Sitting of 21 October 1947

Preamble
The House met in St. Stephen's Hall at Eleven o'Clock.

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (Vice-Admiral Sir Geoffrey Blake. K.C.B., D.S.O.) was announced.
Addressing Mr. SPEAKER, The GENTLEMAN USHER said: The King commands this Honourable House to attend His Majesty immediately in the House of Peers.
The House went, and having returned—
The Sitting was suspended until Four o'Clock, when Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order (Opening of Parliament), resumed the Chair and forthwith adjourned the House, without Question put, to the Chamber appointed for the use of the Commons.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN
Arthur James Irvine, Esquire, for the Borough of Liverpool (Edge Hill Division).
Albert Evans, Esquire, for the Borough of Islington (West Division).

SESSIONAL ORDERS

  ELECTIONS
  Ordered:
  "That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their Election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the Return for that place; and if any thing shall come in question touching the Return or Election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and that all Members returned upon double Returns do withdraw till their Returns are determined."
  Resolved:
  "That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament."
  Resolved:
  "That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by Bribery, or any other corrupt practices this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such Bribery or other corrupt practices."

  WITNESSES
  Resolved:
  "That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any Witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime and misdemeanor; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender."
  Resolved:
  "That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender."

  METROPOLITAN POLICE
  Ordered:
  "That the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioner aforesaid."

  VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS
  Ordered:
  "That the Votes and Proceedings of this House be printed being first perused by Mr. Speaker; and that he do appoint the printing thereof; and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same."

  Ordered:
  "That a Committee of Privileges be appointed."

  OUTLAWRIES BILL
  "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries."
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time.

  JOURNAL
  Ordered:
  "That the Journal of this House, from the end of the last Session to the end of the present Session with an Index thereto, be printed."
  Ordered:
  "That the said Journal and Index be printed by the appointment and under the direction of Sir Gilbert Francis Montriou Campion, K.C.B., the Clerk of this House."
  Ordered:
  "That the said Journal and Index be printed by such person as shall be licensed by Mr. Speaker, and that no other person do presume to print the same."

KING'S SPEECH
Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament, of which I have, for greater accuracy, obtained a copy, which is as follows:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
In the Session which opens today the nation is faced with grave economic difficulties affecting almost the entire world. Upon their successful solution depends the well-being of My people. My Government are determined to use every means in their power to overcome these difficulties.
I am confident that in these times of hardship My people will demonstrate once again to the world their qualities of resolution and energy. With sustained effort this nation will continue to play its full part in leading the world back to prosperity and freedom.
The first aim of My Ministers will be to redress the adverse balance of payments, particularly by expanding exports. This will demand increased production and the sale abroad of a larger share of output. The task to be performed by each industry has been set out and, in conjunction with all those engaged in industry, My Government will do their best to provide the means to carry out these tasks.
My Ministers will give all possible help to those who work on the land in order to increase still more the home production of food. Legislation will be introduced to provide for the improvement and development of Scottish agriculture so that Scotland may play its full part in the campaign for higher production.
With a view to increasing exports and saving imports which can be replaced by home products, steps will be taken to ensure that man-power is used to the best national advantage, and, in particular, to expand the numbers employed in the coal-mining, agricultural and textile industries. The working of the reimposed labour controls will be watched closely and My Government will take measures to bring into essential work those who are making no

5
contribution to the national well-being. They will also encourage in every way the close joint consultation in industry which is necessary if the greatest volume of production is to be secured.
My Government will continue to devote their earnest attention to securing from overseas the essential foodstuffs and raw materials for My people. They will do all in their power to find new sources of supply and they will seek to enter into further long-term agreements with overseas countries. A measure will be laid before you designed to promote the expansion of production of all kinds within the Empire.
My Government will continue to participate in the work of European reconstruction put in hand in the recent conference in Paris and will do their utmost to forward the projects formulated at that meeting for the benefit of Europe and of the world as a whole.
The present obstacles to co-operation and understanding between the peoples of the world have strengthened the determination of My Government to support the United Nations and to seek by that means to promote the mutual trust and tolerance on which peaceful progress depends.
It is My earnest hope that the forthcoming conference of Foreign Ministers will result in a measure of agreement leading towards a democratic and self-supporting Germany which will not threaten world security, and to the satisfactory settlement of the international status of Austria.
I trust that a Treaty of Peace with Japan, which will contribute to the welfare of all countries in the Far East, may be concluded at an early date.
A measure will be laid before you to enable the future governance of Burma to be in accordance with the free decision of the elected representatives of its people.
I hope that the discussions now in progress will enable legislation to be laid before you to confer on Ceylon fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth.
Members of the House of Commons:
Estimates for the public services will be laid before you in due course, and
6
you will be asked to approve supplementary financial measures at an early stage of the Session.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
My Ministers will accelerate the release of men and women from the Armed Forces to the maximum extent consistent with the adequate fulfilment of the tasks falling to the Forces.
They will press on with the reorganisation of the Forces on their Peace-time basis and the task of obtaining the necessary voluntary recruits to build up the Regular Forces and the Auxiliary Services.
Legislation will be introduced to amend the Parliament Act, 1911.
A Bill will be laid before you to reform the administration of criminal justice in England and Wales.
You will be asked to approve legislation to abolish the poor law and to provide a comprehensive system of assistance for all in need. This will complete the all-embracing scheme of social security, the main lines of which have been laid down in measures already enacted.
A Bill will be laid before you to bring the gas industry under public ownership in completion of the plan for the co-ordination of the fuel and power industries.
A measure will be laid before you to extend the scope of public care of children deprived of a normal home life and to secure improved standards of care for such children.
Legislation will be introduced to provide a new and more equitable basis for the distribution of general Exchequer grants to local authorities. Provision will also be made for centralising the machinery of valuation for rating purposes and amending the law as to the valuation of small dwelling-houses in England and Wales.
You will be asked to approve a measure to reform the franchise and electoral procedure and to give appropriate effect to recommendations of the Commissions appointed to consider the distribution of Parliamentary seats.
A Bill will be laid before you to enable a common national status to be

7
maintained throughout the Commonwealth and to amend the existing law governing the national status of married women.
You will be asked to approve a measure for the establishment of river boards to take over from existing authorities certain responsibilities for land drainage, fisheries, and the prevention of pollution.
You will also be invited to pass a Bill to amend the present scheme for securing the exhibition of a fair proportion of British films.
A measure will be laid before you to reform the law relating to actions for personal injuries.
It is hoped that various measures consolidating important branches of the law will be introduced during the Session; and other measures will be laid before you if time permits.
I pray that Almighty God may give. His blessing to your counsels.
4.16 p.m.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
Mr. Blyton: I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
Although I have addressed the House on many occasions, I will ask the indulgence of hon. Members today in what to me is an onerous task. Today is a great event in my life. It is a great honour to me, to my constituency and particularly to the miners from whom I came. My constituency is made up of the overspill of the three boroughs of South Shields, Sunderland and Jarrow—the great mining area in County Durham. Its chief industries are the Mercantile Marine, shipbuilding and mining.
In relation to the Merchant Navy, I think I am speaking the feelings of the House when I say that we owe a great debt of gratitude to them for the services they rendered in the war. Many a time I have watched from the piers of my
8
native town, and have seen the convoys lined up and going to Russia to supply the battlefields with the necessary equipment. Many I have seen that never came back, and in my native town the death roll of those who lost their lives at sea in the war is the heaviest in this country. When the story of the Mercantile Marine comes to be written, it will be an epic story. In shipbuilding, the skill of the craftsmen of the Tyneside and Wearside is known the world over. They worked hard during the war. Today they are working hard to replace the Mercantile Marine that we lost in the war, and I wish them Godspeed in their work which will contribute so much to the improvement of the economic position of this country.
With regard to mining, I would inform the House that I am a miner by profession and a Member of Parliament by accident. At the age of 14 I emerged from an elementary school and went into the coal pits. With the exception of the time that I served in His Majesty's Submarine Service, where I reached the exalted position on the lower deck of Able Seaman, I continued to work in the mines. I have lived among the mines in the last 28 years, during which period can be told the most tragic story of British mining. I myself have worked in the pits, six days a week hard going, and in 1928 have taken to my wife and two children the magnificent sum of £2 a week when the minimum wage was 7s. 1½d. a day. We were the despised and rejected of men in the 1920's and the 1930's. Every hand was against us and we were attacked from all quarters. I was the recipient of Poor Law relief during the 1921 and 1926 strikes. When this House discusses the manpower position of this basic industry, it must consider the question in the light of that background. Miners like myself swore by Heaven above that we would never allow our sons to face the distress and tragedy that we faced. Today the mining stock has practically gone from the mining villages. We are finding that the wastage in the mines is exceeding the intake.
I am now in the position of poacher turned gamekeeper. I have now got to say to the men that in the interests of this nation, now that the future of the industry is assured, it is essential that we should let our lads go back into the pits. Now that the nation's prosperity depends

9
upon the mining community, it ought not to be the miners' sons alone who go into the mines; it ought to be the responsibility of all classes. If this industry is to be built up, it must be built up not by bringing in middle-aged men but by getting young men into the pits to take up mining as a career, so that they can start from the bottom rung of the ladder and become experienced miners at the age of 21. Therefore, I appeal to the nation through this House. This industry can solve many of our economic problems if we do the utmost to develop our coal resources, but there ought to be an inducement for all classes in the nation to go into the pits and so ensure our prosperity in the future.
I am pleased to note in the Gracious Speech that the Government intend to give us, as in every industry, the means to perform the task. I venture to make this prophecy. Given new machinery, spare parts to maintain the present machinery, and tubs and trams to ensure that the maximum amount of face coal is speedily obtainable, with the extra standard of work which the miners will give, the target for next year will be achieved and we shall have some coal for export. I say to my colleagues in the mines, "Your prosperity depends upon maximum production from the mines. If the nation should go down, so will the miners." I appeal to them from this House of Commons to give us all they can in the present economic crisis that this country has to face. I say to my Scottish friends who came out of the pits this week, "Go back to work." I agree they have a case. Already, however, their case is under discussion. Actions of this character will jeopardise the negotiating machinery that it has taken men like those we have on the back benches here, and who have come from the mines themselves, so many many years to build up. The miner has always been generous. In my county there stands a monument to his generosity in the Durham. Aged Miners' Homes that have been built for our aged people. The miner has been praised as a great fighter in war. Believe me, as one who has led the miners in strikes, they are great fighters against injustice. They are prepared at all times to risk their lives in explosions, or in falls; prepared to risk their very existence in the gases that arise from explosions. I do feel grieved
10
when I read statements in the Press made by irresponsible people in all quarters of the House attacking the miner and telling him what he ought to do, while they have no knowledge of mining whatever.
In the Gracious Speech there is raised the question of the direction of labour. This is no new thing. Direction of labour has been in existence under the Unemployment Insurance Acts ever since I knew them. In the northern counties, and in Yorkshire and in Kent, there are thousands of my people who were hounded out of the pits and the factories in the years of depression. Because of the fact that they would have received the disallowance of unemployment benefit for refusing what is termed in the Act "suitable employment," direction by starvation was the lot of our people under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I was taught at school that every one was equal under British law. If it was equality that my people should have been directed to parts of the country where they would lose their local associations, I see no reason why people who do no useful work at all should not have the same direction as under these Acts, and be directed into suitable work in the hour of crisis in this country.
I welcome in the Gracious Speech the end of the Poor Law. This Act, which originated in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, has been revised and amended many times. All through the Acts of revision there was always the basic principle as far as we were concerned, that poverty was a crime. In the last century Charles Dickens indicted our Poor Law system in his great book, "Oliver Twist," in which he asked for more for the poor. We have the depiction of the people who administered public relief in the parsimonious Board and Bumble the Beadle. We have Noel's criticism of the burial of the poor who died in our institutions:
"Rattle his bones over the stones.
He's only a pauper whom nobody owns."
We have had books written by men like the late Lord Passfield on this subject. I remember that the definition of the word "destitution" has never been laid down by Statute. It was applied differently in the country.
I remember as a boy my grandmother receiving Poor Law relief. I remember how she cried after the visitor had accused

11
her of wasting the relief she had received because she was enjoying the luxury of a herring—and herring in my days as a boy were 20 a penny. I remember also when people had to sell their furniture before they were given relief. This law went on until I myself became not only a recipient under it but became an administrator of it in my own local town. If ever there was an Act that people shunned to receive assistance from, it was the Poor Law Act. I am pleased today to be able to play some little part in the funeral of this particular Act of Parliament.
I leave this question by dealing with Poor Law relief in the workhouses. A better name has been found for them now—"institutions." They were built in the last century. They were built like barracks. In many parts of this country we find in them the mental ward on one side; on the other side the hospital; and in the middle we find our own veterans of industry who have had to go into the institutions because they have fallen on evil days. I have seen a couple who had been married 40 years who went into the workhouse, and the wife was sent one way and the man the other—parted at the workhouse gates in the middle of their happy married life. I hope that with the new national assistance Act we shall obliterate this sort of thing from the fair face of England and that those places will be re-adapted, so that if our people fall on evil days and go into the institutions, they will continue to the end of their days to lead their normal married lives.
I come to my last point. I am pleased that in the Gracious Speech it is predicted at long last that areas like mine are to receive fairness of treatment from the Treasury—that is, in the redistribution of the block grant system. The numbers of sick and aged people are always heavier in the big industrial areas. That fact arises from the industrial work. In the inter-war years not only have we had to carry those, but we have had to carry unemployed people as well, and it has meant in the North, where I live and where my constituency is, that we have had to meet terrifically high rates when wealthier boroughs far away from the industrial areas were enjoying a lower rate. The redistribution of the block grant will
12
mean great benefit to the local authorities, enabling them to give to the working class people the amenities that they are entitled to have—as the richer boroughs can. The rates in my area are terrifically high. In my home town they are about 22s. in the £; in Gateshead they are somewhere about 25s. in the £; in Jarrow, of world wide fame, the rates are 20s. 10d. in the £; in Sunderland, 20s. in the £. With the new education estimates to go against them, it would mean, were there no revision of the block grant, that it would be a sheer impossibility for local authorities to carry on. I believe that this message to the local authorities—of the revision of the block grant—will be regarded as a half-way road to victory, because we have all believed that equalisation of the rates was the thing to be aimed at.
I want to conclude. The reference in the Gracious Speech to the Poor Law and to the revision of the block grant are to me and to my constituents like bright metal on a dark background. They are all the brighter because of the sombreness of their surroundings. I have great pleasure in moving the Motion.
4.27 p.m.
Miss Herbison: I beg to second the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) in such an admirable and forthright manner.
It is with no little trepidation that I do so, since, being a Scottish Member, participating usually in Scottish Debates, I have never before had to address such a full House as I am doing now. I am deeply aware of the very great honour conferred not only on me, but particularly on those miners in the pit in which my father worked who nominated me as candidate for the North Lanark Division, and, indeed, on all the people of my constituency—the miners, the industrial workers, the office workers, those people in professions, who worked with a will not only to return a Labour Member to this House to represent them, but who, during the past two years—two years that have not been at all easy for this Government or for this country—have given of their very best to help us to solve our postwar problems. From my contacts with them during the Recess I am absolutely convinced that they are going to continue to give of their best to Britain in order to

13
make her the sort of Britain that we want her to be.
My hon. Friend has dealt with many matters of home policy. I want for a short time to deal with foreign affairs. Today, we often despair at the seeming disunity that there is in the world two years after the most devastating war. The signing of peace treaties takes longer than we should wish. The ideologies and philosophies of the great nations seem to clash and hinder that progress towards a lasting peace, for which I am certain every citizen of every nation longs and prays.
I am glad to see, in the Gracious Speech, the determination of this Government to continue to give full support to the United Nations organisation. I do not wish to deal with the wider field of foreign affairs, but there are two aspects on which I would like to touch for a short time. They are aspects which are very often overlooked when we are despairing generally at what seems to be the disunity of the world. They are two aspects which are of vital importance if we are to get that lasting peace we all desire. I am referring to U.N.E.S.C.O. and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. Surely, on the question of food and the question of education nations can find some common basis on which they can discuss and agree. At the meetings of U.N.E.S.C.O. we have not only the political representatives of the various countries, but we have men and women whose sole aim is to give the benefits of research in science and in education to all the peoples of the world. They have much to give in these two fields, and much to give in bringing about real peace in the world. We, in Scotland, have given one of our most outstanding men to the Food and Agriculture Organisation. I refer to Sir John Boyd Orr. The whole nation is proud of him and of his work. Perhaps I may take a little reflected glory, because he was the only candidate in a university election for whom I voted who did not turn out to be a mere "also-ran" when the results came out.
Both in U.N.E.S.C.O. and in the Food and Agriculture Organisation, this Government of ours have given the greatest support since their inception. We must see to it that the aim of Sir John Boyd Orr, and, indeed, the aim of
14
the whole Food and Agriculture Organisation, which is to give an adequate diet to every single person in this world, no matter of What race, creed or colour, is an aim we must continue to support. Surely, it is a noble aim when we consider not only the thousands of people in our own country who for many years have not had an adequate diet, but those millions of people scattered all over the world who have always been living on the very verge of starvation. I would say to the Government—and I am certain I do not say it in vain—that we have to see to it that the fears which Sir John Boyd Orr has been expressing, the fears that this Organisation will merely be a collector of statistics and data, do not turn out to be realities Britain can play a very great part in seeing that these fears are banished. In giving support to these two organisations—and what Britain can contribute in regard to industrial questions is second to none—we shall be going a very long way towards bringing about the peace which we all want.
I welcome very much indeed the mention in the Gracious Speech of the acceleration of demobilisation of men and women in the Forces. This will not only be of benefit to these men and women who will be able to enjoy civilian life so much more quickly than they expected, but it will be of great benefit to those industries which are so short of manpower; it will also be a very great saving in our overseas expenditure. I am pleased also with the reference to the reorganisation of our Forces on a peacetime footing. I feel that in that reference our Government are fully conscious of the need to make all three of our Forces more democratic than they are today. I remember a question which was put in the higher school leaving certificate examination just before I became a Member of Parliament. The students were asked to say what figure of speech was contained in the following sentence: "Every private may become a Napoleon." Some of my boys polished off that question very quickly in the one word, "hyperbole." But alas, although I was willing to accept it and give them full marks, the powers that be were not. They were aggrieved, and, I felt, rightly so. Unless there is equality of opportunity in promotion for the men who enter the Forces, and great improvements,

15
which I cannot dilate upon at this time, we shall never get into the Forces voluntarily the men whom we need to safeguard our country.
The determination to have the closest joint co-operation in industry, I am certain, will be welcomed by all the workers throughout the country. We have always felt that if we are to get the increase in production necessary for the well being of this country, we must have greater joint consultation between the workers and managements. Our men have not only hands, but brains which they can use, and for that reason alone I welcome joint production. In the economic state of our country today, and indeed of the whole world, it would be quite unforgivable to lose any particle of talent that there is in our country. I welcome it for another reason. The majority of our workers are spending eight hours a day doing a purely mechanical routine job. What could be more frustrating than that? Human beings were never meant to be mere robots, and if our men have the knowledge that they are not just cogs in the machine, but citizens who are to be allowed to play a responsible part in our drive for greater output, we shall get a zest and a return from our workers which we could not otherwise hope to obtain.
I read with very great pleasure the part in the Gracious Speech which deals with deprived children. I am delighted that steps are to be taken during this Session to ensure that many of these children are to have much greater care, attention and supervision than they have ever had before. I would make the plea that we should see to it that as few as possible of these children are cared for in institutions. No matter how well organised or how well supervised, we ought to see to it that our children do not go into institutions. Our aim should be to find a real home for those children, a home, where they will have the love, care, and individual attention which is the birthright of every child, a home where they will be able to put down their roots, to which they can return when they do go out into the world to work, a home in which there is someone who cares about them, who is interested in their successes, difficulties, and failures. It will not be easy to achieve that aim, but when was anything
16
worth while ever achieved without great work?
Scottish farmers and farm workers will welcome the proposed legislation in the Gracious Speech to help with the development of agriculture in our country. We have often felt, in spite of the jokes that are made about the climate of Scotland, that our country could play a much bigger part in the production of food which an industrial nation must have. The new legislation will give an incentive, both to the farmers and to the workers, to produce that necessary food, coupled with the drive for better housing for agricultural workers, and I can envisage many of those parts of Scotland that lost their populations in less prosperous days becoming really prosperous centres, with people producing the food and living a happy life.
The last point I want to make is one which, I feel, applies to almost every constituency. I expect that most Members of this House addressed meetings of workers during the Recess. We explained to them just what were the needs of the nation; we asked them to give of their best, to exert every ounce of energy that they possessed to help Britain to get over her difficulties, and not only Britain but the whole world as well. We were not at all ashamed to place before them the full facts of the situation, not at all ashamed to condemn unofficial strikes, or to ask them to give of their very best. Now I want to say something which some Members may feel is verging on the controversial. I have been told that one must not be controversial on this occasion, but perhaps I shall be forgiven. It was heartening to me to find that our people had the greatest faith in this Government. I would like to emphasise that. It was not only my experience, but the experience of other Members on this side of the House who spent most of the Recess explaining the real facts of the situation.
But it was not only heartening; it was a little terrifying. We are asking much of our people today, and I feel that we have the right to ask for it. For the first time many of our people have a feeling of security. We have the right to ask much from them, but they ask much from us in return. When I addressed meetings of miners and their wives in crowded miners welfare halls, or industrial

17
workers in the part of Glasgow I represent, I talked to people who never before had any security in their lives, but who are willing to put up with shortages and give of their best until our balance of trade is redressed. One cannot possibly address such people without feeling the great sense of responsibility that their very faith in us imposes on us. We as a Government must not fail these people and I am convinced, from the working of this Government in the past two years, and from what is outlined in the Gracious Speech, that we as a Government shall not fail our people.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. Eden: Ever since I have been a Member of this House, I have listened to the Member to whose lot it has fallen to make the speech I have to make this afternoon, the Member who has tried to find something new and original to say about the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address. I have heard great orators not entirely contrive to do that, and I, for my part, shall attempt nothing of the kind. I would merely say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) who moved the Address, and the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison), who seconded it, that we offer them, as I am sure the House as a whole does, our sincere congratulations on the manner in which they carried out their task. If I may say so to the Mover, his speech was obviously actuated by a very deep sincerity. One felt that he was speaking of things near his heart, and as one who was born and bred in his county, may I say that it was good to hear a Durham voice speak so well?
As for the Seconder, I must confess that I have not had the good fortune to hear the hon. Lady before. I suppose it is because I have not been sufficiently assiduous in my attendance of Debates on Scottish affairs. The final observations which the hon. Lady made in the earlier stages of her speech, about foreign affairs, shows that she has made a close study of the subject, and I hope she will give us the opportunity—especially those of us who come from south of the Border—of hearing what she has to say on this subject in future. The hon. Lady said that she felt some trepidation, but I can
18
assure her that she certainly never showed it.
As the hon. Lady referred to foreign affairs, perhaps the House will permit me to make one or two observations about them in the opening part of my speech. The international scene which we are surveying this afternoon is indeed a sombre one. It has darkened almost everywhere since we were met together last August. In particular, the antagonism between the Soviet Union and Russian-imposed and controlled Communist Governments in Eastern Europe, on the one hand, and the Western democracies and the United States of America, on the other, has unhappily sharpened. The Cominform has been brought into being. In France and Italy the activities of the Communists continue, and they are intensified, particularly against the Socialist parties in those countries. In Bulgaria, since we last met, M. Petkov has been judicially murdered. In these conditions, it is not surprising that U.N.O. can contribute very little—anxious as I am, like the hon. Lady, that it should contribute more—except to provide platforms for political exchanges of the utmost violence, exchanges in which M. Vishinsky has been distinguished by the unbridled licence of his language, and the Minister of State by the courage and candour of his. In China vast territories continue to bleed from a civil strife that retards or wrecks recovery. In India whole populations are on the move. They are to be numbered in hundreds of thousands, perhaps in millions. Scenes are being enacted of which no one has seen the like for 200 years at least, perhaps ever.
What is to be done about this scene of international tension and suffering which covers almost the whole world? There is only one course open to us, and I believe that the Minister of State has shown the way. We must hold fast to our own faith in true democracy and in a free way of life, and we must fulfil our obligations under the international instruments to which we have put our name. There is nothing to be gained by seeking to appease others by compromising on essentials. We shall only go all the faster down the slope that way. It really is impossible to accept the protestations of friendship which Marshal Stalin, I understand, recently addressed to some hon. Members of this House, when the Moscow radio can continue to blare, without

19
ceasing day and night, torrents of vilification and abuse of Governments and peoples who were so recently the allies of the Soviet Union on a common battlefield.
In the international sphere, the most important single event since we adjourned is the Marshall initiative, or rather the response of the 16 nations in the plan which His Majesty's Government helped to elaborate. In my judgment, this event far transcends in importance the Communist offensive against the plan. The work of the 16 nations is constructive. It is aimed at rebuilding a shattered Europe, and rebuilding it with American help. It is devoutly to be hoped that rapid progress can now be made with this plan, for it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that upon this the economic survival of Western Europe depends. I am glad to see that our American friends are approaching the problem in that spirit, and a great debt is due to the generous statesmanship which their leaders are showing at this critical period. On the other hand, the Communist offensive is destructive. It seeks to prevent economic co-operation between the nations. It is one more example of that extreme economic nationalism which we have now learned to expect from the Soviet Government. I say these things with regret, but, with the greater freedom which I have as a Member of the Opposition, I think they should be said.
I feel that I must make some comment on the performance of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) and his colleagues, all of them, as I understand, nominal supporters of the Government, in giving in Warsaw a Press conference which was apparently devoted to vilifying the plan which His Majesty's Government support. The hon. Member for Gateshead, I noticed, also took the opportunity to endorse in Belgrade the Comin-form declaration, which attacks by name both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. There has been in the past a tradition among hon. Members of this House that when we are abroad, although we may speak freely on international affairs generally, we, seek to avoid criticising our own Government. That seems to me to be, generally speaking, a good rule. But, however that may be, it seems to me utterly indefensible that hon. Members should use foreign Press
20
agencies, not only to attack the leaders and the Government of whom they are nominally supporters, but also to make violent charges against a friendly nation—the United States of America.
So far as Communist parties in all lands are concerned, we know what to expect. Both Thorez in France and Togliatti in Italy have used precisely the same methods, not only to hamper, but to wreck the 16 nations' plan. One thing we can say for these men is that they do call themselves Communists. I confess that I understand them rather better than men who seem to be Communists in everything except name.
Before I leave the subject of foreign affairs, I want to make some observations on two matters, as I see that the Foreign Secretary is here. One is about Germany. On the problem of Germany, in respect of which the Government have taken a new decision, and which, no doubt, hon. Members will want to discuss in the course of the Debate, I would like to say this as a preliminary. The Potsdam Agreement, in my judgment, can no longer be regarded by us as having any validity in so far as it concerns the economic treatment of Germany. I say that because the basis of the Potsdam Agreement was, as is known on both sides of the House by those who had anything to do with it, that Germany should have been treated as an economic whole. Personally, I have always thought, and still think, that had that been possible it would have been the better way. It would have been, among other things, the basis of the conviction that the Allies must continue to work together. That has not been possible. It must be frankly said that the fact that it has not been possible is not the fault of His Majesty's Government. This is the position now, as I see it. As the result of the Soviet Government's action, we have to settle these matters now, so far as our zones in the West are concerned, on the basis of what is the best for the future peace of Europe. I have no doubt that what is best is that Germany should make the fullest possible contribution to her own economic recovery, but that she should not be put into a position again to re-arm and thereby to endanger the peace of Europe. About that I think there is no disagreement.

21
How is that to be brought about? The Government have produced a plan. I do not minimise the difficulties of getting international agreement on such a subject; and I hope that we shall have some more information about the plan in the course of the Debate, and an opportunity perhaps to discuss it. I certainly would not recommend that all German industry should be allowed to be free and uncontrolled, but we have also to understand that there has been great delay in carrying out these plans of dismantling and demolition. By the terms of the Potsdam Agreement, they should have been finished at the end of two years. That, again, is not the fault of His Majesty's Government. All the same, it remains true that any demolition now carried out is bound to seem harsher to the German people. It is, therefore, surely important to try to ensure that none is carried out where a factory is already engaged on peaceful work of economic reconstruction. There was the "Holmag" story published in the Press. I have no idea how far the facts are justified. If there are other cases like that, it would be most disquieting. I hope, therefore, that the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of State will in the course of this Debate give us some more information on this subject.
I have one other observation to make before I leave the foreign field. I cannot do that without paying tribute to the work that has been done by our retiring Ambassador in Paris. Mr. Duff Cooper was appointed to that post to represent us with the French nation at a most exacting time. He has done his work in a manner which has earned him the lasting respect and friendship of Frenchmen in all walks of life, and should also earn him the sincere gratitude of this House. I should also like to extend our own good wishes to his successor.
Now I turn from foreign affairs, where there is little controversy, to the domestic scene, where controversy will be found to be materially more lively. First of all, I observe that since we were last assembled in this House there have been certain modifications in the personnel of the Front Bench opposite. It would be indelicate of me to dwell on those changes in any detail, but I am bound to say that, viewed from this side of the House, the reasons for the dismissal of some Ministers and the retention of others are
22
very hard indeed to understand. I say nothing about transfers; they are completely inexplicable. I would content myself with the quotation of one general comment which came from the no doubt disinterested outlook of the Government back benches. They are always disinterested in discussing new appointments of Ministers. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole) observed that the Prime Minister has a marked capacity for putting square pegs in round holes.
Whatever the opinions about individual changes, much the most important modification, of course, is the extension of the powers given to the Minister for Economic Affairs. On the whole, we would be inclined to think that this modification should be to the national advantage, but the question immediately arises, how much power has that Minister really got? About this only the Prime Minister can inform us. For instance, what are the new Minister's relations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I observe that the Minister for Economic Affairs informed us that the Chancellor goes into bat before him. That is rather a surprising statement. One would have expected them to open the innings together. I should like to know whether this arrangement has been made by the captain, or whether it is just a result of a scramble for the crease. In any event, from the national point of view, it is essential that finance should serve the economic effort and not pursue an independent course. I should have thought that what I am advocating would be very welcome to hon. Members on the other side of the House.
Transcending all other domestic affairs is the gravity of our economic position, and it is essential that we should have, at the earliest moment, a full statement from the Government of the developments during the Recess. What, in particular, is our position now about our gold reserves and the gap in our balance of payments? We have all seen the published figures, and on the face of it, they are disturbing enough. We appear to be losing gold at very much the same rate as we were losing dollars in August. I admit that the published figures do not necessarily give the full picture, but that full picture we must have, for surely everyone will admit—I know that the Chancellor will admit it—that it is a very grave event that we should be expending the gold

23
reserves of the sterling area at this rate. When do the Government expect that the measures they have taken to reduce imports and expand exports are going to have some effect on this still yawning gap? Here I put to the Prime Minister a question which for some time has been troubling me. What is the relation between Britain's part in this plan of the 16 nations and our own effort, as described by the Minister of Economic Affairs, to balance our own payments next year? According to the plan of the 16 nations, we visualise a large, continuing deficit, and that appears to contradict the plan of the Minister for Economic Affairs. I have no doubt that these projects can be reconciled, but we should like to know how in the Government's mind that reconciliation is going to be brought about.
What is essential is that the people of this country should see the picture clearly and as a whole, for as far ahead as possible. We cannot continually ask the people of this country to consume nothing and to export everything, nor can we expect other countries to be prepared indefinitely to take what we send them while we refuse to accept what they wish to send us. That brings me to the question of marketing, the most vexing question of all, because, after all, we are not the only country seeking to increase its exports and restrict its imports. Here again, we must have an exposition of how the Government view the prospects and what action they are taking. Have the Government any plans for extending the use of sterling in the non-dollar areas as a medium for financing international trade, and what is the position about this capital expenditure programme?
The Prime Minister will probably remember that for more than a year some of us have been urging upon the Government the need to produce such a programme, and for many months past the Government have been telling us that they were engaged upon such a programme. Nothing has emerged, and meanwhile the present uncertainty is both confusing and wasteful. Can the Prime Minister tell us when can we expect a programme, and in particular when can we expect to know what decisions have been taken in respect of the housing programme? Everybody admits the difficulties of this capital expenditure programmes,
24
but I must say that the position is becoming infinitely more difficult because of the long delay before the Government announce their proposals. Even so it would be wrong to slash this programme purely on a financial basis. Reductions have to take account of materials as well as of finance.
The Gracious Speech referred to re-imposed labour controls, and the Mover of the Address had something to say about this, drawn from the years of unemployment and his experiences then. He would not deny that there is in all quarters of this House an extreme distaste for any measure for the direction of labour in peace time. It would seem to us that the words in the Gracious Speech go rather beyond anything the Government have hitherto proposed. We ask, therefore, that the Prime Minister should give us an early explanation of what the Government intend, for every step, however small, which abrogates the freedom of choice of the individual is one against which this House ought to react instinctively and one against which the British people will always react instinctively. I am glad to know from the Gracious Speech that there are to be supplementary financial proposals this autumn, but I am also sorry to note that nowhere in the Gracious Speech is there any indication of any need for reduced Government expenditure. Yet those figures continue to stand at staggering heights.
The difficulties of the present situation have resulted in a number of drastic cuts which are pressing severely on all sections of the people. Of course, it is easy to suppose—if anyone does suppose—that the abolition of the basic petrol ration affects the wealthier section of the community. That is not so, and particularly in the country districts, as those of us who have been to our constituencies will know, it is a matter of very real significance to the life of the community. Bus routes are already overcrowded, and the abolition of the basic ration will permanently increase the congestion, lengthen the queues, and mean a definite waste of time and effort. The Government will no doubt have observed that a disturbing feature of this situation is the number of ex-Service men who have invested their savings and gratuities in petrol pump stations, garages and enterprises of that kind. We all know from our own constituencies that that is

25
so. This Government decision will be a staggering blow to those men. I must say that the Government's explanations on this subject have been insufficiently convincing so far. The matter will have to be probed further. So I ask the Prime Minister if he can tell us now what the net saving is to be from the step which the Government are now taking, in contrast, for instance, with what the net saving would have been if they had only halved the basic ration.
Another disturbing feature in this matter of petrol is the number of different Government statements which have followed each other in rapid succession. I would recall to the Prime Minister that on 30th June we were told that petrol supplies to the Services and to commercial users would be cut. A few weeks afterwards, on 6th August, we were told that there would be a cut of one-third in basic petrol. At the end of August we were informed that the basic ration would be abolished. A week after that, the Prime Minister told us that there would be some modification of the supplementary petrol to be given. All those changes of policy give the impression of hesitation and of muddle in the mind of the Government. They also increase the exasperation and the harassing effect upon the general public. The motorist cannot altogether be blamed if he feels that he has been singled out for exceptionally harsh treatment. Nobody can deny that the abolition of the basic petrol ration hits the motorist harder than the corresponding reductions have hit either the cinema-goer or the cigarette smoker.
I pass to another subject. There are many reports in the Press of the course of the negotiations between ourselves and the United States on the subject of tariffs and preferences. We hope very much that the Prime Minister will be able to enlighten us on these matters, for they are of deep and lasting concern to us all. I would remind the Prime Minister of what he said last year to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when he reaffirmed an earlier speech. He said—I will quote two sentences:
"There is no commitment on any country in advance of negotiations to reduce or to eliminate any particular margin of preference."
Again:
"There is thus no question of any unilateral surrender of preferences. There must be
26
adequate compensation for all parties affected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1946; Vol. 416, c. 2668.]
I would like to be assured that this is still the position. I would also like the Prime Minister to give us any information he can about the course of those discussions. This is an issue which deeply stirs public opinion in this country and, of course, elsewhere in the British Commonwealth and Empire. I trust, therefore, that before we are irrevocably committed the Prime Minister will take the House fully into his confidence. I am well aware of the normal constitutional practice which may be quoted, but this is an issue of transcending importance. Therefore, the claim I make is one that we consider should be met.
I turn for a moment to the question of the cuts in our Armed Forces, and particularly in the Royal Navy. I would remind the Prime Minister of the announcements in Sunday's and yesterday's newspapers that from Friday the strength of the Home Fleet will be reduced to one cruiser and four destroyers. That news was received, I believe, by the whole country with a profound shock. How did it come about that news as grave as this should leak out in this manner and be disclosed by the Press before any official announcement was made? Only a week ago, the Admiralty put out a Press statement which we all noted, explaining some of the difficulties in manning which would be involved in the accelerated rundown of the Forces. No indication was given of the devastating results upon the effective strength of the Navy which those difficulties would entail.
The decision must have been taken by then. Why was not the country told the whole story together? What is the result? The British Fleet is to be reduced this week to one cruiser and four destroyers in the home waters. In other words, we shall have a Fleet in these seas smaller than the Peruvian Navy. What is—I ask the Government—the reason for this decision? Are we really to be told that this is to be done solely in order that 22,000 more men may be released by next March than had been originally allowed for? I am not ignorant, nor is my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford, of the many difficulties involved in the release of these thousands of men from the Royal Navy. We realise full well that a great turnover like that involves

27
training and retraining a large number of men, and that much of that work has to be done ashore. Even allowing for all that, and for the emphasis upon naval aviation, can we be really satisfied that our manpower is being properly used?
Under Vote A next March we shall still have about 140,000 men. Do the Government really maintain that these men will be used to the best advantage, when a cut like this is being made in the Home Fleet and comparable cuts—although we have not been told—are to be made in our Fleets in all other parts of the world? The whole position must cause the gravest concern. There is one assurance which I hope the Prime Minister can give us now. If we are to cut our Services in order to suit our manpower now, we must have an assurance that such reductions are temporary, even transitional, and that research, development and training are continuing so that a strong, modern Fleet may be once again at sea. We must press for that assurance, and for some report of progress from the Prime Minister—I see that the Minister of Defence smiles, but we are concerned.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander)indicated dissent.
Mr. Eden: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the last to forget that this nation cannot afford once again to undergo the race against time which we had during the first year of the last war. The next race will be very much shorter.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: What war has the right hon. Gentleman in mind?
Mr. Eden: I would remind the hon. Member of what the First Lord, who is a Member of the Government, said the other day on this very subject, because it seems to answer the hon. Gentleman's question very well. He said:
"The Royal Navy does not exist merely to engage in war. Indeed, the cause of freedom throughout the world to a large extent has been promoted and maintained by the presence of ships of the Royal Navy in every sea."
I believe that statement of the First Lord to be justified.
Now I turn to the distribution of Parliamentary seats. I note that in addition to that subject the Gracious Speech also refers to "Measures to reform
28
franchise procedure." The Prime Minister will remember—the Lord President is here and he will also know—that in recent years Measures of this character have been the outcome of conferences presided over by you, Mr. Speaker. That has been the practice in recent years, and I should have hoped that that practice could have been continued, and that whatever the temptation—and I quite understand the temptation, because of the need for it—we should not approach these matters purely from the point of view of party advantage.
Now I come to the most controversial portion of what I have to say. We note, of course, a phrase in the Gracious Speech that refers to the amendment of the Parliament Act of 1911, and we await the Prime Minister's explanation on this subject. This, however, I must say at once. On the face of it there would seem to be neither justification for such an amendment nor an electoral mandate for it. The matter was dealt with, as hon. Members opposite will no doubt recall, in "Let Us Face The Future" in these words:
"And in stating it, we give clear notice that we will not tolerate obstruction of the people's will by the House of Lords."
[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] All right. Then is it the Government's suggestion that there has been such obstruction? If so, that obstruction must have developed since 9th September last, which was the last occasion on which their Lordships sat, when a quite un-exampled tribute was paid not only on his behalf, but on behalf of the Government, by the Government spokesman in another place. I am, unfortunately, precluded by our rules from quoting the actual words used, but I commend them to the study of hon. Members on that side of the House. I can only say that the First Lord of the Admiralty made it plain that, in the Government's judgment, the Opposition majority had been used in a moderate and statesmanlike way—[Interruption]—that is something like what he said—and in a manner which had given the Government side of the House no real or reasonable complaint. That was the gist of the tribute. If that is so, what really is the obstruction which alone would justify the Government in taking the step which they now propose to take, in accordance with the terms of their document.

29
May I give them just one other quotation, because I am impressed by it and by the eloquence of some of the noble Lords who are Ministers in another place. This I can quote because it was said in the country. It is by Lord Ammon, also a Member of His Majesty's present Government. He said:
"I work hard in the House of Lords; as you know, for we do not take things so easily there. We work long hours and we do not get a thousand a year for it. I do not believe any critic of the House of Lords can look around the world and find any second Chamber that he likes better than ours. We are a remarkable reservoir of learning, and we have often saved the House of Commons from falling into bad blunders."
What do the Government propose to do with this "powerful reservoir of learning"? I ask the Prime Minister to explain. I also ask him to tell us what has happened since the last sitting of that noble Chamber which has caused the Government entirely to throw over the views of their own spokesman in another place.
I conclude as the Gracious Speech begins. Of all our problems today, the most important by far are our immediate urgent economic necessities. It is on these that the Government ought to concentrate. It is on these that they ought to have been concentrating for the last two years. I am sorry that, from the Gracious Speech, it seems that they have not yet learnt that lesson. In this Speech there are political items which, however important we may think them and however much we may be ready to debate them, can contribute nothing to the immediate solution of these problems. But it is on the handling of these major economic problems that the Government are going to be judged. They are not handling these problems by nationalising the gas industry or amending the Parliament Act. What comfort is that to those who are at present suffering from acute shortages of food, houses and fuel? What contribution do these things make to stop the drain on our gold reserves or to close the gap in our balance of payments? The pursuit of such purely partisan policies will not restore the nation's prosperity, nor bring happiness to our people.
5.36 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I desire to associate myself with the congratulations which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), acting as
30
Leader of the Opposition for the time being, has offered to the Mover and Seconder of the Address. I have heard a great many of these speeches, and I have had to take the part the right hon. Gentleman has taken today on many occasions, and I know the difficulty of finding fresh words. I thought that the Mover, the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) dealt with one of the major factors of our problems, the coal situation, from the depths of personal experience, and I think he gave the kind of background which is required when we are dealing with these economic problems, particularly when we are considering the question of the morale of the people who work in the pits. I thought we had a delightful, charming and sincere speech from the hon. Lady who seconded and who particularly dealt with the social reform side of our proposals.
Before I deal with the matter of the Gracious Speech itself and the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as usual there are several matters of Business that fall to be dealt with. The announcement of the engagment of Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth has been greeted with great satisfaction throughout the whole country—and I believe that the House would like the opportunity of recording its feelings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I propose tomorrow at the beginning of Business to move an Address of Congratulation to His Majesty the King, Her Majesty the Queen and Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth on Her Royal Highness's engagement.
The Debate on the Address will occupy the remainder of this week, and under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, we shall endeavour to meet the wishes of the House in regard to the conduct of the general Debate and the discussion of specific subjects. We shall of course allow reasonable time for the Debate, and the proposed arrangements will be announced in the usual way. I hope, however, that the Debate might be concluded next week. I regret to say that it will be necessary for the Government to ask again for the whole time of the House for Government Business and to provide for the presentation of Government Bills only and to stop the ballot for Private Members' Bills and Motions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] The necessary Motion will appear on the Paper and will be moved tomorrow. I have heard this

31
Motion very many times by very many Governments—[An HON. MEMBER: "Only during war,"]—and it always evokes the same response. I had hoped that it would be possible this year to restore Private Members' time, at least up to Christmas, but the need for an Autumn Budget and of passing before Christmas, in addition to certain departmental Bills, the Burma Independence Bill and the Ceylon Constitution Bill has made this impossible.
The House will see from the Gracious Speech that our legislative programme, though not as extensive as that of last Session, is bound to take up a good deal of time. We shall, of course, as was done last Session, endeavour to provide opportunities for Debate on matters of general interest, and we propose in the interest of Private Members to safeguard the half-hour Adjournment—[An HON. MEMBER: "We are grateful for that."]—at the end of every sitting, not only after exempted Business or when the Rule is suspended, but after a Division or Divisions which may occur at the interruption of Business. It will be necessary to renew the Motion relating to the hours of sitting before the end of today's Business and I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to adjourn the Debate on the Address at a reasonable hour in order that there may be time to consider this Motion before the rising of the House. We are proposing to continue the hours of sitting which were in operation during the last Session. We shall also ask the House at a later stage to renew the arrangements relating to the constitution of Standing Committees and other matters.
I would now like to turn to the legislative programme. We are bringing before the House, as will be seen, a balanced programme of social reform and local government matters relating to our democratic system of Government—all find their place—and there are important Bills dealing with constitutional matters in other parts of the British Commonwealth. The legislative programme shows the completion of a system of social security by the abolition of the remnants of the Poor Law. A great series of reforms carried out over many years will help, this Session, finally to end the old Poor Law and create this new social security system. In this work Governments of various political colours have
32
played their part since the days of the Lloyd George Act, and many other laws passed during Conservative Governments, Liberal Governments and Labour Governments. I should like to take this occasion to pay my tribute to the late Lord Passfield. He played his part in Parliament for some years, but his greatest work was done in the field of social reorganisation. I remember very well 40 years ago the work on the minority report of the Poor Law. I remember how he and I took some small part, how it was publicised throughout the country, and how it had the support of Members of all parties. I wish that Lord Passfield had lived long enough to see the last vestige of the old Poor Law swept away, but he saw sufficient to realise that that work of his had not been in vain. There is another Measure in which he, as the greatest authority on local government, would have been interested, and that is the Bill which the Minister of Health will introduce dealing with the reform of the block grant system and the machinery of valuation.
There are further important matters of legislation to which I would refer. The reform of criminal justice is long overdue. I was one of those who regretted that Sir Samuel Hoare was unable to pass into law the Measure which he introduced, but the Debates on that Bill covered a good deal of ground and revealed a large measure of agreement; and though, no doubt, there will be some controversy, I believe the Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will introduce will gain a very large measure of support from all sides of the House. I believe the same will apply to the Bill for the public care of children.
I said that we were completing great Measures of social reform. We are also intending to complete the process of bringing under public ownership the fuel and power industries by the nationalisation of the gas industry. The House is, of course, aware that this industry is very largely already in public hands and publicly controlled, and in view of the report of the Heyworth Committee, I can really see no reason—apart from what we sometimes call ideological prejudices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Why not? It is really a logical development. I notice there has been a good deal of talk with regard to another great industry,

33
the iron and steel industry. There are no proposals in this Gracious Speech dealing with that industry. It was put down among other matters to be dealt with in the programme set out in "Let us Face the Future," to which the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington referred just now. I believe there is an overwhelming case in the national interest and I would like to say, in order to avoid any doubt there might be, that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government in the present Parliament to nationalise the relevant portions of the iron and steel industry.
The right hon. Gentleman raised some points with regard to the Redistribution of Seats Bill. That is brought forward from the Speaker's Conference, and I am sure he will await the Bill before he passes any comments on the details of it.
The other Bill to which he referred was the Parliament Bill. I think a great deal of time has passed since the Parliament Act of 1911 and it is quite well worth while looking again at that Act. It would be improper for me to state the exact proposals we intend to bring forward, but the intention is to reduce from two years to one year the period of delay which the other place can now impose. I freely admit, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that up to the present the leadership in the other House has been both wise and statesmanlike. Legislation has been passed which undoubtedly has been distasteful to the majority of that House, but I am bound to have it in mind that under the Parliament Act the first three years of a Parliament's life operate so that Bills can be put through if rejected under the Parliament Act, but after the Government's life has run for a certain time, then that axe begins to hang over the head of any Government. I think it is wise to deal with this matter in time, and before any serious matter has arisen, in order to lessen the danger which might arise should leadership in the other place pass into less responsible hands. We must remember that there is always that great number of noble Lords who do not attend, but they might attend. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Why do it now? You have no quarrel." But it is much better to avoid a quarrel. Why wait to get a fire extinguisher until a fire has actually broken out? It is better to provide yourself with a fire extinguisher at once.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Economise in fuel.
The Prime Minister: More fuel is consumed if you burn down the whole house.
I will quote from an admirable speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on the First Reading of the Parliament Act of 1911–
Mr. Churchill: The Parliament Bill.
The Prime Minister: He was speaking on the Bill at the time:
"We believe that Governments are the guides as well as the servants of the nation. We believe that the people should choose their representatives, that they should come to a decision between men, party and policy, judging their character and judging the circum stances of the hour; that they should choose their representatives and then trust them and give them a fair chance within the limits of their commission for a period which should not be unreasonably prolonged; then these representatives should be summoned before their constituents, who should judge them in relation to all the circumstances proper to be considered, and in relation as well to the general effects of their policy, and should either confirm them in their places as representatives or choose other men to take their place.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1911; Vol. 21, c. 2035.]
These principles are, of course, applicable today. The right hon. Gentleman says that the peoples' representatives should be given a fair chance within the limits of their commission for a period which should not be unduly prolonged, and the Parliament Act defined five years as that reasonable period. But I could never see why a Conservavtive Government should be given five years, and a Liberal, or Labour, Government only three years. The Parliament Act of 1911 was a very moderate measure. Here again, I would quote the right hon. Gentleman, this time from the Third Reading of the Parliament Bill:
"And when we remember that these powers, so far as this Bill is concerned, will remain and be exercised by hereditary Lords who are responsible to no constituency, will be exercised by them, although they nearly all belong to the Conservative Party, will remain to be exercised by them after all the democratic victories of the last six years, I confess so far from feeling myself as participating in a revolution, I stand here not merely astonished at our moderation, but upon occasion I am almost aghast."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1911; Vol. 25, c. 1771.]
After the victories we had, this is a very moderate curbing of the powers of another

35
place. There was also a note of warning:
"The powers retained by the House of Lords under the Parliament Bill will not merely be effectual, but, as I think has been borne in upon us every day we have discussed this matter, they will be formidable and even menacing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1911; Vol. 25, c. 1770.]
It so happened that for 34 years prior to the advent of this Government, except for two brief periods of minority Labour Governments, the Conservative Party have had effective power in both Houses; therefore, the issue never arose. But this is a wise precautionary measure—
Mr. Churchill: A deliberate act of social aggression.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must be in a reminiscent mood He is thinking of the things said to him when he stood at this Box in 1911. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington pointed out that in fact the noble Lords in another place exercise their power with great wisdom and moderation. If, as I hope, the Members of another place are not inclined ever again to exercise those menacing powers in order to render nugatory the decisions of the elected Chamber, then our proposals will do them no harm, but we should be taking away a weapon they have no intention of using. If, on the other hand, they still have the intention to re-assert those powers, which of late have fallen into desuetude, then this Bill will be both effective and timely. At the General Election, we laid perfectly clearly before the electorate that we would not allow the will of the electorate to be thwarted by another place, and I think there is ample justification there for taking precautions and not waiting until the trouble has actually arisen, and not waiting in fact until the trouble might have passed out of hand through the effluxion of time.
So much for the legislative programme. Now I will turn to the points put to me by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. He raised certain points on foreign affairs. I think he will agree with me that in the course of the Debate there will be opportunities for speaking on foreign affairs, but I must say we are greatly disturbed at the increasing tension in foreign affairs and the attitude of the U.S.S.R. representatives, which is gravely
36
imperilling the work that was done in trying to build up the United Nations organisation. I would rather leave a fuller discussion to a later time.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the discussions at Geneva. I am not today in a position to make a precise statement. A full statement will have to be agreed with the Governments concerned, but the negotiations, as would have been expected, have been very prolonged and difficult. We have every hope that agreement will be reached at Geneva between most, if not all, of the 17 countries there represented. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, I hope, be making a further statement in a few days' time. I would, however, indicate the principles on which these negotiations are being conducted. First, I would recall the statement I made in the House of Commons on the day when the United States proposals were published. On that occasion, I said there was no question of any unilateral surrender of preferences, and that that could only be considered in relation to, and in return for, a reduction of tariffs and other barriers, which would mean mutually advantageous arrangements for the expansion of trade. There can, therefore, be no question of our abolishing the whole system of Imperial Preference.
Secondly, we have throughout maintained the closest touch with our friends from the other Commonwealth countries. Further, we have kept in mind the principal aim, namely, the need for the restoration of equilibrium in our economic relations with the Western hemisphere, and particularly the United States, and we hope we have secured greater access to markets, for products not only from this country, but from the Colonial Empire, which is very important. They should result in a valuable increase in the dollar earnings in the sterling area as a whole. So far from weakening the economic co-operation between the members of the Commonwealth, I think it will be found that the agreement, and the prospects it holds out, should make for the further economic development of the Commonwealth, and should strengthen our ability to deal with the very serious crisis through which we are passing.
The next point with which I would deal is the question of our Defence Forces. The Government have continued the review of the size of our Forces in relation to the

37
responsibilities which we are called upon to carry out. They also have to have relation to the economic resources of this country. We have considered it right to examine the question of any possible reductions, not only in the remainder of this financial year, but also in the period of 18 months ending 31st March, 1949, and against the background of the needs of our long-term defence policy in so far as they can be foreseen at this time. It is difficult to foresee things at the present time—[Laughter]—in a very disturbed world. I am bound to say that I do not find it a laughing matter. Examination of that policy, as the House knows, is still proceeding, and it would be wrong to expect, at an early date, answers to all the far-reaching and fundamental questions which arise when one begins to consider what may arise in the future. None the less, it is essential to look further ahead, while ensuring that the decisions taken now do not conflict with the long-term needs of our defence policy. Subject to these reservations, the Government have decided upon further substantial reductions in the size of the Armed Forces in the next 18 months. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition saying that he would like to wield the blue pencil with vigour over our Estimates. I do not know the colour of the pencil, but we have had a look into these things very closely. The Army, which has been bearing—
Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that with 140,000 men under the control of the Admiralty, it is possible to man only one cruiser and four destroyers for the Home Fleet?
The Prime Minister: I mean to say nothing of the sort—really, the right hon. Gentleman might wait until I deal with the point. If he will allow me one more page—I am dealing with his right hon. Friend—I will deal with his point. The Army, which has been bearing the major share of our special post-war commitments, naturally shows the most striking reductions. By March, 1949, the Government expect that the Army's overseas responsibilities falling on British manpower will be limited to our share of the occupation of Germany, the requirements of the Middle East, and the small but important garrisons needed at a variety of overseas stations. The reductions in the size of the Army must be related to
38
its special commitments, and the process will therefore still be gradual. It is quite imposible to compress it arbitrarily.
The position in the case of the Navy is different. There has to be a reduction of operational strength, and it has been decided, deliberately, that the strain of this should be taken here and now, even at the expense of some degree of temporary immobility. In view of certain alarmist references which have appeared in the Press, I would emphasise the word "temporary." I do not know where the figures came from. The right hon. Gentleman seems to believe everything he sees in the Press.
Mr. Churchill: What figures?
The Prime Minister: The figures which have been quoted about one cruiser, etc. I do not know where they came from.
Mr. Churchill: The figures were one cruiser and four destroyers for the Home Fleet. If those figures are not true, we shall be glad to hear them contradicted. It is less than the fleet we gave to Russia during the war.
The Prime Minister: Those are not the correct ones. I was not aware that that point would be raised, and I have not the exact figures, but I am quite prepared to give those figures in the course of the Debate.
Mr. Churchill: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has not been made responsible for these grave decisions, which he says they studied with great attention, without having on the tip of his tongue the actual four or five ships, or six or seven ships, which are reserved to the Home Fleet? Surely, as Prime Minister of the country, he ought to know.
The Prime Minister: I cannot give without notice the exact number of ships; it is a point to be raised in Debate. The short point is that any temporary immobility will be during the re-sorting out of the ships and personnel—a purely temporary manning. The suggestion that this is a sudden reduction of the entire Fleet to a kind of care and maintenance basis is quite wrong. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence is perfectly willing to give the facts in the course of the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] Hon. Members do not seem to realise that we cannot have two speeches at once.

39
In the case of the Air Force there will be further reductions in establishments, more especially in overseas commands. The reductions will be spread gradually over the period in the interests of operational efficiency. I will give some actual figures. The 1947 Defence White Paper foreshadowed that the size of the Armed Forces at 31st March, 1948, would be 1,087,000. On 6th August I put the revised Estimate at 1,007,000. We now expect the figure to be 937,000, a reduction of 150,000 on the original forecast. I would also mention that it is expected that industrial labour employed on Service production and related activities will be considerably less at 31st March, 1948, than was anticipated. So far with regard to figures of reductions. I was only proposing at this juncture to give the broad picture. The detail will appear in the Estimates, and the matter can be further debated in the course of these discussions. That covers, I think, almost all the points which the right hon. Gentleman raised.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the major issue facing this country is our economic position. I entirely agree. The problem was very fully discussed and the essentials of the problem were very fully set out before we parted for the summer Adjournment. Since that Debate the world situation has deteriorated. Our own position has necessarily got worse with it. Indeed, the immediate effect of that Debate was to accentuate the dollar drain. Since then we have had the Paris Report of the Committee of European Co-operation, setting out very clearly the whole European position and our position as part of Western Europe. I am quite sure that hon. Members will have seen to what extent our particular difficulties are due to the general causes affecting Western Europe as a whole, and the relation of Europe to the Western Hemisphere.
The House will wish to have a full report on the situation and an account of the measures which have been taken and are going to be taken in this country, to deal with it. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be speaking in the course of these Debates. With regard to the batting order, that was, I imagine a jocular reference to the particular status of a particular Minister. Generally speaking, the batting order depends on what the opposition is at a
40
particular moment and the state of the pitch. On this occasion, in dealing with economic affairs, the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will both be batting. On other occasions it may be the Lord President of the Council who will be batting first, or the Home Secretary. With regard to the position of the Minister for Economic Affairs, his position is one of co-ordination. There is no question of interfering with the departmental responsibilities of Ministers. His function is, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and they act in the closest collaboration—to coordinate the economic effort both at home and abroad in all its various ramifications.
I would like to say one word in regard to the Marshall proposals. It would be quite fatal for us to have wishful thinking and to imagine that we can depend on some other help than our own. We have got to go all out on our own efforts. Whatever assistance we can get—and the greatest assistance may not be direct but could come through a raising of industrial and economic conditions all over the world—we have to set our own house in order. The problem before us, the work we have to do in participating in world recovery, is to get increased production for home and for export, increased exports directed to dealing with our balance of payments, and Colonial development in the interests of the people of the Colonies, of this country, and of the world. We will have to have a reduction of some imports, a reduction of some of our overseas expenditure abroad, a redeployment of our resources at home, a redirection and reduction of capital investment at home, and measures to deal with inflation. These points will be elaborated in the course of this Debate.
Mr. Churchill: What is meant by redirection of capital investment?
The Prime Minister: It means concentrating more on one point and not on the other.
Mr. Churchill: Does it mean that people are to be forbidden to invest such money as they have, as they think wisely, and ordered to invest it in enterprises or securities when they think these are injudicious? What does this word "redirection" mean?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I was using the term in a rather technical

41
sense in the way they talk of national investment in capital goods as compared with consumer goods.
Mr. Churchill: It means the direction of the Government's division of the expenditure between capital and current expenditure?
The Prime Minister: It means more than that. There is the sum total going into capital expenditure, part of it Government and part of it private. That makes demands on the available resources of raw materials and labour. In view of the shortage of raw materials in particular, there has to be a redirection, a slowing down, on some sides and acceleration on others. That is all it means.
Mr. Churchill: It is not telling the individual investor what he has to do?
The Prime Minister: No, not at all. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will exercise their full rights to criticise. I am sure they will claim that there are many things which we are doing now which we ought to have done before. But we must face this extremely difficult situation and it will require the efforts of the whole country.
Mr. Churchill: Why then, by introducing partisan constitutional legislation, do you seek to divide the country?
The Prime Minister: The answer is that the party opposite, unlike the party on this side of the House, seems to claim that because this party has a different point of view from them, therefore they cannot support its efforts. When we were in the war we came into the Government and we did not attempt to upset the capitalist system. We had to accept it because that was the will of the majority of the House. The will of the majority of the House at present is that Government policy should be carried on on the basis of the policy of this party. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "We will all work together if only you will adopt the Conservative policy." We cannot do that.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman was talking about national unity. Does he not realise that the reason we cannot support him at the moment is because we believe that he and his Government are the cause of all our troubles?
The Prime Minister: That was not the view we took when we supported the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington said that we had very great reason to think of the cause of all the trouble. The short point is that there is a unity of effort in this country that transcends party.
Mr. Hogg: Why do you not encourage it?
The Prime Minister: It takes two to do that. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should frankly say, "We accept the fact that you have a mandate for this or the other Bill and we will support you." But the line always taken is, "We will support you if you will be Conservative." Well, we will not be. Whatever differences there may be in this country we are all united in our determination to carry this country through this extremely difficult time. I do not attempt to suggest that we are not at a very very serious time. Whatever may be our differences, I am quite sure that the whole country will go all out to restore the prosperity and position of this country in the world.
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Simmons.]
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
"That
(1) Standing Orders" Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14 shall have effect as if, for any reference to a time mentioned in the first column of the following Table there were substituted a reference to the time respectively mentioned in the second column of that Table:

TABLE

Time mentioned in Standing Orders.

Time to be substituted.

2.45 p.m.

2.30 p.m.

3.00 p.m.

2.45 p.m.

3.45 p.m.

3.30 p.m.

7.30 p.m.

7.00 p.m.

9.30 p.m.

9.00 p.m.

10.00 p.m.

9.30 p.m.

11.00 p.m.

10.00 p.m.

11.30 p.m.

10.30 p.m.

(2) The following Order shall be substituted for Standing Order No. 2–
"2. The House shall meet on Fridays at 11 a.m. for private business, petitions, orders of the day and notices of Motion. Standing Order No. 1 (as amended by this or any other

43
Order) shall apply to the sittings on Fridays with the omission of paragraph (i) thereof and with the substitution of references to 4 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. for references to 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m."
(3) Standing Order No. 25 shall apply—

(a) to sittings on days other than Fridays, with the substitution of references to half-past seven and half-past eight for the references to a quarter-past eight and a quarter-past nine; and

(b) to sittings on Fridays with the substitution of references to a quarter-past one and a quarter-past two for the references to a quarter-past eight and a quarter-past nine."

The effect of the Motion is that the hours of sitting for this Session will be the same as they were for the Session that expired yesterday.
Question put, and agreed to.

NATIONAL COAL BOARD
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]
6.20 p.m.
Sir John Mellor: I take this opportunity to refer to matters concerning the National Coal Board, and, in particular, to refer to what is commonly, and I think accurately, described as the iron curtain which the Government have erected around the National Coal Board. Secrecy always gives rise to rumour, and, if some of the rumours—and there are many—which are now current surrounding the affairs of the National Coal Board are not entirely accurate, then the Government have only got themselves to thank. So far as I can see there has been no good reason why the affairs of the Coal Board should not have been given the fullest possible publicity, and I think that one of the deterrents to recruitment for the coal industry is the secrecy with which the affairs of the National Coal Board are enshrouded.
A number of Questions have been asked in this House from time to time during the term of office of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and he declined to answer the very large majority of those Questions. From this side of the House there have been continuous protests, but the protests have not been confined to this side of the House, and I am interested to read a statement made by the Chairman of the Liberal Party Executive at
44
Sheffield, which I hope will have the active support of Liberal hon. Members in this House. He said:
"The iron curtain behind which the operations of the Coal Board take place must immediately be lifted. There is a growing anxiety about the absence of effective Parliamentary control over the Board."
Then, it was the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) who, in a Debate which largely concerned the affairs of the Coal Board and this question of secrecy, on 3rd April, made this reference to nationalised industries. The hon. Member said:
"When the legislation is going through Parliament the Ministers say one thing, but, once it becomes the law of the land, they are very much inclined to shirk their responsibilities, and to shelter behind the Boards which they themselves have appointed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 2306.]
Therefore this matter, which has been objected to on all sides of the House—and I could quote a number of other instances—should be regarded as a House of Commons matter and one which should command the attention of all hon. Members in the interests of the authority of this House. I am very glad to see the new Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power, in his place, and I should like, if I may, to congratulate him upon his elevation. I myself, in conjunction with everyone in this House, wish him success in his task. We shall be very interested to know whether the policy which his predecessor adopted with regard to Questions in this House about the National Coal Board is going to be pursued by him or not. I feel that he has a great opportunity now. Of course, while he was Parliamentary Secretary, he was necessarily associated with that policy, and, in a number of cases, he had to give that refusal to answer Questions which caused us so much indignation. I would now like to give him the assurance that, if today he says it would be right to give the House full information about the affairs of the National Coal Board, there will be no sneers from this side of the House on the ground of inconsistency, having regard to his previous answers. It will be most warmly welcomed. In my humble experience as a back bencher, I have always felt that, provided the rights of the House are acknowledged by Ministers, hon. Members are singularly reasonable in questioning Ministers. If a Minister is

45
prepared to give all the information in reason, the House is always ready to accept it, and is not unduly exacting.
I am afraid that I must refer to some of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who elected to pick and choose the Questions which he would answer, apparently according to his taste and fancy. After a very careful examination of those Questions which he answered and those he refused to answer, I have been unable to discover any underlying distinction at all. Indeed, he constituted himself the arbiter of the suitability of the Question. On one occasion, on 1st May, he said:
"I am responsible to the requirements of the House in general; indeed, I must be, but it depends on the merits of the Question that is put to me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1947; Vol. 436. c. 2149.]
According to HANSARD, hon. Members very naturally ejaculated "Oh." In my submission, there could be no question about the propriety of the Questions. Mr. Speaker would not permit Questions to be put on the Order Paper which are not, prima facie, within the Minister's responsibilities, and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, although he refused to answer, never so far as I am aware, took exception to the Question being in order. The right hon. Gentleman never, as no doubt he could have done, took the point that the Question was out of Order on the ground that it was not within the scope of his responsibilities.
I want to rest my case for full Parliamentary information upon the text of the Act which set up the National Coal Board. In my submission, the provisions of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. are entirely clear. Section 3 (4) gives to the Minister unqualified right to obtain information. I think the Section ought to be read to the House. It is as follows:
"(4) The Board shall afford to the Minister facilities for obtaining information with respect to the property and activities of the Board, and shall furnish him with returns, accounts and other information with respect thereto and afford to him facilities for the verification of information furnished, in such manner and at such times as he may require."
Nothing could be stronger than that. If the intention of Parliament, which we can only now assume from the terms of the Act, was that the Minister should be limited in any way as to the information he could obtain or divulge, surely, that
46
would have been put into the Statute? There can be no question that the Minister has absolute responsibility for the National Coal Board, and complete control over it. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he will look at Section 2, with which, no doubt, he is quite familiar, he will see that it states that the Minister appoints the members of the Coal Board, and, in conjunction with the Treasury, he determines what remuneration they shall receive, and, further, by regulations, he provides their tenure of office. Therefore, the Minister has complete control over the National Coal Board. He has the fullest possible access to any information he requires, and, that being so, I can see no excuse whatever for his not divulging that information to this House.
On 19th September the former Minister of Fuel and Power addressed a Press Conference, which was reported in "The Times" of 20th September. The report read:
"Mr. Shinwell, speaking at a Press Conference, said that there had been a lot of silly talk and ill-informed criticism of the Coal Board. … It might suit certain people to criticise the Coal Board for political reasons, but those who knew what the Coal Board was doing, and he included among those the National Union of Mineworkers, were fully convinced that … the criticism was completely without foundation and those who did not like that could lump it."
I do not know whether that is one of the public utterances which the former Minister wishes to repudiate. We are getting rather accustomed to his whining that he has been misquoted. Be that as it may, what he then said was entirely of a piece with his conduct towards this House. He sneered at those people who are ignorant. We have been ignorant because he has kept us in ignorance, notwithstanding our persistent demands for information. This House does not enjoy the privilege of the Minister's confidence, as does the National Union of Mine-workers.
I would now refer to some of the Questions—there has been a great number, but I will only mention a few—which have been put to the former Minister, and which he, personally, or through his Parliamentary Secretary, has refused to answer during the past six months or so, and which will, I think, give a fair sample of the sort of thing about which I am complaining. On 19th May, it was stated by the National Coal Board that they had

47
placed £50,000 at the disposal of certain trade unions in the county of Durham for distribution to mineworkers in that county who, through no fault of their own, had been out of work. On 21st May, I asked the Minister of Fuel and Power
"whether he is satisfied that all mineworkers received their fair share irrespective of trade union membership."
The Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the then Minister, replied:
"Subject to their Statutory functions and duties the National Coal Board have the same liberty as any other employer to make such payments to their employees as they consider proper and in such manner as they see fit, and I regret that I have no information on the points raised by the hon. Member other than that contained in the statement issued by the Board on 9th May."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 261.]
Surely, it is right for an hon. Member of this House, when he knows that public money has been dispensed, to do his utmost to ensure that that money has not been dispensed with any discrimination of the nature of political or industrial favour. I think it was very unfortunate that the then Parliamentary Secretary declined to give me any answer or assurance on that point.
I will give another example. The Government have seemed particularly anxious to conceal from this House the industrial relations of the National Coal Board. On 3rd July, I asked the Minister of Labour:
"if he will identify the trade unions which are recognised by the National Coal Board for purposes of negotiation about wages and conditions in the industry."
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"No Any question of recognition is a matter entirely for the parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 177.]
In my submission, one cannot treat the National Coal Board as a private party. It is financed with public money, and is a matter of grave national concern. It is a monopoly which has been erected in place of private enterprise in the coal industry, but because it has taken the place of private enterprise that, surely, provides no grounds for saying that it should operate in private. Because it is a monopoly is no reason why it should be irresponsible. Therefore, I feel that this House should have access to the fullest information with regard to such matters as the recognition of trade unions by the National Coal Board.
48
On 15th November, my hon Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raised in Debate the question of the salaries paid to members of the Divisional Coal Boards. The then Minister declined to give him any information, but, towards the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman did say:
"The accounts will go before the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee can at any time ask for information on any item connected with those accounts. That is traditional, and no one can take exception to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 482.]
That is all very well, but, as the House knows, the Public Accounts Committee cannot begin examining these accounts until 18 months or two years after the event. Therefore, while it has a certain value, it really has a very small value in assuring the control of this House over the finances of the National Coal Board. Indeed, the Board may well be insolvent long before the Public Accounts Committee is able to examine the situation.
We should derive some warning from what is happening in France. I am informed that at present the French Government are having to provide a 50 per cent. subsidy upon every ton of coal raised. This House is, above all, the guardian of the nation's purse, and unless we have some opportunity of watching the financial progress of the Coal Board we may well find ourselves suddenly faced with a situation either of having to pay a prohibitive price for coal or else of having to provide a very heavy subsidy out of the Exchequer. Yet we have not been able to get any figures with regard to costs of production. The Ministry has insisted upon treating the Coal Board as though it was a sort of subsidiary company with a limited liability. One cannot by any manipulation or legal fiction limit the liability of this nation with regard to its national property. We have bought the industry, and it looks as though it will be a pretty expensive affair. But at least this House should have every possible opportunity to keep down the cost.
A great number of Questions have been asked, and I will give one or two more instances. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) asked about the number of new motor cars ordered by the Coal Board for the delectation of its

49
officials. That is a sore subject with a lot of people, and we ought to be told the answer, because a lot of people write to me saying that these officials drive about in magnificent cars, and so on. They may be under a misapprehension, but, if so, surely, it would be much better that they should know. Silence provokes these kinds of rumours. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked questions with regard to a political poster which was issued by the National Coal Board. That was a rather remarkable document, because it contained the statement that
"The alternative to the policy of nationalisation is capitalist Fascism."
When the Coal Board puts out that sort of thing at the public expense, it is right that an hon. Member of this House should ask a question about it. Further, it is right that he should have an answer. I hope that the new Minister will agree about this. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) asked a question about the £10,000 which was being allowed for the expenses of the members of the National Coal Board. The then Minister told us that that was the figure which had been allowed, but he would tell us no more. He would not tell us what the money was for, or how it was allocated among the members of the Board, or how it would be accounted for, or anything of that sort. He just flatly refused to answer. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked about the acquisition of properties by the National Coal Board, and he got a flat refusal. All these are matters about which we should know.
It does not necessarily involve interference by the Minister with what the Coal Board does. It is a request for information. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor seemed incapable of distinguishing between the two things. It is quite right, perhaps, that he should refrain from an undue amount of interference with the affairs of the Coal Board, although he has almost unlimited power to do so. At the same time, that is no reason why he should not answer our questions, and I insist that great harm has been done in the country, and that the National Coal Board has lost a lot of the good will it might have had, because of the secrecy with which its activities
50
have been surrounded. Not only that; but, what is also a very grave matter, this House has been flouted. An attempt has been made to oust the jurisdiction of this House. It is a matter of very far-reaching principle, because it will not only apply to the affairs of the National Coal Board; it may well apply to the affairs of a number of other nationalised industries. Therefore, I await with considerable anxiety the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Apparently, his predecessor regarded the status of this House as something inferior to the Communist controlled National Union of Mineworkers. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be strong, that he will re-assert the right of Parliament, and will give the House what is due to it. I am confident that if he takes that course he will get a great deal of help from all quarters of the House.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Several of the statements which were made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) will, I think, receive some measure of general agreement from the men who actually do the work of producing the nation's coal. During the Recess, I visited a coal mine in my constituency which achieved the record output, and where there is no doubt the miners are pulling their full weight in producing the coal which the nation needs. But the Coal Board is certainly coming under fire from the men at the coal face, although the criticism is from a slightly different angle from that indicated in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. I believe that we should obtain the fullest possible information about the finances and activities of the Coal Board. After all, we are a democracy, and we should have the right to question on the Floor of the House the activities of the Coal Board. The people who are anxious to see the fullest possible light thrown on the activities of the Coal Board are those who believe that there is something in the assertion that if we do not keep a vigilant eye on the Coal Board, it will become a top-heavy bureaucracy carrying on the traditions of private capitalism. It is from that point of view that we want the fullest possible information.
Although certain criticisms may be made against the Minister, who has refused to answer questions, I would ask: how much information did we really have

51
about the working of the coalowners under private capitalism? It depended upon whether or not a company was registered at Somerset House. Very often we had a great deal of difficulty in finding out what profits the coalowners were making and what were the salaries of the managing directors under private capitalism. The information that I would like to obtain is how the salaries of the Coal Board, under nationalisation, compare with the salaries of the managing directors of the Bairds, Dalmellingtons and big combines which controlled the industry under private capitalism. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are much higher today."] Well, I have my doubts.
When a request is made by the Opposition for the fullest possible information about the finances of the Coal Board, I would very much like to support that request in order that we may get the fullest possible information about the compensation which is to be paid to the coalowners. If the industry is going to become bankrupt and not pay its way, because under private ownership the industry was inefficient, are we still going to pay big sums in compensation to the people who are dispossessed? There is a very definite feeling in the coalfields that inflated salaries are being paid, and I entirely agree that we should obtain the fullest information and have the searchlight of democracy turned upon our nationalised industry.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke about industrial relations. In some parts of the industry, industrial relations have deteriorated because of the continuation in the industry of Conservative-minded capitalist managers. What is wrong with the Coal Board is that it took over too many Tories who were in key positions in the coal mines. Therefore, I hope no attempt will be made to suppress the fullest possible information. A great deal of the future success of the Coal Board depends upon its handling of industrial relationships, and it has made blunders in that respect during the Recess. It was a blunder to negotiate with two different unions in the mining industry. It was also a blunder to give the higher paid sections of the workers increased wages, while neglecting the claims of the men at the very bottom. We want to see the fullest possible co-operation
52
between men and management, in order that we may achieve the necessary target.
A great deal depends upon the consultative committees. I attended a meeting of the consultative committee in the colliery which achieved the record output. The chair was taken by the colliery manager who, I believe, was a very efficient manager because he had the confidence of the men. He opened the meeting of the consultative committee by saying, "We will take the minutes of the last meeting, gentlemen." He refered to the miners who were selected democratically by the men to attend the meeting as "gentlemen." [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why not, indeed! But were they described in that way under private ownership? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] We know they were not. The miners were never treated as gentlemen by the coalowners; the coalowners did not describe them as gentlemen, but something very different, and often with a sanguinary adjective in front. The industry is a thousand times better under nationalisation than under private enterprise, and I hope it will not go back to those conditions. The men are slogging away for all they are worth, producing the coal, because they believe that they are now co-operating in mining as a social service and are not being exploited. But I do agree that we should have the fullest information in order that we can turn upon any bureaucracy the criticism of democratic opinion from the men at the bottom.
6.55 p.m.
Mr. Holmes: I am wondering whether the speakers in this Debate are trying to get at the Minister; otherwise, who are they trying to get at? I hear something about "Quislings." I know a little about mining. I happen to have in my constituency the Grimethorpe colliery. I have spent some very anxious hours in Yorkshire. The National Coal Board and their area boards took over a situation that was extremely difficult. They had to look at the set-up anew. They had to look to private enterprise. They had to look to the educational system to produce the technicians. They had to look to private enterprise to find the people to fill technical posts. They had to have first-class mining technicians and engineers. Where did they go for them? They looked to the Mining

53
Association. They had to have people who understood the distributive side of the coal industry. Where had they to go? They had to go to private enterprise to find them. They were compelled to do that, because our educational system had not given us the opportunity to produce that type of expert. I say this boldly: the National Coal Board and the area boards are doing a great job of work, bearing in mind the big job they took in hand.
We on this side of the House have not forgotten the Reid Report. We know what it told us about the coal industry. If I remember rightly, we have been told that the National Coal Board has to reorganise, and that it will take £150 million to reorganise the industry that the nation has taken over. I think it ill becomes anybody to comment critically when we have such a burden as that to face. It is not long since I went down a pit. I had the pleasure of taking the Minister down. We had to walk three miles. Some miners have to walk three miles, and some four miles, underground to work. I know a pit in Yorkshire where the miners have to walk four and a half miles to work. Those are the conditions in some pits in Yorkshire. Because of the distances some miners have to walk to get to work, they spend only four hours at the coalface. I would sooner work 10 hours at the coalface and walk less. These facts illustrate some of the problems that the National Coal Board are facing. The Coal Board, from both the management side and the men's side, are sick and tired of perpetual criticism. They have not been given an opportunity to answer.
What I am worried about is the set-up in the pit where the coal is produced. From my own close examination of the situation, I would say that the problems that have been taken up by the National Coal Board and the area boards are so great and grave that the rank and file have not been able to understand the situation properly, and there is not today that co-ordination, there is not that understanding, that is necessary, simply because the situation has not been "got across" and explained properly. I am hoping that the area boards will be like football teams and that they will improve by trial and error. I know there are some square pegs in round holes. It may be that the outside left will have to be
54
shifted. I am hoping that if people are found to be inefficient, they will be shifted and people put in their places who can fill the bill. But while the rank and file as a whole do not understand, while there is a misconception of the policy of the area boards and the National Board, there will not be the best results. The rank and file do know, however, that they have something to do; and they are putting their trust to a great extent in the area boards and in the National Coal Board. But they do want, by some means, closer co-operation between the technicians and the rank and file.
I know some pits today where nothing has been done with regard to mechanisation. We must have first-class men there who know about the technical work of installing and operating machinery. I hope we shall have not only technicians but men with practical experience. I have known instances where technicians with technical knowledge could not deal with the practical side. They were people who assumed things on averages and on reports. A good deal can be done if the rank and file are taken into consideration. I am not going to talk about the Grime-thorpe situation, except to say that if we had had a clear conception and understanding between the management and the workpeople, the Grimethorpe situation would not have arisen. It arose simply because of lack of understanding, lack of approach, and lack of knowledge so far as the operations of the Board were concerned. We shall not have clear understanding between the two sides of the industry so long as the national Press and other people are continually and regularly condemning people for doing their best, and, particularly, if Members of Parliament state that men who have come into the industry from private' enterprise, and who are holding technical positions, are types of people who are Quislings. If we have that sort of thing, we shall get nowhere.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. Jennings: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) in what he said. In doing so I have no intention to criticise the activities of the Coal Board or the activities of the miners at the coal face or in the colliery areas. I think that in a great many areas they are doing an admirable job,

55
and it is a great comfort to the country to see that they are breaking targets up and down the country. Particularly in the North-East I think they are pulling their weight. But there seems to be some confusion as to the object of this Debate. The objection is that the Minister—or the late Minister—will not give information as to what is happening. My hon. Friend below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Holmes), said he could not get information out of private companies and limited companies with regard to salaries of managers and managing directors. In this circumstance, however, we are in a very different position, because the Coal Board is being financed by public funds, and it is the duty of every Member of this House to see that those funds are properly administered; and, if any waste is taking place, it should be tackled at once and cut down.
What can the general public think when they get no information at all as to the costs of production of coal, and as to activities in the coalfield, so far as the financial set-up is concerned? Yet they are told they must pay another 4s. a ton for coal. Surely, it is only fair to the nation as a whole that the Minister should, at the earliest possible opportunity, give to this House every possible information—not secret information that might do the activities of the Coal Board harm: I am sufficiently sane to see that the Minister cannot disclose private information that might damage the Coal Board. Surely, however, we ought to know something as to the salaries paid to these officials out of public funds? I do not want to repeat things that have been said that have no foundation in truth, but I hear periodically that large houses are bought in which to house the staff and officials of the Coal Board, and that the prices paid for them are above what private buyers are prepared to pay. If that information is wrong, for heaven's sake let the House through the Minister deny it, so that these rumours do not get about, and so that the Coal Board can have the sympathy and the confidence of the people.
I remember, when the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill was going through Committee upstairs, pressing the then Minister very hard on the matter of information, asking that he should give to the House and to the country a record of its activities through both yearly
56
accounts and half-yearly accounts of the costs of production. The Minister assured the Committee upstairs on the point. He said, "I have nothing to hide. I shall give the fullest possible information. The House of Commons will be told by Question and answer." Perhaps he did not use those very words, but he indicated that the House would be given the fullest possible information. I say, frankly, I am disappointed at the late Minister's refusing to give the information to which I think the public are entitled, particularly in view of the fact of these increases in the price of coal which are being put on to the consumer. Industry is being asked to pay a bigger price for coke. I do think it is high time some information should be disclosed. The fullest possible information ought to be given to the House, and I think that Members in all parts of the House would like to know that things are going on well.
I do absolve myself, if I may, from any suggestion that in what I have said there is any question of criticising the work of the miners. Nor is there any question of criticising the miners in what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coalfield said. We are not on that subject at all. We are criticising the Department for not giving the fullest possible information as to how this nationalised industry is going on. The whole country is in the dark, except a privileged few in the Department. The late Minister did not seem to mind that, apart from those few in that privileged section, people were in the dark. He thought they did not care and could be left alone and kept in ignorance. I strongly support the plea for the fullest possible information being given to this House by question and answer to any Member in any part of the House in the interests of the national finances. Any Member, I feel sure, will agree that if we do not raise this matter on every possible opportunity, we are not carrying out our job to see that public funds are well spent.
7.9 p.m.
Mrs. Braddock: I am a little bit concerned about taking part in this Debate because of the way in which it has been raised. My reason for taking part is not to ask for information that is likely to damage the National Coal Board and its administration, but, rather, to make the position of the public perfectly clear. There is always the difficulty, when

57
information is asked for and is refused, that that creates a very strong suspicion that there is something to hide. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Holmes) referred to Grimethorpe. I am not apologising for referring to it, because I think what happened there is an admirable reason why, if mistakes are made and the wrong advice is given, information to that effect ought to be clearly and openly stated. I visited Grimethorpe on my own, because when men are on strike for a long period and thousands of others are striking in support of them, with a situation such as we have in the country at the moment, with the miners having the nationalisation they desired, there must be something seriously wrong. There must be something seriously wrong if, in these circumstances, men continue out of work for a period of five or six weeks. I am one of those who believe that the best and easiest way to find out the true position in relation to a dispute of that sort is to go and talk to the men themselves. I went to Grimethorpe on the Tuesday before the strike finished, and I was amazed to find out what was the actual position. The men made no bones at all about the fact that they were not on strike but were locked out by the Coal Board. On more than two or three occasions, when numbers of them had presented themselves to the pit to commence work during those five weeks, it was closed to them; they were refused the right to return to work. I asked why that position had arisen, and why it was that a decision had been taken by someone who gave as a reason the fact that extra production had to be got out of the pit.
The facts given to me by the men who worked at the coal face, the coal cutters, were very illuminating. If men can talk to someone, as they did to me when I arrived in their midst, and openly give information which proved that there was something definitely wrong in the decision that had been taken in asking them to work an extra two-foot stint, why was it not openly available to those who had taken the decision that the men must do what they said they could not do. I asked for information, and these are the facts I elucidated. The pit had been producing 20,000 tons of coal per week. The output per man was very high. The average output was some 13½ tons per man. They said that with the five-day week and the available machinery for bringing up the coal from the pit it was impossible to
58
raise even the 20,000 tons of coal. There was only one shaft in the pit, and they told me it was impossible to bring up all the coal over a period of weeks, with the result that their output had been some 18,500 tons. If that was the position—I do not understand coalmining, although I understand expressions of opinion from the class to which I belong—and it was proved impossible to bring up 20,000 tons of coal in the five-day week, then it was impossible by sensible reasoning to think that they could get more coal than they were already capable of getting during the week. On asking what the position had been and how the decision had been arrived at by those who constituted the deciding committee, I was amazed to discover that two of the people responsible for taking the decision had not even seen the coal face where they said the extra two feet should be worked.
I am raising this matter because I think it is of the utmost importance. It is important that the men in the pit who have to do the work, whom we are asking to increase our coal production, should have perfect confidence in the knowledge of the people who are dealing with the position as far as the Coal Board is concerned. I say that because once we reach the stage where the men working in the pits cease to have confidence in the decisions of those responsible for administration from the top, then we shall get complete chaos in the industry itself. If, in a matter of this sort, where the Press put forward every possible reason why the men in Grimethorpe were still unemployed except the true reason, someone on the Coal Board, whoever it might be—I am not going to mention any names mentioned to me by the men—gave wrong information to those who had to put a decision into operation, there ought to be some way of knowing who the responsible person was. If wrong information is given, a completely wrong impression is given in the country as to why the miners remained out of work, which does the Government no good and the country no good, but merely creates in the minds of the public a very deep suspicion that there is something desperately wrong with the type of organisation which has been set up.
I think we all agree that, to begin with, the creation of the Coal Board is an experiment. We have to experiment in a completely new form of organisation,

59
but when mistakes are made and wrong decisions are arrived at, it is completely unfair to blame the miners at the pits, especially when it is perfectly well known that in this case it was not the fault of the miners but the responsibility of some elected representative who either advised wrongly or was not prepared to admit that a mistake had been made, thereby creating the situation we had in Grimethorpe. I think that the information which is asked for, if it is in order to be constructive, ought to be given, but I agree also that a very strong hand must be kept on the people who ask for information in an attempt to destroy the organisation that has been built up to make the coal industry of this country a success. We have to keep a very even balance. I ask the Minister not to create suspicion in the industry. I ask him not to keep a veil of secrecy over difficulties, because it is only by our errors and difficulties that we shall create the right type of organisation.
7.19 p.m.
Mr. Osborne: It is not often that I can agree so much with the hon. Lady the. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). Until the very end of her speech I could have said, "Hear, hear," to almost everything she had said. Our plea is not that we want information to attack the Coal Board. We merely want information, and as Members of this House we are surely entitled to it. Just before the Recess I had occasion to ask the Prime Minister a Question about information being handed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to certain outside bodies when it had not been made available to this House. I said at the time that I thought it was wrong and was derogatory to the standing of the House. I think that the same thing applies to questions which are put in regard to the Coal Board. The hon. Lady said clearly at the beginning of her speech that if information is refused publicly the public naturally think the worst. I ask the Minister to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Cold-field (Sir J. Mellor) has asked him to do, change the policy, be frank with the House, tell us what is happening. We want the facts, that is all. We hope the Coal Board will succeed. The fate of this country depends on the Board being a success. We merely ask the Minister to
60
give us information if it is asked for in a proper way.
I want to put these points to the Minister. I went to South Wales twice at the beginning of this year, to talk to miners and their wives. The criticism I found of the Coal Board there was that most of the men said that they had the same bosses now as they had when the industry was run by private enterprise. They could not understand it, and asked the reasons. If the reasons were given it would help to allay a good deal of suspicion and fear. About a month ago I went to Seaham Harbour, and spoke to miners and their wives there. Their criticism of the Coal Board and its working was that there had been many good soft jobs going, and that the men who had not got them felt that those jobs had gone to the wrong men. They felt that those soft jobs had not only gone to the wrong men, but that there were not enough of those jobs. There was a good deal of suspicion in Seaham Harbour on this point, much of which would be allayed if we had more information. Therefore. I ask the Minister to reconsider the attitude of the Government, and not only give this House, but the miners themselves, all the information which is available.
Last night I went to Nuneaton and talked to miners there, and their criticism was that the Coal Board had appointed far too many non-producers, that the men who were getting the coal were carrying on their backs too many men who were doing nothing. That is a suspicion that ought to be put on one side, and the Minister could do something about it. I was told by some responsible people in one of the districts I visited that already certain coal mines were producing coal at a loss of more than £1 per ton. We should like to know whether that is true or not. If the Minister refuses to give us information to which we are entitled, that figure will increase, the task of the Coal Board will be harder, and the men who are trying to get the coal will be discouraged. As a back-bencher, I plead for the rights of this House to be re-established, and that we should be given the information to which we are entitled. If that is done many ugly rumours that may have no foundation in truth will be scotched. If that is done both miners and engineers—and when Members opposite are talking about the coal industry I ask them not to forget the engineers who run it—will

61
put their hearts more into their job, and suspicion will be removed.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I wish to take this opportunity of a Debate on the National Coal Board to seek some information about certain aspects of the work of the Board. It should be obvious to any reasonable person that to expect the coal industry to be brought into a healthy state within seven months, after the depression, desuetude, and despair which existed for many years, was to expect the fantastically impossible. What was the problem, the terrific problem, which the Coal Board had to face when it came into power under the new Act? As I have indicated, the Board has been in existence for seven months. Every expert report on the condition of the coal industry in the years before the war pointed clearly to the fact that the industry was rapidly reaching a state where, unless some drastic steps were taken, it could not continue to produce even the reduced quantity of coal it was then producing. Men were leaving the industry because of conditions in the mines, the sad tale of industrial depression, the series of national strikes, and the like. But that is history, and I will not go into it deeply tonight.
I seek to obtain some information about the functioning of the Coal Board, because I think it is as well that this House and the public outside should be given as full information as possible on this subject. I do this with no reason which might prompt hon. Members opposite to seek to bring deliberately into disrepute the new administration. It is not my purpose to seek to prove that the Coal Board has been a failure. It may be proved to be a failure as an administrative setup after a certain time, but that is not the point so far as the future of the mining industry is concerned. The real point is that it is impossible for the nation to allow the industry to go back to the old regime. I have not heard that suggested seriously, even from the other side of the House. We must look upon the National Coal Board as an experiment in the new administration of a great national industry. As a result of our experience of the functioning of that new authority, we might have to make certain adjustments which are essential to achieve the ends we set out to achieve.
62
Take the question of sinking a new pit. It might appear from a cursory examination of the subject, that after soundings for coal had been taken, all that was required to be done was to get skilled men at work, to lay out the plan of the new sinking, to order new machinery, and in 12 months there would be a full pit which was being worked by a happy, thriving, community. That is reducing the problem to ridiculous simplicity. In the first place, the sinking of new pits involves a fundamental social problem, for unless they are sunk conveniently near to already existing mining communities, they will require to be staffed either by newly-trained personnel or by men from pits in other areas which have become disused. Whether this is possible or not, I do not know. I am seeking information as to the stage which has been reached by the National Coal Board in its plans for the sinking of new pits. I have tried unsuccessfully to find the information in various publications; and I am not aware of any statement having been made by the Government about it.
The problem of sinking new pits is not merely a question of machinery; it is a question of personnel. Therefore, before any definite step is taken for the development of new mines, there should be some detailed consultation between the Coal Board and those who are responsible for the general welfare of the mining community. I do not know what machinery exists for that purpose, and if there is no machinery for such consultations, I suggest that the matter should be given serious consideration, for new pits will have to be sunk sooner or later. The National Coal Board will probably be issuing, in accordance with the Act, periodical reports. Presumably, the first report will come along after the Board has been functioning for 12 months. In the meantime I make this serious suggestion to the Minister: there is—and this is a general impression that I have found in the country—a sad lack of public relationship in the functioning of the Coal Board. I cannot find any record of a statement having been made by a responsible officer of the Board on any of the plans of the Board, and of what has been achieved up to the present; in fact, almost the only occasion when the functioning of the Coal Board comes into the news is when there is trouble in a particular district. Therefore, I think that the question of the

63
public relations of the Coal Board should be given serious attention.
I would like to make one or two suggestions. For instance, is there a public relations officer of the National Coal Board? If there is not a public relations officer, I suggest that consideration should be given to the appointment of such an officer, and that his function should be to convey to the public, through the Press, the wireless and by any other means, such as lectures, some idea of the operation of the Board, their plans, and a general outline of the whole working of the administrative set-up. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to that suggestion, and that if steps of that kind have not already been taken, they will be taken without delay, because I am sure that the more the public are taken into the confidence of the National Coal Board, either through the Minister or through a specially appointed public relations officer, the easier will be the position of the new régime. I am also confident that such a scheme of public relations and information would have the full support of the miners; in fact, I think the miners, through their pit production committees and area committees, should form a part of the public relations organisation. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reply to the points which I have raised. I suggest that he might give some indication, if none is already available, as to the progress made up to date in the sinking of new pits, and when it is likely that new pits will be brought into production.
7.35 p.m.
Sir William Darling: The House must be grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) for raising this important matter, because from the speeches which we have heard it is obvious that there is a very keen desire to discuss the National Coal Board in all its activities. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) who has spent her vacation so usefully in visiting Grime-thorpe. I can hardly pay a similar compliment to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas), because, during the Recess, I received a large green, expensive book published by the National Coal Board, dealing at great
64
length, some 60 pages, with many illustrations, with the achievements of the National Coal Board in the field of miners' welfare to which he referred; and I feel that it is rather a feather in my cap, not professing to be so deeply interested in industrial matters as hon. Members opposite, that I should not have failed to notice the activities of the Coal Board in this somewhat expensive reference.
Mr. I. O. Thomas: I do not know to which publication the hon. Gentleman refers, but, if it is a publication on coal, I certainly had a copy. I was not referring to the social activities of the miners which might be sponsored by the National Coal Board. I was trying to bring out the functioning of the Board in relation to industry, and the part which is being played, or attempted to be played, as between the Board and the elected representatives of the miners—the functioning of the Board as part of the industry and not merely from a social service point of view.
Sir W. Darling: I am grateful for the hon. Member's explanation. I feel that if he is curious on this matter I should procure for him from His Majesty's Stationery Office a copy of the illustrated book which deals with some of the matters to which he has referred. My intervention in this discussion is not with a view to enlarging on the faults, if any, or virtues, if any, of the National Coal Board. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has raised the question of whether we are getting sufficient information from the former Minister of details of management and other business of the National Coal Board. He has raised a powerful and impressive argument that satisfies me that we are not getting that information. I am not so sure that the House, when it reflects on this matter, will want the information for which my hon. Friend makes such an eager claim. When the nationalisation of the coal mines came before this House and became the law of the country, I was among those who demurred at the policy. The policy of nationalisation of the mines seemed to me then; as it does now, to be unwise, a foolish one and probably an ill-starred one, and what I have heard this afternoon shows that these doubts and anxieties are not held only by me in this House.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman go back to private enterprise?
Sir W. Darling: I am not at all sure that some of the deeds of private enterprise would not be enjoyed by the public today for they are not enjoying much under the present direction.
Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) be in favour of going back to the old régime of private enterprise? If not, what would be his positive suggestion for the future of the industry other than the National Coal Board?
Sir W. Darling: If I answered the hon. Member for The Wrekin I should be distinctly out of Order, and I do not propose to enter into a general discussion although it seems to me that other speakers have done so. I content myself with saying that if we are to have, as apparently we are to have—the Gracious Speech is a further indication of what we are to expect—further nationalisation of the means and instruments of production and exchange, I would ask the House to consider what the position will be in this House if the desire of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and others who have spoken this evening is gratified. If we nationalise not only coal and transport, but steel and iron and all the multiplicity of our national services, as I understand is the policy of His Majesty's Government, then the question raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is one which should be raised acutely indeed, because it is apparent that the managers of these State-owned industries cannot within the scope of the House of Commons give the detailed answers which the shareholders of a private limited liability company demand from their managers.
If the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has his way, it is perfectly obvious that something like 30 or 40 Ministers, each responsible for one of the nationalised industries, will occupy the time of the House—and it will not be the amount of time which has been spent today but a very much greater amount of time—in answering such questions as the hon Member for Sutton Coldfield says have not been answered. I suggest that the Government of the day and those who are students of Government must make up their mind on this important matter.
66
This House cannot be a board of directors; it must remain a House of Commons. If it becomes a board of directors in deference to the wishes of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and others who want to raise questions of the detailed management of industry in what is a debating and political assembly, then I say this is one of the gravest objections—and there are many other objections—to the whole proposals of nationalisation which has not been considered by those who believe that the blessed word "nationalisation" will be a solution of all our troubles and difficulties.
The House will note the attitude of mind of some of those who have taken part in this Debate. I was struck by one of the speakers who said that he was sick and tired of criticism. Those who are in the way of conducting industry other than nationalised industry and who had experience of conducting industry during those last 20 or 30 bitter years have had to put up with criticism. They may have been sick and tired of it, but they continued still to supply all the goods and services the community required. Who are His Majesty's Government that they are to be so tender or so easily wearied in well doing? Who are they that they are not to be criticised? Who are they to say that they feel tired with the burden of carrying on one of our great national services?
Mr. Holmes: I think, recalling what I said, my words were that the rank and file of the management were sick and tired of criticism.
Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member did not comprehend what I said. I wrote it down and I am satisfied that he said that the rank and file of the management are sick and tired of criticism. But who are the rank and file of management? Those engaged in the industry, and, in a wider sense, the customers. Again, who are the management? In a wider sense, the right hon. Gentleman sitting there—the Minister of Fuel and Power, for the management of the National Coal Board is his Parliamentary responsibility and that of no one else. Is there any denial of that assertion? The right hon. Gentleman is in the position of a managing director. He has to answer the complaints, grievances and criticism of this House. What I am suggesting to the House is that that kind of thing,

67
obviously, cannot indefinitely continue, and if the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field has his way—and I think he has a perfectly good case as far as it goes—and this House has to deal with a multiplicity of industries, it will reduce the whole Parliamentary system to a farce.
After all, rightly or wrongly, the people of this country look on the Minister—although he may not, realise it—in a homely sense. They look on him as their coal man, and they have had very friendly relations with their coal men in years gone by. Those relations were happy and jolly in past years. If the Minister of Fuel and Power is going to assume what the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield desires him to assume he will be a great merchant, a great organiser of an industry, and a great distributor of the goods produced by his Department. That is the kind of business man the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield wants him to be, but personally I do not accept that view. I think the criticism made by my hon. Friend has been justified, and the elaborations of hon. Members opposite and of the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool have been interesting, wide though they be of the point, but I do not agree with the direction of them. If the Minister, when he comes to reply, is going to say: "My predecessor did not answer all the Questions properly or did not answer them at all, but in future I am going to answer all complaints," he will place himself in an extremely difficult position. I hope he will not do so. I hope His Majesty's Government will think over their policy of nationalisation and the implications of it from the managerial point of view, not in terms of one or two industries being nationalised, but rather of 20, 30 or 40, with that number of right hon. Gentlemen as heads of different Departments answering questions in this House in regard to the services of this country. If that is going to be the case with all the industries which it is intended to take over, the Government will require to reconstitute the House of Commons on a new basis.
Under free and private enterprise we did not concentrate all aspects of an industry in one hand. The management of that industry was spread over and the Government of the day were always in a
68
position to park the responsibility somewhere else. If someone complained that the coalowners were not managing their business well or the distributors of commodities were taking too big a profit the Government were able to take note and pass the matter on. The Government themselves were out of the business. Now owing to bad economics and unsound policy this Government are accepting the responsibility for all the socialisation of the means and instruments of production and exchange. They have no one on whom to park the responsibility as under the private enterprise system, when persons conducted the business with a due sense of responsibility to the public at large. When the State enters, controls and handles these industries it sets up one system of monopoly and all the protection that the public are going to have is five, 10, 15 or 20 right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. That is the proposal carried to its full length if the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and others who have spoken are to be answered. I hope that the Minister of Fuel and Power will make it clear how limited are the responsibilities and how restricted the services which he can give to this House, and by so doing he will show what a farce nationalisation is from the point of view of the customer.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Platts-Mills: I was greatly impressed by the number of assertions made by hon. Members opposite that they did not wish to ask any questions to embarrass the Minister or the Coal Board. It is moving to hear the assurances that they would not for one moment be a party to broadcasting any rumour which would cause embarrassment to any section of the coal industry. The House has the great advantage that hon. Members in all parts of the House, as we have heard tonight, made a sort of an investigation, or universal snoop or quiz in the coalfields during the summer Recess. I have the impression, however, that some hon. Members opposite have taken the opportunity to collect the wildest series of rumours that they could and are using this Debate to spread them as widely as they possibly can.
Sir J. Mellor: Can the hon. Member give the House one single example to support his accusation of rumours which we are endeavouring to spread?
Mr. Platts-Mills: I had not the privilege of hearing the hon. Member's speech. I took it from the remarks of those who followed him that the suggestion is that country houses of great distinction and slight value have been bought at outrageous prices which no private bidder, or bidder in the open market, would have paid. There is not a word of evidence that the Minister could answer, but there is a general challenge. There is the suggestion that officers of the Coal Board, for their own advantage, have caused such prices to be paid for such houses. I repeat that that is a wild rumour without foundation which has been spread in this Debate. That is an example which is sufficiently striking.
I suggest that it cannot possibly be the job of the Coal Board or of the Minister to send out a staff of high-pressure reporters to try to catch up with all this wildness in order to answer it in detail. I have dealt with the matter, although my intervention in the Debate was really intended to be by way of entering a caveat against what the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) said. The hon. Lady has had the privilege of being with the Grime-thorpe miners in the fifth week of their strike. I had no such privilege, although I had the embarrassment of being inadvertently on strike with them. I know how difficult it is for those who are not pit people themselves not to get a misconception about the miners. I differ sharply from the hon. Lady about what happened in Grimethorpe, what caused it, and what the results were, as they have been put by the hon. Lady. It seems to me that it is quite inappropriate for us to ask the Minister to deal in this Debate with questions which arise from Grimethorpe. The Debate was not initiated with that object. I understand that the Debate is limited to the question of the kind of information which is to come from the Minister about the conduct of the National Coal Board. The various things that happened in Grimethorpe were only very remotely connected with the Board. Whether they sprang ultimately from the personnel of the Board is another matter.
As to the Board giving information, I have had some personal experience of getting such information, and it is a matter which the Minister might have in mind. I quite see the point made about public relations, but there was an instance of a
70
miner on strike and in London wishing to know whether his own pit was still on strike or not. In the days of private enterprise every office boy in the head office of the company would have known almost the minute the pit was back at work. It might be a mine producing gold in Rhodesia. The minute the pit went on strike the news would electrify the office. The minute it was back at work everybody in the office, down to the typist and the office boy, would know. There would be a telephone message that the pit was back at work getting more gold for the directors for their fees and their dividends. Such a close personal interest in the successful running of the job must be engendered in every employee of the Coal Board though not of course for the same purpose.
The miner who was on strike and in London wanted to know whether it was time for him to go back to his own pit. He was referred by the office of the Ministry of Mines to the office of the National Coal Board. At the office of the National Coal Board he was referred to six separate departments, each of which was in despair, saying, "It's not mine, I don't know this pit; it must be under some other department." Finally, the department responsible was found to be the Department of Industrial Relations. They gave information to the miner. The information was entirely correct, and it was only two days out of date. The question of arousing interest in every section of the Coal Board about what the industry is doing is one that might well be considered. We cannot have an inquest on what happened at Grimethorpe. I know that many hon. Members on this side played a magnificent part in dispelling the confusion which arose about this strike. I am sure it will be for the benefit of the House if there is an opportunity to hear their reports and conclusions about the strike.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Unlike some other hon. Members who have spoken from this side of the House, I cannot claim to represent a mining constituency or to have had any personal experience at Grimethorpe. I represent a London constituency and I know that the profound interest which is taken in all that occurs in the mines is not limited to mining constituencies. It is nation-wide. That is my experience from having

71
addressed meetings in London and elsewhere during the Recess. There is everywhere great admiration for the work which the miners have done and for the response which they are making to the appeals that have been made to them. There is also widespread interest in the activities of the National Coal Board and the area boards. Everyone is conscious of the overriding importance of the mining industry in these critical days.
The hon. Baronet who initiated this Debate raised the subject of the degree of information which the Minister should give about the activities of the National Coal Board. I would ask the House to bear in mind that one of the causes of the unrest in the days when the mines were under private ownership was the degree of secrecy with which the accounts of the coal owners were shrouded. There was a very great deal of dissatisfaction because the miners did not know the profits which were being made at the collieries, the fees being earned by directors, the extent of management expenses, and similar relevant information.
Sir J. Mellor: Was it not a fact that auditors who acted on behalf of the miners' unions had full access to the accounts?
Mr. Fletcher: The auditors may have had access to certain totals perhaps, but the accounts of public companies—still more so of private companies—did not give the detailed information which was of particular interest to the miners. Absence of that information was frequently a cause of great dissatisfaction in mining areas. Now that we have the great national experiment of a nationalised coal industry, the House and the whole country are watching with great interest the progress it is making and are anxious to have full information about it. I am sure we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for having initiated this very profitable discussion.
It is a little odd, but it may nevertheless be a good thing not to try to lay down too hard and fast a rule as to the extent to which the Minister of Fuel and Power should answer questions as to the activities of the National Coal Board, area boards and management committees. As I have said, this is a great experiment, and it may be desirable that the
72
machinery of our Parliamentary procedure for dealing with a nationalised industry should be approached experimentally. We have a new Minister of Fuel and Power and I would take this opportunity of offering my right hon. Friend my most sincere personal congratulations on his appointment. He has a great responsibility and a great opportunity. I am sure we all wish him every success in the post to which he has been called.
In my view it is right that the Minister should have considerable discretion as to the kind and the degree of information which he gives in answering questions of the type to which the hon. Member for Sutton Cold field (Sir J. Mellor) referred. Personally I thought it was unfortunate that the previous Minister of Fuel and Power did not frequently appear to be very forthcoming in giving the House information of the kind which the House appeared anxious to have. I ask the new Minister in exercising his discretion as to what Parliamentary Questions he will answer to bear in mind the wisdom wherever possible, unless there is some reason for secrecy—and there may be good reasons which only the Minister can estimate—of giving information about the particular matters, which concern Members of this House.
Subject to the reservation that the Minister must be the final judge, I would ask the Minister in his own interests in securing, as I am sure he wishes to, the confidence and support of the House, to give the House the fullest possible information about the activities of the National Coal Board, the area boards and what is happening in the mines. I am quite sure that in that way the Minister will be able to contribute materially to giving the country the detailed information it is so anxious to have as to the way in which this great national experiment of the nationalisation of the coal mines is proceeding.
8.1 p.m.
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): This has been a useful, interesting and, in some respects, rather remarkable Debate. We have had the unusual spectacle of my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) in some sort of loose alliance with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). I even find myself to the extent of 5 per cent. in

73
agreement with the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), and that is something which I do not think has happened before.
I am glad to have this opportunity—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) for raising the Debate—of making a statement about the attitude of the Government to this important question of principle. I shall confine most of my remarks to the question of principle which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and other hon. Members have raised, but I shall also take the opportunity of saying something in reply to various comments on other matters connected with the National Coal Board.
To start with I think we can agree on certain propositions. The first is that socialised industries must be free from day to day interference by the Minister. There is not the slightest doubt that when the Coal Bill was going through this House—and the same applies to the other nationalisation Measures—it was the general understanding not only of the Government, but certainly of the party opposite as well, that there would be no interference in day to day matters by the Minister. I could very easily quote speeches by hon. Members opposite in support of that principle; and indeed the Act itself shows the traces of that, because, contrary to what the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, the powers of the Minister are extremely restricted. It is true that hon. Members opposite wanted to go further. They wanted to restrict the Minister even more. Judged by what they say in their publication "The Industrial Charter," they are anxious, supposing they ever have the opportunity, to limit his powers in future, though they are not proposing, I understand, to denationalise the industry.
Sir J. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman rather implied that I had given incorrect information to the House with regard to the terms of the Statute. What I said was that the Minister's powers to obtain information were unlimited. On the question of control, I also said that he had absolute control because although he can only give directions of a general character, none the less by virtue of his power of appointment and control of remuneration and the tenure of office and so on of the Coal Board, he has in fact absolute "control over the Board.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am coming to all those details in a moment. It is quite evident, is it not, that power and responsibility must march together. So far as the Minister has powers he is responsible to the House. I fully accept that, "but if he has no powers then he is not responsible. I do not think that it is right or reasonable that a Minister should be required to answer when he has not got effective control. It is not necessary for me to argue whether or not the nationalisation Act was right in separating the Minister from the Board in this way and in laying it down that he should not interfere in day-to-day matters. I could argue that, but it is not in dispute, and perhaps we may therefore pass on.
What the Opposition say is that they agree that the Minister should not intervene, but why should he not give them the information as he has the powers to require the information? The answer in my view is that if the Minister were to use his powers to obtain information about day to day administration he would in fact be producing just that kind of bureaucratic paralysis which it is the whole intention of the Act to avoid. Anybody who has ever worked in a Civil Service Department would agree with me that if there is one major thing which leads civil servants to be excessively cautious, timid and careful, and to keep records which outside the Civil Service would be regarded as unnecessary, it is the fear of the Parliamentary Question. It is not so much a matter of whether or not I can intervene. The mere fact that I am continually asking for information to answer questions will undoubtedly produce those results. Of that I am convinced.
When all is said and done, we know perfectly well that many, if not most, Parliamentary Questions are put down with a view to supplementary questions being asked. That is perfectly fair. It is all part of the game. It is often the case that the supplementary question is designed to elicit some weakness which the Government is not anxious to divulge. If he were to answer the Question the Minister would be in the position of having to defend the Coal Board, and the same argument applies to other nationalised industries on matters of detailed administration. I think the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked my predecessor why the Coal Board used some particular type of furniture. The Minister could probably find an

75
answer, but no doubt that simple answer would not be enough and he would have to anticipate supplementaries about the whole situation surrounding the purchase of that furniture. From that he would be led inevitably to intervene and to control.
As a matter of fact if they wished the Coal Board could no doubt say, "We are not going to do this. We will give you the information, but we shall not do anything you tell us to do unless you issue a direction." We do not want that sort of relationship to, develop between the Minister and the Coal Board. We must be clear that if the Minister is to get information on all points of detail like this it will lead to the worst kind of bureaucracy and to that very failure of the National Coal Board which hon. Members in all parts of the House have said they wished should not happen.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Surely questions also lead to far greater efficiency and prevent the wasting of public money?
Mr. Gaitskell: No doubt these things are matters of opinion, but certainly Parliament in passing this Act decided that there should not be this kind of detailed information. However much I might wish to give the House that information, I am convinced that it would have a very serious effect on the efficiency of the National Coal Board, and that is why I am not intending to do it. I am not intending to answer Questions on points of day to day administration for which I am not responsible. May I add—it may anticipate what I may be asked—that this is not the only way in which statements of this kind can be made. If the National Coal Board wishes to inform the public about the type of furniture or the number of motorcars it has got, or any such thing, it is perfectly entitled to do so.
There is a great deal certainly in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) about publicity and public relations, but I do not want to be put in a position in which I am answering a lot of points of detail to the House, because that would lead me to intervene when I should not intervene.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: When a serious industrial dispute takes place, as in the mines in Scotland, would it be competent
76
for me to ask a Question, and would the right hon. Gentleman answer it?
Mr. Gaitskell: As a matter of fact, in that case the Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I agree also with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) said, that it is not easy to decide what is a day-to-day matter and what is a matter which involves policy. I concede that fully.
Mr. Jennings: Would the Minister allow me to interrupt? Is it not a very dangerous practice for a Minister to withhold information from Members of this House on questions of public funds? This is a question of public funds.
Mr. Gaitskell: With great respect, it is not public money. I will come to that point in a minute.
I want to sum up this part of my remarks by saying that in these detailed matters the National Coal Board is, in my opinion, in its relationship to the Minister no different from an ordinary private undertaking. I know that is probably going further than many of my hon. Friends would concede, but I think it must be made perfectly plain because, as I said, I have not the powers under the Act; I am not supposed to control matters of detail, and there is no reason why the Board should be subject to interference and questioning which does not affect private companies. After all, shareholders' meetings may take place once a year—I will come to that analogy in a moment—but no company is subject to a shareholders' meeting in continuous session, a large part of whose members are hostile to the whole enterprise; and, in fact, that is what you would be subjecting the National Coal Board to if the House insisted, and the Minister were to give way, on having all this information.
I do not really believe that there is a great deal of disagreement so far on this; at least, if there is, I shall be interested to know if it is the policy of the Conservative Party to insist that Ministers should answer on points of detail. It may be that they assume the prospect of their coming into power; in that case, the sooner they begin to think about what their position would be in those unlikely circumstances the better, but I certainly have heard no party pronouncement from them on this point. Nor do I think that their record

77
in the past suggests that it would be very different on this from the Government. Certainly, so far as the Central Electricity Board is concerned, which was set up under an Act passed by a Conservative Government, there was no provision for Ministerial intervention, and as far as I know, Conservative Ministers have never been willing to disclose information on points of detail.
Mr. Osborne: The Minister is making the point that we have no right to ask for day-to-day information which requires the Civil Service to go to a lot of unnecessary trouble; that it would be bureaucracy and would break down the system. What we would like would be to have information supplied to the Minister regularly which would not cause all that extra bureaucratic work. Are we not entitled to that?
Mr. Gaitskell: I do not get detailed information about the day-to-day work of the administration of the Coal Board, and I do not seek to obtain it, because if I were continually to ask questions about the day-to-day administration, it would make it a very bureaucratic organisation. That is my position. Of course it does not mean that Parliament is debarred from seeking information. Indeed, on the contrary. If I may say so to the hon. Baronet, what he asks is not my affair; I have to decide whether I shall answer him or not. However, I would not for one moment suggest that I should refuse to answer every question about the National Coal Board nor that there should not be such an excellent discussion as we have had this evening.
What, then, should I answer? There again, if one turns to the Act one can see pretty clearly where the line is to be drawn. Under Section 3 of the Act:
"The Minister may, after consultation with the Board give to the Board directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Board of their functions in relation to matters appearing to the Minister to affect the national interest, …"
That is one very definite power I have, and it would be perfectly appropriate for the Minister to be questioned about it. Indeed, it would be perfectly appropriate for any Member to ask me and expect a reply, and I should give a reply, why I had not made a direction on something on which he thought I ought to have made a direction. Similarly, if one continues with Section 3 one finds:
78
"In framing programmes of re-organisation or development involving substantial outlay on capital account, the Board shall act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister."
I am responsible for approving them. Therefore on that I can answer to the House and would be glad to do so. To my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, I would say that the Coal Board will no doubt be presenting to me fairly shortly their programmes of development under this Section, and an opportunity will no doubt arise for Questions to be put on that point. It may be that it can come up more satisfactorily on the discussion of their annual report. Then, again, there is a rather similar Subsection dealing with training, education and research where the Board must act on lines approved by myself. There, equally, it is clear that I must be responsible to the House.
May I next come to the question of accounts? Here there is a misconception in the minds of some hon. Members opposite. The money which the Coal Board uses to pay the salaries of, for example, its Divisional Boards and other Executives, wages and everything else, is not in the proper sense of the words, public money; it is simply the money which they use in the course of their trading activities, and it is not money voted by this House. If it were, certainly it would be appropriate that I should answer Questions on it, but it is not. All that has happened has been that the mines have been nationalised and compensation is being paid—by the way, if I may say so to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. E. Hughes) the compensation will be paid whatever happens to the National Coal Board. That is an obligation assumed by the Government, by the Treasury. It is, of course, entitled to recover from the Coal Board the service, interest and redemption of the capital involved—
Mr. Jennings: If the assets have been purchased, and compensation is being paid, surely any income which derives from those assets is public property?
Mr. Gaitskell: I am sorry, the hon. Member is not right. It is not public money in the Parliamentary sense of those words.
Mr. Jennings: Where did it come from?
Mr. Gaitskell: It comes from the sale of coal.
Mr. Jennings: Coal is part of the assets.
Sir W. Darling: Surely it is not public assistance from the coalowners.
Mr. Gaitskell: It is, of course, the case that the Coal Board is required to publish its accounts and, indeed, I have the power to direct how those accounts shall be made up. I have to present them to the House, and will do so in due course. Naturally it is not for me to say when opportunities for discussing them can be made but, for my part, I shall be only too glad if an opportunity arises to explain them and answer questions on them. I can assure the House, as indeed my predecessor frequently assured hon. Members, that we shall see to it that the accounts are in a very full and proper manner. I would also add to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) that I was a little surprised at his statement, because when the increase in prices which occurred recently was announced, the Coal Board in fact published a very full account of the causes of the increase, and it is not fair to the Board to suggest otherwise.
Mr. Jennings: But the Board did not give a statement of the cost of production of coal, and surely any private enterprise which raised the price of its commodity would give full details?
Mr. Gaitskell: They gave a very full account of the reasons for the increase, in price, explaining that there had been an increase in costs and itemising the thing in great detail.
It is also of course quite clear that there may be opportunities from time to time for general discussions on the set-up of the Coal Board. We have had a brief discussion of this kind tonight. I should suppose that the most obvious occasion for a discussion of that sort would be when the annual report of the Coal Board is presented. That is not for me, but is the job of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I should certainly welcome that, and hope such an opportunity will occur. Then I should be glad to explain anything in the report and answer broadly for the success or failure, up to that date, of the National Coal Board. But even then I do not propose to go into matters of detail. It would not be possible to do so. As soon as I got drawn down that track, I should begin
80
to treat the National Coal Board as the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and that I am determined not to do. It is contrary to Government policy, and to what was understood generally in the House. But of course my powers and duties in relation to the Board in no way detract from my duties under the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act. I have been referred to as the nation's coalman and the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) referred to the friendly relations between the public and their coalman. I am not quite so optimistic as he was about that, but I will do my best to earn them.
May I turn to some of the criticisms of the National Coal Board, bearing in' mind the background of what I have said to the effect that I am not in a position to deal with points of detail. These criticisms concern, for instance, the number of jobs which have been filled. I think the hon. Member for South Ayrshire mentioned one or two others as well. There have been criticisms of bad industrial relations, and so on. I am not going to say that there is absolutely no substance in any of these criticisms; it would be a miracle if there were no substance in them. In an organisation of this kind one cannot expect that everything should run perfectly smoothly, and that there should not be a mistake here and there. We should need a most gigantic centralisation to prevent such mistakes. But I ask the House to remember certain things before they jump to conclusions.
First, as an hon. Member said, whoever had been appointed to these jobs, it is quite certain there would have been widespread complaints. No doubt some of these complaints are due to the very natural and human element of jealousy. After all, when Ministers are appointed someone is jealous. Therefore, as I say, we must discount a certain amount.
Secondly, the setting up of any new administrative machine is bound to bring its own problems. I can remember early in the war being in a new Ministry, which was only set up at the outbreak of war. I was one of the foundation members and I can assure the House that for the first three months there was complete chaos for the simple reason that we did not know who was responsible for what, either on the horizontal or on the vertical plane, what was the scope of each section, nor who was to make the final

81
decisions. That is not an easy thing to lay down in black and white on paper but, it is the kind of thing one grows into.
Then we have to consider the background of the industry. Here we have an unfortunate record of industrial friction in the past. I am the last person in the world to want to go on talking about it; it is time we forgot it, but it is there. It was inevitable when the Coal Board appointed men who have been on the managerial side, no doubt doing their job very well from their own point of view, that some friction should continue. It is the job of the National Coal Board to weld managers and workers into a harmonious whole. That cannot be done all at once. I remember saying at this Box about a year ago that it would take time. I was laughed at, but I said that of course the men would be suspicious and that in some cases there may be reason for them to be suspicious. But what are the alternatives? We have to have people who are technically capable and reasonably trained, and most of them happen to have been employed on the managerial side in the past.
Then again far too much is heard of the bad side of the National Coal Board We do not hear of the bad side of any ordinary private enterprise company, because it does not get the same degree of publicity.
Mr. Jennings: The profit and loss account shows that first.
Mr. Gaitskell: Not nearly to the same extent. Naturally I am not proposing to give information about the Shell Oil Company or any other company—
Sir W. Darling: They are rather efficient.
Mr. Gaitskell: I do not deny it, and I am very glad they are.
Many of these complaints, as hon. Members have said, come from within the industry, from the workers themselves. But there is now set up in the industry a very complete and adequate consultative machine. The trade union leadership has rightly said, "This is something new which we have never had before, and we must work to make a success of it." I ask hon. Members who come across these complaints to tell those who complain to raise the matter on the consulta-
82
tive committee, and if these committees are not working properly it is the job of the unions to put them right. I am quite certain that the National Coal Board are only too anxious to see the consultative committees made a success, and it is up to the men in the industry to make them a success.
I do not want to be at all provocative, but this criticism of the Coal Board is, to some extent at least, encouraged and fanned by interests which are very hostile to the success of nationalisation. I am not making any criticisms of hon. Members opposite, but it is a very strange thing that newspapers which hitherto have always tended to take the owners' side in industries not nationalised, should take the strikers' side in an unofficial dispute, and that makes one a little suspicious.
We must look at this thing as a whole. It is no good picking out bits here and there. We shall have an opportunity for debate in the future—
Mr. Jennings: How long?
Mr. Gaitskell: When the annual report comes out. I want to make it quite plain that I welcome the opportunity for a general Parliamentary discussion concerned with the major issues, but do not let us be continually sniping and snooping at matters of detail. It will not help the Board to be successful, but, if anything, will detract from its efficiency. I say to all sides of the House, this enterprise which has been described as an experiment, is certainly a great one in size and everything else. So far as I know it is unlike anything else that exists in any country in the world. An enormous amount depends upon whether or not the National Coal Board is successful in solving all these difficult problems. Do not let us be continually examining the roots to see whether the tree is really growing. It is not really a good thing for the tree, and it is not a very good thing for the National Coal Board. Let us give them their head and tell them to get on with the job. Let us keep an eye on them and discuss broad principles, but on matters of detail, let us leave them alone to make the best job they can of it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Eight o'Clock.

THE KING'S SPEECH.
The KING being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and then retired.
His Majesty's Speech was as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"In the Session which opens to-day the nation is faced with grave economic difficulties affecting almost the entire world. Upon their successful solution depends the well-being of My people. My Government are determined to use every means in their power to overcome these difficulties.
"I am confident that in these times of hardship My people will demonstrate once again to the world their qualities of resolution and energy. With sustained effort this nation will continue to play its full part in leading the world back to prosperity and freedom.
"The first aim of My Ministers will be to redress the adverse balance of payments, particularly by expanding exports. This will demand increased production and the sale abroad of a larger share of output. The task to be performed by each industry has been set out and, in conjunction with all those engaged in industry, My Government will do their best to provide the means to carry out these tasks.
"My Ministers will give all possible help to those who work on the land, in order to increase still more the home production of food. Legislation will be introduced to provide for the improvement and development of Scottish agriculture so that Scotland may play its full part in the campaign for higher production.
"With a view to increasing exports and saving imports which can be replaced by home products, steps will be taken to ensure that man-power is used to the best national advantage, and, in particular, to expand the numbers employed in the coal-mining, agricultural and textile industries. The working of the reimposed labour controls will be watched closely and My Government will take measures to bring into essential work those who are making no contribution to the national well-being. They will also encourage in every way the close joint consultation in industry which is necessary if the greatest volume of production is to be secured.
"My Government will continue to devote their earnest attention to securing from overseas the essential foodstuffs and raw materials for My people. They will do all in their power to find new sources of supply and they will seek to enter into further long-term agreements with overseas countries. A measure will be laid before you designed to promote the expansion of production of all kinds within the Empire.
"My Government will continue to participate in the work of European reconstruction put in hand in the recent conference in Paris and will do their

3
utmost to forward the projects formulated at that meeting for the benefit of Europe and of the world as a whole.
"The present obstacles to co-operation and understanding between the peoples of the world have strengthened the determination of My Government to support the United Nations and to seek by that means to promote the mutual trust and tolerance on which peaceful progress depends.
"It is My earnest hope that the forthcoming conference of Foreign Ministers will result in a measure of agreement leading towards a democratic and self-supporting Germany which will not threaten world security, and to the satisfactory settlement of the international status of Austria.
"I trust that a Treaty of Peace with Japan, which will contribute to the welfare of all countries in the Far East, may be concluded at an early date.
"A measure will be laid before you to enable the future governance of Burma to be in accordance with the free decision of the elected representatives of its people.
"I hope that the discussions now in progress will enable legislation to be laid before you to confer on Ceylon fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"Estimates for the public services will be laid before you in due course, and you will be asked to approve supplementary financial measures at an early stage of the Session.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"My Ministers will accelerate the release of men and women from the Armed Forces to the maximum extent consistent with the adequate fulfilment of the tasks falling to the Forces.
"They will press on with the reorganisation of the Forces on their peace-time basis and with the task of obtaining the necessary voluntary recruits to build up the Regular Forces and the Auxiliary Services.
"Legislation will be introduced to amend the Parliament Act, 1911.
"A Bill will be laid before you to reform the administration of criminal justice in England and Wales.
"You will be asked to approve legislation to abolish the Poor Law and to provide a comprehensive system of assistance for all in need. This will complete the all-embracing scheme of social security, the main lines of which have been, laid down in measures already enacted.
"A Bill will be laid before you to bring the gas industry under public ownership in completion of the plan for the co-ordination of the fuel and power industries.
"A measure will be laid before you to extend the scope of public care of children deprived of a normal home life and to secure improved standards of care for such children.
"Legislation will be introduced to provide a new and more equitable basis for the distribution of general Exchequer grants to local authorities. Provision will also be made for centralizing the machinery of valuation for rating purposes and amending the law as to the valuation of small dwelling-houses in England and Wales.
"You will be asked to approve a measure to reform the franchise and electoral procedure and to give appropriate effect to recommendations of the Commissions appointed to consider the distribution of Parliamentary seats.
"A Bill will be laid before you to enable a common national status to be maintained throughout the Commonwealth and to amend the existing law governing the national status of married women.
"You will be asked to approve a measure for the establishment of river boards to take over from existing authorities certain responsibilities for land drainage, fisheries, and the prevention of pollution.
"You will also be invited to pass a Bill to amend the present scheme for securing the exhibition of a fair proportion of British films.
"A measure will be laid before you to reform the law relating to actions for personal injuries.
"It is hoped that various measures consolidating important branches of the

5
law will be introduced during the Session; and other measures will be laid before you if time permits.
"I pray that Almighty God may give His blessing to your counsels."
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at half-past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.

Prayers.
  LIST OF THE LORDS TEMPORAL.
  Garter King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Third Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro forma, read 1a.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The King's Speech reported by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
2.46 p.m.
LORD DUKESTON: My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
I feel it is a great honour to be asked to move this Resolution. I understand that, by long custom, one is expected to be as little controversial as possible in discharging that duty, and in the light of existing circumstances, the times in which we are living and the problems which confront your Lordships' House, I will do my best
6
to conform to that custom. But I confess that there are many difficulties in the way of preserving that attitude.
I want to deal for a few moments with what I regard as the most important item in the gracious Speech read from the Throne by His Majesty. In the third paragraph it is stated:
"The first aim of my Ministers will be to redress the adverse balance of payments particularly by expanding exports. This will demand increased production and the sale abroad of a larger share of output."
I understand that our adverse balance at the present time is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £450,000,000. Unless we can so increase production as to bridge that gap, then, quite obviously, we are heading for insolvency. It is good that Parliament and, I hope, the people generally, are placing that problem in the forefront of their minds. I am pleased to read in the Press that plans have already been drawn, that they have been jointly considered by representatives of industry and that the industries will know, either now or in a very short time, what is really expected of them.
We are little more than two years beyond the end of the war. We have talked a great deal about planning. The impression created on my mind has been that planning at the highest possible level has been considered and proceeded with but does not appear to have percolated down to the levels working it out in practice where alone that planning can become effective. I believe what is needed in this country at the present moment is that everyone should play his part in arousing the nation to a greater effort and the will to expand production. I find it a little difficult to believe that it is impossible to bridge that gap by methods of production and that we must resort, as I have heard suggested in certain quarters, to the imposition of further restraints and economies in our already low standard of life by withdrawing subsidies or in some such way. I believe that is a profound mistake. I cannot accept the view that it is impossible to secure the 8 to 10 per cent. overall increase of production to bridge the adverse balance, which is the greatest task before the country at the present moment.
We have heard a lot about rising spirals, wages chasing prices, and so on. My fear is lest we should get into a descending spiral and should apply economies in a way that would tend to

7
destroy the will to greater effort in the field of production. I care not how well the plans may be drawn at the top; if we go into this matter half-heartedly we shall not succeed. Everyone engaged in industry must face this crisis with a realization that, just as in the war we fought to protect life and property, today we are fighting to restore the economy of our country and to retain our place in the world as one of the leading industrial nations. That, to me, is the problem of statesmanship; it is the problem of leadership, and particularly of leadership in industry. No matter how cleverly we may draft our measures, Acts of Parliament do not dig coal or puddle iron or build houses. The will has got to be created at the lowest possible level, otherwise I fear that in the obligation which now confronts us there will be a tendency to effect the balance of our overseas payments by making inroads in directions which are likely to prove a deterrent to greater productivity.
I have heard it said that in this attempt to increase exports, we might have to consider even the export of capital plant and equipment. I hope that will be approached with the greatest possible caution. We may get through this crisis, this monetary crisis, or dollar crisis, by all kinds of economies, and we may, under the great pressure now placed upon us to accomplish that objective, so affect our capital plant and equipment that when we do emerge we shall find ourselves in a competitive world where we are very seriously handicapped in the fight to maintain our status as a great industrial nation. Therefore I place the greatest possible emphasis upon securing this balance by placing squarely on the shoulders of industry the obligation to give effect to plans and by creating the opinion throughout industry that these plans are not to be taken merely as orders, merely as something to be fulfilled and then for further instructions to be awaited. Industry cannot be run that way. Let us tell industry what we expect and then seek to establish that form of co-operation, leaving industry to exercise its initiative and will. Providing industry conforms to overall planning, the less interference there is from outside the better the possibility of results.
I want now to come to another great difficulty inherent in the existing circumstances of the partial dispersal of our
8
man-power and the transference of industrial activity from the less essential industries to those whose products are at the moment in greatest demand, and in demand particularly with an eye to establishing the balance of our overseas trade. We know that on both sides of industry the Control of Engagement Order has been accepted. The Order means, in effect, that employment of persons so displaced will be sanctioned only by the authorities at the employment exchanges operating under instructions as to the industries to which labour shall be directed. That may sound very simple, but we have to look at our industries as a growth over a century and a half, very largely devoid of planning, and we may find that some unessential industries are so located as to involve the transference of labour. That, again, is not a very simple thing to accomplish in existing circumstances. We know the housing difficulties, for example, and we know that if there is a pattern at all in the country it is one that during the war was built very largely upon the flight of the secondary industries away from the localities where the primary industries grew up. So in your great coal belts, in your great textile areas, and in fact wherever there are primary basic industries, you find in the main a lack of the secondary industries to balance the basic industries of the country. I hope that this matter will be handled with great care, and that we shall know where labour is to be placed not after but before the date of the transference becomes operative. We must have an eye on the handling of this very great and intricate problem, and appreciate the probable effects upon the domestic lives of the people concerned.
It is stated that labour controls and direction have been reimposed. I am sure we all regret the necessity for that having to be done. In a democratic country the one thing that we would avoid, and, notwithstanding our knowledge of the economic difficulties as they have existed, we have in fact tried to avoid, is the necessity of registration and direction. But one is bound to confess that appeals to those people who contribute very little towards the economic well-being of the country apparently have no effect. They may be greater in number than I believe; it is exceedingly difficult to say. It does mean, in my opinion, that one may do a

9
great injustice unless some form of registration is undertaken so that we shall know where these people are who apparently get their living—and a very good living—at distances considerably detached from any real production. I think they have got to be brought in if only to appease the minds of those upon whose back we have placed the heaviest burden—there I make no single exception, and in the main it applies to the basic industries of the country—and to assure them that, whilst we are using every possible pressure to ensure maximum production, we are also not allowing young, virile people capable of making a valuable contribution in the present crisis to obtain their livelihood by means and methods which contribute nothing towards the general well-being of the country.
As one who has spent the major portion of his life in industry, I know that to-day there exists a greater measure of good will, and certainly fax more machinery of consultation, than ever existed before. I think it would do no harm to say in your Lordships' House how much we appreciate the approach that has been made to this problem. Particularly in the postwar years we have achieved a measure of consultation over a wide field of industry, with regard to which we had the greatest possible difficulty at the end of the First World War. I played some part in the struggle for what were then termed "managerial functions." I think we have outgrown that to-day. I believe that the enlightened business people of our country, and employers in general, have come to understand that men who invest their lives in industry, equally with those who invest their money, claim as a right some influence in moulding the policy of the industry.
I note with a considerable degree of pleasure that it is intended to nationalize the gas industry. For my own part, I could have wished that that had been done at an earlier date. I am convinced that we shall not secure the fuel economy which is necessary until these three industries of hard and soft fuels, electrical generation and gas production have been co-ordinated; until overlapping has been cut out, and a policy built upon the idea that those three industries provide not competitive but complementary services. Not until the fuel power policy has been
10
completed shall we know the benefits which will accrue from that general policy.
It is also with considerable pleasure that I read of the intention to design and promote the expansion of production of all kinds within the Empire. I have just returned from Canada. It was not my first visit, and I am not speaking with the first flush of enthusiasm of one who has only seen the country once. There, amongst all sections of the community—and I think I covered a very wide range, social groups, trade union conventions, conferences, and so on—I found that the good will towards the Mother Country was almost embarrassing. They put one question: How can we help? I know that that charitable expression is mainly in the direction of helping by personal contributions of food, and so on, and in that direction they are doing wonderful work. But the business men to whom I spoke said this: "We want British goods because we know their quality, and providing they can be secured at the right price, commensurate with our population there is no greater market for British quality products." As I took my good wife with me I had to visit a few stores, and there one experienced some degree of aggravation. If you turned up a carpet that you would have been glad to have in your own house, or looked at a cup and saucer—indeed, whatever it was, if it was a quality product—there was the stamp: "Made in Great Britain." And that, of course, is a symbol which one can appreciate even in such circumstances.
I think we ought also to make some reference to that very generous gesture which has been made recently in South Africa. That is the kind of tiling which make the phraseology a reality when we refer to the Mother Country and the Empire. The same applies to Australia and New Zealand. Sometimes I wonder whether we are pushing the light button. It seems to me that there is a fund of good will and a desire to work together and help each other which so far we have not made the most of, and I sincerely hope that it is the intention, as outlined in the gracious Speech from the Throne, that some special measures will be undertaken to get the Empire representatives together to see whether some greater contribution, some brighter prospect of a greater co-ordination of

11
Empire interests, cannot be built up. I am sure that that is not only the mind of the Dominions and the rest of the Empire, but also that of our people at home.
I conclude by saying that we are all painfully aware that we have reached a period in our history in which we have to create something in the nature of a great revival in order to persuade our people that we can no longer get out of this rut by one group believing that they can win some advantage to themselves whilst other people mark time. It really cannot be done in that way. The bedrock of our economic system is such that the moment you move with one Section 1ts influence upon other groups is automatic. Let us say to our people frankly and courageously: "The choice before the country to-day is between an increased effort to secure a 10 per cent. increase in our production and the prospect of a lowering of the standard of life of our people." If it is put to them straightforwardly in that manner I have every confidence that the workpeople, the employers and all other sections of the community will rise to a sense of their responsibility and that we shall win through this crisis to emerge a better nation for the experience through which we have passed. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Lord Dukeston.)
3.15 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, I beg leave to second the Motion which has been so ably moved by my noble friend, and in doing so I too feel conscious of the honour that has been done me in being privileged to second the Motion to-day. May I say first of all that I am very pleased at the reference in paragraph 2 in the gracious Speech. Paragraph 2 says:—
"I am confident that in these times of hardship My people will demonstrate once again to the world their qualities of resolu-
12
tion and energy. With sustained effort this nation will continue to play its full part in leading the world back to prosperity and freedom."
One of the most important points in the gracious Speech is contained in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, which refer principally to agriculture. I am myself pleased—as I have no doubt your Lordships are pleased—that so far as the Government are concerned they have decided to ask this great industry to make a still greater contribution in order to earn dollars for this country. I believe, as I know many of your Lordships believe, that great as has been the contribution that agriculture has made to this country in the past, it has never had so great a contribution to make, and has never been called upon to make so great a contribution in peace time as it is called upon to make now. I am perfectly certain that those engaged in the industry will respond, but they can only do so if we provide the tools to enable them to do the job.
Now where are they? In the past housing has been sadly neglected. During the last two years priorities have been given in certain instances for housing. But what has happened? In the main, the rural councils have so far failed, except in very few cases, to give priority to agricultural labourers. Difficult though it is in rural England to find proper accommodation for agricultural labourers and recruits in this great industry, it is going to be infinitely more difficult to solve this great problem in six or eight months' time, when the German prisoners of war, who have been doing good work on our land in recent months, go back in accelerated numbers.
I am fully aware that the circumstances in which we live are very grave. There are very few of us who do not realize that. We know perfectly well that in some cases great savings have to be made in capital expenditure. But if we are to succeed in fulfilling the policy laid down in the gracious Speech, we cannot afford to economize in the amount of money to be spent in rehousing our people in the countryside. Indeed, we must accelerate housing, even at the expense of some of the larger schemes in some of the industrial cities and towns of this country. Whatever you may say about mechanization—and we want mechanization there—the human element still counts, and

13
always will count, in this great basic industry of agriculture.
I do not know whether my noble friend who has just moved this Motion is present at my "trial," but that at any rate he will be present somewhere in the Court, I have no doubt. This policy of putting price levels into agricultural products was one which was accepted by scarcely anyone. What we are aiming at, as announced by the Minister himself, is to put a higher price level on to wheat, so encouraging and increasing the wheat acreage, by giving a better price, encouraging an increase in the growth of barley, and thereby encouraging the farmer to grow wheat and barley. We aim at developing this industry by laying down the principle that 20 per cent. of the increase in these two vital products shall be left with the farmers themselves, in order that they may build up the pig population and build up feeding stuffs for the other cattle. I was never able to understand the attitude of mind in the past. It reminds me of a man who has a garden but does not grow anything in it; instead, he sends his wife to buy at the greengrocer's shop the cabbages and potatoes he could have produced at his own back door. In the same manner we neglected British agriculture because we could buy cheap food from other countries. I believe myself that the day when we can do that has gone. I hope that so far as the future is concerned the policy now announced will give encouragement to the agricultural community. They will reach their target if only we will give them the tools and allow them to do the job.
As a countryman I am pleased that it is proposed to introduce a Bill to try to clean up the beautiful streams and little rivers of this country, some of which are at present a disgrace. I sat in Committee on a Bill in the other place some time ago, when we delivered speeches congratulating the Minister on passing a Bill through the House, almost without any opposition, providing for steps to be taken to clean up these streams and rivers and in many cases providing for the cattle a water supply fit to drink. The worst feature of this matter, I am sorry to say, is that the people who have the responsibility for cleaning up the streams and rivers and administering this Act—the local authorities themselves—have been the greatest sinners in polluting them. I
14
am delighted that in the gracious Speech the Government have indicated that they intend to pass a Bill to provide for the prevention of this pollution.
There is another proposal in the gracious Speech that will give pleasure to those of us who have had any experience of public life and administration on local authorities, and that is an amendment of the machinery for rating and valuation. During the course of a fairly long experience—it is nearly forty years since I first served on a local authority—I have come to realize that if there is anything that really does need reform it is the present system of rating. I can picture two men working in the same industry, having the same family responsibilities; one of them likes to go to the dogs (in more senses than one), to spend his money as he goes along, and to enjoy it to the full. His neighbour is a man who thinks that he would like to do seme-thing for his family; perhaps to put a bathroom, and perhaps an additional bedroom, in his house and make his home a real home for his family. Perhaps he has saved his money all his life in order to be able to do so. What happens? A man comes over when he has put in his bathroom and bedroom and says, "Jones, what have you been doing here?" Jones answers: "I have put in a bathroom and a bedroom for my family and I have been saving my money for twenty years to do it." "My word," says the official, "if only you had spent your money on going to the dogs or the pictures or racing or gambling or whatever it is, I should not have had to come here to see you. I am required by the local authority to impose a perpetual fine of £2 a year on you for what you have done." That is precisely what operates in the rating system to-day. I could mention other instances. I remember a man who built four houses, and the overseers came along to look at them. All the houses looked exactly alike, but one of the overseers noticed that one of the houses had a letter box on the door. He said "This is a different type of house." Such was the system that the rateable value of that house was increased £1 because there was a fifteen-penny letter box on the door! I think there should be a revaluation.
There are other kinds of cases. There is the case of the man who goes to live five miles out of a town and enjoys all

15
the services provided. There should be an amendment of rating so that such a man pays for the services he enjoys. I hope that the proposals will end some of the anomalies, dozens of which I could mention. Some agricultural labourers pay more in drainage and land rates than some of the people living in the bigger houses in some of the agricultural districts of this country.
Another proposal in this gracious Speech that appeals to us, I think, is the abolition of the Poor Law as we know it. I myself have always thought this should be done. Many times I have spoken rather harshly to relieving officers. As regards the relief they gave when I was a boy, an old man came round and gave us half-a-crown each; he did not give us less because it was not possible. How much is given depends where you go; it depends on the type of man and also on the type of authority that he is serving. If he is serving some of the authorities that I know, they look upon him as being a wonderfully efficient man if he can deprive anybody whom he goes to relieve. Every one of us will be pleased to see recognition of the fact that the present system is dead and gone, and this realization is embodied in the new system that the Government have spoken of in the gracious Speech.
Reference has also been made in the gracious Speech to the Paris Conference and to the United Nations. I really hope that something good comes out of these conferences. I have attended so many in my life, and we have had so many since the war, that one has almost got mixed up with the number of conferences of one kind and another that have been held; and yet we have not got very far with things up to now. I wonder why it is. I cannot quite understand why, though the whole of Europe is being bled almost white, yet at the present time there seems as little confidence between one nation and another as there was before this last great conflict took place. I sometimes wonder whether the only thing that will put this world right is illustrated well in a little story to which I hope the right reverend Prelate will listen for a moment. It concerns a couple who had a mischievous little boy. The mother had enough of him in the day time, so, when father came home at night, she thought she would go
16
to the pictures and leave little Willie with his father, so that he should know the kind of boy he was. She left him at home, and the boy kept saying, "Dad this" and "Dad that." The father said to himself: "I am fed up with him," and he looked over to the window. He saw in the window a map of the world. He took this map of the world, tore it into almost a thousand pieces, and threw it on the floor. "Now, piece that together, Billy" he said. It seemed to be only about ten minutes before Willie said, "I've done it, dad." "Oh," said the father: "that lad again!" He said to the boy: "However have you done that?" "Well, dad," said the boy, "there is a map of the world on one side but there is a photo of a man on the other side, and I knew that if I had the man right I should have the world right." How true that really is! In 1910 I was one of Philip Snowden's colleagues, addressing meetings in this country—anti-militarist meetings in 1910. I have always profoundly believed that war was the enemy of mankind, and that unless society itself destroys war, then war itself will destroy society, and all that our present civilization stands for.
Yet here we are, faced with the position that we have to-day. Some people say it is because human nature is so bad. Human nature is not bad. It is only bad when you appeal to the selfishness, if you like to the mercenary instincts of a man, bargaining with him. There are occasions when that selfishness disappears—as, for example, when he goes down a mine, or when there is life to save at sea. If only we can harness that wonderful spirit which he then displays to this Conference in Paris, and with our other neighbours in Europe, if we can harness that good will that is shown at the bottom of a mine where you can see the best of human nature, if we can harness that spirit and have a different world and a different Europe, I believe that human nature will not break down. If it does, the foundations upon which the Christian religion is built—and Christianity itself—must fail, as must my ideal of Socialism. But human nature will not break down, for the faith upon which it is founded is the faith that has been founded upon a rock. I believe that under healthier and happier conditions humanity may rise to heights undreamed of now. The most exquisite Utopias that have been pictured by our

17
poets and our idealists will to our children seem but dim and broken lights compared with that great day. All that we need is strength and courage, prudence and faith—faith, above all, which dares to believe that justice and love are not impossible and that more than the best that men can dream of shall one day be realized by men. I beg to second the Motion.
3.37 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before I proceed to discuss the humble Address in answer to the gracious Speech from the Throne, I should like, if I may, to pay a tribute to the notable and eloquent way in which the proposer and the seconder have performed their task. It is never an easy task, especially in the days of Party Government. They have to be, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, himself said, so far as possible non-controversial on extremely controversial subjects. I thought, and I am sure that all your Lordships will agree, that they both of them acquitted themselves extremely well, though I noticed that they both of them assiduously avoided the largest fence.
The noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, is a comparative newcomer to this House, but he has already made a name for himself by his sincere and thoughtful speeches. The speech to which we have listened this afternoon was certainly no exception to that rale. He knows industrial labour, I suppose, as well as anybody in this country, and he will always be listened to here. I should like to congratulate him. I thought he made a very good job of what was inevitably a difficult task, and I know how much we shall look forward to further contributions from him.
I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, who has seconded the Address and who has just sat down. Lord Quibell is already becoming a very old friend to noble Lords in all parts of the House. He is the kind of Englishman, if I may say so with all deference to him, whom we all admire—bluff, forthright and independent-minded. Indeed, I often wonder how he ever got into the Party to which he belongs! I have wondered even more, as I have listened to his speeches, why he stays there or why they keep him! Sometimes I have almost seemed to feel, I might say, his astral body sitting by my side. To-day,
18
on the whole, I thought the noble Lord was on his good behaviour, and I should think his colleagues must have heaved a sigh of relief at getting off so easily, though, even so, they must have had some anxious moments. At any rate, there is one thing of which I am quite sure, and that is that noble Lords in all parts of the House enjoyed every minute of his speech, and I should like to congratulate him on adding to the already considerable reputation that he enjoys here.
Now, my Lords, I would like to turn to the business of the day, to the gracious Speech, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I detain thorn for rather longer than I usually do. The canvas is a rather large one and there is a great deal to be said, especially on this particular occasion. As your Lordships know, the debate on the Address fulfils a most valuable function in the Parliamentary year. It provides an opportunity both for a review of the events of the past and for examining the proposals of the Government as to the future, and it gives to Parliament a chance to survey the national scene as a whole, in a way that is not possible at any other time; and this year I suggest that such a survey is more than ever desirable. It is now just over two years since the present Government came into power. At that time, your Lordships will remember—and it is not unnatural—a note of great optimism was sounded by the spokesmen of the Labour Party. Not only was the war over, but, for the first time in British history, a Socialist Government had been returned to power by a great majority. Things had been said at the General Election which must, I am afraid, make rather painful reading to noble Lords opposite, if they can steel their courage to face the past.
I would like to give one or two quotations, because we are bound to forget these things. There was a speech by Mr. Greenwood, whom we had hoped to see in this House: unfortunately, that has been postponed, although I hope we shall one day see him with us. He said at that time:
"You want a home. Tories are making promises. Labour will do the job. It did it in the past."
Then there is Sir Stafford Cripps, who now occupies almost the most important position in the Government. He said:

19
"Nationalization after the war will ensure that goods are available at 'decent prices' for everybody."
He also said on another occasion:
"The Labour Party does not propose to infringe on liberties for which we have been fighting for the last fifty years."
The mover and the seconder of the Address were discreetly silent on all these questions: but, in fact, where are those homes, where are those goods and where are those liberties?
Most of us in this House, I must confess, were always rather sceptical about those rosy prognostications, even at that time. Your Lordships are a very old and experienced body, and we do not believe in panaceas for human ills. They tend to be in the nature of those "quack" remedies, the contents of which hardly ever live up to the promises on the outside of the box. We had no reason to suppose that this panacea was any different from the others. It had not succeeded in other countries where it had been tried, and we deeply regretted that it should be tried here. We felt that the Government would have been much wiser to eschew ideological changes, and to concentrate on stimulating individual initiative, and on helping traders and industrialists to help themselves, with a view to expanding the volume of production which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, himself emphasized, is far the most important thing at the present time. Indeed I agreed, and I expect everybody on this side of the House agreed, with almost everything that the noble Lord said in that portion of his speech. But we were quite prepared, and I think the Government will give us credit for this, to give them a fair chance to try out their ideas. I said in the debate on the Address when Parliament met first, after the Election—the House will forgive me for quoting my own words:
"The Labour Party have pledged themselves to these measures. We believe them to be economically and politically unsound… How are we to prove to the British people that our philosophy and not the Socialist philosophy is right? I do not believe it is to be done by attempting to prevent a fair trial of the Labour proposals. I believe it is to be done only by allowing a fair trial of them to be made. No one can say that the opportunity does not exist for such a trial. The Labour Party are in power … Let them show what they can do".
20
I think that was a very fair interpretation of the views of noble Lords on this side of the House and, I have no doubt, on the Liberal Benches at that time.
They have been in power for two years. They have had their chance. They have made the most of it and they certainly entered on their task of socializing the country with very commendable enthusiasm. They have introduced an unrivalled volume of legislation. They have driven it through the House of Commons by every device known to Parliamentary procedure. They have used the guillotine and the closure to an extent never employed before. Indeed, such was the missionary zeal of the Socialist majority and such was their confidence in the omniscience of their Ministers that they hardly found it necessary to discuss large parts of the Bills at all. Nor, my Lords, were those Bills held up in your Lordships' House. It is true that we have tried desperately to amend Bills to improve them and make them more workable, but we have never tried to obstruct; and I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree and will give us credit for the fact that we have entirely played the game in this respect. That, I think, is borne out by the tributes that we have had from the responsible Ministers themselves.
As a result the country has at last had the chance of experiencing the blessings of Socialism as applied in practice. The Bank of England has been nationalized, the coal industry has been nationalized, the civil aviation industry has been nationalized, road and rail transport have been nationalized, controls have been put on almost everything, and things that are not yet controlled are rapidly being brought under control. A vast army of State servants has been enlisted, capital has been directed, and now labour is to be directed, and, so far as I could make out from Lord Dukeston's speech, is shortly to be conscripted. Therefore, from the point of view of the good honest Socialist things ought to be going swimmingly. If we are not in heaven itself we ought to be at least at the gates. At any rate there ought to be a new spirit of optimism and prosperity apparent throughout the country. And yet, surprisingly enough, what do we find? To this I am sure that noble Lords opposite will be bound to agree. This

21
country has never been more depressed, it has never been more disillusioned, it has never been more frustrated than it is today. The outlook has never been bleaker.
It is perfectly true—and they can quite fairly claim for this—that money wages have risen throughout the country. But these wages are very largely valueless, for, after all, the only value of wages is to enable one to increase the comforts and amenities of life, and these things are almost unobtainable and are getting scarcer with every morning that passes. And we have been warned by Ministers that they will get even scarcer. When they can be found, they can too often be bought only with official licences, and those licences are almost impossible to get, so how can the ordinary citizen buy what he wants? He can only buy what he is given. That variety which was the great delight and merit of free enterprise has entirely gone. And inflation, the danger of which only a few months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was happily past, is already an accomplished fact. Taxation is at a fantastic height and it shows no signs of any reduction; and every morning the discouraged citizens when they open their paper read new statements by Ministers, each more gloomy than the last.
Now, my Lords, what is the conclusion that the ordinary man must draw from these events? It is this: that however good the intentions may be—and I fully grant that the Government and their supporters have very good intentions—the result of Socialist theory as applied in practice is, or at any rate in our experience it has been, that everybody gets a little less of everything, from liberty to the smallest necessities and amenities of life. And what they can get they only get with the greatest difficulty, partially, at any rate, through over-elaboration of the State machine. I believe that I speak not only for a great many Conservatives but also for many people who used to be called at the last election "doubtfuls," but who are becoming perhaps rather less doubtful than they were—when I say that it is really impossible to run a great country on that basis. The complication and expense, the demands on man-power are too great. It is officialdom run mad. Noble Lords opposite will forgive me if I speak with some bitterness, but I feel that it is a tragic
22
sight to see one's country brought so low by the activities and nostrums of political doctrinaires.
Nor is the performance of the Government in the wider sphere of international affairs very much happier. At the end of the war, I suppose, the name of Britain stood higher than it has ever stood before in our history. Other countries had seen our great and lonely fight against such a World Power as had never been known before. They had seen our exhibition of endurance and our ultimate victory. But what is our position now? We are on very poor terms with Russia, with whom we were told at the Election a Labour Government alone could establish close and cordial relations. If noble Lords opposite want me to do so I can give them relevant quotations for statements to this effect made by several very distinguished members of the Government. We seem bent on discouraging our best friends in the United States. By a really remarkable stroke of foreign policy, we have managed to antagonize both the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East. We have abandoned India, which had enjoyed nearly 100 years of peace under British administration, prematurely, with the result that there has been bloodshed on a vast scale. We are retiring, as the Paymaster-General said the other day—with, I thought, obvious satisfaction—"all along the line." Both at home and abroad there has been a deplorable deterioration in our position in the past two years.
I know that we shall be told by Government spokesmen that this is not all their fault, that it is the result of world conditions; and of course there is a very great measure of truth in this. The world is undoubtedly out of joint. The elaborate machinery for the exchange of goods has been thrown completely out of gear by the shocks of war. I do not want to argue unfairly in that respect. Any Government that had been in power during this period, I do not care of what Party, would have had a difficult and delicate task in redressing the balance. But surely that is all the more reason for not causing further dislocation by gratuitous experiments in the domestic field. No one could have expected this Government to abandon their Socialist principles. No one expected it or desired them to do so if they sincerely held those principles. But surely the only

23
wise course would have been to exercise some discretion in applying them. That, as your Lordships know, was the course that was adopted by the Socialist Government in Belgium; and Belgium to-day, after four years of enemy occupation, is in a far happier situation now and is—at least this is what people who have been there tell me—rapidly approaching normal. That was the course adopted by Holland and other Western European countries. Any visitor to those countries, certainly any visitor to Holland and Belgium—that is anyone who can get permission to visit them and the means to do so, which is not quite so easy at the present time—will tell you that the spirit in those countries is entirely different from what it is in this country.
And now we are experiencing the inevitable fruits of this sincere but mistaken and reckless policy. The Government have largely taken the control of the delicate business of trading out of the hands of those who were accustomed to operate it. They have removed the natural incentives from the private employers, and therefore they have to take over more and more the direction of their efforts. They have removed natural incentives from the workmen, what was called by the Economist the carrot or the stick, and now they have to direct labour. Ministers are becoming—and this applies both to the nationalized and unnationalized industries—the real arbiters of industrial policy. It is a task for which they are not in the least fitted. They have neither the training nor the experience. In short, no doubt with the best will in the world, the Government have over-estimated their capacity. As I think the Prime Minister himself suggested in a recent speech, they have tried to do too much in too short a time. As a result, the country is in the position of a man who has had a serious illness and has not waited for the healing process of convalescence but has rushed immediately into strenuous work. Of course, as we all know, such a man is likely to overstrain his powers and have a serious relapse. That is exactly what has happened to us. The burden put upon the State machine has been too great. That vast machine which the Government have created is tottering and almost collapsing under its own weight.
24
Nor indeed—and I say this with great deference in the presence of Lord Duke-ston—in practice is the Socialist State quite master in its own house. If it has a plan it cannot impose it. Behind the Government stand, as we all know, the great trade unions who impose their will on it. I said this a year and a half ago and it was denied hotly at that time by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, the Leader of the House. But it has proved to be more and more true since then that the unions do impose their will. And many of the leaders of those trade unions are not—I do not say it is true of all of them, of course—actuated either by business principles or by a broad national outlook. They are mainly concerned—it is quite natural, for that is their function—to serve the interests of the particular section of the community which they represent. That, it is clear from their speeches, is the outlook of such men as Mr. Horner or even Mr. Shinwell. They regard themselves—certainly Mr. Horner regards himself—as the representative of the miners and he thinks of nothing but the interests of the miners. Very likely he mistakes the interests of the miners—but at any rate he does not attempt to take a wider view.
I think that there is definite evidence that the Government are beginning to realize the dangers of the situation into which they may have stumbled. They are becoming conscious that they have moved too fast, and they are making considerable efforts to slow down the pace. In the gracious Speech to which we listened this morning there was far less talk of Socialism and far more talk of production. If that had been the tone of the gracious Speech three years ago, our situation might be very different to-day. Indeed, if I may say so, in many ways—with one rather startling exception, to which I intend to advert in a few minutes—I do not think that the gracious Speech this year is nearly so harmful as its predecessors during the two previous years. For one thing, there is not the same tumultuous spate of legislation and the legislation mentioned is not quite so far-reaching. For instance, I notice that the iron and steel industry is not to be nationalized this year, as had been foreshadowed in some quarters. I do not want to sound a paean of triumph over this. I recognize that praise by the Opposition is not an

25
unmixed blessing for any Government and if, for once, they have done the right thing I do not want unnecessarily to embarrass them. Moreover I quite appreciate that if they have decided to postpone this—we have it on the authority of the Minister of Health that it is only postponed—it is not because they are weakening in their enthusiasm for Socialism. I wish I could believe that. It is only because iron and steel is the most delicate of all industries. It has the widest ramifications and it has the most direct repercussions upon the export trade. In addition, the Government may well feel that the practical application of the nationalization schemes which have already been passed into law is quite sufficient to occupy their energies during the coming year. But even that is, after all, a welcome sign of restraint and wisdom, on which we, on this side of the House, are bound to commend them.
On the other hand—and here I find myself at issue with the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston—I am bound to regret that it has been found necessary to nationalize the gas industry. I know that very strong arguments can be adduced in favour of this course, but as Lord Dukeston knows and as we all know, the gas industry has for long been one of the best-managed private industries, one of the industries which has been noted for its consideration of the interests of its workmen, an industry which has in many cases taken them into partnership in management and in profits. I cannot but feel that to nationalize this above all other industries must: be counted a retrograde move. On the other hand, we shall all warmly welcome the reassurances with regard to agriculture. "All possible help" is a far-reaching phrase. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, I would say it is not merely promises and assurances that are needed. There must be performance, and we shall watch very carefully in this House, where we have a great many experts, to see how these assurances and pledges are carried out.
I now come to what I think is a notable omission. There is nothing about housing in the gracious Speech. This is, perhaps, one of the greatest problems this country has to face. There may be nothing very good to say about housing, but surely it is a subject that might have been mentioned. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, when he
26
speaks at the end of the day's debate, will be able to give some explanation of this omission. Perhaps it was forgotten. Anyway, we shall be very interested to hear what he has to say on this very important question.
In the field of Imperial policy, the broad statement of policy enunciated in the gracious Speech will, I suppose, receive the approval of everybody in all paris of the House. There are no Little Englanders in this country nowadays. After the experiences of the last two great wars, I suppose that all Parties alike recognize that close and cordial co-operation between members of the British Commonwealth is vital to the very survival of civilization; and anything the Government can do to strengthen that co-operation will, I am sure, receive the warm support of noble Lords in all Parties. During recent weeks I have heard some rather sinister rumours in the Press about the future of Imperial Preference. There is no mention of this in the gracious Speech. But I would remind the noble Lords opposite that the Government gave some very firm pledges on this subject at the time of the debates on the American loan, and I hope there will be no question at all of their departing from those pledges. I should like, if I may, to ask the noble and learned Viscount for an assurance that if there is anything of the truth in these rumours—of course there may not be—an opportunity will be taken to discuss these proposals frankly with Parliament before any binding commitments are entered into. In view of the pledges already given, this seems absolutely essential.
Now I would come to foreign policy (I am sorry to take so long but I have a very wide field to cover), about which the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, in the closing passages of his speech made such very moving references. Here again, with the broad statement of principle in the gracious Speech I do not suppose any of your Lordships would disagree. Of course we all want good relations with other countries. Of course we all found our policy on a strong and effective United Nations Organization. That is common ground among every Party in the State. But we must face the fact that the United Nations Organization is at present neither strong nor is it united. It is rent by deep divisions, between Russia and her followers on one side and the rest of the

27
world on the other, particularly as is exemplified in the use of the veto on the Security Council. What is to be our position in face of this very unhappy development? I have never been in favour of quarrelling with Russia. I have always believed in close and cordial relations with that country, whatever her political system is, if that is in any way possible. But if I had to choose between being in disagreement with Russia and allowing the United Nations to die, I have no doubt at all which course I should take.
We in this country believe that it is only on a basis of justice and good faith and in a spirit of give and take that international peace can be preserved. Let us beware lest, in our anxiety to maintain the universality of the machine which has been set up for this purpose, we destroy the very foundation on which enduring peace can alone rest. It is a real danger. And let us beware lest this veto, which has been given, it now appears, I am afraid, mistakenly, to five great Powers actuated by different and in many cases fluctuating principles, should grow into a disease which will kill the whole organization. If that is true, that disease, that weakness, that cancer, should be cut out as soon as possible, whatever the risks. Let Russia come forward with the rest of the world on a basis of good faith and give and take and we shall all welcome her. But if she will not, I submit that the rest of the world must go on without her. The progress of the world to peace and to a basis on which peace can rest must not be held up by one nation, however great it may be. I recognize the delicacy of this question and know that the Government are trying to find an agreed solution to this thorny and complex problem. I do not want to press them for an answer to-day. I do not want to press them to say anything, if they do not want to say it. But I feel that I must express the views sincerely held by so many of us. If we once abandon the principles for which we stand we are as good as lost.
Finally, I come to the most interesting and in many ways the most surprising item in the gracious Speech—the proposal to amend the Parliament Act of 1911. That rather cryptic phrase presumably relates to the powers of your Lordships' House, not to the membership
28
of your Lordships' House, for it is with powers that the Parliament Act was alone concerned. It may, of course, mean that the Government have decided to increase the powers of your Lordships. But that, I fear, is improbable. We must therefore assume that it is the aim of the Government further to reduce them. It will be difficult for the ordinary man, now known as the common man, to understand why this proposal is being put forward exactly at this juncture. Our country, as we all know, is on the brink of an acute economic crisis which must involve, if means are not found of meeting it, a catastrophic fall in the standard of living of every man and woman in it. One would have thought that any responsible Government would devote the whole time of Parliament to measures for meeting that perilous situation. As I have tried to explain earlier, the main charge against them already is that they have diverted the attention of Parliament from the immediate needs of the country to ideological experiments in State ownership which could not possibly ameliorate the position and might easily make the general economic situation worse. But, at any rate, now that the crisis is definitely on us, it might have been expected that extraneous matters would have been excluded from the programme.
To choose this moment to introduce an extremely contentious measure, with no possible bearing on our present necessities, is surely the counsel of madness. It is not as if your Lordships' House by obstructive action has opposed, or even delayed, any measure which the Government have thought fit to bring in. We have passed all those on which the Government obtained a mandate at the General Election, although often we disliked them very much. It is true that we have found it necessary in a number of cases to introduce Amendments, to improve Bills and to make them more workable. But, after all, that is our function; that is our constitutional duty; and, if I may say so without blowing our own trumpet too much, I think we have performed it with skill and moderation. We have, at any rate, received the thanks of the Ministers concerned. When only a few weeks ago, just before Parliament rose for the Summer Recess, the Government asked for new and very far-reaching powers to deal with the economic position, your Lordships will remember

29
that this House gave them those powers without Amendment and without limitation.
What then is the reason (I would ask this of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and any other spokesman who is going to reply for the Government) for suddenly coming forward with these proposals, which are quite unnecessary, and which are liable to lead to a bitter constitutional struggle at the very moment when the Government themselves say national unity was never more necessary? I am going to hazard a guess. The only conclusion that I can come to is that it is the result of a rather shabby, shady, political deal. It is an open secret that there have been differences in the Cabinet on the question of the nationalization of iron and steel between some older and more statesmanlike members of the Government and a group of rather younger and more irresponsible Ministers. It seems that on this particular issue the older and more statesmanlike gained the day. But they had to give their pound of flesh, and the pound of flesh which the irresponsibles demanded was a further reduction in the powers of the Second Chamber. I believe that is the explanation, and it is for that reason that the present proposal is put forward. It is, if I may say so, a pretty disreputable procedure. That the whole of the proud and ancient fabric of this House should be cut about to consummate a dingy political deal is not something of which any member of the Labour Party can be very proud.
The excuse which has apparently been put forward in the Socialist Press (which I read on Sunday to my usual advantage) was that a mandate was given by the Preamble of the Parliament Act of 1911. I have looked at the Preamble which, curiously enough, is numbered thirteen in the Public General Acts of that year. I find it reads as follows:
"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation:
And whereas provision will require hereafter to be made by Parliament, in a measure effecting such substitution for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber, but it is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting the existing powers of the House of Lords:"
30
and so on. Your Lordships and the country will note that the purpose at that time (and this can be confirmed, I think, by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who was then a member of the Government, or by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who was his colleague at that time) was to create a Chamber on a popular and not a hereditary basis, and any provision to alter the powers of the Second Chamber was linked to that proposal and dependent on it.
Moreover, I think it is clear that the Preamble conferred of itself no mandate further to reduce the powers of the Second Chamber. The words used are "limit and define", which is an entirely different thing. It is evident that the power of any new Chamber could not be limitless or undefined. But what are to be those limits? There is no word of this in the Preamble. In any case, how can the Government claim, as a mandate, the Preamble of a Bill which was passed thirty-six years ago by a Government and Parliament of an entirely different character and complexion, and in entirely different circumstances? Or if, as I see the Daily Herald said this morning, the Government claim that a mandate is to be found in their Election programme, that is equally untrue, so far as I can see, if they will allow me to say so. There is only one sentence in this Election manifesto Let us Face the Future which deals with the House of Lords at all. This is what it says:
"We give clear notice that we wit not tolerate obstruction of the people's will by the House of Lords."
As I have explained earlier, there has in fact been no obstruction of the people's will by your Lordships' House. I challenge the Lord Chancellor to produce one single example of our having obstructed the policy of the Government.
This is borne out by a very generous remark made by the acting Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, on September 9 last. In the speech which he made on that occasion the noble Viscount said:
"I freely and gladly acknowledge, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that noble Lords opposite have hitherto used their majority here in a moderate and statesmanlike way, and in a manner which has given us on this side of the House no real or reasonable ground for complaint."

31
In reference to the word "hitherto," which no doubt the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will take up, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, went on to urge your Lordships not to press the Motion on the economic situation which had been put on the Paper. We did not press it; we withdrew it at once without any debate. That seems to demolish entirely the very specious argument which was put forward in the Daily Herald, and may be put forward in other quarters.
Let me quite unequivocally state that, in our view, the Government have no mandate for constitutional reform. It is clearly a matter for further reference to the electorate, and we are quite prepared to take the view of the electorate on it. If the proposition of the Government were merely that the membership of your Lordships' House should be reformed, I believe there to be very considerable sympathy with that view in the ranks of your Lordships. It is an illusion of supporters of the Government that Peers are hanging on desperately to their rights and privileges. There is no foundation at all for any such suggestion. The question of the reform of the membership of this House has been frequently discussed during the years before the war, and I can say—and I think the Lord Chancellor himself knows this—that such Conservative leaders as my father, who was a Leader of the House for many years, were always in favour of bringing new elements into this House and seeing a reform of the membership: and that, I think, would apply to the very great majority of the Conservative Peers on this side of the House. In any case, the position of present members of your Lordships' House is not an unmixed blessing; and this is a thing which should be said. They have to work very long hours, often at the expense of their own private duties. Moreover, we may proudly say that we are the only section of the community to-day who are not actuated by the profit motive. I should have thought that that ought to have endeared us to the Government.
My Lords, a sensible, practical scheme of reform of the membership of this House would, I believe, be welcomed by noble Lords in all parts of the House. But a mere reduction of powers—that is quite a different thing. Were the period of the veto to be further reduced—I do not know
32
if that is the proposal, but that is what it looks likely to be—that would mean in effect the introduction into this country of single-chamber government, with all the dangers involved. It is no good your Lordships or the country blinking this fact. It would remove the last protection of the British people against extreme action by a Government with a temporary majority. I am not throwing stones at the present Government. But we may have other Governments in the future, and that is the danger to which it lays the people of this country open. To single-chamber government I believe the vast majority of the British people are unalterably opposed. Yet no doubt that is exactly what men like the present Minister of Health want. He is quite ready—and I understand his point of view entirely—to postpone temporarily the nationalization of the iron and steel industry. If he can make the Second Chamber impotent, the way is open to nationalize iron or steel or take any more extreme measures he wants at any time he wants to take them. The next step of him and his friends will be to get rid of their present leaders and assume power themselves. I cannot understand why moderate men like those who occupy the Government Front Bench in your Lordships' House have agreed to this proposal. I should have thought they would have far sooner resigned. It is not a question of the prestige or authority of your Lordships' House which is at stake; it is a question of the welfare of the whole of these islands.
And what about the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House? He has been absent through all these vital discussions. He is still away from this country, and yet he is vitally concerned. Has he been consulted and has he agreed to this very important amendment of the Constitution? We have not yet seen the Bill. When it reaches your Lordships' House we shall, as always, consider it objectively. We do not want to pre-judge the issue; we want to see in black and white what the Government intend. But we shall not be deterred from doing what we conceive to be our duty by any threats, however horrific, or by any soap-box sneers by the Minister of Health or anybody else. I can only say that I bitterly regret—as I think we all do on this side of the House—that the Government have introduced this new element of discord at this

33
particular juncture. I believe that history will find it hard to forgive them.
And now I come to the last thing that I want to say, for I am afraid I have kept your Lordships far too long already. I suppose that in saying what I have this afternoon I shall be accused in certain quarters of not showing the Dunkirk spirit and of rocking the boat. But we are facing—and we all know it—a desperate emergency in this country, an emergency social, economic and political. Are we really to be told that if the boat is approaching the rapids, while some of the crew are engaged in scuttling the vessel and the rest in admiring the distant view, the passengers are to sit quiet in respectful and appreciative silence? One of the most alarming features of the present time is the growing intolerance of members and supporters of the Government to any form of criticism. That is the road to dictatorship. I noticed a speech the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in which he said that unless Mr. Churchill ceased attacking the leaders of the Government he ought to have his cigars cut off, as a man has his licence removed when he drives to the public danger. I thought that over very carefully and I have come to the conclusion that it was a joke.
LORD CHORLEY: It was.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But it is a very slight exaggeration of what is said quite seriously by a great many of the noble Lord's colleagues. I do beg them to remember Hitler, who reached a point where he really believed that everything became morally right by the very fact that he did it. The attitude of mind of some members of the Government is not so very far removed from that. We in the Opposition sincerely wish to help the country out of its present mess, but the only method open to us is to point out what we believe to have been done wrongly and to suggest alternatives which we think would make things better. That, after all, is the very essence of free institutions.
As I think I said on exactly the same occasion last year, if the Government were willing to adopt a policy—if only to see us through this present emergency—which all Parties can honestly support, they would automatically create that unity of spirit for which they themselves
34
ask. The Dunkirk spirit would become automatically an accomplished fact. But to expect national unity for a sectional and violently controversial policy is crying for the moon. I believe national policy is still possible, as it was in the war. I beg the Government to set their minds to that instead of the sort of proposals which find their place in the gracious Speech this year: not a Conservative policy, not a Liberal policy, but a National policy. Then they will soon get a response from the other Parties of this country. Let us concentrate first in getting this country on its feet. I believe, if we do that, we shall soon regain our position in the world and the future will be brighter than it has ever been. I do not ask the Government to abandon their principles. I do ask them to show just a little common sense. On that simple quality it may well be that the future and prosperity of our people will depend.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I do not propose to emulate the noble Marquess who has just spoken in making a survey of the whole situation, but rather to speak with brevity and to concentrate mainly on the new proposals which so surprisingly find a place in the gracious Speech to-day. The survey the noble Marquess made was on the lines customary in this House on similar occasions, but the ground is so wide that I think I had better leave to other colleagues on these Benches on other occasions the task of covering the greater part of it.
First, I must join the noble Marquess in congratulating the proposer and seconder of the Address to the King for the gracious Speech from the Throne. The noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, has already made speeches in this House, on two occasions in particular, which have deeply impressed noble Lords in all quarters, and indeed on both those occasions have greatly influenced opinion. To-day he has spoken with that moderation, good sense and statesmanship which this House highly appreciates, and his speech has increased a reputation already high. The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, we are always delighted to hear. We were a little afraid that the solemnity of this occasion might deprive us of the breezy gusto to which we were accustomed from him; but, fortunately, "Cheerfulness kept on breaking in." He has always

35
that sound judgment combined with humour, that frankness with tact, which are so welcome here. He has been accustomed to complain of the low output per man in the laying of bricks; but he does not himself follow the example of some of his leaders in the Cabinet in displaying a high output per man in dropping them! Both these speeches show how much the country gains by the fact that in the membership of both Houses of Parliament the nation is able to make use of the talent that is widespread among all parts of the community.
While speaking on personal matters, I would refer to an announcement which has lately been made, that Lord Beaver-brook has retired from public life in this country and proposes to make his home on the other side of the Atlantic, and that we are likely to see him here in the future rarely, or not at all. One of his own newspapers announced this a few days ago, observing that in praising the spirit of the British people Lord Beaverbrook had said, "The further I get away from them the more my admiration grows." I feel sure that that observation was kindly meant, and in that spirit perhaps I may say that I have no doubt that the sentiment will be mutual. But, seriously, we shall none of us forget the inestimable service which Lord Beaverbrook rendered to this country, to the Commonwealth and to the world, as Minister of Aircraft Production in 1940, in the moment of our greatest peril. It was then his finest hour, as well as the nation's. And perhaps, as I have on several occasions been the object of his sometimes sardonic animadversions in debate in this House, I may be allowed to be the spokesman of what I am sure will be the general feeling of your Lordships in offering to Lord Beaverbrook a friendly valediction.
As to the gracious Speech itself, it contains two surprises. At the very head of the list is mentioned a measure which is to to be proposed in the Session which is now opening. The paragraph is: "Legislation will be introduced to amend the Parliament Act of 1911." Further down the list we are promised a reform of the franchise and of electoral procedure. What these measures mean we do not know. Our curiosity has been whetted but has not been satisfied. I listened with close attention to the speeches of the proposer and seconder
36
to discover what they would say upon these very important and novel proposals, but I found that the subject was shrouded in complete silence. It may be that they did not know. It may even be that the Cabinet themselves do not know and have not yet made up their minds just what they will propose. But I would express the desire—I will not say the hope—that the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will give us some information on these points to-day. A Government reply on these points would give pabulum for the speeches of noble Lords who take part in to-morrow's debate that is entirely lacking for those of us speaking to-day.
There are two members still attending your Lordships' House who were members of the Cabinet of Mr. Asquith when the Parliament Act was passed; and there was a third, very much in the forefront of the fight at that time, who is still a Member of Parliament, though not of this House, but whom probably noble Lords on the Conservative side of the gangway will not expect to take the same active part in a similar fight at the present time—namely, Mr. Winston Churchill. The Preamble of the Act I was about to quote in extenso to-day, for the same purpose as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, but as he has done so it is obviously unnecessary. As he said, there are two questions which at that time of the passing of the Act commanded, and still at this time command, the attention of those who are interested—the constitution of this House and its powers. As he has already observed, almost everyone agrees that the right of hereditary succession which now constitutes the title of the great majority of the Members of your Lordships' House to a seat in this Chamber is in itself alone very difficult to defend, and there would be a general desire for a reform. Unfortunately, there has never been, and I think there is not now, any wide measure of agreement as to what shape that reform should take.
Mr. Asquith said, in 1911, that this question of substituting for the House of Lords as it was a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis was a matter that brooked no delay. Thirty-six years have gone by since then and there has been a good deal of "brooking", but there is still no agreement. From indications that have been given from quarters which have

37
proved in this matter to be accurate so far, we may be allowed to suppose that it is not the constitution of this House (about which there is general agreement that reform should be undertaken at some time that is suitable and expedient) that is engaging the attention of the Government, but rather Section 2 of the Parliament Act. This section states that a Bill which has passed the House of Commons in three successive Sessions over a period of two years, dating from the Second Reading in the House of Commons on the first occasion to its passage in the House of Commons on the third, may become law (except in the case of a Bill for extending the life of a Parliament) without the assent of your Lordships' House. The period of two years is a very important constituent of that Statute. The whole of the clauses were considered with the utmost care and consideration. The principle of the Bill had been the subject of two General Elections specifically fought upon that issue, each of them returning a majority to the House of Commons of over 100 in favour of the policy in the Bill—the passage of which would have been assured, if necessary, as your Lordships know, by the creation of Peers sufficient in number to ensure a majority here if this House had rejected it. The assent of the Crown to such creation was only given, of course, after the nation had expressed its clear opinion on those two occasions. Any attempt to amend that section could not be expected to be accepted without some similar authority to that on which the original section was based, unless it were of such a completely unobjectionable character that it would not cause serious constitutional difficulty.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has given a reason which may perhaps have animated the Cabinet in inserting this paragraph in the King's Speech. He suggested that the postponement of the iron and steel nationalization Bill is to be countered by the advancing of the question of the House of Lords in order to satisfy at the same time two groups in the Cabinet holding different views. Maybe that is so; I have no notion whether that is the reason or not. But for my own part—also without any foundation on any private information—I seem to detect the first faint whiff of the atmosphere of the next General Election. Is it not possible that the Government may think that perhaps the economic
38
circumstances may get not better but worse, and, if unemployment becomes heavy and increasing, supplies scarcer, prices rising and the pound falling, that it would be very desirable to have something else to talk about in the constituencies? Thereupon they would, not unnaturally, turn to an endeavour to emulate the policy of Mr. Lloyd George and to conduct an electioneering campaign with a cry of "Down with the Lords!"
But in those days that was a real issue, not a purely artificial one. Our predecessors in that former generation had deliberately thrown out, year after year, many of the principal measures of the Government which that Government had been returned to office to promote. It culminated in taking the unprecedented course of rejecting on Second Reading the Finance Bill of the year, a Finance Bill which embodied in itself a whole social policy. But is the issue to-day in any degree so comparable that it would necessitate giving the first place in the year's programme of legislation to a Bill dealing with the Parliament Act of 1911? We await further elucidation of the matter before we put forward our considered opinion and declare the course that we shall take. Until then everything must be hypothetical. When we get the facts before us, then we shall speak with a full sense of responsibility.
The second matter which affords us some surprise but does not arouse anything like the same constitutional questions is the mention of electoral procedure and the franchise. I should be greatly interested to know whether that means a reform in our system of voting. Does it mean some change in our present over-simple system of a cross against a single name, which does not fit the political circumstances of the present time? Mr. Winston Churchill in a recent speech referred to the swollen majority of the Government in the House of Commons which was installed in office on an electoral system which to-day (these are his words) "is largely obsolete." If the Conservative Party regard this system as largely obsolete, then what measures are they proposing to take to bring it up to date?
We have now, after the last General Election of 1945, a Government in power which, on the votes cast, is in a minority, an actual minority, in the constituencies,

39
but which nevertheless has a two to one majority in the House of Commons. That Mr. Churchill condemns. I do not recall—I may have omitted to notice it—any occasion when the Conservative Party condemned it after the General Election of 1935—the previous General Election, when the Conservative Party, with just a little more than half the votes of the electorate, also had a two to one majority over all others in the House of Commons. What we of the Liberal Party have been declaring for many years past is that our system of election should be reformed in order that each voter might vote for the candidate whom he really desires to see elected, without any question coming in of splitting the anti-Socialist vote, or splitting the Progressive vote. Let the people vote for whom they like, free from all such circumstances, under the system of the single transferable vote or the alternative vote, and then let Parliament reflect the wishes of the people as so declared. Only then shall we have a truly democratic Constitution.
There is one other matter, and one other only, on this constitutional question, quite separate from those upon which I have already been speaking, to which I should like to refer. An important step has been taken during the Recess which is an example of gradual and almost imperceptible change in our Constitution such as frequently has happened in our past history; there have been changes which afterwards are seen to have been following an important, although hardly recognized, principle. In the debate in your Lordships' House in August, I ventured briefly to say that our economic difficulties were partly due to the fact that the structure of our Government is wrong and inadequate to cope with the enormous range of subjects at home and abroad, economic and political, with which the Cabinet now have to deal. I suggested that the structure of the Cabinet should be changed, and that I further elaborated in an article which some of your Lordships may have seen in The Times of a month ago, in which I put forward concrete though tentative proposals. Mr. Amery and others have written in much the same sense and have proposed various schemes.
It is essential that the Cabinet should have time to think and time to plan. Many people urge that there should be con-
40
stituted a Planning Board to deal with these economic problems. The Cabinet itself should be the Planning Board and can be the only adequate Planning Board. I suggested in my scheme that the Cabinet ought to consist of ten members, most of whom should have no departmental duties. I suggested five groups of departments, each of which should have one of the senior members of the Cabinet as its Chairman who should represent it in this smaller Cabinet. Of those five groups three have been almost unostensibly and almost accidentally created. Not long ago, the three Service Ministers were excluded from the Cabinet, and a Minister without departmental duties, the Minister of Defence, was brought into it. Recently, Sir Stafford Cripps has been appointed to a new office, that of Minister of Economic Affairs, and he will preside over a number of departmental Ministers dealing with various aspects of economics. The Foreign Secretary has been enabled to devolve a large part of his heavy burden of departmental work upon two Ministers who are not in the Cabinet, but who are of Cabinet rank—the Minister of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy. He will be presiding over what is in effect a Sub-Cabinet dealing with external affairs. When some fresh Government is formed, it will be possible to bring the scheme into existence as a comprehensive whole. It is very interesting to see that we have already gone some way under the pressure of the actual needs of the case, but only half-way towards the constitution of these Sub-Cabinets under the chairmanship of several non-departmental Ministers. The smaller Cabinet was recommended thirty years ago by the Haldane Committee and, as it usually takes about thirty years for any obviously necessary reform to be adopted in this country, it is now about ripe for completion.
Of the other measures in the long list in the gracious Speech I shall refer to none in detail, but I will only say that I rejoice to find that the Criminal Justice Bill, which was first drafted by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, when he was Sir Samuel Hoare, is to be introduced during this Session of Parliament. That is a Bill generally desired by enlightened opinion. The Care of Children Bill, in regard to children who are deprived of normal home life, is also, we are glad to see, to be included in this Session of Parliament. That is the Bill which is

41
founded upon the invaluable Curtis Report, which has been debated in your Lordships' House, and I am sure your Lordships will be very ready to pass that Bill when it comes to our attention. Then there is the Bill dealing with the national status of married women. British women are subject to the loss of nationality if they marry foreigners, and, on the other hand, foreign women automatically acquire British nationality if they marry British subjects. These matters have given rise to a grievance very deeply felt. The case has long been recognized as overwhelming. For my own part, it is many years since, in Parliament after Parliament, I have advocated this measure, and I am glad to see that it is before Parliament this year. I hope that no circumstance will lead to its miscarriage.
I am exceedingly glad to notice that one Bill is not included, and that is the Bill for the nationalization of iron and steel. The gracious Speech makes no reference to it. Last year, in the Debate on the Address, I urged that such a Bill ought not to be introduced until the Government were able to show a case establishing the merits of nationalization in this particular instance. The present Government have repeatedly declared that they are not seeking simultaneously to nationalize everything for the sake of nationalization. They have said they recognize that the duty of the burden of proof lies upon them, and that it is for them to show in each case that this course is the right one to take. The Government must not expect Parliament to pass a measure of this character until there has been very careful study of the whole subject and until we have been enabled, through material presented to us, to form a considered judgment on the merits of the particular case—as I would suggest, by an impartial inquiry. I would suggest that, as the Government say they are not going to introduce this Bill during this Session but during the latter part of the present Parliament, they might use the interval in an impartial inquiry into the whole matter, so that Parliament may be fully seized of all the facts of the case, and may be made aware of any defects which it is thought require remedy, and also of such valuable elements which it is desirable to preserve. So far there is no reason whatsoever to say that this industry is one in any degree suitable for national ownership.
42
With regard to the other matters I do not propose to say much. On world affairs all that can be said is that it is a great disappointment that the situation is, in almost every direction, in no way improved as against what it was several months ago. As we all know, the Government are not mainly to blame for that. The chief cause is the non-co-operation of Russia, which exposes to so much danger both Russia herself and us all. However, this is not the time to discuss that matter. The question of the strength of the Forces and the national defences is to be debated in your Lordships' House next week; and, similarly, the economic situation in a two days' debate. There I do not think it is possible to acquit His Majesty's Government of many examples of mismanagement and of avoidable failure in the economic sphere. It is true that the adverse forces have been strong and are still operative, and Sir Stafford Cripps, who is bringing fresh zeal and energy into the handling of the situation, seems to me, for all his efforts, up to the present to be making very little progress. It seems rather like the case of a man in an underground railway station who has got on to the wrong escalator, and who finds himself continually going down when he wants to go up and whose utmost efforts only succeed in keeping him where he is.
The most cheerful thing we can say of the conditions of to-day, about which we are so dissatisfied, is that when they come next year to be compared with those that will be prevailing then, our present conditions may be seen in retrospect to have been much better than we think them now.
4.55 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I should like to begin by associating myself with the congratulations which have been offered to the two noble Lords who opened this debate. I think that any stranger coming in here, and unaware of the various ways in which the different Parties sit, would have found it difficult to gather from the greater part of their speeches to which Party they belong. I think their speeches were an illustration of that national unity which I feel is so essential at the present time. I think that everyone in this House is fully aware of the gravity of the crisis into which we have now entered, but I am not sure if the gravity is generally realized

43
outside. I believe there are large numbers of the general public who believe that we have encountered a sudden squall which will quickly pass away, and have not realized that in front of us we have months, and possibly years, of stormy and difficult weather, and that we shall not avoid shipwreck unless there is shown great courage, great statesmanship and great unity.
I believe myself that there are three model qualities which are absolutely essential if the nation is to survive this crisis. First, there must be honest hard work on the part of every individual and of every class in the community. There must also be unselfishness—and I am thinking not merely of the unselfishness of individuals but of the unselfishness of classes and of various interests and industries. There must also be unity. Nothwithstanding what was said by the noble Viscount opposite, I want to spend a few minutes in stressing this need for national unity. Let me disarm criticism from the Benches in front of me by saying at once that there could be nothing more unfair than to appeal to one section, to one Party alone, to abstain from controversial matter and from criticism. I feel that it is deplorable and humiliating that we are entering upon one of the greatest crises this nation has ever had to encounter as a people divided, criticizing one another. The Government should have full credit for the way in which they have succeeded in reaching agreement with the unions. I think that is a remarkable achievement. I hope they have been equally successful in reaching agreement with those who manage the various industries, and I hope also that they will fully recognize that it is one thing to reach agreement with the unions and their representatives in London, and quite another to reach agreement with the various industries in different parts of the country. They look upon the questions involved very largely as local, and they are not prepared to accept orders given from above without careful local explanation and discussion.
I am mainly concerned about the political disunion which we find in the country to-day. It is very difficult to hear or to read any speech without the first part of it, at any rate, being devoted either to attacking the other Party or to a statement in self-defence. And while the leaders of the different Parties almost
44
invariably show a great deal of restraint, and speak with a sense of responsibility, the same restraint and the same sense of responsibility are not always found in the constituencies. In the constituencies, at the present time, there is being waged a controversy, a political Party controversy, with the kind of bitterness which might be found immediately before a General Election. Here I am bound to say something about the pamphlet (I have not yet read it myself, but I have seen extracts from it) issued by the Central Labour Party, I believe, and called, I understand, The A.B.C. of the Crisis. That pamphlet has in it a statement to the effect that the Opposition are trying to drive the people into starvation. That kind of statement is disgraceful in itself, and is calculated to create intense bitterness between the various Parties. I hope that I have quoted the pamphlet accurately. As I say, I have not read it myself, but I have read about it in The Times.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I have no recollection of seeing any such bald and bare statement in the print referred to when I went through it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I hope that I have not been mistaken in what I have said, but I think it is correct that The Times stated that The A.B.C. of the Crisis says that the Opposition wish to drive the workers to the point of starvation to create unemployment. I am certain that that is a statement of which no one on these Benches would approve, and I hope very much indeed that responsible members of the Government will see that a statement of that kind is withdrawn. It is bound to embitter feeling up and down the country. I must add that I could quote things emanating from the other side. I could quote bitter and unfair statements made by various speakers up and down the country against the present Government. This disunion is doing great harm. It is doing harm to the nation. The nation will not easily realize the gravity of the crisis if it finds debating points in the speeches of the various leaders. It will believe that this is again the old battle between Tweedledum and Tweedledee and that neither is going to be very much worse off in the end. It must be bad, I think, for our leaders to have to spend valuable time on these controversial issues instead of on those matters which really are of

45
first-class interest. Moreover, it does harm to the reputation of our nation abroad. I heard a broadcast the other day by a speaker who has recently, I think, been in America. He said that our speakers do not always realize how the bitter remarks which they make are exaggerated and misunderstood abroad. I myself have seen letters written by well-wishers of ours in the Dominions expressing their wonder as to whether we shall be able to survive the crisis in view of the divisions in our own ranks.
I am not, for one moment, asking that there should be a Coalition Government. I know that that is entirely out of the question. I know that the present Government, with their vast majority, would not for a moment think of forming a Coalition Government. I am perfectly certain, too, that the last thing that the Opposition want to do is to enter into a Coalition Government. I am also certain that members of the Government are conscientiously convinced that their Government will alone enable the nation to survive the crisis, and I am sure that the Opposition are equally conscientiously convinced that the crisis will not be solved satisfactorily while the present Government are in office. But is there not a middle way? We have managed to keep foreign politics out of Party controversy. We have a very fine and noble tradition in that respect. Would it not be possible to take some of these questions dealing with this economic crisis entirely out of the ordinary run of Party controversy. It would, I know, be a counsel of perfection to suggest that all controversy should cease. I am not asking for that. So long as there is an Opposition there must be criticism, and so long as there is a Government the Government must defend their position. But surely there must be some way in which the various Parties could reach agreement on the main remedies which are required in the present crisis? It would be strengthening the Government for one thing. Later on, the Government may have to make decisions which may be extremely unpopular, decisions which are absolutely essential for the economic safety of the country. The Government may hesitate to make those necessary decisions if they know they will be at once exposed to the fire of Party criticism. On the other hand, there are a large number of members of the Opposition who are anxious to take their part in
46
endeavouring to solve the problems of this crisis. There are men who have had first-class experience of business administration, and who ought to be able to make their full contribution to the nation at this time.
Therefore, I venture to suggest that the Prime Minister should ask representatives of the other Parties to confer with some of the members of his Party, to see if they cannot find common ground upon which they could meet. I know that round-table conferences have often failed in the past. But even if this round-table conference failed it would not make the position worse than it is at the present time. And it might succeed in the formulation of a united policy on the most serious matters connected with the economic crisis. I can see that there are all kinds of difficulties. The matter has not been made easier by the Government proposing to introduce a Bill amending the Parliament Act. That may mean bitter controversy up and clown the country. There are all kinds of difficulties of which a non-Party person like myself is probably totally unaware. Yet I feel that it is well worth while seeing if common agreement cannot be reached upon some of the main remedies required for the nation in this time of grave crisis. If such an agreement were reached it would hearten the nation, and it would enable our friends in other countries to see that the nation is facing this crisis with unity and courage. We should be able to look forward to the day when the nation would come out from this crisis able once again to make its full contribution to the prosperity and peace and freedom of the world.
5.9 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I welcome and most heartily endorse everything that the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, has just said about national unity, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for a very few minutes, since by our standards this is a comparatively late hour, if as a member, myself, of no Party I plead a cause which is not at all popular with politicians but which possesses, I believe, an immense, inarticulate backing in the country. If the citizens of this country could wake up one fine morning and read in their newspapers the news that all the three great political Parties had consented, as the most Reverend Primate has suggested, to drop their differences

47
for the moment, and to pool their resources in a combined effort to extricate the nation from the morass into which it is sinking. I believe that something like eight out of ten of them would welcome the news with much of that elation and much of that prescient sense of coming deliverance which electrified the nation on the morrow of the victory of El Alamein.
Every great crisis in our recent history, in 1916 and 1940, has been surmounted by national unity. Without it, we could not have survived. And if any member of your Lordships' House supposes for a moment that our dangers to-day are less than they were in 1940, then I am afraid he has yet to learn the A.B.C. of the present crisis. The Press, of course, has little to say in favour of national unity just now. It seems to have written that off as for the moment no longer practical politics. But what the Press constantly does demand is just that kind and quality of action which is unobtainable without national unity. Take an example almost at random. That Left Wing journal, the New Statesman, this week writes that our chance of pulling through depends "absolutely on the skill with which the Government succeeds in mobilising popular good will and sense of personal responsibility"; and much that was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in the closing passages of his speech meant little more than just that; an appeal for a sense of national unity.
But the nation-wide good will for which we are always getting these appeals is unobtainable so long as many utterances, both by the Government and by the Opposition—and I am thinking of utterances outside your Lordships' House, where a decent courtesy is preserved by Ministers and Opposition spokesmen—seem expressly designed to prolong and accentuate our disunity. Of course, one has to recognize, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop obviously recognized, that Party warfare is formidably entrenched in every Party. From the Ministers and ex-Ministers down through members and candidates to the local chairmen and committee members, there is something like a nation-wide vested interest in Party warfare, and tens of thousands of sensible and respectable citizens are genuinely persuaded that the opposing Party is something like a personal em-
48
bodiment of evil. But behind the formidably entrenched partisans, let us try to remember that there waits the often addressed but seldom heard nation, who are now often disposed to ejaculate, "A plague o' both your houses!"
Of course, an alliance for the duration of the crisis, which the most reverend Primate has rightly said might well be a very long affair, would mean real sacrifices to all three of the historic Parties. The Labour Party, or at any rate a powerful section of the Labour Party, is still passionately convinced that this is the destined moment for the socialization of our economic structure, and of course the Labour Government has in its hands the magnificent instrument of an unprecedented majority.
It is not for an outsider to comment on the views of Socialist members, but I cannot help remembering that quite a lot of Socialist textbooks used to say that a collapsing market was the very worst possible setting in which to embark on a Socialist revolution. As to the unprecedented majority, well, the Liberals in 1916 and the Conservatives in 1940 had very effective majorities which they were doubtless reluctant to sacrifice, and any move towards unity would mean it was Labour's turn to make a sacrifice which was made in the past by both the great Parties before. On the other hand, the Conservative Party must often feel, one suspects, a half-reluctant pleasure at the spectacle of opponents who have committed themselves to apocalyptic prophecies floundering in this formidable morass. They may even sometimes be tempted to calculate that there is everything to be gained, in the Party sense, by holding aloof, at any rate for a considerable while longer. The Labour Party might have been conscious of much that sort of temptation in 1940. They resisted it and made a sacrifice characteristic of the Opposition in the cause of national unity, and it is the turn of the Conservative Party to do what was done by the Labour Party in 1940.
However we may gloze over it, the fundamental fact remains that without some greater measure of national unity, we cannot expect a national effort. The class and Party bias of much that has been said by certain Ministers is one of many causes, but still a prime cause, of our failure to bring out our full national

49
strength, and if it be said, as it can very well be said, that it is largely provoked and excused by the class and Party bias of much that has been said and written by Opposition critics, that is only one more argument for national unity.
I was very much struck the other day by some comments made by a Canadian friend of mine who has just revisited this country after several years' absence. She told me she had been staying with some very respectable elderly maiden Scottish cousins, the sort of people who in 1940 would rather have frozen to death than break one jot or tittle of the regulations with regard to fuel or food. She was astounded to see these respectable old ladies turn on the electric stove at forbidden hours, and when she spoke about it they said, "We don't give a tinker's cuss for Shinwell." Of course, they were gravely to blame. Their conduct was not even to be excused by the Party spirit of those occasions when some Minister of the Crown, instead of addressing an exhortation to the nation, which, God knows, needs encouragement and exhortation just now, prefers to deliver some irritable and rather pedantic Socialist lecture, or even go out of his way to insult and traduce the great middle class which only two years ago he and his colleagues were so passionately wooing. But that Scottish family is typical to-day of millions of all classes and Parties who are not putting forth anything like the effort which they might be devoting to overcoming the national crisis, primarily because the Government and the Opposition between them have not succeeded in treating this crisis as the no more formidable crisis of 1940 was treated.
Some sort of national unity is required and I myself would like to see nothing less than a National Government. At best or at worst some step such as the most reverend Primate has mentioned should be taken towards national unity. This would mean two things. It would mean, first, that, with the possible exception of a few crypto-Communists and fellow travellers, there would be no Opposition inevitably committed to painting the darkest imaginable picture of our present plight—and I fully sympathize with the complaints of some Government spokesmen at the effect which such criticisms have overseas. On the other hand, it would mean that the short-term remedies,
50
which are all that matter at the moment, would not be tainted, and therefore largely rendered ineffectual, by the class or Party bias of much of present Ministerial legislation. Above all, a National Government would mean a national effort. That is the long and short of the crisis: that we need national unity because we need a national effort, and we cannot get a national effort, it seems, without national unity. Sooner or later, I profoundly believe, it is bound to come. Sooner rather than later an hour will strike so sombre that we shall be compelled to unite. Every day by which we anticipate that dark moment will spare the nation unnecessary suffering.
5.21 p.m.
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, it is with very great diffidence that at this hour I venture to intervene in this debate, for neither my speech nor, as your Lordships may think, my subject rises to the level of the high debate which we have heard this afternoon. Indeed, I would not have spoken but for the request of my noble friend Lord Rushcliffe, who is unfortunately, owing to domestic bereavement, unable to be hero. I am not calling attention to anything which is in but to something which is not in His Majesty's most gracious Speech; something which all those who are interested in the administration of the law have ardently desired for some years now. I mean the fulfilment of the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Report. It was published two years and six months ago; it received a cordial welcome, and we had ardently hoped that it would have received notice in His Majesty's most gracious Speech. I see at the end of His Majesty's most gracious Speech a ray of hope in that we are told that if time permits other measures may be brought before Parliament.
I want to say only one thing about the Rushcliffe Report. Time will not permit a long delay before effect is given to its provisions, or something like them. When the war came to an end all the workers who were looking after legal aid and advice in the Army were going to be scattered, but emergency arrangements were made to tide over the period until the Rushcliffe plan could come into operation. Those emergency measures cannot subsist for long. They were devised merely to fill a gap, and not to have even a shadow of permanence. I do not want

51
to go on talking about the plan; I certainly do not want to talk about the merits of it. As I understand the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is going to reply in this debate, I want only to ask him to give a word of encouragement and hope to those who wish the plan to be put into operation. I believe that means all who have studied it.
5.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, it is only with some hesitation that I venture to rise to make a few observations. I think all the speeches to which your Lordships have listened, from the two notable speeches of the mover and seconder to all those who have followed them, show to what extent the deliberations of your Lordships' House both now and in the forthcoming Session are bound to be overshadowed by the conditions in which this new Session opens. On the general economic situation there will no doubt be an early opportunity of fuller debate, but meanwhile I think it is impossible to refrain from some general reference to it. The situation is, of course, plainly very grave, involving as it must appear to the layman our capacity to achieve our own recovery, to assist others to achieve their recovery, and, in short, to maintain our position as a World Power.
I think the redeeming feature of grave situations, as a rule, is that they are usually very clear. As we saw in the war, there is substantial unanimity as to what ought to be done, and everybody sets about and does it. That is all very good. In the situation in which we find ourselves to-day, although thinking people of all Parties no doubt desire to contribute to the national effort, the ordinary man outside—and here I have considerable sympathy with what was said by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York—does not see the outward signs of the same concentration of purpose as he saw, and indeed was very proud to share in, during the war. Of course, he apportions the blame for that according to his political sympathies. The supporters of the Government blame the Opposition for, as they put it, generating an atmosphere of Party strife when, in their view, all citizens ought to be giving all support to the Government, whatever their Party colour, in
52
the intolerable burden that they have to bear.
To Conservatives, and I think many others, it often seems that His Majesty's Government are at least as much concerned with demonstrating their loyalty to the letter of full Socialist doctrine, irrespective of any immediate good results, as they are with pulling the country out of the mess. The announcement which your Lordships have heard in His Majesty's most gracious Speech concerning the Parliament Act seems to me hardly to be explained on any other ground. It almost looks as if my noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition, may have proferred in his speech the right explanation. My own thought had been that it partook somewhat perhaps of the nature of the laying of a smokescreen of evil odour that was designed to conceal at a later date something else from the inquisitive eyes of the British public. It will surely be incredible to the ordinary onlooker, as my noble friend said, that they should choose this moment of all others, when appeals are being made for unity by members of His Majesty's Government, in which to throw that monkey wrench into the works. In those circumstances, it will not be surprising to find, not only on the Conservative side, a growing feeling that a Government who are prepared to spend time and to dissipate energy upon activities that can have no relevance to the immediate problem are not in fact the best custodians of our fortunes at this time. I am bound to add this, that even before this last injection of what seems to me pure partisan temper, the impartial observer might be excused for thinking that the Government were really not making co-operation very easy when they allowed the publication of the sort of pamphlets to which the most reverend Primate referred in his speech.
Is it also unfair to say that part of our present troubles is due to the different tones in which spokesmen of His Majesty's Government have in the past spoken? Sometimes they have been grave, but sometimes they have been almost gay, and repudiated the idea that we were locked in a life and death struggle for our national existence. I happened to see a speech a few weeks ago by the honourable Member for Merthyr in which, if correctly reported, he said this:
"These oceans of print about the crisis is the biggest joke in Merthyr for years."

53
I do not know what importance he has, but the fact that he should say it at all seemed to be of interest. He may be a person of no great importance—I do not know—but that a Member of Parliament, a spokesman for the Government, should be talking that sort of stuff at this time seems to me almost incredibly shocking.
I apologize for saying so much, but there does seem to be a terrible lot for Sir Stafford Cripps to catch up, and I am afraid that homilies to miners and homilies to industrial workers have to penetrate thick layers of prejudice and bad economics that have been spread by years and years and years of Socialist propaganda and bad economics. While I am sure that is true, there must be those on both sides who are becoming increasingly anxious and concerned. Will Sir Stafford Cripps be able to reach his targets? I presume that is going to be very difficult in a world in which the purchasing power is largely limited and in which the competition of sellers is likely to become more and more intense. Even if he does, I presume that will only affect part of our problem. What happens if he does not? Quite clearly we cannot afford—and we should not wish it—to be permanent pensioners of the United States, however friendly may be our mutual relations and our dispositions. The only alternative that I can see—and I would be very happy to be shown another—if we cannot work our passage on the kind of standard of national life that we want, will be to make it with some lower standard, not what we want but what we can. Should that ever become necessary, it is not difficult to predict what may be the civil and social trouble through which you may reach it.
That being the background, it is not at all surprising to me that such thoughtful citizens for whom the most reverend Primate and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, may speak should be searching round for means of pooling the best brains and the widest experience and best counsel in our present need. On that they think—and may very rightly think—depends the answer to the question whether we are going to sink or swim over the next two or three years. As it becomes more and more to be realized by hard experience what a grim struggle we are in for, I fancy that the country will surely condemn any appearance of an attempt to set Party fortunes before national needs.
54
I should suppose that no one could find any serious difference with that. What then can be done? I am bound to say that I think it is infinitely more difficult to make any suggestion now than it was twenty-four hours ago. Like the noble Lord opposite, perhaps many would advocate or have advocated the recreation of a National Government in which all Parties might give their best. I do not believe—and here I agree with the most reverend Primate—that to be possible, and I do not believe that, past history and present circumstances being what they are, it is probably desirable.
But does that exhaust the possibilities of finding some means of co-operation closer than at present? The British are accustomed to pride themselves on having a certain fertile genius for expedients of government. I can conceive that it is not impossible, just as during the war you invented a system of having Ministers of State to handle problems that were larger than or did not fit into departmental responsibility, to apply that with a rather different implication by means of what you might perhaps call a Council of State, in which men of different Parties might sit and pool their wisdom and experience. Those who wish might pray in aid the analogy of the Committee of Imperial Defence, to which men of other Parties may be summoned at the option of the Prime Minister to deal with grave issues. Under any such system, of course, the Government would have to retain their responsibility to Parliament, and the Opposition must equally retain the right to criticize. But some such procedure might seem to hold a possibility of considerable advantage. It would surely not be of negligible value to the Government to be able to draw on the wisdom of other Parties, to explain their difficulties and their methods of dealing with them much more fully than they ever could in Parliament. It would not, perhaps, be without some advantage to the Opposition to be able to mould Government policy before it was finally set, and to have their opportunity of discussion before decisions were finally made.
Last, but by no means least, it would be, of course, an immense advantage—as I think the most reverend Primate said—to the country to receive a large measure of agreed direction, and not feel either that superfluous energy was running

55
into Party politics or that there was division of advice and counsel as to what it ought to do. Although it is quite easy to say all that sort of thing, do not let anybody under-estimate the difficulty that would be inherent in any such proposal. Of course it would be difficult. It would involve great need of restraint on both sides. It would involve the need for His Majesty's Government to restrain the desires, either of themselves or of their Party, to pursue policies, however congenial those might be to the Party, which had No 1mmediate contribution to make to the immediate necessity.
I do not think there was any passage in the speech of my noble friend Lord Salisbury which struck me more than the passage at the end when he said that if the Government were able to leave on one side issues that were not contributing to the immediate necessity, without abandonment of any of their principles, it would, I think his phrase was, "recreate the Dunkirk spirit overnight." That is a contribution that it is in the power, should they choose to do it, of the Government to make. The Opposition, on the other side, supposing any such effort were made, would of course have to work under a kind of gentleman's agreement or gentleman's understanding in regard to confidential information of which, in such meetings as they might have, they would have been the recipients. Those of course are real difficulties, and no one need tell me what fruitful soil would be cultivated there for possible future reproaches. Yet I am led to the conviction, as every one of your Lordships, I doubt not, is too, that the need, on the other side, also is very great indeed. I cannot believe that these difficulties or any others are insuperable if at this time of crisis there was a determination on all sides to put first things first and keep them there.
One other consideration, and I have done. I suppose that the broad impression of our present political situation must be as confusing to much political opinion in America as much that is going on in America, I fancy, is confusing to us. I have little doubt, however, that the judgment of the average member of Congress—I am not speaking of the Administration but of the average member of Congress—is going to be greatly affected in the future by the degree of unanimity which is exhibited by the
56
people of this country. Much as in the war, one of the most powerful things—perhaps some would say the most powerful thing—in restoring the faith in Britain of the average American citizen was the unanimity of our people in those dark days of 1940 and 1941.
Any things of the kind that I have ventured to sketch—which I frankly admit I do not think are possible or probable here and now to-day, though I have tried to sketch them in terms which might be possible—would of course involve sacrifice: sacrifice by His Majesty's Government, and sacrifice, maybe, by some of my political friends here; but I do not think that now, any more than in the war, there is any short cut or any easy way of avoidance of sacrifice if we are to be saved. Whether politician, industrial worker or housewife, everybody has to make great and possibly greater sacrifices; and the only thing that can redeem and make it all worth while is that they may perhaps strengthen and serve the nation that is greater than us all.
5.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I propose to occupy your time only for the purpose of discussing a single proposition in the King's Speech, the proposition about the Parliament Act. I must be allowed, however, first to say how deeply I share the feelings which have been so finely expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, who preceded me. He takes the view that the nation is in a life and death struggle for its existence. I am most profoundly convinced that that is no overstatement at all. That we should be sending out of the country a portion of the limited, I might almost say sacred, reserve of gold is in itself a very serious fact. And there is all the difference in the world between setting high targets with great precision and ingenuity, and securing that they will be attained or that the goods which are produced under this urgency will be sold. I am therefore absolutely at one with my noble friend in thinking that to set Party fortunes against national need is an almost unforgivable sin at this time.
It is for that reason that I so much regret this sentence in the King's Speech: "Legislation will be introduced to amend the Parliament Act of 1911." I cannot think that that is consistent with the effort which I am sure the better mind of the

57
Government entertains of trying to promote that co-operation among men and women of good will which, as the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, has just said, may very well be the only way to salvation. Therefore, I confine myself to this sentence, which seems to have been spatchcocked into the Speech, and which I suspect is a very recent formula. I do hope that His Majesty's Government, who are entitled to all the respect and confidence that we honestly can give them, will think again before they persist in this particular proposal. Perhaps I have some slight qualification to talk on the subject, because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said earlier, he and I are two of the very few survivors of that Government in the House of Commons when the Parliament Act was passed. I know from my own personal experience the actual history of that time, better, I am afraid, than I know some other periods of history which I ought to command. Will your Lordships forgive me if, in a few quite simple sentences, I state what that situation really was? I invite your Lordships to contrast it with the situation as it exists to-day.
This was the situation. The Liberals, at the General Election of 1906, had swept the country. They had at last an immense majority for themselves and their programme. They formed a Government which I think is admitted on all hands to have been one of the most well-equipped and powerful Governments of this country. I can say so without any vain glory because I was only a "new boy"—I did not join the Government until I became Solicitor-General in 1910. Consider some of the names: Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Lloyd George, Morley, Crewe, Grey—names that are still held in the highest respect. When you add to that that the Under-Secretaries of that time were Samuel, Runciman, McKenna and Churchill, I think your Lordships must admit that the Government was one of undoubtedly adequate equipment. That Government proceeded on the basis of its great majority to endeavour to put into force a series of legislative proposals of some variety—education, licensing, Scottish land reform, all sorts of things. It is literally true to say that in the four years from 1906 to 1910 this House destroyed every one of those measures
58
with the single exception of the Trade Disputes Act, which they thought it better to leave alone.
I remember it very well because I was hot and young in that struggle. I can quote now with the greatest precision some of the favourite extracts which we used to employ. I will repeat one new, and I will guarantee its verbal accuracy. An eminent leader of the Conservative Party who had held high office in the past was supposed to reflect in public that the working of our Constitution was such that Whether the Conservatives were in office or in Opposition they would still control the policy. Then your Lordships' House added to that the unique and unparalleled enormity of rejecting the Budget of the day, which, I think, contained a super-tax of threepence Which was going to ruin the country. Those were the circumstances in which it was thought right to propose to Parliament to deal with the powers of this House.
But, my Lords, even so the Government of that day never sought to do it in the course of the same Parliament merely by announcement in the King's Speech. On the contrary, Mr. Asquith held two elections in the year 1910. I have some reason to remember it because it happened that in the interval between the two I was appointed a Law Officer, and in those days a Law Officer had to have an election of his own, so I had three elections to deal with. At each of those General Elections, this very issue of curbing the powers of the House of Lords was raised. Many people thought it was adequately raised and decided in the January election of 1910, because, mind you, this proposal was not a novel proposal, but was one that went back to some Resolution moved by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Mr. Asquith insisted that rather than that there should be any doubt about where the country stood on this matter, there should be: another election in December, 1910, when a precise issue was formulated which is as near a referendum as can be: "Is the country prepared to support the Parliament Act which would thus limit the powers of the House of Lords?" That is, without any sort of varnish or elaboration, the story of what happened between the years 1906 and 1911, as I know it very well.
I wish to ask the House, with the greatest respect to the Lord Chancellor who I think is going to follow me, is

59
there any sort of resemblance between the circumstances which I have now correctly described and the circumstances which are supposed to justify this Clause 1n the King's Speech? Some of us who have come to this House rather late in life, after long experience in another place, are particularly struck by the change which has taken place in this House. I can guarantee that there are members opposite who silently agree with me. We find when we come here that, as a matter of fact, under modern conditions this House docs not set itself up as though it was entitled to overrule the deliberate decisions of the people expressed in another place. It contributes, I think, much of great value. It contributes careful revision, sometimes of clauses that have never been discussed in another place at all; and if we are to believe the very complimentary things which are said about us, His Majesty's Government must fully recognize that that is so.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, at the opening of the debate made one quotation. Of course, quotations are endless. I will spare the Lord Chancellor one or two of his own. Let me give just two. Mr. Herbert Morrison, who I think a fortnight ago was appealing for a greater measure of national unity and of endeavour to be made in order that we should really co-operate in this crisis, and who now takes responsibility for this clause, said:
"Members of the House of Lords co-operate to the full in respecting the wishes of the British democracy as expressed in the so-called Lower House. So we have seen the remarkable and characteristically British spectacle of a Chamber with a large Right Wing majority passing one nationalization Bill after another."
This, of course, is perfectly true.
I would offer only one other quotation from a Labour Minister of the House. Nobody has said this more frequently than Viscount Addison. Would the House accept this one quotation?
"Of course, the House of Lords is not just a replica of the House of Commons. We have our Party loyalties there, as they have in the Commons. But in the Lords 'we wear our rue with a difference,' and, under Lord Cranborne's leadership, the Tory Opposition has shown hitherto a disposition to sink mere prejudice and join with us on the Government Benches in helping the House of Lords to perform its proper function as a Second Chamber, namely, that of revision and acceptable Amendment, rather than in using it as a Tory engine for the
60
frustration of the Labour Government summoned to office and to power by the nation."
Is not that true? I would very respectfully address to my noble friend on the Woolsack this question: What is it that has happened during the life of this Labour Government which gives you the smallest justification for any reproach against the House of Lords at all? Do not you recognize that in fact—I think the Parliament Act had something to do with it—this House is now rendering a service, genuine, patriotic and, I think, essential which cannot reasonably be impeached and which goes very far from offering the smallest justification for this proposal?
Let me also point this out. There is no doubt about it. Legislation to amend the Parliament Act is legislation concerning the powers of this House. It is nothing to do with its composition. I happen to entertain rather strong personal views as to how the composition of the House should be changed and I have no more abstract attachment for a House largely based on the hereditary principle than many other people; but that has absolutely nothing to do with the proposal mentioned in the King's Speech. I have the Parliament Act here. It is:
"An Act to make provision with respect to the powers of the House of Lords in relation to those of the House of Commons, and to limit the duration of Parliament."
The heading of Section 1 is:
"Powers of House of Lords as to Money Bills."
Section 2 is headed:
"Restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills."
The Bill in its enacting sections has nothing to do with composition; and indeed it is a very difficult subject, on which people do not agree, as to how the House of Lords should be composed. This Bill—we know nothing more about it at present and I hope the Lord Chancellor may lift a little of the curtain in his speech which follows mine—has nothing to do with the composition of the House of Lords at all. It has to do with its powers. I take the view myself—and I think it is a view taken by many people interested in constitutional development—that the people of this country respect an institution because of the way in which that institution serves it. They do not qualify their respect because it may contain elements which in a theoretical sense are out of the spirit of the times.

61
Your Lordships saw that illustrated this morning when Parliament was opened by His Majesty the King. I suppose there is nobody at this time of day who talks about the "divine right of kings." The reason why the Crown has the respect and the support it has throughout the country is not because of the "divine right of kings "or any abstract respect for hereditary principles, but because for at least one hundred years we have been so splendidly served by the series of Monarchs that have sat upon the Throne. Exactly the same thing is true of this House. If it does not deserve the respect of the people it will be criticized and it may go, but, if it does act in a way which sensible citizens—I think sensible citizens in all Parties—regard as a proper and useful service, I believe it will survive criticisms based on a perfectly different and technical consideration, and, therefore, I venture to ask the Lord Chancellor—I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer than necessary—what is there in the attitude or the record of the House of Lords during the lifetime of this Government, or, indeed, going further back, which can justify the raising of this controversy at this time? Make no mistake; it is going to raise a controversy. Why, when you are faced, as the beginning of your King's Speech truly says, with a most grave economic crisis, you should want gratuitously to add a constitutional crisis as well, Heaven only knows.
My noble friend the Earl of Halifax was right when he said that, so long as this intention stands as part of the accepted programme of the Government—and I think every decent honest citizen will try to give them help and support in these terribly difficult times, and not spend the whole time in criticism—you destroy that desire to help. Side by side with the appeal that is being made, for instance by Mr. Herbert Morrison, for us to endeavour to come together for a single national effort to face the immediate danger, the Government say: "We must be permitted to introduce this particular proposal"—whatever it means. That will inevitably reopen what I myself think is a past controversy, although one which can easily flame up again if a repetition of this issue is set before the people. I would commend to the Government, with great respect, the view taken by the News Chronicle over this matter. That
62
view was stated in the leader yesterday. The paper seems to have had some wind of this.
The News Chronicle has been, on the whole, a very fair-minded paper in respect of Government proposals. I think what is said by them is plain common sense. May I be permitted to read it? It says:
"The people will also wonder why this particular issue should suddenly be thrust into the limelight again."
Will the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, kindly oblige us by telling us what the reason is? The newspaper goes on to say:
"It has been clear for some time now, however, that some of the Labour leaders are anxious for reform"—
that means limiting the powers of the House of Lords—
"less for its own sake than as a pretext to divides the country."
What is the good of appealing to people to come together and to try to act as a united nation if there is an element sufficiently powerful to insert into the King's Speech something which, as the paper suggests, will have the effect of dividing the county? The News Chronicle goes on to say:
"They calculate that this would be resisted by the Lords and the stage thus set for that hackneyed political aria 'People versus Peers'."
It is utterly treacherous, as it seems to me, at this grave time, when we are all asked to try and pull together. There is. nothing especially in the conduct and altitude of this House, as the Government and its supporters know just as well as the rest of us, which can justify such a proposal. It is distracting the attention of the country by what I remember was one of the most heated controversies of history. To engage in a dog fight of that sort is distracting the attention of the people, and that is the last thing the Government ought to seek to do, especially in view of the many assurances which have been given in this House to-day by serious-minded men not of the Government's Party, but who none the less wish to set aside reproaches about the past—if there are reproaches—because we are in a frightful difficulty. And if we do not get out of that difficulty it will not make much difference whose fault it was. With great respect therefore, and I hope with moderation, I do urge that this particular matter should be reconsidered.

63
It is not the. first time that a Government have put something into their King's speech which they have not carried out, but I feel convinced that this proposal is a quite recent innovation. I do not presume to probe or inquire or to guess how it has come about, but, with great respect, I would ask the Government to consider very carefully and very long what is likely to be the real outcome.
The appeal that is made to us is that we should work loyally and co-operatively for the salvation of the country; that we should not meet the. crisis in Party terms. Yet, my Lords, I am sorry—for I wish to suppress in me all wicked impulses and temptations—but I cannot imagine anything which is so likely to produce a controversy in every political club in the land, demonstrations beyond end, and exaggeration and high-sounding accounts to audiences not very well informed as to the sort of people your Lordships are. I can conceive nothing which is more likely to produce that result than the carrying out of this unfortunate proposal. Is it that the Government are beginning to realize, notwithstanding their very remarkable success at by-elections, that many who supported them are showing signs of losing confidence in them? Is it that a large number of people in this country are beginning to feel more deeply than they felt it before, that nationalization is not a key to plenty and to happiness? Can it be that some people are reflecting very seriously that coal nationalization produces neither coal nor dollars? I see that Professor Robins said, in a careful survey which he made the other day, "We have wasted our breathing space in a dream of cheap Utopias." I am not seeking to claim any perfect apprehension of what was the danger that was coming; but what I do say is that the one essential thing for this country now is to pull together, and the greatest crime the Government can commit is deliberately to throw down this highly-controversial constitutional challenge.
I will conclude by reading one other paragraph from this article in the News Chronicle of yesterday's date. I believe it to be profoundly true, and what the writer says is this:
"If the Labour leaders seriously contemplate riding into the next election on this aged battlehorse they will do their cause more harm than good. The next election will not
64
be won by political stunts of this kind. Labour will retain or lose office simply and solely on its record. No such distraction would succeed in diverting attention from this central issue."
What I have endeavoured to do is to confirm what was said by my noble friend Viscount Samuel. The circumstances in which the powers of the House of Lords were reconsidered, thirty-six years ago, were utterly different from the circumstances existing to-day. There is no justification for making this proposal, and I invite the Lord Chancellor, if he will be so good as to do so, to tell us why it is that this proposal occurs in the King's Speech, and if it is calculated to lead to national unity.
6.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, on one point we have, I think, all been agreed today—and, I believe only on one point. That is, in extending our congratulations to the mover and seconder of this Resolution on the admirable way in which they have carried out their difficult tasks. How fortunate, how very fortunate, we are to have men of the calibre of the noble Lord who moved the Resolution, to speak and to tell the country what the problem is and what we have got to do. Sir Alan Herbert has written a poem about a Lord Chancellor who:
"Weekly in the Sunday Chime
Explains the need for overtime,
To every artisan."
The trouble is, that the artisan does not take much notice of what is told him by the Lord Chancellor. But he does—at least I hope he does—take very considerable notice of what is said to him by the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston. As for my noble friend Lord Quibell, some of your Lordships were rather frightened lest the austerity of the occasion should quell his natural good humour. I never had any fear of that sort at all. The more depressing things get the more firmly he puts on the back of his head his bowler hat and the more lively is his laugh. God bless him for it!
I confess that for various reasons I am sorry that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Addison, is not able to be with us to-day. I can say now, in his absence, what we on our side of the House, and I think I may say your Lordships on the other side of the House also,

65
owe to his sagacity, wisdom, and unfailing courtesy. We all love him dearly, and the fact that he at, I will not say a ripe, but a ripening old age, has thought fit to travel as he has done, in order to do what he can to get help and sympathy for us in these difficult times, is a very remarkable achievement. I am very glad to be able to tell your Lordships that his efforts have been amply repaid and that he has been able—as he will, I hope, have the opportunity of telling your Lordships—to do very useful work for this country.
I, too, have been away. I have been to Canada and I have been to the United States of America. I have travelled from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I have made far more speeches than I even like to think about now. But I must tell your Lordships that I have come away immensely heartened at the great amount of good will there is towards us amongst the people of the United States. Of course, I knew that there would be amongst the people of Canada. But do not let us take everything for granted. Let us remember the wisdom of keeping our friendships in repair. I would say—and the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, knows much more about this than I do—that I think that the important thing to do at the present time is to stress to the Americans the endeavours which we are making to help ourselves. We have got to convince them that we are going to do all we can to get out of our own troubles. It would not be right and it would not be fair that we should lie back and not pull our weight, and expect them to get us out of our troubles. That is the essential lesson which I have learnt.
I think I can fairly say, too, that I have come away feeling that the Americans are much more appreciative of the efforts that the people of this country are making to help themselves than we are at home. It is a remarkable thing—if we may look at the bright side for a moment—that, notwithstanding the war and our tiredness, the quality of the food we get and the fact that our machines are so much older and in many cases out of date, our total productivity has gone up substantially, as it has, since the year 1938. And the people on the other side of the Atlantic are very much impressed also with the courageous way in which we are taxing ourselves instead of just printing money. I am quite convinced
66
that we have the good will of the American people. I am equally convinced that we have got to go on in every way we can, straining every nerve over this great task, even though at times it hurts us very badly to do so.
The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition made, as he always does, a delightful speech. He expressed great surprise that noble Lords of the independence of outlook of Lord Dukeston and Lord Quibell should find themselves on the Socialist Benches. He intimated that he thought they were naturally his companions. Is it just possible, and does the noble Marquess think, that he may, perhaps, have a wrong conception of the Labour Party and what they stand for? Is it not just possible that we encourage noble Lords to have a certain amount of independence, and does the noble Marquess notice the fact that we selected these two noble Lords to move and second the Address well knowing, as he knows, what is their outlook and what is their temperament? I ask the noble Marquess to put aside from his mind this preconceived idea of what the Labour Party stands for; that it is all drab and dull uniformity. That is not the case at all. Every day we are illustrating the maxim that truth is many-sided.
We have heard very much about the desirability of unity in our troubles, and I very largely agree. I have never been one who has in any sense at all belittled the difficulties of the day. When I, for a time, in the Coalition Government, was acting in charge of reconstruction matters, before the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, was appointed, I was once asked by a very eminent person what I saw of the prospects for the future. I said: "I cannot see how we are going to get through the first five years after the war. If we get through those five years then I am sure it will be all right." Just consider what the position was. We had sold substantially all our assets abroad in order to pay for the war and our export trade on which we depended for our imports had necessarily and inevitably been blocked up. So, at the end of the war we found ourselves with our capital abroad gone, and our export trade gone, unable to produce more than about one-third, I think it is, of our food, and practically none of our raw materials.

67
I remember that almost the first day after I became Lord Chancellor the late Lord Keynes came to see me and I remember his putting down on the table a sort of balance sheet of how the position stood. I understand nothing whatever, it is only too obvious I am afraid, about economics, and I was absolutely horrified at the figures he had to show. Those are the facts and I ask the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, is it true to say that this country has been brought low by political nostrums? I would venture to say that this is such a complete and obvious misstatement of the facts as to be unfortunate coming from one in his position. Of course you might say that things would have been better if we had not adopted this, that or the other policy. That is a very understandable point of view, which will always be a matter of legitimate Party conflict. But to say that we have been brought low by doing these things is to ignore the very obvious facts which I have pointed out to your Lordships.
We now come to the problem as to how we can get things right. Take the question of coal. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that when the question of the nationalization of coal was debated I was careful to say that the nationalization of coal would not produce the coal. I could not guarantee that we could get the coal, but I stated. my firm conviction that unless we did nationalize we could not get the coal. If I may say so without undue heat, to attempt, after this scheme has been in force for less than a year, to say it has failed or to say it has succeeded is to my mind absolute folly. Let us by all means have our differences as to whether it is the right or wrong thing to do. I believe that, with all the difficulties which had to be encountered, and they were obviously very great, it was the right and wise thing to do and I believe we should have been in a much worse position if we had not done it.
Then the noble Marquess says we are bent on discouraging our best friends. Why? If I may take my humble self, I have laid myself out for the past six weeks to do everything I could to encourage our best friends. Is it fair, because this must be remembered in the relation to the suggestion of greater
68
national unity, to say the Government are bent on discouraging our best friends? The noble Marquess referred to the choice which a free man in a free community likes to have of buying what he wants. I am rather tired of this. Of course a free man in a free community desires to be able to buy what he wants, but look at the practical position we are in to-day. We have to export every single thing we can and that means that there will be left at home an all-over insufficiency. Are we then to share that fairly or in a way which will let the people with the largest amount of money buy what they like? If we are going to have a rationing system where goods are shared equitably, it means hordes of civil servants. I believe that bread rationing alone means ten thousand civil servants. Petrol rationing means a great many more. If we do away with rationing we can free a large staff. But is there anybody in your Lordships' House who would say that the distribution of those things in short supply should not be made equitably and fairly but simply according to the size of one's purse? It is inconceivable. I would beg your Lordships in all parts of the House not to speak as though we liked all the restrictions we have to have. We have to have them. They do not come from the fact that we desire them, but from the fact that these shortages can be dealt with in no other way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has referred several times to me. There is much I would like to say in answer. I really agree that there must be a measure of control and I said so, but when you come to State officials reaching a number of two millions out of a population of fifty millions, the anxiety to get absolutely equal distribution may reduce the amount a country may be able to distribute and intensify the evil it is desired to correct.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I realize that. If it is simply a question of how many, that can be argued in debate. I understood that the noble Marquess was criticizing the whole method of having control at all.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept it, but I think he so phrased his sentence

69
that he said so. If I have given a wrong interpretation, I apologize to him.
I come to the question of criticism. I do not in the least object to criticism. I think the best thing one can say is that in a time of gravity like this everybody must realize the responsibility of critizing and so long as that is realized I do not in the slightest degree resent criticism. I think it is true that some criticism is doing us harm in America, but on the other hand I would much rather have that than have some sort of control of criticism or have our politics mealy-mouthed affairs. I think it is right. It is certainly what the Americans do. I went to a debate on the Taft-Hartley Act at which Senator Taft himself spoke and I heard somebody say, "The lesson of the Civil War has been undone. Slavery has returned to America." That, whatever you may think of the Act—and I was very careful to express no opinion—is the language of hyperbole. If it had been head-lined in the press, "Slavery Returns to America," and if our people believed it, it might have been unfortunate. Some speakers over here are regarded in America as so verbally inspired that everything they say of that sort is splashed in the American papers and the readers seem to believe it. I have no remedy for that. I certainly do not want the Leader of the Opposition, or anybody else, to be restrained in his criticism. How could he be? It would be a lamentable thing if there were any restraint. All I want is that people should learn that many things are said internally for internal consumption; they are not intended for export.
I was asked a question about housing. I must say this to the noble Marquess, that we had better face the facts. The trouble is that, unfortunately, housing demands very considerable quantities of limber. We must cut down our purchases from abroad and the limiting factor in housing is going to be timber. We are not therefore able to produce as many houses as we would have liked. But houses partially constructed and for which timber is available will go on. So far as new construction in the future is concerned, that must be governed by the amount of timber we can afford to buy, unless some other material can be made available.
70
With regard to Imperial Preference, I understand that a statement is going to be made in another place: dealing with this matter at length and the noble Marquess will forgive me if I do not deal with it in any detail here. I understand, however, that the very specific statements which were made about our attitude at the present time are not being departed from.
Then there is the question of foreign affairs. I also when I was out in America saw something of the United Nations Assembly and met some of the representatives. It seems to me that what is needed in foreign affairs beyond everything else is patience. It is, of course, very disappointing, but I think that we should be quite wrong to despair at the present time. Let us, at any rate, wait until November and see if then anything better is forthcoming; and let us hope that saner counsels will prevail.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked me a question about the phrase: "to reform the franchise and electoral procedure." He will not be surprised, and I hope not unduly disappointed, If I tell him that that does not mean that we propose to introduce proportional representation. It does refer to a Bill to be introduced, which will contain provisions for the electoral reform arising out of the recommendations of the Committee of Electoral Registration, the Speaker's Conference and the Committee on Electoral Law Reform. If, as I fully expect, the noble Viscount is familiar with all the proceedings in those Committees, which I am not, he will know precisely what the Bill is going to do.
I now come to the controversial matter about which a good deal has been said, the Parliament Act. We have had recollections from those who can speak with authority about 1911. I would just say this. Those two Elections of 1910 were my initiation into politics. I confess that I went up and down the country breathing fire and slaughter against the House of Lords, if I could get anybody to listen to me, which was not very often. I was for no half measures then. I confess that in my youthful enthusiasm I was for doing away with the whole thing root and branch. However, there it was, and the Parliament Act was passed. That was the year 1911, and for thirty-six years that controversy has been stilled. Do any of your Lordships imagine that you

71
can fairly say that that controversy is stilled to-day? We who know what goes on here realize what an admirable institution we are, and what a splendid membership this House has. Of course we do.
"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as ithers see us."
Believe me, it is the fact that there are those who do not think that we are such admirable people, or that this is such an admirable institution as we do ourselves. It is common knowledge that there have been those in the past who would desire to do all sorts of very hard things to us. Would it not be well—I put this to your Lordships quite frankly—if we could end this controversy for another thirty-six years by reducing the time within which you can hold up a Bill from two years to one?
I have been asked the reason why there is anxiety about this at the present time. Let me be quite frank. I have said—and I have not said it with my tongue in my cheek—that this House has performed a most useful function. Look back to some of the Bills which we have done together. Take, for instance, the Companies Bill. We had two hundred Amendments in that Bill, and we got through them all without a Division. On the Bills I have conducted myself—the Coal Bill, the Town and Country Planning Bill, the Electricity Bill, and others—we have always had a very frank discussion. The Government have used this House to introduce a very large number of Amendments themselves on second thoughts. What has happened has been that after a full and frank discussion your Lordships have generally insisted on some three or four Amendments (and, of course, if you do insist on an Amendment one of the weaknesses of the thing is that you are bound to be able to carry it) and they have gone back to the other place; the other place have sometimes met you and sometimes not, and when they have not, your Lordships have given way. That is the way the thing has been working. Working like that it works admirably, and there is absolutely nothing in our proposals to prevent it from going on working like that, where you concede and give way. But the anxiety is this. After this Session of Parliament (we may as well face the fact) when we have run three years, there is no Bill which can be put through by the other place without the consent of this
72
House. This House in the main, and a very large number of its members, support the Conservative Party.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble and learned Viscount will forgive me for interrupting. There is a provision in the Parliament Act to which he has not made reference, and which I think is not generally known. It is not in the least necessary that the three times passage of the Bill should be in the same Parliament. There is an express provision in the Bill that you can have the second or third passing in a second Parliament, after the General Election. There is, therefore, no question of losing a Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not suggest that there is any danger of losing a Bill. It is a fact that when three years have run of the present Parliament—let us face this; I am trying to state it in a non-controversial way—the Government being a Labour Government, or if it were a Liberal Government, could not be certain of getting any Bill through in that Parliament unless they got the consent of the Conservative opposition in the House of Lords. On the other hand, when the Conservative Party is in power that same clog does not apply. That is what is said. If I am asked what will happen after the three years are up, I believe that so long as the noble Marquess who is at present leading the Opposition and the noble Viscount who is leading the Liberal Party are there they will exercise their powers sensibly and well, and from a broad point of view. But, after all, I regret to say, those two noble Lords, like the rest of us, are not immortal, and one does not know what may happen if that group of people who used to be referred to, I think, as backwoodsmen come up and take charge of the situation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble and learned Viscount has stated his case with great skill, but that is a case in favour of altering the composition of the House and has nothing whatever to do with the powers. What the Government are saying is that this is an inefficient House, that it is ill-balanced, and that it is improper that it should have the powers which it has, but they do not alter the composition.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At the moment I am dealing with the powers. So far as the composition is concerned. do

73
not your Lordships think that this House has done very well during the first two years? What has been wrong with it?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What has been wrong is that the composition is wrong according to the noble and learned Viscount.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I do not think so at all.
A NOBLE LORD: You said so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not grumbling at all about that. I never grumble. Let us see where we stand. I am saying that I think this House for the last two years by universal consent has done very well. If that is agreed there is nothing the matter with the composition of this House, but if your Lordships tell me that you want to change the composition of this House, I shall be ready to listen to your proposals. If, therefore, any of your Lordships will come to me with a solution which is more or less agreed to, I will give it most favourable consideration. At the present moment, and for the last thirty-six years, nobody has been able to agree on any solution at all. Therefore, we must go on with this composition of this House which has done so extraordinarily well for the last two years.
With regard to the powers of the House, just think: now really think. Nineteen hundred and eleven is thirty-six years ago. We lived in spacious days then; they were the good old times for most of us. But what has happened since then? We have had two wars and adult suffrage. Is it really said that a remedy which was appropriate then is appropriate now? Just think. The Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Lords on January 29, 1946, and if you had been operating the two years in this House we should still be in uncertainty with regard to coal. It would not have been until January 29 of next year that we should have been able, under the Act of Parliament, to pass that Bill, and that at a time when—I warn your Lordships—we had to take quick decisions, and we had to take unpopular decisions. I say that two years is impossible.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Might I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether the same argument would not apply to one year? Are you arguing for no delay at all?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I am not arguing for no delay at all. I have argued this matter out very thoroughly. I think it is inevitable and right that there should be a Revising Chamber and a Second Chamber, and I think that a Revising Chamber must have this sanction. I think they must be able to hold up a Bill for a limited period of time with all the disadvantages. I do not think you can have a Second and Revising Chamber unless they have some sanction of that sort. In America, as the most reverend Primate knows, the President has a right to veto, to refer back, but there of course it depends on numbers. With us I think you must see that if you are going to have a Second and Revising Chamber, with the matter referred back there must be a right to impose some time limit and I suggest the reasonable time limit in those circumstances is one year.
May I remind your Lordships of this fact? When the Irish Constitution was passed—your Lordships will find it in 1921 or 1922 Statutes—as a Schedule to the Constitution, you will find that what we indicated was that if the Senate rejected a Bill passed by the Dail then 270 days after the Second Reading in the Dail that Bill should become law. We are suggesting that the period should be one year. That is a very drastic power. Two years was an exceptionally drastic power, so much so that Mr. Winston Churchill at the time when he was Home Secretary said he stood amazed and aghast at his own moderation. If he was amazed and aghast at his own moderation in 1911 when all the circumstances have altered, surely in the faster and quicker tempo of to-day one year is the appropriate time. Now is not the time to debate the Bill, and I am not sure that I have not been somewhat out of order in referring to it as I have. All I would say is this. Do consider whether it is not worth while getting rid of this controversy for another thirty-six years if you can do that by substituting one year for two.
I have concluded all I want to say except just this. The most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, have spoken of the need of some common approach. One went so far as to talk about a Coalition. May I give you the benefit of my

75
experience, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, would perhaps confirm my view. I was intensely proud to be a member of Mr. Churchill's great Coalition for five years. But I found—and I dare say other members found, too—that there came a time when the working of that Coalition became more and more difficult. I remember very well what happened with regard to some of the matters which we had towards the end. I know that I am not stating my own point of view, or my own Party point of view, when I say that there did come a point where it was almost impossible to work.
That we are in a very grave position to-day is unquestioned; that we must put forth our very best if we are to be able in the immediate future to maintain the somewhat inadequate standard of living we have to-day, is plain. I do not believe that it is best done by a Coalition. Circumstances move so fast that the answer which I am giving to-day may prove to be quite wrong in some months to come, but I do not believe it is possible to-day. What I think is possible to-day is that, although we should not in any way spike the guns of our criticism—let us let off our best pieces of artillery by all means—let us also try to give credit not to our political opponents, but to the people of this country for what they are doing. One can so easily cheer people up by putting it in this way: "Notwithstanding the utter incompetence of this Government you people are putting up a splendid effort; you have got up your production." In that way you would put their tails in the air. This constant drip of gloom is perhaps unfortunate.
That is one solution I have and I would go further. I would say: Let us try to face up to the difficulties of to-day. Do not let us put it all down to the incompetence of a wicked Government. I think there will be plenty to criticize and I have not the shadow of a doubt that we have made a lot of mistakes. I think that, faced with the crisis we are in, if we had not made mistakes we would not have been doing anything. The man who claims never to have made a mistake in times like these is a fool. We now have a set-up which enables us to have a chance of surmounting very great difficulties. In this House I shall always
76
expect, and I am quite sure that so long as I am here I shall always receive, the kindly but firm criticism of your Lordships' House.
6.38 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I agree that my interference in the debate is somewhat of an anti-climax, coming as it does after the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I would like to say in a very few words that there are some aspects of the gracious Speech with which we are all agreed. The Lord Chancellor has reminded us that we could agree upon the two speeches of the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. We should also agree that we are unanimous in thanking His Majesty for making that Speech. I suggest, too, that we can agree, as we shall do to-morrow, in congratulating her whom we like in Yorkshire to think of as Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth of York, on her forthcoming marriage. Whether we are young or old we shall always admire a lover and his lass.
In the debate to-day, there has not been a single mention of the fact that His Majesty's Government are going to introduce a Criminal Law Amendment Bill. Many of us who have been working on benches and in prisons for many years are glad that this Bill is going to be introduced; and I am quite certain that your Lordships will not have to refer to the Parliament Act on this occasion, because you will welcome it and once more prove that this House is a Council of State. For that reason I personally welcome this proposal of a Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
Another matter that has not been mentioned is that there is going to be a Budget. When that Budget comes to your Lordships' House we cannot reject it; but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be ill-advised if he further increases the price of tobacco. One thing we are suffering from in these days is the lack of something that brings a certain amount of enjoyment and incentive to work; and if it is going to be made impossible for the person of moderate means to enjoy a smoke, I think that is going to have a bad psychological effect on the nation. Therefore I hope the Chancellor will not further increase the price of tobacco when he is introducing

77
his Budget. I hope also that the Chancellor will raise a forced loan of at least £300,000,000 a year by readjusting his other commitments; that he will not increase taxation but hypothecate at least £300,000,000, in order to make up for what is lacking in the weekly drive for the Silver Lining Campaign.
One reason why there is anxiety in the Labour Party is that 95 to 99 per cent. of the Press of this country has been printing, practically with one voice, what my noble friend the Lord Chancellor has described as "drips of gloom." That undoubtedly has had its bad effect in America. No responsible person in this country or in your Lordships' House or in the other place has complained about the American loan as being in itself unjust. No responsible person has stated that the Americans were behaving in a shabby way. They have not behaved in a shabby way. And this House—and may it long remain a sounding board for the nation and a Council of State—can make that abundantly clear by emphasizing that we are thankful to the United States for what they have done, but that we do wish that they would appreciate the efforts that this nation has made.
Scorn has been poured upon what has been described as the lack of planning by this Government. Yet it is over two years since Sir Stafford Cripps started his planning. Scorn has been poured upon the working parties. I want to tell your Lordships that so far as the wool and woollen textile trades are concerned there is so much good will on the part of both management and workers that they have voluntarily agreed to work longer hours. (There is a distinction between the wool and woollen textile trades. One is represented by the wool of the suit which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is wearing; and the "woollen textile" is wool mixed with perhaps a bit of cotton or something similar). The whole industry in the West Riding is united in backing His Majesty's Government. I was present at the meeting of the employers of labour and trade unionists. Sir Stafford Cripps, I agree, is not a man to whip them into enthusiasm like, for instance, the late Earl Lloyd George. But he carried the meeting with him; and they publicly pledged themselves to back him up in all he is doing. It is the same with the cotton trade. And so with coal. Let it be counted for righteousness that the
78
miners have increased their output of coal so much that we have 5,000,000 tons more to-day than we had at the corresponding time a year ago. No wonder the Brighton Jamboree, the Conservative Party, Conference, said they would not de-nationalize the Bank of England, mining, and transport.
I am coming to this conclusion, that the cardinal sin of the Labour Party is that we tried to implement our pledges, though we tried perhaps to implement them too quickly. I am glad that steel is not on the programme. Let me be quite frank about that—though I have so much original sin in me that when we were dared, as it were, both from the Conservative and the Liberal Benches, to put steel into the King's Speech, I was sorely tempted to do my bit of propaganda to see that it was put in. Some people complain about the Government because, they say, there has not been a "clarion call." But there is and has been willing co-operation, through leadership and not through dictation. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dukeston, that the; workers themselves have a long way to go before they catch the new crusading spirit.
For many years, when I used to bring children into this Chamber, which was then called the Robing Room, I used to point to those frescoes on the walls, of the five great virtues. I pointed out to the children that in this place the King put on his robes of State when he was opening Parliament, and that those pictures were there to remind the King, if he were tempted to forget it, that he is the servant of the people. The reason why we were glad to listen to His Majesty to-day is that we realize that he is the servant of the people. As some of us believe, they are no empty words when he said: "I pray that Almighty God may give His blessing to your counsels," because more and more as I live I realize that there must be a spiritual dynamic, not simply for us but for all our people. I wish our voices could reach our people so that they could realize that spiritual urge, and then we should have less talk about "stints" and this country would emerge from its present distresses.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Might I just say one thing which I meant to say when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Schuster; otherwise it would appear discourteous on my part. Lord Schuster

79
asked me a specific question which I forgot to answer about the Rushcliffe aid scheme. I confess that I am sorry I did not succeed in getting that Bill specifically mentioned. I made myself a perfect nuisance to all my colleagues about it, but we really cannot allow your Lordships to be worked in this Parliament as we were worked in the last Parliament. I have not given up hope that we shall get it in. I was able to get in my Crown Proceedings Bill and I shall do whatever a Lord Chancellor can do by "under the counter" methods to see if I cannot somehow or other get in your Rushcliffe Aid Bill. I cannot say more. I am very sorry I did not mention it.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, that the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly till to-morrow.

CHAIRMAN AND DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Earl of Drogheda be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.
The Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore), the Lord Stanmore, the Viscount Mersey, the Lord Teynham and the Lord Holden appointed Deputy Chairmen of Committees.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move to resolve that whenever during the present Session of Parliament the House stands adjourned, and it appears to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor (or, if the Lord Chancellor is absent, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chairman of Committees after consultation with His Majesty's Government) that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier times during such adjournment, the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, may give notice to the Peers that he is so satisfied, and thereupon
80
the House shall meet at the time stated in such Notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
Moved to resolve, That whenever during the present Session of Parliament the House stands adjourned, and it appears to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor (or, if the Lord Chancellor is absent, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chairman of Committees after consultation with His Majesty's Government) that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during such adjournment, the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, may give notice to the Peers that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such Notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it upon the Table: The same was ordered to be printed.
Committee for Privileges—Appointed.
Committee for the Journals—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.
Appeal Committee—appointed.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that the Bill had been deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, together with a declaration of the Agent, pursuant to the Resolution of the 5th day of August last.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That His Majesty had (by Commission) revoked certain Letters Patent and had appointed the Chairman of Committees for the time being, the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore), the Lord Stanmore, the Earl of Drogheda, and any person who shall have been Chairman of Committees, the Lord Denman, the Earl of Granard, the Earl of Clarendon, the Viscount Hailsham, the Earl of Lucan, the Viscount Mersey, the Viscount Sankey, the Viscount Maugham, the Lord Templemore, the Viscount Simon, the Viscount Addison, the Lord Hare (E. Listowel), the Viscount Jowitt, the Earl Fortescue, the Lord Ammon, the Viscount Wimborne, the Lord Teynham and the Lord Holden to be Speakers of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor. The said Commission was read.

PONTYPOOL GAS ORDER, 1947.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Pontypool Gas and Water Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LETCHWORTH AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1947.
Special Order in respect of the transfer of the undertakings authorized by the Letchworth and District Electricity Orders, 1924 and 1925:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

PONTEFRACT ELECTRICITY ORDER 1947.
Special Order in respect of the transfer of the undertaking authorized by the Pontefract Corporation Orders, 1907 and 1912:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at four minutes past seven o'clock.