also remind the hon. Member that in the home, the married woman is not legally entitled to one penny for her labours, so do not let us decry her that small measure of economic independence which she might enjoy outside.
  Mr. Raikes: Would the hon. Lady agree that almost all married women contrive to get the greater part of their husbands' wages?
  Dr. Summerskill: I would not. The hon. Member would be surprised how many married women do not know what their husbands earn. Finally, I must remind hon. Members who have raised this matter—I hope that as far as figures are concerned that I have been able to satisfy them—that in the last war, except for a very few people, most men and women in this country were pulling their weight. Those men and women who were working in the Ministry of Food did serve a very useful purpose and are doing so now. Many of them are highly skilled. Hon. Members who listen to questions on food

  557
  being answered from this Box must know that the Ministry of Food today is the biggest trading concern in the world, and these men and women who serve in the food offices require a detailed knowledge of matters which concern every kind of commodity. We cannot lightly dispense with their services, but I can assure hon. Members that we shall continue to regard
  558
  sympathetically every application from ex-Service men or women made to the Ministry of Food.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY
  Devonport Dockyard (Electrical Power)
  Devonport Dockyard (Electrical Power)
  Royal Marine Barracks, Devonport (Newspaper Delivery)
  Royal Marine Barracks, Devonport (Newspaper Delivery)
  Requisitioned Premises, Glasgow
  Requisitioned Premises, Glasgow
  Requisitioned Dwellings, Portsmouth
  Requisitioned Dwellings, Portsmouth
  Cloth Suits
  Cloth Suits
  MAILS TO WEST AFRICA
  MAILS TO WEST AFRICA
  B.B.C. (WEATHER BROADCAST)
  B.B.C. (WEATHER BROADCAST)
  R.A.F. (TRANSIT CENTRE, AUSTRIA)
  R.A.F. (TRANSIT CENTRE, AUSTRIA)
  FOOD POINTS AND CLOTHING COUPONS
  FOOD POINTS AND CLOTHING COUPONS
  ARMED FORCES (CIVILIAN WORKERS)
  ARMED FORCES (CIVILIAN WORKERS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Empty Milk Bottles
  Empty Milk Bottles
  Milk Allowance (Old People)
  Milk Allowance (Old People)
  Bitter Oranges (Allocations)
  Bitter Oranges (Allocations)
  Imported Fruit (Department's Purchases)
  Imported Fruit (Department's Purchases)
  Bread Coupons
  Bread Coupons
  CIVIL AVIATION (ABERDEEN-LONDON)
  CIVIL AVIATION (ABERDEEN-LONDON)
GERMANY
  Coalminers (Displaced Persons)
  Coalminers (Displaced Persons)
  Derequisitioned Property
  Derequisitioned Property
  Food and Clothing Parcels (Despatch)
  Food and Clothing Parcels (Despatch)
  Displaced Families, Dortmund
  Displaced Families, Dortmund
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
  Consumer Goods
  Consumer Goods
  Delayed Letter
  Delayed Letter
  SPAIN (POLITICAL CONDITIONS)
  SPAIN (POLITICAL CONDITIONS)
  HUNGARY (BRITISH NOTE)
  HUNGARY (BRITISH NOTE)
AFRICAN COLONIES
  Kenya Tailoring Trade
  Kenya Tailoring Trade
  Native Administration Salaries, Nigeria
  Native Administration Salaries, Nigeria
  Direct Taxation, Uganda
  Direct Taxation, Uganda
  Consumers' Co-operative Societies (Supplies)
  Consumers' Co-operative Societies (Supplies)
  Nigerian Cocoa Marketing
  Nigerian Cocoa Marketing
  Customs Department, Gold Coast (Inquiry)
  Customs Department, Gold Coast (Inquiry)
  Anti-Malarial Drug
  Anti-Malarial Drug
  Mass Radiography, West Africa
  Mass Radiography, West Africa
  Medical Service, Sierra Leone
  Medical Service, Sierra Leone
  Pig Production, Kenya
  Pig Production, Kenya
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Trade Union Advisers
  Trade Union Advisers
  Annual Statement
  Annual Statement
MALAYA
  Indian Disturbances, Kedah
  Indian Disturbances, Kedah
  Administrative Staff
  Administrative Staff
  Government Pensioners
  Government Pensioners
  Medical Service
  Medical Service
  Revised Constitution (Consultations)
  Revised Constitution (Consultations)
  Non-Interned Asiatic Civil Servants (Back Pay)
  Non-Interned Asiatic Civil Servants (Back Pay)
  MIGRATION TO SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  MIGRATION TO SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  CEYLON (EXPORT DUTIES)
  CEYLON (EXPORT DUTIES)
PALESTINE
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Immigration Certificates
  Immigration Certificates
  Casualties
  Casualties
  Arab Petroleum Workers, Haifa (Dispute)
  Arab Petroleum Workers, Haifa (Dispute)
  CANAL (MEDITERRANEAN—GULF OF AKABA)
  CANAL (MEDITERRANEAN—GULF OF AKABA)
  AUXILIARY ADMIRALTY BUILDING (REMOVAL)
  AUXILIARY ADMIRALTY BUILDING (REMOVAL)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Restrictive Practices (Employers)
  Restrictive Practices (Employers)
  Industrial Ten Coupons (Teachers)
  Industrial Ten Coupons (Teachers)
  Clothing Coupons (Hospital Cleaners)
  Clothing Coupons (Hospital Cleaners)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Street Sales, S.E. London
  Street Sales, S.E. London
  Domestic Allowances (Old People)
  Domestic Allowances (Old People)
  ORDNANCE FACTORY, BARNLOW
  ORDNANCE FACTORY, BARNLOW
BRITISH ARMY
  Camp, Tynemouth Castle (Conditions)
  Camp, Tynemouth Castle (Conditions)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  TUDOR I AIRCRAFT.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first of the questions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Tudor I aircraft has yet been accepted as satisfactory by B.O.A.C. for service on Empire and North Atlantic routes; how many Tudor Is are completed or under construction to the order of His Majesty's Government or the Government owned Corporations; if production is still being proceeded with according to plan, and what are the anticipated delivery dates of those not yet completed.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, The Tudor I has not yet been accepted by British Overseas Airways Corporation as satisfactory for service on their routes. Action is being taken to develop the type up to the standard required by this corporation but it is too early to make a pronouncement regarding the time which will be needed to complete this development. The noble Lord asked how many Tudor Is have been completed or are under construction to the order of His Majesty's Government or the Government-owned corporations. The two prototypes of the Tudor I have been completed and one of these is to be used to gain information on the use of jet engines in large civil aircraft. To this end it will be fitted with four Rolls Royce Nene jet engines and will be known as the Tudor VIII. Of the original order for twenty-two production aircraft, sixteen will be completed as Tudor Is for British Overseas Airways Corporation and eight of these have been test flown. A further two are on order for the Ministry of Civil Aviation and are
  474
  equipped to a different for special communications duties. These will be known as Tudor IIIs. The remaining aircraft, which will be known as Tudor IVs, are being developed from the original Tudor I to meet the special requirements of British South American Airways Corporation. These aircraft have a longer fuselage than the Tudor I and carry thirty-two passenger.
  The noble Lord also asked about the production of these aircraft. Production is proceeding, but amendments to the original programme have been occasioned from time to time by technical design difficulties. Further delay has been caused by the fact that during the recent period of fuel restrictions the factory was closed for nearly a month. A modified delivery programme for the British Overseas Airways Corporation aircraft cannot yet be given as this depends upon the degree of modification found to be necessary. The extent of these modifications will not be known until the investigations by the manufacturer and the Ministry of Supply have been completed. The first Tudor IV is due to fly at the end of this month.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I wonder if he could give me two more pieces of information? First, can we have an assurance that until the Tudor I is completely acceptable to B.O.A.C. no request will he made to them to take it over? Second, does this extra delay portend the purchase of any further American civil aircraft for our Government-owned corporations?
  LORD NATHAN: As regards the first of the noble Lord's supplementary questions, B.O.A.C. will, of course, not be required to take over any aircraft which are not found to be satisfactory for the purpose for which they are intended. The second part of the noble Lord's question scarcely seems to arise upon this.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: If I put down a question I presume that the noble Lord will answer it.

BRABAZON I TRIAL FLIGHTS.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is still anticipated that the Brabazon I Civil Air Liner will carry out trial flights by the forecast date in the second half of 1947.]
LORD NATHAN: The present indications are that the prototype of the Brabazon I will start its trial flights before the end of this year.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION.
2.10 p.m.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL rose to call attention to the grave economic situation of this country disclosed in Cmd. 7046; and to move to resolve that this House deplores the inadequacy of the measures hitherto taken and proposed by the Government to remedy the economic situation of the country. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion on the Order Paper, and I will try in as short a time as possible to deal with some of the questions which it raises. I originally put down a Motion many months ago, before I had any knowledge of the forthcoming publication of Cmd. 7018 and Cmd. 7046. It was put down as the result of some remarks which I made on a Motion on the economic situation moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, in May last year, when I expressed the view that at that time we had not enough information to judge of the economic situation of this country or of the effect which the policy of the Government might have had on that situation. In the interval, a great deal of information was made available, and lastly, of course, the information which appeared in Cmd. 7046.
I was, however, not willing to change the terms of the Motion which stood on the Order Paper for these months until I had heard what the spokesmen of the Government in another place and elsewhere might have to say on the economic situation. I think the noble Lords opposite will give me credit, in such remarks as I may have made on the economic situation and other similar matters, for having tried to be fair in my comments and in giving credit where credit was due. If I appear to be critical this afternoon, I hope that what I say will be judged on what I have said in the past, and not
476
be taken as merely controversial, more especially as the critical terms in which my Motion is now couched were drafted only after I had heard and read what was said in another place.
May I, before coming to the main body of what I have to say, apologize in advance to your Lordships for exceeding the time which I usually permit myself when addressing your Lordships? The subject is a very large one, and it may take a little longer than I usually spend in addressing your Lordships' House. Even so, I cannot hope to cover all the subjects that I would like, and indeed, is opening a debate of this sort in your Lordships' House, it is perhaps preferable that the opener should confine himself to introducing the subject and allow others fully to develop particular aspects. I therefore propose to make only a few general comments on the White Paper and on one or two other matters, and to deal primarily with the financial situation as I see it. I hope that other noble Lords who follow me will find the time to develop many of the subjects that I would have liked to speak on but which would take much too long to try and bring in. In particular I hope that we shall have the advantage of hearing the views of the noble Lord, Lord Quibell. on the financial incentives to greater output of which he has such an intimate personal experience.
May I now go on to the little that I have to say about Cmd. 7046—in other words the White Paper which recently appeared? I spent a happy evening a few days ago trying to recollect what I had learnt when I was a great deal younger on the methods of critical exegesis of the Old Testament and other books of Holy Writ, in order to determine the authorship or origin of the statements contained in the White Paper. That analysis entertained me very much. I did not, of course, know who were the various authors who contributed to this document, but I certainly found that they were many and various; and various, in particular, in style of writing and in their approach to the subject matter. I do not want to go deeply into this matter, but I recommend it to those of your Lordships who have a spare evening, because you will find it quite entertaining to mark in the margin the various sources of codices from which this compilation, as we now have it, came.
I would like to say a few words on that subject. It appeared to me, first of all, that there was one original author or source of authorship—one original codex as they would say in Biblical analysis—and I would like to christen him, since his name is unknown, as "Prato-Jeremiah." He was evidently a gentleman of liberal antecedents and background, and of very orthodox approach to the problem with which he was dealing. But evidently that particular manuscript suffered some mutilation—I do not know how. No doubt parts of it were rubbed out, cut out, lifted out, or sorted out, and another school of authorship inserted the missing paragraphs which I think bear some similarity to the school of Laodicea. If further references are necessary they will be found, I think, in Revelations 3, and there also can be found what the author of that noble Book said about the people of Laodicea.
Finally, when there were still some other gaps left to he filled in, a clerkly hand inserted at odd intervals throughout the Paper, like the recurrent note of a high-pitched instrument in an orchestra: "We must have harder work. We must have more production. We must have a bigger man-output per annum." The result is the document which we have before us, a mixture of a lot of authors and no doubt designed for consumption by the people. In fact, if I may say so with respect, the document itself favours of an attempt, in its conclusions, to reach a compromise which will not offend more people than is strictly necessary.
The other two conclusions to which I have come upon that document—and I think most of your Lordships will agree with me—are that the White Paper does not contain a plan, not even for 1947, much less for future years. In fact, it scarcely even discloses a policy. It merely states a number of pious hopes and attempts to forecast what it is hoped will happen in 1947. In justification of those remarks, I would ask your Lordships to turn to Page 6, where a chapter heading will be found entitled "How the Plan is made." It exposes quite freely how the plan is made, but the next chapter heading is "Attaining a Balance." There is no intervening part dealing with what is the plan which is supposed to be made by the machine described. On the other hand, Economic Survey does marshal very clearly a number of facts for which
478
we are grateful and on which I naturally cannot comment. The information is derived from sources which are not open to most of your Lordships, and the conclusions are no doubt well-founded on the information available. We are very grateful for that information, but, to say the least of it, it is not reassuring, nor does it present a very happy picture.
There is one point about the presentation. of the picture to which I would now like to draw your Lordships' attention. The magnificent effort in increasing production over 1946, as compared with 1945, is clearly and admirably set out on Page 10. The figures speak for them, selves, and reflect the greatest possible credit on everybody concerned in achieving that production. But what is not brought out in the Paper, but which I think does appear in the Statistical Digest—which, in spite of what Sir Stafford Cripps has said, I at any rate, have been in the habit of reading for as long as I have been able to get it—is that the figures brought out in that Digest are not so reassuring as those which are contained in the summary of the year's comparison on Page 10, as compared with last year. I hope that noble Lords opposite have equipped themselves with the Statistical Digest. I have a few spare copies, if any one would like to have one in order to follow what I have to say.
I cannot take up your Lordships' time by going through the tables which have attracted my attention most particularly, but my general conclusion from them is that though production in 1946 was, as a whole, very much higher than in 1945, probably the last six and certainly the last three months of the year showed a marked change from and contrast to the earlier months of that year. In other words, put in summary form, the rate of increase in production in the first six months of last year was, to say the least of it, not maintained in the latter months of that year. In some respects there was a very definite falling off. In certain respects production was lower absolutely and lower comparatively. If any noble Lords opposite wish to challenge me on these statements, I will go through the tables seriatim with them, but I would not advise them to do it. I have twenty-three tables which I have analysed, and I shall be happy to pass over my marked copy in due course, but I think your Lordships would not wish me to go into too much detail.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD PAKENHAM): If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, he must not take silence on this occasion for consent.
LORD RENNELL: I accept that. I therefore point to one or two tables to substantiate what I say. In the first place, I would ask those of your Lordships who have the Statistical Digest to turn to Table 40 on Page 33, which deals, for instance, with textile production. Textile production is a matter of great anxiety to all of us, and though you will find, on looking through the table, figures for the production of cotton yarn and woven fabrics, and the increase of those two staple commodities in this country, if you will compare them with the increase of spindles and the increase of looms working at the end of last year, as compared with 1945, you will find there has been a larger increase in the number of looms and spindles operating than there has been in the production of looms and spindles respectively. In the case of output, the increase, roughly, is something of the order of 12 per cent. The increase of machinery operating is of the order of 23 per cent. That is an unsatisfactory figure I do not know if your Lordships wish me to go through these tables, in view of the challenge which I think was implied in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, but in fairness to myself I must turn to one other table, that dealing with the production of building materials, which your Lordships will find in Tables 75 to 77.
There you will find the interesting phenomenon of slightly increasing employment, substantially increasing unemployment, and a falling output—a falling output reflected very clearly in the last figures in Table 76 on Page 64, where you will find that the principal staple building materials are falling off in volume. Indeed, stocks are rising—it is the one and only case in this country, I think, where stocks do appear to be rising—which appears to indicate a mal-adjustment in the building industry as a whole, to which subject I will return, because I think one of the explanations will fit that particular case. I could go through the others but in spite of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, I had better refrain, because I think your Lordships
480
would be extremely bored by a series of statistics. The only other thing I have to say on that particular point is that the rate of increase has at any rate flattened out, and may indeed have turned down—and that on internal production. The same, of course, has notoriously been true in regard to exports. There is a little picture in the Digest on Page 81 which shows very clearly the sharply-rising scale of exports in the first part of last year and the very distinct flattening out of the scale in the latter part of the year.
There are other features which tend to contribute to the conclusion to which I have come—namely, that the promise of the early part of the year was not maintained, but that conclusion, if right, is not referred to in Cmd. 7046. I think due note should be taken of it, because leaving out of account—if it is possible to leave out of account—the effects of the coal crisis last month, which are still largely upon us, the decline in production will obviously be sharp and visible. It is a decline in production which is not wholly attributable to the coal crisis of last month, because the symptoms to which I have referred started as early as October of last year, if not a little earlier. I do not wish to say anything this afternoon about the coal crisis, not because I do not think it is serious but because so much has already been said that there is little I can usefully add. I do, however, want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that whether or not production had the setback which it obviously will have as a result of the coal crisis, there was evidence, if not of a setback, of a very considerable slowing down of recovery before that coal crisis set in. My belief is that we should have had a production crisis in the spring or summer of this year in any event, and I have tried to show your Lordships the evidence on which I have based that conclusion.
In the terms of my Motion, I have to show, if I can, that the measures hitherto taken and proposed by the Government are inadequate to remedy the economic situation of the country. That subject actually falls into two parts. The Motion refers to the inadequacy of the measures hitherto taken and those which are proposed. I am going to deal with those two subjects separately. The measures hitherto taken do not apparently include

481
a plan. It seems to be clear from the Command Paper in question, and from what has been said by Government spokesmen in many places, that hitherto there has been little, if anything, in the way of a plan. Indeed, in another place the President of the Board of Trade spoke about what he was going to do in terms which left many with the conclusion that there had not been a plan up to date—and that after nearly two years of office of a Government devoted to, and leaning on for support, the creation of a plan. But there is more evidence than that of the inadequacy of the measures taken. There appears to have been a considerable lack of coherence between various Departments of His Majesty's Government in doing what they have done. The examples of this sort of thing which can be quoted are almost innumerable. They have been quoted in another place, and they arc constantly quoted in the Press, so I will confine myself to one or two rather obvious ones.
The White Paper and many spokesmen have referred to the difficulties occasioned, especially in the coal situation, by the shortage of railway wagons. We are agreed that that is a very good reason for a part, at any rate, of the shortage of coal, and the difficulties in distributing coal. I would ask your Lordships to turn to Table 108 on page 92 of the Digest and consider the rapidly growing volume of export of railway wagons in the early part of 1946, which continued until the end of that year—it is one of the exceptions to what I have said. That does not seem to be a very coherent policy to have pursued. We have been told that one of the difficulties arising out of the supply of electricity has been the lack of generating plant, which, for obvious reasons, could not be set up during the war. Why has generating plant for export received priority? That does not seem to be very coherent or consistent. We are short of many comestibles in this country, as we all know. I agree that we owe a duty to our Colonies to give them what we can. Sir Stafford Cripps, quite rightly, referred to that in another place. Is it necessary, however, to export jam and biscuits to Kenya, where they manufacture both and from which country I have received back in the form of parcels from friends products exported from Great Britain, coupled with letters of complaint that
482
their own folk were being deprived of these articles in England and they did not want them in Kenya if it meant a shortage here? Is that very coherent?
We were told by the Prime Minister in another place, I think, that the import of £1,000 worth of feeding stuffs would produce £2,000 worth of food products. He explained the difficulties of obtaining allocations of feeding stuffs, and I agree that they obviously have been difficult to get, especially lately, and the price that we have had to pay for what we have got has been very high. I will refer to bulk purchase in a minute. But are the noble Lords who are to reply prepared to say that at no time during 1946 was it possible to buy feeding stuffs, when Russia and other countries purchased feeding stuffs in sufficient quantity to offer us the food products created out of them? If the allocations to those countries were made by the international organizations—first, the Combined Food Board, and then by the Committee which took its place—were representations made that those allocations may have been in excess of the requirements of those countries for internal consumption? And throughout that year did representatives of this Government find themselves faced with a flat refusal from all producers of feeding stuffs to supply us with more than we have been able to import?
I have no doubt that other speakers will develop the subject of the agricultural policy generally, but I think it is fair to say that the recommendations constantly made, and referred to in the White Paper, have not been carried out. The housing that was promised, not merely for dwellers in rural districts but for agricultural workers, has been coming in such derisory amounts as to be a matter for real indignation. Have the promises of material and priorities for the repair and renewal of farm buildings been honoured? From my experience, at any rate, I can say that as month after month elapsed during 1946 the delays in obtaining permits for any work on farm buildings increased as the year went on. In 1945 it was relatively easy to get repairs done and renovations made. By the end of 1946 it took me four months to get permits, and even then they were not complete. If noble Lords opposite wish to see the correspondence, I will send it on to them. It took me fourteen weeks to get a permit from the control under which I come for

483
five gallons of paint. Up to date it has taken me thirteen weeks to get the necessary permits to re-roof a granary, in spite of the urgent representations of the war agriculture committee of the county in which I live. After the permit came through, it took a further six weeks for a permit for slates to arrive, because it had been forgotten, and even now I have not had a permit for timber. The last time I asked for some timber to repair a workman's cottage it arrived four months after the permit was granted.
Is that an attitude which is helpful to agriculture, or which is likely to result in increased agricultural production (to which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, referred in connexion with the White Paper which was recently published, and which is recommended in this White Paper), not only to feed this country but to save dollars and to save the expenditure of foreign currency on purchases? The promises which have been made have not been carried out; and they have not been carried out, as I see it, for precisely the same reason that these other difficulties have arisen—namely, a lack of coherence and a lack of connexion between the various Departments of His Majesy's Government and their responsible Ministers who are interested in the subjects.
I must quote one other instance to which I think insufficient attention has perhaps been drawn. Reference was made in another place, as it has been made in the Press, to the export of agricultural machinery—notably tractors—which was wanted in this country. But one fact, I think, has escaped the attention which it deserves; that is an order which is reported to have been placed in America for 10,000 engines which are, I understand, to machine a new tractor of a somewhat experimental nature which is being produced under Government auspices at Coventry, but which has not been tried out and which, at any rate in America, has not been a conspicuous success. Those 10,000 engines are being ordered in America and paid for in dollars, whereas the tractors which are being made here are being exported—and I do not believe any noble Lord would suggest that one country to which they are being exported is the United States, which would produce the dollars to pay for these additional engines. In other words, we have a notorious example of an export going on a very con-
484
siderable scale to what are called "soft" or "other currency" countries and an import being made from a "hard" currency country of precisely the same sort of machinery which we are manufacturing here and which we could have kept.
What is the conclusion that one draws from this? It is that the decline in productivity to which 1 have referred, or the flattening out of the rate of increase, is due to that lack of coherence and to that lack of policy of which there is internal evidence in the shape of Government spokesmen saying that we must now have a plan and a planning department. I turn now to the last subject with which I wish to deal before closing, and that is the financial aspect of our situation. It is, I think, a matter of surprise to everyone who has read Cmd. 7046 that no reference appears therein to the financial situation. That seems to me extremely difficult to understand. I do not accept the facile explanations that have been produced for it, but there must he some explanation. I utterly fail to understand how a document which is entitled Economic Survey for 1947 can neglect, and make no reference whatsoever to, the financial situation of the country, either favourable or unfavourable. Certain aspects of the financial situation of this country are extremely good. Let us admit that the administration has been extremely good. Let us also agree that the Budget estimates appear likely to have a very successful outcome, and that the policy adopted in framing them about a year ago was to create, over a period of years, a balanced Budget. I say "over a period of years" because my friends on these Benches and myself have always felt that to attempt to balance a Budget in any one year was not necessary and, frequently, was not desirable.
I make no suggestion that the Budget should have been balanced last year, or that it should necessarily be balanced next year; but (and this is important) what affects the financial position—the price structure and the wage structure—of a country in the financial context is not so much the state in which it is at any moment over a period of years as the direction in which it is moving. I shall have something to say about that, but I will anticipate a little in referring to the long-term rate of money. It is not the long-term rate of money itself, if it is low,

485
like 2½ per cent., which affects the day-to-day situation; it is the change of rate from one level to another. In proof of that, if proof were needed, I could draw your Lordships' attention to a very well-known chart, going back over 100 years, of the price of money, wages and so forth, with which I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, will be entirely familiar. It will not be unknown to your Lordships that the rates of money during the last century, from 1840 onwards, were constantly at a low level, ranging from about 3¼ per cent. to 3½ per cent, down to 3 per cent. That was at a time when all activity, industrial and agricultural, in this country was at its lowest ebb, and it was not that which stimulated the recovery. It is not, therefore, the rate of money to-day at 2½ per cent. which matters; it is the rate of change.
Pursuing that particular line, I want particularly to draw your Lordships' attention to what has happened in the last one and a half to two years. It was the avowed policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce long-term money rates, and that is a policy with which I personally find myself wholly in agreement. I have nothing at all to say against that, and I doubt whether there are many in your Lordships' House who have. I have nothing to say against the maintenance of that rate, if it can be maintained, at the present level—as indeed I hope it will be, and as indeed, after what has happened, I think any Government will have to seek to do. What I complain about is the price we have had to pay to do what has been done in the short time in which it has been done. I believe the consequences of that policy are very serious. If your Lordships will look at Page 103 of the Statistical Digest which we have been recommended to consider, in the bottom right-hand corner you will find a little picture of the rate of return on Consoles, from which it will be seen that the rate of long-term money fell from 3 per cent. to 21 per cent. in the last six months of 1946.
May I now ask your Lordships to turn to what, in summary form, may be called the price that was paid for doing that? On page 109 there will be found the measure of that price in the aggregate volume of deposits in London Clearing Banks. You will find that in the second half of 1945, during which the fall from
486
3 per cent. to 2¾ per cent. took place, bankers' deposits increased by roughly £100,000,000—from—4,751,000,000 to £4,850,000,000. In the course of 1946 the rate of interest was brought down from 2 per cent. to 2½ per cent., and the price which was paid to do that is reflected in the increase of the deposits of the London Clearing Banks in the year 1946, a figure of no less than £835,000,000. That is the measure of the increased credit which has had to be created in order to produce that result. It is a very heavy price to pay, but that is the price we have had to pay. It is referred to in the first of the two White Papers as the existence of a very much larger volume of purchasing power than there are commodities which can be supplied. That is a situation which the Government have attempted to correct by what is now the only method open to them—namely, by controls. The incentive of saving has practically disappeared in the reduction of the rate of interest, coupled with the rate of Income Tax which is payable. The only other method of getting people to put their money into savings is to prevent them spending it in other directions—in other words, by control. That is. the price we have had to pay for achieving what has been achieved. I suggest to your Lordships that it is not only too high a price to have paid, but indeed a very dangerous one, and all the more dangerous when that additional purchasing power has been created on what may be a falling productivity, or at any rate a productivity which is not increasing at the rate it was earlier.
Therefore, I come to this conclusion: that so far from the measures taken to remedy our economic situation up to date being adequate—which is the point made in the first part of my Resolution—they have been not only inadequate but, in many respects, mischievous and misplaced, due to the lack of a unified policy between the various Departments of His Majesty's Government who are responsible. One Department does one thing without paying adequate attention to what another Department wants. The Treasury work their own merry way to achieve their object, and achieve it very successfully, but not necessarily in the best interests of the whole. I trust your Lordships will allow me to add that, so far as my

487
Resolution is concerned about what has happened in the past, I have adduced a sufficiency of examples and of evidence to show that I am justified en saying that the measures hitherto taken to remedy the economic situation of the country are inadequate.
Before I close, I must pass to the second part of my Resolution which concerns the measures proposed by the Government for the future. What are those measures? Those measures, so far as I could learn from statements made in another place and even more recently last night, consist of the President of the Board of Trade's proposal, nearly two years after the Government have been in power, to create a Joint Planning Board with a planner, and secondly, an appeal by the Prime Minister to support the Government in their plan—although I am not clear what the plan is. On the first point I have, a only one comment to make. Every Ministry in His Majesty's Government have a planning department now; we have been told that. We are now to have a planner to co-ordinate the conclusions and policies of those planning departments. It has been the, experience of many of us in the Army that where a General Staff is working badly you get more and more co-ordinating sections, you get more and more liaison officers and more and more people who are trying to connect up what separate individuals are all trying to do on their own instead of doing together.
I therefore suggest that the first appeal for unity and for a team lies at the door of the Ministers of His Majesty's Government. It is for them to co-ordinate the plans of their various Departments, and it is for the Cabinet to decide. A Joint Planning Board, however great the planner in charge, will be entirely useless unless there is that same decision at the head which the various joint planning boards, economic and military, enjoyed during the war under the leadership of our then Prime Minister. Without that authority no amount of planning machinery will have the slightest effect but will only tend to clog up the machine yet further and increase the incoherence which I notice in Government Departments. As to the appeal for unity and support for the Government, I have only this to say. We have before us two major obstacles, to which little reference was
488
made in the speeches of the representatives of His Majesty's Government. The first is the introduction on May I of the five-day week and the seven and a half hour working day in the mining industry. We have had quite lately an expression of hope that that will not lead to a reduction in output; but it is little more than hope. The second crucial date, and perhaps an even more important one, to which no reference whatever has been made, is July 15 when, under the international agreements to which we are party, sterling is to become an interchangeable currency. There is not one word, either written in the White Paper or spoken in another place, which has made the slightest allusion to that crucial date, which may be the turning point of our economic situation in this country. We are asked to agree and support a plan—if there is a plan—which makes no reference to that whatsoever.
I ask your Lordships' permission to conclude that when I move to resolve that the measures proposed by the Government are equally inadequate, I am justified in doing so. Before closing I have a few small points I wish to make. One is: What are we going to do next? After all, we are all in this—not only the Government and not only the Party to which the noble Lords opposite belong; it is a question of what we all are going do. I have dealt specifically with only one subject in any great detail, and that is the financial side. It therefore behaves me to suggest what I think may be the right line to take. The first thing I have to say is that a year ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government set their foot on a policy which was to lead to a balanced Budget. I sincerely hope that that policy will he followed and that there will be no departure from it. It is not the state of balance but the approach to it, and the measures taken to approach it, that matter. We have followed that line for a year. In spite of what happened last month, and whatever may be the consequences of the fuel crisis in which we are, that policy must be followed to its conclusion and fruition, not necessarily this year, but perhaps the year after. But there must he no reversal of that policy, no budgeting for a larger deficit whatever the cost in taxation may be.
In our present situation, if we cannot mop up surplus purchasing power by

489
savings campaigns it has to be removed by taxation, or we shall enter a period and phase of inflation which may be extremely difficult to stop. I accept that we are not in that yet, but if that policy of a balanced Budget is not pursued to its bitter and hard conclusion there is every chance of our falling into inflation, and with it the despair and misery that must inevitably follow. I do not believe that the reversal of the policy of cheap money is either desirable or perhaps even possible. But I think the present rates must be maintained as cheaply as possible, especially if any improvement is to cost us figures such as those I quoted of the bankers' balance deposits in 1946.
Finally, I must ask His Majesty's Government whether it is consistent with the policy of a balanced Budget and maintaining present values for money (if we are not to have to pay the cost to which I have referred in bankers' deposits). to bring money rates down yet further. Is it wise to create not one thousand million pounds but much more—fifteen hundred, or may be the best part of two thousand million pounds—of Government securities in pursuing a scheme such as we are now discussing? Do the Government think it likely, does the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, think it likely, that without paying excessive prices we shall be able to get long-term money rates of 2½ per cent. and be able to put out another £2,000,000,000 of British Government debt? That is on the financial side. On the general political issue and the appeal which the Prime Minister has made for support I would say this. The terms of the appeals that have been made have been that both sides should help the Government. That seems to me a very curious way of putting it. It appeals to suggest that the Government are a third party to the transaction. It is riot a question of employers and workers supporting the policy of the Government. The Government are the employers and workers, or ought to be.
That brings me to what is perhaps the crucial point of the whole of these statements. The Government govern, or ought to govern, the whole of the country. That is accepted. No noble Lord on the Benches opposite will question that for a moment. But the Government do not represent the whole country; they represent rather less than one half of the electorate. They are asking the majority
490
to support a policy with which the majority arc not in agreement. They have talked a great deal about democratic forms of government and the limitations to democracy, but one of the principles of democracy, as I understood it, is that the majority and not the minority should have the say. I think there is a remedy for the situation in which we find ourselves, and a comparatively easy one, and that will be achieved when the Government realize that the whole an ethical conception, if you will, but a true one—is greater than the sum of all the parts. But then they must represent the whole and not the parts. Then they will find the whole will work with them and for them. Otherwise I can see very little hope of the Government enjoying the support which it evidently needs.
If the minority realize that the majority have certain beliefs, feelings and rights, it follows also that the majority must realize how much the minority are justified in their point of view. I agree that if that is accepted by both sides, and the Government will govern the whole and for the whole, they will—as has been found so frequently in your Lordships' House—experience no difficulty in finding men of good will of all Parties to help them and help the country in the present crisis—men who are ready to help this or any other Government to restore the country to the position in which the people feel they ought to be, which we all think they should enjoy and without which the world will be the loser. It is because so far I have seen no realization of the fact that they are, after all, representative of less than half the electorate, and because of the inadequacy I have found in measures up to date (inadequacy is perhaps an under—statement) and in the recent promises for the future, that I beg leave to move the Resolution standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, that this House deplores the inadequacy of the measures hitherto taken and proposed by the Government to remedy the economic situation of the country.—(Lord. Rennell.)
3.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think the Resolution which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, in such a cogent and persuasive but reasonable speech, is one which all reasonable men, clearly facing facts, must

491
accept in their hearts, wherever Party loyalty may lead their feet in the Division lobby. In spite of all the exhaustive appreciations and analyses in the White Paper, emphasizing, as it does, the gravity of the situation, neither in the White Paper nor in any of the Government speeches in the three days' debate in another place can we find any real plan. I do not think that I am putting it unfairly if I say that the best that the Government can claim is that they have, so far, put forward some short-term expedients which they hope may enable us to scrape through this year—a year, be it observed, in which we still have the buttress of the American Loan.
Like the noble Lord who moved the Resolution, I have no intention of jobbing back over the remote past or of bandying figures on unemployment as they were between the wars. Incidentally—if we are to play this extremely irrelevant game of battledore and shuttlecock—they reached their highest pitch under Labour administration. But all that seems to me to be utterly irrelevant to the present situation. Conscious as we are of each other's imperfections, we have all learned a lot. The White Paper on Full Employment, which was an agreed production of all Parties in the National Government, is a common starting point for us all. I feel sure that the Secretary of State for India and Burma will be equally realistic and will, at any rate, address himself to the present, even if he may be a little unwilling to face the future. Two things seem to me to be absolutely vital to-day. The first is that we should all clearly understand the situation in which we find ourselves, and its gravity; the second is that we should see equally clearly what is necessary to get us out of that situation and (I do not think that I put it too high when I say this) to save the country, I will not say from ruin, but from an immeasurable reduction of the standard of living which we have reached.
To understand that situation we must look fairly at what has happened in the last eighteen months. Only so shall we appreciate the present and learn from the past. In this over-industrialized country of ours, our position, importing half our food and practically all our raw material except coal, has always been abnormal. It has been kept in precarious balance by invisible exports. But to-day, because we
492
put everything into the war, the source of those invisible exports has largely disappeared. Our foreign investments have been realized and have gone. Millions of tons of shipping have been sunk. During the war, of course, we carried on under Lend-Lease; now we are carrying on with—and the position has been masked by—the American Loan. But neither of those things can happen again, and our imports this year, according to the White Paper, must amount to £1,450,000,000 at least. I think the Government themselves agree that that is really less than we need. It is certainly a bare minimum. And, observe, we have been drawing, and drawing perilously, on our stocks of raw materials. I am not at all sure that there is not going to be greater danger in the future owing to shortage of raw materials than there is by reason of the shortage of manpower. Therefore it is plain that the livelihood of this country will depend more than ever on our visible exports, and this situation calls for a vast effort.
The White Paper is quite fair in stating that the foundation of all is our two great basic industries—coal and agriculture. With coal all our domestic life is bound up; it is the raw material of every industry and of transport. It was once, and I hope will be again, one of the most valuable of our exports. Agriculture is vitally important because every ton we can grow here is a ton of imports saved. More than that, without a sound agriculture this country can be neither healthy nor safe. You may well say that all this is very elementary, and so it is. But all the elements of this situation must have been obvious to all thinking people—and not least to every member of the Government—from the time the war ended. It was certainly very well known to the Government when they were negotiating for the American Loan. Indeed, the justification for the American Loan was this situation. But if that is all elementary and obvious, surely the indictment of the Government is that, knowing all the elements of the situation, knowing that they were heading for danger if not for disaster, they funked telling the people the truth.
For a year they lived on credit and hope, and pretended that it would all come right. The planners did not even plan. They lost a critical year. They did worse; they wasted—and as the noble Lord who moved this Resolution said,

493
they are still wasting—precious time on academic schemes of nationalization. They preached class warfare and false economics, when they should have been organizing and evoking united effort and the best that is in everybody in industry. The most outstanding example in this connexion was afforded by the Minister of Defence (who ought to have known better) in another place the other night. i sincerely hope he is better at preparing for the strategic defence of this country than he is at Party polemics, which are singularly out of place in his office.
LORD STRABOLGI: Here, too.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord will no doubt address us in due course, but I am certainly not going to be prevented from telling the truth by his interventions. The ineptitude and the improvidence of the Government in their complete failure to build up coal stocks last year is notorious. We have already paid for it heavily in unemployment and in lost production; I say nothing of domestic discomfort. And we have not yet finished paying for it. Now, a year later, they tell the country the hard truth. The people of this country will always face the truth; the only thing they will not tolerate is being misled. I accept entirely the hard truths of the White Paper. I think that, if anything, the gravity of the situation is under-stated. But after the stethoscope has been applied, after blood tests have been made, and the blood pressure has been taken, after all that examination has been made and the diagnosis has been given, one looks in vain for any remedy or indeed any prescription. There is not even a Number 9! There is nothing except this: that after eighteen months of planning there is to be a new aganization, with a new planner, to find a plan. I admit that some targets are set. They are hopelessly inadequate, as I hope to show in the case of coal. There a target is set which must inflict hardship on all domestic consumers and, which will leave steel nearly 1,000,000 tons short of the production which the steel plants of this country could give to-day and which, I think, may make industrial targets—even those in the IA White Paper—impossible to attain. There are these targets set, but there is no operational directive on how we can achieve these objectives.
494
May I talk for a moment or two upon two fundamental industries, agriculture and coal? I will take agriculture first. It is agreed that agriculture is one of those industries in which the production per man-hour has gone up. We none of us know to-day what the agriculture situation this year will be. We do not yet know what will be the effects of the weather; we only know that it is worsening and that a great deal of improvisation will be needed, varying from district to district, and almost farm by farm. What should be the short-term policy in this abnormal year? I think there are two factors. First of all, let the Government give a wide latitude to farmers and to local committees to grow whatever can best be grown—catch crops which are suitable here and there. The second factor is agricultural machinery, which is more than ever necessary in the very short time that there will be for the preparation and the sowing. It is vitally necessary that all the agricultural machinery that can be made available to farmers should be made available, even if it means drastically cutting clown the export of such machinery. Our further policy, whether it be short-term or long-term, should be to grow what we can best grow to save dollars. The noble Lord who moved this Motion has referred to the passage in the White Paper dealing with feeding stuffs. At last in the Government's own White Paper is repeated what we on this side have been saying in debate after debate about the importance of feeding stuffs. We are now told, on Government authority, that £1,000 worth of feeding stuffs would save nearly £2,000 worth of imports of livestock, and, they might have added, of dried eggs.
I have given the noble Lord ample notice of the specific questions I want to put to him. I want to know—and this has never yet been answered—exactly where we stand in regard to feeding stuffs. Other countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Rena ell, has said, appear to be able to get them, and do get them. Not only do they get feeding stuffs for their own internal population, but they are able to export poultry to this country. I want to ask these specific questions. What is the international authority which apportions feeding stuffs, and how is it composed? Are all the purchasing and selling countries bound by its allocations?

495
On what basis or principle are these allocations made, and what allocations have, in fact, been made over the past year? Have buyers and sellers, in fact as well as in theory, confined their purchases and sales to these allocations? And, subject to these allocations, is the United Kingdom able to buy how and where it pleases? I would add this question. Assuming that that system works (and it certainly does not appear to work in our favour), what guarantee is there that the United Kingdom will get its allocation, particularly, for example, if the United States has abolished all control and is a free sellers' market?
We find it very difficult to debate this vitally important matter unless the Government will give us the precise facts, and they must have these facts. We must have more feeding stuffs, and we must have more men on the land. That is increasingly necessary as the prisoners of war go back. One of the keys to that problem is housing. I agree with every word the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said, but I want to put a very much more definite and precise question to the noble Lord who is to speak for the Government. What are the Government going to do about the Housing (Rural Workers) Act? They have had now for some weeks a most interesting report from the Hob-house Committee, signed by distinguished members of their own Party, with only one dissentient, strongly recommending a similar Act. The Government must have made up their minds as to what they are going to do. What are they going to do about renewing the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, or about putting another Act in its place?
Now we turn to coal, the key to everything, whether it is long-term or short-term policy. The target is 200,000,000 tons, which is admitted to be the absolute minimum. It is admitted that a target as low as that will cause much domestic hardship; but will it not also reduce, as I said a moment ago, the output of steel 1,000,000 tons below capacity? Is it not a fact (I am sure the Government will agree with this) that almost every other industry, directly or indirectly, depends upon steel? The provision of railway wagons for transport depends on steel. According to the figures in the White Paper, the industry upon which we are chiefly relying for our exports is
496
the engineering industry in its various forms. Moreover, on engineering depends all the reconstruction and the re-equipment of industry, which is so important. Is it not obvious that so low a target means a frightful risk of hold-ups in all kinds of factories? It means delay, it means increased costs, it means the risk of failure to reach our export target.
To-day we may be changing from the sellers' to the buyers' market more quickly than some optimistic people think. As that change takes place, a tremendous amount will turn on whether we can quote firm prices and give punctual delivery. I think that target is the key to everything. Why should the coal target—even an emergency coal target—be as low as 200,000,000 tons? In 1941, with only r,000 men more in the mines, we produced 26,000,000 tons more than in 1946. In 1938 the production was 226,000,000 tons. It is true there were more men in the industry in 1938, but even if we allow for the reduced number of men employed in the coal mines to-day, production at the 1938 level would give us a result not far short of 220,000,000 tons. I agree that the men are old; but, on the whole, I do not think these comparisons are unreasonable. It is true that some of the men are older, but I would point out—and it is greatly to the credit of the older men—that the greater absenteeism has not been in the older age groups but in the younger age groups. I am glad to see that increasing numbers of younger men are going into the industry, such as men released from the Army, who certainly are fit and young recruits for the industry. In addition, to counter the element of age, there is today a great deal more coal-cutting and conveying machinery in the mines (and that will increase) than there was ten years ago.
That naturally leads me to ask, what is the Government's considered estimate of the effect of the five-day week in the coal industry? In Paragraph 136 of the White Paper one finds these words:
"Action which serves to reduce output per man-year in any industry is directly endangering the attainment of these objectives. The nation cannot afford shorter hours of work unless these can be shown to increase output per man-year."
The Government that wrote that must have made a very careful estimate of the effect of a five-day week in the coal mines, and I ask the Government, what is their

497
estimate and on whose authority has it been made?
I say that we should buy coal, and that ought to have been done last year. It could have been done last year. In another place, the Prime Minister said that at the crucial time we could not get coal from America. But the crucial time was not in the middle of the winter, when the coal crisis was with us. The crucial time was the months of the summer, when every week the Minister of Fuel and Power saw what were the figures of coal delivery and coal distribution, when he knew exactly what stocks would be required, week by week, to give the power companies enough to get through the winter, and when, week by week, he saw that gap widening and a coal crisis inevitable, irrespective of the weather. The proper time—the crucial time in the Prime Minister's words—to import coal was all through the early and middle summer. We ought now to be concentrating on seeing what coal we can get from America and from South Africa.
Looking further ahead, one sees that this is not a transient matter. Coal will remain the key for years. It is admitted that 200,000,000 torts is the absolute minimum on which, with discomfort and risk, we can scrape through. Would it not be much better now to set the real target proportionate to our needs? Before the First World War we produced over 280,000,000 tons of coal. We exported nearly 90,00,000 tons. Surely what we should aim at to-day is an increase on 1946 of at least 50,000,000 or 6o,000,000 tons. That is the reality. We ought to be content with no lower target than that, and surely there could be no better stimulus to production and recruitment, whether at home or abroad, than such a realistic objective.
I want to turn to one other matter. All through the White Paper the importance of the export trade is emphasized again and again. I want to put two matters to the Government on our overseas trade. One is particular; the other is more general. The particular matter that I want to raise is the question of films. Compared with the United States we produce relatively few films, but their standard is very high. They are good sellers. They arc a good box office proposition. Quite a number of them have received the "Oscar"—whatever that may be—in the United States. I
498
understand it is a very distinguished award. I think that one of them received several "Oscars," so it must have been particularly good. We have fewer films, but they are of good quality. I got to know a lot about the film industry when I was writing and piloting the original Films Act, which recreated the industry here and which was passed ten years afterwards by common consent—although I did not have quite such an easy passage with it ten years before, as the noble Lord will remember. In production and exhibition, the film industry in both countries is a closely-integrated industry. Cannot the. President of the Board of Trade, working with the industry in both countries, get an arrangement by which, through an increased aggregate showing of British films in the United States, we can come nearer to equilibrium than the very unequal proportion which exists between what we get from the films we export and what we have to pay for the films we import?
The general matter to which I want to refer is this. As I say, the White Paper preaches export—(export or starve. It emphasizes—and rightly so—the need to export to countries which in return send us what we need—food and raw materials. It emphasizes the importance of mutual trade. Incidentally—and I have given the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, notice of this question—I would like to know, as I think would all your Lordships, what proportion of our exports last year were of that character, and how far did they go to countries which do not send us substantial supplies of food or raw materials in return? It is no good producing a table which simply shows the total amount of exports sent out; what we want to know is where they went. Upon that depends the whole value of our export trade. The obvious markets which fulfill this vital test of being able to send us something definite, something we need in return, are the markets of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Yet in all the 140 paragraphs of this White Paper there is not a single word about Imperial trade or Imperial preference. A year ago, almost to this day, in this House we passed a unanimous Resolution in these terms:
"That this House recognizes that reciprocal economic aid between kindred peoples is indispensable to the coherence of the British Commonwealth and the welfare of the Colonial Empire; and, further, is calculated

499
to stimulate multilateral trade and world recovery."
That Resolution was unanimously passed and the Leader of the House, if I may say so, in a most admirable speech, enthusiastically endorsed and commended the Resolution to the House. Surely this mutual Empire trade will be more important than ever when we reach the critical day of July 15, when our current sterling balances become liquid and free. Then it will be vital that we send our exports to markets which are firm and sure, and from which we shall receive a certain return in what we need. As your Lordships will have observed, the Survey ends with these words:
"The Government's main difficulty is that of ensuring that what is needed most is done first."
I suggest that Empire trade is a matter which the Government should put first. There is something else which the Government certainly should not put first but could put a very bad second, and that, as my noble friend has said, is this policy of nationalization. Your Lordships will have observed that the Government have been compelled by the force of opinion to call off the hunt of the "C" licence holders. I am very glad they have. But can anybody pretend that nationalizing electricity, taking over the railways or the vast number of road hauliers, each of them serving a need he knows and the customers who need him, or taking over the docks, so admirably managed by the great port authorities, will give us more coal, more food, more exports, or more foreign exchange?
A NOBLE LORD: And the Liverpool Cotton Exchange.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Or, indeed, the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. Shall we get more manpower usefully employed by creating vast additions to the bureaucracy which any such scheme inevitably involves? That is not putting first things first. Let the Minister of Fuel and Power concentrate on getting coal, and let the Minister of Transport concentrate on co-operating with the railways, the road hauliers, the ports and industries, to get the best out of them. Of course, there must be planning. My complaint at this White Paper is not one of planning, but is a complaint that there is not, in fact, a plan. But
500
let it be the right kind of plan. What the country wants is strategic planning, and that does not mean trying to do everybody else's job, which is what the Government are trying to do at the moment. To-day—and I am sure I shall carry conviction on this, quite irrespective of Party, because everybody realizes how true it is—there is too little large-scale, far-sighted strategic planning and far too much tactical interference. Ever-increasing hordes of minor officials, without experience or responsibility, are clogging the machine. There is not a man in the Government or in industry who does not know that, and that that kind of control is frustrating the advance at every stage.
Many of these people could very well be released for productive enterprise. The good men in the Civil Service are the salt of the earth, and nobody is as good at doing his own job as they are. But let it be their own job; give them time to do it, and time to think, which they have not got at the present moment. By that you would speed up decisions which it is a proper function of Government Departments to give. Just as the right kind of planning is necessary, so are the right kind of controls. Do not let us be told that we are against planning or against controls of the right kind. But here again surely the wise way to proceed is to consult the industries as to what controls are necessary to carry out Government policy, and how they can be worked most smoothly and effectively. The Government will get full co-operation from industry, even if industry thinks the Government are doing the wrong thing. But do consult the industries as to the most effective way of doing it. I think it was Junius who observed of another Government:
"The complaint about this Government is not that they do wrong by design, bat that they never do right by mistake."
LORD QUIBELL: That is a clever one.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord will have as good a one about building labour, and I will give him my cheers when he comes to that. The great successes of the war—and they were great successes—were not due to nationalization or State enterprise; those successes were due to a combination of leadership and direction, evoking the best in enterprise and initiative, in design, management, craftsmanship and teamwork. Those are

501
the things that are most needed to-day in this country—more leadership, more unity, and more freedom. Those are the first third which the Government should put first.
3–48 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I cannot pretend either to be an economist or a financier, and I cannot, therefore, make so valuable a contribution to this debate as those which have been made by the noble Viscount who has just spoken and by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, both of whom spoke from their great experience. But this particular crisis—the economic crisis—does not affect only the experts; it will affect everyone in this country. It is a crisis which, unless solved, will bring suffering throughout the length and breadth of this land. I therefore feel that those who are not experts on this matter have a right to speak, for it means that unless production increases so that we can export more and thus pay our debts and obtain the imports which we have always regarded as essential, the standard of living in this country will gradually decline; and, what many of us feel even more, the greatness of our nation in the international field will gradually fade away. Not long ago there were published two books with the titles, The Glory that was Greece and The Glory that was Rome. If we fail to solve this crisis there will be written a third hook entitled The Glory that was Britain. It is because so many of us who are not economists feel so intensely on this matter that we feel we should try and make some contribution to the subject which is now under discussion.
The first thing I want to say is this. I hope the Government will use every means in their power to bring the facts of the situation home to every one in this country. That has not yet been fully done. There is still a great deal of misapprehension about the present crisis. A very large number of people think it is only temporary; some think it is due to the weather; others think it is due to the turpitudes of His Majesty's Government; and other; think it is due to the secret machinations of the Opposition. These cheerful optimists believe that as soon as the weather improves, or the Government are ended, or the Opposition are painlessly liquidated, all will be well and the crisis will be over. There is still an
502
underlying optimism which must be dispersed; and it will not be dispersed unless the facts are put the simplest possible way to the majority of the people of this country.
The noble Lord who opened this debate applied the methods of higher criticism to the White Paper, and he applied them very skillfully. I would go one step further than he went; I would say that what we want to do now is to translate the codex, as he called it, of the White Paper into the Vulgar version, written so simply and so directly that everyone can understand it. It is very difficult for us, who are accustomed to more or less technical terminology, to realize how meaningless even such phrases as "exports and imports" and "under-production and over-production" are to the great majority of the citizens of this country, of all classes. The crisis will never be brought home to them unless die facts are made known in the simplest way. It is useless merely to print the White Paper in a different kind of colour; not even if it is printed in red would it make clear to the people of the country what is the nature of the crisis. I would like to press very strongly that there should be persistency in propaganda. The Prime Minister last night made a good beginning in his statement, but speeches have to he made time after time. I sometimes think we are inclined to over-estimate the value of our speeches. I have reached the time of life when I fully realize that the memory of my speech will probably last a much shorter time than it took me to prepare it; and I think that is the case with most speeches.
Any advertising agent will tell you that you have to hammer a statement home time and time again before it sinks into the sub-conscious and eventually becomes part of a person's personality. Therefore, if the country is to be nationally conscious as to the nature of the crisis, this matter must be pressed home time after time in the simplest possible way. But when knowledge has come to people, something more is required to call forth action. My main reason in speaking to-night is that I believe this crisis is very largely moral and spiritual, and that when you have your best panels of planners, and your most effective modern machinery you will not necessarily have people working any better and you will not necessarily have greater production. The position of the

503
country to-day is that there is widespread apathy. People who come from overseas, revisiting this country for the first time after an interval of many years, arc nearly always impressed by the apathy which they find among so many people. We are a tired nation; we are exhausted by two great wars; we are in many ways disappointed and disillusioned; many people are underfed. It needs a very powerful incentive to induce people to throw extra weight into the work they are called upon to do. Some incentive must be found to persuade people to put more concentration and more effort into their work.
It is useless to-day to call upon people and to exhort them to work for work's sake. That is all right when you are dealing with people who are doing interesting work and creative work over which they have some initiative, but to-day by far the greater part of the work in our industries and mines is dull and monotonous, providing very little scope for the exercise of initiative by the individual. Another incentive is wanted. Of course, the ordinary incentive is what is summed up in the phrase "profit motive." I, for one, recognize that the profit motive has its place; it is human nature that people should desire to see some visible results of their work and that those results should take the form of increased leisure, increased benefits or increased wages. But the profit motive by itself is wholly insufficient. If the profit motive becomes the one predominating motive, it means that it is anti-social and that the methods it employs become unscrupulous. I do not think we can entirely divorce the present position from the days of the Industrial Revolution, when the profit motive was the all-prevailing motive and when women and children were worked to death in the mines while profits went up by leaps and bounds. The influence that that has had upon the nation has never entirely died away. To-day all those sufferings have been removed, but the idea has spread to all classes of the community—not only to the employers but also to the employee—that the profit motive is the only motive.
I wonder if I might quote a striking sentence which I read a few days ago in The Times Literary Supplement:
"'For generations we have been guided by a code of commercial ethics according to which it is sinning against the light to sell anything
504
fat a penny less than can he got for it, or to work for a penny less, or a minute more, than the standard rate.'
We have to get rid of that code—of those ideals and those incentives, which are largely poisoning our commercial and industrial life. I recognize fully that the profit motive has a place in all our lives, but overriding and above the ordinary profit motive there must be the far higher motive of working for the whole community. That is the motive which ought to inspire both employers and employed in their work—the motive of gaining profit not for oneself, or for the industry alone, but for the whole nation. Therefore, when an appeal is made to the country, as it will be made time after time, for greater production and for further work, I hope that with all the necessary technical schemes which will be presented there will be made this three-fold appeal.
I hope that, first of all, an appeal will be made to the nation to be prepared during these next few years to walk a very difficult, stony and uphill road with no earthly paradise waiting at the end of it. I hope, secondly, that an appeal will be made for people to walk this road for the sake of the sometimes forgotten and old-fashioned virtue of duty, rather than out of mere inclination, so that the employer will do his duty to his men, the men will do their duty to the employer and both will do their duty to the whole nation. I hope, thirdly, that it will be made quite plain that in recognizing that we are called upon to work for the whole of the community, practices of restriction of output or limitation of labour, which at one time were no doubt justifiable, are now anti-social and crimes against the community. That kind of appeal would be an austere appeal; it would not be an appeal which would mean votes, but it would be in striking contrast to much of the wishful thinking in which we have indulged in these last few years, and I believe it would meet with a response from all that is best and most robust in our British character.
3.50 p.m.
THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICKLAWRENCE): My Lords, I am very glad that the speech from the most reverend Primate intervened between the speech from the Opposition Bench and the one I am about to deliver, because I confess I

505
was roused by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to a polemic attitude towards this question, which is not, I feel, the one which is really most suited to this occasion.
Taken in conjunction with the one which recently took place in another place, this debate constitutes, in my opinion, an opening of a new chapter in Parliamentary government. So far from regretting or complaining of it, I welcome it from the bottom of my heart., All through my political life it has been my ardent desire that Parliament should concern itself not merely with the limited functions of the State, the activities of Ministers, of State functionaries and the expenditure of State money, but with the much larger activities of the people as a whole, and with the financial and economic budget of the nation.
There are two schools of thought prevalent in the world. One school of thought says that the economy of the people is not a fit subject for common decision, but should be left to the unfettered freedom of the individual. Broadly, that is the individualist or laissez faire doctrine. The other school of thought says that the Government should regulate and ordain the whole activity of the nation, financial, economic and social. That is broadly what we know as totalitarianism. I subscribe to neither of those schools. My view, which I believe is essentially in accord with British tradition, is that these ideologies are Scylla and Charybdis, and that we steer the ship of the nation between that rock and that whirlpool, either of which would wreck it. On the one hand I recognize that civilization implies the inter-dependence of human activity. Over the whole field, therefore, there must be planning, and within the plan there must be a considerable degree of communal enterprise, regulated and owned by the community. That-is why I am a Socialist. But within the plan there must also be room for individual variation and initiative, and that is why I am also a liberal and a democrat. I use the word "liberal" with a small "I" and not a capital "L."
I have said that I believe my view. to be in accord with essential British tradition. I will go further, and say that I believe that it is held basically by a very high proportion of the British people, and even in your Lordships' House it has considerable support. While for debating purposes we range ourselves as prota-
506
gonists and antagonists, when we come down to realities we are forced to recognize that our quarrel is not so much one of fundamental principle as of the precise point of demarcation between the part of the plan where the State must be lord and master and that part in which the freedom of the individual must be as little fettered as possible.
This debate owes its origin to the courageous decision of the Government to produce, on a scale never before executed or even contemplated, a plan for the whole economic life of the nation, and to submit this plan to Parliament and to the British people. I quite agree with the most reverend Primate that it is of supreme importance that this plan should not merely be set out in language which we in this House, and the representatives of the people in another place, can follow and understand, but should be brought home to the people of the nation by every possible means that is available for the purpose. I call the decision courageous because it exposes an: immense target for attack. In some of the speeches delivered here in this House such an attack has developed, and I make no complaint of that. It is the principle of our British Parliamentary tradition that it is through the cut and thrust of ordinary debate that the good points and the bad points are brought into the light of day. Criticism can be levelled at the sins of omission and commission in the plan itself, and also at every failure in the Government to carry the plan to full effect. It is very easy to be wise after the event, and I am certainly not going to claim to-day that in every respect and in every detail the course pursued by the Government, with such knowledge as they had at the time and in consequence of such advice as was tendered to them at the time, has turned out to be the course we would have followed if subsequent events had been so clearly foreshadowed as they are now seen in retrospect by ourselves and our critics.
I will go further than that, and say that a good many of the criticisms which were delivered in the past by the Opposition—if I had taken the trouble to bring them up to-day—might he found to he not equally but still more failing in realization of events than the course pursued by the Government. Equally, I am not here to stand in a white sheet on behalf of the Government. Coming into power, as we did, at a time when

507
the whole peace economy of the country and of the world had been completely disintegrated, faced with immense problems, aggravated by the failure of the harvest in 1946 in India and other parts of the world, and recently by the worst winter in living memory, I submit that we can show a record of achievement of which we can be justly proud. I have read a great many of the speeches which were made in another place. Many of them were full of "meat" and of real constructive value for the future. Others consisted mostly of Party polemics, good knockabout stuff which heartened the Members on both sides and contributed little to the enlightenment of the audience as to a solution of the many difficult problems which face the nation to-day. I do not think that it is worth my while to devote the short time that I propose to speak to your Lordships to a great deal of that knockabout stuff.
I do not propose to deal at any length with the achievements of the Government, but in face of the criticisms which have been delivered I should be wrong if I did not make at least a passing reference to the achievements which we have to our credit. In the first place, I will run over some of the problems which confronted the Government when they came into office. The first was the question of demobilization. Since demobilization began we have released 4,250,000 men and women from the Forces and 3,500,000 more who were making equipment for the Forces. The whole of that enormous transaction has been carried through with the greatest smoothness and with only a minimum of unemployment. I am not going to claim the whole of the merit of that for the Government; I realize perfectly well that a great deal of it was planned in advance. Further; the men and women themselves who passed quietly out of the Forces, and who after a term of leave set themselves to work and took part in the industrial life of the country, deserve the highest tribute and respect; and I pay it to them. The most reverend Prelate will admit that in re-enmeshing themselves into the life of the community the men and women who played very exciting roles during the war do deserve a modicum of credit and appreciation.
Let me come to the question of labour disputes. A great deal is made sometimes
508
of the troubles in industry, and the workers are chided for this, that and the other. What are the actual facts? The number of man-days (including woman-days) lost in 1946 was 2,156,000. You may say that that was a very considerable number, but what was the figure in 1919 when we had a very different Government in office? The figure was not just over 2,000,000; it was no less than 35,000,000. If you take the whole period since V. J. Day, up to the end of last month, you have a figure of 4,000,000, as against 41,000,000 for the corresponding period after the last war. I think that is an achievement of which we can be proud, and I believe it arises from the better handling of men which is more' fully understood by the present Government than it was by the Government in office after the last war.
The next point to which I wish to refer is this. In the summer of last year the Government had to take a very courageous decision. We were faced with the fact that the world was short of food. In India there was a prospect of starvation. In many parts of the British Empire, and in other countries, there were failures of the harvest, and there was likely to be not only hardship but famine if something was not done. We in this country took the responsibility of doing something very naturally unpopular—the rationing of bread. It would have been easy for us to have jogged along hopefully, letting our own stocks go down, allowing famine, which was going on in other parts of the world, to pass by; but we took that decision, and we have carried it through resolutely. And the people who have borne the burden are the common people of this country, in particular the housewives, who have been put to the greatest inconvenience. There again, I want to pay my tribute to those who have borne the heat and burden of the day. But I claim for the Government, courage and determination in facing that most unpleasant task.
Another thing for which I take credit for the Government is that we resisted demands, shortly after the war, for an unlimited supply of consumer goods and other commodities; and when noble Lords criticize the Government for not having taken adequate steps of austerity, I really must remind them and the House that over and over again we were called upon from the Benches opposite to relax

509
controls, to allow people to have not the necessarily limited supplies of consumer goods but in some cases much larger supplies than we thought right. I will give one illustration—petrol. We have adhered to our decision to limit supplies of petrol, and if we had given into the demands delivered to us from the other side we should have been in a far worse plight than we are to-day.
Further, there was a great deal of opposition to the American Loan. We did not like, any more than noble Lords opposite, all the terms we had to make, but it was a case of Hobson's choice. What we did realize was that if we could get terms which seemed just possible of acceptance, it was essential, to tide us over, that we should have the American Loan. If we had followed advice delivered from the other side and rejected out of hand the American Loan, I tremble to think of the position in which we would now be.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Who gave that advice from this side? Eight members went into the lobby against the Amendment.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I admit what the noble Viscount says. I am not charging the whole Opposition— certainly not. But I remember the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, making a most violent speech against the proposal. He said that if he had been a member of the Government—I forget what he said precisely—
LORD LLEWELLIN: In the absence of my noble friend, Lord Woolton, I: must say he did not vote against the Loan. He did not like the Loan—none of us liked it—but he did not vote against it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: On a question of fact, although a miserable number voted against it, for a considerable time there were a large number of very hostile speeches.
LORD PETHICK - LAWRENCE: remember the violent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and others in opposition to the proposal. Those are some of the points that I think it right I should put forward when we are attacked, but I do not consider that is one of the objects of this debate. There is a French proverb which runs:" This animal is very
510
vicious; when it is attacked it defends itself." When we are attacked on these grounds I am entitled to put the case for the Government, and I certainly do not yield my right to do so.
I come now to some of the specific points that have been made in this debate. In the first place, I want to say a word or two on the financial question which was raised by the noble Lord who moved this Motion. I want to bring the House to realize the narrowness of the front on which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, attacks the Government. On the main issue of a cheap money policy he, in accord with us and I think nearly everyone who has studied this question, supports the policy, which we did not initiate, which was begun before even the Coalition was formed, but which went on through the whole Coalition period; that is to say, a complete reversal of the financial policy which was pursued during the earlier war. We kept the rate of interest, both long-term and short-term, low during the whole of the recent war. I was under the impression, before I came into the House this afternoon, that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, had a difference of opinion with the Government as to the actual rate of borrowing that ought to prevail. I thought that he was going to say that 3 per cent. was all right, but 2½ per cent. was wrong, and that per cent. for short-term Treasury Bills was right, while ½ per cent. was wrong.
LORD RENNELL: Nothing which I have said, either here or elsewhere, could possibly have led the noble Lord to that conclusion.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was just explaining my own misguided expectation of what I. was going to be told. No doubt it was exceedingly foolish of me to have formed that opinion. But I have not suggested that that was the view which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, actually took, and I entirely absolve him from any responsibility for that view. It is not that he disagrees with the cheap money policy, or with the precise figures that it involves; what he disagrees with is the rapidity with which it has been pursued, which, he says, has cost a great deal in a way which he thinks undesirable. In that connexion I would like to make this point: although the actual transference to 2½ per cent. on the Treasury Loan took place only recently, the whole process downwards

511
from 3 per cent. to 2½ per cent. has been going for a considerable time. Let me be illustrate that. In 194o, it is true, the twenty-five-year period loan, the market loan, was 3 per cent., but for the seven-year period, which is a sort bf intermediate between short-term and long-term, it was only 2½ per cent. When it came to 1945—before this Government came into office—the five-year period loan had fallen to 1¾ per cent. and the twelve-year period to 27frac12; per cent., and it was only the thirty-year period that was 3 per cent.
It is quite true, when we come to November, 1945, that there was a withdrawal of the 3 per cent. tap issue, and that in May and July of last year there was an issue of per cent. savings bonds. In October of this year there was the withdrawal of the 3 per cent. Local Loans, and the substitution of Treasury stock at 2½ per cent. Therefore, I think your Lordships will perceive that the disagreement which the noble Lord has with the Government is on a narrow front, and I do not accept his view that what we have done has brought very serious consequences. On the contrary, I think there has been quite a considerable gain. Let me deal, first of all, with the consequences. The noble Lord quoted the figure of the increase in deposits at the banks in the second half of 1946.
LORD RENNELL: No; in the whole of 1946.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I thought the noble Lord quoted the second half of the year.
LORD RENNELL: I quoted the second half of 1945.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I accept the noble Lord's correction. The fact is that in the early part of each year there is a seasonal decrease. All through the period of the war there was a seasonal increase, year by year, which was certainly not eliminated in the early months of the following year; and the increase in 1946, I think, was not so very much larger than the increase in the previous year. It was larger, of course. I do not think that there is any great difference in kind; there may be a certain measure of difference in degree. There may be certain disadvantages about considerable increase of deposits at the banks. But I say that even if those are all connected with the
512
fall in the price of money, I do not think they do away with the very considerable advantages of the low interest. Unless we can keep the rate of interest very low we are in an impossible position in this country. We have a National Debt of £25,000,000,000 or thereabouts, and it is essential, if we are to meet our obligations, that we should have a low rate of interest.
LORD RENNELL: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord seems to have entirely misunderstood what I said. I said that I did not disagree with the low rate for money. I said that the price paid in 1946, measured by the increase of bank deposits, especially during the latter part of that year, was too heavy and ill-timed.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I quite admit that; I do not think i attempted to mislead the House over what the noble Lord said. I do not think that 1 have suggested that he said other than actually what he did say. What 1 say is that even if that has a connexion with the fall in interest, I do not think the damage done was very serious. The fall in the rate of interest to 2½ per cent. was a matter of great value, and if it was connected, as the noble Lord suggests, with the rise in the deposits, I do not think it was a matter that was necessarily prohibitive. I was going to point out that it was desirable, at a time when we were embarking on the Housing Loan, which will possibly have to provide £5,000,000 for expenditure by local authorities, that interest should be as low as it possibly could be.
The noble Lord went on to say that if nationalization took place, and large new blocks of State loans were created, there would be a great danger of inflationary finance. The noble Lord does not take full account of the fact that the State loans which will come into being are a result of nationalization, while they are individually new securities, only take the place of securities which are already in existence. In those circumstances, I do not see what ground there is for supposing them to be of an inflationary character. I do not suppose for a moment that I have satisfied the noble Lord, but I do think the case I have put forward is one in which I can submit with confidence that your Lordships will take the view that I do.

513
I would now like to say a word with regard to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, about the balance of trade. I quite appreciate, as indeed everyone who thinks on these matters must appreciate, that it is not the quantum of exports alone that has to be considered. it is of great importance that as much of the exports as possible should go to the hard currency countries, and that even where this is impossible it should at any rate earn goods or money of some kind or another, and not merely go in the discharge of obligations. We do need physical assets, and we shall not secure them if the effect of exports is merely to reduce the quantum of sterling debts. That is why the Government are organizing missions to deal with these very questions. The Treasury are sending out missions to various countries on the question of sterling obligations, and these are among the matters being negotiated. I would say that it is our policy to secure a full return for our exports, either in goods, in gold, or in currencies convertible to dollars, and to sec that the margin of exports which we sell without full payment on these lines is relatively small.
The noble Viscount also drew attention to the face that there is no mention in the White Paper of the development of Imperial trade. He must not suppose from that that Imperial trade is absent from our minds. We recognize the supreme importance of Imperial trade, and my noble friend who sits beside me is at present engaged in the beginning of a most important Commonwealth conference which is taking place in London on this very matter, and which is sitting prior to the International Trade Conference which is due to start in April. Therefore, the noble Viscount must realize that we have this matter fully in mind; we are acting in regard to it, and we hope that valuable results wilt follow.
Then the noble Viscount spoke of films. I quite agree with him that it is of the greatest importance that we should promote the production and sale abroad of the rights British films which, from our point of view, are certainly some of the best films) being made. It is our business to try and build up a healthy film industry in the United Kingdom, and to seek to develop the showing of British films in the United. States of America; but if we
514
were to adopt a policy of shutting out all American films then it would be "goodbye" to the sale of film rights.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord does not think I suggested that. I suggested a better mutual arrangement.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: With regard to that, I am in full agreement with the noble Viscount; I do not think there is anything that divides us in that matter. Now I come the vexed question of coal. Let us be frank with one another over this. The real trouble in the coal industry originated a very long time ago. It did net begin with the Labour Government; it did not begin with the Coalition Government; it did not begin with anything that has been done in the last ten or even fifteen years. It dates back to the troubles of the 'twenties of this century, when there were many things going wrong in the coal industry and when the miners came to the conclusion—rightly, as it appeared to many people outside their own ranks—that the fewer of their sons who went into the mining business the better. The result has been that we have had the decline in the numbers in the mines that has been going on ever since that time. I want to make one observation on something the noble Viscount said. lie said that even if we made an allowance for the reduction in numbers then certain consequences followed. I want the House to realize that a reduction in numbers does not make a proportionate reduction in the number of miners at the coal face; it means a much greater reduction in the number of miners at the coal face because those who are not working at the coal face must be kept up to a certain minimum standard. It is the number of men at the coal face which really matters, and which is the crux of the trouble at the present time.
The noble Viscount asked me what was the proper target for the year's coal production, and he said the 200,000,000 tons mentioned in the White Paper was far too low. Of course it is. If we could produce 220,000,000 tons or 250,000,000 tons we should be only too glad, but we have put into the White Paper not the figure we should like to see but the figure which we think is a realistic one. We have put a figure there that will be hard to reach, but one which we shall be only too happy to see surpassed. The bad weather of the past few weeks has certainly not helped

515
to get that figure realised. I quite agree that to get all we want for the ordinary household, for all the power and light organizations, for the steel and other industries, 200,000,000 tons will be inadequate. No one denies that. But I do not think that if noble Lords sitting on the opposite side were sitting in our places they would necessarily have got more—or as much. They might even have had a headlong collision with the miners, which we have most carefully avoided. We have found, and I believe that any one who was forming a Government would have found the same thing, that in order to produce coal we must have the good will of the miners who go to the coal face.
And that applies to the question of the introduction of Poles. To put Poles into the mines before the miners were willing to accept them as colleagues would have been a most disastrous policy. We have succeeded in getting the acquiescence of the British miners, and Poles are now being trained. I am told that it is not possible to form a very accurate figure but it is hoped that something like 500 a week will begin to be trained, and after a little while they will be taking their place in the pits, alongside our own miners. That brings me to the question of the five-day week. Nominally we have had a six-shift week; in practice it has been something below five, and, although there are a few men who can really work a whole six-day week, it is the considered view of the Government that to try and work a six-day week when the great majority of men are not prepared—in some cases they are unable—to do more than five, is not a good method of trying to get the best work out of the men. We believe that with the new spirit which is in the mines it is reasonable to expect that not only shall we get approximately the same number of shifts per week, but that we shall get better production in each shift.
I must now pass on to other matters. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, asked me about agricultural cottages. I will only say, in reference to that, that we have this Report, which is of the highest importance. But the Minister, my colleague, considers that the first step is the building of new houses and adding to the accommodation in the rural areas. That is the policy that he has to pursue for the
516
moment, because no new legislation can be introduced this Session, but he will consider the Report most carefully with a view to seeing what can be done in the next Session. With regard to the question of feeding stuffs, I will deal first with the vegetable high protein foods (oilcakes). These are allocated by the International Emergency Food Council. This body, an expansion of the war-time Combined Food Board, is the international body which recommends allocations for foodstuffs in short supply. It includes most of the principal trading countries of the world, though not the U.S.S.R., the Argentine or Spain. It has no executive power to enforce its recommendations, but all member countries, both as importers and exporters, undertake to implement the recommendations to which they have agreed. I am arranging to have placed in the Libraries of the House a document setting forth the membership, functions, and procedure of the I.E.F.C.
A partial allocation of oilcake for the first half of 1947 has recently been announced by its Fats, Oils and Feeds Committee. This allocation, settled by discussion in the committee, is based on the datum year 1935–37, taking into account indigenous production and imports of seed. Each country is left free to make its purchases, within its allocation, how and where it pleases. We have made an agreement with the Argentine for oils and cake which should cover our allocation. We should certainly not need to buy oilcake from the United States. Last year we were fortunate enough to secure certain quantities of cake which other countries were not able to take up, and in general we have received a fair share of the available supplies. Animals are also fed on coarse grains. There is an overall shortage of cereals, and the basic limitation on our purchases has been the availability of supplies. In view of the world shortage of bread grains the maximum possible quantity of coarse grains has been used for human consumption, still further restricting their use as animal feed. We have missed no chances of buying coarse grains wherever they became available. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Food said recently, our supplies of coarse grains for all purposes should show a considerable improvement over the next twelve months, which would involve an improvement in their availability for animal feed.

517
Time is running on, and I will attempt to answer only one more question; that relates to the raising of the school-leaving age. There are two important factors to enable the raising of the school-leaving age to be effectively carried through. One is tile matter of accommodation, and the other is the matter of teachers, and I think I can satisfy your Lordships that the position is not unhopeful in both respects. I must remind your Lordships that although the raising of the school age begins next month its effect does not take place until considerably later. About one-third of the children, or something like 130,000, will be affected next September, and the other two-thirds in the following year. The provision of the places required for these 390,000 children will be achieved in three ways: by the use of existing school premises—at least 135,000 places; by temporary huts under a programme which is being handled by the Ministry of Works—approximately 200,000 places; by new premises in permanent construction and by adaptation or extension of existing premises—approximately 70,000 to 75,000 places.
With regard to teachers, again of course the effect of raising the age of compulsory attendance at school will not be felt by all the schools at once, but by stages from September, 1947, to September, 1948. Not till the latter date will the schools have to provide for the full additional age-group of some 390,000 children, for whom it is estimated that some 13,000 additional teachers will be needed. Teachers are being recruited all the time, and they are also leaving the profession all the time. The question is whether, allowing for all forms of recruitment and all probable wastage, the total establishment of teachers will be adequate to carry the load when it is needed. In January, 1946, there were 176,000 teachers in primary and secondary schools, and the ratio of teachers to children was only very slightly below that which prevailed before the war. By January, 1947, this number had already increased to 188,000, partly by appointments deliberately made in preparation for dealing with the additional age-group. It is estimated that the establishment will be increased to over 190,000 by next September, to 193,000 by April, 1648, and to 198,000 by September, 1948. Thus, from January, 1946, to September, 1948, the increase is estimated at 22,000–13,000 for the addi-
518
tional age-group and 9,000 for other improvements over the 1946 standard of staffing. I think your Lordships will be satisfied in that respect, at any rate, that full and satisfactory provision is being made for the children.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Could the noble Lord say whether that will not mean a considerable increase in the size of the classes, which are already far too large?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not know whether the noble Earl heard my words—9,000 for other improvements over the 1946 standard of staffing. I should imagine that some of these other improvements will involve a reduction in the size of classes. I have done my best to answer the questions that have been submitted to me and this great inquest on the economic position of the nation is now fully launched. When the whole situation is examined I think it will be found that the Government have made a gallant effort to deal with the most difficult problems which have ever confronted a. Government of this country. I believe that the problems themselves are such that they cannot be solved in the easy way that many people throughout the country. think. We have appreciated that there were hard tasks ahead, and in the main we have not disguised them from the people. We shall continue to press on with the necessary austerity to give to this country and its people a lasting future, with a standard of life far above that which there was in years gone by; and we shall not disguise from the nation that that cannot be achieved in the early future, but that it will require effort, labour and enthusiasm in order that it may be fully accomplished.
4.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT PORTAL: My Lords I listened with great: interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, but I was surprised to hear him say—if I understood him aright—that the Government had made a most courageous effort in producing this great plan. I thought it was an analysis that had been produced, and that the plan was to come. I have looked forward to this courageous plan, and I shall continue to do so. I am here today to make whatever contribution I can to help solve the difficulties with which we are faced from the industrial point of view. I thought the first seven minutes of the noble Lord's speech

519
were the best, when we heard eulogies of what the Government had done in the last year and a half, but I was thinking more of what is to happen in the next year and a half. We arc faced with these very difficult facts contained in the White Paper which is before us to-day. As your Lordships all know, this White Paper was discussed in another place for three days, and that discussion showed every one of us here how difficult the national position is, and what we have to face up to. I will try to deal with three or four points which I do not think were stressed, or even alluded to, in the other place.
Before one examines the White Paper, one must take stock of the present crisis through which we are passing, which has emphasized in the clearest possible manner the importance of coal to us in this country. The point was well brought out by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that coal is not only our one raw material but the one upon which all our industries, as well as our domestic consumers, are dependent. It may interest your Lordships to know, that early in 1940—when I had just come back from being Regional Commissioner in South Wales—I was appointed, along with Sir Andrew Duncan, who was then President of the Board of Trade, to a Committee to consider what steps could be taken to increase coal production. I was the Chairman of that Committee, which consisted of representatives of the coal owners and what was then termed the Miners' Federation (it has now altered its name). The figures for 1939 were approximately 220,000,000 tons. France was still in the war, and France wanted us to export more coal. I went round to all the districts and afterwards met the other members of the Committee and reported what had been done. What we have to be clear about is that, at that date, when we were producing 220,000,000 tons of coal, there were 67,000 more miners in the mines than there were in 1946, when the production was 189,000,000 tons.
In March, 1940, in a short report, the Committee recommended that no more miners should be taken from the mines—a lesson learned from what we found—and we also started the coal production committees in the various coal districts. To get back to the 189,000,000 tons, and the 195,000,000 which were consumed: I
520
think to the average person it seems quite impossible that the country should be in this very difficult crisis through 6,000,000 tons of coal. If you think it out for one moment, in a situation where coal is the basis for everything in this country, whether it be industry, power stations, domestic users, or anything else, and you get a narrow margin such as that, you are bound to have the life of this country dislocated. In the present case we had also to go through these very severe weather experiences. What it points to is the importance—and I am sure the Government now recognize this of the stocking of coal for next year. That is absolutely essential. The result of being short of 6,000,000 tons of coal has been to upset the whole of industry in this country. I would point out that in the White Paper—I think my noble friend Viscount Swinton alluded to it—200,000,000 tons is mentioned as the minimum. That does not, as we realize, allow anything for the export of coal from this country. And we must bear in mind that before the war the export of coal helped us enormously with our imports. That must not be left out of consideration. Even if we step up our target quickly, it is only a half-way house to supply coal to this country.
There is one question which I would like to ask, and which I think the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will be answering: Will the many new factories which are being built be guaranteed their full supply of fuel and power? As your Lordships know, there are many factories now working on various quotas of coal which are guaranteed to them, and they are not in full production. Or, looking at it the other way round: Will the existing factories be guaranteed their full supply before the new factories commence production? That also is a very important point. If factories can only work one week in four, I need not point out to your Lordships how difficult it must be. This may have been considered, but it is very important in places like Wales, where there are a great many factories being built to-day. We need to be certain that those factories can he guaranteed their fuel for the next two or three years; and it is only fair that the people who have existing factories should be first in the field.
As your Lordships know, arguments are being put forward in some quarters that the crisis has been caused by trans-

521
port difficulties. I would like to give you the following facts of this question. During the year 1946 only 350,000 tons of coal out of a total output (taking the Government's figure) of 100,000,000 tons were lost through pit stoppages caused by rail transport difficulties and lack of wagons. Of those 350,000 tons—this is the interesting fact-232,00o tons were lost in two weeks in December, when weather conditions were abnormal. Even during the worst period of the present coal crisis, the maximum tonnage on the railways on any one day was 962,000 tons, which is equivalent to about two days forwardings from the collieries, whereas the normal quantity in transit during the winter months, under favourable conditions, is usually about 700,000 tons. That is convincing evidence that the railways are not responsible for this coal crisis. 1 am at present connected with the railways, and while I am connected with them I shall take up the cudgels on their behalf and see that the railways, the railway men and everyone concerned are treated fairly.
It is therefore essential, as I think your Lordships will agree, that there must be an increase in coal production in this country both by attracting more men to the coal mining industry and by increasing production. Let us import coal, as my noble friend Viscount Swinton said, if we can procure it—and we should be able to procure it—in order to tide us over our present difficulties. I say also that some concerns should transfer to oil fuel—which can be obtained, not from the dollar countries but from other countries—to help us in our present situation. (It makes it rather difficult for me if noble Lords on the Government Front Bench talk amongst themselves. My old friend the Leader of the House always gives me a chance, and having come back here again, I am rather nervous.)
The White Paper states that the nation cannot afford shorter hours of work unless this can be shown to increase output per man-year. I think that is the crux of the whole of the White Paper, and I would like to deal with that for a few minutes. First of all, the Government should not put in a statement like that unless they know how they are going to implement it. How are they going to implement it? I want to know that. I think it will be agreed that if the White Paper had been
522
published a year ago it would have been easier to carry out, because during the last twelve months shorter hours have already been established in certain industries, while there are other industries to-day which are asking for them. It is difficult and almost impossible for any industry to guarantee that there will be no drop in production in working shorter hours. You can say there will not be a drop, but it depends on the team spirit which has to be engendered in the actual factories. That is where you get the extra output. You cannot get it from overall promises; you can get it only from the actual man in the factory. Just like the leader of a battalion in the war, he can engender the feeling which will result in extra output.
It must he remember red that there are two different types of industry—the productive industries and what call the servicing industries. The productive industry produces goods, and the servicing industry renders services. In the first category, in the productive industries, one is able to increase production, or one should be able to, but in the second category, in the servicing industries, if you cut down the hours it will mean a rise in costs, as you will have to increase the numbers employed without any compensating return. If you reduced the hours in productive industries by being able to show no reduction in output, the servicing industries would also, of course, ask for shorter hours of work. One goes with the other, and when you are considering the question of shorter hours you have to look at the two together. One gives you a result and the other, with the best will in the world, cannot give you any result except the employment of more men at a time when the supply of labour is scarce.
I will give your Lordships an example of what I mean by a servicing industry. Take the signalmen on the railways, who number more than 20,000. We all know what an enormous number of trains go into places like Waterloo Station during the day, and we all realize what meticulous care is needed for work of this character. The signalman's work is most intricate work and, by its very nature, cannot increase production at all. I give that as an example because, having heard people discussing this question. I think that most of them—I will not say your Lordships—in talking of industry take the view that

523
all industries can produce more. Of course they cannot. You have to face up to the fact that if you introduce shorter hours in one industry, then the others will also wish to have them. I want to stress that point, because I have not heard it stressed in the way in which I have tried to put it to your Lordships to-day.
Whatever solution is found for this difficult question, both of these different types of industry will have to be considered. We must also remember that if shorter hours are worked in the servicing industries, it must mean a bigger call on our manpower, which is already unable to fulfil the calls made upon it. The question of manpower, like coal, as I think your Lordships will agree, is of paramount importance to this country. Although the use of Poles—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Pethick Lawrence, alluded—and displaced persons may help, I am sure we all agree that it must prove to be a slow process. It is no use pretending that all these people can be trained in a day to work with our people, because it cannot be done. In a White Paper like this, for goodness sake let us be realistic, and not pretend we can do something quickly when we cannot.
Allusion has been made in another place—and I think my noble friend Lord Swinton alluded to it to-day—to the growth of the Civil Service, which has more than doubled on its pre-war figure. What I wish to stress is the number of extra men who have to be employed in industrial and commercial undertakings to deal with the returns and forms which are now being sent by the various Government Departments to them. Where you have one civil servant, you have two or three men employed in industry; think what that means in the way of overheads. That is not realized half as much as the growth of the Civil Service. These forms have become a disease. It is like cutting ivy off a tree: if you want to kill the disease, you cut the ivy at the bottom, and the rest of it dies. If you cut down some of these documents emanating from the Civil Service you will cut down the number of men in industry who constitute not only a serious item of overhead costs but a loss of production to the industry. These people are being taught a trade, but really they are only parasites on the forms of the Civil Service. They are very good fellows, but I want to get rid of them. If these people who fill up
524
forms are increasing in industry to-day I would hazard a guess that there will be even more in the nationalised industries, because they will have learnt the habit of forms before they go in, and they will have learnt the habit of buying up country houses in places where nobody will take them over. The way to deal with this is to see if you can eradicate them. You know within your own businesses that if you have three forms to send in and you can send in one instead, you do it; but it is more difficult to do it in a Government office, where one form goes in the basket and another goes down the passage to another place.
Another question is that of controls. Of course, while things are in short supply we all agree that controls must go on. But what we ought to realize to-day is that during the war we had men with lifelong experience in industry running those controls, the majority of which were under the Ministry of Supply. If I may allude to the Ministry of Food, the proportion of temporary civil servants there during the war was 75 per cent. or 8o per cent. What has happened now is that many of those people have gone back to their respective industries, and it throws the burden back upon the Government Departments, who were never originally the men for that type of job. I am pointing out only that if you still had the same people running these things it would be an advantage. During the war the Government called in all the people with experience, and at the end of the war these people said, "Let us go out; we want to get back to our own industry." That is one of the points which face us to-day. My noble friend Lord Woolton, and later my noble friend Lord Llewellin, guided the Ministry of Food, and they would he the first to say that the people who have had a life-long experience in industry should he the people to run the Ministry.
I want to allude to only one or two more points. What we are after is increased production, but if there is increased production there must be remuneration for it. It is known to me, and to many noble Lords sitting on both sides of this House, that the Government are now talking about an incentive. During the war, when I was at the Ministry of Supply, it was called "payment by results," before the war it was called "bonus" or "piece work," and I

525
believe the Greeks had a word for it as well. It is all the same thing, and you can call it what you like. Do not be afraid to call it "piece rate," because you might get people who do not know what is meant by "an incentive," and it is much better to tell them. We want increased output to-day, and I am sure that these are the methods to which we shall have to turn—that is, giving a fair return to the man who works hard.
In the days before the war we were not in short supply of labour; we were in over supply. In consequence there was a lurking fear of unemployment which anybody could see if, like myself, they went down to Wales. I say that that position has changed. We are now in short supply of labour, and you can do what I remember doing with the present Foreign Secretary, and that is, get out a charter for the building trade for five or ten years' employment. If you can give security—and I always wish we could have given security to the miners before we did—then the workers have nothing to be afraid of. I am sorry if I have taken anything from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, but he has had practical experience and I have been an overseer. If I may put it to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, I suggest that what we must not have is what I call piecemeal planning, which is absurd.
I now come to the question of what has happened to mid-week sport in this country, and I will only refer to it briefly. Let us look at what happened. Meetings have taken place and are now taking place will the Home Secretary on the question of mid-week sport. The Government thought that in order to prevent absenteeism it would be a good thing to limit mid-week sport. The first thing to ask oneself is whether it is a good thing to penalize the majority for the sake of trying to prevent a small minority from absenting themselves from their work. Already there are a large number of people who have their holiday in the middle of the week. Moreover there are a number of shift workers who are free during the day time. just a day or two after the Government decided to see if they could not curtail mid-week sport, the unions were saying that the work should be evenly distributed, and that people, instead of working from 8 a.m. to 6 a.m. should work from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m.
526
About 40 per cent. or 50 per cent, of the industrial population are getting their first chance of being free from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m., and just at that time there is this difficulty—I will not call it "panic," because that is probably the wrong word—about absenteeism. The matter was really not thought out, because you could not limit mid-week sport and then suggest that 50 per cent. of the workers were to be out from 2. p.m. to 10 p.m.
We have heard a lot about films, but we want people to have outdoor fun; we do not want them to go into cinemas at 3 o'clock. Believe me, that point was not thought out, and the noble Viscount, who leads this House, knows that ever since the first day the matter was brought up the Government have been not quite so certain of it. The point I want to make is that you will never get the subject of racing out of the miner's head. The popularity I achieved was not through myself, but through the horses I owned. I had a horse—I am not going to give the name of it—and I told them it was a very good horse. It was beaten by a short head at Hurst Park and the money rolled in to all the remaining districts. If the horse had won I should have been even more popular than some of the present members of the Coal Board.
Noble Lords on this side of the House were always told that we were the people who represented Public Schools. There are a good number of those representatives on the other side of the House now. I was at a very good school with the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India and Burma. He had the brains and I used to try and follow him in various ways. At that school they used to forbid us to go to races of any sort. Of course, being forbidden to go, the boys went, but I do not mean that absentees should be treated in the same way as we were treated when we returned from the races. I am certain the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, would never have gone to those races, but if he had done so, when he returned he would not have been put in the position some of us were.
I want now to come to another point. This year there will be holidays for about 15,000,000 people—I do not know how many working families—with pay. Is this the right time to reduce the number of trains? If you start reducing trains now, and if people are going on holiday, how

527
are they to be conveyed? They want to go to the seaside; they do not want to remain in unattractive atmospheres. Whether they want to go to Brighton or Bournemouth or elsewhere, you must give them the proper facilities. I think, really, you will have a lot more trouble over that matter.
My last point is this. You are going to encourage in every way the recruitment of more miners. If you do that, it should mean a greater production of coal. You must remember that if you have to carry holiday traffic on the railways enough rolling-stock must be produced to do so and to take the merchandise and coal of this country as well. More wagons and more locomotives are required. The permanent way must be put right, or there will he another bottle-neck in transport. Leave one of these things unprepared for and go on with one of the others, and you will still have the same difficulty. This is the last point I am going to make. I have had a certain experience in industrial life, especially in the period of our distressed areas before the war. One saw then (as one saw even more clearly during the war) that the workers in this country will respond to any crisis providing you tell them the facts, and so long as they are given determined and wise leadership.
5.22 p.m.
LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: My Lords, as this is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House, may I begin by asking for that indulgence which I understand you always extend to novices on such occasions? May I venture, as one who has had a good deal of experience in attending debates in another place, to say I am impressed by the standard of debate in this House, and I shall do my best to live up to it. I am going, if I may, to confine myself this afternoon to the question of coal—what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has called "the key to everything." He complained that the Government should be willing to accept an output for the current year of only 200,000,000 tons, and suggested it was too low. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick Lawrence, has already said, "Of course, we all regard it as much too low; the only question is what, under the present conditions, is practicable." I should like to consider why it is that we are hoping only for an output which is admittedly far too
528
low for the needs of the country. The noble Viscount said he was not going back to history, but was going to confine himself to the last eighteen months. In so doing naturally he put the blame for slow output on the present Government.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry to interrupt a maiden speech, but I was not putting the blame for low output on the present Government. What I said, I think, was that they had put the target too low, and that if we could get the same output per man shift as we had between 1938 and 1941 it would provide a higher target. All my remarks on coal were entirely objective.
LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE: I am glad the noble Viscount agrees that the Government are doing all that is possible. May I suggest to noble Lords that in the coal industry you cannot alter output substantially in a matter of months, or even in a matter of a year or two. It takes a matter of ten to fifteen years to reorganize the coal industry by concentration and by mechanization. It takes between eight and ten years to sink a large new modern pit and to get it into full production. May I, therefore, try to show why it is that our output now is so low? For that purpose I venture to suggest that it is necessary to go back into old history, through what happened in the inter-war years. I shall be able to prove in a few minutes that the present position was entirely due to a failure in the inter-war years, and I will try to show who was responsible for it. It certainly was not the present Government.
We are very fortunate in having authoritative information available on this matter in the Reid Report, which was published in 1945. Its authors were seven of the ablest and most experienced mining engineers, managing directors, and production authorities in the country. I should like to pay high tribute, which I am sure all of your Lordships will endorse, not only to the skill and knowledge of Sir Charles Reid and his colleagues, but to the frankness and courage with which they revealed what were the weaknesses of the coal industry in the inter-war years. Those weaknesses were, I think, largely due to the fact that there were not enough managing directors and mining engineers in the industry of the calibre of those who signed the Reid Report.

529
The essential thing in the Report is the comparison between output in the interwar years of the coal industries of Britain, the Ruhr and Holland—I do not take the United States because conditions there are much better. The Report takes three areas where the conditions are similar; there is nothing easier about the industry in the Ruhr or Holland than about the British industry. The members of the Reid Committee proceed to give a number of startling figures. After the war, when the three countries got back to production, Britain was producing 21 cwt. per man shift. By 1936 that had been raised to 24 cwt., an increase of 14 per cent. In the Ruhr, the figure was 19 cwt. per man shift, which rose to 34 cwt., an increase of 51 per cent. In Holland they started with 16 cwt. and increased it to 36 cwt., an increase of 114 per cent. as against 14 per cent. in this country.
I should like to point out that in Holland 6o per cent. of the output was from nationalized mines owned by the State, for which, as regards the human side, there was an admirable training scheme. There were practically no strikes, and as regards results prices were lower than in this country and profits were good. That was in the nationalized Dutch mines, and, frank as the Reid Report was, I do not think it stressed that particular point. The report says:
"Conditions in Britain are comparable with those in the Ruhr and in Holland and afford no explanation of the much lower output per man shift obtained in Britain."
That seems to me to be a very important conclusion. May I now proceed to draw some obvious inferences which are not actually drawn in the Reid Report? The first is that if the management in this country had been as good as in the Ruhr or in Holland (and when I say "management" I mean it in the widest possible sense; I mean it to include action by the Government, by managers, by owners, by mining engineers, by trade unions and by workers) the whole set-up in this country would have been very much better. As in the Ruhr or as in Holland, we should in 1936 have been producing not 24 cwt. per man shift but 35 cwt. per man shift. That seems to me an inescapable and, I think, incontrovertible conclusion.
But what has happened since then? We have dropped back by about 3 cwt. to something over 20 cwt. now. Suppos-
530
ing that, having got to 35 cwt. before the war, we had dropped back by 5 cwt. to 30 cwt., what would the position have been in 1946? We should have produced an additional 80,000,000 tons compared with what we did produce. We should have got not 100,000,000 tons but 270,000,000 tons of coal last year. That is not a fairy story or an effort of the imagination. I have discussed this matter in the last few days with leading authorities in the coal industry, and they say that is a fair conclusion to draw from the Report. If that had happened—and it is not the fault of this Government that it has not—what a different position we should have been in ! Our houses would have been warmed, our industries would have had supplies of fuel, we would not have been called upon to make the sacrifices we have had to make, and Mr. Kevin in Moscow would have been in an incomparably more powerful position than he is in to-day. The whole position of this country would have been totally different.
And who is responsible for the fact that the position is not different? Who is responsible for the fact that we did not reach 35 cwt. per man shift but only got 24 cwt. in those days? Obviously not the present Labour Government. If I may go back to the Royal Commission of which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was Chairman, which reported in 1925, I would recall that they came to two conclusions. They found that two things were necessary: first of all, larger units, and secondly, a fuller partnership between the two sides in the industry. Those were the conclusions of the Commission, and they were strongly rubbed in. I think that everybody agrees with them. But what happened during the next fifteen years? No larger units were created. All efforts at amalgamation failed, in spite of the 1930 Act which was largely designed for that purpose, and efforts at voluntary amalgamation failed. The fuller partnership of which the Report spoke did not materialize. May I quote a sentence from the Report of the Royal Commission? They stated:
"We cannot agree with the mine owners that little can be done to improve the organization of the industry and that the only practical course is to lengthen hours and to reduce wages."
In view of that sort of statement, in view of the failure to change conditions, can one be surprised that the desired fuller partnership did not work out, or that the

531
trade unions under those conditions were not prepared to go into a fuller partnership? The result was that feeling between the two sides in the industry tended to get worse and worse. The general output remained very unsatisfactory, and I think it is fair to say that the failure to increase it to 35 cwt. was due to the working of the capitalist system, generally speaking, under the control and guidance of Conservative Governments. Of course, I do not say that it was entirely the fault of the capitalist system; other people may have been to blame as well. I do not suppose that the trade unions were perfect; I do not say that the Labour Government of 1930 was perfect; I am not sure that the Liberal Party in 1930 was perfect in its attitude on this question. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and myself ware members of the committee which negotiated with the Labour Party on the Coal Bill, and I remember that I voted three times with the Labour Party against the Liberals and the Conservatives, so there may be small bits of blame to be laid at the doors of other people. It may be that the present Labour Government has not done absolutely everything that is possible. But supposing every member of the present Government had been an archangel, what could they have done during the last eighteen months to increase the output of coal? I think noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that obviously they could do very little indeed to make up that tremendous loss of 80,000,000 tons to which I have already referred. What they could have done would have been almost negligible.
May I at this point be allowed to make a personal explanation, because I am that rather strange animal, a capitalist who is also a Socialist. I am actually responsible for a group of engineering firms, which I hope are rendering good service to the State at the present time. I am far from suggesting that capitalist industry is always inefficient. I believe that we have many industries which are as efficient in production, probably, as anything the world has ever known. But I do say, with confidence, that the capitalist system in conjunction with the Governments that existed in the interwar years did make a very conspicuous failure of the coal industry. In those years, it was just a case, I am afraid, of bad management, because, after all,
532
in the Ruhr and even in Holland, where much more successful results were achieved, the coal industry was run—at least in the Ruhr—almost entirely under the capitalist system.
May I now say one or two words about the future, which after all is a matter of much greater importance. The present Government have taken the decisive step of nationalizing the mines. They have acted to wipe out the two great causes of inefficiency which prevailed in that industry in the inter-war years, the two great errors which the Samuel Commission mentioned in 1925. With the abolition of separate ownerships has gone the ideological war between trade unions and owners. Those obstacles to efficient planning have disappeared, and it is now possible, for the first time, for those in authority to make plans for the industry as a whole with the sole object and the sole aim of the public advantage. That, I think, is incontrovertible. On the other hand, nobody suggests that it is an easy job to make a success of this immense industry. The Government have appointed a National Coal Board and the nine members of that body have the tremendous task of creating a national management for this great and complex and very varied industry. They have already appointed, I think, a thousand managements for different pits, forty-eight area boards and eight divisional boards. I hope that they have been successful in finding the right men for all those many jobs.
They now have the task of organizing to enable every man on those boards to feel that he knows what his job is and to make him happy in that job. I believe it is the most gigantic task of organization that has ever been laid upon the shoulders of a board in the history of any industry in this or any other country—to create a great machine of that sort above the level of the pits, with almost nothing to go upon. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will congratulate the nine courageous men who have taken on this grave responsibility, and will extend to them their thanks. They have, I think, thanks to the action of the Government in nationalizing the mines, a great opportunity. Many people in close touch with the industry believe that they have an opportunity to build up a national coal industry more efficient and more successful than has ever yet been built up in any

533
other country. May I, in conclusion, express the fervent hope that the Board will fulfil their task so successfully that in ten years' time noble Lords opposite, so far from moving votes of censure, will be congratulating the Labour Government on their wisdom and foresight in the year 1946?
5.40 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am sure I shall be voicing the feeling of your Lordships in heartily congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. I mention his title fully in order that there shall be no confusion between him and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I am sure we have heard a speech to-day which shows that if the noble Lord can live up to that class of oratory we shall have our very high-class debates augmented by his eloquence. We thank him very much for his speech. I do not propose to be in the least controversial. Many other noble Lords wish to speak, and I propose to be entirely constructive in what I am going to say. I am sure we arc very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, for having put down this Motion, and I am hoping that the Government will find some help in the suggestions that will be made before to-morrow night; indeed, they need help.
Let us at first say that, primarily, this situation in which we find ourselves is due to the war. I am riot going into the question as to who is responsible for this and who is responsible for that. That will get us nowhere. But here we have in this White Paper a survey of the situation, and I am bound to say the grave terms in which it is couched have pretty well sandbagged the nation. No one really knows where he is to-day. I was talking to a very big business man on Sunday, and I said: "What are your firm doing just now?" He said: "We are just sitting back and preparing for the further crisis which we think is bound to come." Nobody in business can look ahead very far to-day, and I do beg the Government to do everything they can to restore the confidence of our people. They must cut down to a minimum this interference in everybody's business. I was glad to hear my noble friend Viscount Swinton touch on that. Let the Government aim to restore the freedom that our people are accustomed to—the freedom to manage their own affairs. I know it cannot be
534
done entirely at the moment, but I am most anxious to drive this point home, as I am quite certain that, should it be done, it would very materially help our situation.
In May, 1946, as some of your Lordships will remember, I begged the Govern-merit to postpone this policy of nationalization, or the threat of nationalization. I am bound to say that in the light of what has taken place since then, the Government must be a bit disappointed. Everybody else is, if the Government are not. [n 1944 I raised a question on the economic policy, and I was then accused of being the most gloomy man who ever sat in this House; unfortunately I was justified, by the results, in raising the matter. In May, 1946, and in February, I drew attention to the general economic situation. I propose now, I am afraid, rather to startle your Lordships. I am going to deal with a very delicate subject, but I hope my idea is one which will commend itself to you. It is that a request be made to a foreign power. Your Lordships remember that the Lend-Lease Act, which was described as an Act to defend America, was passed on March, 1947. The Lend-Lease Agreement was signed in Washington, and Clause 8 reads as follows:-
"This agreement shall take effect as from this day's date. It shall continue in force until a date to be agreed upon by the two Governments."
Actually the Agreement was cancelled unilaterally by President Truman, arid without protest by this Government. You will remember that Lord Keynes, when he made that great speech to us after he came back from America at the time of the Loan, intimated that he felt we should not build too much on any recognition by the U.S.A. of the time when we were fighting alone: I was not at that time of -the opinion that the Americans were not prepared to make that recognition. Of course, Lord Keynes had been in close touch with them and must have had that impression, otherwise he would not have said anything about it. But from what I know of the American people, I do not believe they are so unfair as not to take that period into a very serious and very careful consideration. Surely it could not be argued by anyone that hostile acts performed by Britain against Germany and her Allies were acts

535
to defend America only after Lend-Lease. Every hostile act performed by Great Britain between September 3, 1939, and December 7, 1941, must, in their subsequent total effect, have been equal in value to the United States of America to all such acts performed after America's entry into the war.
Some £2,000,000,000 were spent in America for war supplies between September, 1939, and Lend-Lease. Every penny of this sum was spent in weakening the German war potential, and the benefit of this was reaped by the United States of America when they joined forces with us. For the life of me I cannot but think, if this matter is put to the American people—and I believe that hardly one in ten knows anything about it—that they will say to themselves: "There is a case here, and a justifiable case, for us to come out and help Great Britain and the Empire who fought alone for that period." I have such a high opinion of American justice and equity that I believe they would say that. So far as I know, nothing whatever has been done by the British Government to attempt to secure an adjustment with the United States on account of this vast expenditure. No one expects that we could ask for full restitution of this money, but I believe, as I have already said, that the American sense of fair play might well have responded to an appeal that the burden should be shared fifty-fifty.
Let us for a moment think what it would mean to us to-day if that happened. If that had been done we should not now be incurring any liability for dollars. If it could be done now it would be the most practical means of ensuring the balance of payments at least up to the end of 195o. This would give us enough time to secure the proper development of our economic forces, provided that these were tackled in a realistic and not in a doctrinaire spirit. Just think of the importance of such a thing happening. If this can be done, the intense drive for exports at the expense of our home market can be relaxed. I leave it to His Majesty's Government to bear in mind what I have said to-day, and I leave it to them very tactfully to raise this question with the United States Government. If it is put to them fairly and squarely, I believe there will be a
536
response which will be not only of the greatest value to ourselves but of the greatest value to them, because it will help them as well as us.
I have just one or two other points on which I want to touch quite shortly. I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said with regard to the question of the school-leaving age. That was a subject which I was going to raise. If his figures are correct with regard to the 330,000 or so new children coming in and only 13,000 new teachers are allocated to them, as I think he said, working it out, what does it mean? It means that there are thirty or more per class. I happen to be very intimately concerned with the education of my own country, Scotland. We cannot reap the benefit of the enormous amount of money we are spending on education unless we reduce the size of the classes. That must be done if we are to get good results. Therefore I hope that the Government will reconsider the figure which they have given, and will still further postpone the bringing into operation of the raising of the school-leaving age until such time as we can get an adequate number of teachers to reduce the number in classes.
I wish to say a word or two with regard to another matter—that of shorter hours. In this connexion we have a great example in France. What did M. Blum (whom we all remember at one time was extremely keen on a forty-hour week) do when he became Prime Minister? He said: "No, we cannot go in for that now. Our country is in great distress, and we must revert to a forty-eight hour week." It may be too late now to touch that, but it is very important and I cannot believe that a country which finds itself in the situation in which we now are should not do everything possible to restore a forty-eight hour working week. The question of subsidies is one that has not so far to-day been touched upon. I hope the Government will seriously consider reducing subsidies—naturally not eliminating them altogether, but reducing them gradually. I believe that those who have participated in the rise in wages and remuneration are quite able to pay the little extra they have to pay for what they are able to purchase, but for those of fixed incomes—such as pensions—the higher cost of living should be made up in allowances. I am sure that

537
generally speaking, it is wrong to have subsidies, and I hope the Government will do their best in making a start to reduce them.
In conclusion, let me say this. Last night the Prime Minister begged for cooperation, for team spirit, for all to work together to help the country. If that aim is to be effective there one thing which must stop here and now. For years the doctrine has been preached by many members land supporters—I am afraid even Ministers—of the Labour Party, that that wicked man, the employer, is a slave driver, that he is all out for profit, that he profits by scarcity, that his management is rotten, That must stop. It has been carried on quite lately by some people associated with the Government. Every one of us wishes to do everything we can to help the country and to collaborate with anybody in order to get us out of this trouble. The other day I was going clown in the train with a friend of mine who is an important man in shipping. I asked him: "What do you think we can do to help?" He said: "The only thing any of us can do is to do whatever job we have got to do as well as we possibly can." Will the Government bear that in mind and try to influence all their supporters to stop this abuse and propaganda directed against people whom they consider not to be of their particular class? I should have thought that today we had pretty well got over that. But there it is. To get complete unanimity as to what shall be done, to get complete co-operation, I beg noble Lords on the other side of the House to do everything they can to influence the Government, Ministers, and supporters of the Labour Party to give up that abuse.
6 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I make no claim to being an economic expert, and I do not as a rule take part in economic debates, bat the White Paper under consideration is addressed to the ordinary citizen, and I felt that an inveterate cross-bencher, entirely detached from political controversy, might perhaps make a contribution. First, I want to say a word as a student of the machinery of Government. Whatever the merits or demerits, of the policy enshrined in this economic survey, I submit that the method of its presentation—that is to say,
538
a review of the economic situation as a whole, fearlessly setting out the grim facts and prospects, and explaining the inter-relation of the various aspects—should be welcomed as a notable advance on previous procedure. It is clear that the methods of procedure worked up gradually by the Committee on Imperial Defence, which culminated in the War Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff systems of the late war, have at long last been applied to our economic affairs, and Sir Stafford Cripps, speaking in another place, made it clear that a regular Joint Planning Staff is contemplated. I suggest that your Lordships, who have played so conspicuous a part in the machinery of Government, should welcome this innovation, even if it comes late, as an important landmark in constitutional history.
Coming to policy, the document seems to me to contain very little that is new, yet it does provide a most admirable compendium of policies under all heads, and puts them together into a single policy which has been to a great extent already accepted. The survey has been criticized because it contains no plan for meeting our new difficulties. From the internal evidence, it seems to me clear that it must have been composed in the main before the recent crisis which has changed the situation. Moreover, the survey itself is a report of existing plans. It shows that a good deal of progress has been, made in many respects. It also makes clear that this progress has been carefully watched by the new economic staff with a view to adjustments to meet general conditions. I shall leave criticism in detail, of which we have heard a great deal this afternoon, to other experts, and confine myself to just two or three points.
My first difficulty—and I hope somebody will explain it—is how, if we are going to maintain, let alone increase, our comparatively high standard of living, we are going to compete with nations which have a lower standard of living, or lower costs of production, or which protect their home industries by tariff walls for nationalistic reasons. I doubt if the gap can be bridged entirely, as I have seen suggested, by concentrating on those lines in which British skill is outstanding. The proposal that appeared in the Press last week for harnessing scientists to the task is a very good one, but I fancy that it has been done. I

539
know that industry has taken in a great many scientists since the war, and I know that the Government are keen on science. But I do think it might be useful if the Government were to invite a body like the Scientific Advisory Committee, or whatever is the correct body under the new organization, to look at the situation as a whole and advise if there is any way in which science can help more.
My doubts on the question of how we are to reach these figures were rather increased by experiences which I have had in Egypt, where I have just spent several weeks. There were a great many foreign goods in the market this year, and in some of the lines they seem to be establishing a lead. I saw very few British cars, for instance—the Americans seem to have captured that market. I noticed also that in hosiery foreign nations seem to he establishing a very firm footing. One suggestion which was made to me there, which I should like to offer to the Government, is that British cutters in the tailoring trade should be sent to Egypt, as they were before the war. I was told that that was likely to increase the use of British materials. I think that is worth considering. It warmed my heart to read in the Egyptian Press just before I left that British industry had presented the lowest tender for the electric power building scheme for the Assouan Dam.
I am not discouraged, but I have seen enough in Egypt and in constant visits to France to convince me that we are entering on a highly competitive period in which other nations have exactly the same aims as we have ourselves. They make no secret of it; their missions were coming to Egypt to try and establish trade. So I think we shall be hard put to it to reach our figures, especially if we are to raise the standard of living, as the White Paper seems to suggest. I suggest that the Government ought to be very careful about encouraging hopes of an improvement in the standard of living. If they are going to do so, they ought to explain exactly what they mean. For instance, increased expenditure on luxuries not especially conducive to health or physique or the better life, tend to set a false standard of living—for example, the consumption of such commodities as tobacco and cigarettes. I do not want to be too hard—I am a smoker myself—but it does shock me profoundly
540
to read that the 1947 import programme provides £50,000,000 for tobacco against £35,000,000 for consumer goods. Of course, consumer goods we can provide ourselves, to a great extent, if we do not export them. Then such articles as expensive fruits and wines, lipsticks and cosmetics, and the waste of American dollars on films of dubious quality, do give me qualms as to whether our standard is right in these matters.
In June, 1931, Mr. Stalin, in a talk to business executives about a lag in his five years' plan, insisted that—if I may quote:
"In order to retain workers in the factories we must further improve the supply of products to the workers and improve their housing conditions."
That is the kind of improvement in the standard of living that we need first. I am not raising the question of housing, because it is much too big to raise at this hour, but we ought to do all we can to improve the position in regard to consumer goods, to alleviate the hard lot of the housewife, and to reduce the appalling time she has to waste in the daily struggle for commodities and standing in queues. For the breadwinner, too, we ought to try to improve transport conditions, so that he has not to stand in trains, trams and buses for hours in order to get to and from his work. We ought to do all we can in the way of fresh air games and exercise, allotments, gardens, and other amenities. One could extend the list indefinitely, and I am sure the Government agree that that is the case, but if they are going to talk about standards of living I think it ought to be explained what they mean.
I agreed very strongly with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, about the raising of the school-leaving age. One knows that in the long run it has to be done in order to improve our standards, but to do it at the expense of 160,000 lads in the present emergency seems to me to deserve Sir Hubert Henderson's description of "Mid-summer madness." Of course, the possible use of foreign workers is good, but it will not compensate for the lads, for the reason that the prisoners of war are being withdrawn. In any event, real education begins only after leaving school, and I believe that some scheme to persuade boys and girls to make better use of their leisure after leaving school would be worth more than the extra year. I have not time to elaborate that theme tonight.

541
Those observations do not detract from the economic survey as a whole. It could, in my view—subject to such amendments in detail as this and other debates may suggest—perfectly well become the basis of the nation's policy, except for one thing; and that is the concurrent policy of nationalization. One extraordinary feature of the White Paper is that it contains no direct references, and only two rather remote references, to the policy of nationalization. Having read it once, I read it through again to see if I had made a mistake; but that is so. Here is what purports to be a complete survey of our economic position, and yet it is completely silent about the most conspicuous and controversial feature in the Government's economic policy. I do not know whether it was because the officials were not in agreement, bat there the fact remains. I am not going to express any opinion on the merits or demerits of a policy of nationalization, but no detached observer can fail to note that the spectre of nationalization is bound to exercise an important and perhaps a decisive influence on the success of the plans outlined in the Economic Survey which I have tried to commend.
I notice that the Prime Minister, in his covering note, and the Survey itself in its conclusions, insist on the vital importance of the willing co-operation and the determined efforts of all sections of the population in order to secure success. oI agree; but it is difficult to see how the large, highly intelligent and experienced sections of the population to whom nationalization is anathema can be counted on to give the necessary wholehearted support to a policy which is inseparably linked with nationalization. While they are co-operating in the White Paper policy, as I hope they will, in spite of everything, they will see the other policy, which they detest, taking shape, as one Bill after another passes through the Parliamentary machine, receives the Royal Assent and becomes law. I believe the Government would enormously improve the prospects of success—which are admitted in the Survey to be not too bright—if they put_ their nationalization projects into cold storage for a while and focused the whole effort of the nation on the execution of the White Paper policy.
That would be an act of supreme statesmanship. It would be doing the decisive thing at the decisive moment. The Gov-
542
ernment would find every justification for altering their course in the recent cold blitz, which has had so much effect as to make the national effort more important than ever. That is a new factor in the situation which I hope the Government will take into account. To get a national drive behind the White Paper is the big thing, and to that everything should be subordinated. It would be putting first things first, as the White Paper constantly insists should be done. It seems to me that the writing on the, wall is plain for all to see.
6.7 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, as the second new boy of the day I am encouraged by the kindness you have shown to my noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe to crave a share of your gracious charity for myself. As one speaking for the first time in your Lordships' House, perhaps it would be most appropriate that I should try to contribute something from my own experience" particularly as it has a bearing on the problems raised in the White Paper. That does not mean that I do not share the views expressed in this debate, and in the debate is another place, on the gravity of the crisis or on the inadequacy of the steps which have been taken to deal with it. In other word: I do not want anything I say to be taken as modifying or qualifying my agreement with the terms of the Motion before the House, but I would like to say that I think there is a danger of an overdose of criticism and in the effect it may have in creating gloom and despondency. I think that is of very great importance in relation to the morale and psychology of the country.
I should like to begin, if I may, by trying to put into perspective the present situation of the country as I see it. We are in the middle of a. process of the reconversion of British industry from war to peace, In saying that, I do not refer only to the munitions industries, properly so-called, but to practically all the industries of the country. This process of reconversion presents many of the same characteristics and problems as the mobilization of the home front for war itself, and, like mobilization, it takes time. In one of his early speeches in the war, Mr. Churchill epitomized the time-table of munitions production as follows:

543
"First year, nothing at all; second year, very little; third year, quite a lot; fourth year, all you want."
The actual time table is not necessarily the same in reversing the process. It is a timetable comparable to that of mobilization. The exasperatingly slow speed of the munition mobilization is, of course, due to many obvious causes: a complete redistribution of manpower, the organization of administration, settling the programmes, problems of designs and so on and so forth.
But even when the programmes are set, and the production process has begun, there is still a long delay while the production settles down and acquires balance and continuity. A balance must be struck, not only as between the programmes themselves, but in the scale of production of all the parts of the productive process. The other quality we must develop, continuity, requires not only an adequate reserve of raw material—which can be seen in the statistical books—but the filling of the pipe-line with components, and work in progress, which cannot be seen. It is the function of the Ministries of supply to bring about this state of continuity and balance in their respective spheres. When once that has been done a given labour force will produce at an increasing rate; its output will rise rapidly, and that is really the time table of the munitions organization. We might reasonably expect the reverse process of reconversion to be quicker. People are going back to the jobs they know and to the homes they know, and managements are doing their accustomed work. But our reconversion is on a most unexampled scale, and probably on the greatest scale of any country in the world, with the possible exception of Germany.
As we know, the figures show that the number of people and the industrial resources left in the civil sector were very small at the end of the war. Demobilization of manpower has been on an immense scale, and the processes of production have had to be started all over again. In this 'build-up, as in the war, you cannot get full production without the conditions of balance and continuity. Those conditions are very far from having been achieved, and the pipe-lines are very far from full; we are passing through the exasperating
544
phase of shortages and lack of balance. I believe Sir Andrew Duncan was right when he described the situation of perhaps many of the industries of the country in another place, when he said that the steel-using industries were gathering momentum in the last quarter of 19.46. My noble friend Lord Rennell has dealt with that question of production in the last quarter. What is true is that the curve was flattening out. But at the same time I think it still remains true that the total machine of the country was gradually getting into gear.
The picture as I see it, trying to take a global view, is that the country is not much more than half-way back to normal in terms of time. Of course, I do not want to stress too much that that has any statistical importance, but it corresponds to the position in 1941 in the stage of mobilization. If that picture is right, then several conclusions follow. First of all, both the White Paper and much of the discussion give too gloomy a view, if not of the immediate future at least of our prospects. If and when we can get the pipe-lines filling, and if this emptiness of the pipe-lines is one of the essential conditions of the present situation, we may confidently expect a very substantial increase in output per head in industry generally. If that happens it would be repeating the experience of the third and fourth years following the First World War. Moreover, continuity of production is obviously the best possible way to lower production costs. We therefore have to look forward to obtaining continuity throughout, and if it is achieved there is real reason to suppose that the rather gloomy painting of production per man-hour in this country may be very much improved.
Secondly—and this is a point which has already been raised to some extent—while the lack of balance and continuity exists as it does at present, it is more important to appeal to workers and managements in certain key occupations than to make general appeals. General appeals, made at a time when many work-people are unable to give a full day's work because the raw material is not there, components are not available, or one of the many causes of delay is operative, are almost certain to fall upon deaf ears. It is a question of whether the Government could not devise some special means of marking out those grades of

545
labour which are concerned with priority work. It has been considered previously during the war, and there are a hundred and one ways of thinking out that kind of propaganda. The effort should be concentrated on those parts of the working-population which, for the time, are of crucial importance.
Thirdly, it is of crucial importance that the time lost by industry should, if possible, be regained—I mean, of course, the time lost as a result of the crisis. The longer that is delayed, the more we postpone the date at which we can pay our debts, unit costs will remain high, and managements, alike with workers, will continue to suffer from the sense of frustration. I therefore strongly support the view which has already been stressed in this House, that although it may seem incongruous to this country we should import as much coal as proves to be practicable this year. I believe there are difficulties in handling a very large quantity of coal, but up to the limits of possibility it should be done. Quantities might certainly be imported which would contribute half, or even the whole, of the replacement of the shortage in the working stock which we have to build up before next winter. I would associate that with the suggestion that whatever is done about importation will help the stock problem, and if there is any hope of bringing it oft, advantage should be taken of it to raise quotas to industry at the earliest possible time. To save the maximum amount of time, it is desirable to get the quotas raised as soon as possible arid not wait until you have in the bag a stock for next winter.
There is one other conclusion I would draw from that picture and it is this. There arc, two ways of bringing about the balance and continuity of which I have spoken. One is to keep back those who run too fast, the other is to stimulate and drive on those lagging behind. I have noticed in various quarters a tendency recently—I hope very much His Majesty's Government will not share it—to look to restriction for levelling and balancing, rather than expanding and widening bottle-necks and bringing the backward forward. It does seem to me that that is the key to the whole issue. It really is most desirable that there should be an expansionist attitude towards the question in this country; and not only an expansionist attitude, but sights should
546
be raised. You will never get work—people or the country as a whole on their toes unless you give them a target which is just a little more than they think they can attain. Any suggestion that the way to smooth things over and get a quota is to cut down, is extremely dangerous. The counterpart to that point is this. This country is cutting down the supply of raw materials to certain industries, and it is assumed that resources will move to other businesses the Government are wishing to expand. I believe that is an absolute fallacy. You know the old story of the carrot and the stick. There are two ways of making a donkey move by a stick or by a carrot. The difference is that the carrot is the only way of making the donkey move in the direction you wish it to go. The principle of the carrot is the one which must be adopted in the present circumstances.
I have suggested that there is an inevitable time lag or time period in the process of reconversion. It could, in my judgment, have been speeded up by wise Governmental action more than it have been. It would be quite irrelevant to discuss the question of planning or not planning because it has been agreed on all Benches this afternoon that there must be a degree of planning in the present circumstances in which Britain finds herself. I therefore welcome very much the statement of Sir Stafford Cripps in another place on this subject. The White Paper seems to me, within its limits—and they arc far too narrow—to be a very good statement of the situation and of the targets that have been fixed. The Prime Minister has said that the planning is to be carried forward and, as I say, Sir Stafford Cripps has referred to the development of the planning organization. But no one has explained why these developments have been delayed for two years. It was surely clear before the war ended, and indeed it is obvious—you will find it in the White Paper and in writing—that it was necessary to make provision to switch the planning organization immediately peace came. To some extent part of the responsibility for that, the failure to prepare, must rest with the Coalition, but direct responsibility is surely that of the present Government.
There seem to me to be three reasons why that was not done. One has been mentioned several times, and it is that

547
the Government are far too preoccupied by nationalization schemes. The second is that the Prime Minister did not see fit to carry forward the war organization of the Government and administration into peace-time. Some of us did hope he would have made a change of that kind. He even expressed the importance, as a temporary measure, of the Haldane Scheme, but he did not put it into effect. The third is the undue preoccupation of the economists, or many of the economists, with what I may call plans for affecting the economic climate as a whole. At the end of the First World War the only thing said by the League of Nations and the economists was—this is perhaps a mere skeleton description— "Get back to gold, and the natural tendency for people to trade will put things right." It did not, of course, because of nationalism and the tariffs which were put up. Eight years later the World Conference said, "You must not only be linked to gold; you must pull down tariffs." We have made provision this time internationally for dealing with currencies and tariffs. The tendency to-day is to stress, in connexion with full employment, the manipulation of credit. I do not wish to disparage in any way these things, but they are not sufficient. These measures for influencing the economic climate are not sufficient in the present circumstances of this country.
Therefore one warmly welcomes the revival, two years late, of the planning organization of war-time. There is one point which I would like to ask with great persistence. It is this: Who is going to be responsible for the planning organization? What Minister is going to be responsible? Because the co-ordinating of planning will only succeed if it heads up to the Prime Minister himself, or to his immediate deputy charged particularly with the task of supervizing planning. I would like to stress that point very strongly and to ask the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate whether he can elaborate in any way the scheme of planning in relation to Ministerial responsibility. I stress the point that the planning organization must head up to the highest authority for two reasons: first, that there must be responsibility and authority in the organization itself, and secondly, because, after all, an economic plan must link up with the whole political scene. That can only be achieved if it extends to the Prime Minister himself.
548
In the war—and this new scheme of planning has been adapted straight from the war—indeed in everywhere, experience has shown that it is impossible to plan effectively without strategical directives. For two years after Mr. Churchill became Prime Minister, not only general planning but the co-ordination of the war effort also were largely managed by him personally, thanks to his astonishing flair and grasp of detail. He was his own chief planner, brilliantly assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, to whom I would like to pay tribute for the work which, in fact, he did in precisely this field during the war. When the coordination of the war effort passed into the hands of the Minister of Production and the joint War Production Staff was set up, parallel to the organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, their first act was to ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff for an Order of Battle on dates further ahead, a request which was inevitably passed on to the combined organization of the Allies at Washington.
It is imperative to have a broad strategic directive from which you can stem down through a production plan, broken up into its component parts, right into the Departments themselves. What strategic directive is going to be given, and by whom, to the new planners, in this new situation, for peace? What is the peace strategical directive? What kind of Britain are we planning for? To what degree are we intending to live on our own agriculture? How are we going to balance our imports and our exports in the new situation? How long do we expect to be able to live on the assistance advanced from the United States? Those. are major questions, and the Chief Planner, when he gets into office, will have to go straight to the highest authority and say: "If I am to prepare a plan for 1950, these and these and these are the questions which I shall have to answer."
I fear that I have already over-trespassed on the time of your Lordships, but I would add that in relation to one particular issue—the issue, namely, of where we buy—to-day vis-à-vis the United States we are in a very abnormal situation. Fifty years ago we were dependent to an extreme extent on the United States. Two thirds of our imports came from there, largely balanced by goods which the United States were prepared

549
to buy. This scheme of things changed with the diversification of our sources of supply and the industrialization of the United States, until World War Number One broke out. Then, immediately, for security reasons our dependence on the United States rose rapidly. Now there has again been that dependence on the United States. It is not a normal position, but in thinking of the future of Britain to-day we must ask ourselves on whom else are we going to be dependent for our food supplies? How are we to consider the balance of trade in relation to North America, India, the Empire and so forth?
I wish to make only one final remark in that context. I have personally tried to see what, provisionally, the answer might be to that question. I can see no answer—that is to say, no answer which gives a possibility of a higher standard of living for Great Britain—unless there is a great revival in Europe itself. One can picture Britain as one of the two or three major factories of the 360,000,00o white people living just across the Channel. If they were cut off or divided then I think you would be hard put to it to make a trial balance sheet which would show us in any sort of equilibrium with the rest of the world. That is a matter of the highest political importance, and it links with the whole of our political strategy. That is why, if you really are going to take this business of planning seriously, it has to stem right up from the least of the authorities to the very highest authority—namely, the Prime Minister or a whole-time Minister earmarked and set aside for the purpose of directing that planning and in proper contact with the development of political as well as financial policy. My last word is to say that I believe very fully that, in this situation, the proper concentration and ordering of the government machine of this country—whether Labour or Conservative would not matter—the proper organization to get unity of policy which will permeate every activity of administration, is a matter of the very highest importance.
6.48 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sure I am speaking for all your Lordships when I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Layton, on his very interesting and wide-ranging maiden speech which I am sure was listened to with the greatest attention by your Lordships, and which will, I
550
hope, be read by all who have not been able to stay here until this hour. I am certainly going to read it myself and to study it with great care. As the first speaker from this side of the House since we had that other maiden speech this afternoon, that of Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, I would like to congratulate him very much on his first effort here.
I notice manifestations of a habit which is not unusual in your Lordships' House on the part of people who have spoken for long periods—as, for example, the introducer of the Motion and the first spokesman for the Opposition—and that is to leave the House. We are quite used to that. This occasion is no exception. Nevertheless, this debate has been. on a high level, and with few exceptions we have managed to avoid the purely Party spirit. And well we might. Even since this Motion was placed on the Order Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, the economic situation has altered rapidly for the worse. Since then we have had the almost unprecedented floods, the end of which are not yet in sight, and no one can tell what will be the ultimate damage by floods in the South and snow in the North to our agriculture and to our flocks and herds. We are living on. a narrow margin of food stuffs, and this has certainly made a considerable difference. The first suggestion which I make to my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, and to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is that I hope the Government is going to restore as soon as possible—in fact at once—the "Dig for Victory" campaign. As soon as the weather permits we must cultivate every square yard of land in this country in our spare time to add to our food supplies. Call it "Dig for Survival" if you like, but get the people digging.
When I used to study the German language I came across a curious word schadenfreude. It is difficult to:, translate, but I can attempt it by saying it is a delight in the troubles or agonies of other people. I noticed a tendency to schadenfreude in several speeches this afternoon, particularly that of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. He seemed thoroughly to enjoy making his accusations and criticisms. That is the only reply I shall venture to make, in the few minutes I am going to keep. your Lordships, to the rather provocative statements we have heard. The most reverend Primate, the

551
Archbishop of York, said that part of our troubles were moral and spiritual. I am sure your Lordships must all have agreed with him, and I am going to make this addition to his remark. There is only one thing that could bring this country to ruin, and that is a spirit of defeatism. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for doing something to counteract the spirit of sheer defeatism which I could not help detecting in the speech of the mover of this Resolution.
We have immense assets in this country, and I am going rapidly to run through them and my list is not exhaustive. We have our mercantile skill and experience. We know how to handle and manage shipping better than any other people in the world, and our mercantile fleet is increasing. We have the finest sailors, the finest ships and the finest merchants in the world. We have the best educated intellectual aristocracy in the world, and that is something which has nothing to do either with birth or wealth. We have an intellectual aristocracy in this country amongst the better educated classes that is second to none. We have a very good, an excellent, name as traders, and the best possible reputation in commerce and business all over the world. I have covered a great deal of the world since the recent war ended, and everyone abroad I met agreed with that. You can, for example, sell British steel and textiles on the telephone in nearly all the markets in the world. People do not even want to see the goods if they are British goods, such is the high reputation we enjoy as manufacturers and traders. We have a patient, good-humoured, and cheerful working population, good at improvization. Look at the way our seamen, railwaymen, and miners rallied to the country in the difficulties of the recent snow and storms. I think they are rather too much addicted to sport and gambling, which is all very reprehensible, but they are proud of their country and they are not prone to defeatism. You do not get the spirit of defeatism amongst the real working class in this country.
We have in this country very little black market compared to the black market carried on in many countries on the Continent. The black market in this country is a little thing concerned with whisky and second-hand motor cars and so on, and is very little in comparison with other
552
countries, where it plays such havoc with the State's whole economic system. We have good soil and we can raise the best cattle in the world. One of our greatest assets at the present time—and I hope the noble Lords on the other side will not take this amiss or misunderstand me—is the existence here, in this time of stress and crisis, of a Labour Government. Most of the working people of this country think it is their Government, and they will try not to let it down. If the Government go to them with a call for help they will rally to the Government. Again I do not want to say anything offensive, but I believe we might have had far more serious industrial troubles and strikes if the last General Election had gone the other way. Again I say, only defeatism will destroy us.
I think it is our duty to make what constructive suggestions we can, so may I turn to the long-term policy, a very lung term policy, longer that that touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Layton. I have already discussed this with my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, who is going to reply. I hope that whoever is going to plan the future economy of this country, whatever Government is in office, will look for a new source of power. There is a curious science which has grown up in recent years called geo-politics, and there is a less known one called geo-economics. If we look at geo-economics we see that during the nineteenth century the great coal-using nations developed and burgeoned. In our own country we built up a great trade and industry on our coal supplies, but in the last fifty years there has been a shift, and it has not been the "black power" that has been so important, but the "white power." The countries with great sources of hydroelectric power have gone ahead—the United States of America, Canada, Scandinavia, Switzerland, and, to some extent, Northern Italy. They were also beginning to develop hydro-electric power in Russia when the war came. Those countries with abundant hydro-electric power were apparently able to go ahead rather more rapidly than the others. We, unfortunately, have not this great river power. We have not the great rivers in this country that exist in the other countries I have mentioned. My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence is aware of the great rivers in India, and in talking to my Indian friends I always stress that they have a wonderful

553
chance if only they will harness these great rivers flowing down from the Himalayas. They could abolish poverty in India.
We have not those sources of power here, but we have another great asset, and that is our tidal power. A great deal of work has been done on this, but nothing has been accomplished. I am not talking only of the Severn barrage; that is only one of the great projects that might be embarked upon for harnessing the mighty powers of the seas round our coast. It could give us unlimited power. It may be said that materials and labour are not available now, but we have to plan ahead. I would ask my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, to look at a letter which appeared in The Times at the beginning of this crisis. It was written by an old friend and colleague of ours, Mr. George Bernard Shaw, and I think he wrote more sense than any other correspondent of The Times always excepting any of your Lordships who may have contributed a letter during the present crisis.
My next suggestion is this. I have been locking very closely into this question of women labour in my own business and generally. If you are going to get women back into industry you will have to do two things. Obviously you will have to make shopping easier. One noble Lord has mentioned that already. We must try to abolish queues, for example. But there are two other things which we must do. I think we will have to grasp the nettle of equal pay for equal work, or, as they prefer to call it, the rate for the job. I think that is essential, and we shall have to come to it. I am sorry if the Government do not like it, but they must change their minds this time. The other suggestion is this. I think you have to restore the zoo per cent. grant to local authorities for nursery schools. You cannot expect women with children to go to work unless you restore the nursery schools. They were essential during the war and we will have to restore them now.
I am going, as sailors say, to "chance my arm," in my next submission. I notice that in the debate in another place everyone shied away from one question which nearly everyone talks about in private; that is, how we are going to get over this maldistribution of labour. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, is speaking to-morrow.
554
I would very much like to hear him on this subject, as to how he would propose to get over the undoubted man distribution of labour, or how the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, who, as we have heard, was a super planner during the war, would get over it. We have had wonderful exhortations from highly-placed persons, including my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, to people in comparatively well-paid and comfortable jobs to consider whether they could not do something perhaps more onerous and not so well paid but more helpful to the country. I do not believe that we arc going to come through this present trouble unless we return to some system of direction of labour.
Everyone avoided that question in another place, but your Lordships, after all, are in a rather less dependent position politically than our colleagues in another place. Certainly, speaking for myself, I know the truth of the proverb, "Only the beggar can play with the sultan." It is not necessary for us to consider personal consequences; we should think only of the good of the nation. In this case I think we have to look at this matter with open eyes and open minds. I discussed this particular point in recent weeks with a number of friends of mine who are working men, and I assure your Lordships that the ordinary mass of working men do not object to direction of labour so much as one might think. It was the same with regard to conscription. They do not really object. What they do object to are the shirkers who laugh at them for the sacrifices they are making. The British working man hates being what he calls "diddled" or "swindled" and hates to sacrifice himself to his country when he sees all around him shirkers, or people not doing their duty, idling and laughing at him. But on the whole, the most decent of those people, so far as I can gather, would prefer direction of labour.
Another suggestion I noticed in the speeches from the Government in another place, and in the White Paper, is that we can redistribute labour by rationing raw materials or coal to certain non-essential industries, and that then presumably those industries will have to slow down or close down; their men will be thrown out of work and after they have used up their savings or their unemployment benefit is finished, they gradually will go

555
to the other more essential industries which are short of labour. That I believe is the idea. It is not a very tidy way of doing it. I would have said it was clumsy. I would even have said that it was rather a cruel way of doing it. I do not like it. I do not believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, suggested, that it is going to work well. I think it is better to be honest and go for direction of labour. You can have all sorts of safeguards, and apply it with care and sympathy. You can call it by another name. You can call it "national service" or "emergency employment" or anything you like. It is sometimes a good thing to change the name. We do not refer to "conscription" now; we call it "national service." I do not see how we are going to get the extra men we must have for the land and for other essential basic industries without something of this sort, because the maldistribution of labour in this country is so very serious. I admit, of course, that you must ride the people of this country on a light rein, but I submit that if they see the necessity for the most unpleasant sacrifices they will accept them.
I quoted just now a German word. May I quote now a German philosopher in the days when Germany did produce philosophers? There have been some good philosophers in Germany. This quotation applies very much to the situation in this country:
"Money lost, nothing lost.
Honour lost, much lost.
Courage lost, all lost."
That is why I deplore the defeatism in some of the speeches I have heard, including that of the mover of the Resolution this afternoon. We are a victorious nation. We have the spirit of victory. We are not going to be defeated by economic difficulties which can be transient if we tackle them in the right way.
7.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I enjoyed a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said. I was glad that he admitted that we were in a very serious situation and I enjoyed particularly his statement that our main asset was our personal character. I most cordially agree with that. But I could not follow him in his go-economics. When he said it was a good thing that a Labour Government were in power I
556
would say at this moment that it depends entirely what they do. I would be very much less than frank if I were to say that I was not very shocked at the reply the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, gave to-day. It appeared to me entirely to miss the main point, that the industry of this country at the present time is on its knees. It is no more nor less than that. The noble Lord appeared to me to have his head in the air and to be considering a number of theories which had very little to do with what is happening at the present time. If I may say so, when the noble Lord had his foot on the ground in East Edinburgh, I found some remarks in his election address with which I cordially agreed. But to-day he seems to have got so far from realities as not to be very enlightening, although he professes a desire to enlighten people; in particular, I thought he was very unenlightening on his financial policy.
That is very important because, after all, that is a subject in which he is a master, and I am going to press the noble Lord who is to reply to give us a little more information on that point. I cordially agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said. This matter has not been brought out with the clarity which I think it deserves. I will go further, and state that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in giving a figure of 30 per cent. in the loss of value of the grossly under-estimated. He based his estimate, as I understand it, on what is called the working class cost of living index. I do not know how that figure is arrived at, but one thing is certain: it must include food and rent, so that that is an entirely illusory figure. On food we are spending anything from at least, £400,000,000 to £450,000,000 a year on subsidies, and with regard to rent there has been no rise since the last war started, whereas it is common knowledge to us all that building and repairs have gone up by at least 80 per cent. Now what does that mean? It means this: either that these houses are being repaired and maintained from sources other than the rent which is paid, or, alternatively, that they are not being repaired, in which case they are degenerating into slums. In any case, it is costing the community considerably more than the rent which is being paid at the present time, and this is amply borne out when you look at any other figures except that one figure which is en-

557
tirely artificial, the working class cost of living index.
Wholesale prices have increased 77 per cent., imports and exports from 110 to 120 per cent., and the circulation of money if we add the deposits and notes in circulation gives a rise of something like 150 per cent. What I think is really serious about this is that this process is going on now. It is going on fast and the Government have it in their power to stop it. During the debate in another place the reasons for this rise were stated to be cheap money, nationalization and an unbalanced Budget. Whether you agree with cheap money or not, if it is an element in causing inflation, then it must be considered on its merits. I would like to ask the Government whether they think they are justified in asking people to buy National Savings Certificates if they are at the same time reducing the value of these Certificates by a deliberate policy. I am going to press the noble Lord who is replying to state what he considers to be the depreciated value of the £ at the present time. We have had repeated declarations that we have to be frank with the people of this country and tell them what in fact are the main points of the economic situation, and that is a major one which requires definition.
I would like to go on to the point of democratic planning of which we have heard very little this afternoon.
LORD PAKENFLAM: Before the noble Lord leaves this point, do I understand the precise questions on the subject of finance which he has put to me are the only ones to which he wishes answers, or does he wish some more general defence of the Government's financial policy? I was not quite clear.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would state publicly, so that all may know, what he in fact considers to be the depreciated value of the £ at the present time and, secondly, whether the present rate of inflation is likely to continue. I think these are fair questions to which we are entitled to an answer.
I would like to go on for a moment to the question of planning, of which we have not really heard very much this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick Lawrence, said that there was to be a demarcation line between the State and the private individual. In that I most cordially agree with him. I think that
558
is a very old story. But to-day it is a great deal more than that. There is practically no sphere of human activity which is not in some measure controlled. One could run through the list—capital, materials, acquisition of property, and so on. This leaves a very small sphere in which anything can take place without Government—shall I say— "advice and assistance." In the White Paper it was stated that restrictions on production and unemployment should be removed. Quite clearly the first restrictions to be removed are some of those imposed by the Government. I cannot help wondering whether the working of economic planning as it stands at present is understood, and whether the way it works out in detached cases is really appreciated by those who live in the higher offices in Westminster, because it has the most astonishing result. I will give your Lordships only one example, but one could go on multiplying it.
Take, for instance, the refractory industry. That industry is only allowed 33 per cent. of its coal needs and cannot possibly produce to its full capacity. Unless the firebricks which are provided by that industry are produced, the basic industries of the country will break down. I would like to give another example. When rationing was started on January 20, which reduced supplies to 25 and 50 per cent., according to the industry, the mines found that they could not get rid of the coal Accordingly the official in charge said: "What shall we do with it?" It was suggested that it should be put into a field. He was told that there was no railway line going into the field. He asked: What about putting it in the colliery yard?" There was no room in the colliery yard. He then said: "I shall send it to the man who wants it," and that was done. That should have been done in the first place. I give that as an example of what is happening every day. What we are entitled to know is whether that is the intention of the Government, or whether it is not. It seems to me that we are, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, on a watershed. There is a fundamental difference between democratic planning and totalitarian planning.
We are told the difference is that in democratic planning a man may choose his job, but with all the controls that go on at the present time I do not believe

559
the Government can get their results without direction of labour. I agree with the noble Lord in saying that. But if that is done it must be recognized that what is being done is putting us straight into a totalitarian State, without the slightest doubt. We are standing now on a watershed, with, on the one side, incentive by which men can freely live their lives and develop their own industry, and, on the other side, a totalitarian state. Even if noble Lords who occupy the Benches opposite do not want it, there are others who do, and they will have to be very careful.
LORD PAKENHAM: Would the noble Earl make it plain whether he is in favour of direction of labour?
THE, EARL OF SELKIRK: I would make it plain that I am certainly not in favour of direction of labour. I am in favour of a proper incentive.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble Earl forgive me for interrupting? How does he get over the fact that the so-called non-essential industries, luxury trades, and so on, pay the higher wages to-day, and have on the whole easier conditions? Where does the incentive come in there?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If they pay higher wages, then I presume there is a considerable incentive. The point I am getting at is this. So long as you have incentives, then there is something to go for. I agree that the Government can control incentive in quite a high degree, and I would like to make this point clear. I realize the noble Lord's Objection to a world entirely governed by profit. I am not supporting a world in which profit is the sole motive. That has never been the position, or, at any rate, it has not been so for a loop. time. That does not mean, however, that profit does not play a big part. It must. I used the word "incentive" in a wider sense. Some people aspire to be politicians; some people aspire to write; some people like adulation, and some people like money. We are all fully entitled to what we like. The noble Lord talked about the donkey and the carrot, but my complaint is that the donkey is now in a pen and cannot move in any direction at all.
I would like to mention three points, and I would ask the noble Lord how control as at present exercised will
560
affect them. I will take a general example of the development areas in Scotland. In Scotland we have an industry which started some years ago and developed extensively, if not quickly: that is, the development of light industry on a broad scale. Everyone agrees fundamentally, whether it is trade unions, whether it is employers, or anyone interested in this area, that the basis must be, and will continue to be, the heavy industries. We know that the heavy industries require reorganizing, and we know that they require re-development. At the present time the whole thing has been held up for two years. The original plan was put forward two years ago by the present owners. Then we had the range of proposals for nationalization, which have taken us nowhere, and at the present time there is no development whatsoever. What is required is some development. I would ask the noble Lord how that is to be achieved.
I will give another example, and that is the case of lead. Lead is urgently wanted for houses and it commands a good price at the present time. There are large lead deposits in South Lankashire which have not been worked for over ten years, because the price of lead fell from £15 to £9 a ton. To-day I am informed that the price is between £70 and £90 a ton. For about nine months search has been made by the Regional Board for Industry in Scotland, to find out which Government Department is interested in the development and production of lead. At the end of that time they found a committee of the Ministry of Fuel and Supply which has this matter on its agenda. What I would ask is, how is that to be developed? It is no good saying that private enterprise must do it, after what has happened in the last twelve months. Nobody would venture to put money in lead in this country, and I think it is unreasonable to ask them to do it. If the Government accept the responsibility for that type of enterprise, let them do so.
Finally, I would like to give another example, the example of whisky. I do not understand the Government policy in regard to whisky. Here is an industry which was criticized before the war because it did not employ enough labour. To-day it probably produces more dollar credits per man employed than any other industry. Not only that, but it produces

561
a very valuable product for animal fodder, and it is a rural industry, which I should have thought was very desirable. This industry was brought completely to a standstill in January, 1946, by cutting off all the barley. But the production of beer was increased, and barley was exported from this country. To-day that is an industry which presumably could produce on present values between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000 of dollar credits. I ask the noble Lord: what is the policy of planning in this respect? The Prime Minister last night made a suggestion that we should all consider whether we are employed in the best industry. I think that anyone employed in that industry last year might well have said that it was obviously a bad industry, because all the supplies had been cut off by the Government. I should have thought that it was a very valuable industry, in view of the fact that it could produce those dollar credits.
I would now like to say a word on the question of the shortage of labour because, frankly, the statements made by the Government up to the present time on this subject, ire particularly unreal to me, coming from Scotland, where there are 8o,000 unemployed. When you look at the figures of officials, which are now 2,000,000, and when you consider that there are over L000,000 in the Services, about 750,000 supplying the requirements of the Services and about 500,00o in entertainment—that is a total of 4,250,000 people—is it not obvious that it is a question purely and simply of the maldistribution of labour? Is it really necessary to bring anyone else into the country? I am not speaking on the subject of the people who are already in this country—that is, the Poles who are here; I am speaking about bringing anyone in addition into the country. Have we considered the debit side of the account as well as the assets side? What does it cost in exports to keep a family here? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us that. I have estimated—my estimate may be wildly wrong—that it mast cost about £100 per family. If we bring in 100,000 men, it will amount to quite a large sum.
But that, of course, is not all. These men will, presumably, receive trade union rates of hay, and they will require to be fed, housed, clothed and kept warm. In this world of scarcity in which we now
562
live they will merely increase consumption without necessarily producing an equal number of commodities to make up for it. I suggest—and I would like the noble Lord to give an answer—that the real reason is not because extra personnel is wanted. The reason I say that is because noble Lords do not say they want extra men; they say they want men for the undermanned industries. What does that mean? It means they want men who are mobile, and mobility of labour presents an absolutely irresistible bait to any armchair economist, because it is on that rock that his fondest economic theories have always foundered.. I suggest it is purely because these men are, for at least a time, mobile that they now present such an attractive picture to the Government. After all, we are 47,000,000 people living here, and we live here for no other reason except that we have energy and enterprise and can maintain ourselves through the skill of our hands. That is the source from which our wealth comes now, and from which it always will come. It is a pure delusion and a red herring to suggest that the problem can be solved by bringing in people from outside.
I think that statement is in line with one statement which appears in the Economic Survey:"
"The central fact of 1947 is that we have not enough resources to do all we want to do."
What does that mean? I suggest it means that we are simply living beyond our resources and being spendthrift. It means we have promised to do more than we can do. I will conclude by repeating what I have asked. I have asked for a statement in regard to the value of the £ and the continuance of the inflationary policy. I have asked for an examination of the importation of labour. I have asked for a more careful examination of how democratic planning is really intended to be worked. I feel sure that the Government expected, when they came into power, that they would have fast-flowing and turbulent waters in which to navigate the ship of State, but what they have done, it seems to me, is so to screw down the controls that the ship of State has no water in which to float, and is securely resting on the sandy bottom of the river. The Government have the alternative of getting out and carrying the ship, or, as I strongly recommend, of turning on the

563
flow of energy and resource by which alone this country can continue successfully.
7.25 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes. We are considering to-day the Economic Survey for 1947 presented by the Government for the consideration of both Houses of Parliament. The almost universal criticism levelled at the Minister of Fuel and Power is, in the main, in my view, unfair, and in some cases in very bad taste. I feel certain that when the full facts are disclosed we shall arrive at the conclusion that transport, or lack of transport, will have to take the greater share of the blame, if blame there be, for our present misfortunes. I put down a question recently in this House regarding the use to which our all too limited amount of rolling stock was put, and I received an answer—which by no means satisfied me—that the Department was sufficiently alive to the importance of securing a quicker return to traffic of all railway wagons unnecessarily retained in various works up and down the country.
Let me quote to your Lordships a case of which I know myself, where ninety wagons stood still in a very big industrial concern and never turned a wheel for five weeks. The wagons, it is true, had been used for another purpose besides coal, but for internal use they were just as good as any of the main line railway wagons. They could have been used internally, thus replacing ninety other wagons and releasing them for main line traffic. The standing charge for railway wagons is only Is. 9d. a day, while for internal use it is 2s. a day. Therefore, one can arrive at the conclusion that the motto of the Ministry is, "The longer you keep a wagon out of use, the less we charge you." In my view, so far as demurrage is concerned, instead of it being lowered from 3s. a day to 2s. a day, the rate should have been increased, and then we would have got the wagons returned to use instead of them standing doing nothing in sidings.
In one concern of which I know—by no means a big one—the amount of money that is paid to the railway company every month for standage and the use of wagons in that particular works is over £800. So far as that works is concerned, it is a tre-
564
mendous item in the course of a year, and so far as the railway company is concerned it is an income. So far as the nation is concerned, however, in the present economic position we can neither afford that kind of thing, nor ought we to tolerate it for a single day. I have ascertained, as a matter of fact, that these particular wagons were not in the pool, but the information I have just given to your Lordships' House was supplied to me on authority which could not be questioned. I therefore think that the time that elapsed between that fatal Friday and the time we could move 1,000,000 tons of coal from Doncaster alone in one weekend, proved that it was not so much lack of coal as the fact that we were not getting the coal moved to the places—the power stations and so on—where it was needed.
I must say that so far as this Economic Survey is concerned, I find myself, strange to say, in almost complete agreement with it, for it lays down the principle of the reward being given to the man who deserves it. In short, it lays down the principle of the bonus. My noble friend Viscount Portal said you could call it "piece work," "bonus" or "payment by results," but it was the same thing in the end; the man who was willing to do the work was to receive the reward. Why on earth he should not, I do not know. This system is one of which I have had some experience, and I am going to tell your Lordships something which will, perhaps, astonish you. The firm of which I happen to be the governing director had a job involving the use of between 50,000 and 60,000 Accrington bricks. It is the heaviest brick you can find—I think it is about 12 lb. in weight—and the hardest. I think it is the best brick there is in the country. This happened about twelve months ago. It was for one of the plants inside a steel works where they are now processing the ironstone dust in order to use less coal in the manufacture of pig iron.
I have no fault to find with my bricklayers; they work all right. They laid over 1,000 bricks a day. I can give you example after example where the men working for me have done that. Now what has been the secret of it? So far as I am concerned, we fix a price—usually they leave me to fix one—at which I know they will get due reward when the work is done. They earned between 4s. and 5s. an hour, but we got the work done.

565
It was essential, and it did not matter so long as the job was done. I do not go to the men and say to them: "Well, you have earned £4 or £5 more than you should have done; I think the price was too high," and all the rest of it, and then take half of it from them and lower the price when it is ascertained what work they are capable of doing. That is where half the employers have destroyed the confidence of the men in any system of piece work. So far as I am concerned, neither now nor during the last few weeks—despite what the Press may think about it—have we ever been stuck for joiners or bricklayers. We are going full steam ahead. That is all I can say about it. We have been doing it for the past forty years, and in my view the proper system is to let the reward be given to those who are willing to do the work.
I saw from Hansard that a speech was delivered in another place in which a statement was made that in one firm who had some men on day work and others on piece work the men on day work had laid 80 bricks per day, and the men on piece work 460 odd bricks per day. All I can say is that as a bricklayer I could do that to-morrow morning before breakfast, and I consider it is nothing more nor less than a scandal. Furthermore, it is the duty of the trade union leaders to tell the men straight that they are not playing the game with the country in present circumstances. In my place at Scunthorpe they turn round and say, "You have adopted a bonus system. Your men are getting 6d. and 9d. an hour more than the rate. How dare you do such a thing? If you give your men a rate for bricklaying which gives them 6d. or 9d. an hour more than the regular wage, we will bring down the Defence Regulations upon you, and we shall apply 56 A.B."—heaven knows what that means. "That is where you are going to be put, curse you, if you do not stop this. How dare you give a. man extra?"
A NOBLE LORD: Who said this?
LORD QUIBELL: The trade union leaders. This Defence Regulation was passed in 1939. Why on earth do you not get this done away with? At least, I will ask the noble Lord to get this done away with, because if he does not he will get the building trade done away with. These Regulations were passed in 1939, and they operated upon a poor little soul
566
like me. This is nearly two years after the war. It might be Regulation 18.B. They put me in fear and trembling about this Regulation 56 A.B. I always thought, when I was fighting with the trade union thirty years ago, that they were trying to get every penny—.I always did myself. I looked after "D.Q." We were always fighting to get more money for our fellows. They now say: "What, give them more money! We are going to 'black' your shop if you do." And they fetched the men off the job. That is what the trade union leaders said. I think it is the most ridiculous exhibition I have ever known in my life.
Mr. Hanson said: "just before Christmas it came to our knowledge that a certain employer was paying our men 2d. above the rate, and I had the unfortunate job of telling that employer that he had to reduce our men 2d. per hour." Those are the words of a trade union leader. It is a good job I was not at home. That is the kind of trade unionism to which this Regulation and the war have reduced us. What is the cause of a lot of this trouble? The trade union leaders do not like small employers, and I tell your Lordships' House, and would tell them, that so far as the little building employers in this country are concerned it is they who very- largely have housed the people of this country, and no: the big employers. Until there was a war, the big employers would never look at house building, and they left it to the little men with four, six, eight, or in my case a handful of men, whore the man worked himself with his men and went out and built houses. The big employers were the people who, when the war came, the Government allowed to cash in on what was called the "profit on cost" idea—the most accursed system that was ever invented.
I firmly believe that it did this: it destroyed the employer's interest in production in that he did not care a penny about it. The more it cost, the more he got. That spirit filtered through to the general managers on the job, it went to the foremen and it went to the men. It ruined the staff from top to bottom. And when you have done that for a period, as we have done—and I have seen it done on some of these aerodromes—you can take it from me that you cannot get your staff back on to the previous level.
The employers were not blameless about this kind of matter. As a matter of fact,

567
I can tell your Lordships of a job which was done for the Admiralty which cost £1,000,000, where not a single director of the firm who did the job ever went near it. That is a fine state of affairs. I think all some of them could read would be the Police News, and not a blueprint. They never actually saw the job, and it did not matter what it cost, because the more it cost the better they liked it.
I can give a personal illustration of price, by which I can prove what has happened in regard to that sort of thing. When one comes to think of the 200 bricks a day, the old bricklayer is not wholly to blame, and I will defend him. There are others in the building trade as Well. I am quite able to defend my bricklayers, because we have no quarrel. The only quarrel I had was when some joiners objected to a bricklayer having a bonus. The trouble was that the other fellow was getting a bit more at that time, and they did not approve of it. The cost of bricks to-day is about £5 a 1,000, which is about I¼d. a brick. The man who manufactures the brick has first to build his kiln, put his machinery into his sheds, find his land, and then, before he starts to manufacture, dig his clay, take it to his mill, make it into a brick, take it off and put it into a shed to dry and, when dry, put it in the kiln and burn it, and then take it out of the kiln; yet, when one comes to think of it, one finds that it cost more to lay that brick than all those processes put together.
It will not bear thinking about; there is no comparison. All I can say is that so far as the men are concerned my belief is that every one of us (even the employers) has an obligation to try and keep prices down. I was very concerned and I met my local council and arranged with them to avoid increases on houses being built for the corporation. I showed them how to avoid increases in price values, apart from those made by the Ministry of Health. We have a duty, and the trade union leaders have a duty, to appeal to the men. But we have to have houses. There are three families I know living in a little tin hut with nothing but blankets to divide them. Yet the bricklayers are no allowed a single hour's overtime; they are not allowed bonuses to speed up the provision of houses. These three families are living in abominable conditions,
568
but bricklayers are not allowed to make up the time lost in the bad weather.
I want every one, so far as possible, to receive the full reward of his labour. According to this White Paper there can be no further increase of wages unless there is a corresponding increase in output. The principle is laid down, and I hope the Government are firm about it. I hope the Government will be firm in the application of that principle and that the trade unions will fully recognize that they also have a duty to perform, and that the men will recognize that it is their duty to provide the houses as quickly as possible with the least possible delay. We have a duty in this respect, and I believe that so far as the employers are concerned each of us will be willing to play a full part in giving the men the reward which makes it worth their while to put an effort into their work.
7.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: After the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, I think it would be a very good thing if we could have in your Lordships' House a coal miner who could point out for the coal industry the same sort of things that the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, has pointed out for the building industry.
LORD STRABOLGI: The First Lord of the Admiralty worked at the coal face for many years.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I am glad to know that. He will probably be able to put us right on that point. The coal situation underlies the whole of our trouble to-clay, and for that reason I am going to make a few remarks about it. I do not entirely criticize the plan in the White Paper, for there is a plan, though inadequate. The point I would rather criticize is that the plan alone is not enough. It is a good plan, if you are flying, to take a parachute. But when disaster looms ahead you still have to jump; and the action is the thing which is necessary. And this is not at all clear in the White Paper. Without the level of output per man being raised to the 1938 level, or without the addition in a fortnight's time of about 90,000 new entrants to the coal industry, the figure suggested in the target, at the present rate of output, cannot be realized. And if that figure is not realized, we shall be faced with the same situation next autumn as we were a

569
month ago, when industry shut down and 3,000,000 persons were unemployed. And there will be no prospect of alleviation the second time; it will be a permanent feature.
In the long-term planning of the mines, obviously, you cannot hope for any results yet, but surely a great deal could be done by enlisting public opinion on the side of greater production. The propaganda put out up to date has been about the great amount of work the miners have done, and about their great response. I will not grudge them that, but I think far greater service could he done to the country by pointing out their shortcomings as well as what they have accomplished. I cannot understand the fall from the output of 1938; and why there should 'be a 10 per cent. increase in absenteeism from that date I cannot see. With a background like that to consider, and the granting of a five-day week without the assurance of increased production—the only assurance given was that production would 'be maintained—I think it is very difficult not to draw the conclusion that the Government are being blackmailed by the miners' leaders when the country and industry have been brought to their knees. I do not say the miners are doing it, because my experience of miners is that they are first-rate men, and if led correctly their reaction would be similar to that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, in regard to bricklayers. The miners will produce the coal; there is no question about that. I say that without fear of contradiction, because I have worked in mines. It can be done under present conditions. During the last two or three years output has fallen and men have left the mines. That is agreed. But an enormous amount of mechanization has gone on during the war.
There has been talk about the old age of many of the miners who are now working in the pits. Between 1942 and 1946, 248,000 young men re-entered the mines either from the Forces or from other quarters. That represents 35 per cent. of the total working population of the mines. And may I point out that machine tending, for example, is a very suitable job for an old man? Anybody who 'has had experience in these matters knows that it is not the old man who has let the side down. As a matter of fact, he has worked well. He has taken on hard and arduous jobs which ought to have been
570
done by younger men. It is the young men who have let the side down, and, if everybody is going to be let down through the attitude of a small section, that, I think, is a matter which ought to be emphasized very strongly in the Press. Every effort ought to be made to secure the support of popular opinion on this question and to point out to those concerned the error of their ways. I think that the miners are getting a reasonable remuneration for their job, but it is for the Government to look into that matter now that they are controlling the mines. If the men are: not getting as much as they ought to get, then the necessary steps should be taken, but any increased remuneration must be coupled with production, for without production everything falls down. Without coal the whole of this Economic Survey becomes of no account, and we need not waste time discussing it. Coal must be produced and, therefore, no one must be allowed to stand in the way of its production. If my suggestion that -the Government are being held to ransom is correct, it is high time the Government took a stand and stopped it.
7.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, very early in the debate, ventured to express the opinion that the difference between the Parties in the House was more one of application than of principle. Let me assure him and other noble Lords opposite that that is very far from being correct, because we, on these Benches, stand for sane private enterprise and not for the regimentation and nationalization favoured by the Party opposite. Similarly, I must inform the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that in a debate like this it is impossible to remain entirely aloof from Party politics. It is impossible for this House, in this matter, to act as a Council of State in the way it did on the Indian question, for example, because we, on these Benches, feel that far too much attention is being given by the Government to pushing on their crazy schemes of nationalization at the expense of wiser measures which would commend themselves to every one in the country. The truth of the matter is that the Socialists have no other policy has nationalization. It is the policy by which, in their own estimation, they attained power. Actually

571
they attained power because the electorate were tired of the Government which had been in office; the Socialist Party found themselves in office, much to their surprise and very much to their dismay. They were compelled, therefore, to endeavor to put into practice the absurd theories which they had hoped would never have to be put into practice by them.
The result is that undue attention is being given to these theories. If the country is to get back to anything approaching normality and we are to get the co-operation of all Parties, inside this House and outside, as we should like, there are four suggestions which I submit should be adopted. Some of them, if not all, will, I know, be totally unacceptable to noble Lords on the Benches opposite. My first suggestion is that all further schemes of nationalization should be dropped forthwith, and that many of the Bills at present on the stocks, or projected, should be very drastically modified. The second suggestion is that there should he no further question, meantime, of reducing hours of work unless it can be conclusively shown, which I think is impossible, that such reduction will he followed by increased production, or that the workers in the industries concerned are willing to revert to longer hours if it is found that production falls off.
As has been said by many speakers in the debate to-day, coal is the basis of all our industries. Therefore an increase in the price of coal means an increase in the price of iron and steel and almost all raw materials. A point which has hardly been mentioned, even by the economists who have spoken, is that such an increase in the cost of coal must mean increased prices charged to the purchasers abroad of our exports. That is an aspect of the question which has hardly been touched upon in this debate up to now. We have been living for the past two years or so in a sort of fool's paradise; we have had an exporters' market where any kind of junk could be foisted upon a world which is very short of consumer goods. But that state of affairs is not going to last. Very shortly, we shall be faced with competition from other countries, and although the quality of Their products may not usually be up to that of ours the prices will be so much
572
less that they will cut us out of many markets. That is why it is essential that, in the case of coal above everything else, there should be no further increase in cost. The miners' leaders, therefore, will not be acting patriotically, or in the interests of their own men or the country, if they insist on further increases of wages at the present time, or try to carry on with a five-day week should it be shown that that means as may well be the case—a decrease in production.
My third suggestion is this. Let the Government forthwith stop pressing on with schemes like the raising of the school-leaving age, however admirable those schemes may be as long-term policy. What is going to be the practical effect of an immediate raising of the school-leaving age at a time like the present, when industries all over the country are crying out for labour? It will mean that, probably, the labour of 250,000 juveniles will be kept off the market, and that is something which we cannot now afford. Whatever may be the merits of the step as a long-term policy, I know, as a member of a local authority, that we cannot provide in anything like a reasonable time, either the schools or the teachers necessary to put the raising of the school-leaving age into proper effect.
Furthermore, it has 'been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, how difficult it is at the present time to obtain any material for the repair or the building of houses or farm buildings. I, myself, have suffered in this respect and probably to a far greater extent than many other people. But, at the same time, our county is told that we are not to finish more than 100 houses this year, though we had hoped to complete more than double that figure. And yet one school is to be put up which will probably absorb the equivalent in labour and materials of something like 40 per cent. of the quota of houses for the year. Which at the moment is the more important—to increase the school-leaving age or to provide houses for the people of this country?
My fourth and not, in my submission, least important suggestion is that it is more than time that the Prime Minister undertook a task which, frankly, he has shirked tip to the present—the task of eliminating some very dead wood from his garden. The courtesy due to members

573
of your Lordships' House prevents me dealing in detail with any of your Lordships on the Benches opposite, and I will, therefore, confine my remarks to Ministers outside this House. It is quite obvious that there ought to be very drastic pruning, because all too many of them are either persons of great ability, but extremely "cranky" in their outlook, such as the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or individuals who are, frankly, of very mediocre attainments. One of these, the unfortunate Sir Benjamin Smith, was removed from the office of Minister of Food, which he certainly did not adorn, and was promoted to the Coal Board, which was hardly, I think, a good augury for the success of that august body. But there remain many Ministers who are, frankly, misfits and entirely unsuited for the offices which they now hold.
As a Scotsman I must refer to the Secretary of State for Scotland, a worthy, kindly man who has, however, so permitted himself to be the door-mat of his English colleagues that he has led Scotland so badly that (as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said), we have 80,000 unemployed in Scotland.
LORD STRABOLGI: On a point of order. I do not think it is customary, or indeed in order, to attack any particular Minister in another place, and certainly it is not conducive to the dignity of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: If that is the view, I will refrain, but I have never understood there was anything wrong in attacking a Minister in his capacity of Minister. I say nothing about them in their capacity of citizens, and surely we are not debarred from criticizing the capacity of Ministers for the job they hold. However, I do not wish to offend any member of your Lordships' House, and I will say only one thing further. The only other Minister to which I will allude is the Minister of Health. I do not Think that co-operation in this country i helped by his sole contribution to housing when he found things going wrong. This was a heart-felt, publicly expressed regret that he was unable to shoot a few builders. There is no doubt that paining is acutely over-due, and there is no doubt that a great deal of the misfor-
574
tunes which are affecting this country and Government alike are due to the fact that there are many Ministers, of both Cabinet and junior rank who are, frankly, not up to their jobs.
I will go no further, but I will certainly say no less. The position to-day is that the Government are in a panic. That is known. Many people have described them as being in a flat spin. It is rather interesting if one analyses that colloquial expression. My flying friends inform me that it is used when an aeroplane, losing flying way, is stalled and falls practically vertically in a very fast spinning movement, completely out of control. It is a condition of very great danger, in which only a very skilled pilot can manage to avoid disaster. That to-day is the position in which this country finds itself. The airship of state is spinning slowly downwards, through the nebulous clouds of the uncertain future, to Heaven knows what rocks underneath. In the pilot's seat is a pathetic little man without a pilot's certificate, jerking wildly with his joystick, backwards, forwards and sideways, in a vain attempt to regain the airship's equilibrium. In this he is not helped by any of the crew rushing wildly about the aircraft. The last thing one wishes to see is the crash of that aircraft, not for the sake of the crew, but for the sake of the 40,000,000 passengers. The best thing that could happen would he for that aircraft to make a forced landing and for the pilot and crew to be replaced by others worthy to navigate the ship of State.
LORD PAKENHAM: Before the noble Earl sits down, would he be surprised to learn that the speech which he has just made appears to us to be suite unworthy of the Benches on which he sits?
VISCOUNT MERSEY: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Beveridge, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Mersey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

COTTON INDUSTRY WAR MEMORIAL TRUST BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 12; and referred to the Examiners.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK.
Petition of the River Wear Commissioners under their Common Seal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the continuation of certain persons in office as selected members of the River Wear Commissioners and the retirement from office of those persons and the election of new Commissioners in their stead; to make temporary provisions as to the election and term of office of co-opted members and of a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman of the said Commissioners; and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto: read, and referred to the Examiners.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL.
Report from the Standing Orders Committee, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect to the said Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers for the construction of trolley-vehicle routes in the City of
576
Nottingham are struck out of the Bill: Read and agreed to.

PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders: referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section i of the Act to the

Urban District of Birmingham;

Urban District of Ellesmere Port;

Urban District of Felixstowe;

Urban District of Marlowe:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at two minutes past eight o'clock.