Sitting of 8 March 1950

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

MEMBER SWORN
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
John Selwyn Brooke Lloyd, esquire, C.B.E., K.C., for Wirral.

BILL PRESENTED
  DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL
  "to amend the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1944," presented by Mr. Ernest Bevin; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Younger and Mr. Ernest Davies; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]

TRIBAL CHIEF, BECHUANALAND (RECOGNITION)
2.37 p.m.
The Secretary, of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): With permission, I should like to make a statement to the House. The House is already aware of difficulties which have arisen in the Bechuanaland Protectorate over the question whether Seretse Khama should be recognised as chief of the Bamangwato tribe. In September, 1948, Seretse married an Englishwoman. The marriage was disapproved by the tribal assembly in November, 1948, and again, though less decisively, in December, 1948; but in June, 1949, the assembly declared their acceptance of Seretse as chief, notwithstanding his marriage. This was followed by the withdrawal into voluntary exile, from the reserve, of the regent Tshekedi Khama and a number of leading men of the tribe.
In the Bechuanaland Protectorate succession to the office of chief is subject to recognition by the High Commissioner
286
and confirmation by the Secretary of State. In the event of doubt arising provision exists enabling the High Commissioner to appoint a judicial inquiry of an advisory character to investigate and report to him. Such an inquiry was duly set up in this case and its Report was received in December last.
His Majesty's Government felt that it would be of advantage to discuss the matter with Seretse before reaching a decision. He reached London on 13th February. The subject has now been discussed at length in a series of meetings between Seretse, my predecessor, the Lord Privy Seal and myself. Seretse was accompanied by his legal advisers, whose attendance was facilitated by His Majesty's Government. We explained to him that His Majesty's Government viewed with grave concern the danger which recognition would cause to the unity and wellbeing of the tribe and the administration of the Protectorate. We impressed upon him that in this matter His Majesty's Government had to take into account not only their paramount responsibility for good government in the Protectorate, but also all the circumstances known to them. I put to him our view that in all the circumstances the best solution would be for him voluntarily to relinquish his claim to the succession. Seretse, however, did not see his way to accept our view.
It therefore remained with His Majesty's Government to settle the issue. They have decided, after most careful consideration of all relevant factors, that in present circumstances the High Commissioner must be instructed to withhold recognition of Seretse as chief, and that recognition must be withheld for a period of years. This period must be of such length as experience shows to be necessary for the disappearance of the present tendencies to disruption which threaten the unity and well-being of the tribe. In the view of His Majesty's Government the period required will certainly not be less than five years, and at the end of it the situation will be reviewed.
During this time Seretse will be required to reside outside the Protectorate and will be unable to revisit it unless special permission should be given. A suitable allowance will be paid to him to enable him to provide for himself and his wife while living outside the Protectorate. The decision has been communicated to

287
Seretse and will be announced by the High Commissioner to the tribe as soon as a tribal meeting can be assembled.
While the chieftainship is in suspense Tshekedi, whose regency will have come to an end, will be required to reside outside the Bamangwato reserve, and will not be allowed to enter the reserve unless special permission should be given. For the immediate future the District Commissioner will continue closely to supervise the administration and will exercise the functions of the native authority. This is, however, a purely temporary expedient to meet quite exceptional circumstances. Steps will be taken to ensure that the- inhabitants of the reserve are again associated with the conduct of their affairs as soon as practicable, with the aim of giving fuller scope for popular opinion to make itself legitimately felt.
Responsibility for some of the duties normally performed by the native authority will, for the time being, be transferred to a small council of leading and suitable persons as soon as they are prepared to come forward and serve in such capacity; and other duties will be transferred to the council as soon as it displays competence and the interests of peace and good government permit. Specific instructions have been given that such a council should be formed as soon as possible.
Looking beyond the transitional period, His Majesty's Government will also explore every opportunity that offers to give the native administration a more representative character. This development is fully in accordance with His Majesty's Government's policy today of affording the people of the African territories for which they are responsible, a fuller say and more direct participation in the conduct of their own affairs.
Mr. Clement Davies: I deeply regret that the Government have felt compelled to arrive at this decision. One does not like interference in domestic matters of this kind between man and wife, especially when, quite obviously, questions of colour arise. But I am sure there are other matters about which, apparently, we are ignorant at present, and, of course, questions as to what may happen with regard to the tribe must be given fullest
288
consideration. May I say that I want to reserve every right—
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must ask questions; we cannot debate the matter.
Mr. Sorensen: is the Minister aware that this matter is already having very grave repercussions in many parts of the world, particularly within the Commonwealth? Can he give an assurance that the statement, reported in the Press, that Seretse had been tricked has no foundation? Further, may I ask whether in this matter the Minister has had any communication from the Union of South Africa?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: If I might answer the second question first, we have had no communication from the Government of the Union nor have we made any communication to them. There have been no representations and no consultation in this matter. Regarding the question whether Seretse Khama was tricked into coming to this country, as he alleged in a statement which he made to the Press, I am glad that question has been asked because it was an entirely untrue and irresponsible statement to make, though I think that when he made it Seretse Khama was in a very distressed state of mind, as it was after I had told him of our decision. The truth is that we asked him to come to this country because we wanted to put to him that in the general interest, it would be wiser if he could agree to make a voluntary renunciation. No pressure was brought to bear on him. The question was put to him, and he, quite within his rights, decided that he could not make such a renunciation. We then came to our decision, which excludes him from the reserve and the territory. There is nothing to stop him going back. We cannot keep him in England; we have no power and no desire to do that. He could go back, and would then meet with the fact that he was excluded from the Protectorate. Had he not come to London we would have issued the same statement of policy and would have excluded him in the same way from the Protectorate, and he would, therefore, have been in the same position had he not come to London. He was not, therefore, tricked or in any way disadvantaged by coming here. Had he not come, he would not have had the advantage of discussions with us or of being informed of

289
our decision, which would have been announced without discussion. On balance, he had an advantage in coming here.
Mr. Churchill: Could the right hon. Gentleman let us know the character of the invitation or summons that was sent to Seretse Khama? Was there in it any intimation that he might be forbidden to return to the Protectorate for five years? I am glad to hear that, apparently, he is free to return. Is that so? Can he return at any moment? Otherwise, quite apart from the large issues which are raised in this matter, and which I would not attempt to discuss at this time, the question I would ask is whether this chief is being treated quite fairly as between man and man. That is a point which causes some anxiety. To put the point precisely, was he aware beforehand that this decision might be given against him and that he would be the subject of this special regulation and restriction?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: I should, perhaps, correct the right hon. Gentleman on one point. I did not say that he could return to the Protectorate; I said that he could leave England and could go back to the Protectorate where he would find that an exclusion order had been issued against him. But had he not come to London he would have been in exactly the same position. In that way, therefore, he was in no sense tricked by being brought to London. As to the character of the summons, which was the other part of the question, there was no summons, but an invitation both to Seretse Khama and his wife to come and talk this matter over with us. Seretse Khama accepted, his wife declined. In neither case was pressure brought to bear on them. There was no summons. He certainly knew that this decision—or something like it—excluding him from the Protectorate might be issued against him because he asked for a guarantee that it would not be. No such guarantee was given. He was certainly aware of that possibility, and, indeed, every chief or chief-elect knows it because it is inherent in the whole legal position there. The fact that he asked for a guarantee is proof that he knew this might he done, and no guarantee was given.
Mr. Churchill: Where would the exclusion order be enforced? Would it be
290
enforced at the frontiers of the Protectorate or after he had re-entered the Protectorate?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: Technically, after he had re-entered the Protectorate. He would only have to put one foot across it. Technically, it is an exclusion order from within.
Mr. Churchill: Have we not, as it were, enticed this man to come over here to have talks on the whole question? Now that he wishes to go back is it not a fact that if he puts one foot across the border of his native land he is to be stopped by force?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: No, I cannot agree that we have enticed him. He would be in exactly the same position, as I tried to explain, had he not come. He would today have been excluded from his territory in exactly the same way. Had he flown back this morning he would have found himself in exactly the same position. He was not enticed here and has suffered no disadvantage by coming here.
Mr. Churchill: Surely he would not be in the same position until he gets back into his territory—in the exact situation he was in when he agreed to come to England.
Mr. Gordon-Walker: He would today be in exactly the same position—excluded from the Protectorate—whether in the Protectorate or in London. Had he returned this morning he would be in exactly the same position, irrespective of whether he had come to London or not.
Mr. Churchill: Will the Minister give full consideration to the point of honour which is involved? I am not trying to deal with the large questions at all. Will he consider whether it would not be better to allow this man to return to exactly the same position that he was in at the point when the correspondence took place, whatever are the Government's views, rights and authority in the matter?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: I have, of course, found this a very difficult decision to take. There have been some very difficult problems, and I have done my utmost throughout to preserve honour between man and man in this matter. The decision as to whether he goes back is not for me but for him to make. I can neither keep

291
him in England nor remove him from England. If he chose to go back he would be in the same position. He would find himself excluded from the Protectorate just as he would had he remained there. I do not think I can reconsider this matter. I can only reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given anxious consideration to the point of honour, as to other points.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very grave concern among all sections of our community at the fact that a colour bar, which influences certain quarters, has determined the decision of the Government on this matter? I want to give notice—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Gordon-Walker: I am aware that that view is held. I can only say it has not been the motive in the Government's mind in coming to a decision.
Hon. Members: What is the motive?
Sir Herbert Williams: Is this the first time that any British Government has imposed a colour bar in any part of the British Empire? By what statutory authority does the right hon. Gentleman exclude a British subject from any particular part of His Majesty's Dominions?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: In reply to the second part of that question, the Foreign Jurisdiction Act gives us complete control over the people who live in the Protectorate. There is no doubt about our legal rights to do this. It happens to come technically under that. If the hon. Member looks up the Act he can satisfy himself on that. There has been no colour bar imposed in this matter. The Government have not considered the question of mixed marriage as such. Seretse Khama and his wife can live in England or anywhere else they like without any let or hindrance. It has only become a question because of the fact that he was the next chief of his tribe. It has not become a question of itself, and we have not considered it as a question.
Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend explain where Seretse can now go to rejoin his wife, with whom, presumably, he would wish to be at this time?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: In general, he can live where he likes outside the Protectorate—in Paris, London or anywhere else. With regard to the question of the immediate future of his wife, who is due to have a baby in a few months time, I told Seretse Khama that I would fly his wife to London, with all medical attention, and give her full medical attention here if he and she consented. There was no truth in the allegation that I had threatened to have her removed. I said she would not be brought unless both he and she agreed. He told me this morning he did not want to agree to that. I then made it clear that we were going to arrange for him to go back to Lobatsi so that he could take part in the hearing of a legal case about his property. We would arrange the date in such a way that he could be there before and during his wife's confinement, and she could be brought there so that they could be together. It is a small journey and there are good medical facilities. I have made it clear that when the case is finished, and the confinement is over, we shall have to enforce our exclusion of both Seretse Khama and Mrs. Khama.
Sir Peter Macdonald: Is there any precedent for having deprived a chieftain of his chieftainship? Can the Report on which the decision is based be placed in the Library of the House, so that we may acquaint ourselves with the circumstances?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: I think there are precedents for this, but, whether there are or not, there is no doubt we have a legal right to do what we have done. I would not like to publish the Report. It was at the discretion of the High Commissioner, as instructed by myself or my predecessor, whether or not he should set up this inquiry in the first place. The Report is advisory. It is only one of the many factors we have had to take into consideration in coming to our decision. It would give a disjointed appearance if this one factor of those we have had to take into account were made public. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be pressed to make the Report public.
Mr. John Lewis: As it has been made clear in the statement that, for a period at least, there is to be direct Government rule, would my right hon. Friend say

293
what form of government he contemplates for the future and what administrative changes he has in mind?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: I am very glad that the hon. Member asked that question. It throws a light on another aspect of this very difficult problem. We are going to set up direct rule in the immediate future, because there must be authority in this reserve. But the instructions issued are that, as quickly as possible, a council of Africans in the reserve shall be set up, so that they can have progressively transferred to them powers in their own affairs. Secondly, we are to take steps for the increasing participation of the people of the Bamangwato reserve in their own affairs. It is not generally known that the Bamangwato tribe proper, of which Seretse is chief-designate, are only 18,000 in number and that they rule over 82,000 other subject peoples. We intend to devise steps to—I do not know whether to use the word "democratise"—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Mutualise."]—draw these 82,000 people, who are, at the moment, excluded from controlling their own affairs, into a share in the control of them.
Sir Ian Fraser: While noting that the South African Government has not been consulted and has not expressed any opinion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that 99 per cent. or more of the Europeans who live in South Africa, of all races, and probably the overwhelming majority of the Bantu, who are capable of understanding this matter, would not be sympathetic to mixed marriage? Is he aware that mixed marriages are illegal in South Africa and offensive to the whole of the population there in our sister country, and also in the territories adjoining South Africa? In those circumstances, will he agree that this factor, vitally affecting public opinion in our sister country, must be taken into account?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: There is, of course, opinion of that sort in the Union and some other territories, but it has not been taken into account by the Government. It would have been improper for us to have taken it into account. We had to take our decision, to the best of
294
our ability, in the interests of the future of the tribe.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: My right hon. Friend, in his original statement, said that where there was a doubt as to the succession there was a process of a judicial advisory tribunal and a Report was made. Will he let the House know whether, in that Report, the legal position of Seretse as chief of the tribe was confirmed or not?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: For the same reasons that I have asked the House not to press for the publication of the Report, I think I should decline that information.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Is it not a fact that Seretse Khama is the grandson of Khama and that it has never been disputed that Tshekedi was the regent? Does this report really mean that Seretse has been excluded from the whole Protectorate while Tshekedi has only been excluded from the country of the Bamangwato? If so, why this differentiation? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of making a forthright declaration that there is no intention of going back on the agreement of 1895 that Bechuanaland will remain under the direct control of the Crown, and that there is no question of departing from that decision?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: I can certainly give the last assurance. I am also aware of the heredity of Seretse Khama and Tshekedi. It is true that Seretse Khama will be excluded from the entire Protectorate and that Tshekedi will be excluded from the reserve only. The chief reason is that we are satisfied that if we do keep Tshekedi out of the reserve and lay certain conditions upon him about not interfering in any way in the affairs of the tribe, that will not in any way endanger peace and order, whereas Seretse's presence in the Protectorate might cause trouble from that standpoint. Tshekedi will be excluded for the same length of time as Seretse. He will be under the same prohibitions about interfering with the internal affairs of people there; that would be a condition of exclusion. If that were offended against in any way we would have to think about it.
Mr. Churchill: May I return to the very simple point in which some of us on this side are interested, namely, the question of whether he was enticed over

295
here under false pretences or not, and whether he will be restored to his previous position? Where is Mrs. Khama at present, and where was she at the time when Seretse Khama took leave of her? Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that Seretse has a right to go back to that very place and meet her at that very place before the Government take any further action in the matter?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: At the time when Seretse Khama left, his wife was in Serowe, the capital. I have had a telegram today that says she has moved a little way down the railway line to a place which is still in the reserve and which has certain facilities that she needs. I could not give an undertaking that Seretse Khama could go back to the reserve to meet his wife. There are obviously very grave difficulties about peace and order at this critical moment, but he can go back, and we will arrange it, to Lobatsi, which is near at hand and which happens to be a place where there are the medical facilities needed and where he can be joined by his wife. It is not far away. I am sure that is no imposition. Should Seretse Khama change his mind about his wife being brought to London, our offer, of course, still holds good.
Mr. Churchill: It is a very disreputable transaction.
Mr. Wyatt: Is it true that Seretse Khama was never shown a copy of the Report of the inquiry to which my right hon. Friend has referred? Would my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter about its publication, because if the Report is not published the only conclusion that will be drawn throughout large parts of the Commonwealth will be that a colour bar has operated? The other reasons will never be given.
Mr. Gordon-Walker: I have given other reasons in the statement that I made; it is rather lengthy and I hope hon. Members will read it with care. It is true that Seretse Khama was not shown a copy of the Report because, as I have said, it was one of the many factors that we had to take into account in the very careful inquiries we made, including, I may say, the recall of our High Commissioner for the better part of a month so that we could discuss it with him in great detail. It is for the same reason
296
that I do not want to publish it that it was not shown to Seretse Khama, because it is merely one of a number of factors that we had to take into account.
Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman told us just now that it was untrue to suggest that any of these questions raised by my hon. Friends about mixed marriages and so on, and the opinion of white people in South Africa on that subject, had been discussed at all in this matter. Can he give the assurance that none of that was mentioned in the Report?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: I would not like to say anything one way or the other about what was in the Report. What I can say is that this factor of the desirability of mixed marriages as such did not enter at all at any point into our minds, apart from this connection of this man and his chieftainship—not the question of mixed marriages as such—and we are not passing judgment upon the question of mixed marriages. It is, of course, a legitimate marriage and we are doing nothing whatever, nor would we wish to do anything, about that at all.
Captain Duncan: In view of the fact that this decision may lead to disorder in the country, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is adequate force in the country to maintain law and order? If reinforcements are necessary, will he give an assurance that they will not come from the Union of South Africa?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: I hope that this decision will prevent disorder that might otherwise have arisen. We have taken the precautions that have seemed necessary to us in the circumstances.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Secretary of State tell us what exact payment is to be made to this gentleman and whether it is to be paid by the Colonial Office?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: It is certainly not to be paid by the Colonial Office. The details of payment are still to be discussed with Seretse Khama. The offer I made to him, and which he can accept or not, as he wishes, was that he should be paid £1,100 a year. But I would sooner not answer detailed questions until I have seen him again on this matter, which will be in a day or two.
Mr. S. Silverman: Whether or not it is desirable to publish the Report of the judicial inquiry, would my right hon. Friend explain how it can be right to withhold the result of that inquiry from a man who was the principal witness and who is principally affected by it? How can it be right to withhold the Report from Seretse himself?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: All the evidence before the court was in public, and Seretse Khama was represented throughout. He heard, either himself or through his representatives, all the evidence given on both sides. The conclusions and arguments in the Report, on the other hand, are. purely advisory to the High Commissioner and myself. Seretse Khama knows and has at his disposal all the evidence given, including his own.
Mr. Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend see that the fact that all the evidence was in public and can be read by all the world is a reason for publishing the Report and not for withholding it?
Mr. Gordon-Walker: That would be a valid argument if this were a court. This is a body giving an advisory opinion to a Government that has to take a decision of policy in this matter.
Mr. Speaker: I think we should get on with Business. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
Mr. Brockway: On a point of Order. May I give notice, Sir, that I intend to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment?
Mr. Sorensen: Arising from that point, may I express the difficulty in which some of us find ourselves? We were hesitant to say that we would raise the matter on the Adjournment, and when we saw you rise, Mr. Speaker, we remained in our places, thinking that we could go no further in the matter. Do we now understand that the matter will be raised on the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: There will be a chance of debating it on the Adjournment whenever the opportunity arises.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  KING'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [THIRD DAY]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th March]:
    "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 addresed to both Houses of Parliament"—[Mr. Dye.]
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Speaker: I would inform the House that tomorrow I propose to call the Amendment relating to steel, and then on Friday I shall open the Debate again in the hope that I shall be able to give some time for discussion of each of the subjects many of which are down in Amendments. On Monday, which is the last day, we shall deal with the final Opposition Amendment on housing.
    Mr. Bellenger: Would it be appropriate to ask you, Sir, or whoever is acting for the Leader of the House, whether it is true that tomorrow the House will sit later and that the Division will not he called until 11 o'clock so as to enable a certain event outside to go to its conclusion?
    Mr. Speaker: If there is no Motion down, the Division must be at 10 o'Clock.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask whether it is your intention, Sir, to announce, perhaps tomorrow, what Amendments you propose to call on Friday?
    Mr. Speaker: There is no Amendment on Friday. I am leaving the Debate open.
    3.9 p.m.
    Colonel Gonune-Duncan: When the House adjourned last night, I was on the point of mentioning one or two facts in connection with the Gracious Speech, and I am glad to have this opportunity of doing so today. I want to make it quite clear that

    299
    when yesterday I said there was no mention of Scotland in the Gracious Speech, I was very slightly in error. There is mention of it in connection with allotments, and allotments only. Therefore, for my purpose I think I can stick to what I meant, and that is that there is nothing of material advantage or disadvantage to Scotland in the Gracious Speech; it is just ignored.
    It is important to realise that a million people and more have signed what in Scotland is known as the Covenant, and although I realise that that does not bind anybody, and especially the Government of the day, what I wish to emphasise is that a million people do not sign a Covenant of that kind without having behind them some very good reasons for doing so. While, as I mentioned last night, there were certain frivolous signatures, there is no doubt that, taken as a whole, the people who signed the Covenant were intensely interested in improving the relationship of Scotland and England, and in particular in Parliament here.
    It is also a fact which we must bear in mind that the Scottish National Party signally failed at the General Election to obtain any material support from the people of Scotland. I think I am right in saying that they polled 9,708 votes in the whole of Scotland, which is something like 0.36 per cent. of the total poll. From that point of view, I think it is pretty clear that the people of Scotland do not want what is the main point of the Scottish National Party's policy—political separation from England. We also have the fact that the Liberal Party included in their manifesto at the General Election the suggestion that there should be a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh for purely Scottish affairs, and I do not think that the support given to the Liberal Party in Scotland, as elsewhere, indicates that that point in their manifesto had any effect on their political fortunes. I think we have to realise, therefore, that so far as political separation is concerned there is very little support in Scotland for that proposal.
    That, I think, might lead to this danger —that the Government might think that the signing of the Covenant by a million people does not merit further notice, because the voting has gone against one
    300
    of the items in that Covenant. I wish to assure Ministers that nothing could be more dangerous than to assume that. The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland have been very much moved in recent months by the fact, which they are now beginning to realise but which some of us have realised for some time past, that all is not well in the set-up as between Scotland and England in Parliament at Westminster.
    I do not think the Government have any longer any reason for refusing what we requested and were refused during the last Parliament, and that is a proper fact-finding commission set up under the highest authority—in other words, a Royal Commission—to give us the facts and figures to which the people of Scotland and the people of England are entitled—facts and figures in connection with their relationships with each other, economic and otherwise. How much does Scotland put into the Treasury and how much does she take out? South of the Border I find the general impression is that she takes out far more than she puts in. North of the Border I find the general impression is that she puts in far more than she takes out. We can go on arguing about this until we are black in the face and we shall get nowhere nearer a solution. Why cannot we have the facts and figures? Why have the Government refused them—or rather, why did the last Government refuse them, because it is possible that this Government may not do so? It seems fair to the people of both countries that they should have these facts and figures upon which so much of their life depends.
    Before the war the Treasury and the Board of Trade used to issue most valuable figures in connection with the difference between Scotland and England in trade and so on. Why cannot that be done today? In the last Parliament the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would take up too much time and there was much work to do, or words to that effect, but his Department of the Treasury and the Board of Trade, the other Department most concerned, have vastly greater staffs available today than they had before the war when they used to give us the figures, and it seems to me that some of those staffs might very profitably be employed in giving the facts and figures for

    301
    which we consider there is an unanswerable case. At any rate, that is the only way of settling many of the arguments of Scottish Nationalists, Covenanters and others, and I see no reason why we should not have that information.
    I take this opportunity of welcoming the new Secretary of State for Scotland, in absentia, to his new post. I hope he will show in the Cabinet that same determination which he has shown in the far-flung councils of the world, across the Atlantic, in dealing with difficult people— and I believe he will have to deal with difficult people. I hope we shall know that we have in the Cabinet a representative who is not afraid to speak his mind and to insist upon what he says having fair consideration. I think, ladies and gentlemen—I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for forgetting for one moment that I was back safely, very safely, in this illustrious Chamber, and I beg your pardon.
    The next matter I want to mention, and one upon which I hope the Government will say something, is that of the nationalised industries. We on this side of the House recognise that it may not be possible to put back some of these industries to free enterprise at the stage which they have now reached. But what we want to ensure is this: where it is not possible to put a nationalised industry back to free enterprise, we must have executive authority, with full powers, set up in Scotland to ensure that the rights and interests of Scotland in these industries are fully safeguarded.
    That we regard as a fundamental necessity and, according to the present set-up, what we have in some of these industries is nothing of the kind, but is a sort of little branch office which merely carries out the orders from the centre. If anything has damaged Scotland and her interests in recent years more than another, and if anything has contributed more than another to this outburst of feeling in Scotland in the ways I have been discussing, as is evidenced by the Covenant and other things—this boiling up and boiling over—it is the nationalisation of industries affecting Scotland, because it cannot be denied that the control of these industries has moved to London, and where the control is in human affairs most of the benefits are usually found also.
    302
    We insist, therefore, that it is absolutely vital to the interests of Scotland in these industries—and they are vital to her life—that there shall be executive authority set up for the proper solution of the problem and the proper safeguarding of Scotland's interests. In the case of transport, for example, we believe it to be imperative that road transport should be returned to private enterprise, which understands it, at the earliest possible moment. Some buses and trams which have hitherto been most efficiently run in our great cities in Scotland have now been taken over, and in some cases they are already showing signs of diminishing efficiency.
    I want to make two further points on the subject of the nationalised industries, and one concerns civil aviation, which has almost ceased to exist in Scotland. In spite of the most glowing promises from Ministers, there is now between Turnhouse and Aberdeen, in that great area of Scotland, no chance of getting into an aeroplane to travel anywhere at all. That is a very different thing from what was promised us in the glowing days just after 1945. I hope it will be perfectly clearly understood by the Government that this question of civil aviation requires immediate attention as far as Scotland is concerned. We know that proposals have been made by companies to run services to cover areas which are not at present covered by air transport, and that these proposals have been turned down merely because the Government say that they, the Government, could not make them pay.
    Mrs. Mann: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman please include England in his plea for civil aviation, because England is not nearly so well catered for as is Scotland in this respect?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Naturally, I am very interested in the well-being of England, as I am in that of Scotland; but I was for the moment talking about Scotland, and I think I had better confine myself to Scotland's civil aviation, otherwise I shall start on a much wider subject, and that will not help my remarks. I am dealing with civil aviation in Scotland, which has practically ceased to exist.
    Mrs. Mann: Nonsense.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is no good the hon. Lady saying "Nonsense," because it is a fact. I could go into proposals for others of these nationalised industries, such as the gas industry, which hitherto has been run so effectively and efficiently by local authorities in Scotland. We say that it should go back to those local authorities, where they wish to take it over. As for electricity, I say without hesitation that the whole of the electrical development and production in Scotland should be under one body similar to the North Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, which is running efficiently today.
    Where United Kingdom Ministries are retained—and we recognise that they must be, because there are certain services which cater for the whole of Great Britain and must have, we believe, a central, United Kingdom, Ministry—there must be an improvement in the position of Scotland in relation to those Ministries, and in the representation of Scotland in those United Kingdom Ministries and in the running of the Scottish parts of the United Kingdom covered by these controlled services; and there must be much better liaison than there is at present between the central Ministries in London and the far, outlying parts of Scotland.
    I turn for a moment to the question of the local authorities. The local authorities, we believe—and I have always been convinced that this is so—are really the backbone of government in any country. Local government, after all, is older than central government, and it is much closer to the people, and it understands the little details of their lives far better than a national Parliament. However, the effect of centralisation under the present regime has been ever to take more and more powers and responsibilities away from the local authorities while at the same time giving them more and more work to do, and they have rapidly become literally rubber stamps of the central Government. Now, that is not democratic local government as we understand it in this country, and I maintain that until we restore very largely authority and powers to the local authorities in both town and country, we shall never get proper government of the people in Scotland in their own interests.
    Then there is this other question. We have made, thanks largely to the Unionist Party, improvements in the last five years
    304
    to the discussion and consideration of Scottish business in Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. But there are still points which require very drastic alteration, and the first is this. I hope it is not going to happen in this present Parliament, as happened in the last, that it will be impossible, owing to the demands on their time, for Scottish Members to be represented on other Committees than the Scottish Grand Committee because other Committees sit at the same time as the Scottish Grand Committee—those other Committees on which Scottish Members should have full representation. It is of the greatest importance to us; and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will insist that, when there are Committees, including the Scottish Grand Committee, considering matters affecting the whole of Great Britain, which are meant to work simultaneously, the hours of business will be arranged so that Scottish Members have a full chance of attending, not only the Committee on Scottish affairs, but those other Committees sitting elsewhere. It is fatal that, just because we come from Scotland and represent as best we can Scottish interests, people should think that therefore we are not part and parcel of the Government of Great Britain and are not concerned with its interests in the great world outside. Parochialism has always been a danger—
    Mrs. Mann: Hear, hear.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: —to Scottish Members. It is an attitude which it is very easy to get into—just as it is for lady Members to think, perhaps, for a moment that they are here only to deal with matters affecting their own sex.
    Mrs. Mann rose—
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am sorry, but I cannot give way because I wish to sit down almost immediately, and far more important speakers than I are about to claim attention. I am not making any allegations against lady Members. I am merely saying that it is possible that they may think—some of them—only of women's affairs. I do not say that they do. I say only that there is that danger that they may. There is a danger also that Scottish Members may become parochial. I do not think they want to, but I think they sometimes do.

    305
    I say with all the sincerity at my command that a great improvement is urgently needed in the handling of Scottish affairs at Westminster. I am not being anti-English in saying that. Far from it. What I think we have to realise is that there are two partners in Great Britain, to which we are proud to belong. One is Scotland and the other is England. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Wales?"] Scotland and England are two sovereign States united in a Treaty of Union. The Scots are a nation just as are the English. A distinguished predecessor in your great office, Sir—I think, Mr. Speaker Smith— at the time of the Union said, "We have catch't the Scotch and we mean to hold them fast." It is perfectly clear that his constituency must have been much farther away from the Border than is the one you represent, Sir. Certainly he would never have made a remark like that if he had been close to the Border. I find he was safely representing Andover in Hampshire, where it was much safer in 1707 to say that type of thing than it was in Northumberland.
    We Scots are a sovereign nation. There are two parts of Great Britain, two States united, and they are both nations. We must get that perfectly clearly into the head of everybody, and into the heads of hon. Members for English, Welsh and Northern Ireland constituencies, who decide these things, for they are by far in the greatest majority in this House. That is why I appeal to them to realise that we have two States as partners, Scotland and England.
    In the few suggestions which I have tried to make, I believe we have a solution. With a new Secretary of State and a new Under-Secretary of State, I believe that we have a chance to start again. Scotland is going to have this put right, and I believe in doing it by thoroughly constitutional means, and not by the more violent means which may follow if we do not have the thing properly settled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. Nobody is going to pretend that if rights are not as they should be, and accepted, trouble may not follow. Surely, that is the basis of democracy—that we fight for our rights and have things put right. I think the tragic example of Ireland is one that we should have at the back of our minds, though we pray and hope that it will never be repeated.
    306
    That is why I urge so strongly that this matter should be put right, and put right now.
    3.29 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): It is not for me to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) in the somewhat dangerous line on which he seemed to be embarking towards the end of his speech. I began to understand, while he was making those remarks, why earlier in his speech he did not seem clear whom he was addressing.
    I want to go back to that part of the Gracious Speech—the very early part of it—which gives such very great prominence to the agricultural industry, and to the part which the countryside is playing and could play in the recovery of our national economy, and which sets out the kind of steps which the Government intend to take, as it is put in the Gracious Speech, "to increase output by every efficient means," and to continue to improve rural amenities. May I begin by saying that if ever I had any.doubts as to whether a catalogue of what has been done was needed, those doubts have been removed by the speeches made lately by Members of the party opposite. It seems completely to have escaped their notice that we have been engaged in this country on the task of increasing agricultural output pretty steadily over the last two years, since the expansion programme was inaugurated. If it had not escaped their notice, they would not be so frequently promising to try to do what we have already performed.
    I think that is the keynote on which one should start this Debate. Their words, their figures, their phrases—the whole description as it appears in the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—as I will show with regard to one of them later—have been lifted bodily either from my right hon. Friend's announcement in 1945, the Agriculture Act, 1947, or from my right hon. Friend's announcement about the expansion programme made in 1947. I think that we must recognise—and this applies particularly to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who still sits, I hope, for Aberdeen and Kincardine, Central (Mr. Spence)—
    Mr. Spence: It is pronounced Kin car dine.
    Mr. Brown: Since we have been threatened that people will be fighting for their lives on the other side of the Border, let me say that I must be allowed to pronounce names in the way that seems best to me.
    Mr. Spence: I now represent West Aberdeen.
    Mr. Brown: That gets me out of trouble, and I hope it means that there will be no civil war this side of the Recess.
    Let me tell the House what has been done in the realm of total agricultural production. If we take 100 as the basis of calculation for the years 1936–39, we find that for 1946 to 1947—the year before the expansion programme was launched—the figure stood at 123, and 1948 at 135–35 per cent. over the level of production which we had reached at the end of the period before the war; and in the year in which we are now embarking we shall see a considerable increase in our total agricultural production. We are just about half-way towards the expansion programme targets—the targets which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite still talk about as if they were something new. We are half-way there in the matter of time and more than halfway in terms of actual output. Hon. Members opposite talk as if they had suddenly discovered the figure of 50 per cent. increase, but let them realise how far we are towards it in the first two years of our expansion programme.
    If we bear in mind that a scheme of this kind dealing with agricultural production necessarily takes time to get under way and' to gather momentum, I think we can see that the industry is achieving, under the policy which the Government introduced, what we set out to do, and what the Opposition promised they would try to do if they had the chance. The Leader of the Opposition implied in his speech—particularly in his reference to his speech at Luton Hoo, to which I will refer again—that we had been making achievement impossible because of the lack of labour, houses and machinery. The figures which I have given of increased agricultural output already achieved show that that clearly cannot be so.
    308
    Let me give some further figures of production, and then let me turn to some of these things, the lack of which, it is alleged, is holding us back. May I give some figures of our cattle population? Last night we were told about pigs, and I interjected then to say that in the nature of our agriculture it was very misleading to take one particular form of livestock husbandry and not pay attention to the other forms. If one looks at the whole picture, one gets a very different impression. Calves under 12 months—so important to our policy of getting more home-killed meat—now amount to 2,061,000, which is 400,000, in round figures, more than before the war, and the figures have been steadily increasing throughout the expansion programme. Dairy cattle at 3,900,000 are very considerably above anything that we reached before. Our total cattle population is 9,129,000, which is well over one million more than before the war, and again is higher than the figures in between.
    Our sheep population at 14,500,000 is less by five million than the figure before the war, but I think that the hon. Gentleman who pointed this out failed to remember 1947. The sheep figure would in fact be considerably higher had it not been for the fact that it has taken from 1947 until now to make up for the enormous losses of sheep, ewes and lambs in the disastrous winter of 1947. The point that I am making is that we have now succeeded so well in that campaign of recovery that our sheep figure is 1,500,000 more than it was at the time of that disaster.
    Mr. Spence: Will the hon. Gentleman give the rate of slaughter in December, 1946, which was an all-time high record?
    Mr. Brown: The problem is to restore our sheep farming to the level which it used to have. The point I am making is that if one looks at the trend and remembers 1947, the picture of the sheep population is much more encouraging than the bare figure which the hon. Gentleman gave last night.
    The pig population of 2,600,000 is still one million or so below the pre-war figure, but nevertheless represents since the end of the war an increase of something like 800,000, which again shows a continuing considerable increase in the right direction. Our fowls now number 46,500,000 and are considerably higher

    309
    than anything we achieved even before the war. The total of poultry at 50 million is very much higher indeed. So far as we can make statistics of this kind take on any life at all—
    Mr. Hurd: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) may find considerable difficulty, but in his regular contributions to one national newspaper he seems to manage quite well to present figures that suit him. I think that he had better look at the others. Whether the hon. Gentleman finds difficulty in making them live or not, they show that in every single aspect of livestock husbandry we are making considerable progress. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) replied to an interjection which I made last night. He thought that we were concentrating too much on cereal production. I hope to say something about cereal production and its place in the scheme of things. I think that if we take the whole of the figures, we shall find that the two things are being balanced at the moment and we are getting a considerable increase in our animal and cattle population.
    Mr. Snadden: is it not a fact that while cattle have increased in numbers, home-killed beef has fallen since pre-war by 27 per cent.?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot give the exact figure offhand. I will see that an attempt is made to produce it during the Debate. My impression is that that is not so. If I am wrong, I shall say so when the figure is produced. There is no great point about it, anyway. In any case, the important thing is that for cattle under 12 months' old and between 12 months and two years, which are the important classes for the future, we have in both groups a considerable increase, amounting indeed to hundreds of thousands. Whatever the position today, we are obviously getting near the time when we shall be able to increase the slaughtering of animals for beef at the right sort of age and development.
    Let me now give another figure, which I hope will live a little better in the minds of hon. Members opposite, and that is the figure of pigs coming to the bacon
    310
    factories. I think there is a very significant figure available here. In January, 1948, the bacon factories of this country handled an average of 7,500 pigs per week; in January, 1949, an average of 21,000; in January, 1950, an average of 36,000; and in the last week for which I can give hon. Members figures, they have handled 52,900. We have, therefore, in a little over two years, gone from 7,000 a week to 52,000 a week—an increase of sixfold. I should have thought that was very great evidence that we were getting the right sort of emphasis on livestock production. I hope those figures, anyhow, will live for a bit in the minds of hon. Members opposite. For eggs the figures show the same sort of increase and steady progress.
    I know there have been hon. Members who have rather doubted whether the targets for cereal production that we have set the industry were achievable consistent with a good husbandry policy. Last summer my right hon. Friend took very great care to initiate and himself participate in discussions, which began at the county level between the N.F.U. and the county agricultural executive committees, and which were conducted nationally as well, to see whether this was in fact so. The general conclusion reached was that, provided the tillage acreage was adequate, the prospects of achieving the increased production called for in these targets for increased acreage and increased yields are very good, and we have no reason to think that the targets my right hon. Friend has set the industry are inconsistent with the demands of good husbandry.
    Now let me say a word about feeding-stuffs, in respect of which it is widely alleged that we have not obtained what we ought to have done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear," but I think it is important that we should discuss this sensibly and clearly. The figures which were given last night of pigs per head of the population here and pigs per head of the population in Denmark seem to me, with great respect, to be wholly irrelevant. The make-up of the population in this country, the degree of industrialisation and the degree to which we live in towns, is wholly different from that in Denmark, and whether or not there is one pig per head of the population here and four pigs per head

    311
    of the population in Denmark seems to me to prove almost nothing.
    The question is: Have we been doing what we ought to have done to obtain adequate supplies of feedingstuffs to enable the expansion programme to go on? My right hon. Friend has taken the view, solidly and steadily right the way through, that it was not right, and would be no help at all, to pin our faith on getting feedingstuffs by using Marshall Aid dollars. I believe that the figures of our animal population now, particularly our growing pig and fowl populations—and indeed the whole picture—show what a shortsighted and dangerous policy that would have been.
    It has seemed to us that we ought to tell the farmer pretty clearly and vigorously what the position is. I think I have been into every county in England and Wales in the last two and a half years, meeting farmers individually and in groups, the county people, and so on, and tried to explain this. On the whole they understand it pretty well; they understand that in present conditions in the world our surest source of supply must be, first of all, our own fields. If we were to use Marshall Aid dollars, which will not be available to us at a later stage, to breed animals, for the feedingstuffs for which we shall not then have the dollars we have come to rely on, the only result would be the grave danger of a slaughtering of the surplus animals which we had bred beyond our capacity to feed them.
    The right thing was to encourage the farmer to build up his tillage acreage, to build up the capacity from our own fields to supply feedingstuffs, and thus match the growing number of animals with a growing supply of feedingstuffs, in order to make sure that the thing works without a hitch at the end of that time.
    Mr. Gerald Williams: Why, then, in July, 1947, did the Lord President promise us that he would spend even scarce dollars in order to bring feedingstuffs over to this country?
    Mr. Brown: It is an awful tragedy that hon. Members opposite are so much keener to score what they think to be debating points than they are to deal with the merits of the argument I am putting forward. I must say, with great respect, that the farmers in the country under-
    312
    stand better than some hon. Members in this House that the merit of the argument is on the side of the line taken by my right hon. Friend.
    I will, however, deal with the point the hon. Gentleman makes about what the Lord President said, because it does not seem to me to be clearly enough understood; it certainly was not appreciated in the Debate last night. Last year we provided for the industry over 80 per cent. of all the feedingstuffs that we had pre-war, and we are much nearer to having as much feedingstuffs—although there are certain particular causes of difficulty, especially with proteins—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are only happy when they hear of some little point that is not as good as the rest. Instead of cheering the one point at which we are trying to bring things up to the general level, it would be much better if they recognised that the general level is so good, and that we have got to within 10 or 15 per cent. of our pre-war figure.
    The aim of my right hon. Friend and the Government has been, first to obtain as much as we could from non-dollar sources, and that we have done; and second, to obtain the highest production we could from our own home sources. The undertaking of the Lord President was intended to cover the contingency which would arise if those two together had not been what they have been. Because they have been as good as they have, and for the reasons I have given—which I really do invite hon. Members opposite to address themselves to—we have taken the view that it would be wrong to encourage farmers or the industry to take the somewhat easier line about breeding and feeding instead of realising that later on their own strong arm will be their own sure defence. Because this has happened we have had the various rationing schemes continuously under review in the past two years, and considerable increases and beneficial adjustments have been made, particularly in the past year.
    Now, we have given a warning to dairy farmers about the position after next October, and the change we then hope to make. The reason for this is, of course, that we have to face the fact that for a considerable number of farmers their acreage, siting and other

    313
    considerations are such that they cannot be as self-sufficient as some of the other chaps. Therefore, we want to reserve as much of the general ration pool as we can in order to help those who really have not the same opportunities as others to make themselves self-sufficient. I believe that in that regard my right hon. Friend has followed a policy which commends itself to the industry, and I think to most hon. Members in their less prejudiced moments.
    May I, while dealing with feedingstuffs, say a word or two about grassland? It is quite obvious that the attention we pay and the treatment we give to our considerable areas of grassland are very closely associated with the whole problem of self-sufficiency, and with the size of the tillage acreage. I think it is true to say that after a somewhat sketchy start—largely, I think, because in the county committees some opportunities were a little muffed during the war, when we made the first shot at this—the need for improved and better conservation of our grass is at last beginning to catch on.
    The first year in which we got a really significant bump up in the amount of silage was 1948, when the amount was doubled. The number of pits dug in 1949 by agricultural executive committees services and private contractors constituted a record. There is no doubt at all that silage has taken a solid hold and will greatly increase. We had a drought last summer which meant a setback to the programme, but that was outside the control of anyone; otherwise, last year we should have had a greater increase in the supply of good grass. In spite of the increase in stock, the supply of grass might have outrun the demand.
    I should like to give some figures of the grass-drying and silage installations. The number of new grass-drying installations erected in 1949 was about 250, which is roughly half as many as we had in operation in 1948. We had 19 cooperative schemes operating in 1948, 30 in 1949, and we shall have 60 operating in 1950. There were some arguments during the Committee stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill whether we were wise to include the provision for grant-aiding farmers' co-operative ventures for the setting up of these grass-drying installations. An Amendment was moved by Members opposite
    314
    and negatived. I hope they now feel that we were right to hold our course, despite the advice tendered to us.
    Mr. Snadden: Do the figures include Scotland?
    Mr. Brown: They are United Kingdom figures.
    May I now turn to efficiency in the industry? The Gracious Speech mentions increasing output by every efficient means, and the Leader of the Opposition singled our labour, housing and machinery for his comments in this field. Broadly speaking, the labour force has steadily increased since my right hon. Friend began his new era for agriculture after the war. One way or another we have offset very largely the prisoners of war who were still available in large numbers when the programme began. It is very difficult to measure productivity in this or any other field, but there is no doubt that there has been a steady and marked increase in productivity, enabling the job to be done, which is so much bigger than two years ago, with a smaller labour force than would have been required on the 1946 standards of farming and mechanisation. Our labour figures are really most encouraging. I remind hon. Members opposite—it is a fair point—although I know they do not like history being recalled on this or many other matters, that the marked feature when they were in command was the heavy drift of agricultural workers away from the land. That was the one thing that marked village and rural life, and no doubt we shall have another attempt during this Debate to rewrite that history.
    Since we have been applying our policy, we have had an altogether different picture. Instead of a drift away from the land, which went on steadily from the repeal of the corn production Acts right up to 1939, we have had an increase in the labour force. The December figures show a slight falling off, I agree, but that was due to the exceptional harvesting conditions. As I have said, the general trend has been an upward one and not a downward one. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition and to his friends that they must have some regard for the facts, not only of history but of the present.
    May I now say a word about housing, which obviously has a great bearing on

    315
    this matter? No one who knows rural England will deny that there is a great problem of housing to be dealt with in the countryside. It is a problem, let me remind hon. Members opposite, that arises from the tremendous neglect of the past. Villages in my constituency, if I may speak of what I know best, had virtually had no houses built to let for agricultural or other workers for a quarter of a century before the war. What we had was a considerable amount of building by speculators in the suburbs of large towns at the expense of almost every village. In my constituency, there are villages less than five miles from large towns which did not see a house built during the whole of that period. These villages are now for the first time getting their allocation of houses to keep the men on the land. That is a real factor which makes the problem so difficult.
    Let us look again at the figures. I do not put them forward in order to be complacent or to suggest that we have overtaken the problem; nevertheless, they do show a considerable meed of progress. Taking the rural authorities, 82,824 permanent local authority houses were built up to the end of last year, and a further 25,700 were under construction. I again invite the attention of Members opposite to this interesting point, that 25 per cent. of that large figure is for houses for letting to agricultural workers. Mention was made last night of the tied cottage, but I am not going to involve myself at this stage in that controversy. I warn Members opposite, in passing, that if we are to make loose remarks on what is a delicate problem, we may end by having a very real problem indeed.
    Mr. Turton: Since the hon. Member is making rather loose remarks about rural housing between the wars, will he give the figures? The number of houses built by rural authorities between 1934 and 1939 was 850,000 which is at the rate of 40,000 a year.
    Mr. Brown: Members opposite will, of course, make speeches attempting to prove their own points, but for the moment I am making a speech attempting to prove mine.
    Mr. Hurd: Give us the facts.
    Mr. Brown: It is no good bleating "Give us the facts," because that figure of 850,000 houses hardly included any houses for agricultural workers. The figure includes a lot of housing for other people just outside the towns, and it is this change that I am trying to get across to Members opposite.
    One in four of the houses built have been let to agricultural workers, who for the first time in their lives can afford even to pay present-day council house rents, and could never have afforded to pay the much lower rents which applied before the war because of the neglect of Members opposite adequately to reward those working on the land. In addition, there have been 33,179 private licences issued in the rural areas, of which 27,000 houses have been completed. I draw to the attention of Members opposite, who are apt to talk about ratios, that 27,400 private enterprise houses out of a total of 82,000 houses have been completed. There is no evidence here for the allegation that we have applied a doctrinaire mind to the problem. Last year 30,000 local authority houses were completed, and of these 8,119, which is far more than the one-in-four ratio, were let to agricultural workers.
    I suggest, therefore, that the attempt to say that housing has held back the provision of an adequate labour force is disproved by the figures of the labour force itself and by the housing figures.
    I should like to say a word about mechanisation, which was the subject of another allegation by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who talked about the reckless way in which we had exported agricultural machinery and made it impossible for our own farmers to do the job. That is really as far from the true facts of the situation as could possibly be the case. In 1947,. when we began our expansion programme, we had to step up the steel allocation for this particular purpose and we doubled' it in a few months. The whole of the agricultural machinery going on to our farms in 1948 was over £40 million, and in 1949 it has been very little less.
    The export market also was maintained. It would have been fantastically foolish to have cut ourselves off from the export market, and to have lost the valuable currency that it earned for the nation. It is extraordinary the way in which we

    317
    are told by the Opposition that we should use dollars to buy feedingstuffs, but we are advised not to export the machines which would earn those dollars. Agricultural machinery earned currency which we badly needed, and it provided a market for the agricultural machinery industry, which could be expanded when the home market became filled up with our machines.
    Our exports, running at the rate of between £15 million and £20 million a quarter, have not affected the output of machinery for the home agricultural market. We have largely freed ourselves from dependence on North American supplies of machinery. The tractor population, which was 80,000 before the war, is well over 400,000 now. Of course, it is growing now at a reduced rate, but it is evident that our tractor industry would have been in difficulties if we had not taken steps to see that the other market was, in fact, there, because we could not go on multiplying tractors for home use at the same pace. Large tractors, including crawlers are of very considerable importance at the moment, and are being made in great numbers in this country. In combined harvesters and pick-up balers we have established an important home production industry. We have 9,000 combined harvesters compared with 150 in 1939.
    What attracts me even more particularly about this labour problem is that we are at last beginning to find the answer to the problem of mechanisation and the harvesting of sugar beet and potatoes. It is a big problem, and it is no use thinking that we are ever going to have again as we once had the teams following behind picking up the potatoes. A really efficient sugar-beet harvester is most important. We began from scratch on this matter. Last year we had in operation some 1,800 small machines operating for the first time to give us an effective mechanised sugar-beet harvester. There is considerable leeway still to be made up, but what I have said shows that it is far from true to suggest that we have held back the industry because we are not willing to supply the tools for the job, which we said would be available when we began the whole programme.
    Mr. Osborne: Before the Minister leaves the question of the export of machinery to dollar areas, can he tell
    318
    us what proportion of the machinery went to dollar markets?
    Mr. Brown: It has been given many times in the House.
    Mr. Osborne: But I am asking for it now.
    Mr. Brown: I know the hon. Member is asking for it now, but that figure does not happen to be one that I have with me at the moment. If we get it before the end of the Debate it will be produced, but if the hon. Member troubles to look for it he can find it in HANSARD. We have given it in the House time and time again.
    The great lesson in this increased mechanisation, like the increase in the number of houses which are actually let for agricultural workers, and which have been erected under the policy which we have been following and which the Gracious Speech states will be continued, is that, just as the agricultural workers for the first time can afford houses, so for the first time the bulk of our smaller farmers can afford machines to carry on their farming. That is really a very important thing.
    There is another side to this efficiency question which I have not time to deal with at length, but which I ought to touch on, and that is the question of yields. It would be wrong to leave the farmer with the impression that the whole of our efficiency is going to come in the ways that I have been describing. We have got to raise the yields of our crops and of our animals to a far greater extent. We have now got to use far more than we have been doing what we know about selective weed killers, what science has told us, and so on. It is our intention through the Advisory Service and in other ways to step up the yield of our crops so that we can get the increases which we want.
    The Gracious Speech also refers to our intention to speed up and attack with greater vigour the question of marginal land production. We have a large area in this country of so-called marginal land which is capable of producing considerably more food if the owners and occupiers are able to carry out the necessary improvements. We have a variety of methods by which we have been trying to help. The Hill Farming Act has been a great deal more helpful than right hon.

    319
    and hon. Gentlemen opposite realise. It has been getting under way during this last year. I will not give the figures now, but my right hon. Friend will be doing so later on in the Debate.
    There is also a marginal production scheme of a limited nature. Nevertheless, it has been of considerable help to those whose need was perhaps the greatest and who could not carry out any improvements at all on their own financial resources. Those of us who have been associated with the countryside know that very often the sort of chap who gets that sort of marginal land, and who is faced with the problem of carrying out improvements, is the man with the least capital to do it. Both the schemes to which I have referred have helped.
    It would be silly to plunge with both feet and hands into some new vast scheme of marginal land improvement without having a most careful survey of the whole problem and consideration of what the likely results are. We have a body of experts surveying this question, and we hope very soon to be in a position to consider their report. No time will be lost at all in considering what further steps will be taken to improve by all practical measures the use that we make at the present time of our marginal land.
    I was sorry that the Leader of the Opposition made that quip about cattle grids, and that the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire adopted the same sort of line. Anyone who knows the problem of farming particularly in the uplands knows how great an improvement will be effected by these cattle grids in the highways. The law at the moment is in such a condition that few highway authorities are prepared to take the risk connected with their erection, and what we propose to do will in a matter of production 1?e out of all proportion to the actual size of the Measure itself.
    There are other items which I should like to mention, but I must leave them to my right hon. Friend who will speak later. Moreover, there is one small matter —it looks small but it is of considerable importance—which has also been the subject of a quip from the other side of the House. I refer to the Allotments Bill, to which reference is made in the King's Speech. I have the great honour of being
    320
    chairman of a committee set up by my right hon. Friend to go into the question of allotment legislation in the light of the Charter produced by the National Allotments and Gardens Society. We had a committee representative of the Society and local authorities, and it was concerned with allotment holders' security of tenure and such matters of importance to them. Obviously they produce, particularly in the towns, a large amount of food, and they ease the demand upon our own industry and upon our imports at a time when and in a place where easing of that demand is most necessary.
    Some of the recommendations of the committee can be put into operation by administrative action, and that we shall try to do. Particularly is that the case with the recommendation laying down standards for the provision of allotments in relation to population. Those recommendations dealing with matters like notice to quit and the compensation payable on quitting cannot be implemented without legislation. That is the job which the Bill which my right hon. Friend will introduce relating to England and Wales, and the later Bill relating to Scotland, will endeavour to do. I think those Measures will have a great influence upon this very important question of domestic food production.
    In the time at my disposal I have not been able to touch on a number of aspects of the industry, despite my capacity, of which I am always told, for moving verbally at a fairly fast speed. I should have liked to say a word about water supplies and vegetables, but my right hon. Friend may refer to these matters later. In the light of what the Gracious Speech indicates for the future, under the Labour Party's policy, it cannot be said that agriculture is suffering from lack of imagination, or from a lack of vigour and drive in the industry itself or on the part of the people in the counties who are called upon to do the job.
    In spite of difficulties here and there, I believe that the picture is of a healthy and vigorous industry, for the first time in my lifetime—which may not have been very long—and in the period during which I have been associated with the industry. Agriculture is energetically taking the opportunities which are now open to it and are now being given to it to play its proper part in the national wellbeing. We

    321
    are sometimes told that there is too much planning, but without the planning which has been done it would not have been possible to have diverted resources to agricultural production at the unprecedented level of more than £80 million a year, as we have done.
    I should like to say a word upon my favourite hobby horse. I do not think that enough recognition is given to the tremendous work done by voluntary workers on county committees and district committees. Those people do a tremendous job. They often get far more kicks than ha'pence, but they have managed to make the administration of the Agriculture Act a human thing without the difficulties that one would associate with, perhaps, the greater efficiency but much less human methods of bureaucratic control. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will resist the temptation to take cracks at those chaps, who are doing, as I have seen in county after county, an enormous job at such cost to themselves on their own farms and in their daily work.
    Mr. Vane: Let us see their accounts.
    Mr. Brown: That, I think, is the whole point. It may well be a valid criticism to see their accounts and see what they have been doing, but to say: "Let us see their accounts" with the emphasis on the "their" is merely writing down the efforts of a lot of voluntary workers, very few of whom can be our political friends —let me remind hon. Members of that—but are honest farmers, farm workers, land workers and others. They are trying to do a good job of work in the interests of the industry they love and in the interests of the job.
    Mr. Vane: Overburdened with unnecessary work by the Minister.
    Mr. Brown: That is a point which the hon. Member can make in a perpendicular position later on, if he has the opportunity, rather than from the horizontal position he occupies at the moment.
    Before I sit down, I want to refer to something that was said yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition about a policy he initiated in the speech which he made at Luton Hoo in 1948. One thing that can be said about the Luton Hoo speech
    322
    is that it made much more pleasing reading for the agricultural industry than the speech which was made in 1938 at Kettering by the last Tory Prime Minister. I have always remembered the sense of utter frustration at being cast down into the pit that we all felt when that famous Kettering speech was made by Mr. Neville Chamberlain. We thought it was a real death blow delivered at British agriculture.
    Mr. Snadden: May I—
    Mr. Brown: No, I am sorry, I cannot give way. I want to deal with this point. The hon. Member may have a chance later on. The change in attitude on the benches opposite is worth noting. The right hon. Gentleman now says, and said in 1948, that anyone can see that the vigorous production of food in these islands must hold first place. Let us be under no misapprehension about it; it is what one does when one has the power that matters, and not what one says when one has not the power. The last Tory Prime Minister, with all the power he had to help the agricultural industry, said:
    "I have seen it said that we ought ourselves to grow at home all the food that we need. I assume that we could, but I will tell you why I think that is a wrong point of view. What would happen?"
    He went on to talk about the effect upon the industry, and he added:
    "In the end the final sufferer would be the farmer himself."
    I welcome very much the apparent change of heart. I hope it would stand the translation from Opposition to power. I am afraid that the Tory Central Office failed to point out to the Leader of the Opposition when he was briefed for that speech at Luton Hoo that what he thought he was initiating had already been put on the Statute Book a year before by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. When he thought he was initiating a new policy and a new drive, the fact was that my right hon. Friend had initiated them in 1945 and in the launching of the expansion programme in 1947, the better part of a year before the 1948 speech was made.
    I believe that the kind of proposal referred to in the Gracious Speech, when added to and allied with the tremendous work that has been done during the last five years, will mean that the agricultural

    323
    industry will for the first time be able to be true to itself. It will be able to justify itself and to justify the faith of those who work and live in it, and it will be equal to the demands which the country makes upon it.
    4.17 p.m.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary was taken somewhat by surprise, as he had intended to speak later in the Debate. He has, with his usual skill, strung together the material so readily provided for him and he has dressed it up in a form with which I cannot agree but which the House will feel has at least covered the subject. The duty I thought I had was to open the Debate upon the rural situation in the light of the fact that the King's Speech gave such tremendous importance to the matter. In view of the late hour which we have now reached, after only two speeches, I will attempt to curtail my remarks somewhat and not to go into some of those larger considerations with which I had intended to weary the House.
    As I see it, this Debate should not be a continuation merely of the General Election. It should be a continuation of the Debate on the Address. Judging by the speeches of the Lord President of the Council, of the Parliamentary Secretary, and of many other hon. Members who have spoken from that side of the House, the objective of hon. Members opposite is to continue the General Election. If that be the case we are ready to carry the General Election to its logical conclusion and to do that at the earliest possible date. We shall then show hon. Members opposite that the countryside has supported us on this occasion to a far greater extent than it did at the last election, an extent which I shall now reveal to the House. The seats held in the English counties by our own party and by our friends have risen from some 113 to 144 in this election. Whereas in 1945 the Socialists polled 200,000 votes more than we did in the English counties, on this occasion we polled no fewer than 300,000 more than they did in those counties.
    These facts are the answer to the specious arguments in which the Parliamentary Secretary indulged, and I would recommend him, having shown so much
    324
    promise as he has done in his office, and at the beginning of what may be a fine official career, not to spend his time looking backwards. He should look forward to the day when we shall be governing the country and looking after the interests of agriculture.
    I had intended to make some general remarks about the economic situation and to put the agricultural picture against that background, but I will answer as quickly as possible some of the more detailed points of the hon. Gentleman. First, however, may I make an appeal to the House on this, the third, day on which we are discussing the King's Speech? We are all aware of the strange chance which has placed us in almost equal proportions opposite one another. My appeal is that we should use this Parliament for the purpose, among others, of giving a real encouragement and fillip not only to the agricultural industry but to the countryside as a whole. Any remarks I make today will be made in that spirit although, in order to keep up the general fun of the party, I shall be ready to answer some of the backward looking arguments used by the Parliamentary Secretary, and particularly those used by the Lord President of the Council.
    In general, however, let us leave the other side to look backwards and ourselves look forward to the day when we can give to the agricultural industry—which has always feared the ending of a war, because it knows that agriculture may then decline again—a feeling of security for the future and a feeling that it must play a really prominent part in our economy.
    To give shortly the background of the economic situation, we had published yesterday the most up-to-date report of E.C.A. operations, Command 7890, from which it is clear that the situation of this country, although improving in regard to our exports, can be much improved. For example, United Kingdom dollar exports rose after devaluation but not enough by the end of the year to offset the lower rate of exchange. Exports actually went up by 15 per cent., but we have received 17 per cent. less dollars. When one looks at the balance of payments figure, based on the latest information of the Government, we are still aware that the deficit on our current account amounts to roughly £110 million for the 1949 period.

    325
    In the latest report on the E.C.A. operations there is a general assumption that there will be no general inflation in the non-dollar world—an assumption we find it hard to recognise in the economy of our own country—and that the volume of production and trade will continue to expand. I must here emphasise that unless we can face up to this problem of inflation with a great deal more determination than the Government are showing no expansion of the agricultural industry alone can bridge the dollar gap or save our economic position. Having seen not only the supplementary estimates, which we shall discuss later, but also the comments in the Press today—such as the expression "out of control" used by "The Times"—I must impress upon the Government that it is no use the King's Speech relying solely on the improvement of our agriculture and the development of the countryside to bridge the dollar gap which still remains the outstanding problem of this country.
    It is in the agricultural sphere that we see the greatest tendency on the part of Government economists to use the price mechanism. I was reading a document issued by the Oxford University Institute of Statistics, which said this:
    "The over-confidence in the ability of persuasion to counter financial forces seems to pervade Government thinking."
    We have had quite enough of the sermons and sermonising of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite enough of the over-elaborate organisation of the county agricultural committees, and quite enough efforts to try to improve agriculture by the wrong kind of persuasion. I trust now that the Government are realising—as I believe they are in the agricultural industry, if not in the rest of the economy —that the best incentive to increased production is a good price. I will not comment on the February Price Review, because that is at present under consideration and it would be out of order to do so. I will confine myself to saying that a good price is vital to the production targets to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Now I come to some of those production targets. When we look at bread grains we find that the actual target for June, 1949, was down by over 350,000 tons compared with the possible target we expected to get. In the case of linseed, instead of a production of 100,000 tons. the total achieved in June. 1949.
    326
    was only 23,000 tons. Therefore, I think it right to say to the hon. Gentleman that his optimistic observations about the targets are not justified by a close examination of the facts in every case. As to his references to proteins, it is important to recognise that linseed is a most important protein feedingstuff and has fallen far short of the forecast. If the hon. Gentleman is to depend upon home produced feedingstuffs and not, as the Lord President told us in 1947, on feedingstuffs purchased by dollars, then the production of linseed must be improved. If I am in any way mistaken I hope the Minister will give us a reassurance on this point later.
    That leads me to mention the remarks of the hon. Gentleman on feedingstuffs. I do not want to denigrate the efforts made either by the Government or, even more, by the farmers and growers to meet the production of feedingstuffs in this country. We should rightly welcome any improvement in the present difficult state of our country. However, his answer was no answer to the argument put from this side to the deliberate statement of the Lord President that we should encourage the purchase of feedingstuffs by using dollar exchange. It is no answer to say that we have achieved the same object by encouraging home-grown feedingstuffs.
    Why is it that we among all European countries, as appears from the tables of O.E.E.C., have appeared to spend less on feedingstuffs than any other country receiving E.C.A. grants? Why is it that there has been no answer to the argument put with devastating success by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Sir T. Dugdale) to the Minister of Food, namely, that it is cheaper to import feedingstuffs than to import carcases or the finished product?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Will the right hon. Gentleman say at what price?
    Mr. Butler: Perhaps the Minister will answer the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend, of which he is well aware—
    Mr. Williams: To what feedingstuffs and what price does the right hon. Gentleman refer, when he says it is cheaper to import them?
    Mr. Butler: I refer to the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend, to which

    327
    no answer has been given from the Government benches and which I do not propose to state, because he himself is speaking later.
    Mr. Williams: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not object if I express the hope that, when that statement is repeated, later in the day, we shall know the price to which it refers. Is it 3 dollar coarse grain, 3 dollar wheat, or at what price will it become cheaper to import feedingstuffs?
    Mr. Butler: The prices referred to were the prices at the time when my hon. and gallant Friend was speaking. There is no doubt that the case he made out for purchasing feedingstuffs and growing the product here has never been answered from the Government side of the House, and is, indeed, unanswerable.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, in his general pursuit of targets, did not mention the subject of horticulture and did not remind us that during 1949 there has been a tremendous fall in the output of the horticultural industry. The January statistics of the Ministry of Agriculture show a reduction of 32,900 acres between December, 1948, and December, 1949. I notice in the Gracious Speech a reference to the Annecy discussions and a reference to the fact that there is to be a revision in our Customs arrangements. I have also noted the statement made at Cambridge by the Minister himself on the subject of altering the open licence system and I have read the comment of Mr. Knowles, the General Secretary of the N.F.U., about Government policy, in which he says:
    "The utter failure to reconcile the official statement "—
    that is, the Minister's —
    "either with the industry's programme or with the Minister of Agriculture's statement at Cambridge undermines the whole complicated structure of horticultural marketing, and with it the confidence of home producers which is essential if regular supplies are to be available at reasonable prices to the consumers in this country."
    The Ministry and the Government have not dealt with the problems of the horticultural industry. In reading the E.C.A. document, to which I referred in my opening remarks, it seems clear that certain portions of the horticultural industry are to be sacrificed. We on this
    328
    side of the House consider that the horticulturists of Essex, Kent and Worcester —not looking further afield, though one could look further afield—can produce as efficient products as any in Europe or any other part of the world. The omission to restrict imports of tomatoes in June and the omission of apples and pears from the list of products subject to import restriction are grave omissions which are having a very deleterious effect upon our home producers. The additional fact that horticulture is not covered properly by considerations of the Schedule of the 1947 Act, or by the present discussions, makes it imperative for the Minister to give us some further information on this subject to relieve the anxiety of growers.
    The hon. Gentleman referred also to rural housing. The Minister, in his many soothing-syrup peregrinations around the country, in which he was trying to prove that the ultimate aim of the Labour Party was not to nationalise the land, visited East Anglia during his tour. I had the honour of following him around on many occasions. I am glad to say that I had no eggs directed at me, and I regret that we should have shown discourtesy of this kind in that part of England. During his tour the Minister came to Sudbury, which I had the honour to visit a few days later. He said there that 28,500 houses had been built yearly in rural areas since December 1945. That coincides, broadly, with the latest information given by the Parliamentary Secretary.
    The answer to the hon. Gentleman, however, surely is that between 1919 and 1943 there was an average which corresponds very roughly to the figure, given by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), of 36,275 houses being built annually when we had the honour of forming a Government. That is the answer to the complaint that housing in the rural areas was not being conducted with the same drive between the wars as it is today. In fact, an extra 10,000 per annum were being built in the rural areas and many more, probably, were going the way of agricultural workers than the small pittance which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman as the Government's total programme.
    It is possible to continue indefinitely taking up the individual points of the Parliamentary Secretary. For example

    329
    in the case of labour he neglected to tell us that when the Socialist Government were in power between 1929 and 1931 some 50,000 agricultural labourers left the land. He attempted to make the argument that all was bad in the days between the wars and that all is perfectly well now. He also neglected to tell us that in these more difficult days up to the recent past, there has been a ring fence or cattle grid round the agricultural industry in the shape of the Control of Engagement Order, and that it has been impossible for a man to go out of the industry if he wants to.
    Mr. G. Brown Mr. G. Brown indicated dissent.
    Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman wants to debate—which, after all, is the secret of the life of this House—he should look up his facts a little more carefully.
    Mr. Brown: I am never very loath to respond to an invitation to debate. If the ring fence had had that sort of effect, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that tens of thousands of men have entered voluntarily into the industry every year?
    Mr. Butler: That is my separate point. I am delighted to welcome the fact that men are coming into the agricultural industry. Living, as I have, in the middle of agriculture for many years and having daily contact with it, I think the reason is not due to some statistical abstract which can be produced in London. It is because young men prefer the mechanised conditions which they find on the land today and for which we have all been steadily working since we have been in public life.
    In view of the statement of the Lord President, it is necessary to say one or two words in answer to his "looking backward" remarks on agriculture yesterday In this House or outside it, we of the Opposition are ready to take on the Government either on the past, on the present, or on the future. On whatever ground we take them, we are sufficiently well-equipped to defeat them on every hand. I have always been informed that the Corn Production Act is the most touchy ground upon which an argument can develop but I propose to refer to that point, which was raised by the Lord President of the Council. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the
    330
    fact that the Prime Minister of that day was Mr. Lloyd George, a Liberal leader.
    Mr. G. Brown: With a Tory majority.
    Mr. Butler: I do not see a large contingent of the Liberal Party here today. I should like to remind hon. Members of another point, which I have been investigating since the speech of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. Before the Act of 1920, which was the positive Act before the repeal of the Corn Production Act, there was set up a Royal Commission, which consisted of some 23 members, of whom six were Socialists. I have been investigating what those six Socialist Members decided. They issued or signed a Report to the effect that the guaranteed price system should not continue. if, therefore, we are to be attacked as far back as 1923—and I am tempted to congratulate the Government on having come into such modern times—I am quite ready to answer back every single argument that is put forward.
    I should like to remind hon. Members of some of the Socialist records between the wars. Our friends in the country districts, who gave us such overwhelming support, would like to know a few of these facts afresh. Take, first, the period up to 1929. On the first sugar beet industry Bill, which the Conservative Party introduced to save the sugar beet industry, the Socialists behaved fairly well. They were hopelessly split but at least 81 of them were in favour of the Bill. When we come to the second sugar subsidy Bill in 1934, however, we find that there were no Socialists in favour either of the Bill in 1934 or the Bill of 1935 and that in each case the Socialists present—and there were a great many absentees, according to the figures I have produced—voted against the sugar beet subsidy. When we come to consider some of the other Bills we find, for example, that 58 Socialists were against the Merchandise Marks Bill. On the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill, 1926, the charter of the farmworker, which afforded a great deal of good in reconditioning the countryside—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Never."] —there were 72 Socialists against.
    On the Agricultural Credits Bill, 107 Socialists voted against, on the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marketing) Bill 97 Socialists voted against, and so on, until we come to a Measure which has really been the sheet anchor, at any

    331
    rate in East Anglia, of the wheat-growing districts—the Wheat Act of 1932. In this case not only did 41 Socialists vote against the Second Reading and 42 against the Third Reading but there were several absent. The Minister himself, whose personal integrity is quite beyond question and whose personal position is one we should not set about, used these words on 7th April, 1932:
    "our policy, instead of the policy embodied in this Bill, would be, first of all, to nationalise the land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1932; Vol. 264, c. 424.]
    This is the record of the Socialist Government between the wars. I must confess that when it was originally suggested that I should speak on rural matters I had not intended to make this inquest. The Lord President said this was an inquest of the nation but it is an inquest on the Socialist Party in the rural districts. I could pursue it through the Livestock Industry Act, where there was the same dismal record of solid Socialist voting against all progress.
    I should like to end this inquest on a positive note. That is to give some conception of the general improvement in farming which occurred during this period. The total value of the crops between 1931 and 1939, when we had retrieved agriculture from the disasters which overtook her between 1929 and 1931, increased by some £15 million. Livestock numbers increased and crop sales went up by £6 million, pigs by nearly £8 million, milk by £18 million and the total sales of livestock and livestock products went up by nearly £31 million. That gives some conception of the aid given by the Conservative Party to agriculture and the dismal record of hon. Members opposite.
    I do not want to detain the House too long, but, as we were treated to a debating speech by the Lord President of the Council, I am debating and answering him on these points and I wish to make some observations on marginal land. We are told, in "Let us Win through Together," the Labour Party's programme, which has proved such a dismal failure:
    "Where the job is too big for individual farmers to tackle, public ownership will be used as the means of bringing into sound cultivation good food-producing land not fully used."
    I want the Minister to tell us, quite frankly, whether that is or is not the
    332
    policy of the Socialist Party at the present time. The Parliamentary Secretary skated round this and made no mention of the policy in "Let us Win Through Together," so let us have a straight answer from the Minister. While discussing the question of nationalisation, we would like to hear what is the latest news of nationalisation in connection with the nationalisation of the land, because his colleague, Mr. Lewis Silkin, said at Southwick, Sussex, on 19th February:
    "This is not an issue of the election, because we do not propose to nationalise the land during the next five years. It will be in some future programme."
    We want to know from the Government if they are simply duping the countryside by saying that in this field there will be no nationalisation of the land, whereas we have learned from the Prime Minister's recently republished book that nationalisation of the land remains the objective of the Socialist Party.
    On the question of marginal land, it is possible to go into a long discussion. I think I had better refer hon. Members who are interested to a paper read as lately as 6th March to a farmers' club by Mr. Griffiths. He says there are at least five million acres of this land which could be brought back into production, with an additional 60,000 tons of lamb and mutton and 80,000 tons of beef annually. If that is the case, and that is the latest authoritative speech I have seen on marginal land, let us apply our minds in this Parliament to improving marginal land because it may be a fruitful means of improving our meat ration which is so woefully short.
    I do not think that the Government's marginal production scheme, published in May, 1949, which allowed marginal farmers a fund of £300,000 which, some people say, would amount to 6d. per acre, is a sufficient inducement to encourage the use of marginal land. Nor do I think that the administration of the Hill Farming Act is sufficient to bring about the improvement which is so much desired. I hope the Minister will tell us what is his public policy and that he will eliminate public ownership as one of his remedies.
    I propose to confine my observations on water supplies to some four questions, to which I hope the Minister may give the answer. First, what priority are the Government prepared to give in the supply of necessary materials for rural water

    333
    supplies? Secondly, are the Government satisfied that our export of iron and steel pipes—which, I notice, were 42 per cent. higher in 1949 than in 1947—is not impeding home rural water development? Are not the vast bulk of these exports of pipes going to soft currency countries and a fair proportion going as unrequited exports? I am putting these questions concisely because I think that is the secret of the whole rural water programme. We know that the Minister of Health has said that nationalisation itself is no remedy. He said at Margate in 1947, at the Labour Party Conference:
    "You can alter the machinery of Government as much as you like; you can carry this resolution and alter that Act of Parliament, and you would not get a single drop more water."
    Therefore, if the problem is one of machinery and pipes, let the Minister reply to us today and tell us that there will be a reduced export of these pipes and more opportunity of using them for the improvement of rural,water supplies. Will the Government also give an undertaking not to delay the improvement of minor schemes in an effort to get some sort of tidy, general scheme to cover a whole area? That applies particularly to Wales and it applies to my own area. Between the wars, we were able to cover two out of three areas, but the Halstead district is still without a proper rural water supply. The scheme is still with the Minister and I hope he will expedite it.
    Finally, why has he not established the local advisory water committees provided for under the Act of 1945, without which the improvement of local water supplies contemplated by the Act is difficult? Our claim is that the Minister has all the machinery he needs in the Act passed by the Coalition Government. Our claim is that the Minister has delayed the improvement of schemes that insufficient grants have been provided and too many pipes are being exported and that the whole of rural development is being held up. I trust the Government may, as they mention in the Gracious Speech, give some push to this development of expediting rural water supplies, not only for houses, but also for farming and stock.
    I sum up by saying that if we are to indulge in this game of looking back on past records, the Government will slip back, as they have been doing, in the
    334
    affection and esteem of the rural areas. If we are to spend our time in this Parliament simply on quips and retorts we cannot devote our whole energies to the agricultural situation. Credit must be given where credit is due and we hope the Government will continue with their task of improving agricultural policy and producing the agricultural output we need. As the great Coke of Norfolk warned his son, before he died:
    "Those who work against the laws of nature can achieve no results in the countryside."
    Do not let our agricultural policy be artificial. Let us work with nature and follow nature's laws. If we do that and put all our drive behind it, we may achieve something really lasting for the good of our country.
    4.51 p.m.
    Miss Burton: When it was suggested that I should try to catch your eye this week, Mr. Speaker, I was asked if I knew that it was customary to request the forbearance of the House. I do. There is no new Member who could not but feel himself or herself inadequate on such an occasion, and I would ask not only for the forbearance of the House but would crave its indulgence for any errors I may make in the course of this speech.
    Earlier this week, the Prime Minister referred to the uncertainty of the Parliamentary weather and I am well aware that I shall not experience such calm, settled conditions on any future occasion. But in common with most other Members I experienced during the last month conditions which were far from calm. In my own constituency it was very stormy and very wet. I say that because in spite of the stormy weather the results in our part of the country were such as to cause a certain satisfaction on these benches. This is the first time that the city which represent has returned a woman Member, but I hasten to add that this is said in no spirit of self-complacency. We have in the centre of my city the statue of a lady much more famous than any modern woman can hope to become, though, I hasten to add, not famous for her modesty.
    The Gracious Speech mentioned the sustained endeavour and increased industrial production which has
    "helped our country forward to greater prosperity."

    335
    I have the honour to represent a city in the heart of the industrial Midlands which I believe to be truly representative of the heart of this great country, particularly because that city contains citizens from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Such a conglomeration produces a spirit which is capable of looking at affairs as a national rather than a parochial business.
    This constituency made a great contribution to the war effort and is now, in common with many other cities, making an equal contribution to peace. In 1948 I spent three months in America, and I say three months because I know that nothing is more trying than a person who goes to another country and comes back assuming that he or she knows all about it. I do not. I was there three months. In January, 1948, the American Ambassador to this country speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that Britain had dedicated more of her resources—man-power, financial and other—to the winning of the war than any other participating country, including Germany. Mr. Douglas also said that we
    "approximated 71 or 72 per cent. of the total activity of the nation."
    We know that very well, but I mention it here because when I was in America, many American people were surprised to hear that. They are dependent upon what they read and hear, and during my three months in that country I saw—I say this without in any sense being controversial —many things in American newspaper headlines for which we must not blame the Americans. They were things which had been said in this country, decrying the peace-time recovery efforts of this country. On the humble basis of a three months' stay I say that they did this country a great deal of harm in America at a very critical time.
    In passing, I would say that on one of the few occasions when I was riding in a taxi in Washington D.C., the taxi-driver pointed out a house, the roof of which had fallen down. He said "You know, ma'am—" I gather that every woman is ma'am in America irrespective of her age—"two or three people were hurt when that roof came down." I thought, as hon. Members would have thought, of the cities, including that which I represent, where the falling down of one roof
    336
    would not have occasioned much comment in view of what had happened in the war, and it was borne upon me that it is unreasonable of us to expect people to understand what they have neither experienced nor seen.
    As the two major parties in this House are not quite but, at all events, more evenly balanced than they were in the last Parliament, I hope that efforts will not be made inside or outside this House to decry the recovery of this country, a recovery which has been made by people of all parties and in all jobs. In 1949 we had a record unequalled anywhere in Europe, a record of rising production, steady wages, more jobs and fewer disputes. I wish here to pay tribute to our great trade union movement, for a very material reason. In 1949 wage increases in Britain were the smallest since the war. That, at a time of full employment, reflects great credit upon the statesmanship and patriotism of our trade unions and workers.
    I said that that record was unequalled in Europe. In the first quarter of 1949 we surpassed even what I might call mechanised America. In that quarter our average output in industry was 22 per cent. above that of pre-war, whereas in America the increase was 20 per cent. I would add one more point to that. Taking the whole period from 1945 to 1949—and I quote Mr. Kenney, who has already been quoted in this House this week on both sides of the House—the hours lost per worker, since the war, in industrial disputes in the United Kingdom, were one-ninth of the hours lost per worker in industrial disputes in the United States. I do not say that in any way to disparage American workers, but I feel that tribute should be paid to the stabilisation of the workers and working conditions in this country.
    This sustained endeavour of increased industrial production, as mentioned in the Gracious Speech, has raised particular problems in blitzed cities. I refer particularly to building, whether of houses, or a city centre, schools or hospitals. I know that I must not abuse the calmness of the atmosphere in this Chamber by entering into controversy, but perhaps I might make one statement of fact. From 1918 to the autumn of 1922—I know that is going back a long time, but I shall deal with the present a little

    337
    later—the number of houses built in this country was 210,237. If we take the same period, from 1945 to the end of August, 1949, the number of new permanent houses, leaving out of account prefabricated buildings, conversions or adaptations, was 556,087. As a matter of arithmetic, that total is two-and-a-half times greater than the other. It would not be proper for me to comment on it here, but there are many hon. Members on the other side of the House, and people outside, who are anxious to compare the progress of four-and-a-half years after one war with 18 years after another. It seems to me that the perspective is not quite accurate. One does not compare a child of four-and-a-half with a person of 18. Perhaps in 1963, if hon. Members opposite are still here and wish to do so, we on this side would be glad to make the relevant comparisons.
    Though there are doubtless many more, there are five factors affecting this question of housing in so far as my own constituency is concerned. The first one—and, obviously, I must not enlarge on this—is the legacy which we received from the past. Opinions may differ as to whether it was good or bad, but in my city it was bad. The second factor is a serious one. I refer to the great effort being made by Coventry in production today. The population of Coventry at the end of the war was 223,000. Today, it is 255,000, an increase of 32,000. Taking 1949 alone we have an increase of 3,057; or, taking it monthly, 255 per month. If we bring it right up to date the increase for January and February, the first two months of this year, amounts to 936. Obviously, I need not stress that problem.
    The third point is that the building force available in my constituency today is no bigger than pre-war. The fourth point, and one in which we on this side of the House take great pleasure—and so I am sure do hon. Members opposite—is the question of full employment. In the 1930's there were in this country, during the summer months, which are good months for building, never fewer than 100,000 building operatives out of work. In the whole of the 1930's, and not taking the summer months alone, there was never less than 10 per cent. of unemployment in the building industry. Today, and
    338
    "today" I put as February, because that was the last date on which I could get a figure, in the employment exchange in Coventry we have registered as unemployed, men and women together, a total of 1,476; and we have at the same time a total of 1,795 jobs registered at that same exchange. We have a surplus of vacancies over people looking for them, and although that has produced these difficulties we are glad of the reason.
    It is not only the difficulty of building fast enough, and of having no more building labour to draw upon. There is the problem of rents. As there is no building labour available in my city, when houses are tendered for, or when contracts are placed, building labour has to be brought in; and in the end it is the local authority which has to find that additional charge. There are no subsistence allowances as there were during the war. We are very concerned with this problem, and I have raised it here, because doubtless hon. Members representing blitzed cities elsewhere have the same experience.
    The Gracious Speech mentioned that any measures necessary for the maintenance of full employment and the national well-being would be taken, even if they prove contentious. I wish to be noncontroversial, but may I say how much I and my constituency welcome that statement in the Gracious Speech? I do not wish to take one or two or three years—that would be unfair—but if we take every year of the 20 years between the wars—and that is a long time—there were, in our distressed areas, on an average, no fewer than 500,000 people unemployed for every year of the 20 years. It is very difficult, however kind one may be, to understand that unless one has suffered. Without being disparaging I do believe that many hon. Members on these benches do know something of what that means.
    I turn from the spiritual and moral aspect to the purely financial. That cost the country £125 million per year for every year of the 20 years in goods and services to the nation. That was more than the fall in the standard of living by the sale of all our foreign investments incurred in the last war. It would be easy to have enough houses if we had people unemployed, out of work and unable to pay rents. I am glad that we are short of houses if that is the reason. We hear much talk about levelling up or

    339
    levelling down. We on this side of the House believe in levelling up, but I appreciate that it depends from which side of the scale one starts.
    This last General Election was the first in British history in which privilege was removed from voting. It was the first occasion on which every man's vote was as good as the other man's. There was one vote, one person. I know it is the policy of hon. Members opposite—I am not being controversial; it is a stated policy—to restore' the privilege of voting in so far as one section, the universities, are concerned. I would merely say that in a democracy I do not believe in privilege for any section of the community. whether it be the universities, the shop stewards or the housewives. We believe in this process of levelling up; one man, one vote.
    During last month I went into many small shops in my constituency. I went into one on a very wet day, and the moment I got inside I knew that the proprietor did not think very much about me. He said, "I don't know why you have come here, I have not done well since your lot got into power. I am a pawnbroker." I suggest that the test of a good Government, and I use the word "good" in the sense that one speaks of a good man or a good woman or a good scheme, is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have plenty, but whether we provide enough for those who have too little. On this side of the House we are now trying to win a peace, and it is infinitely harder to win a peace than a war. I contend that on this side of the House we have tried, in the years since the war, to put human considerations first. I do not believe that we can talk about the freedom of the individual with millions on the dole. I have never yet met one person who had been in this pool of reserve labour who recommended it to anyone else.
    I believe that in the past wealth and privilege did mean better housing, better education, better living and better health. But I would suggest, still being noncontroversial, that those facts belong to an age which is dead. We are now going forward in the battle for humanity; and when we have won, as we shall, the victory will be much greater than any
    340
    military victory because we shall have won the battle for mankind.
    5.10 p.m.
    Mr. Maclay: It is my very great pleasure to have the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for South Coventry (Miss Burton) on such an extremely able maiden speech. I do so with the greater enthusiasm because I am one of those who, for reasons not entirely within my own control, only made his maiden speech in this House after I had been a Member for four years and nine months. That a speech such as we have heard should be delivered in the third day of a new Parliament by a new Member is remarkable, and we congratulate her with deep sincerity. All I would add is that possibly the city fathers may be seriously contemplating a site for yet another statue—with due regard for changed circumstances.
    One of the problems in this Debate is that of preserving a reasonable continuity of argument. I must confess that I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she moved from me the responsibility of departing somewhat from the agricultural subjects with which we were dealing earlier this afternoon. Certain remarks have been made in the previous two days of this Debate which must be picked up and followed through, and certain aspects of the Speech or what is not in the Speech must be dealt with. It was most interesting during the first two days to note the number of times references were made to the composition of the bench on which I sit. It started with the Prime Minister who made this remark when referring to us. He referred to us as a
    "…curious contradictory variety of nomenclatures that adorns the third bench below the Gangway."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 65.]
    A little later the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) described those of us who sit on this bench by a name which is that of a most acceptable commodity which is extremely popular among all sections of the community. I do not know whether he quite realised that fact when he made the remark.
    All this merely confirms what we already knew and observed during the election—that the movement which my colleagues and I represent is one of the greatest importance. What is more, it

    341
    is one which is causing grave concern above all to those whose declared policies —I refer to hon. Members opposite and their supporters in the country—are utterly alien to the principles which we and those who work with us share. It is also possible that this interest arises from another reason, and that is that some people may have discovered that 57 candidates stood in the General Election as an expression of the conviction of a great many Liberals and Conservatives that those who believe in the same fundamental principles should work together in the united and constructive defence of the principles which they are convinced are those which should determine the future of the country. I might say that I am not frightened of the figure 57 either, because both nationally and internationally it is a highly respected numeral.
    A point which I think has not yet been fully realised, though it may be realised gradually, is that these 57 candidates polled more than 1,000,000 votes in total. They polled an average of almost 17,000 votes per candidate. It is at least of passing interest that those Liberals who sought to assert what I respectfully suggest is an unrealistic independence failed to average more than 5,500 votes per candidate. These are statistics and people may make such use of them as they, wish. One can do a great deal with statistics; but one point is clear and that is that respect for the individual, respect for human personality, is an instinct that is stronger than ever in Britain today. The result of the election shows very definitely indeed that a substantial majority of the electors of Britain already recognise that the Socialist policies of the Labour Party demand the destruction of those principles which are not the prerogative of any section of the Liberal Party but which are very fully shared by the Conservative Party of today.
    I apologise for dealing with this subject, but a good deal has been said, not only in the last two days but throughout the campaign, about the combined constituencies. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery referred yesterday to party manœuvring about the use of the word "Liberal." I really was rather surprised that that should come from him. Throughout the election, and previous to its start, there was a steady campaign of misrepresenta-
    342
    tion of the good faith of those Liberals and Conservatives who in a very large number of constituencies throughout Britain came together in a common cause. I will not bore the House with the details. They were fully dealt with in articles in national and local newspapers and in speeches. In spite of that, the nonsense continued to be repeated by responsible people outside the House that there was something bogus about these constituencies. I flatly deny that.
    I have intimate and detailed knowledge of what lead up to the formation of most of those constituency arrangements, and all I can say is that the argument might have had some validity if it could be said that no Liberal who had ever voted for or backed a National Liberal had a right to call himself a Liberal. If that argument is advanced, as it was in one letter in a national newspaper, I urge anybody who is thinking on this subject to study most carefully the admittedly unco-ordinated activities of those who occupied the bench below me in the last Parliament and to study carefully the programme on which that party fought the 1945 election. Those who have been consistently and steadily true to basic Liberal principles are those who sit on this bench beside me. I am not casting any reflection on the Liberalism of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I know that at heart he is truly a Liberal and that many of his colleagues are also. I suggest that for a variety of reasons which I have never been able to understand they have fallen into a series of aberrations and heresies which I earnestly ask them to consider very carefully before they perpetrate any more.
    It is only right that before finishing this part of my speech I should try to make our position absolutely clear. Those of us who have been returned to this Parliament by the united action of Liberals and Conservatives in our respective constituencies believe above all that the great arguments which in the past divided Liberals and Conservatives have almost completely been settled and resolved. What is more, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) pointed out yesterday, these arguments were not on matters which were fundamental to our whole system of life and society. On the other

    343
    hand, we believe that the great political argument of today which is between Socialism and the rest of us is a direct challenge to the whole structure of our national life. That belief is the basis of all our actions. We intend to work together in the closest co-operation with any individuals or parties in whatever way is most likely to be effective in the constructive defence of the principles in which we believe.
    Finally, we are convinced that in facing the very grave problems of the years ahead the traditional Liberal approach has a distinctive and extremely important contribution to make. We who sit on this bench represent a large number of Liberals and Conservatives. We will continue to do our utmost to make that distinctive contribution properly mellowed by the views of our Conservative colleagues. I apologise for having taken up the time of the House, but there has been so much said that I felt I must make our position absolutely clear.
    I turn briefly to what I am afraid is not in the Gracious Speech. I start with iron and steel. That links up with the previous subject of agriculture. I see some of my former iron and steel protagonists in the House. When one studies the results of the election, one gets claims that the steel producing districts did certain things. Do let us remember that a very large part of this country contains users of steel. It so happens that politically I have recently been translated from the East to the West of Scotland, and the constituency which I fought at this election and now represent is a very great user of steel. It further happens—I do not know whether there is cause and effect in this or not —that I fought my entire campaign almost exclusively on the nationalisation of iron and steel, and a constituency which is a great user of steel put me back into this House of Commons. That is of only passing importance, I agree, but agriculture, of course, and the whole industrial life of our country depends on what happens to steel in the next few years.
    I would remind the Prime Minister and the members of the Government that if they want this Parliament to be constructive and not excessively contentious,
    344
    and want it to get down to its proper job of taking our country another stage through the extremely difficult times we are now in, the right hon. Gentleman should have opened his speech by making it clear that if it remained in power the Labour Party would undertake that iron and steel should not be touched. I must remind hon. Members opposite that the so-called mandate of 1945 was, in fact, four and a half lines, not one phrase of which was substantiated during the Debate which went on for so long in the last Parliament.
    I would further remind hon. Members opposite, in case they have forgotten, that the vote on the Second and Third Readings of the Iron and Steel Bill in the last Parliament gave no justification. in a nation with an unwritten Constitution, for making an alteration in the fundamental structure of the State, for that is what nationalisation of iron and steel means. Where there is an unwritten Constitution and no clear evidence of overwhelming support for an action which must change for a very long time to come the structure of the State, then one should not go ahead and act until one is dead certain that the substantial majority of the people are behind one.
    Throughout the election campaign I read the newspapers to find just how much was going to be said about iron and steel. To my opponent's credit he fought the campaign on nationalisation, and here is the result of that particular case. But I listened closely on the wireless, on the one night that I was free to listen to it, and I read the papers afterwards, but I could find very little about it. What is more, I studied "Let Us Win Through Together." This great industry, vital to this nation's industrial life, was given exactly one and a half lines in 12 pages. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. J. Jones) is probably going to say—I hope he will be ready to say—that, after all, his party dealt with that in the previous Parliament. In that case, can hon. Members opposite tell me why that very great industry, the cement industry, only got two and a half lines in 12 pages? There we see what was really happening.
    Mr. Jack Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that details of a Bill should be submitted in a manifesto, and is he quarrelling with a decision

    345
    on principle because it only took two and a half lines to submit, although it has been supported by the steel workers of the country?
    Mr. Maclay: I must give the hon. Gentleman every advantage he can claim. Four and a half lines in 1945—that was pretty generous—and one and a half lines on steel in this Election which said nothing about the effect of the nationalisation of steel on our economic life. It does not make sense. It is quite clear that the Labour Party leaders realised what the whole nation is rapidly realising, that nationalisation of our basic industries is not wanted by the great majority of the electors of this country. They kept as quiet about it as they possibly could, with a few honourable exceptions, and they hoped to get away with Socialism on a lot of other grounds. The nation is beginning to realise—and a great many people have already realised—that Socialism and social progress are very different things indeed. When that is realised all over the country, I am afraid the Labour Party will have to give up its Socialism or it will disappear as a party. We will make a very careful selection and see if there is a little more room at that time along this bench.
    My last subject is the question of international trade. It is extremely unfortunate that we are not going to have a full opportunity for an economic discussion for some time to come. I do not think that any hon. Member or anyone in the country should forget the very grave words of warning uttered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November last year when he said that if we failed to conquer the hard currency markets,
    "our industries, our standards of living, indeed our civilisation itself must fade and wither away."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1353.]
    We heard extraordinarily little about that in the course of the Election. Indeed, we heard a very different story over the wireless and everywhere else. I think it showed great irresponsibility on the part of the leaders of the Labour Party that they should so quickly forget the very grave warning of their own Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    It is only reasonable to say that not only in this country, but in many others people have been waiting to see what would be the attitude of the next Govern-
    346
    ment of the United Kingdom towards the whole question of foreign trade. Is there going to be a genuine attempt to get away from the ineffective rigidity of State-controlled trade?
    This is a question which I have been asked by many foreigners and a point which one gathers when reading foreign newspapers on the subject. It is not only of importance to us for what we need in this country, but of great importance to the future development of the flow of foreign trade. So long as the balance of production in the world is out of phase there must, I agree, be some strategic direction of our foreign trade, but I do suggest that rigid and detailed direction of trade can never solve the problem.
    Then there is the question of bilateral treaties. Are we going to have any more of these things? They may, from time to time, be the only possible solution of an immediate problem. I do not know; it is impossible to judge unless one is working inside the appropriate Department. But I would urge the Government that if any more bilateral treaties of the kind we have had in the last five years are contemplated they should see that, in the interest of Britain's reputation in the world, all the nations affected by such treaties—not just the two—are given proper warning of what is going to happen. They should consider what the consequence will be, and if there is any other alternative. For goodness sake do not let us conclude a bilateral treaty until the other nations have been persuaded that it is necessary.
    I cannot forget what happened at the time of the Argentine Trade Agreement. I was in Canada at the time, and I remember the feeling that was raised against Britain as a result of that agreement. It was very serious indeed in Canada, and even more intense in the United States. I do not know what measures were taken to inform the Government of Canada of what was happening, or what measures were taken to inform the Government of the United States. All I know is that neither of those Governments had any opportunity of preparing their merchants, traders and general public for the announcement of that agreement when it was made. Such things are very serious indeed for international relations. I could quote other examples, but I will not do so this afternoon.

    347
    Another thing which I think ought to be said is that I find it difficult to believe that the long-term solution to the dollar problem can ever be found in direct trans-Atlantic trade. Obviously it is extremely important to increase our exports to Canada and the United States by every means within our power. But I cannot think that this can ever take the place of a reasonably flexible world trade.
    Our only hope of a rising standard of living is the restoration of a proper balance of world production. There is a lot of confusion on this subject, not only in this country but overseas. There are many of us, and I am one of them, who believe that the key to the restoration of the balance of world production is the Commonwealth and Empire. Until the Commonwealth and Empire is producing as much as it possibly can, we can never get a proper balance. This must inevitably involve the continuance of some form of preference system and of regional trading arrangements. Any development of the Commonwealth and Empire must move hand in hand with that of the free nations of Western Europe and their overseas dependencies. But may I emphasise that neither of these objectives is an end in itself. That is where there is misunderstanding abroad, particularly in the United States, about our Imperial Preference system. They seem to believe that we want to create trading areas which would exclude them from participation.
    It is, I suggest, glaringly obvious that we can only build up the productive resources of the non-dollar area if we get the maximum and closest co-operation from the United States—both the United States Government and the free investments of American investors. If we are to get the best results for Britain, and a rising standard of living for ourselves and the rest of the world—which must be the objective of everyone of us once we are free of immediate difficulties—we must 'use Imperial Preference and regional trading arrangements to get a proper balance. The ultimate objective, however, can only be an overflow into a very flexible system of multilateral trade. I do not think any of these objectives are inconsistent.
    348
    I earnestly appeal to this Government, which may be in office for a very short time, or for a good time yet, that in all matters relating to Britain's foreign trade it makes certain that there is full and constant consultation with the Governments of the Dominions and, of equal importance, with the Government of the United States. We have, of course, already the elaborate machinery for consultation with the western European democracies. It is no use acting in Britain and then sending explanatory telegrams when action has been taken. I urge that the most serious attention be given to constant international consultations.
    5.33 p.m.
    Mr. William Elwyn Jones: I must ask for that indulgence which the House traditionally accords to those who address it for the first time. My contribution to this Debate relates to a matter which, perhaps, is more modest than those already discussed but which, nevertheless, is of supreme importance to many thousands of people in this country. I refer to the promise contained in the Gracious Speech that legislation will be introduced, on receipt of the report of the appropriate committee, regarding the law of leasehold in this country, and that in due course Ministers will consider what legislation is appropriate to amend the law relating to residential and business premises.
    This matter has been canvassed in British politics for nearly 80 years. I recently had occasion to read the address which my illustrious predecessor in this House, David Lloyd George, addressed to the electors of the Caernarvon Boroughs when he first solicited their support in the month of February, 1890. In that address he expressed his belief that the time was ripe for leasehold enfranchisement, and that the law of leaseholds required immediate reform. It appears that this is the first time that the matter has been referred to in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. Therefore it is almost precisely 60 years to the day when David Lloyd George took his seat in this House that the matter has been mentioned in the Gracious Speech. In this matter the Parliamentary mills have been grinding very slowly indeed. In the intervening years the evils of the system have become more evident, and the need for reform has become more clamant.

    349
    The main argument which used to be advanced in favour of the leasehold system was that it enabled the owner of the land to develop the land in accordance with a definite and preconceived plan, and so avoid sporadic and ill-designed building. With the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, this argument no longer has any validity. Extensive powers to secure proper development are now vested in planning authorities. These powers are quite adequate to protect the amenities of any neighbourhood. Therefore the time is opportune for us to review the matter in the light of the experience of the last few years.
    Those who come from large cities, such as Liverpool and Cardiff, are aware of the activities of certain syndicates which are operating in those cities at the moment. These activities have created social and economic evil of some considerable magnitude. These syndicates, having acquired the freehold reversion to the leases, immediately serve notice of dilapidation on the unhappy leaseholder. They call upon him to spend a large sum on repairs and then, as the time of expiration of the lease draws near, very large premiums are extracted in order to secure the renewal of the lease. At the same time a greatly increased ground rent is demanded from the lessee.
    Furthermore, when the property actually falls in, the position of the occupier of the premises is very uncertain and precarious. He has no protection under the Rent Restrictions Acts. He can be evicted at any time or can be exploited by extracting from him a large rent. A recent decision by the Court of Appeal indicates how precarious is the tenure of a tenant of a house where the head lease has expired. It appears that, where the ground rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value of the land, the tenant, whoever he may be, can be evicted from the house. Above all, there is the evil that at the expiration of the lease the owner of the house can lose his property without any kind of compensation. This seems to me to be a base form of expropriation. Legislation regarding residential property requires the urgent attention of this House. It is a major evil. The time is long overdue for its reform.
    350
    May I touch upon the position of owners of small business premises? They carry on a valuable business and make a very valuable contribution to the commercial life of this country. They are entitled to far greater protection than they are at present receiving under existing legislation. It is well known that the Act passed in Parliament in 1927 is utterly and completely inadequate in order to protect the lessees of business premises. It is notorious that in various parts of the country, and in particular in London, as the leases of business premises expire large sums have been extracted in the form of premiums, and considerable increases in rent occur.
    The committee which was appointed in December, 1948, has already issued an interim report on this matter. The promise which is contained in the Gracious Speech is indeed qualified by the statement that action will not be taken until the receipt of the report of this committee. I would, therefore, urge that appropriate action be taken to expedite the proceedings of this committee, because it is important that legislation should be introduced into this House during the present Session of Parliament.
    It seems to me that legislation to deal with this grave social problem would be eminently suitable in this present House. It would enable the Liberals to give effect to a reform which they have long desired. It would further enable the Conservative Opposition to give tangible proof of their expressed desire to promote the extension of a property-owning democracy, and it would, above all, remedy an injustice which has brought pain and distress to many thousands of people in this country.
    5.42 p.m.
    Captain Waterhouse: It is my privilege, although I feel a newcomer myself after an unfortunate absence of a few years, to congratulate the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. W. E. Jones) who has just made so admirable a maiden speech. He is fortunate in having had in the Gracious Speech from the Throne a reference to a subject of which he has obviously made considerable study, and I know that at a later period the House will listen with great interest to his advice, although we on this side of the House cannot all guarantee in advance to accept all he says.

    351
    I have listened to several maiden speeches which have been made from both sides of the House in the few days since my return, and they augur well for the Debates of this more equally balanced assembly. In his speech the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) dealt with the occupants of two benches. I, in my ignorance, had a little difficulty when I first came into the House because I first sat on the third bench and found that I was very near a Liberal boss. Then I moved up nearer to our brave allies and found it was a more overcrowded bench, so I have now come up one bench higher for safety.
    The Lord President of the Council charged the Leader of the Opposition with some uncertainty as to whether or not the election had been finished when he made his speech, and it did not seem to me to be a very fair or sensible charge to make because we on this side of the House endeavour to put before the country the same ideas, ideals and criticisms as we put forward in this House. I think it is our duty now to repeat in some measure some of the criticisms that we found it necessary to make during the last three weeks.
    The first criticism I want to level against the present Government is that throughout the country as a whole there is unhappily a feeling of doubt and uncertainty today, and that feeling of doubt and uncertainty is in a measure reflected in the even balance of parties in this House. We are enjoying, it is true, a superficial prosperity. Employment is good, wages are fairly high, but no one, whether employer or employed, can look ahead for a few months, much less a few years, with any feeling that the prosperity of today will be with us at that future time. I do not want to be a Jonah, but I do state that I have the honour of sitting for part of a great industrial centre, and there are already undoubted signs in that area that this prosperity of the last four or five years is beginning to wane. Order books are becoming a great deal emptier than they have been for a great many years. Warehouses, both wholesalers' and manufacturers,' are in some directions becoming full. Short time is already being worked in some industries, notably in the boot and shoe
    352
    trade in Northampton and in parts of Leicester.
    All these are unpleasant indications of what, it would appear, must come. I say it must come for one fundamental reason —because our costs are too high and are still rising. As long as costs are rising, markets are bound to be harder to find, and we must remember also that for the last four years we have had in industry the tremendous advantage of being rid of the competition of both Germany and Japan. When right hon. and hon. Members opposite congratulate themselves, as they so constantly do, on having achieved full employment, they rarely remember that our two main competitors in many sections of our trade have not been competing at all during these past years. As they come back into the market that competition will increase. It will be felt largely in the textile trades and it will be felt heavily amongst what are called the general consumer goods markets.
    The Government are throwing into the air masses of brightly coloured confetti to try to form a fog through which we cannot see the realities of the situation. The House has already been reminded of a quotation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will remind the House of another. The Chancellor said that we had been moving from crisis to crisis by a series of expedients and that every time one expedient was exhausted a crisis arose and a fresh expedient had to be devised. I do not believe the House will feel that that is a basis for any assurance of prosperity in trade. Last autumn, as the House well knows, we had devaluation, which was not mentioned in the Gracious Speech from the Throne and which was scarcely mentioned in the Socialists' own manifesto. The effect of that measure has never been admitted outside this House in any speech that I have read. The effects are twofold and we might as well face them.
    First, there is a permanent reduction in the standard of living of the people in this country, and secondly there is a permanent reduction in the savings which were made during, before and after the war at the behest of successive Governments. In my view, and I believe in the view of everyone on this side of the House at least, there is only one thing that can remedy our present position, and that is increased production

    353
    throughout the whole of the industrial and agricultural sphere.
    Mr. John Lewis: Will the hon. and gallant Member explain how he is able to reconcile his statement of two moments ago that there are not so many orders and that the warehouses are full, with the statement he has just made that the way to solve our problems is to get increased production?
    Captain Waterhouse: There is nothing more simple in the world, because if we can increase production per pair of hands per week, we can get down our costs and get back our markets. I suggest that His Majesty's Government and their supporters have removed the urgency to work in this country, and they have done it in several ways. First, they have done it by taxation on a penal scale—by direct taxation which is affecting directly the will to work extra time, the will to gain more in piece-work and the will to work overtime. Secondly, they have done it indirectly, notably by the Purchase Tax which, again, works in various ways.
    One point which right hon. Gentlemen opposite should bear in mind, because it is very much up their street or up the street in which they pretend to be walking, is that Purchase Tax today is curtailing the experimental stage in industry. The difficulty of selling better-class goods and new classes of goods is increasing the whole time. Unless we have a home market for these goods, there is no chance of their being tried out and unless they are tried out at home there is no chance of our entering markets abroad with them. In the past British trade has been based upon these new methods and new styles. It would be a very great pity if, because the Government had not properly considered methods of remodelling their tax, we were to fail in removing what is proving to be a great hampering factor in at least one of our great industries, the textile industry.
    I accuse the Government of spreading doubts and dissensions between employees and employed. I saw only one suggestion in the manifesto and that was the formation of industrial councils. Industrial councils may be successful enough if they can be introduced by agreement between the two sides, but when they are forced unwillingly upon one side or the other, the obvious thought in the mind of the
    354
    opposing side, if it be the employers, the instance, is that there is believed to be something inefficient in the management. Can any hon. Member opposite imagine a worse start for an increased effort in any works than for the idea to spread that the Government are of the opinion that the management is bad or faulty and should be modified or turned out?
    The Government have never tired of denouncing profits, but what is a profit? Surely a profit is a premium earned by efficiency, and hon. Members on that side of the House, as well as my hon. Friends, know full well that profits are not so easily earned when one gets into business and tries to earn them. It is much easier to make a loss than to make a profit in any industry, and that is not confined to private enterprise. I suggest that a wise Government would praise and commend and would not condemn those who are trying to make profits. After all, profits and the taxation of profits are earning the money on which the whole of our social services depend to a very large extent. Profits are earning the money on which all industrial development must depend, and on industrial development depends the employment of our people in future years.
    What nonsense it is for any Government which stands before the nation as one appealing for a greater effort by all concerned, to condemn one section of the people because it is earning a profit which is for the general as well as the particular benefit. Possibly worst of all is the fiction of what hon. Members opposite, and especially the Prime Minister, call the welfare state. We have heard a very great deal of the welfare state during this last election. I say it is a fiction because it is based on foreign dole and, therefore, it is very difficult to see how any welfare can arise from it. It is very hard to understand, moreover, how any state with a housing shortage such as ours could possibly be called a welfare state.
    It is even worse than that. The expression "welfare State" is very closely allied to Mr. Lloyd George's expression after the First World War—" Homes for heroes to live in." It was a grand expression, but a very disastrous one. It set the wrong tempo to the whole nation then, just as this new expression is setting it to the nation now. We do not want "homes for heroes to live in." We do not

    355
    want a "welfare State." If we do want to coin an expression, let us say that we want "a land for warriors to work in." —[Interruption.] I heard the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis) interrupt and I remember what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday—any chance word which might be dropped will be taken up and twisted. I will, therefore, go back to what I was saying so that it cannot be twisted.
    Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member for Bolton, West, is in the rubber trade, so he knows how to twist.
    Captain Waterhouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) for giving me that useful piece of information. What we need is a new urgency in the whole of our life and a new spirit of endeavour throughout the whole country, a real will for everybody in industry and in agriculture to be up and doing, to get down to the job and get on with the job, to do it quickly, to work hard and not to imagine, as hon. Members opposite do imagine, that we are happily living in a leisured welfare state.
    Immediately I came back to the House on Tuesday for the first time for five years, I noticed that in the yard there was a row of six or eight or ten great cars, each one with a chauffeur waiting to carry right hon. Gentlemen in state back to their offices. [An HON. MEMBER: "That happened before the wan"] That is entirely new; hon. Members opposite are quite wrong, for no such thing ever happened before the war. It is a bad example to the country that these cars should be standing there for hours, each with a chauffeur waiting to take a right hon. Gentleman a few yards across the road, at a time when an appeal is being made for greater and greater production and more urgent work.
    Mr. J. Lewis: As the hon. Member has accused the Government of wasting money by having essential vehicles to take them from the House of Commons to their offices, will he say whether he himself has a chauffeur and a car to convey him to his office?
    Captain Waterhouse: Unhappily I am not in the position of having a chauffeur
    356
    and I have not even a car in London. I am quite content to take a bus.
    Mr. Lewis: What about the car in the country?
    Captain Waterhouse: The hon. Member has had two or three chances. I cannot give way to him again.
    Let me go back to the experience we have had in the last two or three weeks. Let me take another example of this same easy, leisured feeling which pervades the country. I think many hon. Members on this side of the House, and possibly on that side, too, will agree with me in what I am going to say about the counting of our votes after the election. I know that in some cases it took six or seven hours to count the votes. In my own constituency the results were always out on the night of the poll. Last time there were results which were not known until five o'clock or six o'clock the next day. But what was the result of that? The result was that several hundreds of people were doing nothing for the whole of 24 hours. It may not matter at all, but it is a sign of the times. It is a sign of the way we are going. It is a thoroughly bad sign, and it is a sign that ought to be eradicated.
    I know workshops where production is 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. less per man per week than it was before the war.
    Hon. Members: Not true.
    Mr. Poole: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is lying.
    Captain Waterhouse: I am not in the habit of getting up and telling lies. I am speaking of what I know. I am not saying that all workshops are that way. If the hon. Member had listened, he would have heard me say that I know workshops that are that way—that is the absolute truth. They are workshops, too —the ones I have in mind—that employ 400 or 500 or 600 men, which I call extremely efficient units, and workshops that have spent considerable sums in refurnishing themselves with new machinery even since the war.
    Mr. Janner: In Leicester?
    Captain Waterhouse: No.
    Mr. Janner rose—
    Captain Waterhouse: No. I told the hon. Member that these factories are not in Leicester. Therefore, I am sorry to deprive him of a rather cheap political point. Hon. Members opposite, perhaps, will not challenge their own Girdwood Committee's Report on housing, which very clearly stated that, far from there being any increase in the production of houses, there has been a very marked decline in the production of houses per bricklayer.
    Mr. Osborne: Where are the houses?
    Captain Waterhouse: Hon. Members opposite will not like to hear it, but let me remind them that the miners of this country are producing 20 tons of deep mined coal less per miner than they were before the war.
    Mr. Harrison: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the reason?
    Captain Waterhouse: I am not giving reasons; I am not apportioning blame—except only to blame the Government for the spirit they have evoked in the country. I am not blaming the miners. I am not blaming the workpeople. I am blaming hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the fact that they have induced a lackadaisical, leisurely feeling in the country.
    Sir Richard Acland: Do the Opposition take no blame for four and a half years of propaganda telling the country it had no real reason for having any difficulties at all?
    Captain Waterhouse: If the Opposition had involved themselves in such propaganda, they would have been very greatly to blame, but I myself have been working on the lines of communication, helping my hon.. Friends who were Members of this House, and I know that the case has been the very opposite. During those four,and a half years they have been telling the people the exact opposite, pointing out—
    Sir R. Acland: I am talking about what has been said in the country.
    Captain Waterhouse: During the whole four and a half years they have been pointing out to hon. Members opposite that our position, far from improving, was getting worse; and when they did so
    358
    point it out, hon. Members opposite accused them, saying, "Are you disparaging our country?" What nonsense. We are disparaging nothing at all—except the Government.
    I do not want to take up much more of your time, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I could quite easily, if it were really desired. I could go on quite nicely. However, I close by listing one or two things that might be done by this Government if they really wanted to earn the title of a Government worthy of Britain after two great victories.
    The first thing is that they had better start at the top with rigorous economies. Let them start with Ministers themselves in such directions as I have indicated. Let Ministers themselves go through their own Departments with a fine tooth comb to see what they can cut out and how much they can save of the nation's money. Let them even take the advice of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) who, like me, had the advantage once of being in the Board of Trade, and, in his words, "Comb the Departments. Abolish some of the Departments and combine others." Those are the words of one of the Government's supporters. Let them take that advice, and then they can begin to talk to the country about industrial improvement and increased activity.
    Most important of all, I urge them to stop their class and sectional strife; to stop the whole-time blackguarding of the employers; to stop the whole-time disparaging of the managements. Let them do that. Let them first put their own house in order. Let them go along that Front Bench and make quite certain that everybody there puts Britain before Russia. If they do not like that, let them make sure that everybody on that bench puts common sense before Communism. When they have done those things, then let them turn to the country and o make an appeal for increased production, and I believe the country will turn again, as it has done in the past, and realise its difficulties, and will rise again, like a strong man from his sleep.
    6.7 p.m.
    Mr. Hayman: I also crave the indulgence of

    359
    this House, especially after the experience of the last quarter of an hour. I am a new Member here, and represent Falmouth and Camborne in Cornwall. It has not been customary in this century to see Cornishmen representing Cornish constituencies. Nor, I think, has it been usual before this century for a child of workingclass parents to become a Member of Parliament. That has been my great privilege, and although, perhaps, I am not a pioneer in that respect, at least I am one from the "Delectable Duchy." I am very conscious that in this House there have been very illustrious Cornishmen in the past. I cannot hope to emulate their political prowess, but I shall try to emulate their sincerity.
    My constituency contains many varied interests, apart from containing some of the loveliest parts of Britain. We have in our area one of the oldest industries of the country, tin mining. Tin mining has declined during this century until only two mines are left, and I therefore hope that the Ministers concerned will give earnest consideration to whatever proposals may be brought forward for reviving that industry, and also for providing good working conditions in the mines themselves. Allied to the tin mining industry there is the School of Metalliferous Mining of Camborne, which sends mining engineers the world over, and we have also in Camborne-Redruth industries allied to mining production, whose products are largely for export.
    In Falmouth we have an important ship repairing industry, and I hope that whatever committee may be considering the future of ship repairing will bear in mind that Falmouth is as important in peace-time as in war-time. During the inter-war years, we had very severe unemployment in our area, so much so that the small industrial centre of Camborne-Redruth, with a population of 35,000, had an unemployment figure at one time exceeding 50 per cent. and was one of the 12 most distressed areas in this country. In Falmouth, in Penryn, and in Hayle they also had severe unemployment. We hope, therefore, that the Government will take measures to ensure that such terrible unemployment will never again return to our area.
    360
    We are grateful to the President of the Board of Trade and to his predecessor for all that they have done to direct new light industries to our constituency. They have done much to absorb the unemployed, but even so we still have a figure of unemployment much higher than the average for the country, and we trust that every effort will be made to see that other industries are directed to us to absorb the whole of our unemployed people. I should also like to say that we have a Remploy factory that has given new hope to men who have been disabled and unemployed for many years.
    I welcome the statement in the Gracious Speech that the Government will take all steps to see that full employment is maintained. We need it so much in our area. I should also say that one of our most important industries is agriculture and horticulture, and we hope that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food will do all that is possible to help not only the production of vegetables vital to the country—broccoli and new potatoes—but also assist marketing and grading schemes and afford some protection against unfair foreign imports, always provided, of course, that the interests of the consumer are protected.
    If I may end on a personal note, I would say that of the four great freedoms, freedom from want has been the one primary object of my life, and I hope that this Parliament will do all in its power to secure this freedom for all our people.
    6.14. p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: My first duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) on his successful maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear much more from him in the future about the doings of Cornwall and the horticultural industry. I am sure that his contributions will be very valuable to our Debates.
    I want to follow the rural ramble which was started by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. He spoke with great pride of the achievements of the present Government in the field of agriculture. It is true that considerable improvements have been made in farming during recent years and, of course, during the war. It is only

    361
    natural that agriculture should flourish and that farmers should do well while the whole of our vast industrial population are walking the streets with their ration books in their pockets. It requires no special effort of the Minister of Agriculture to persuade farmers to grow food when everyone wants all that they can buy.
    The real test of the ability of the Minister of Agriculture comes when he has to sustain prices and provide a market for the produce of our land. That time has not occurred up to now, except in a few cases; and, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, the horticultural industry is one of those which has had difficult times during recent years. Indeed, where the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture could have helped by providing a market for produce, they have done nothing to protect our farmers from imports from foreign countries. Where they have had the opportunity of proving their worth, they have been found wanting.
    The agricultural industry has always suffered from a policy of Liberal free trade, and indeed from the policy of the party opposite which has invariably demanded unrestricted imports of cheap food. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has already told the House that we are prepared to argue the case for agriculture during any era. The Conservative Party have always stood for protection, and have always done their best for the agricultural industry in that respect against fearsome odds in past years.
    Mr. Daines: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us how the Liberal Party's policy failed and how the Labour Party's policy failed. Will he explain to us how the Conservative Party's policy succeeded before the war in agriculture?
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place when my right hon. Friend was addressing the House. I will certainly tell him. I will repeat at his request, Mr. Speaker, a very few points in which the Conservative Party's policy helped the agricultural industry in the inter-war years. I noticed that during the election speeches were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    362
    saying that nothing was done, or using words to the effect that nothing was done, to help the farmers by Tory Ministers of Agriculture during those years, and the Attorney-General and others were quoted in "The Times," I think, on 17th February as saying that farmers were now well off because of the policy of assured markets and fixed prices.
    If we look into those inter-war years, Members will remember that considerable steps were taken not only to provide protection by the Import Duties Acts and the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1932, but also to give an assured market to our farmers in pre-war days. There was, for instance, the Wheat Act, the Sugar Beet Corporation and the Milk Marketing Board, all of which provided the farmers with agreed prices and helped considerably to give security to the industry. In fact, during the six or seven years immediately preceding the last war, the agricultural industry recovered considerably. We have also been given to understand, all too often, that the present system of marketing was introduced by the Socialist Government, when in fact it was brought into existence during the war.
    Mr. T. Williams: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that, not only the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) but the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), and in fact all the Members on the Opposition Front Bench who were in opposition in 1931, voted against the Agricultural Marketing Act when it was in Committee upstairs.
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: The present system of the price schedule was introduced during the war, and not by the Minister now in charge of our agricultural affairs. That is what I was referring to in that instance.
    There are one or two points about agricultural policy which have been brought to my attention during the election, on which I should like to remark. First, there is a universal demand for greater opportunity to get a farm. I find a great many young men, in all sorts of walks of life, who are anxious to enter the industry, and it would be interesting if the Minister would tell us something about the progress of his smallholdings' scheme. I do not think that many new

    363
    opportunities have been given through that scheme up to the present time.
    It is also a matter for consideration whether the increased security of tenure given by the 1947 Act has not proved to be a two-edged sword. There is no doubt at all that farms become available less frequently to newcomers who wish to enter the industry; and in some cases farms that do become available are let as additional holdings to landlords' existing tenants, or may even be farmed by landlords themselves, owing to the fact that they may not be satisfied that they can find the ideal men whom they are prepared to take on as tenants for life under the principle of increased security. As a result of this, there has been a considerable increase in the price of those holdings which come on the market with vacant possession, making it more difficult for newcomers to buy their own farms and to start up as owner-occupiers.
    In the Gracious Speech we are promised some steps for the improvement of marginal land, and I hope the Minister will produce some scheme and give effect to it in the near future. Many of us on this side of the House have for the last three or four years been demanding some such scheme to assist production from such land, but nothing has happened. I hope the Minister will also give us a review of the effect of the Hill Farming Act, because as far as one can discover very little has been done to give effect to that Act up to date.
    There are many aspects of the marginal land problem which I do not wish to deal with this evening, because they are subjects of their own. However, I ask the Minister to bear in mind that his present policy of making farmers more and more self-supporting, and encouraging them to provide their own feedingstuffs, is not necessarily applicable to marginal land. There are many farms on the hills and in the dales of my part of the world, and indeed of Wales, where corn growing, for instance, is, if not impossible, at least unprofitable; the climate and geographical conditions are unsuitable, and farms in such areas require a better share of feedingstuffs in order to assist them in the increased production of livestock. I cannot help feeling that it is now time that the Minister considered the abolition of rationing of home-grown feedingstuffs
    364
    —cereals at any rate. There are vast corn-growing areas in other parts of England where farmers do not keep livestock to the same extent that they could do in the hills where the production of cereals is difficult, if not impossible.
    There are many other ways in which farmers in the marginal areas could be assisted. Above all, they require electricity and water. Some time ago in this House we had an Adjournment Debate on the subject of electricity, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, who is now in his place, informed us that an inquiry was being held into the installation costs and the system of the spread of electricity. If any benefit could have been derived from nationalisation, the greatest boon would have been some system by which electricity was taken to distant regions without heavy installation costs. As it is, farmers now hope and even expect that in due course, as a result of nationalisation, they may get the grid brought to their land at a reduced price; but in effect since nationalisation installation charges and guarantees of current consumption have been increased. It is high time that further consideration was given to this problem, and that people were told quite definitely where they stand, so that they will no longer be kept waiting, wondering what will be the outcome of the inquiry.
    Water is also greatly needed in many of our rural areas to help the production of good clean milk and the spread of attested herds. The Government promise to take action to spread water through rural areas, but there is already perfectly good legislation on the Statute Book to which no effect has been given during the last four and a half years. Perhaps the Minister will say when he really does propose to take steps to start water schemes in rural areas. To my knowledge in Shropshire they have been prepared and ready to be put into effect for the past two or three years, but no money or manpower has been allowed to be expended.
    The Minister may rest assured that the farmers will produce the extra food required provided they are given the opportunity to do so. The Debate yesterday disclosed considerable increases in certain spheres. For instance, the number of poultry now kept in this country has increased above the pre-war level, whereas

    365
    the number of pigs lags behind. The Minister's method of adjusting the balance of agriculture should be through the price review, and I hope that he will give up the system of exhortation, backed by the threat of cropping orders, to which we became so accustomed in the last Parliament, and will rely entirely upon price incentives. His motto for the future should be "Price, not propaganda." I am quite certain that if the farmers are given encouragement and a lead, and if the Minister takes prices for his motto instead of propaganda, he will soon see the targets he has set achieved.
    6.30 p.m.
    Major Wise: I am glad to have this opportunity to intervene in this Debate and to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett). I want to take up the hon. and gallant Member on one or two of his points, and I am quite certain, as we are old friends, he will know that I do so in a kindly way. I want to call the attention of the Opposition to the fact that in a section of Norfolk, a highly important area, there are still three Labour Members, which says much for the success of our agricultural policy in that area.
    Let us first take the question of water. If the hon. and gallant Member would go to my constituency, he would find that there are many miles of country roads already excavated, with the pipes laid, and several of our villages are now obtaining the water which has been promised for generations past. The water is there, and it is going to the farms and villages.
    Let us turn now to electricity. The hon. and gallant Member spoke of the cost of installing electricity. Many years ago I happened to be living two miles from a village where electricity was laid on. I asked the privately-owned electricity company how much they would charge to bring electricity to my farm and house. I received a quotation of £600 per mile; it was a pretty costly business. Needless to say, I did not have electricity laid on, but put in my own plant at about £200 or £300. That is the difference between the costs of today and the costs some 10 or 12 years ago. It is a fact that more electricity could be supplied to farms if the farmers would use electrical power on the farms and not just for their household lighting.
    366
    I want to come to grips with Members opposite on the agricultural position generally. They are claiming that the present position is due to their efforts. I can say, as one of a small group of Socialist farmers, that over 20 years ago we were speaking in our election addresses of the policy we have now adopted. That was long before the Tories ever thought about it. We were years ahead of them in our agricultural views and knowledge. I am one of the few farmers on this side of the House who was farming between the wars. I know the position between the wars, and I do not need the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), or anyone else, to come along and give me the figures to show what was happening. I know from experience. In spite of the claims of the Tory Party, we farmers in those interwar years did not know from day to day what we would get for our produce or where were our markets. In spite of the Corn Production Act, wheat quotas and acreage penalties imposed by the Tory Government, we farmers were in a pretty sorry position. But that is not now the case. I am happy to say that, having farmed through the lean inter-war years under a Tory administration, through the war years, and after farming for five years under a Labour Administration, I was able to retire last Michaelmas. I could not have done that in the pre-war years, when things were totally different. I say to the farmers of Britain that they can now go on from prosperity to prosperity.
    The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about housing. Some few hours ago I was passing through part of his constituency and I saw those pre-war houses. They were not council houses, nor comfortable houses for people to live in, but a series of little bungalows along the roadside. That is how the Tory Party account for the large building schemes they suggest were in operation between the wars.
    Mr. Osborne: What is wrong with a bungalow?
    Major Wise: They were all built for private occupation.
    I will now turn to another matter in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which I deplored. He spoke about the shortage of bread grains and linseed. He was really condemning his own people,

    367
    the farmers. There was a request from the Government that we should increase these acreages, and to say that such has not been the case is a criticism of the farmers of the country, irrespective of weather uncertainties.
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: Surely the hon. and gallant Member is bearing out what I said? I was complaining that there was no price emphasis to encourage these crops. Up to now it has paid more to grow barley than wheat, and it is only this year and last year that the emphasis has been put on wheat. The Minister can now be sure that he will get his wheat.
    Major Wise: That is not the case. I have argued before in the House that the price of wheat should go up and be married to the price of barley. That has happened, and there has been an incentive to grow wheat and linseed. That is because a reasonable price has been fixed.
    I should also like to say a few kindly words to the Minister. It is obvious from the experiences of the last few weeks that we have got to turn our attention to horticulture in the same way as in the past we turned our attention to ordinary agricultural production. I hope that before much longer we shall be able to assure the horticulturists of Britain that, in conjunction with the consumers, they will have a fair crack of the whip. Horticulturists have had four years in which to put their house in order. I believe schemes have been invited from them, and only today, talking to a horticulturist in the train, I discovered that the tomato and cucumber scheme, which was initiated about two years ago as a national marketing scheme, has, in his own words, "died a natural death." On this side of the House we invite the horticulturists of Britain to get together, and if they do I am certain the Government will support any scheme which they produce.
    Lord Dunglass: As a matter of fact, I do not think it is true to say that the marketing scheme has died a natural death, for it is still being considered by the Minister. Could the Minister tell us what the position is? It is rather important.
    Major Wise: I will leave that to the Minister. This horticulturist told me that,
    368
    so far as he understood the position, the scheme had died a natural death, but it is likely to be revived and if the horticulturists are to operate it, it is all to the good. I am certain the Government will support them.
    I should like to mention the question of smallholdings and allotments. In my division and in other marsh lands we are concerned with the situation that the smallholding scheme under the Agriculture Act, 1947, provides only for full-time small holdings. In a rich marsh land it is possible for a man who has been connected with agriculture or horticulture to get a very reasonable living on a small area without a house and buildings. Could the Minister enlighten me as to whether there is to be any curtailment whatever in regard to smallholdings in the richer areas of Britain and in the marsh land and fen country, and if it will be possible for the man who lives at home and profitably works from four to five acres of land to be included? It is an important point in the fen country, and I hope there will be no curtailment of a particular scheme whether it is a smallholding scheme or a scheme relative to allotments.
    I should like to conclude on this point: in this House we are inclined to pay too much attention to the farmers. We are always considering how farmers can secure prices or markets and increase efficiency and productivity. In doing that we are creating a situation in the countryside which is detrimental to the industry. I want the House to look in full measure to the position of the agricultural worker. By and large, he is the main producer in this country, and by co-operation and collaboration between the Ministries we shall be able not only to improve the condition of the workers, their rations, their cottages and other standards of life which are very material to them, and which must matter so much, but also the productive efforts of this country. I am essentially a countryman, and I have lived all my life in the country. I farmed for a great number of years, and I am concerned that the people of the countryside should have a fair deal in every respect.
    6.47 p.m.
    Mr. Duthie: I should like to touch upon a consideration affecting food production, namely, the question of oats.

    369
    Oats are grown very largely in the north, because we are circumscribed by nature to grow two cereal crops only, barley and oats, and I should like the House to realise what has been happening to an industry which is absolutely essential to successful food growing in this country. I refer to the oatmeal milling industry. I suggest that the Government's attitude and action in connection with that industry are a complete negation of planning. I accuse the Government of more or less throwing that industry to the wolves.
    As far as my information goes the position is—and I speak with a certain amount of knowledge because it fell to my lot to be engaged in the Ministry of Food in a somewhat senior administrative capacity during the war—that at the beginning of the war we made an appeal, through the Minister of Food, to the oatmeal millers to increase their production to the greatest possible extent. Facilities were put in their way to enable them to increase the capacity of their plants by acquiring machinery and extending their buildings. They responded splendidly, and by the end of the war the output from our oatmeal mills was double that of 1939.
    In that appeal there was implicit the undertaking that the oatmeal millers could look to markets for their output being assured when the war was ended. Soon after the war ended the Ministry of Food, with the compliance of the Ministry of Agriculture, started to juggle about with oatmeal. I might mention here that a good market for good quality milling oats is essential to Scottish agriculture on a long-term basis. There was implicit in that request to the oatmeal millers a promise that their product would be looked after when the war was over.
    Shortly after the cessation of hostilities oatmeal was put on points, with the result that sales dropped. We on this side of the House prayed unsuccessfully against that Order, but on account of the agitation that was occasioned in the Scottish N.F.U., the points were removed and oatmeal again had a free market. Suddenly, the subsidy was taken off, and oatmeal rocketed to twice the former price and practically to twice the price of subsidised wheat flour. The result has been that the sale of oatmeal as a house-
    370
    hold commodity for human consumption south of the Border has practically ceased. In the south of Scotland it is less than one-third of the normal, and even in areas in the north of Scotland, where large quantites of oatmeal are normally consumed, consumption is less than half. Many housewives in my own constituency, as well as in neighbouring constituencies, are unable, on account of the price, to buy all the oatmeal which their families require.
    I strongly urge the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture to have a look at this situation, because I look upon this cereal crop, which is of high nutritional value, as a most important agricultural product in Scotland. Remembering the experience which I had myself during the war years, when we made an appeal for an increased quantity of this farinaceous product, I say that it would be the cheapest kind of national insurance to restore the subsidy to oatmeal and bring down the price to that of the price of subsidised flour. We cannot afford to be without readily available supplies of oatmeal. The restoration of the subsidy would be the cheapest kind of national insurance of national safety. In the interests of those whom I represent, and in the interests of Scottish agriculture, I commend that suggestion, right from my heart, to the Minister of Agriculture.
    During the Debate today we have heard of nothing but agriculture. Any casual visitor to the House might be astonished to learn that the Minister of Agriculture is also the Minister of Fisheries. The reference to the fishing industry in the Gracious Speech merely speaks of a Bill to provide better accommodation at sea for the crews of trawlers. That may be a very commendable thing, but it is slurring over the risks and dangers which imperil the fishing industry at present. I would almost go as far as to say that the reference in the Gracious Speech to fishing is a somewhat light-hearted allusion to that industry. We are up against the problem of over-fishing. For long distance trawlers, such as those proceeding to the White Sea, the Faroe Islands and Iceland, the situation is reasonable, but that is not so with the middle distance, men who go only as far afield as the Faroes or like distances for about 10 days or so. Then there are the weekly trawlers who fish from Monday to Friday night. Those are not paying their way today.

    371
    The seine net boats, and vessels who operate a baited line, are suffering very great hardships today. That is all entirely due to over-fishing. As one who represents the fishing industry, and is talking of an industry in which he was born and brought up, I have been almost filled with despair at the lack of sympathetic action on the part of the Government during the last five years. There is an international convention for the regulation of fishing methods in waters which are common to the fishing countries of Europe, but nothing is being done about it because some of the countries will not sign the convention or are not prepared to ratify it after they have signed it. We must have control of the size of mesh that is being used to catch fish. Otherwise, the entire fish population of the North Sea will disappear. That must be done urgently, and I plead with the Minister of Agriculture to take a lead in having that convention put into effect in all waters. We must have, concurrently with the establishment of the provisions of that convention, international policing of the fishing grounds. It should be possible when any vessel, irrespective of its nationality, is in our domestic waters, or when one of our vessels is in Norwegian or Icelandic waters, for a fishery cruiser to have the right to examine the gear and the methods by which the fishing is being carried on. Without that right we are absolutely selling the pass.
    I am sure that many hon. Members do not appreciate the tremendous paradox and anomaly that exists in connection with fishing in our domestic waters by foreign vessels. This is not a new problem; it is one that has been shelved by various Governments for the last 50 years in this House. It is a problem which has become more pressing than ever in recent years. it concerns nothing less than the right of foreign trawlers to fish in our own territorial waters. There are two areas in Scotland which are regarded as the chief territorial fishing waters in the British Isles. That happens on account of the shape and partially land-locked formation. One is the Moray Firth and the other is the Firth of Clyde. For something like 75 years it has been illegal for any trawler to fish in those waters. That has been the law. In 1902 a Danish vessel was caught red-handed in the
    372
    Moray Firth. It was ordered to port and was "had up." A conviction on summary jurisdiction was obtained. The skipper was fined £100 and the gear was confiscated. On account of some squeamishness here the Foreign Secretary had that conviction quashed and the fine refunded. Since that time foreign trawlers have been able to come into our territorial waters and scoop up the fish while our own trawlers are excluded. A fishery cruiser can pounce upon a British fishing vessel in those waters while foreign vessels can fish there with impunity.
    Through the agency of the Inshore Fishing Industry Act and the Herring Industry Act we have a large fleet of a new type of dual purpose vessel which operates a seine net during the white fishing season and herring nets during the herring season. The cod season is just finishing. It lasts from about the beginning of January until the first week in March. Our seine net boats have been getting good markings of cod. That means that they have spotted cod shoals and have put down their marks. When they started to fish the marks foreign trawlers were immediately on the scene, scooping the fish up. What is worse is that the foreign trawlers had been destroying the gear of our own men in the process. At the end of the last Parliament I put two cases of this kind in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Two of our fishing vessels were operating around their own marks in the Moray Firth when two Belgian trawlers came along. Our men signalled to the Belgians that they were working, but the Belgians paid no attention. The Belgians trawled across our vessels, dragged up their nets and with hatchets hacked the gear of our men away from their trawls. That was a barefaced act of contravention of the rules of courtesy of the sea, a deliberate act of sabotage in our domestic waters by trawlers which had no right to be there.
    This is an extremely serious matter at any time, and it is more serious now than ever before. The fishing shoals are becoming depleted and our vessels, which represent the entire belongings of our fishermen and the livelihood of our seaboard, are being imperilled by foreigners around our own coasts. If ever there was a time when a strong line should be taken it is now. I entreat the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to use his

    373
    best offices in having something done in this matter of the serious encroachment of foreigners. We have a three-mile limit in operation in the North Sea, which has been established for generations. Within that limit young fish ought to have an opportunity to come to maturity. Some of our smaller Seine net vessels are obliged, through grim circumstances, to break the three-mile limit if they are to make any kind of living at all. If the foreign trawler menace were removed from our territorial waters our men would be able to make a livelihood in waters which are theirs by right.
    I will touch on the herring industry, which requires the most indulgent treatment by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and by his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have a good instrument in the Herring Board, but that Board must be given more power. It must be given complete power in the marketing of herring in all markets. At present, it is responsible for the export of herring, but the domestic market is reserved for the Ministry of Food. That is the worst kind of anachronism. The entire selling end should be in the hands of the Herring Board, and I sincerely trust that this matter will be put right in the relatively near future.
    The Government are missing a glorious opportunity to create a home industry which would be not only a great national food asset but a first line of defence in the event of any emergency. I refer to the production of edible oil from herring. At present o we are playing with this matter. Yet incalculable possibilities are there if the Government would be prepared to go forward. I am not being critical of any attempt of the Government which has misfired for the moment when I say that if only one-tenth of the money invested in the East African groundnut venture had been channelled into the herring industry for the provision of herring oil, we could have had first-rate factories operating in our herring ports giving employment to many people, and we would have been assured of an abundance of first quality edible oil. The Norwegians are using herring oil almost solely for domestic purposes. Why cannot we do the same? Moreover, should
    374
    an emergency arise, here is an oil producing industry of our own which would be completely independent of overseas transport.
    I believe there will be an opportunity on another occasion to talk of rising costs in the industry, but before I sit down there is one point of major importance I must mention if our fishing industry in the North is to survive on a comparative basis with the fishing industries of the Shields, Hull, Grimsby, and so on. I refer to the flat rate for fish transport which, I understand, may be taken away. If the flat rate for fish transport is abolished and fish from Scottish ports has to stand in addition, the 163 per cent. increase in freight rates, then the inshore fishermen and trawler men operating from Aberdeen and the other Scottish ports may well be dealt a death blow. I know it will be a death blow so far as the inshore fishermen of the Moray Firth are concerned. It will also be a death blow for the inshore fishermen operating in the West Coast of Scotland.
    I have indicated those matters which I consider to be of primary importance with regard to food production in the fields with which I am intimate—oatmeal and the fishing industry. The points which I have put before the Minister demand immediate action, and I trust that it will be forthcoming.
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. Thomas Reid: I do not intend to follow previous speakers on agriculture, though I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who brought us back to reality and, by facts and figures, enabled us to realise what a splendid job has been done by the Ministry of Agriculture since 1945. I shall speak about another subject which has been much under discussion in this Debate, housing. Hon. Members on all sides are aware that there is still a great demand for houses, but from some of the speeches and the propaganda going around the country one would imagine that the Labour Government had gone to sleep over housing for the last four and a half years.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Reid: The hon. Member says "Hear, hear" but I will now give the

    375
    House the cold facts, in imitation of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
    The Coalition Government estimated that when 750,000 new houses had been built the back of the housing problem would have been broken. That turned out to be a quite erroneous presumption. Yet the propaganda going around the country compares housing carried out 12 or 15 years after the First World War with the housing carried out in the four and a half years immediately after the Second World War. Of course, there is a complete fallacy there. At the end of a war there is chaos and bankruptcy, shortage of materials and dislocation of industry, which makes it impossible even to start building houses for a considerable time. Hon. Members know that quite well. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition said that at the end of the last war we would be bankrupt and returning soldiers would have little to come home to.
    Let us, then, compare like with like; compare what was done after the First World War by hon. Members opposite and what was done after the Second World War. Then we shall get down to cold realities and' facts, which are what the electorate love. In the 11 months after the First World War the noble sum of 124 houses was built. In 15 months, 715 houses were built. In the four years after the First World War the total number of houses built in England and Wales was about 210,000.
    Mr. Vane: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to ask a question? He said that we should compare like with like. Does he wish the House to believe that local authorities in 1918 and 1919 had the same experience in house building as they had in 1945?
    Mr. Reid: That is a foolish question. I can assure the hon. Member that housing authorities after the First World War knew well how to build houses and had ample experience, but there was no Government scheme for building houses such as we had after this war. I will go back to the figures I was quoting. In the four years after the Second World War better and bigger houses were built to the tune of 683,000. What a contrast! In the four and a half years after this last war, 994,000 new homes were built. In addition, about 700,000 which were bomb-
    376
    damaged were repaired. In the town of Swindon, which I have the honour to represent, to date 1,000 houses have been built. In fact, when one compares the two periods, the amount of housing carried out after the last world war was about five times as great as that achieved after the first. These are facts which cannot be controverted. The Labour Government have established a magnificent record in their housing programme since 1945, and well hon. Members opposite know it.
    On the other hand, in our election programme of 1945 we stated that other things besides houses had to be built—factories, schools, shipping, and various other things. The point I want to stress is that after the last war a totally different approach was made to the problems of housing and of rebuilding our shattered wealth. We have undertaken the task of planning and have concentrated not on houses alone. Had we done so we could have built even more houses, but because materials like timber, steel, cement and other things were in short supply, our requirements have suffered. We have planned and taken control of the industrial life of the country. That is the fundamental difference between the way in which we have tackled our problems and the way in which the Conservatives tackled their problems after the First World War.
    Our planning consisted, of course, of a control over capital investment and over the location of industry, and was designed to concentrate on capital investment goods rather than on consumption goods. The magnificent result which has been achieved is that, starting from bankruptcy and ruin in 1945 to rebuild our wealth, over-all production is now 30 per cent. above pre-war. This astonishing result is unparalleled in any other country in Europe which suffered equally with us during the war. I hope that hon. Members opposite will give an authoritative answer to the question which I propose to ask. I have read very carefully the Tory manifestos and will now quote a few sentences from them:
    "We have too much planning and control. We believe that free enterprise is necessary. The Government should act only where the industries themselves are unable to succeed."
    Then, the Leader of the Opposition has gone round the country openly proclaiming that the Conservatives would set the people free from controls. He has said

    377
    that over and over again. We on this side say that over-all planning of our financial and economic life is necessary. I want to know what the Opposition have to say on this subject.
    We say that the chief cause of having full employment for the last four and a half years was, not American aid, but the fact that our industrial and economic life was planned; that is what we believe implicitly. In America today, where they have 10 acres of land for our one, where they have enormous natural resources which we lack, but where they do not have the same planning of their economic and industrial life, they have mass unemployment, while we have not.
    Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member says he does not believe that full employment was due to American aid. Does he think, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health were wrong and tried deliberately to deceive the country in saying that that was so?
    Mr. Reid: I am not here to state that my right hon. Friends were either wrong or untrue: they were perfectly candid. What I say is that American aid was not the sole cause of our full employment. I said distinctly that the chief cause of the prevention of unemployment here was economic and industrial planning. I repeat that America, with 10 acres of land to our one, with vast natural resources which we lack and with that great and richest country in the world, has mass unemployment and we have not. The reason is that America has no economic planning or control. Without over-all planning of our economic and industrial life, there is bound to be mass unemployment. I ask any impartial economist to deny that. After all, we are only carrying out what Lord Keynes in his books advocated for years: that is, to keep a balance between consumption goods and capital goods. That is what we have done, and year after year we have devoted something like £2,000 million to the creation of capital goods to build up the wealth of our shattered country.
    Whatever might suit America, we in Britain, with very limited national resources and a country which lives precariously on its imports and exports, must plan our economic and industrial
    378
    life. Do hon. Members opposite really say that if they came into power they would scrap all the planning organisation which we have evolved and set the people free from the irksome economic and financial restrictions and controls involved? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House yesterday taunted the Opposition with the fact that they will not say whether they are in favour of planning and of the Supplies and Services Act. I asked that question during the election and I press it again now. I challenge hon. Members opposite to say whether or not they favour planning of our financial and economic life and whether they will scrap the Supplies and Services Act—which gives to the Government the necessary powers —when it expires at the end of the year. Hon. Members opposite should give an authoritative and unambiguous statement on this, the fundamental difference between us on economic matters. Why, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said yesterday, the Conservatives will not answer that simple question, I do not know. Is it their intention, if returned to power, to set the people free from economic controls, or was their promise to do so merely a piece of demagogy?
    I pass now to another item, which affects me directly. I have the honour to represent a great railway centreSwindon—and am very well acquainted with railway employees of all grades. All these employees, and not merely those in Swindon alone, are very uneasy about their fate should a Conservative Government be returned to power. Hundreds of thousands of people—employees and their wives and families—share this anxiety for their future. I assure hon. Members opposite, if they do not already know it, that in trade union branches and in other places these things are discussed, and discussed very intelligently, by these people, who despise third-rate propaganda.
    The Labour Party propose to take over large sections of road transport, to amalgamate road transport with the railways and canals and to have a unified service for the nation. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will know that long before the war this question was investigated by various commissions. The trend of opinion in all their reports

    379
    was in favour, not necessarily of nationalisation, but of unification of transport. Are hon. Members opposite opposed to the unification of transport, contrary to the views of all those commissions? I hope that in the course of the Debate we shall be given an answer.
    In their manifesto the Conservative Party say that they do not like to create discord by de-nationalising industry; yet they propose to incur discord by denationalising road transport. What do they think will happen to the railways if the Labour Party's scheme of amalgamating and unifying transport is discarded? Who will pay for the railways? Is it thought that the railways, either here or in any other country, can pay their way now that there is competition from the roads, canals. and the rest? In practically every country railways have to be subsidised or protected in some way from road transport, which takes away the cream of the traffic and the profits.
    Why do the Opposition propose to de-nationalise road transport and yet leave the railways alone, knowing that it means ruin to the railways, and that they cannot pay their way? Is it their intention to hand over the railways lock, stock and barrel, to the taxpayer, and do they think that employees of the railways look forward with any joy to that kind of solution of their problem? Those employees are very uneasy when they realise that if that policy were carried out the railways would be living on the charity of the taxpayer. That is a prospect which holds no attraction whatever for them.
    In Conservative propaganda I have read a very remarkable sentence:
    "The Government should only act where industries themselves are unable to succeed."
    Is that the Tory policy, that as long as an industry can pay its way, whether in the interests of the country or not, it must be left severely alone? Must road transport be left alone because it is lucrative, and must only the railways, a part of transport which is a fit subject for unification, be handed over to the taxpayer because there is no money in them?
    The issues I have raised are, in my opinion, fundamental. They were the chief issues in the General Election, as I and other candidates have stated over
    380
    and over again. I ask the party opposite to favour the House with an authoritative unambiguous and unequivocal statement tonight as to what is their policy. Do they reject the whole system of planning and the irksome controls over our economic and industrial life which planning involves? I also ask how they propose to run the railways after they have de-nationalised road transport, in the very unlikely event of their coming to power again.
    7.21 p.m.
    Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) will forgive me if I do not follow in detail his arguments on the policy of our party. If he goes to any bookstall he can buy interesting literature on the subject and he will then be better acquainted with our views.
    At the outset I ask the Minister of Agriculture, in his capacity as Minister of Fisheries, if he will pay particular note to the speech which was delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) about the present very serious position of the fishing industry and especially the part of his speech which urged on the Government the necessity of an international convention being reached at the earliest possible moment, although I am well aware that the Minister is not solely responsible for that. It would appear that the great resources of the sea will dry up before many years have past unless some effective action is taken by international agreement. I also draw the attention of the Government to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Maclay) which, I know, impressed the House and the economic arguments he used about the ignorance of our affairs in many parts of the world.
    Turning to the main theme of our Debate today, agriculture, I, like many Members in different parts of the House, am very glad that this industry is given such a prominent place in the Gracious Speech, as I know it is agreed on all sides that the importance of this industry to our national economy is very great. In the months and years before us we must not only maintain our present production, but increase it. In view of this agreement, which, I think, exists in all parts of the House, it seemed surprising to hear the remarks which fell from the Lord

    381
    President of the Council yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) has dealt most effectively with those remarks, but I assure the House that in my considered view those remarks will be resented by everybody in the country districts, irrespective of the political views they hold. It seemed most unfortunate that he should drag this great industry into the realm of party politics when we on this side of the House have done our utmost to get an agreed working system for the industry. The industry has been brought into the arena but we should get away from the election myths and face the very difficult problems that confront the country at present.
    I would add only one further point to those put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden in dealing with the position between the wars. The question was raised by one whose political views are certainly not the political views of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, Sir John Boyd Orr, now Lord Boyd Orr, who, referring to the acute depression of the period 1929–1931, wrote, in February, 1938:
    "In 1930 the drastic fall in the prices of agricultural products called for emergency measures to save the basic industry of the country from collapse. By the rigorous action of the Minister of Agriculture"—
    who happened to be my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—
    "who used every means at his disposal, the crisis was averted and agriculture has become relatively prosperous."
    I rely on that statement of an entirely independent authority and I hope we may now leave the remarks of the Lord President of the Council—
    Dr. Morgan: Where did that quotation come from?
    Sir T. Dugdale: It came from "The Times" newspaper of 1st February, 1938. Not only are we agreed upon the importance of our industry and what it can fulfil for the national well-being but, broadly speaking, we are agreed on the method by which we shall proceed. We are agreed that the right method is under the system of guaranteed prices and assured markets based upon an annual price review. I ask the Minister if he really believes that he invented that
    382
    system? Does he really believe that? If so, he will believe anything. That system was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) in conjunction with the present Minister in the war years, when they worked together in the Coalition Government. One of the many reasons why it was a success was because the industry itself was determined to give the best service to the country. Under the guidance of my right hon. Friend, supported by the present Minister, the system came into force and was so successful that, when there was a change of Government in 1945, the present Minister quite rightly continued the system and put it into legislative form. All parties were responsible and no one more than my right hon. Friend who was Minister of Agriculture in the Coalition Government, so I hope we can get out of the mist of electioneering talk and down to the realities of the position.
    As negotiations are now in progress for the annual price review, I do not propose to go into the question of prices. I would, however, like to ask the Minister one or two questions, not on prices themselves, but on subjects which are germane to the whole discussion. I hope he will give an assurance that where producer subsidies are abolished the loss of income to the producers will be taken into account in present and future price reviews. It is vitally important that the industry should know. In that connection I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that at present a large number of producers, especially small producers, in different parts of the country are becoming extremely embarrassed by the increased cost of production. They are extremely anxious about the future and the future services which they may be able to render, not only to themselves and their own livelihood but to the nation.
    I ask the Minister of Agriculture if, during next month, he will think very seriously about the fertiliser subsidy. I have an idea—I do not know whether I am right or not; I hope the Minister may enlighten us on this point—that the announcement that the subsidy on fertilisers was to be dropped was slipped through when everyone was thinking of great national events, just before the approach of the General Election. I feel that the

    383
    Minister must now consider it to be a mistake. It is not that we on this side of the House are against eliminating these indirect subsidies when and as soon as possible, but I would ask him if he can tell us exactly how much the fertiliser subsidy is costing the Exchequer?
    How is it paid? I understood that it is paid not through his Department or the Ministry of Food but through an arrangement between the Board of Trade and the manufacturers. Exactly how much is the sum involved which has to be done away with, as I understand the proposal, in two equal parts, the first part in 1950 and the second, in 1951? This particular loss will fall heaviest upon the small farmer on marginal land, whom all parties are pledged to try and help to increase his production. I agree that every penny of national expenditure is important, but I do not believe that the sum involved in this proposal is anything like so much as is generally believed. I believe that the sum involved is comparatively small.
    We are just beginning to see the results of the education of small farmers and farmers on marginal land in the use of fertilisers. There has been a considerable advance in the use of fertilisers in recent years. Farmers throughout the country —I am speaking about small farmers in particular—are gradually learning what results they will get if they use fertilisers in the right way. When they see the results they achieve it encourages them and their neighbours to embark on further extensive use of fertilisers. If at this moment the Government decide to remove this subsidy it will, although I do not believe the sum involved to be very great, increase the cost to the producer, who pays £10 per ton today, to £15 per ton.
    There is another way of dealing with the matter. The view could be taken, "Take the subsidy off and "—as I think is agreed on all sides of the House as a general principle—" let us deal with the matter in the annual price review." But if that is done, it is necessary, in order to safeguard the position of the small man and the man on marginal land, to raise the price much higher than is necessary in the case of the big farmer on the good land, because the latter will continue to use fertilisers because he will be able to afford to do so. I urge the Minister
    384
    to give the House as much information as he can upon this question, and I ask him if he will see if he can do something about it in the very near future.
    I suggest to him that the right way to deal with this subsidy would be to defer taking any action until 1952, after which the situation can be reviewed again. Then it might be possible, over a longer period, to eliminate the subsidy. Just before the General Election the Minister started a great campaign which he called "Plough for Plenty." He desires to have another two million acres under tillage by 1952. What will ordinary farmers throughout the country think when they are asked to increase the output from their holdings and their farms, and, just at the moment when they are asked by the Minister to do so, supported, I hope, by the Members of this House and the country, they find the price of their fertilisers increased by anything from 25 to 35 per cent.? I stress that point because I believe it to be of great importance to the industry from the point of view of increased production.
    That brings me to the problem of marginal land, which is specifically mentioned in the Gracious Speech. Will the Minister be able this evening to give the House details of his proposals? If not can he say when he will be ready to explain his ideas to us? In his opening speech, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the careful survey which is necessary before taking any action in this matter. I must remind the House that this careful survey has been going on for years and that we really have not got very far. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us when he will be able to put his suggestions before the House.
    I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the speech which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) on Monday on this subject. I believe that, in the first instance, much can be done on the lines suggested in that speech before large areas of marginal land are dealt with, and that is by dealing with small parcels of such land, thousands of which exist on many farms throughout the country. We on this side of the House still believe that the most effective way of dealing with this admittedly most difficult problem would be to extend the

    385
    provisions of the Hill Farming Act to include marginal land, and, in order to speed up its effective action, to ease off all the various regulations which at present operate under that Act. By extending the Act to marginal land I believe we will get results more quickly than in any other way. In view of the controversy which raged during the last three weeks I hope the Minister will say whether or not he is determined to nationalise—or that the State shall take over—certain areas of marginal land, as suggested in the election manifesto of his party. We ought to be quite clear on, that point.
    I wish to refer to marketing, because I think the tithe has now come when the Government ought to give the fullest possible opportunity to producers to provide the best possible service for consumers. Now that we have reached our target in milk production the Milk Marketing Board should be released from its present restrictions and its full statutory powers restored. The sooner that action is taken the better it will be for the Board, the producers and also the consumers of milk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden mentioned the horticultural section of the industry during his speech. It is vitally important that confidence should be restored to that section of the industry. We on this side of the House are hopeful that the Ministry of Food, which is now under new management, may be able to run on parallel lines with the Ministry of Agriculture.
    Mr. G. Brown: Parallel lines never meet_
    Sir T. Dugdale: But they go in the same direction, and it does not matter if they do not meet so long as they are going in the same direction. Up till now they appear to us to have been pulling in diametrically opposite directions. There has been a great reduction in horticultural output over the last 18 months, and it is vitally important to our country that confidence should be restored to this section of the industry. To ensure that confidence we believe that the horticultural industry must be protected against destructive imports just before and during the time that home crops are ready for the market. That is the only way in which it can be achieved. We shall look
    386
    forward with interest to the new relationship between the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture, and we hope that the co-operation between them will be close and beneficial to both sections of the industry, and to the country as a whole.
    My right hon. Friend spoke about rural water supplies and asked the Minister certain questions, so I shall not dwell upon that, except to say I am certain the House will agree that in modern farming a piped water supply is essential. There is no doubt that during recent years the Government have given a far too low priority to the provision of plant and materials for rural water supplies. The legislation is on the Statute Book, and if it had been acted upon effectively we should have made a much greater advance during this last two or three years than it has been possible to make.
    I wish to say a word on the subject of seasonal rations for agricultural workers —a matter which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise). As we have new management in the Ministry of Food I would like the Minister of Agriculture to consult with his colleague about the method of distribution of extra seasonal rations for farm workers. My hon. Friends have raised this matter both in the form of Questions and also in Debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) raised the matter nearly two years ago, and we had a Debate on it.
    It seems wrong that these seasonal rations cannot be drawn by the people who will consume them. I have never understood the argument used against, except that for some extraordinary and unknown reason the T.U.C. are against it; and they told their supporters to keep off the grass. But I have never been able to understand why they should be against it. If additional rations are to be given to those working on the land surely, in the name of commonsense, the people to give them to are those who will consume them. We should not ask the farmer and his wife to draw the rations and cut them up. That is to the great disadvantage of everyone concerned. I ask the Minister to look at the problem again, because I think all sections of the agricultural industry are in favour of this change being made.

    387
    I cannot close this short Debate on agriculture without saying a word about land use. In the months and years to come we are to have a drive for still greater production from the soil of our country, both in the form of crops and livestock. Yet at the same time as we are doing all we can to increase our production, I think it is true, although it is impossible to get accurate figures, that 50,000 acres a year are being taken away from agriculture and used for other purposes. We on this side of the House maintain that no fertile land should be taken from agricultural production without the fullest inquiry; and in every case, at an early stage, consultation should take place with the county agriculture committees. I press the Minister to pay particular attention to this serious question. What is the use of extensive schemes to increase production when, at the same time, fertile land is taken away from the industry?
    That brings me to the question of county committees. I hope the Minister will take an early opportunity of reviewing the work of the county committees. We believe that the county committee system is a good one, provided that the services of the best possible people can be obtained. That will only go on and can only go on if such people are given a wide measure of responsibility in their own counties, if they can depend on leadership from the Minister, and are relieved from much of the present unnecessary paper work which is gradually cluttering them up. Members of county committees have performed, and are still performing, a great service to the country and the industry. I consider it vital that at this stage the Minister should give his personal consideration to their future. Otherwise, he will not be able to keep the type of people he wishes to keep on these committees, namely, those who have the greatest knowledge of the industry.
    As has already been said, great issues of principle divide us at present in a House which is practically equally balanced. We are assured by the Minister, in speeches which he has made in the country, that he does not propose to nationalise the land. His colleagues may think differently; I do not know. For the present it should be the duty of this House and of all its Members to help
    388
    those engaged in the agricultural industry and enable them to make the greatest possible contribution in the national interest.
    7.50 p.m.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate did so on a very cheery note indeed. He patted himself and his party on the back for a wonderful rural victory. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman was patting himself in order to cheer himself up, because neither the facts nor the figures for the countryside are really cheerful for the Conservative Party. Indeed, as I read the figures the writing is on the wall for the Conservative Party in the rural areas.
    I wonder whether by any chance the right hon. Gentleman looked at the Dorset figures. Leaving out the division of Poole, which is more a town division than a rural one, he will note that the Labour vote in the three rural constituencies increased by 16 per cent. and that the Conservative vote went down by 19 per cent. If one looks at the figures for Wiltshire, Berkshire and Somerset, and bears in mind also the three Labour Members returned for the three rural constituencies in Norfolk, again there is not too much to be cheerful about for the Conservatives. The right hon. Gentleman told us how well the Conservative Party had done in these various areas, but he was careful not to say who were the voters. He did not claim, for instance, that all the farmers and farm workers voted for the Conservative Party. He knows the constitution of a rural area better than most people in this House, and he knows that apart from those who earn their living by working on the land, there are a large number of others who do not, but who live there and therefore vote. I am satisfied with the results of the 1950 Election.
    Referring to the general situation in agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman said that the best incentive of all to get increased food production was the incentive of price. I need hardly tell the right hon. Gentleman, or indeed the House, that prices paid to farmers over the past several years were never higher. Farmers were never more prosperous, and the countryside as a whole—that is, those who are dependent on the agri-

    389
    cultural industry—were never more prosperous than they are at this moment. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to quote certain figures with some sort of anxiety or dismay—I did not quite gather which—and he quoted the fact that last year our wheat acreage was down something like 300,000 acres compared with the target.
    It is true, unfortunately, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the kind of weather we had in this country in the autumn of 1948. If he will take his mind back those 15 months, perhaps he will recall that our shortage in the wheat target was entirely due to the weather conditions in the autumn of 1948. But side by side with that, I think I ought to quote only two other figures to show that there really is no need for dismay, for while in pre-war days we were producing some 5,300,000 acres of cereals all told, last year we had something like 8,200,000 acres of cereals, on top of which we had 1,300,000 acres of potatoes, which is double the pre-war acreage. So that there is nothing really to be worried about there.
    Next the right hon. Gentleman recalled a statement made by the Lord President of the Council, repeated so often in this House over the past two years, about providing the industry with the tools for the job, when he said that if necessary we would not hesitate to provide some very scarce dollars to purchase feedingstuffs. The right hon. Gentleman, repeating the question that has been put to me and the Lord President so often in this House, asked why we did not spend dollars on coarse grains. The explanation is very simple, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary answered the question before it was actually put by the right hon. Gentleman. Our trade agreements with Russia, where we have been able to buy 750,000 tons or one million tons of coarse grains in one year, our agreement with the Argentine, where we have been able to buy 1,600,000 tons in one year, and what we have been able to purchase from Australia, Yugoslavia and elsewhere, rendered it unnecessary to spend scarce dollars which were required for raw materials for our general industries while we were building up our livestock in this country.
    390
    In fact, what with the increased purchases abroad plus the greater efforts at self-sufficiency on the part of our own farmers, I think our livestock production over the past two years has gone up just about as fast as the farmers could breed livestock, whatever the quantities of feedingstuffs they may have had.
    Mr. Turton rose—
    Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) wishes to challenge me, let me tell him before I go any further that at this moment the feedingstuffs available for farmers in the form of bonuses are not all being taken up by any means.
    Mr. Turton rose—
    Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me deal with the argument in my own sweet way. After all, the right hon. Gentleman quite properly raised the point and is entitled to have an answer. I am trying to give it to him. I say, therefore, that the reason we did not spend scarce dollars which are required for that part of our food which we must buy from North America, plus cotton and various metals for our other industries, was because of our trade agreements with Russia, the Argentine and elsewhere, and the magnificent efforts on the part of the British farmers themselves in the production of dried grass and silage as well as coarse grains, which have placed them in this position at this moment. In 1946–47 we released 2,700,000 tons of feeding-stuffs; in 1947–48, 3.6 million tons; 1948–49, 4.5 million tons; 1949–50, 6 million tons, on top of which we can add another 4 million tons which are produced in this country and used on the farms. In other words, the farmers—and they are not complaining—are receiving at this moment five-sixths of the total feedingstuffs they had in the days before the war. That is the reason those scarce dollars were not spent upon feedingstuffs.
    The right hon. Gentleman, again quite properly, asked why, when Denmark and some other countries were using scarce dollars for feedingstuffs, we had not done so in this country. I think we were very wise not to do anything of the kind. We shall be in a much less vulnerable position at the end of the Marshall Aid period than those who depend upon dollar feedingstuffs and who will have no dollars with which to buy dollar feedingstuffs.
    Mr. Turton: Would the right hon. Gentleman regard as satisfactory the fact that France and the other continental countries have increased their livestock production by so much more than this country?
    Mr. Williams: That is not so. It may be so in Denmark, but there is no parallel between Denmark and this country. This country must live by exporting its industrial goods. Denmark is totally different. Look at the population and the layout of the nation. Trying to draw a parallel between Denmark and this country is too absurd for words. Our prudence will leave us less vulnerable at the end of Marshall Aid than those who depend upon using Marshall Aid to purchase imported feedingstuffs.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question about horticulture and horticultural produce generally. Broadly, the detailed arrangements that have now been settled aim at giving the producer a measure of protection similar to that granted to him over the past three years, and in addition they set some limits to the imports of various fruits, such as cherries, plums and strawberries. In drawing up the list of periods for restricted imports and the provisional quantities of any imports to be licensed during such periods, the Government have endeavoured to hold the balance fairly even between the interests of producer and consumer. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we must also have regard to the general policy for liberalisation of trade. It is no use hon. Members in any part of the House advocating the cause of one section of the country without having, regard to the other sections of the country. It would lead horticulturists and farmers generally, or indeed any section, into an unfortunate situation if it were felt that consumer interests were completely abrogated to the interests of horticulturists. I am sure we should not desire that that should happen.
    It is a question of getting the right balance, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that, since this country never did and is not likely to produce all its vegetables for every period in the year or all its fruit, we must import some at some time, and the best efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food, combined with the Board of Trade, ought to
    392
    be, and indeed are at the moment, as I can assure hon. Members, to try and make those imports complementary to and not antagonistic to our home production. That has been our policy and if there have been unfortunate incidents, such as the onion position two years ago—
    Hon. Members: And tomatoes.
    Mr. Dye: And barley before the war.
    Mr. Williams: There were lots of things before the war and I shall come to them if hon. Members will permit me. I think our policy has been the right one, and so longs as we can, with these arrangements, make imports complementary and not antagonistic at the peak of our own season, that is the way we ought to work.
    There is one other thing I ought to say with regard to horticultural producers. We have been encouraging marketing schemes since 1931. There has been a period of suspension and we all readily understand the cause for that, but in 1948 a tomato and cucumber scheme was submitted, and some amendments to the scheme were shown to be necessary as a result of a public inquiry and examination by the Government. The precise nature of these amendments is now under discussion with the promoters of the scheme, and we hope it will soon be possible for the scheme to be presented to Parliament. This will enable the marketing board to be set up in good time to deal with the crop of 1951. I hope that once the tomato and cucumber scheme is established, it may be followed by many other schemes which will help horticultural producers to help themselves by better packing, better grading, better presentation and better marketing.
    The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the question of houses built in rural areas for agricultural workers both in the inter-war years and since the end of the war. I have not the figures of how many houses for agricultural workers were built by the Government in rural areas after the First World War, but I have the figures of what has happened under this Government during the last four and a half years. If we take the over-all housing situation in the two periods we know that there were 225,000 houses built in the first four years after the First World War compared with 780,000 in the four years after the Second World War—and

    393
    there was a Conservative-dominated Government between 1918 and 1922. That was the situation.
    Since the end of the last war, houses in rural areas have been erected in large numbers. I wish, as does every other hon. Member, that there could have been more houses, for the more houses there are available for agricultural workers the more agricultural workers we shall recruit for permanent employment, but the fact is that something over 82,000 have already been completed, of which over 25 per cent. have gone to agricultural workers, and that is a greater contribution to agricultural workers as such than we had between 1918 and 1939. I do not think there is any doubt about that.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not like to refer to the past. He brought to my mind what one of my friends said on one occasion:
    "What is wrong with the Conservative Party is that they are halted by their past while we are inspired by our future."
    Well, it is true. However, the right hon. Gentleman did say that he was prepared to take us on on the past, present and future, and he then proceeded to refer to the Corn Production Act. Like Wilfred Pickles, I am always ready to "have a go" on the past, present or future of the party opposite. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Corn Production Act and said what six Labour Party Members did who were on the Commission that dealt with it. I understand that on that Commission there were 23 members. I do not know whether I am right or wrong; but what were the.17 other members doing in allowing the six to do what they did—in allowing the tail to wag the dog? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the other 17 did?
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The detail of the matter is that, of course, the Royal Commission was established before the Act of 1920, which was prior to the repeal of 1921, and there was a majority report and a minority report, and the six Labour Members took part with 11 others who reported against the guaranteed price system.
    Mr. Williams: I have no objection to the right hon. Gentleman's making that quotation, but it is a simple fact that it was a Conservative-dominated Government that repealed the Corn Production
    394
    Act, and no amount of jiggery-pokery will get away from that simple fact.
    Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to enjoy himself, and he referred to the Members of the Labour Party, and to their numbers, and to the legislation about market grading, and the Wheat Act, and several other Acts. Curiously enough, there was one he did not mention, and that was the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all from that Front Bench, all voted against the Marketing Bill of 1931. The hon. Baronet the Member for Richmond a little earlier talked about the "wonderful" Milk Marketing Board. I agree with that definition. I think it has done a magnificent job of work. However, if it had been left to the Conservative leaders in 1931 there would not have been a Marketing Act and there would not have been a Marketing Board.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that the reason the Conservative Party voted against that Bill was that without control of imports the Bill was not worth the paper it was written on?
    Mr. Williams: I remember also that one hon. Member of this House at that time, who would have made a good twin with the hon. Member for Leominster, described the Marketing Bill as nothing short of sheer nationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly claimed credit for the Wheat Act and certain other Acts passed between 1919 and 1923, and from 1924 to 1929, and from 1931 to 1939. I give him credit for all of them. However, summed up, what did all these wonderful pieces of legislation on the Statute Book amount to? In the period when those Acts were being passed about 8,000 farmers went bankrupt; millions of acres of agricultural land went out of cultivation farmers' incomes were never so low; and agricultural workers' wages were between 25s. and 35s. a week.
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbett rose—
    Mr. Williams: That was after all these wonderful Acts passed by the various Conservative Governments between 1918 and 1939.
    Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: How many went bankrupt between 1929 and 1931?
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the exact figure of the number of bankruptcies between 1929 and 1931, which he will find is a record for farming?
    Mr. Williams: I would not be a bit surprised. Anybody farming between 1929 and 1931 under Conservative legislation was bound to go bankrupt. Today farming is really prosperous and the wage of the agricultural worker is at least 94s. a week. What is more to the point is that the nation is getting the food.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me about water schemes, main and minor. For the 12 months to 31st March, 1949, the Minister of Health approved schemes to the value of £6½ million, which was a good deal in excess of the record prewar figure of £2½ million in taking main water schemes to rural areas—[Interruption]—Even if the hon. Member who interjected doubles the £2½ million, the figure for the year ending March, 1949, is still a record over the biggest and best that the Conservative Government ever did in 1935–6. On top of that, the hon. Member must bear in mind that in 1935–6–7 there was no shortage of steel pipes, no keen competition for pipes by oil, electricity and gas undertakings and for urban water supplies, sewerage and other schemes, and there was no shortage of labour.
    Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Will the Minister tell us how many of the schemes that have been authorised of this £6½ million have actually been started and how many have been completed?
    Mr. Williams: I should like to compliment the hon. Gentleman on his maiden speech, and I hope I shall have many more interventions at the right time.
    The total value of schemes for rural areas for which tenders have been obtained, upon which either work has been started or can be begun, since the end of the war to the end of December, 1949, was over £14 million. In addition
    396
    schemes to the value of a further £2 million were ready to go to tender. At the end of December, 1949, schemes approved in principle by the Minister of Health and now in the final stage of plans were estimated to cost over £14 million, so that the total value of work completed, in the course of construction, or approved in principle to the end of December, 1949, was £30 million. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will look back, they will find that there is not a period in the existence of Conservative Governments in which half as much was done in the same period of time as has been done during the past four and a half years.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the total of the grants paid hitherto? That is a very different figure, according to my information.
    Mr. Williams: I am afraid I could not say offhand what grant from the Government all these schemes will attract, but if the right hon. Gentleman is interested I shall be glad to let him have the figure later.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me a series of questions about water supply, with which I will deal later. As some hon. Members know, there are schemes to take water to a farm where livestock constitutes part of the farm, for which grants are made, and approximately 37,600 farm schemes have been approved in England and Wales since July, 1941, to the end of December, 1949. The cost of the work involved is £.8¾ million, and the grant aid is approximately £4 million. Schemes are now being approved at the rate of about 7,800 annually, and power to give such aid, originally started as a war-time expedient, is now extended by Section 96 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, to at least the autumn of 1952, and it may be continued for two years if Parliament so decides. So that on the question of main water supply schemes, bearing in mind the shortage of pipes available to us and during the early days the shortage of steel, and the minor schemes, I think the Government have done reasonably well.
    The right hon. Gentleman also asked a question about marginal land, and said: "I hope the Minister will give us a straight answer." Well, the right hon. Gentleman knows that I always give a straight answer, and there was no point

    397
    in that. He made reference to the Labour Party's manifesto issued during the election campaign. The words in the manifesto say exactly what was meant. There is no sign of nationalisation there; there is no more sign of nationalisation in that manifesto in its reference to marginal land than there is in the 1947 Act referring to other areas of land in the country which, for one reason or another, cannot or will not be dealt with by the owner. The right hon. Gentleman knows that under the 1947 Act an Agricultural Land Commission was set up, and if there is an area of land where the owners arc known not to have the capital, or if they have not the will, to provide the buildings, equipment and so on to ensure that that area of land is cultivated in the interests of the nation, then the Agricultural Land Commission, after thorough investigation and after consulting the owners, can make a report to the Minister to buy or not to buy. The Minister can then, under the terms of the 1947 Act approve the buying of the land where the owners will not undertake to invest the appropriate amount of capital. Two or three cases have already been dealt with.
    As hon. Members will recall, the first case was Romney Marsh, where it was found in respect of land which, apart from sheep runs, had been brought into cultivation during the course of the war for the first time for very many years, a large sum of capital would have to be expended on housing, buildings, and so on, to keep that land under arable cultivation. There the owners were willing to put up the money, so that when the Agricultural Land Commission reported to me I was satisfied that the land would be kept in cultivation and that the money would be spent. That is all the Government and Parliament ask for. On the other hand, in another case down in Anglesey, which has been troubling Governments for 30 years, the report is different; the capital is not forthcoming, and nobody is going to do anything about it. Therefore, on the basis of a report of this properly constituted Agricultural Land Commission, the nation is entitled to take over that area of land to see that it is worked in the interests of the nation.
    The reference to marginal land is exactly the same. Under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, we present to any farmer or landowner 50. per cent. of the total cost
    398
    of any one or number of 23 different improvements, if he will undertake the job. Once a proper scheme is available for marginal land, if it is found that the landowner or the tenant, or both jointly, are unable or unwilling to undertake a scheme, where genuine improvement can be effected the Government have the right at the moment to take over. That is only in those areas where the owners do not want to or will not bring about an improvement, even with a Government grant. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that as a straight reply with regard to nationalisation.
    He also said that we ought not to be duped. From my tour of some counties, and from my experience of a lot of the publicity issued, there were tens of thousands of electors duped into believing that this party believes in nationalisation. Not all the votes were obtained under reasonable and fair pretences. The simple fact is—and again this is the straight answer to the right hon. Gentleman—that land nationalisation forms no part of our programme and policy today. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, as a policy builder, will agree that no party will produce at the last election a policy for after the next election. That is really going a bit too far. When Members, perhaps quite genuinely, still fear that there is some possibility of land nationalisation and make that suggestion or express that fear, it is quite clear to me they have not yet learned that we passed a Town and Country Planning Act in the last Parliament.
    Mr. David Renton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that under the 1947 Act, the Town and Country Planning Act and each of the nationalisation Acts, especially the Transport Act, coupled with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of accepting land in lieu of Death Duties, the Government have power to nationalise land, in quite a big way by steady degrees? Will he say whether it is the Government's policy to make use of these powers?
    Mr. Williams: That is typical of a National Liberal intervention. The hon. Member knows that it is an abuse of the English language to suggest that the power contained in the 1947 Act can be used for the purpose of nationalising the land of the country. It can be used only in areas, such as the one I have referred

    399
    to, following a report by the Agricultural Land Commission, where it is proved that the land is not being used in the best interests of the nation.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it not the case that every one of those Acts was passed through the House of Commons without Tory opposition?
    Mr. Williams: Certainly without a Division. I am perfectly certain that if the same Bill came before the same House with the same Members, they would do the same thing again.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could make a statement about the marginal scheme referred to in the King's Speech. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that we were having a scientific survey made into the possibilities of increased food production and in regard to potential costs. We anticipate a report at a very early date, and I can assure Members that we will waste no time once we understand the size of the problem, what are the costs, and what food we are likely to get as a result.
    I ought to make a short statement on the Hill Farming Act. I notice that the Conservative Party, in their manifesto, tell the world what they are going to do about that Act, that they are going to push on and make it work faster. If they did that, they would want more money than the 1946 Act provides. They will recall that we provided £4 million for schemes, with the possibility of a further £1 million, meaning £10 million of improvements to hill farms. I am satisfied, from the number of schemes already submitted and under investigation, that every penny of the £5 million will be called for, which means that we shall improve our hill farms to the extent of £10 million worth of work.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me a whole series of questions about what priority we had given for water schemes; what is the truth about the export of pipes to soft currency countries, and so on. I could perhaps give him an answer by telling him that farm water schemes are given a special symbol, what is called WS, on the steel authorisation. This has given a limited advantage, and at the beginning of last year we had on hand
    400
    a stock of pipes for approved water schemes. The Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, purchased about 50 per cent. of our estimated requirements. We have taken delivery of a considerable quantity of this order, and we should be able to supply water pipes for all approved water supplies where stocks cannot be obtained through the trade. In other words, we exercise some power of planning to ensure that every part of the country gets a fair share.
    As to cast-iron main pipes, I understand from the Ministry of Health that there is no special priority, but the Ministry are in touch with the manufacturers. We are fully aware of the schemes which have been undertaken by statutory water undertakings, and I understand that a large proportion of these pipes have been allocated for this purpose, but production is limited. On the question of exports, I have not been able in the time available to ascertain if the export of iron and steel pipes to soft currency countries has been increasing. I understand, though, that the arrangement is made by the Ministry of Supply, and is bound up with rather special questions of foreign trade. The pipes required for farm water supply schemes have accounted for only a small proportion of the output, probably not more than I per cent., and the export of pipes has had little or no effect upon our work. I hope that is a reasonably satisfactory answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
    I do not think I need waste the time of the House with saying more than hearty congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), both of whom we hope to hear on many occasions in the future. The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) referred to the Milk Marketing Board. I understand that that has already been dealt with, and I would only warn him to do a bit of educating on his Front Bench now that he has realised what the Marketing Act, 1931, has enabled the farmers to do with the Milk Marketing Board and many other schemes.
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I was only stating that agreed prices were not the innovation of the Socialist. Government,

    401
    but that they existed before the war for milk, sugar beet and wheat.
    Mr. Williams: I believe that between 1931 and 1935 the Government passed one of their Acts under which they guaranteed that if the price of milk sold by farmers for the manufacture of cheese or butter fell below 4½d. a gallon, the Government would make it up. That is one of the guarantees to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also said there were large demands for farms. I believe that is true from Cornwall to Northumberland, and is the measure of the success of the Labour Government's agricultural policy. Farms cannot be bought unless at excessive prices. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to marginal farms having special priority for feedingstuffs. The hon. and gallant Member is well behind. Right throughout the war and in the years of peace our county executive committees have had discretionary powers to assist those on marginal land who could not produce feedingstuffs for themselves so that they could keep on producing milk.
    The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) will get a reply to some of his questions from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can assure him, however, that this question of over-fishing is ever present in our minds, and I am sure he will recollect that it was the Labour Government which initiated the conference, which brought into operation the Over-fishing Convention, and that we were one of the first Governments to ratify it. Since that time, the Foreign Secretary has constantly urged other nations who attended the conference to ratify the Convention, since we are willing at any given moment to apply the Convention with those who signed, regardless of countries who have not yet signed. I appreciate the seriousness of the problem. I see the diminishing returns to the middle- and near-water fishermen. If this Government can use any influence with other Governments. we want to see the Convention brought into action.
    Mr. Duthie: Can the Minister say something about oatmeal?
    Mr. Williams: I am afraid that that is beyond by province. I shall have to leave it to one of my colleagues from
    402
    Scotland. The hon. Member's reference to the factory and what transpired was quite new to me, and I shall have to make inquiries about it.
    The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Richmond asked me, where producer subsidies are abolished, whether they would be taken into account in the February review. They always were and they always will be. That applies to the fertiliser subsidy, too. That matter is under consideration in a dual form at this moment. There have been 10 years of the fertiliser subsidy, and farmers ought by now to know the value of the increased yields from the right kind of fertiliser. Even if part of the fertiliser subsidy goes, I hope that farmers will continue to use the fertilisers that have given such increased yields over the last few years.
    In regard to land use, the county executive committees are consulted in every case where land is taken over for agricultural purposes. We are perhaps doing more to preserve good agricultural land than was ever done before. As to county agricultural executive committees, all I need say is that we are obliged to take three of our members from lists supplied by the National Farmers' Union. As far as they can, they endeavour to provide us with names of people of the right type so that the county committees are well manned. That applies to the Central Landowners' Association and to the Agricultural Workers' Union.
    My last point is that for the last four and a half years there has been some sense of continuity and I believe there have been improvements on the war-time system. We have changed from direction and compulsion on every field and on every farm to a large measure of leadership, persuasion, technical help and guidance. I think we have got a greater measure of goodwill and prosperity in the countryside than ever before. What is more to the point is that our very limited acres are making a bigger contribution to the wellbeing of this country than they have ever made before.
    8.34 p.m.
    Mr. Leather: I rise with more than the ordinary temerity of the maiden speaker to ask for the indulgence of the House, because I did not realise that upon this occasion I would have to follow two Front Bench Members.

    403
    I would therefore ask the House to bear with me if I should change the subject and go rather further afield than the very interesting Debate we have had on agriculture. I confess that I am almost sorry to do that. If it were not for the fact that as a maiden speaker I must not be too contentious I should very much have enjoyed following the Minister on nationalisation of the land, which is one of my pet subjects.
    I ask the House now to look abroad at foreign and Empire affairs, which have not yet been mentioned, because I am sure that hon. Members on all benches of this House would agree that no matter how important our domestic reforms may be—whether we nationalise or not or whether we tax or not—all this is unimportant compared with the vital question of preventing another war. I would remind the House of the moving and telling words of the Archbishop of York at the start of this last election, that if, as a result of concentrating all our efforts and our energies and our thoughts on our domestic problems, which, undoubtedly, are more pressing in the minds of our people at election time, we completely miss the boat abroad and we allow our country, through weakness or error or anything else, to drift into war then we will have served our country ill.
    I have the honour to follow in this House as the Conservative representative for my constituency the late Mrs. Mavis Tate who served with great distinction here for many years. Many older Members will know that she was a war casualty just as surely as if she had served in the front line. I represent North Somerset, which is a strange mixture of half farming and half coal mining. It may be odd to some hon. Members opposite at first thought that there are representatives of coal mining constituencies on this side of the House, but I am glad that there are and I hope this will continue.
    It might appear at first glance that our miners and our farmers have little in common. Indeed, I have been almost forced to the conclusion that the only safe policy I can advocate in my constituency to please both fractions is higher wages for everybody, because one cannot sympathise with one without getting into trouble with the other. However, I think
    404
    it is a classical illustration that the common interest of those two sections in preserving peace is infinitely more important than any differences we may have either in our jobs or in our politics.
    With all due respect to the United Nations and all the other great international bodies that have been set up, I persist in my belief that if we are to prevent war and protect the lives of all our people, we must rely a great deal more on our own strength and vigour than on any paper treaties. I believe that strength can only be based on a strong foreign policy and that the root of any strong British foreign policy must be based on the British Empire. Some hon. Members opposite may be puzzled at my Somerset accent. My accent is Canadian. I am proud to think that, although I have the honour to represent North Somerset, I was born 6,000 miles from this country. I was born in a free, independent nation that is still proud to call itself a member of the British Empire. And I write those words in block capitals. and repeat "British Empire" and not "The Blank Commonwealth."
    I cannot believe that in the last five years the British Empire has been the top priority of the Government. Hon. Members in the Labour Party like to talk about exploitation in the Empire. Like the right hon. and learned Member for South-East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who is a neighbour of mine in the West Country, they have always said that the liquidation of the Empire is fundamental to Socialism. I believe that such a course would be a disastrous blow at the standard of living of the working people of this country. I say this as one of those working people and as a working trade unionist. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite, if I may, that while they can, and undoubtedly do, disagree, they must not be surprised if those of us who come from the Empire are annoyed at 50 years' abuse of the Empire by their party, of its institutions, and everything that it has done in this world. It has been the bedrock of our strength in the past and, unless it is so again, we stand very little chance of preventing war.
    I should like to put a question which, I hope, someone in the Government will answer before the end of the Debate. I have been referring to the Dominions and would like now to refer to the

    405
    Colonies. It has been actively canvassed in all the papers—and papers that would be regarded as responsible and irresponsible on both sides of the House—that the appointment of the new Colonial Secretary is designed to give him freedom to devote his attentions to the management of the Labour Party. I hope we can be assured that that is not so. Now, more than ever before, we need a strong and powerful lead at the Colonial Office. The development of the Empire is, I submit to hon. Members opposite, even more important than the development of Socialism and of their own party. I hope we will see the Colonial Secretary and his Under Secretary and his Minister of State devoting their interests to the affairs of the Colonies and not using their offices as sinecures to allow them to devote their interests to party affairs.
    I will endeavour not to be contentious, but there is one point which I must put very strongly to the Government. The way in which the Labour Government have treated the Dominions in the last five years has been shameful. I know perfectly well that hon. Members opposite deny that, and that the President of the Board of Trade, who, I am very glad to see, has now entered the Chamber, denies it. He denied it when he went to Canada. He put up very interesting and technical arguments to deny that the Government had not treated the Dominions, and particularly Canada, shamefully. But the President of the Board of Trade knows as well as I do that the people of Canada think they have been treated shamefully. That is the unfortunate fact. It is the old story that where there is smoke there must be somebody smoking. That is the impression which people in the Dominions have got, and it is a disastrous one.
    The question of Empire co-operation is not a matter of grandiose schemes and ideas: it is a question of day-to-day cooperation in detailed matters, which has been sadly lacking in the last five years. I would very much like to know the views of the Government on the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) about converting the function of the Bank of England into a sterling area reserve bank, a suggestion which I wholeheartedly support. Does the Government agree? If not, what is their reason?
    406
    I should also like to know the reaction of the Government to an Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of many of my hon. Friends and myself requesting an Imperial economic conference at which the Colonial Empire should be adequately represented. The Government have conducted their foreign and Empire affairs in watertight compartments. Heaven knows, nobody would say we have not had enough conferences—I am inclined to think that we have had far too many; but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said at the opening of the Debate, there seems Ito be no consistent pattern or theme. One day it is a conference on South-East Asia; another day, it is on something else. At no stage in the last five years have the Government made any concerted effort to carry all the Dominions forward with them together.
    I should like to refer to a speech made some time ago by Field-Marshal Montgomery at the United Services Institute, words that created great thought and bewilderment in other countries but which passed almost unnoticed here. Field-Marshal Montgomery, upon whom the Government have placed the responsibility for maintaining our strength to prevent war, said in that speech:
    "Under the Western Pact as now framed I have not the power to make us strong enough to deter Russia from thoughts of war.'
    Why not? Field-Marshal Montgomery should have that power, should he not? Is not the primary task of any Government to prevent war more important than any of our domestic reforms? Yet here we have the position in which a technical officer, a servant of the Government, is placed in a position to do that job and publicly states that he has not the power. Why has he not the power? It surely cannot be that enough money has not been spent. Is it because of political obstacles? If there are political obstacles can we not be told what they are? Surely we have a right to know what they are.
    I believe that if this country would give the lead which I know the Dominions want, and we all know M. Spaak and many statesmen in Western Europe want, and the United States are praying us to give, we can go forward and overcome those obstacles no matter how difficult they may be. In the Dominions—not only on these benches—and not only among

    407
    those who believe in free enterprise in the Dominions, but among all parties, there is a feeling that the Government have moved in these matters only when they have been kicked into moving by the Leader of the Opposition. [Laughter.] The hon. Member may laugh; I do not know how much he has travelled in the Dominions and Colonies, but I can assure him of that. I put it to the President of the Board of Trade that one may deny these things but, unfortunately, they exist in the minds of other people. It is the old story; not only must justice be done but justice must be seen to be done.
    I believe that it is political obstacles which are preventing us from moving forward and that the Government are afraid to, or for some reason best known to themselves will not, tackle the problems of Empire co-operation and co-operation with the countries of Western Europe as we believe they must be tackled. If that is so, I ask the Government to tell us what are these obstacles? If the obstacle is that progress would demand sacrifice of national sovereignty, and pooling or common arrangements with the Dominions why cannot we be told?
    I may be rash, but I believe the people of this country are not nearly so much concerned with the niceties of national sovereignties as are most politicians. If we are asked to pool many aspects of our sovereignties, particularly with the Dominions and the Empire, I believe that should be done. I believe it is long overdue and that many people in the Dominions and many politicians would welcome a lead and an opportunity now. I do not say this could have happened 10 or 15 years ago. One may ask why it was not done before but the attitude and the view was not there in the Dominions; it has been brought about since the war, but it has been awaiting a lead from this country which has not been forthcoming. I believe that the most vital task of the Government, if they are to make our country strong and go forward with a strong foreign policy, is to give Field Marshal Montgomery the power he has publicly stated he has not got and base that policy on the bedrock of the cooperation of the British peoples.
    8.49 p.m.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: According to ancient tradition and with
    408
    great pleasure I venture to offer to the last speaker a welcome to this House and congratulations upon his maiden speech. I am sure I am voicing the views of all here when I say that we enjoyed his speech very much, eloquent and well phrased as it was, but we are not necessarily persuaded by it. Like many speakers from his side of the House, he looks far afield with the fresh view of a Canadian and with a charming accent, to which he referred, and to which I would not have referred had he not mentioned it. He expressed the ingenuous views of youth upon the British Empire and the British Commonwealth of Nations, between which he himself confessed he sees no difference or distinction.
    I shall not be drawn into any controversy with him upon that topic or upon any other, because I wish to say a few words about that reference in the Gracious Speech to the food supply of the nation, which has indeed been the topic of discussion all afternoon, and in particular about its bearing upon the trade of Scotland and the danger of unemployment in the City of Aberdeen. The reference in the Gracious Speech which I have in mind is that which says:
    "You will be invited to pass a Bill to regulate and improve the living conditions of the crews of fishing trawlers."
    I was very sorry to hear the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) referring to that passage in the Gracious Speech as being light-hearted and seeming to imply that it did not, as I think it does, imply a definite promise of legislation which has been overdue for at least 30 years.
    I hope that the House will consider it as a promise of legislation upon this matter, and I hope that the Government will give the Bill which is there mentioned a high priority. Everyone here will agree that trawler crews were shockingly neglected before and during the last war. They have been much praised in war and much neglected in peace. There have been inquiries and commissions galore but the reports from them have been shelved. I am sure the House will agree that the Bill which is foreshadowed in the passage to which I have referred should excite no opposition in principle, because no one will have the hardihood to say that the trawler crews are not

    409
    worthy of better conditions than they have at present. This Bill should, on the contrary, attract competition between the parties to pass it into law to improve the lives of the trawler crews and to make their lives more tolerable and happy than they have ever been.
    On all sides it is admitted that trawler crews serve the country well in war and in peace. In war and peace alike their work is characterised by courage, technical skill, perseverance, and self-sacrifice. These qualities, developed in peace, have helped to bring this country to victory in war. Trawler crews represent a hardy race who live along our shores. In peace they bring ample supplies of nourishing food to the large consuming centres. It is a sad thing to realise that these men who perform such great services in war and peace, become forgotten men in time of peace. Then they are too much taken for granted and their conditions are too little considered. That is why I hope that the Bill foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech will be given a high priority by the Government.
    The Labour Government, in the last Parliament, indeed did something more than earlier Governments had done for the fishermen. They passed two inshore fisheries Acts: they passed the White Fish and Herring Industry Acts. Under these grants and loans were provided to enable fishermen to buy gear and ships and to repair their ships. So successful have these three Statutes been that all the money that has been available under them has been quickly used up. I am sure the House will agree that the beneficient features of those Statutes should be extended by future legislation. There are other aspects of this industry which require attention. The industry is the victim of abrupt changes in conditions of supply and demand. It requires stability in structure and technique. It suffers from an inefficient system of distribution, and on the production side it needs new equipment, more and better boats and better methods of storing and handling the catch. It needs modernisation and reorganisation of freezing plants afloat and ashore.
    The passage in the Gracious Speech to which I have referred directs attention to an aspect of the industry which is very urgent. Items which require immediate attention are the health, hygiene, hours
    410
    wages, food, accommodation and security of trawler crews. Their conditions have not kept pace with the conditions of workers ashore. During the last 100 years industry ashore has been benefited by a long series of Factory Acts which have greatly improved.the conditions of workers ashore, but little of that kind has been done for the trawler crews, and I am sure the House will welcome the passage in the Gracious Speech to which I have referred.
    Let me give one example of the legislative lethargy which has characterised the fates and lives of trawler crews. On 5th August, 1943, the Scottish Council of Industry appointed a Committee to investigate the position of the Scottish white fish and shell fish industries.
    Sir William Darling: When?
    Mr. Hughes: I have already given the date-5th August, 1943. That Committee issued two Reports containing in all 94 recommendations, a very few of which have been implemented. The first Report was issued on 5th February, 1945, before the Labour Government came into power, and nothing was done about it. But when the Labour Government came into power, as I have already said, two inshore fishery Acts were passed as well as the other Statute, the Herring Industry Act. I hope those Statutes will be brought up to date. I am not going to weary the House by referring at any length to these Reports but there are four items in the first Report that I should mention:
    "1. The requirements of the Scottish Fishing Fleet should be given special consideration in determining priorities for post-war ship building.
    2. Immediate consideration should be given to the effect of the uncertainty in building costs of trawlers.
    3. Arrangements should he made for loans to be available for rebuilding trawlers.
    8. Grants and loans should be made available where necessary for reconditioning de-requisitioned offshore vessels and for the provision of new gear."
    The second Report has a more particular reference to the passage in the Gracious Speech to which I have referred. That Report contained these recommendations:
    "(3) the position of the Trawling Industry could be improved

    (a) by use of modern vessels

    411

    (b) by improving the grade of product, thus attracting higher prices, and

    (c) by preserving fish in glut periods by freezing, canning and dehydration.

    (4) Accommodation for trawler crews is unsatisfactory and improved accommodation in new built trawlers should be insisted upon.
    (5) Crews should be given time off at sea to keep their quarters clean and tidy and shore gangs should be employed to paint accommodation as necessary. Owners and unions should support efforts to maintain a standard of cleanliness."
    I mention this for the purpose of submitting, through the Minister, the things which I hope will be dealt with in the Bill which is foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech. There is one other aspect of this industry to which I should like to refer before I sit down, and it is one of the utmost importance to the city of Aberdeen which I have the honour to represent. It is referred to in the same Report on page 62 in this way:
    "Aberdeen is the principal white fishing port in Scotland, and the third in the United Kingdom. It owes its development as a trawling port to the natural advantages it possessed in the early days. because of its proximity to fishing grounds, its excellent harbour, and its good railway connections."
    Having regard to its position 500 miles north of the big consuming centres there has been a flat rate for the carriage of fish. I understand that there is some danger that that flat rate may be withdrawn because, I gather, the control on the price of fish is about to be withdrawn. I want to submit that the price control of fish is not inseparably associated with the flat rate for transport of fish, and that even if price control goes the flat rate could be continued. if the flat rate is abolished it will have a very serious effect upon this great industry upon which a large section of the people of Aberdeen subsist. It will injure the fish trade, it will cause much unemployment in Aberdeen and it will deprive the large consuming centres in the south of the benefits of the succulent fish brought from Aberdeen.
    I hope, therefore, that the Bill which is foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech will be given a very high priority, not only in the interest of the trade of Scotland in general, but in the interest of the health and happiness of the consuming public in the south of these islands.
    9.3 p.m.
    Miss Irene Ward: I am tempted to say a word or two about the
    412
    somewhat provocative speech which was made by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), who talked a great deal, and rightly so, about the security of employment for those engaged on British Railways. I also happen to represent a certain number of railwaymen and I would point out that part of their security of employment is threatened by the high price of nationalised coal and its lower calorific value. If the future of our railwaymen is to be safeguarded it is necessary to co-ordinate the nationalised industries so as to ensure that all sections of the community have some protection and some security from the State, which now professes to run those industries.
    I was also interested in the somewhat complacent attitude in the Debate. I have noticed during the Debate the frequent quotation of figures in relation to the housing programme with reference to the years immediately after the First World War and to the years since the Socialists acquired power in this country. Well, if I have to make two comparisons on one particular issue, I cannot refrain from making one comparison on another issue which is also of very great importance to the people of this country.
    If I understand rightly we are now spending something like £500 million in food subsidies, and we have succeeded, with the expenditure of those vast sums, in keeping only three commodities below the price value of food after the First World War. Those commodities are eggs, sugar, and butter.
    Mrs. Braddock: What about fats?
    Miss Ward: That was by the large expenditure of £500 million, which has added considerably to the ever rising cost of living to the housewife. I think that is one example of planning which might be reconsidered by the Socialist Government.
    However, I really rose to refer to one or two points in the Gracious Speech. It raises many problems of very great interest, but I propose tonight to refer, very briefly, to only two, which are of vital interest to Tyneside, my part of the world. I observed with very great interest the reference that was made to legislation dealing with accommodation for the trawler crews. I very much regret that

    413
    before the Minister of Agriculture finished his speech and left the Chamber he handed over a further reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) about the fishing industry to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I regret it because I myself come from the Percy side of the Border, and my constituency is also very closely associated, at North Shields, with the fishing industry, and I wanted to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the statement about new accommodation for trawler crews was the only policy which was to be dealt with by the Government in relation to the fishing industry.
    During this Debate we have heard a very great deal about the maintenance of full employment. I am interested in the maintenance of full employment of all sections of the community, and I shall be very disappointed indeed if the Government take no further adequate steps to protect the interests of those who seek their livelihood by fishing. Therefore, I should like to know conclusively from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries whether there is going to be any further legislation to help those who man and own the trawlers and fish the high seas. I am, of course, a newcomer to the fishing industry, and I do not profess to have expert knowledge, such as was displayed by the hon. Member for Banff and by the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), but I have observed, since I have represented fishing interests, that those interests complain that all political parties and all Governments, whatever their complexion may have been, have not, in fact, acted fairly and squarely by this great and important industry.
    There are today some vital questions which have to be answered if we are to ensure the full employment of those in this industry. First of all, the ever-rising cost of coal is inflicting great hardship to trawler owners. Secondly, the unregulated import of foreign fish is a great menace to those who are engaged in the British fishing industry. The Minister of Agriculture emphasised his regret and apprehension at the serious over-fishing and the lack of ratification of the various international agreements by other countries, but I should like to hear from the Foreign Secretary, if he is the appropriate Minister, what action he proposes to take in this connection.
    414
    In my part of the world, there has been considerable comment on the fact that the Socialist Government negotiated a loan with Iceland, which, I understand, was one of the countries which has not ratified the convention which is so important to the future interests of our fishing. I should like to hear from the Foreign Secretary his views on these matters, and whether he is prepared, in specific terms, to make representations to the countries who are menacing the future of those engaged in our industry.
    I want to raise one other point on the Gracious Speech. I was very pleased to see in the Speech that further legislation is foreshadowed with regard to the transference of industrial undertakings into the special development areas. I am a Tynesider. I have battled on Tyneside's behalf just as hard as any of the Members opposite for the solution of our problem of unemployment, and I am glad to say that we have succeeded, up to a point, in obtaining a balanced industrial economy.
    A great deal of our heavy unemployment, dating, in particular, from 1929 to 1931—[Laughter.] It is no use Members opposite laughing because I was there, and I know that I was not popular always with my own party when I raised the interests of Tyneside. I give place to no one in the efforts I have made to see that in future all our eggs are not in one industrial basket. The Socialist Government of 1929, in cutting our naval shipbuilding, produced an immense amount of unemployment on the Tyne. The fact that we were so dependent on heavy industries—coal, shipbuilding, ship-repairing and engineering—proved, in modern world circumstances, a very difficult situation for us to cope with; we decided that we must have a balanced industrial economy, so that we had dependence both on heavy industry and on light industry.
    During the time that I was in the House of Commons, the first National Government, predominantly Conservative, introduced an Act, the original Act, with the object of creating a situation which would enable light industries to be introduced into the special areas. That Act was followed by a Measure called the Location of Industries Act, which was passed during the lifetime of the Coalition Government. I am delighted to know

    415
    that further legislation is foreshadowed, and I shall await with great interest the decision as to what we may expect when that Bill is introduced in Parliament. I would, however, say—because we take note of these things on the North-East Coast—that the light industries which have come to Tyneside and are helping us to obtain this balanced economy have been industries run by private enterprise, and that I have not noticed that nationalised industries have made any contribution at all towards solving the problem. I think it is just as well that that angle of the problem should be emphasised.
    We are, of course, still dependent to a very large extent on our major heavy industries, and I was very disconcerted to read the following sentence in an independent journal issued by the National Provincial Bank, with contributions by people who know what they are talking about:
    "Pockets of unemployment in small industries are reported from North Wales, but the area giving the greatest anxiety is that of the Tyne where, for reasons already explained, the outlook for ship repairing is not so bright."
    When I hear right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite giving vent to expressions of complacency and self-satisfaction on the maintenance of full employment I ask the Government Front Bench: what are they going to do to safeguard our future interests on the Tyne?
    It has not escaped notice—I am not making any observations on it, because I know it is part of a general policy on world trade—that, after all, it was the Socialist Government which removed the restrictions on shipowners having their ships repaired in foreign yards. Neither have I forgotten that once when we were hard put to it for orders on Tyneside, the Scottish Wholesale Society had a ship built in Holland to save the expense of having that ship built in the United Kingdom. I want to know, the Socialist Government having now freed shipowners to have their ships repaired in any part of the world, what steps they are taking to prevent rising costs of our raw materials? My greatest opposition to the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry is because of the fact that if the cost of our main raw material rises
    416
    the security of employment of those who work in our shipbuilding yards and our ship-repairing yards will again be threatened.
    Though, as I say, I am delighted to read in the Gracious Speech that we are to have further legislation, which will, presumably, help us on Tyneside even further to balance our industrial economy, the major portion of those who earn their living on that great river earn it in ship-building, ship-repairing, coal mining and engineering. I want to know specifically from whoever is the responsible Minister what steps the Government are taking to deal with the situation now that the people's verdict has been given and the situation on the Tyne is giving rise to grave anxiety? What steps are the Government taking to protect the interests of those engaged in our major industries, to prevent a rise in the cost of their raw materials which will reduce our competitive powers? Lastly, what steps are the Government taking to safeguard the interests of those who earn their living in the fishing industry?
    9.20 p.m.
    Mr. Padley: In making my first speech in this House, I do so with the trepidation that will be appreciated by many other Members. I crave the indulgence of the House, and if some parts of my speech appear contentious, I ask Members to remember that the constituency I have the honour to repre sent has a contentious history. That contentious history gives rise to contentious problems which require solutions in the present and in the future. I have the honour to represent the Ogmore division in mid-Glamorgan, a division which in the days gone by has produced many doughty fighters on the Labour benches. I am encouraged, in making this speech, because I am following the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward), who made reference to the development areas.
    My constituency demonstrates conclusively how effective Socialist planning and public ownership of key industries is in the reconstruction of Britain. It is an area, depending in pre-war days principally upon mining, which was left to rot in idleness in the inter-war years, that has been steadily re-built by measures of financial and industrial control. The hon. Member for Tynemouth says she has not observed that nationalised industries have

    417
    made a contribution to the re-building of the development areas. So far as the Ogmore division is concerned, the rejuvenation of its basic industry, coal-mining, is the foundation of the present record levels of peace-time employment.
    But side by side with the rejuvenation of the coal industry are ambitious schemes of re-organisation and development, which together with the variety of new industries that have been growing up, have given balance to the industrial structure and provided employment for the people. Make no mistake. If the Tory Party had set the people free and done away with irksome controls in 1945, then these new industries would not be appearing in the Ogmore, Garw and Maesteg valleys of South Wales. A few weeks ago it was my pleasure to visit the site of a new paper mill in the Maesteg Valley. These paper mills are there, firstly, because of the Distribution of Industry Act, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), as a Coalition Minister, piloted through the House accompanied by the jeers of many Members opposite. I do not claim to know what the fate of that Act would be under a hypothetical Tory Government of the future. When I visited the site I saw tons of steel already erected, making the shell of the factory and there were also tons of steel lying on the site. How did the steel and the other building materials get to the Maesteg Valley? By those very Acts and controls which Members opposite are prone to denounce.
    I read in the Press at the weekend that a not undistinguished leader of the British motor industry, Mr. Lord, was denouncing the "fatheads" who allocated steel. Many Conservative Members of this House to my knowledge also denounced the Acts and controls which govern the allocation of steel and other key materials. I say that the "fatheads" did a good job when steel was allocated for building alternative industries in the Ogmore division.
    Without public ownership and the rejuvenation of the coal industry and without financial and industrial controls, the grim shadow of unemployment would be cast over the lives of the men and women I represent. Hon. Members opposite find it irksome that we on this side of the House sometimes remind them of the days
    418
    gone by, but a country which does not know its own history is in the position of a man who has lost his memory. I do not believe for one moment that the formidable problems which we must tackle in the future can be solved by men who have lost their memory.
    During the election the Tory Party circulated a General Election news sheet. On page 2 there was one of those references to history. At the top of the page there was a photograph of a woman looking into a shop and below that one of an attractive young lady. There was an analysis of her personal expenditure beginning with a complaint about Purchase Tax on lipstick, and underneath the question asked at the top, "When was the picture taken?" was answered. It was taken in the year 1933, and the Tory news sheet went on to say, "1933, the days when food was plentiful in the shops, the days when the housewife's task was easy." I do not know the reaction in any other part of the country, but in the Ogmore division there was the memory that on the last Sunday in January of that year when the picture was taken the miners' leader in the Maesteg Valley delivered the Good Cause appeal on the B.B.C. for the Maesteg and district children's boot fund. I have the text of that broadcast here and it is very moving. That will enlighten hon. Members about those days when there was no Purchase Tax on lipstick. I say with the Tory General Election news sheet that "those days can come again" if we abandon the policy of Socialist economic planning founded on financial and industrial controls.
    While on that point, let me add that in 1933 the infantile mortality rate in the Maesteg area was 90 per 1,000. It has now been cut to 50. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) that it was not done by M and B and penicillin but by M.P.s and politics, and by work, wages and social services. That is what has saved babies born of the common people. It was done by the first majority Labour Government and by peace-time records of employment resulting from wise planning and the rebuilding of the Development Areas. We cannot repair the ravages of decades in four and a half short years. A tough problem still remains, not only in my constituency but in constituencies represented by other hon. Members.

    419
    In my constituency the unemployment rate is more than double the national average, and if we include miners disabled with pneumoconiosis it rises still further. I recognise that within the framework of industrial and financial controls some private firms have done a good job, but the fact remains that there are State-provided factories untenanted and idle. Therefore, in extending a warm welcome to the promise of legislation in the Gracious Speech to solve the employment problems of the Development Areas, I would make a plea to right hon. Gentlemen on our own Front Bench. Where private enterprise demonstrably fails to bring employment to the people, Ministers should act on the Socialist principles which inspired our party through the years and in its victory in the recent General Election. Where private enterprise fails to take up a State-provided factory, the Government should give serious consideration to plans whereby existing nationalised industries can utilise that factory space, or to establishing some new corporation which will run, competitive public industries. I am convinced that the problems still remaining in my constituency and in other parts of South Wales, complicated as they are by pneumoconiosis, will be fully solved only by the application of public-ownership measures to do the job which private enterprise has failed to do.
    At this point I turn to broader issues. There have been attempts in this House and outside to predict that the balance of forces in this House will precipitate quarrels and divisions in the British Labour movement. We have got used to hon. Members opposite suggesting that there is an impending split between the Labour Party and the trade unions or between this wing and the other wing. As the President of one of the largest trade unions in Britain, I would make it clear that the leaders of our Government can count on the same devoted loyalty which has characterised the last four and a half years.
    I am confident that organised labour in the trade unions will welcome the firm declaration of the Prime Minister in response to the challenge from the other side of the House on the question of iron and steel. If our Government retain
    420
    Socialist initiative and tread the path outlined by our General Election programme, I am convinced that this Parliament will go down in history as one of the Parliaments during which we in Britain built our democratic Socialist society, offering the world an alternative both to the economic anarchy of Capitalism and to the political tyranny of Communism. In that sense I believe that this House, like the former House, can prove historic.
    9.37 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Nutting: It falls to my lot to congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) upon his maiden speech. If he did not exactly follow the usual non-contentious pattern of maiden speeches, but seemed to indulge in what appeared to us on this side of the House rather more like a bang-over from the General Election, he can certainly rest happy tonight in the thought that his speech has struck us all as not only sincere but also as audible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Unfortunately, I cannot emulate the hon. Gentleman. Not only will the House look forward to future contributions of his on occasions when hon. Members may be more able to join issue with him, but I can also assure him that our friends who compile the OFFICIAL REPORT Of this House will look upon him as a worthy addition to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
    I make no apology to the House, even at this late hour, for returning to the issue of foreign policy which received but scant mention in the Gracious Speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said rightly that there was no clear theme on foreign policy in the King's Speech. I would go further and add that to me there seems to be no sense of urgency either. In the few clipped and short sentences which dealt with foreign policy, there seemed to me to be, in the Gracious Speech, that same complacency and that same tendency for the Government to isolate themselves from world developments which has so characterised the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government in the last five years.
    It really is no answer whatever to the problems which we face abroad today for the Prime Minister to stand at the Despatch Box and announce to the

    421
    House of Commons that we have, after all, recognised the Communist Government in China. One might just as well say that in 1940 we recognised Dunkirk. After Dunkirk, however, Government, Parliament and people were at least galvanised into action. Who can say that the Gracious Speech shows that the Government are now galvanised into action in the Far East?
    Neither is it enough for the Government to say that they approve the initiative of the new Australian Foreign Secretary at the Colombo Conference. For, according to the speech of the Prime Minister in opening the Debate, the Colombo Conference has "not yet been fully considered." The House is entitled to ask the Prime Minister and the Government, why not? We really must ask for a little more information than the Prime Minister has vouchsafed, not only about the Colombo Conference and what took place there, but about the resulting intentions of the Government in the Far East and in South-East Asia.
    Events in the Far East are moving rapidly against us. According to the Colombo communique, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, the representative of the Government in Singapore, drew the attention of the Conference to
    "the, possible repercussions throughout South-East Asia of the Communist victory in China, including the danger of intensified guerrilla tactics and propaganda and the presence in the countries concerned of a large potential fifth column of local Communists and Chinese sympathisers."
    Mr. Macdonald went on to say that
    "the infiltration into Indo-China from China with the object of driving out the Bao Dai regime would endanger both Siam and Burma and would bring the Communists to the frontiers of India and Pakistan."
    That is the position as revealed by the official representative of His Majesty's Government in Singapore. I have searched through the Gracious Speech and the speech of the Prime Minister but I can find no sign whatever that the Government are seized with the crucial nature of the Communist threat in the Far East and in South-East Asia to British interests and territory; no word or sentence to match this very sombre warning by Mr. Macdonald at Colombo.
    It is deplorable that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, we must wait until
    422
    May for the Spender Plan, which was brought forward at the conference, to be considered at above the official level. Does this mean that the Consultative Committee that was set up at Colombo will not meet before May; if not, why not? After all the Spender Plan is the first—indeed, the only—truly imaginative proposal which has emerged in the last five years for tackling in a positive way the difficulties which confront us in the Far East.
    I had the opportunity last year to visit Australia and, in particular, to have talks with the new Prime Minister and the new Foreign Secretary in that Dominion. I know from my talks with Mr. Robert Menzies and Mr. Spender that both of these gentlemen are really anxious to contribute to a peaceful settlement in the Far East, not only to stave off the threat of Communism to Australian interests, but so that they may play their part as loyal and active partners in the British Empire and Commonwealth in defending British interests, wherever their resources will allow.
    In the Spender Plan we have a bold and imaginative proposal to maintain and improve the standard of life in South-East Asia—a constructive policy of providing consumption goods, technical advice and assistance, capital equipment for industrial and agricultural development and, where possible, sterling loans. That is a pretty broad and imaginative plan designed to bring real and material assistance to people threatened by the Communist advance. It holds out to them some hope that the British Empire will support them in their struggle for existence and survival. But so far as we can judge from the very scanty and miserable information given to the House in this Debate, the response of the Government has been at best half-hearted and no action has been taken to implement these proposals, which, we are told, are not even to be considered for another three months.
    What is more, it appears from the Prime Minister's speech that there has been no consultation as a result of the Colombo Conference at the official or any other level with the United States Government. The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "The Spender Plan envisages consultation with the Commonwealth countries first, and

    423
    doubtless after that we shall be consulting with the United States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 69.]
    Surely the Colombo Conference was "consultation with the Commonwealth countries" and, surely, despite the fact that a General Election has intervened, there should have been some consultation between the Foreign Office and the United States State Department. But as far as we can judge from the information given by the Prime Minister no such consultation has yet taken place. If action proceeds at the present leisurely pace no consultation on these plans and proposals will take place with the United States until well after May; in other words, not for another four or five months.
    Before leaving the question of the Colombo Conference, there are two further questions I wish to put to the Government. Can we be told what has happened about the Japanese Peace Treaty? The Colombo communiqué said that the Empire Foreign Ministers had discussed this matter and made recommendations to their Governments. The Prime Minister said nothing about this whatever, but the House is surely entitled to know something of the recommendations which were made by the Foreign Secretary to the British Government and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take on those recommendations. I need not remind the House that at the Canberra Conference in October, 1947, it was hoped, in spite of the uncooperative attitude the Soviet Government had already shown in the matter, that it would still be possible to sign the peace treaty in mid-1948. Eighteen months have elapsed since then and nothing whatever has happened; as far as one can make out there has been very little discussion and very little action taken by His Majesty's Government.
    The second question perhaps relates to the past, but it is none the less important and I feel we should have an answer to it. It has been asked by other hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). I would ask the Government to give us more information about it. It is the question of the recognition accorded by the Government to the Chinese Government in China. Was it really necessary for His Majesty's Government to give the appearance of a completely unilateral decision
    424
    to recognise the Chinese Government on the eve of the Colombo Conference when such matters were bound to figure and, in fact, did figure in the discussions which took place at Colombo?
    I have very carefully said "to give the appearance of a unilateral decision" because I am quite prepared to believe that consultation did in fact take place between His Majesty's Government and the Dominion Governments concerned by telegram in the usual way between the Dominion Prime Ministers and the Prime Minister of this country. But the public at large do not appreciate these niceties, and the public at large were most definitely left with the impression that His Majesty's Government were in such a hurry to give recognition to the Communist Government in China that they could not wait three days to consult with the Dominion Governments involved.
    For some time it seems to have been the policy of the Government in the Far East, as in Europe also, to act in isolation and to avoid open co-operation with the other countries, European, and Empire countries, involved in Far Eastern affairs. It has been held that such overt co-operation would lend weight to Communist propaganda among the native populations in South-East Asia that the Western Powers are "ganging up" to suppress native interests and national aspirations. I suggest to the Government that that is precisely the dilemma which the Communists want to create for us and, through its creation, to follow the pattern of aggression made so popular by Herr Hitler—"Divide and conquer." One does not solve a dilemma by sitting, as this Government have done in the Far East, paralysed before it. All that has resulted from our reluctance to range ourselves with the other countries involved in the Far East has been to throw this country on to the defensive, and an isolated defensive at that, seeking desperately and alone to contain the threat in those territories actually menaced by Communist aggression. In other words, we have in the Far East, as elsewhere, allowed the Soviet Union to seize and to hold the initiative.
    There can surely be only one solution, namely, an imaginative programme of economic and military aid to South-East Asia, the foundations of which have been laid in the Spender Plan adopted by the

    425
    Colombo Conference. Much of the aid envisaged in the Australian proposals must clearly come from the United States. I submit that much help can also be given by the sterling area countries and territories involved such as Australia and New Zealand, and, up to a point, by the European nations involved and concerned in that area. But Britain, as the banker of the sterling area, and as the heart and centre of any Empire effort of the kind envisaged, has a large part to play.
    It is true that we cannot do anything in these matters in that theatre without the co-operation of America and the Commonwealth, but I submit that equally they cannot do anything without we in Britain setting the pace and giving the initiative. I earnestly hope that despite the rather feeble phrases in the Gracious Speech His Majesty's Government may yet be persuaded to show some sense of urgency in this matter; that we shall not have a repetition, in the matter of organising and stabilising South-East Asia, of the long-drawn-out delay which characterised our approach to the organisation of Western Europe. I pray that in the Far East we shall act in real co-operation with the Empire and European nations involved, and not in that very unsplendid isolation which has marked our dealings in Europe with such countries as France and in the unnecessarily antagonistic manner in which we have treated Italy and Western Germany.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) has said in speeches in the country and in this House, Britain lies at the centre of the three great unities of Western civilisation—the unity between Britain and the British Empire; the unity between Britain and Western Europe; and the unity across the Atlantic. I earnestly beg the Government to rise to the level of this occasion and of the responsibility of Britain's position in the world, to recognise the very real threat to Western civilisation and interests now especially concentrated in the Far East, and to seize the opportunities now before them to bring a little hope and help to those teeming millions whose survival is a responsibility which we in this country dare not shirk.
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. F. Elwyn Jones: In the few minutes that remain to me, I have time to deal only with one or two of the myths about the policy of His Majesty's Government perpetrated by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) and by his predecessor who spoke upon foreign policy. The two main myths are, first, that the Labour Government have neglected the British Empire, and secondly, that they have neglected their duty of co-operation with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world. You may think, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that those taunts from the Conservative Opposition come badly from their mouths. When I recollect what the condition of the British Empire was in 1945 when the Labour Government took office, and compare it with its condition now, it is indeed a matter of pride to me, as one who has supported His Majesty's Government, to see what remarkable achievements this Government has created in the field of Empire policy and development.
    Let me take the Far East, for instance. When His Majesty's Government took office the huge continent of India was in -a tumult of revolt against Britain. The strongest movement in India was the "Quit India movement" which was, it is true, restrained by the remarkable personality and philosophy of Gandhi whose influence was in danger in India of being replaced by very different elements and very different conduct. It was the genius and wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues that saved the peace in the Far East, that created in the great Dominions and in the great Empire area of India and Pakistan a territory which, from being hostile to Britain, has become friendly to Britain.
    I remember with great pleasure attending a conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Rome about 18 months ago — the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) will remembers it with as much emotion and happiness as I do—when the representatives of 51 Parliaments were discussing various matters, and in all matters which the British delegation supported we were enthusiastically supported by the representatives of India.

    427
    Pakistan and Ceylon. That is typical of the new spirit governing the relations of Britain, and that area of 400 million people which the enlightened policy of His Majesty's Government has made possible. We transformed a territory of 400 million potential enemies of Britain into a territory where a real bulwark of stability, be it painfully, is being built up at the present time.
    The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) spoke about the Labour Government's neglect of the Colonies. What an extraordinary taunt from the Tory Party. The Labour Government have in fact, encouraged the economic development of the British Colonies more than any Tory administration; they are engaging in more trade with the Colonies than any Tory Administration ever did, and they are developing the political life of the colonial areas in a way in which the Tory Opposition are incapable of developing the insurgent desire of other peoples to be free to organise themselves in democratic institutions. Under the Labour Government the spirit of the Colonial Office is a new and liberating spirit which is introducing into great areas, which could go the way of many of the territories in the Far East, into areas where democratic institutions are slowly being created and where a spirit of loyalty to Britain will result in consequence.
    The only aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for Melton with which I found myself in agreement was his own expressed desire for the improvement of economic aid to the territories of the Far East and the territories of the Empire. That has been the very essence of the policy pursued by His Majesty's Government. In the matter of economic co-operation we have done more than our share, more than other nations have done, to help with our limited resources the development of other areas, and it amazes me, when there is an opportunity for us proudly to say to the world that we have done our part, that Tory Members always seek to denigrate the efforts of this country.
    It being Ten o'Clock the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCHOOL CHILDREN)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]
10.0 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: I want to raise a subject which is less exciting and perhaps more prosaic than that which we have been discussing, although I believe it is of equal importance in many homes in this country. It concerns the place of school children in the National Health Service, with particular reference to the supply of spectacles and to dental treatment. There is considerable concern both in the ranks of the teaching profession and in many homes at the long time-lag which exists between the child being examined and the actual receipt of the spectacles. So great is this concern that the local associations of the National Union of Teachers in England and Wales have decided to give high priority at their forthcoming national conference to a resolution which states:
"The conference instructs the Executive to press insistently at the highest levels for priority for school children in the provision of spectacles."
Many school teachers have written to me about the delay which is occurring and I want to bring to the Minister's attention some cases from my own constituency in West Cardiff. There is the instance of a lad, Terry, of Sussex Street, Grangetown, Cardiff, who is eight years old. His eyes were examined in April, 1949, and on the 3rd of this month, 1950, no promise could be given as to when the spectacles would be available for this child. On 2nd March he had to be taken once again to the doctor to have his eyes examined.
There are other cases to which I could refer, and I should like to give the example of a girl named Marion, 15 years of age, who is attending the Radnor Road Girls' School, Cardiff. She has worn spectacles from the time she attended the infants' school. The optician has continually been approached about spectacles for this girl who had her eyes examined exactly a year ago. The teacher has written to tell me that she has continually sent her to the optician. In fact, she was there as

429
recently as Friday last when no hope could be given as to when the spectacles would be forthcoming. The eyes of this child have much deteriorated during the past 12 months, and therefore the prescription of a year ago might well now be of no avail when it is forthcoming. I am told that the school nurse went to the school in February and that she then ordered a re-examination. The child went to the clinic and was told to go again before leaving school next May. The teacher says that this child is motherless, that she was an excellent reader and a beautiful writer, but that it is now impossible for her to read or write correctly.
It is in no mood of factious criticism that I raise this question tonight, but because I consider it a matter of considerable urgency. I realise that within the National Health Service, with its gigantic scope, there is bound to be a system of priorities. I understand that there is a dual system of priority—for those who need spectacles for their work, or where there is felt to be a sense of urgency about the need for spectacles. It is in the second category that the children fall. It is when urgency is proved, or is supposed to have been proved, that the spectacles are forthcoming.
I submit to the Minister and the House that when a child has his or her eyes tested there is urgency at once, and that all children ought to have a degree of priority under this scheme, because they use their eyes more than adults do. There is more strain on the youngster with his textbooks at school all day than there is upon the average adult. I earnestly hope that the Minister will be able to tell me tonight that he may have proposals for remedying this position. I can say that the Cardiff City authority has been considering this matter very earnestly—as late, I think, as last week-end—and that they referred the matter to the local Executive Council who, in turn, are referring it to the opticians committee. I wonder whether we cannot make some arrangement with the industry and with the opticians to give a special service—
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
House counted, and 40 Members being present—
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Thomas: The action of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) will not go unnoticed by the teachers—
Sir Herbert Williams rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Gentleman must keep his seat if the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor does not give way.
Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. Surely it is competent for any lion. Member to act in accordance with the Rules of the House, and surely it is quite improper for the hon. Member to criticise any Member for exercising the rights provided in Standing Orders.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Is it competent for an hon. Member to come into the House for the first time at seven minutes past ten at night and explain to the Chair how to conduct business?
Mr. Driberg: It is competent for any hon. Member to call for a count, as the hon. Member, as an old Member of this House, knows well, and he was perfectly within his rights; but may it not be that if hon. Members of this House who, through the previous wisdom of the electorate, have not been with us for the last five years had been here, they would have learned about the developing customs and courtesies which have led to a position in which hon. Members do not call a count, generally speaking, during the last half-hour Adjournment?
Mr. Thomas: I said that my speech would be less exciting than that which had gone before, but I had not anticipated the extent to which some people would go to prevent a speech being made concerning the children of this country. Since I know that another hon. Friend wants to get in, I shall make my remarks as brief as possible.
I want also to refer to the question of dental treatment for our children. There has been a most unfortunate delay. I draw attention to a statement which I have which says that the seriousness of the position regarding outstanding cases for dental treatment was brought to the notice of the Special Service Committee at its meeting on 2nd March, 1950. This is in Cardiff. The school medical officer

431
for the city reported that 2,169 cases were awaiting filling, 3,340 cases were awaiting extractions and of the latter approximately 1,000 were cases of toothache.
It is a very serious thing that these kiddies, some of whom I have seen, are unable to have speedy treatment, and I wonder whether an approach cannot be made to the dental profession to ask them if they could get the local dentists to agree to give certain sessions for school work. I know that he will give attention to this request to get the local dentists to agree to give certain sessions for school work. They might take a rota among themselves. I think that we might require new entrants to serve a minimum period in schools before entering the professional dental service, and we might break down some of the restrictions at present practised by the dental profession.
In this House tonight I met a qualified doctor with German degrees who, since her husband is a practising qualified dentist in this country, could be in the service. She only requires six months' training to obtain the English recognition. Can my hon. Friend not do something in cases such as that in order that we may have the maximum service available for our kiddies in the schools? I express to the Ministry my appreciation of the size of their problem and my deep desire that they regard it as one of considerable urgency.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I think that, with one exception, we are all grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised this matter tonight. I am particularly grateful to him for doing so in that kindly, tolerant and humane manner which makes him respected by all hon. Members of this House. I am glad that he did it in that spirit, because neither he nor I want tonight to criticise the Ministry of Health or the professions responsible for these services.
The truth of the matter is that we are paying now for the previous neglect of these problems. When one remembers that after the first year of working of the National Health Service it was revealed that 800,000 old people were wearing spectacles who had never before had their eyes tested, and that two million wearing
432
spectacles had not had their sight tested for the previous five years, one realises the enormous amount of arrears that had to be made up. The real tragedy is that those arrears are being made up today, in many cases, at the expense of the children, who ought to have priority.
Two days ago I received a letter from a lady in Helmshore, in my constituency, writing about her seven year old son. He has a severe squint and has worn spectacles since the age of three; 14 months ago his eyes were tested, yet the spectacles have still not arrived, and, in the mother's words,
"The child's schooldays are a nightmare."
There is another case of a girl aged nine whose sight was tested in September, 1948; her father came to see me in October, 1949, and her spectacles arrived in November, 14 months after her eyes were tested. There are many other cases of the same kind.
A boy of 11 had his eyesight tested in July, 1949, and his spectacles still had not arrived at the beginning of February of this year. When the father complained to the optician he was told that he could get the spectacles in three weeks if he paid £3 10s. for a set of plastic lenses. When I raised that with the Ministry of Health I was told that plastic lenses were not available under the National Health Service, yet if plastic lenses are of any use I should have thought they could best be used for children, who are particularly liable to break their spectacles.
Another case concerns a 14 year old girl who has worn spectacles since the age of five and has had a new pair every nine months. Under the National Health Service she had to wait for six months, and when I raised it with the Ministry of Health I was told that the kind of lenses required were of a special kind. That, of course, is the whole tragedy of these cases, that the delay almost invariably occurs in the cases of children who need particular kinds of lenses, yet theirs are the cases which ought to have special priority. I hope that tonight, after what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has said, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to ensure that whatever priority scheme is in existence operates as efficiently as it ought to do.
10.18 p.m.
Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I want to say just two things. First, we are all grateful to the hon. Member for West Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) for having raised this question, because before we had the National Health Service these children were able to get their spectacles. They were able to get not only ordinary spectacles, but splinterless spectacles, which the National Health Service has never yet provided. In fact, that is one of the disadvantages of our Health Service, that these children are actually the victims of the Service, and I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us how he will give them priority. There are already certain types of priority in the provision of spectacles, and I hope that he will extend that priority so that none of these children shall be the victims of this great Health Service. I also hope that he will issue, not only spectacles but splinterless spectacles for our children, which they had before the National Health Service came into operation.
Secondly, I wish to say this about dentists. Before the National Health Service there was one dentist for every 3,000 children in our schools. Today, with this Act on the Statute Book, which instructs the Minister of Health to produce a priority dental service for our schools, there is not one dentist for every 3,000 children but one for every 6,000 children. Once again our children are the victims of the National Health Service when they should be the beneficiaries. While the National Health Service Act does not compel the Minister to provide a dental service for everybody else, it does insist on his providing a dental service for our schoolchildren, but that he does not do. I hope that tonight he will give some assurance as to how the people will be helped and not made victims of our Health Service.
10.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for raising this subject tonight. I can assure him, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), that I shall be very happy to look into the individual cases they have raised, as we have always been willing to do in other cases that have been raised from time to time. I should like
434
to give him some information about the steps we have taken to deal with what we agree to be a serious position, both in regard to glasses and the dental services for school children.
I will deal first with glasses, which is the subject that has been chiefly referred to tonight. As soon as it became clear that manufacturers could not keep up with the heavy demands that fell upon them on the introduction of the Health Service we had discussions with the opticians and the manufacturers to arrange for a priority scheme to meet the emergency. It is quite clear that if we are to have a priority scheme it must be restricted to be really effective. It was agreed between the opticians, the manufacturers and ourselves that a 5 per cent. priority scheme would be reasonable if we were to assure speedy delivery in the field of most urgent cases.
It was also agreed that the only person who could choose priority cases was the optician with the full details of the case before him. We agreed, therefore, to what was originally a 5 per cent. selection of cases, but, later, it was possible to increase the figure to 7½ per cent. because of the increasing production of lenses. We had to give some guidance as to the type of case we felt should come into this 5 per cent. and later the 7½ per cent. category. It was agreed that it should include school children whose eyesight would particularly suffer from delay. We could not include all school children who were thought to be in need of glasses because it would have been quite impossible to have brought in other groups also deserving special priority, particularly those working in industry, who could not have carried on their job without glasses. That was the second category we wished to bring into this 5 per cent. total.
That priority scheme, which was worked with the co-operation of opticians and manufacturers, has been successful on the whole. We are fully aware of the difficulties in cases where orders were placed before the scheme was introduced, where it was extremely difficult for manufacturers to turn back to cases which to some extent had been caught up in the general run of cases, and also of the difficulties where perhaps an optician had judged that a case did not deserve special priority as compared with others.

435
In addition, we managed to secure importations of large numbers of lenses. The total number of lenses imported from abroad has been something like one million pairs to date. This has been of very great assistance in helping to meet the back-log of orders. The main solution for our difficulties is obviously to improve the production of our own manufacturers, and I am very glad to be able to say that very great steps have been taken in this direction. During the last quarter, which ended on 14th January this year, we have been able to establish a production of lenses in this country some 33 per cent. above demand, which has meant that there has been a steady eating into the back-log of orders and that delays we have been experiencing are steadily being reduced; so much so that I hope it will be possible, before very long, to abolish the priority scheme altogether, because the supply should have met the demand.
That is not to say there will not be individual difficulties, because it is true that with special types of lenses, particularly bifocal lenses, we meet special problems, particularly due to the lack of specially trained labour in the industry. We are getting on with the problem, and I hope we shall be able to overcome it. Although in real difficulties we are willing to investigate individual cases, I can assure my hon. Friends that the position has steadily improved, and it should not be long before we overcome the difficulties existing today. It is possible under the Health Service to provide splinterless glasses where they are medically judged to be necessary. It is not a case, however, that splinterless glasses were provided automatically free under the old service. That is very far from being the case. There is no backward trend there.
So far as the dental services are concerned, we are facing a more serious position because we are up against an over-all shortage of dentists. The fact is that many dentists have unfortunately been attracted into private practice by the higher rate of payment. We are doing all we can to encourage the training of more dentists. That is obviously the long-term solution. In the meantime, some local education authorities—for this is the responsibility of the education authorities, though naturally we are most concerned in it—have been
436
able to make up for the loss of full-time school dental officers by securing the part-time services of practising dentists on a sessional basis. Cardiff is a case in point where they are in a better position in regard to school dentists today than they were some years ago. They have been able—although I am not saying that they have enough—to meet the danger there by the employment of part-time dentists, and we hope these appointments, by which dentists in general practice will be able to offer some sessions in the clinics and for the school dental service, will be extended to other areas where there are difficulties.
The position varies very much from one part of the country to another, but where there are difficulties we hope that the local education authority, together with the local professional committees, will approach practising dentists to secure, if possible, their co-operation in this way. I am sure that this will be approved of heartily by the general public, and it should be possible for dentists generally to co-operate in this way to maintain what we all agree is a most vital part of our Health Service by ensuring the inspection of teeth as well as the treatment for them, which is a vital issue in this regard.
10.29 p.m.
Dr. King: If I may take up the last minute to add a practical suggestion to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I should like to ask him if he will consider taking up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health the possibility of requiring dentists to undertake one or two sessions of school dental service as part of the condition of their going into the dental service. We are not likely to be able to recruit sufficient school dentists in any reasonable time, and it may be a practical solution of this very difficult question if the Minister would take up the whole question of the terms of dentists being in the National Health Service so as to ensure that they do a session for school children as part of their duties.
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.

  POST OFFICE, BIRKENHEAD
  POST OFFICE, BIRKENHEAD
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The VISCOUNT MERSEY on the Woolsack.

Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Earl of Leicester—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable proper financial provision to he made for the carrying out 'by the Law Society of the purposes of the Solicitors Acts, 1932 to 1941; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Schuster.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

THE KING'S SPEECH: ADDRESS IN REPLY
2.40 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved by Lord Crook on Monday—namely, That an humble Address he 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 far the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am glad to open on an entirely non-controversial note. I feel I am expressing the views of all noble Lords on both sides of the House when I say that we were gratified, on our return after the Election, to see that the reports of the premature political demise of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, had been "greatly exaggerated." Whatever views we may hold about other appointments, so long as a Socialist Government are in
118
office in this country we should all greatly regret if the noble Viscount had to relinquish the leadership of this House.
The formation of a new Government always excites interest, and in the combinations and permutations one wishes well to Ministers in their new fields, though sometimes particular appointments may occasion mild surprise. It occasioned no surprise that Mr. Strachey should have been invited to leave the' ground-nuts area of Tanganyika, but I must say that I thought, as I believe many others did, that the choice of the War Office as his next port of call was a little surprising. I am not concerned for the moment with the inquiry as to whether or not Mr. Strachey still approves Communism as the ultimate goal of his Party and of this country while dissociating himself from the methods employed in Russia, though I thought that matter was very fairly summed up in a letter to The Times from my noble friend Lord De L'Isle and Dudley. I am concerned for quite another reason. We want to be at one on defence policy, and I am sure we all feel that our Defence Departments need the most efficient and economical administration that they can have—we see that, for instance, from the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. It does not, however, inspire great confidence that. a Minister whose best friends could hardly defend him as either an efficient or an economical administrator should be put in charge of one of our great Defence Departments. Mr. Strachey has left his successor an unhappy legacy in the ground-nuts area, with which I will not deal to-day, except. to say this: the whole position with regard to ground-nuts has been left in such an unsatisfactory state that I hope a statement will be made to Parliament at the earliest possible moment as to future intentions with regard to the whole scheme.
The gracious Speech is always awaited with keen interest. It contains the prospectus of the Government for the whole Session, the prospectus not only of the actual legislation, or contemplated legislation, but of the policy the Government propose to carry out and the way in which they mean to carry it out. That is particularly important at the beginning of a new Parliament, and to-day, with the curious results of the General Election,

119
it is more important than usual. The debate on the Address is the right occasion for the Opposition to probe the intentions of Ministers, and for Ministers to enlighten us. To-day our economic difficulties overshadow the whole position. Economic problems interact, and economic policy affects everything. That is probably why the subject above all others on which we were anxious to know ministerial intentions was the question of nationalisation. Whatever interpretation should be put upon the will of the people as expressed by their votes, no one can contend that there is a mandate for nationalisation. The issue was put quite plainly by all Parties. The operation of the Steel Act had been suspended by agreement between both Houses for one express purpose—namely, in order that the electors might decide whether they wished that Act to be carried out or not. The Government sought the approval of the electors to go forward with the nationalisation of steel, in the first place, which was to be followed by other measures of nationalisation in some of our most important, and I may say most efficient, industries. I think that was fairly plainly stated in the Socialist Election Manifesto in which we were all invited to go forward together.
In order that there might be no doubt about this, the particular organ of the Minister of Health, on the eve of the Election, contained in an article this statement:
"The important fact about the Manifesto is that it will give the new Labour Government the mandate to go forward with the construction of a Socialist society in Britain."
The issue on steel, and on other measures of nationalisation, was clearly and definitely challenged by both the Conservative and the Liberal Parties. Whatever may be said about other issues, here was one on which the electors were invited to express a clear and unequivocal decision. On this issue, at any rate, the Conservative and Liberal candidates and voters were at one. The result was that 15,000,000 votes or more were cast against nationalisation. If we assume—I must say I think it is a fairly bold assumption, but let us make it—that every Socialist voter was a supporter of nationalisation, there was still a clear majority of nearly 2,000,000 votes against it. In those circumstances, the country was
120
amazed and distressed to hear from the Prime Minister that the Government intend to carry out the nationalisation of steel if they are in office in October.
Yesterday an attempt to secure further elucidation was made both by my noble leader, Lord Salisbury, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—and as Lord Samuel said, this issue was for him the parting of the ways. Those questions were put in the opening speeches, and I observed that on this matter the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who is always a most skilful player of a Parliamentary hand, passed the declaration to his partner. We all waited with keen interest to hear the declaration the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would make. We had it at last, but I must say that it was a rather surprising speech. I do not know whether all your Lordships have read it, but I think I can fairly summarise it in this way. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said in the first place that the Government were sensible people, and that they would not do anything foolish. Well, on past performance judges of form might perhaps somewhat discount the value of that assurance. He also went on to say:
"The Opposition cannot have it both ways."
We have never sought to have it both ways. What we want, and what we seek, is that the electors should have it the way they showed by their votes they wanted to have it—namely, one way, and that way was quite clearly against nationalisation.
The Leader of the House then went on to say that though he admitted there was a minority of votes for nationalisation, the Government had obtained a bare majority of Members in the House of Commons and they were therefore entitled to go forward with iron and steel and to appoint the Steel Board. The Iron and Steel Act does not come into operation automatically, but requires a ministerial Act on or after October 1. That clause was deliberately designed so that it should be left open and require definite executive action by the Government to bring the Act into operation. But the Leader of the House claimed that they were entitled to go forward and take that action. If that argument has any soundness at all, it would equally entitle the Government to go forward with the

121
nationalisation of sugar, cement and the other items which were included in programme. Now the Government do not claim that, and I say that there is no possible justification for differentiating between steel and, say, sugar or cement. Both were equally issues at the last Election and both were equally decided. I heard with interest the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is always a stout defender of Government policy and Government measures, say quite frankly that the Government had not a mandate for nationalisation and had not a mandate to go forward with steel. I think he was perfectly right, and I am sure that there is no sort of authority to go forward with the nationalisation of steel in this Parliament.
This is not an isolated issue. This steel business penetrates the whole economic field. There must be many uncertainties in our situation until another Election has been held, but in the national interest it is surely the duty of all of us to reduce so far as we can the damage which uncertainty inevitably causes in the conduct of industry and commercial affairs, even more than in the political sphere. Confidence is the mainspring of initiative and enterprise. The wider the ramifications of an industry, the more important it is to give confidence and to reduce uncertainty. There could not be a better example of this than the steel industry. Your Lordships will remember that the Iron and Steel Act embraces not only steel-making, as we understand it, but a large number of engineering enterprises as well. We were told again only yesterday that exports are of vital importance. The direct products of iron and steel are themselves very important in our export trade, but much more far-reaching are the uses to which steel is put. Here a vast range of manufacture vital to our export effort depends upon the efficiency and regularity of the steel industry. Our export effort last year was rightly praised. I am informed that no less than £840,000,000 worth of our exports consisted of steel or goods of which steel was an important component. In all respects, in its development plans, in its production (where it has passed every target which was set it), in its high standard of quality, in its competitive price and, most important of all, in its happy industrial relations, this industry is indeed a shining example.
122
There is one thing, which this Election has certainly not changed, and that is the gravity of the economic situation. It is no less serious to-day than when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke his grave words about two months before the General Election. On that occasion he said this:
"Unless we can all quickly produce more and get our costs down, we shall suffer a tragic fall in our standard of living, accompanied by all the demoralising insecurity of widespread unemployment ….These economies "—
he was referring to the economies which seem to be somewhat off-set by the Supplementary Estimates—
"like devaluation, are a prelude and no more to a new surge forward to conquer the hard currency market without which our industries, our standards of living, indeed, our civilisation itself, must fade and wither away. Mr. Speaker, we dare not, fail in our efforts."
We dare not fail, gut we cannot afford to lose the time—whether it be long or short we none of us know—before another Election without a united effort based on sound policy to build up our position.
The Lord Chancellor said yesterday, in a rather surprising observation, that during the Election the gravity of the economic situation had been obscured by the policy of the Opposition and our plans for reducing expenditure and taxation. I am bound to say I did not think that was either a very intelligible or a very fortunate impromptu. Certainly, the Conservative Party in its speeches and in its manifesto put the economic crisis in the forefront. In that it compares favourably with the Labour manifesto. We began in our manifesto by setting out the pressing dangers of our complete dependence upon foreign imports and the only way in which they can be met, and in the forefront we put the economic crisis. You may agree or disagree with our proposals, but I challenge anyone to say that those proposals were not a consistent and constructive way of dealing with this supreme crisis. The gracious Speech itself not only fails to rise to the level of events but is barren of any statement of policy in the economic sphere, and yet that matters more than anything else. Unless we build on sound foundations nothing stands.
I do not think any of us could get much encouragement from the Prime Minister's

123
words when he made the considered statement of policy on behalf of the Government on the first day. As such a statement of policy, I would quote it. He said this:
"We shall continue to administer the affairs of the country in the same spirit and on the same principles as we have done during the last four and a half years."
I am not quite sure what that means. "Spirit" is an elusive word. What are these "principles"? If they arc the same "principles" which have gone on for four and a half years, are they not, in fact, not principles but a succession of expedients which landed is in the end in devaluation? And yet surely the vital necessity is to restore confidence in sterling and to increase the value of the pound. This penetrates and affects everything—our cost of living, wages. the cost of our imports, our food and raw materials, the cost of production in every industry, the value of our exports and our ability to bridge the gap. Moreover, our Empire trade and economic co-operation, which are essential to our recovery, are bound up, with sterling. So also are the willingness and ability of foreigners to do business in sterling and in the commodity markets and exchanges of this country. The value of the pound is vital to us, and hardly less important to other countries. We have the knowledge and experience which these other countries want to use, as they have used them in the past, if only the confidence is there. Only so can they do their trade, their multilateral trade, in the way to which their economic systems have been adapted over long years.
In saying this, I am voicing the opinion of all men of experience, and I hope we shall not hear the old argument that we are denigrating the British effort and damaging this country abroad. Foreigners draw their own conclusions and form their own judgments, and they form them on the facts as they see them, not on speeches which are made on either side in either House. No one has denigrated the British effort—at least not on this side of the House. The effort has been great; but I think I am entitled to say that both in production and export this effort has been essentially the effort of the non-nationalised industries; and nothing could do that
124
effort or confidence more harm than the nationalisation of steel.
I have spoken of foreigners forming their own judgments. I think those judgments are fair, and I am sure we have a great measure of good will and a realisation on both sides of the Atlantic that our recovery and prosperity are necessary not only to ourselves but to the world. But we must face the facts fairly. We must neither be complacent nor give the impression of complacency. As Mr. Kenney said in his evidence before Congress, which was as fair as it was friendly:
"The necessary corrective measures complementary to devaluation must be accomplished, or else the British economy may proceed periodically from crisis to expedient and then hack to cries."
I do not think that was unfair. Surely it was very reminiscent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own confession:
"We have been trying to deal with it by a series of temporary expedients which have led to a series of crises as each expedient has been exhausted. Now we recognise that this is not enough."
Do we really recognise on all sides that this is not enough? I am not sure. What is needed? Here again I think there is a consensus of informed opinion. I do not hesitate to put in the forefront of steps which are necessary, reduced expenditure and reduced taxation. It is not reasonable to say to every advocate of reduced expenditure (and they include nearly every man of experience), "You have no right to say this unless you can say exactly how it should be done." You might as well say that it would be unreasonable or improper to ask for adequate measures of defence and value for money in defence unless we were prepared to specify exactly what forces there should be and exactly how they should be armed. I do not think it is difficult to point at any rate to some quarters where extravagance might be curbed and expenditure reduced. We have had £30,000,000–probably more by now, but at least £30,000,000–wasted on groundnuts or on failing to grow ground-nuts. We have had a not very happy experiment in State farming at home. The loss on that certainly does not compete with Mr. Strachey's effort in Tanganyika, but I do not think that a loss of £6 an acre—which I believe the Select Committee on Estimates found the loss to be—is a very

125
happy guarantee for carrying the same policy further. And is it seriously contended that there is no room for reduction in expenditure when Supplementary Estimates for £148,000,000 are presented to Parliament—and presented after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in his Budget speech last year:
"Only in special cases such as major changes of policy can any Supplementary Estimates be permitted."
Yet we now have £148,000,000 of Supplementary Estimates.
I turn now to another field in which I am certain we could save money. I am sure we are losing money over bulk purchases. We lose the benefit of experienced merchants and traders. The Government take the risk of being wrong on a big deal on a single day's guess as to what the right price is. I think I am right in saying this, and in mentioning the figures that I propose to give in a moment. A bulk purchase deal was made for feeding stuffs —I am not complaining about buying feeding stuffs: we were urging it long before the Government would do it. But in 1948 bulk purchases of feeding stuffs were made from Russia and from the Argentine. I think the price which was given in those Argentine and Russian bulk agreements was from £27 to £30 a ton. That was partly because it was a Government deal and partly because it was a price fixed on the guess of one day. During the currency of that contract the price of maize fell below £20 a ton.
There is more to it than that. If the Government buy as a Government they always stand to be "shot at." When they buy as a Government, every seller knows that it is the Government who are in the market. This is not a theoretical objection; many of us could quote from practical experience. Let me give two examples within my own knowledge. During the coal stoppage of 1926 I had, as President of the Board of Trade, to bring enough coal into this country over six months to keep the railways and the essential industries going, as well as domestic fuel. I employed merchants; I never went to the market myself. Indeed. I said to the House of Commons, "I will give no information of what I am going to do, but I will present my accounts when the whole business is over, and then the Public Accounts Committee can go into them. But I will give no sort or kind of
126
information as to how much I am buying, or when I am buying." I employed merchants to buy and we bought on a very large scale.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): At three times the cost.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The cost went up to the whole of the rest of the world because this country was not producing coal. Certainly I know about this, and the noble Viscount can look it up. Of course the world price went up, but the answer was that the world price did not go up against us more than against other people. That is the whole point. It is only common sense. But if you enter the market as the one buyer, of course the scales are weighted against you.
Let me give another example. Before the war there was considerable stockpiling in wheat, and there the price did not go up because there was not a great shortage. But what did the Government of the day do? They did not buy as a Government. They employed the ablest grain merchants to buy, without disclosing that the purchases were on Government account; and those buyers included the Co-operative Wholesale Society. They did the business very well, but they never disclosed for whom they were buying. Therefore, the stock-pile was economically acquired. Not only that. Diplomatic pressure is brought to bear—and here I speak of what is common knowledge to everybody in all quarters of the House. It is not only that diplomatic pressure is brought to bear when the Government go as a Government to negotiate a deal, but pressure is brought to hear even after the deal has been completed. If by any chance the market moves in our favour and a wise or lucky purchase has been made, because it is a Government-to-Government contract the selling Government are apt either to repudiate the contract or to ask for it to be reopened and a higher price to he obtained. With great respect, I submit that these theoretical planners are up against the facts of life.
I wonder if I may 'be permitted another personal memory. When I was a very young Minister, I sat on a Cabinet Committee—I do not think I am giving away Cabinet secrets. It was a Committee on industrial policy, and it sat under the

127
chairmanship of—I forget whether it was Mr. Balfour or whether he had already become Lord Balfour. I remember one morning a number of very able theoretical experts advancing their views for a long time and most fluently. Mr. Balfour turned to me and said: "Will you please tell me what is the answer to all that?" I said, "Well, sir, I am afraid I do not know the answer to any of that, but all I can tell you is that in real life it does not happen like that." I remember Lord Melchett (Sir Alfred Mond) on the Committee saying in his clear and resolute voice: "Mr. Balfour, that is the most sensible thing that has been said this morning." Mr. Balfour turned to the experts and said: "Does it not happen like that?" And the answer was: "Well, Mr. Balfour, it ought to." It does not happen like that, and that is why it is wise to use the people who know how to do the business.
I would add this complementary proposal, which follows from what I have said about bulk purchase. In the interests alike of manufacturers, consumers, world trade and invisible exports the Government should reopen the commodity markets. The Liverpool Cotton Exchange is a most convincing example. Certainly there Government bulk buying has failed. We were told in that case that we should have stability. Any attempt at stability was abandoned within six months. The stabilising influence of the Liverpool Futures Market has gone. We tend to-day to follow, instead of largely controlling, world prices. Manufacturers do not get the type and quality they need. That is extremely important for the export trade. Indeed, so serious has this matter become that I am informed that in some cases firms have had to discontinue selling under their trade marks, which are the guarantee of their quality, because they cannot guarantee the quality and the consistency which those trade marks imply.
The Chairman of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation recently said this in his report:
"Under these conditions, we have found great difficulty in keeping up our accepted yarn standards. In certain cases the supply position has compelled us to cease production of certain types of yarn, and this has affected our export trade adversely."
Manufacturers are handicapped. Invisible exports are lost. Why not do the obvious
128
thing? The Prime Minister asked that we should give concrete examples and suggestions. I have ventured to give some examples and to make some suggestions. I have tried to give elements in a constructive policy to create confidence and to stimulate and cheapen production. I am sure that such a policy would restore confidence and would encourage foreign investment.
When we had our report on the conversations that took place in Washington after devaluation, I thought that one of the most hopeful features of those conversations was the obvious desire of America to encourage investment if only conditions made that possible. It was the willingness of the great creditor country to behave in a manner which is always difficult unless you have been a creditor country over a long term of years—to behave in the way that this country found it easy to do because it had done it over almost a century. Let me say this: there was no question, and there never has been, of the United States Government, the United States people or United States industry trying in any way to dictate to us our domestic policy. But —and this is the simple fact—it is for us to recognise the conditions which we must create if we are to attract foreign money and foreign capital; and how greatly an improved value of the pound, and all that that means, will help us over wages. We must all counsel and practise responsibility and restraint. I doubt—I wonder whether anybody really believes—whether an overall freezing is practicable if a thaw has set in.
I believe there is a great fallacy in carrying too far what I may call the doctrine of equal shares. Rationing scarce food to a country or to a beleaguered garrison has no relation to having equality in wages irrespective of the work done and the results obtained. Is a rather different approach not necessary to-day? We must have greater production, and we must sell successfully in competition. The sellers' market is over. But surely it is possible, with fair incentive and with unity, to secure greater production without increasing prices—and, indeed, often at a lower cost per unit. That does not mean lower wages; in many cases it may mean higher wages. It certainly means harder work and intensive effort; but surely the concomitant of that is that there must be a reasonable

129
reward and incentive to the industrious man and the efficient business.
My Lords, I think the whole House was impressed by the speeches made by Lord Crook and Lord Williams in moving and seconding the Address in reply to the gracious Speech. Both of them urged the value of premium bonuses and similar incentives based on output. They were not advocating something novel or experimental; rather were they pleading that a well-established and well-proved practice should 'be widely extended. I would echo what they said. I think that here indeed is a fruitful field of agreement and combined effort. But I am sure they will admit that to-day there is one snag and obstacle to all that—namely, that the harder we work the more we are taxed. That is known. It is no good arguing whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. It is certainly the foot that to-day quite a lot of people are saying and feeling that they are saying something quite reasonable, "What is the good of working overtime for two or three hours and putting in so much more on premium bonuses if I am working for Cripps and not for myself?" We know that that is said. I do not say that such a view is wholly reasonable, but it is not wholly unreasonable; and it certainly is a fact to be taken into consideration.
I am perfectly certain that we can reduce expenditure, and that we have got to adjust taxation so that it is not a progressive deterrent or disincentive use the modern word—to the industrious man and the efficient business which 'ploughs back and reduces its costs. If only the Government would pursue suck a policy as I have outlined, (I do not think I have been unduly contentious, and I hope I have been reasonably constructive), I am sure it would carry great conviction in the country. They would render a great service to the country and would get great credit for themselves, and I for one would not grudge it them. On the contrary, it would most certainly command our support.
In conclusion, I must say a word or two about a matter which was discussed yesterday. It has been suggested that as a result of the General Election we ought to have a Coalition Government; that that is necessary or desirable to enable the King's government to be carried on. The Lord Chancellor
130
rejected these advances even before they had been made to him; and Lord Elton, speaking later, gave some of his arguments, and has told us that he will in due course woo us again. My Lords, I most respectfully submit that this is a general idea thrown out, I think, without a very close consideration of its application. I certainly should not attempt to challenge Lord Elton on 18th century history, but perhaps, I may claim to match him in the application of more modern history, as I have been three times a member of a Coalition Government.
My Lords, if you are to coalesce you must coalesce for a purpose. In war that is very simple, because there is only one single overriding purpose which all seek and serve. Policy and action are all conditioned by the single aim to win the war. You succeed because your aims are the same, and you pool your brains and resources to attain that common aim; and indeed there is no room or place for any other considerations. But in peace the situation is very different. As in war, a Coalition can be effective only if its members have the same aim and the same policy. With great respect, I do not think you make the aim or the policy identical by using general phrases like "the best interests of the country." It is rather like an episode of which many of your Lordships will remember having heard, where there were two divines who differed greatly on dogma, and were advancing their respective contentions. One of them concluded the discussion by saying: "Well, I suppose we each serve the same Master; you in your way, I in His." My Lords, you do not get coherent government, or indeed confidence, by the lowest common denominator of compromise or by agreements to differ. Superficial differences, of course, can always be accommodated in Governments, but surely those differences are only different ways of attaining a common objective. The differences are not on what to do, but how to do it. If there are fundamental differences on what to do and on the way to go, how can you go together? If in fact men are really playing for opposite goals it is hard to see how they can play together in a team.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that we could not get the co-operation for

131
which the most reverend Primate appealed without a National Government. With great respect, I would entirely dissent from that. Because we cannot agree on all things, that does not mean that we need differ about everything. On the contrary, particularly in external relations there can be, and I think there is, a very wide measure of agreement, certainly on our objectives, on the goal, and on the need for continuity of policy. This is particularly true of foreign affairs, of Commonwealth relations, of the need for the closest co-operation within the Commonwealth in trade and in defence, and in the aims of defence generally. As regards defence, our common aim is not altered because we are critical of the particular methods which may be adopted by the Government of the day for attaining our objective. We are constructively critical just because our objective is exactly the same. Indeed, in all these matters—in foreign affairs, Commonwealth relations, and defence—the supreme objective is the maintenance of peace and security. In that, surely, we are all at one. A Coalition is not necessary to support Government action over these wide fields. I think I can say that it may indeed be an added strength in these matters if it is known throughout the world that the King's Government, however formed, speaks on these matters for a united nation.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
3.29 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just spoken said in effect—I have not his exact words—that the economic situation was the problem of overriding importance. I should be hesitant to differ from him on any subject; still less would I normally question that particular statement. I think he would agree with me, however, that in present circumstances there is something even more urgent than our economic position and problem—and that is, of course, the international situation, to which he briefly referred at the end of his speech. Therefore I make no apology for asking your Lordships to return once again to a particular aspect of the international situation.
132
Several speakers referred yesterday to what the gracious Speech called: "the tremendous problem of atomic energy." Clearly, the situation in the world would be transformed if we could come to a definite and effective agreement with Russia on this matter. Whether there is any hope of doing this no one can say, but speakers yesterday, on both sides of the House, seemed to be unanimous that —in the words of the most reverend Primate—" anything is worth trying." I wish, however, to suggest to the House that there is something which we ourselves can do to improve the prospects of an understanding. Clearly, Russia will be less disposed to make terms with the free world so long as she has reason to think there are still large areas of the world which may be absorbed into the Communist orbit. I therefore submit to your Lordships that the best way to increase the chance of an understanding is to make the free world strong. The most reverend Primate mentioned in this connection the need of strengthening our defences. I would put it on the wider basis—and I am sure he would agree—that the constructive way to meet this situation is to consolidate the free world not only in the military sense but also politically and economically.
The mover of the Address, and several other noble Lords, expressed anxiety in this connection about the situation in South-East Asia and rightly emphasised the importance of the Colombo Conference. But though South-East Asia may be the area of the greatest immediate danger—and I should be the last to underrate its importance—the fate of humanity will not be settled there. The crux of the problem is in the West. Civilisation as we know it, with its respect for the individual, its culture and its moral standards, depends upon the solidarity of the triangle of which the component parts are the United States, the British Commonwealth and Empire and Europe. On Great Britain, there rests a special responsibility for maintaining this solidarity, for we are most closely linked by history, commerce and culture, and by political association, with all three. There is no need for me to argue that there is no conflict between a close association with Europe and our ties with the Commonwealth and Empire, for this view is explicit in the recent Election

133
Manifestos of the three political Parties. It was, moreover, endorsed by the communiqué issued after the Colombo Conference.
I would remind your Lordships that this is also the view of our associates in Western Europe. Four months ago, M. Spaak visited this country, and addressed gatherings, in this building and elsewhere, in his capacity as President of the Assembly of the Council of Europe. On this subject of the Commonwealth he was explicit and clear. There was, he said, no problem of Great Britain having to choose between Europe and the Commonwealth. It was recognised that if ever that choice had to be made, Great Britain would undoubtedly choose the Commonwealth. He went on to say:
"The Great Britain of which we think is Great Britain with all her greatness and all her power, and we know that one of the principal aspects of this grandeur and this power is precisely the fact that Great Britain is the principal partner in the Anglo-Saxon world with which Continental Europe wishes to retain all possible links."
It follows that Europe will never ask us to undertake obligations or to adopt policies that would weaken these ties. They would, in fact, be weakening one of their most important component parts. On the contrary, both the political and the economic resolutions of the Strasbourg Assembly contemplate that at a very early stage representatives of the countries overseas associated not only with Great Britain but with France, Belgium and Holland will I be brought into consultation in order to ensure that the present plans of co-operation, as well as all future steps for the closer integration of Europe, will be in harmony with the needs and development of their overseas associates. For without these overseas countries Europe cannot live.
An example of this close interlocking of interests is provided by the obvious fact that the countries overseas will be vitally affected by whatever is done under European schemes to establish the inter-convertibility of currencies or for the liberalisation of trade. Moreover, it is clear also that what is true of planned developments such as these holds even more strongly in regard to the more distant and far-reaching schemes of political and economic development. The clause in the
134
Colombo communiqué regarding Europe is in very general terms of approval, but something more specific is needed, and that is a thorough study of the part to be played by the Dominions and Colonies and the effect upon them of the steps being taken towards the closer integration of Europe. If, as is obvious, we must carry Commonwealth opinion with us in every step we take, it is essential to bring overseas representatives into consultation at a very early date. I would like to ask His Majesty's Government what are their proposals in this connection, for if there is not the closest collaboration it may well lead at a later stage to delay and a vacillating policy.
This brings me to my second point. I have spoken of the triangle of Europe, the Commonwealth and the United States. But—to change the metaphor—the strength of a chain is in its weakest link. And by far the weakest of these three groups is Europe. Since last summer, a great deal of hard work has been done, and some progress can be recorded, by the O.E.E.C. in regard to the two matter; I mentioned just now—the liberalisation of trade and the inter-convertibility of currencies. But even that progress has beer too slow if we are to be ready to meet the situation that will face Europe in 1952 when Marshall Aid ends. Moreover, that progress of the O.E.E.C. is in a technical field, and from the nature of its organisation and work the O E.E.C. has little direct influence on public opinion and the political situation generally. Looking at the matter on a broader horizon there is little progress to report; in recent months, indeed, on balance, there is almost certainly a slipping backward.
Last summer, the Council of Europe came into being with high hopes. The outline of the general economic plan devised by the Strasbourg Assembly was referred to in this House during the devaluation debate. The plan was carried a stage further by the Assembly's Economic Committee during December. But the Assembly were unanimous that the economic integration of Europe could not go very far without setting up some political authority with limited functions but real powers. This is no time to discuss what form this authority should take. Clearly, Europe will not establish a constitution which will closely follow the pattern of the United States, nor will it be

135
held together by something like the intangible Commonwealth bond. There is not enough common thinking or common political and administrative practice for that to be possible. The problem is also complicated by the fact that common action can go much further between certain neighbouring countries in Europe than is possible between all the countries of Western Europe as a whole. In other words, the obligations on the various members of a United Europe will not necessarily be the same for all. It is essential to devise some political structure —but the structure will be something new in constitutional practice. All these problems—economic, political, social, legal—need to he tackled quickly if the exercise is not to become a purely academic one, and out of date long before the occasion comes to apply it.
All but one of the Committees of the Assembly engaged on these matters have, in fact, met during the winter. But in the last two months this Committee work —the work of the Assembly side of the Council of Europe—has been held up owing to the British General Election. Clearly, on matters of this importance it is not possible to do effective work without the presence of British delegates. This inevitable delay has been unfortunate. Events have not been standing still, and in Europe a race is going on between the forces of integration and those of disintegration. The after-effects of widespread devaluation are a case in point. This step gave us a breathing space, which might have been turned to good account if other measures were taken to develop trade, but if it is not followed quickly by determined action to co-ordinate policy, we run the gravest risk from the twin dangers of inflation and the outbreak of a fresh crop of trade restrictions.
An even more important case is the problem of Germany. By common consent the only solution to this problem is to draw Germany into the economic and political life of the larger unit of Western Europe as a whole. Her admission to the Assembly of the Council of Europe would be a first and definite step in that direction. The appearance of members of the Bonn Parliament in council chambers with those of the other European countries would be a symbolic act that might be expected to influence
136
favourably the trend of public opinion in Germany. And, as we all know, opinion in Germany is not yet definite in its course; it may turn to the Right or to the Left. Last November it seemed that as a result of the initiative of Dr. Adenauer this step was imminent. On November 5 the Committee of Ministers, meeting in Paris, expressed themselves as favourable in principle to the admission of Germany. Four days later the permanent Committee of the Assembly concurred; and in the same week the Ministers of the three occupying Powers also approved, subject to certain conditions, mainly connected with the Ruhr and Occupation Statutes. Before the end of the month—and this is perhaps most significant of all—the French Chamber voted their approval.
Since then, however, there has been a drifting apart of France and Germany, on account of the Saar. I will not attempt to discuss the issues that are raised in that regard. The ultimate fate of the Saar and its mines has been reserved for decision in the Peace Treaty. But it is understandable that it may appear in German eyes that the issue has been prejudiced by the recent agreement between France and the Saar. I would point out that the economic aspects of the Saar problem would take on a different complexion if there were a European agreement regarding the use and distribution of the coal and steel resources of the whole Rhine basin. This is really the answer to many of Europe's difficulties. It has many attractions for Germany, where it has received strong support, but it would be brought within the range of possibility only if and when Germany enters the Council of Europe. I hope that German opinion will not lose sight of this fact in their disappointment over the Franco-Saar Agreement.
Lastly, quick progress needs to be made with the Convention on Human Rights drafted by the Strasbourg Assembly. That draft would establish a joint responsibility for the maintenance of a limited number of rights, but including the cardinal political rights of free Parliaments, with the right to form an Opposition, free speech and freedom from arbitrary arrest. The joint guarantee of these rights proposed by the Assembly would make this Convention not a mere pious declaration, but the basic rules of Western European Union. It is most desirable that they should be

137
established, that the experts who are working on this problem should complete their work, and that the machinery for implementing these rights should be set up and be available as a condition of the admission of Germany to the European "Club."
I have touched only lightly on the fringe of a very large subject raised by a single sentence in the gracious Speech. I am grateful for the assurance it contains. My primary purpose in intervening is to stress the fact that there is still a very weak member in the triple structure of a free world on which so much at this moment depends. That is why I urge that His Majesty's Government should not merely approve the Council of Europe but should treat it as a matter of the greatest urgency and of the highest priority. It has been said several times in the course of this debate that timing is of the first essence in international affairs. There is one time that is always wrong, and that is to be too late. Much has been done in what would have been regarded in earlier days as an extremely short space of time, but the moral of the atom bomb is surely this: if our political arrangements are to keep pace with the need of the times, we must think in terms not of years but of weeks and months.
3.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, a good portion of the debate yesterday was directed to important aspects of international affairs, and it is therefore not my intention to occupy the time of the House for more than a short while. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, has dealt with an item of the gracious Speech which has not been referred to by any previous speaker. The relevant paragraph states that:
"My Government will do their utmost to ensure the success of the Council of Europe."
That statement represents the spirit and the intention of the Government. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for emphasising the urgency of the problem of achieving a greater degree of unity in Europe, both in political and economic affairs.
In these days it is of the utmost importance that the nations of Europe should not adopt a parochial attitude towards
138
their common problems, and in this country, as in many European countries, public opinion recognises the importance of this fact. This is in no small measure due to the efforts of enlightened and public spirited men and women of all Parties, and the noble Lord who has just spoken is outstanding among these. As noble Lords said yesterday, one of the most important factors in foreign affairs is timing, and this is particularly true where it is a question of persuading sovereign States to work together in new ways in a common cause. It is, I am sure, common ground that the problem of achieving a greater degree of unity in Western Europe calls for a sense of urgency in its treatment. I know that His Majesty's Government have often been accused of lukewarmness towards this ideal and of "dragging their feet" because they have pointed out the practical implications of ideals put forward by others.
His Majesty's Government have from the start taken the initiative and played their full part in the development of growing co-operation between the Western. Powers. Starting with the basis of Franco-British co-operation under the Treaty of Dunkirk, it was Mr. Bevin who in his speech in another place in January, 1948–that is, over two years ago—outlined a new policy for the "association of free nations of Western Europe," which resulted in March of that year in the signature of the Brussels Treaty. In explaining the developments that had led to the conception of a "Western Union" Mr. Bevin stressed that His Majesty's Government had previously honed that agreement between the four great Powers on the peace settlements would:
"close the breach betwesn East and West and thus avoid the necessity of crystallising Europe into separate blocs."
Unfortunately this hope had not been fulfilled and the time was therefore ripe for the consolidation of Western Europe as a first step towards a wider association. This initiative was welcomed by President Truman, and talks began in Washington between the Brussels Treaty Powers, Canada and the United States which culminated in the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 4, 1949.
On the economic, social and cultural side as well His Majesty's Government have co-operated to the full with our

139
Allies in Europe. After Mr. Marshall's Harvard speech in June, 1947, Mr. Bevin again took the initiative in summoning the countries of Western Europe to draw up a recovery programme leading to the creation in Spring, 1948, of the organisation for European Economic Co-operation. Since then we have worked closely with our partners in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, and in one important measure, the liberalisation of trade, we have taken the lead.
The Council of Europe marked a further stage in the association of Western Democracies, and again His Majesty's Government were closely concerned with the discussions preceding the signature of the Statute in London in May, 1949. Seven Committees have been set up to study different aspects—social, cultural, scientific, legal, and so on—in which the countries of the Council of Europe can co-operate, and discussions are proceeding in the General Affairs Committee of the Assembly on the development of the Council into a wider European political authority. From all this it is clear that the United Kingdom have co-operated to the fullest extent with their partners in the defence, economic, political, social and cultural fields, and that in harmony with our Commonwealth commitments we will continue to work for European unity and the community of free nations.
The noble Lord has, if I understand him correctly, suggested that we could make further and faster progress towards the realisation of economic union on the lines set out in the Recommendations to the Committee of Ministers adopted by the Consultative Assembly of Europe on September 5, 1949, if His Majesty's Government were to secure the co-operation of the Commonwealth countries in achieving this objective. The significance of these territories in the general picture is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Preamble to these Recommendations, as the noble Lord is well aware. The Recommendations have been referred by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to the Council of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, because that body, which unlike the Assembly is an inter-governmental agency, has over the past two and a half years occupied itself closely with the very
140
problems covered by the Recommendations or, at least, a large part of them. The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation have sent their comments to the Committee of Ministers in the last few days. The noble Lord will not expect me to say anything further about them at the moment, because, as he will appreciate, they have yet to be considered by the Governments concerned and by the Committee of Ministers at the next meeting.
There are two general observations I should like to make. The first is that we keep in very close touch with Commonwealth Governments in matters both political and economic, as is evidenced by the successful meeting, of Finance Ministers in London in July, 1949, and of Foreign Ministers in Colombo in January last. We have at all times maintained close contact with the Commonwealth countries in carrying out our obligations towards Europe, as set out in the Convention of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. The second observation is that the European Recovery Programme and the part we have played in it has indirectly benefited the economic relationship between the sterling area, thus embracing most of the Commonwealth countries, and Europe, and I am hopeful that the proposal for a new European Payments Scheme which His Majesty's Government hope shortly to submit to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation will improve still further these economic ties between that great free trading area—the sterling area —and Western Europe, to the benefit of both. And by this scheme we hope also to take a big step forward towards the achievement of that major objective which we share with our American friends and Organisation for European Economic Cooperation partners—namely, a European trading area in which goods and services can move more freely.
I agree with the noble Lord regarding the desirability of Germany becoming a member of the Council of Europe. As I think the noble Lord indicated—and certainly he would agree—there has not been any hesitation or undue delay in taking the necessary measures to enable Germany to become an associate member of the Council of Europe. It was clear from the outset that no steps in this direction could be taken until the German

141
Federal Government was established. This event did not occur until September last. As he himself stated, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe met in the first days of November and agreed to favour the admission of Germany 35 soon as possible. But they decided, before taking a final decision—and I think this decision has been generally approveda—to invite the views of the Standing Committee of the Assembly on the admission of the German Federal Republic as an associate member under the conditions laid down in Article 5 of the Statute. On November 10 the Standing Committee of the Consultative Assembly agreed in principle in favour of the admission of the Federal German Republic as an associate member of the Council of Europe. Before proceeding to this admission, however, it considered it
"essential that the German Federal Republic should state that it is willing to abide by the provisions of the Statute and to give clear proof of its desire to do so."
The Standing Committee drew the attention of the Committee of Ministers particularly to this point, which it described as being of capital importance to the harmonious reconstruction of Europe.
The United States Government expressed its concurrence in this procedure, and on November 22 the British, United States and French High Commissioners, together with the German Federal Chancellor, signed an agreement, Article 1 of which reads as follows:
"The High Commission and the Federal Government are agreed to promote the participation of Germany in all those international organisations through which German experience and support can contribute to the general welfare. They record their satisfaction at the various steps already achieved in this direction, including German participation in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, the desire expressed on both sides that the Federal Republic should be promptly admitted to the Council of Europe as an associate member, and the proposed signature of a bilateral agreement with the Government of the United States covering E.C.A. assistance."
The bi-lateral agreement between the German Government and the United States has been concluded, but the Federal Government has not yet taken the steps required by the Standing Committee of the Assembly as a condition of admittance to the Council of Europe. The Federal Government has made no definite and formal communication to the British
142
High Commissioner on the subject, but it is clear from statements to the Press by the German Chancellor that the delay is attributable to misgivings in regard to certain agreements between the French Government and the Saar Government which have been under discussion for some time and which have been recently concluded.
In order to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, I should make clear the attitude of His Majesty's Government to these agreements. The question of the status of the Saar was first raised by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs in September, 1946. On October 22, 1946, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made the following statement in the course of a speech in another place:
"The French wish to incorporate the Saar in their economic and administrative system but without formally annexing it. His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the French proposals about the Saar subject to he necessary adjustments of the French reparations balance and the delimitation of the exact area.
We feel that this has been too long delayed and that in the interests of both the miners and other workers in the Saar and of the French Government it is right that the matter should be settled quickly. Therefore we shall support the French Duet the Saar."
At the Council of Foreign Ministers in Moscow in 1947 my right honourable friend and the United States Secretary of State supported the claim of France for the political and economic detachment of the Saar from Germany, and on June 11, 1947, my right honourable friend, in reply to a Question, made a statement to the effect that His Majesty's Government, subject always to decisions to be taken at the final Peace Settlement, supported French policy in the Saar. In consequence the French Government took a number of measures in the Saar territory which had the effect of separating the Saar politically and economically from Germany.
When it became known, towards the end of last year, that the French Government intended to place these arrangements upon a contractual basis the Federal Chancellor expressed the view that nothing should be done which would prejudge the final settlement of the Saar question in the Peace Treaty or accentuate the separation of the Saar from Germany.
In particular, he expressed the hope that so long as there was no final settlement

143
of the Saar question the problem of the ownership of the Saar mines should not be prejudiced by a long lease of the mines by the Saar Government to France.
The agreements which have recently been signed between the French Government and the Saar Government have been drawn up in such a way as to give the German Federal Government satisfaction on both these points. It is specifically laid down that the final status of the Saar can be determined only by the Peace Treaty. In this sense the agreements are only provisional and are valid only until the Peace Treaty. Moreover, care has been taken not to prejudice the question of the ownership of the mines, and it is laid down that whereas the French will continue to exploit them until the Peace Treaty, a fifty-year lease will be granted to the French only if this agreement is sanctioned in the Peace Treaty itself—that is to say, in a Treaty to which Germany will be a party.
It will thus he seen that the agreements do not alter the existing state of affairs, they merely place it on a contractual basis until such time as the future status of the Saar shall he definitely determined by a Peace Settlement. It is for the German Federal Government to decide whether they desire to fulfil the requirement of the Standing Committee and to apply for associate membership of the Council of Europe. It is a decision which must be taken with a due sense of responsibility. His Majesty's Government will not seek to influence that decision. I will say only this. Should the Federal Government decide to withhold its application the consequences are likely to bear more heavily on the German people than on the Western nations, who have resolved to turn their backs on the past and, by inviting Germany to join the Council of Europe, endeavour to open a new chapter in European relationships.
4.6 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, in view of the number of your Lordships who are proposing to take part in the debate to-day, I intend to confine my remarks to three principal topics. In the first place, I should like to say a few words with reference to the speech which fell from the noble Viscount who leads the Liberal Party in this House. He painted a gloomy picture of the results
144
of the Election and of the future before the democratic people of this country. His gloom seemed to be excessive. It is true, of course, that none of the four Parties who entered the Election are completely satisfied with the result or have achieved their heart's desire. The Labour Party have not an effective majority during the continuance of this Parliament. The Conservative Party have not succeeded in turning out the Labour Government. But I think both those Parties will agree that it might have been a great deal worse, and that there is reason to hope that the present Parliament, even nearly equally balanced as it is, may do some very useful work.
It must be apparent to everyone that controversial legislation will not be able to get through the House of Commons. It is not so much the smallness of the majority on the floor of the House which will prevent it; it is the absence of any effective majority in the Standing Committees. Therefore, no legislation of a controversial character can be passed unless the whole of its proceedings be kept on the floor of the House. But that is not to say that there may not be some useful legislation. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, deplored the absence of the Independent mind, but in the present House of Commons, owing to the nearly equal position of the main Parties, I think the independent-minded Member may have much greater opportunity than he would under other circumstances.
It is, of course, plain that the Liberal Party have a great deal more to object to in the result of the Election, because the contrast between the rather extravagant hopes that they professed to entertain of the results and what they actually achieved is most marked. Whereas they spoke of having so large a number of Members that they could form a Government, they did not in fact succeed in retaining the number they had in the last Parliament. And from their point of view that is, of course, a great misfortune. It does not follow that it is a misfortune for the country—it may be quite the reverse. When I say that, I would not have the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party imagine that I fail to recognise the very great services which the Liberal Party rendered to this country in days gone by. As one of the men who, as

145
he said, imbibed as a child the principles of Liberalism, and who have never entirely forgotten the lesson that I learnt in those days, I certainly pay my tribute to the Liberal tradition of the past which has done so much to form the strength and tolerance of this country. I left the Liberal Party many years ago because I found that Liberal traditions in these modern days were not very happily married to the actual practice of the Liberal Party when it was in office. Therefore I do not share the noble Viscount's view as to the disadvantages of what has happened as a result of the decision of the electorate.
Further than that, what were the remedies that the noble Viscount himself favoured? He wanted either proportional representation or the alternative vote, in order that his Party might have an increased number of Members in the House and he able to hold the balancing position in the House of Commons with, say, a total membership of some fifty or one hundred. Now, I had the misfortune to sit in the two Parliaments in which that position was actually in existence. In the first (the 1923–24 Parliament) I was a back-Bencher, and in the second (the 1929–31 Parliament) I was a member of the Government; arid a more unhappy position for a Government to occupy it must be impossible to conceive. We lived in constant expectation that the Liberal majority, instead of supporting us as they did on a great many occasions, might turn against us. Your Lordships will remember that Mr. Lloyd George referred to the Liberal Party of those days as "patient oxen" labouring for the Labour Party. The Labour Party was in continual jeopardy; it never knew from hour to hour whether it would remain in office or whether any statement it made could in fact be carried into effect; and in each case—in 1924 and in 1931–the Liberals at last gave the coup de grace and put the Government out of their misery. The very last thing I want is to see any Government put in that humiliating position again. I do not believe that it would be good for the Party who stood in that position or for the country as a whole.
I now turn to another aspect of the Election, which I think was in some ways the most notable, and that was the complete defeat of the Communist Party. Not one single member of that Party has
146
been returned to the House of Commons. With 100 candidates they succeeded only in securing a total vote of something less than 100,000. Even under the system of proportional representation recommended by the Liberal Party, of either five-member or seven-member constituencies, I do not think even one single Communist member would have been returned to the House of Commons; only on the supposition that the whole of the country was one multiple constituency would they have secured one member, or possibly two. I am sure that all members of your Lordships' House welcome that result, as will a very large proportion of the country. But I do not know whether everyone will consider the bearing that it has had on the political character of this country during the last four and a half years. Why is it that in this country alone in Europe (outside Scandinavia) there is this result? We do not see it in France or Italy; in both those countries a large, popularly-supported Communist Party exercises a disastrous effect not only on the politics but also on the industrial position of the country. There is in France to-day a Communistic-dictated strike which, if it had gained a little more headway, might have paralysed the economy of France. And your Lordships are aware that in the Chamber in France—and it might possibly be so in Italy—a position almost arose in which the Communists could have prevented effectively the government of the country being carried on.
Why have we not this position here? The answer, surely, is because the working people of this country, almost alone in Europe, realise that there is an alternative to sabotage and revolution—and that is the evolutionary, deliberate, democratic policy put forward by the Labour Party. When some of those who oppose us say that the people must resist Socialism and must oppose and defeat the Labour Party because (so they say) it is a step towards Communist dictatorship, I answer that quite the reverse is true. The Labour Party in this country arc the main bulwark against Communism; and if there were no Labour Party, and no such policy as that which the Labour Party have followed during the last four and a half years, and if we had had instead the policy carried into effect throughout the

147
period between the wars, the Communist Party would have become a menace and would have created sabotage and disruption such as they have created in other parts of the world.
My third topic, which must be uppermost in the minds of members of all Parties, is the reason for the shift of the vote between the 1945 Election and the 1950 Election. I believe that by common consent that shift is attributed to a change of mind among members of the middle classes. Whereas in 1945 considerable numbers of the middle classes voted Labour, a large number of these forsook that allegiance and voted against the Labour Party in 1950. I do not think that that will be disputed—but if it is, there is abundant evidence that I can bring forward in support of my statement. Why did these middle-class people transfer their allegiance? Members of the Opposition Front Bench and others say that it was because they objected to the nationalisation of steel, and to other parts of the programme put forward by the Labour Party. They claimed that the fact was that if the Liberal and Conservative votes were added together they would produce a larger total than the total polled by the Labour Party; and they say that that proves that the country is against further nationalisation. I dispute that. If you add the Liberal and Labour votes you get an overwhelming defeat of the Conservative proposals. And if you were to add the Conservative and Labour votes together you would get a defeat of the principles of Liberalism. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot tell precisely what was the reason why individual voters voted on particular subjects; we do not use the referendum in this country; we prefer to vote by Parties.
I believe that this idea that the great bulk of the people who have transferred their vote did so because of their opposition to nationalisation is quite unproved, and largely untrue. The most that can be claimed, I think—and even that cannot be proved—is that these voters wanted to have a little pause, because they thought they would like to see a little more of what has happened in the case of industries already nationalised before proceeding with further acts of nationalisation not mentioned in the Labour Programme in 1945. If that is true, then it certainly
148
appears likely from the King's Speech, that their wishes will be gratified—at any rate so far as this Session is concerned.
If I reject that as the main cause of the defection of many of the middle classes who had previously voted Labour (I am talking only of them, not of those against Labour altogether), what was the cause? I venture to suggest that the main consideration which affected the middle classes was their feeling that by present conditions they were having a very raw deal, that their standard of life was being lowered, that their status was being interfered with and that they had not had the position which they enjoyed in days gone by. This feeling of disgruntlement was very skilfully turned by the Opposition and their supporters in the Press into opposition to the Labour Government.
In that connection, I look at a country where there is no Labour Government, where most of the things which have been stigmatised as evil on the part of the Labour Government have not occurred, where there is no dollar shortage and where, so near as I can judge, the freedom which the leader of the Conservative Party refers to when he says "Set the people free"—a very adroit slogan which does credit to his clever and happy phraseology—has been achieved. I refer, of course, to the country across the Atlantic—the United States of America. I happen to know something about the life and conditions in America. I was fortunate yesterday in having to entertain a lady who is an English woman by birth, who remains English but who has, until a few weeks ago, lived in the United States. I think this House ought to know the facts of the position of the middle classes in the United States of America.
This is what that lady told me. She told me that a large number of the middle classes in receipt of salaries could not live on those salaries and had to supplement them in other ways. As an illustration, she cited an assistant college professor whose salary was the not inconsiderable amount of some 3.000 to 4,000 dollars a year—that is, roughly from £1,100 to £1,500 a year. That is a by no means inconsiderable salary. She said that an assistant college professor in that position with a wife and one or two children could not live on his salary, and

149
that as a result most of the assistant college professors had to devote a great deal of their spare time, not to educational research or to educational work of any kind, but to scratching about for dollars in other ways.
The same lady described the position of a woman civil servant living in Washington, in by no means excessive living accommodation—a flat with two unfurnished rooms on the first floor—for which she had to pay no less than 60 to 70 dollars a month; that is to say, some £300 a year, or one-third of her salary of £900 a year. She told me that such a woman has the greatest difficulty of making ends meet. If she went out to a restaurant—and we hear such wonderful things about meals in American restaurants—and had a dinner with meat, it would cost her at the present time 2 dollars 50 cents a meal —that is to say, approximately 18s. at the current rate of exchange. You could get a very inadequate meal with inferior meat for 1 dollar 50 cents, which is, I suppose something like 11s. 6d. She then described to me (and this fact will come as a great surprise to many of your Lordships) how butter had been banished from the middle-class table on all ordinary occasions because of its price, and it was only there when company was received. Butter was 80 cents a pound (which is something like 6s. a pound), and the ordinary middle-class family simply cannot afford to have it except on special occasions. Then she told me that if, instead of going out to meals, a housewife went to buy meat, lamb cost her 80 cents a pound and steak, about which we hear so much as being on the table every day in the United States, cost one dollar a pound. That is, these two meats were 6s. to 7s. 6d. a pound at the present day. In those circumstances, the middle classes did not live in the wonderful conditions of luxury which so many people believe to be the case. On the contrary, they had the greatest difficulty in making ends meet, and they were unable to keep up the standard of life to which they had long been accustomed.
I will conclude by saying this. I believe that when the middle classes of this country appreciate what is the position of their opposite numbers in the United States, they Hill think twice before they attribute all.their present grievances to
150
the malpractices of this Labour Government. When we in this country appreciate this very high cost of living, we will take with a grain of salt the great prosperity which is the alleged position of so many classes in the United States; perhaps we shall understand the reason why it is that the working people in the United States are so discontented and why the number of working days lost per head of the population through industrial disputes is no less than six times as great in the United States as it is in this country.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I interrupt to ask one question? I appreciate that the noble Lord is a distinguished economist, but his comparison leaves me a little doubtful, because he translated all these prices in the United States into English pounds at the devalued price of the pound. Does he suggest that the day after the pound was devalued in terms of dollars the cost of living of the people of the United States went up by one-third? If he had taken the figure of the pound in relation to the dollar as it was before last September, then the whole comparison would fall.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No. All I can say is that the noble Viscount has not appreciated the point of my speech.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: That is not my fault.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry. I must have been so lacking in clarity that I did not make my point clear to the noble Viscount. My argument stands irrespective of any translation at all into pounds. My first points were that an assistant college professor is unable to make his salary cover the expenses of his household if he has a wife and children. My further point was that a woman civil servant living in Washington had the greatest difficulty in making the salary which she received in dollars pay her rent and her food. My point again was that butter as an article of common table appearance in the United States had been banished because the ordinary middle-class family could not afford to have it. That has nothing whatever to do with the figures that I gave in pounds in order to be a little helpful to your Lordships, who naturally cannot

151
do these sums in your heads while I am speaking, any more than I could. The figures that I gave translating dollars into pounds were merely to help us to understand the kind of figures with which I was dealing; they had nothing to do with those three main facts, that many of the middle classes find life insupportable in the United States because the dollars they receive do not enable them to meet their expenses.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: If I may intervene once more, that is a perfectly sound point. I think the noble Lord's argument is very cogent, but I think he spoilt his argument by translating dollars into pounds which, as he says, has nothing to do with the point.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am content to leave my speech in the hands of the House. No doubt with his great ability and customary eloquence the noble Viscount would have made a very much better speech. I only wish he had been here to make it.

CHIEFTAINSHIP OF BECHUANALAND TRIBE
4.31 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, might I ask the indulgence of the House for a moment to make a Statement that is being made to-day in another place about this time? Before I do so, may I be permitted to express my personal thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for some very kind things that I am told he said about me earlier in the day when I was unfortunately unable to be here owing to a public engagement? I should like to express to him my very sincere thanks. The Statement, as given in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth, is as follows:
"The House is already aware of difficulties which have arisen in the Bechuanaland Protectorate over the question whether Seretse Khama should be recognised as Chief of the Bamangwato Tribe. In September, 1948, Seretse married an Englishwoman. The marriage was disapproved by the tribal assembly in November, 1948, and again, though less decisively, in December, 1948; but in June, 1949,
152
the assembly declared their acceptance of Seretse as Chief, notwithstanding his marriage. This was followed by the withdrawal into voluntary exile, from the Reserve, of the Regent Tshekedi Khama and a number of leading men of the tribe.
In the Bechuanaland Protectorate succession to the office of Chief is subject to recognition by the High Commissioner and confirmation by the Secretary of State. In the event of doubt arising provision exists enabling the High Commissioner to appoint a Judicial Inquiry of an advisory character to investigate and report to him. Such an Inquiry was duly set up in this case and its Report was received in December last.
His Majesty's Government felt that it would be of advantage to discuss the matter with Seretse before reaching a decision. He reached London on the 13th February.
The subject has now been discussed at length in a series of meetings between Seretse, my predecessor, the Lord Privy Seal and myself. Seretse was accompanied by his legal advisers, whose attendance was facilitated by His Majesty's Government. We explained to him that His Majesty's Government viewed with grave concern the danger which recognition would cause to the unity and well-being of the tribe and the administration of the Protectorate. We impressed upon him that in this matter His Majesty's Government had to take into account not only their paramount responsibility for good government in the Protectorate but also all the circumstances known to them. I put to him our view that in all the circumstances the best solution would be for him voluntarily to relinquish his claim to the succession. Seretse, however, did not see his way to accept our view.
It therefore remained with His Majesty's Government to settle the issue. They have decided, after most careful consideration of all relevant factors, that in present circumstances the High Commissioner must be instructed to withhold recognition of Seretse as Chief, and that recognition must be withheld for a period of years. This period must be of such length as experience shows to be necessary for

153
the disappearance of the present tendencies to disruption which threaten the unity and well-being of the tribe. In the view of His Majesty's Government the period required will certainly not be less than five years, and at the end of it the situation will be reviewed. During this time Seretse will be required to reside outside the Protectorate and will be unable to revisit it unless special permission should be given. A suitable allowance will be paid to him to enable him to provide for himself and hit wife while living outside the Protectorate. The decision has been communicated to Seretse and will be announced by the High Commissioner to the tribe as soon as a tribal meeting can be assembled.
While the Chieftainship is in suspense, Tshekedi, whose regency will have come to an end, will be required to reside outside the Bamangwato Reserve, and will not be allowed to enter the Reserve unless special permission should be given.
For the immediate future the District Commissioner will continue closely to supervise the administration and will exercise the functions of the Native Authority. This is, however, a purely temporary expedient to meet quite exceptional circumstances. Steps will he taken to ensure that the inhabitants of the Reserve are again associated with the conduct of their affairs as soon as practicable, with the aim of giving fuller scope for popular opinion to make itself legitimately felt. Responsibility for some of the duties normally performed by the Native Authority will for the time being be transferred to a small council of leading and suitable persons as soon as they are prepared to come forward and serve in such capacity; and other duties will he transferred to the council as soon as it displays competence and the interests of peace and good government permit. Specific instructions have been given that such a council should be formed as soon as possible.
Looking beyond the transitional period, His Majesty's Government will also explore every opportunity that offers to give the Native Administration
154
a more representative character. This development is fully in accordance with His Majesty's Government's policy today of affording the people of the African territories for which they are responsible, a fuller say and more direct participation in the conduct of their own affairs."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure the House is much obliged to the noble Viscount for giving us that Statement. Obviously it would be undesirable to make any comment at this moment. It may be that we shall wish to consider the matter further and perhaps ask some questions. May I ask just two things? First of all, the Leader of the House referred to an inquiry of a judicial nature and a report. Is it the intention to make that report available to Parliament? The second point I was not clear about is this. There is to he a period of five years, at any rate, during which neither Seretse nor the former Regent are to be permitted in the territory, and some undefined period the District Commissioner assisted by a local council will carry on the duties of the Native Authority. Is it intended that the interregnum period shall be a period of five years, or is it contemplated that within those five years a new Chief may be appointed?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: With regard to the last question, we shall see how experience and events develop, but it is not proposed that Khama's right, such as it is, shall be in any way interfered with. That is not suggested; therefore another Chief would not be appointed during the-interval. As to the other question, we are contemplating the necessity of publishing an explanatory White Paper; but for the moment I shall be obliged if the noble Viscount will not press me any further.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am sure that the House will not desire to make any comment or, indeed, in any way to discuss the Statement that has been made. We have not yet obtained sufficient information. We are grateful to the noble Viscount for having made here the Statement that has already been made in another place, but we shall await the publication of the White Paper which he has just announced.

THE KING'S SPEECH: ADDRESS IN REPLY
Debate continued.
4.40 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, the major issues referred to in the gracious Speech have already been fully covered, and I ask your Lordships' permission, as the only Scotsman taking part in this debate, to touch, as briefly as I can, on only three points of purely domestic concern. The first of these is the question of assistance in the production of food from marginal land. I was glad to see mention of that in the gracious Speech. We had a full discussion on that subject in this House a few months ago, on a Motion put forward by my noble friend Lord Lovat, and I do not want to go into it now in any detail. I would only say that there are two points which require emphasis: first, we must have a comprehensive long-term plan for assisting farmers of marginal land in place of the expedients which exist at present; and secondly, this plan must be produced with the minimum of delay. It is all very well to pass an Act of Parliament, but passing an Act of Parliament will not necessarily produce any more food. Even when an Act is passed, when all the necessary planning has been done and the plans have been inspected and approved, it still takes a long time to achieve any increased production.
Take the case of fertilisers. One of the chief requirements of marginal land is the application of lime in large quantities. Once you have applied the lime, a matter of eighteen months or so must elapse before it has its maximum effect. Take next the question of increasing the production of beef. It is a matter of some four years from the time when you start planning until you produce an animal fit for consumption. Take also the planting of trees for shelter. Such trees are much needed in many of these districts, but it may be a matter of twenty years from the time of planting before they are of any value as shelter and therefore make any contribution to the production of food. The second matter with which I should like to deal is that of water supplies. While I was glad to see mention of this in the gracious Speech, the information to the effect that we were to be given more legislation caused me a little apprehension. Frankly,
156
I believe that we have plenty of legislation as it is. I wish to stress what has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that what we want is not more Acts, but more pipes. Let us give the local authorities the materials, and the authority to go ahead with these schemes and spend money which we have already provided. My recollection is that last summer we passed an Act making further provision of money in relation to water supplies for Scotland. Very little of those sums of money has so far been spent.
In the third place, I wish to draw attention to the omission from the gracious Speech of any reference to a subject that is at this moment causing grave concern in Scotland—namely, the question of the control of Scottish domestic matters. I know that I am arguing the particular case of Scotland now, but the question is of vital concern not only to Scotland but also to Wales and many other districts of this country—the question of the locus and method of control of domestic affairs. Some of your Lordships may have heard of the Scottish Covenant. You may even have heard an interesting broadcast discussion which took place last week—one of the rare occasions on which this subject has penetrated so far South. If I may look at it quite objectively, this movement is bound by no Party ties and it is sponsored by men representative of a great many bodies and different walks of life: political Parties, trade unions, local government authorities, professions and so on. This assorted body has produced what is called the Scottish Covenant. It is a document which expresses grave concern at the growing centralisation and control both in matters of government and, more particularly, in matters of industry—especially socialised industry. This document pledges its supporters to do everything in their power to secure the establishment of a Parliament for Scottish affairs: not a separate Parliament, but a Parliament within the framework of the United Kingdom Parliament, something analogous to the position in Northern Ireland. This document has already been signed by approximately a million adult people out of a total population of some 5,000,000 of all ages. I suggest that that

157
is a rather impressive figure. I do not think that any document which has received such support can be lightly dismissed.
I do not necessarily accept the view that the formation of a Scottish Parliament would provide the solution of the problem which is concerning me. I think perhaps its supporters are a little sanguine if they suppose that the creation of an additional quota of politicians would be a cure for all their ills. At the same time, we must recognise that this document is evidence of considerable concern at the way in which things are going in this matter of control. It is evident in many branches of government, though, admittedly, we have our own Departments for certain affairs, and it is much more evident in those industries which have come within the control of the State during the last few years, such as railways, long distance road haulage, electricity, and so on. There may be a facade of control in Scotland, but, in fact, the virtual control is all concentrated in London. I feel strongly upon this matter, and I know that I am supported by a number of my noble friends.
What is needed first, a full inquiry into the whole question of the method of control of these matters of domestic and local concern, preferably by means of a Royal Commission, but by some means or other. The trouble at the moment is Chat there is a grave lack of information on many matters which would help in reaching the best solution. There is, fey example, very little information concerning the relative contribution of Scotland to the United Kingdom's taxation. 'There is virtually no information on the part played by Scotland in the export drive at the moment, other than figures for dollars earned by the export of whisky. Such an inquiry as I have suggested could surely do nothing but help any Government which was in power. It would point the way to establishing the best method of managing affairs, and at the same time it would clear away a great deal of misapprehension which now exists. At the present time we have a new team at the Scottish Office: I hope that there is no particular significance in the fact that a pillar of the Foreign Office has been chosen and sent to manage Scottish affairs. I hope that he will bring his influence to bear on his colleagues to persuade them that such an inquiry as I
158
have mentioned would be in the best interests of all concerned. I think that any Government which might be in power would be both foolish and short-sighted to turn a blind eye to this growing volume of opinion and to refuse facilities for a full and impartial inquiry. I assure your Lordships that I have raised this matter from no Party motive. I think it is a matter which transcends Party and concerns every one of us. I hope that with your Lordships' permission some of my noble colleagues and myself may at a not too far distant date be able to raise the matter in your Lordships' House.
4.49 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene just to say this? I have not signed the Covenant myself, but I entirely agree with every word that has been uttered and every fact that has been adduced by my noble friend who has just spoken.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALLENBY: My Lords, I rise with much trepidation, not only because this is the first time I have had the privilege and the honour of addressing your Lordships' House but also because I happen to have chosen a subject which has already been dealt with by two such experts as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I would therefore crave your Lordships' kind indulgence. My excuse for mentioning the subject of Europe and European unity is that, unlike noble Lords who have already spoken this afternoon, although I am no expert I can perhaps express the feelings of a great number of the ordinary men and women of this country, and of certain other countries in Western Europe. I am sure that if a European Union is to succeed, the people must be behind it. In reading the debate in another place in November last year, I was much impressed by part of the speech of Mr. Frederick Lee, and with your Lordships' permission I will quote a few lines of it. Mr. Lee was one of the Socialist delegates to the Assembly of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg. He said:
"No matter how sincere the delegates at Strasbourg may be, and no matter how unanimous the Governments of Western Europe may be, we shall not make a success of unity in Europe unless the common people of the lands are given an opportunity to know what it means, to know what we are doing, and are brought to believe in it as we do."

159
I very much doubt whether any Parliamentary Election has aroused greater interest than that which has just been held. In no part of the world has the result been awaited with more interest, and with more anxiety, than in the countries of Western Europe. After the Election they will have awaited with equal anxiety to learn what line His Majesty's Government intend to take with regard to Western Union and European unity. I am sure they will be as pleased as think we all are to see the references in the gracious Speech to the full support which His Majesty's Government will give to measures for the establishment of an effective system of security. At the same time they will be wondering how, in what form and when such measures will be taken. I think it is the sincere belief of most thinking men and women in the countries of Western Europe that security, prosperity and peace can be assured only by some form of European Union, a belief which is shared by a great many people in this country. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary in another place in November last stated quite clearly our aims and object, and he added that the United Kingdom was playing a full part. Twice this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, impressed upon us that this country is playing her part. Nevertheless, and most unfortunately, an impression prevails abroad that this country does not play her full part.
There is good reason for that impression. I think we should realise two facts—and facts I believe them to be: first, European unity is impossible, or at least would be ineffective, without leadership, and, second, that effective leadership of any form of European Union can be provided at this stage—and timing, as we have heard this afternoon, is important—only by the United Kingdom in closest cooperation with the British Commonwealth. It is that leadership that the nations of Western Europe have been and are looking for. It is that leadership which they have not found, and they are as yet uncertain whether they are going to find it. It is high time that we in this country indicated clearly whether we are or are not in favour of a united Europe. As is well known, much doubt has been expressed about our sincerity in the matter. Only last November, M. Leon Blum, speaking of the British
160
Labour movement, suggested (I quote his words as translated in the Manchester Guardian) that doubt has arisen as to whether
"the Labour movement are not opposing the European movement."
Then, if we affirm that we are in favour, we must make it abundantly clear that it is for us a matter far beyond and above Party politics. We must not give the impression, as did the present Minister of Town and Country Planning, Mr. Dalton, that the only Western Union that our Government would contemplate was a Socialist Union, Thirdly, we must show not only Western Europe but the United States of America—who expect it from us—and the whole world, that the United Kingdom, together with the British Commonwealth, will supply the leadership so essential to success.
At the present time there are far too many organisations dealing with European unity in one form or another. There is the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation; there is the Brussels Treaty Organisation, with all its committees; there is the Atlantic Pact, and the Council of Europe itself. Membership is not common to all. Indeed, the Atlantic Pact covers only eight of the twelve nations of the Council of Europe, but includes two that are not members of the Council. Everyone knows that the surest way to achieve nothing is to distribute a work among a large number of committees. That is what has happened to the United Europe movement. Some may say—indeed they do say—that we have enough problems of our own, and that we should not become involved with the problems of Europe. I claim that that is a shortsighted policy. If the world were plunged into another world war surely almost all our other problems would pale into insignificance. If the threat to the peace of Europe is one of war, then the nature of modern war is such that we are in it, whether we like it or not. If the threat is the infiltration of Communism and its influence in the countries of Europe one after another, the gradual Westward movement of the iron curtain, then again we are in it. The cold war may spread less quickly but not less surely than real war. We cannot allow Russian barbarism to overlay the culture and independence of ancient States in Europe, by whatever means it may employ.

161
In conclusion—and let us make no mistake—in the course of the next few years the Western Powers will be called upon to make great decisions. Only a united Europe will be able to act with the boldness and determination which will be necessary to solve the problems with which they will be faced. It is all the more urgent, therefore, that immediate steps be taken to show the world that we and the nations of Western Europe are in fact determined to form a Union which wilt have among other aims, the maintenance of world peace and freedom from aggression of any kind. Surely the first step is obvious, and it is that Great Britain should indicate, very soon and quite clearly, to the Western Powers—and it should be made known in some way to the peoples of the Western Powers and to the people of this country—whether or not we are in favour of such a Union. And if we are, we should show that we are willing and prepared to give a lead. If we are not prepared to give this assurance, I think we should say so; then Europe will sooner or later unite without us. If it should be later rather than sooner, we must not be surprised if tie eventual leadership of that Union is in the hands of Germany or Russia, or of both. Seldom has it been said of this country that we do not show clarity of purpose and intent in our foreign affairs. Let it no longer be said of His Majesty's Government in the matter of a united Europe.
5.2 p.m.
LORD TOVEY: My Lords, I feel it is quite unfair on the noble Viscount who has just spoken that it should be left to one so inexperienced as myself to pass any remarks on his speech. The last time I spoke in your Lordships' House was when 1 made my own maiden speech, so possibly I have some understanding of the ordeal through which he has just passed. The noble Viscount filled me with envy and a great deal of admiration. He obviously knows the subject about which he spoke, and he has given us a fine.discourse on the situation as he sees it. I should—I feel with a certain amount of impertinence—like to offer him my heartiest congratulations and I am sure I voice the opinion of all your Lordships when I say that I hope we may often hear him again.
162
Now may I detain your Lordships for a few moments to draw attention to an omission from the gracious Speech which I and many others observe with great regret—namely, the lack of any reference to the reintroduction of compulsory church parades in the Fighting Services? So far as the Navy is concerned, I am quite certain that the order making attendance at church voluntary was based on a complete misconception. The men, with great justification, objected strongly to the old Sunday routine. When I first went to sea Sunday was a poisonous day. The hands were turned out earlier than on week-days to give a final "spit and polish" to the ship. They were given a hurried breakfast, during which time they had to climb into their "number ones." They had a final "spit and polish" on the upper deck, and the cleaning of the guns, and were then fallen in for inspection. After that the captain spent about a couple of hours inspecting the rest of the ship. It is no wonder that the men loathed Sunday and, rather understandably, the compulsory attendance at church at the end of this very bad routine just made them "fed up." Thus the impression got abroad that it was attendance at church to which they objected.
For years now that routine has been completely done away with and, so far as is humanly possible, Sunday at sea is made a day of rest. Unfortunately, the dislike of church service continued long after the reason for it disappeared. When I was in command of one of His Majesty's capital ships my chaplain approached me as to whether I would agree to attendance at church being voluntary. I said: "So long as you produce a congregation consider satisfactory, I am quite happy." The next Sunday he announced that attendance at church would in future be voluntary. He had hardly got back to his cabin afterwards when an old three-badge able seaman arrived there and said: "Look here, you can't do that there 'ere." The chaplain said: "What do you mean?" The A.B. replied: "You can't have this voluntary attendance." "Why not'?" said the chaplain, "The men will come all right." To which the A.B. answered: "The likes of me will never come again. We should lose all face at the mess tables." If that is the attitude of a senior rating, who has considerable authority on the mess deck, it is easy to

163
understand how youngsters will never have the courage to attend under those conditions. Surely it was never more important than now that our national life, our home life and life in the Services should be based on Christian teaching. In the Fighting Services it is the only possible basis if we are to obtain the higher standard of discipline which is absolutely essential.
5.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT PORTMAN: My Lords, I rise to crave your attention for a few minutes on a subject which is mentioned in the gracious Speech and which has also been mentioned in your Lordships' House this afternoon—namely, rural water supplies. I feel strongly that this is a matter which cannot be emphasised often enough, in view of the position of the rural areas during last summer. I speak with a certain amount of experience as I control two water supplies and help to supply a large new public school in the South of England. In spite of repeated applications to local authorities, the situation at one time was such that it might have been necessary to close down this school.
Let me for a moment examine the position of the Government and of local authorities in relation to water supplies. I would add that I am not going to press the Minister for any reply or comment on the matter, as I have given no notice that I would raise it. I say this merely to show that it may be necessary to press the matter again if some improvement is not shown. Under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, the duty is placed on rural authorities of providing, where practicable, a supply of pipe water to rural areas in all districts where there are houses and schools. This Act also provides that the Minister of Health may make grants from a £15,000,000 subsidy towards the capital cost of such schemes. What has been the result? Out of a capital subsidy of £15,000,000 the amount spent in the year 1947–48 was £61,000, in 1948–49, £451,000 and in 1949–50, £380,000. From our experiences in the south western areas of this country I can well believe that those figures are correct. Less than 15 per cent. of the schemes proposed by the rural districts have been started, and less than 5 per cent. have
164
been actually completed. There has been a demand for increased agricultural production and for an increased agricultural population. An enormous health service and a large building and housing programme have been initiated. What is to be done in those four cases without water? Is not water the basis of them all? I can assure your Lordships that from June 10 last year to October 14–until "the rains came," as the Book says—over 72 per cent. of the people living in different rural houses that I help control were boiling the water they needed for every-day consumption.
What is the position with regard to materials for the water schemes of this country? Last year we produced and exported a total of £2,485,000 worth of pipe and pipe accessories. This was cast iron pipe and cast iron accessories. Of that total, foreign countries who, so far as we know, were not producing anything for us in return, received £1,020,500. Surely that is a rather large proportion when this country is so badly in need. In 1949 we produced 642,200 tons of cast iron ware and exported 158.000 tons, leaving a balance of 483,800 tons. Why was it not possible to let the local authorities have a little more of that huge unaccounted-for total? With regard to wrought iron, we had exports of a total value of £18,412,463. Of this amount £1,000,000 went to other foreign countries whose return to us was unknown, and a total of £3,000,000 to oil-producing countries. That was understandable. But I still feel that the Government must seriously reconsider their export programme for materials which are a basic need of this country and a shortage of which will not only ruin the Health Service but will cut down housing supply and agricultural production. For the moment I do not wish to say any more. I would like your Lordships to ponder those figures and consider whether the subject is worth debating at another time.
5.13 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, on an excellent maiden speech indeed. Dealing with a subject about which I personally know nothing whatsoever, he made it abundantly clear to my mean and ignorant intelligence. I was interested also in the speech of the noble and gallant Lord,

165
Lord Tovey, and I hope the First Lord will give due consideration, as I am sure he will—I believe he is interested in such matters himself—to what Lord Tovey said.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, interested me very much with his picture of the transatlantic hell. I only wish he had brought these views to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before we devalued; it might then have been considered that we had enough left without devaluing. Our noble leader, Lord Swinton, gave His Majesty's Government some excellent advice on many matters, but there is one point he mentioned which I can reinforce to some extent, and that is on the particular subject of bulk purchases. Bulk purchases are claimed at times to be good for the producer, and they are also claimed to be good for the consumer. Now the consumer is in this country and the producer is overseas. If both these claims are true—and they may be true—we and the Dominions will have a great interest in geeing that our producers have a proper price, and so on. But when we come to the Argentine, are we really particularly interested in seeing that the Argentine producers have good prices and so on? I submit that we have very little interest in the Argentine producers.
At this moment I believe that a unique opportunity has arrived to experiment in the abandonment of this hulk purchase, because in the Argentine, partly as a result of an enormous drought and partly for other reasons connected with President Peron's march towards the middle state between Capitalism and Socialism—to which noble Lords opposite sometimes think they are marching—the sellers' market for meat has ended. A buyers' market for Argentine beef is in the offing, and I have not the least doubt that if the new Minister of Food were to fix retail prices in our shops at some reasonable level and then send out representatives of the meal trade to see whether they can buy the meat to fit in with those prices, they would get all the Argentine beef needed to fulfil the meat ration. In the Argentine, OW1 Yr to this drought, beef is practically the only thing they have to export. They must have oil and they have to pay for it, and meat is the only commodity with which they can pay for
166
it. The opportunity is unique; let the Government do something with it.
I am usually of a cheerful and optimistic disposition, but to-day I feel the situation is extraordinarily gloomy. I do not refer to the economic situation, which always fills me with gloom, but to the situation of foreign affairs. My noble leader has dealt adequately with that subject, but there are certain sections which he naturally is not able to fill in. I wise to call your Lordships' attention to Burma We were in occupation of Burma from 1885, with the interval of the war, to 1946. We have now gone out of Burma, and the position there to-day is rather worse than it was when we went there in 1885. Law and order does not exist more than a few miles outside the principal towns. Those unique resources of Burma, built up by British enterprise—the mines, the forests and the oilfields—are at a complete standstill. The country has reverted to a state of absolute anarchy. That would be bad enough, but Burma adjoins China, and between the two countries is an open and indefensible frontier, indefensible at any rate to the handful of Burma troops which exist to-day. Moreover, Chinese divisions alleged to be rescuing Burma have found their way during the war down from the North. For that reason, it seems to me of the utmost importance that something should he done towards settling things in Burma at the earliest possible moment, because that is the spot which seems liable to erupt next. I believe that some suggestions have arisen out of the Colombo Conference.
There is some talk of a Commonwealth loan to Burma. It is not money they want, however, but Pure and simple Administration. The charming people, the Burmese, fail to unite their country and administer it. I am wondering whether, in view of the known sympathies of their present Prime Minister, it is possible that, if he were offered an American-Commonwealth Advisory Commission, together with a little money, he could persuade his more extreme followers to allow him to accept it. The need is extremely urgent, and requires the elementary principles of government, administration, training of the Army, and so on. Otherwise, before very long, we shall lose the Burma rice production—and rice is

167
the staff of life over the whole of South-East Asia.
When we move further Westward we come to a position no less alarming. Pakistan and Hindustan have been quarrelling with each other for a long time—and are on the verge of war. The Kashmir quarrel has festered for many months—indeed, the time might now almost be counted in years—and no practical steps seem possible to compose that quarrel. On top of that there has been the devaluation quarrel, whereby Pakistan—foolishly, in my opinion—stuck to the dollar and Hindustan followed the pound. The result has been a blockade between the two countries and cotton, foodstuffs and jute have been held up from going into Hindustan. Retaliation has meant an embargo on coal. That situation is not getting better, and leaving it alone is bound to make it worse. Surely it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to step in and ask the parties to accept some form of Commonwealth arbitration. After all, there are the makings of an arbitration case: Kashmir, on the one side, devaluation of the Hindustan rupee on the other. In addition, of course, there is the possible makeweight of these sterling balances, in the pursuit of which both countries have been most persistent. They have been most successful in getting His Majesty's Government to "part," and I beg His Majesty's Government to cease releasing balances and to say "You must compose these grave differences before there is a single further release."
When I turn to the home political situation I am not so deeply depressed. I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, because his train of thought and mine have been following rather similar lines. But whereas his conclusions—not entirely unexpectedly to me—led to the suggestion that the only bridge to this gulf could be proportional representation, to my mind the bridge is a totally different one, and one more in keeping with the traditions of our democracy. It is that we now have the two great Parties in the State more or less equally balanced, and both know that if they are ever to win power over the other they have to attract the more moderate adherents of the other. Therefore, both Parties can hope to obtain power only by "chucking out" their own
168
extremists. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords opposite will realise that if they want power and a strong majority in this country they will have to abandon their pursuit of State ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. On this side we have to convince all our doubters that the Welfare State is a thing that can be worked. But at any rate the return to the traditional two-Party system fills me with some measure of limited optimism.
I have consulted certain of my colleagues on these Back Benches on the subject of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said in relation to a Coalition. They have decided without any doubts at all that a Coalition is not a feasible proposition between Parties one of which preaches a property-owning democracy and the other State ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
The final thing that inspires me with considerable optimism to-day is the last paragraph but one in the gracious Speech:
"…it is hoped to make further progress with the consolidation and revision of the Statute Law."
As one who has always believed that what this country needs is a complete holiday from further legislation, and five years entirely devoted to revising such laws as those on income tax, rent, betting, and licensing—among others—I think we have the makings of a most fruitful Session.
5.26 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we now come near the end of this interesting debate on the Address which, if he will allow me to say so, was so ably opened by the noble Lord, Lord Crook. I think I ought to point out to your Lordships that Lord Crook has done this House the courtesy of being in it throughout all the speeches since he opened the discussion.
Before I deal with the main matter on which I wish to speak, which is housing, I should like to say that I do not intend to talk about the difficult foreign situation, or the atom or hydrogen bomb, or about the economic situation, but that this does not mean that I am less concerned with those matters than is any other noble Lord. But I feel that it is no good going on talking about a subject and saying for the most part only the same things that

169
have already been said. With your Lordships' permission, therefore, I shall hardly touch upon them.
Perhaps may be allowed, however, to say that I think the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—whom I am personally glad to welcome to this House—will agree with me when I say that it is a sad thing to reflect that after we had taken immense trouble to collect stores and send them to Russia, at immense risk to ships and personnel of the Royal Navy and Merchant Marine, and after we had done everything we could to support the Russians, once they were in the war, matters should have turned out as they have between us. This was not for want of trying on our side, but because of the obstinacy of a few persons in the Kremlin—and, I believe, of a lack of knowledge in Russia as a whole of what we and the Americans did to help them and to play our part in winning the war. I think we must all regret that that situation has arisen; we can only hope and, indeed, pray that this cold war may not develop into a hot war once again in our lifetime.
Before I come to the subject of housing I want to deal with two points made in previous speeches. I should like to refer to one remark made yesterday by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. He said:
"if it be the fact that the gravity of the economic crisis has rather receded into the background, think it is partly due to the line that was taken by the Opposition in the Election campaign. They held out glittering prospects and glittering promises."
If it is partly due to those things, I think it was due to a much greater extent to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, who had warned us before the Election campaign took place of the difficulties of our economic situation, were strangely silent about them the moment the Election started. At any rate, if they were "glittering promises," they were glittering only in comparison with the gloom in which we live. One advantage that we had over the Government supporters was that these "glittering promises" did look to the future; they were not just talk about what happened between the wars which, in a way, I think, was rather insulting to the electorate, who want to know from the Parties what they are going to do in the future, and not always to be looking back on the past.
170
I noticed this afternoon that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, concluded his speech by saying that "The Western Allies are resolved to turn their backs on the past." If I may give a little friendly advice—I hope it always is friendly—to the noble Lords opposite, I suggest that they would fight the next Election with more chance of success if they too adopted that motto. There is one other comment which I may perhaps be allowed to make, and that is that I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that one of the remarkable things about the Election is the complete exclusion of Independent Members. Of course, part of that was deliberate. It was quite deliberate that we lost the twelve University Members, and so they went. Therefore, we have not the chance of seeing such people as, for instance, Miss Rathbone, who was completely independent and sat in another place a long time as representative of the Combined Universities.
There was Sir John Anderson, who, it is true, has no Socialist leanings, but at any rate he is an extremely independent-minded person and has always, I believe, refused to join the Conservative Party. The chance of having any of those Independent Members was completely excluded. One of the things that we, the onlookers, were all impressed with was the success of the Socialist Party machine in getting rid of all what we may perhaps call the "cryptos"; they are now all out in the cold. The Communists we are all delighted to see defeated. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, seems to think that that was because we had had a Labour Government. I believe it is the common sense of the British people. It is when we compare oar common sense here with what 'we see in other countries that we realise that the British people are not going to stand for the Communists or for a Communist régime.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, claimed that he had been brought up in a good Liberal school with good Liberal ideas and ideals, and he found that they did not fit into the way in which the Liberal Party of those days were putting them into practice. I wonder how he feels completely at home in the Labour Party, because all those old Liberal ideas and ideals are not at all consonant with the amount of State

171
control and State regimentation, including direction of labour and things of that sort, in which the present Government, which he supports, persist. However, this elimination of the Independent Members from another place has one great advantage. Quite clearly, it adds to the prestige and respect of your Lordships' House, because here we shall be the only place which in future will have these independent persons who, on whichever Bench they sit, can speak out of turn with their leaders, knowing that there will not be a candidate put up against them in their constituency as might happen in another place.
It is the power of the Labour Party machine which brings me naturally to my next topic. I believe it may be the power of that machine in the background that gives the country what I, at any rate, regard as the disadvantage of still having Mr. Aneurin Bevan as Minister of Health—because I am not at all sure that even he, with the Labour Party machine against him, could hold such a loyal constituency as Ebbw Vale. The electors there are quite as likely to be loyal to the machine as to their present representative. But the most extraordinary omission from the gracious Speech, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, is that of any reference to housing. It astounds me. Perhaps the gracious Speech was concocted at the meeting of the Cabinet which the Minister of Health did not attend, or perhaps everybody overlooked it; but it is a most extraordinary thing not to find some mention of housing in the gracious Speech from the Throne.
I am not to-day going to discuss rural housing, because that was mentioned yesterday by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. Nor am I going much into the price of houses. What I want to deal with to-day is why, four and a half years after the end of the war, we should have this frightful shortage, with an increasing waiting list for houses. I hope that the noble Viscount who is to reply, whatever his brief, will be restrained, because he is sitting next to the Leader of the House, from saying that the present Minister of Health has done much better than the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, did just after the First World War. We have heard that on several occasions, and I have always defended
172
the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, because the building industry was not organised then to anything like the same extent as it is to-day. Nor had he at the end of the First World War the same advantage that the Minister of Health had, to my certain knowledge, at the end of the Second World War.
The Coalition Government—and there were a number of us in it—had planned, and had all the plans ready for the prefabricated houses. It was a general effort between us all, although the late Viscount, Lord Portal, was the person directly responsible at the Ministry of Works. Those were all ready, and they account for 157,146 of the houses built since the war. They were all planned and ready to be put into operation. The sites were purchased in advance. Plans had been made by the Services to release on the priority list those men who were skilled in making building materials so that they could get back early to the brickworks and similar places. The Minister of Labour had planned courses for the demobilised men to learn the various building crafts in special training centres. Mr. Ernest Bevin was looking after that side of the matter, and I had something to do with it, because I had to make the feeding arrangements for these hostels when they were first used. So all the preliminary steps had been taken and the present Minister of Health went in on quite a good wicket. In fact, I should fancy that that is what prompted Mr. Ernest Bevin to say at Brentford in the Election of 1945:
"I believe we would build four or five million houses, knock down any amount of wretched slums and rebuild our country in very quick time."
I think that remark was prompted by the preparations he knew we had made.
What has happened? Before the war, we built in 1934 338,000 permanent houses; 344,000 in 1935; 363,000 in 1936; 358,000 in 1937, and 367,000 in 1938. Those are the figures of permanent houses. And now, in the planned programme for this year, we are down to 175,000 houses. Those are actual facts. Another fact is that we have just about the same number of men available. It varies a little from month to month, but, by and large, according to the statistics, about 1,000,000 men are shown to be employed in the building

173
and allied industries. Let us now look at the waiting lists for houses. As other noble Lords were doing, I went round various cities and towns, in Mr. Herbert Morrison's words, "wooing the electors." I always inquired—and perhaps others inquired—about the state of the waiting lists in those towns. The awful thing is that these lists are increasing, and many towns are not keeping up with the marriage rate; that is to say, the marriage rate is higher than the new building rate for the town. May I quote one or two instances? Birmingham has a waiting list of 56,243, and the houses provisionally allocated for this year amount to only 2,000. Two thousand houses only, allocated to a place like Birmingham with a waiting list of 56.000 people! A few more may be built, but if they are not it will take twenty-three years to go through that list. If one thinks of the number of people who are in their thirties now, one realises that some of them by waiting on that list have a very poor chance of ever getting a house.
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not want to stop the noble Lord in his interesting observations, but are the cities he mentioned building up to their previous allocation?
LORD LLEWELLIN: I have the particulars here, but I have not quoted one where I am told that has happened. Coventry, for instance, has its outstanding allocation only. That is the kind of position to which I think the noble Lord is referring. I was not proposing to quote the case of Coventry particularly, because that has not been building up to its allocation. Does that answer the noble Lord? Bradford has 13,522 people on its waiting list, and there is an allocation of 250. Bristol has 18,000 people on the waiting list. They are a little better off, having an allocation of 1,760; so at the current rate it will take them only ten years to get through their waiting list. But ten year; is a long time for a young married couple to wait for a house. Leeds has 22,989 on the waiting list, with a six-months allocation of 300 houses. Sheffield has 26,272, with an allocation of 800 at present, but the number is to be reviewed. Portsmouth has 10,261 on the waiting list and has only 600 houses allotted for this year. My Lords, it is
174
quite heart-rending to think of the number of people who are waiting for their houses. I must say that I could not agree more with the remarks of the most reverend Primate yesterday on this particular matter. He said:
"The hard fact of the position is this: that the slums in England to-day are as had as they were in 1939. In some ways, they are worse. There is overcrowding, there is misery, and I believe that a good deal of this juvenile delinquincy which causes us such anxiety is due to the fact that many of these homes are overcrowded, and anything like paternal discipline is almost impossible."
Yet, with a situation referred to in those terms by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, there is no mention of it at all in this King's Speech.
At an early date in the last Parliament, on November 20, 1946, I called attention to the importance of this matter, as I think the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will remember, and I stressed particularly this need for getting on with the provision of materials. I dealt with the shortage of timber—and I hope that the noble Viscount who is going to reply will not tell me in a kind of Goebbel's fashion (I do not use that expression in any offensive sense) that instead of it now being a question of guns or butter it is a question of timber or food, because I do not believe that that is the case. Everybody realises that timber is a material that is vital now. In 1938, when we were building 367,000 houses, our annual import of softwoods was 1,480,457 standards. There was then no control of the amount of timber one used in a house. In fact, your Lordships will have seen houses built in those days which had timbered fronts. There was certainly more timber used then than there is now. It is true that last year we did not import 1,480,000 standards, but we did import 1,032,302 standards, which is about one-third less than it was in 1938. And yet we can build only 175.000 houses. At least, we ought to build only one-third less than 367,000; we ought to build 245,000. Quite properly, we have now control of the amount of timber that goes into each house because this material is in short supply. Noble Lords will remember that in 1945 2 standards were allotted to each house, and then it was reduced to 1.2; so, taking it by and large, there being no control before the war, we are using only half as much timber in the ordinary type of house

175
about which I am talking now as we were; and, for the life of me, I cannot see why we are not building more houses.
I believe the answer is largely this. Everybody who served in the Army knows that if you get a quartermaster who wants to have his stores full it does not matter to him whether the men have good boots to march in; so long as he has the right number of pairs in his stores, he is quite happy about it. I believe that somewhere, lying about in this country, there is a great deal of timber. Officials of the Timber Control, I think, are keeping a little here, a little more there, all the way down the line, so that they will be able to say: "Look at my store. I have got some timber." Someone has got to drag that timber away from these people. It must be someone in the present Government, for only they have the authority to do it. Now, I would like to ask the noble Viscount this. How is it that in spite of the shortage of houses from which we are suffering new food offices are being built up and down the country? There is, for example, one going up at Guildford. We could do without these places in the war; why do we need to have these new buildings now? Does it mean that despite what I may describe—without offence, I hope, to either—as the very welcome change from the régime of Mr. Strachey and Doctor Edith Summerskill, we are going on with food rationing for ever? I very much hope not.
Here I want to digress for a moment, and to raise a point that, I think, has not yet been brought out in regard to food rationing and the effect of the continuance of food subsidies. Whatever the merits of food subsidies in retarding rises in prices, and so claims for increased wages—that was why they were originally introduced by a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer—they tend to lead to the desire to retain rationing. Let us see what the position is when the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that subsidies must not rise above £460,000,000, as he cannot afford more, and, at the same time, the Minister of Labour is saying: "For heaven's sake do not let us have an increase in the cost-of-living index! If it goes up by more than another couple of points all this non-pressing of wage claims will probably go by the board." A dilemma is created. If
176
more food were made available subsidies would then have to be spread over a larger amount. Either the cost-of-living index would have to go up, or the Chancellor would have to find more out of taxation for the food subsidies. So the tendency is to keep rationing; for otherwise there will be too big a bill for the taxpayer to meet or there will be a rise in the cost of living index. I am not making a particular point about this today, but people ought to have it in their minds. Clearly, that must be the dilemma in which the Government are placed when they do not want to raise the cost-of-living index and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "No more out of the public purse." But that, as I have said, is a digression. Whatever happens, I cannot see why the Government are building these new offices at the present time, when they ought to give priority to the housing of the people.
The other point which I would make —and I am cot going to take up your Lordships' time very much longer—relates to getting in more timber. I raised this matter on November 20, 1946, particularly in b regard to timber from Germany. At that time, Lord Henderson who was replying on behalf of the Government said—I am quoting from Column 256 of Hansard for November 20, 1946–
"We hope for at least 100,000 standards"—
that is from Germany—
"during the first six months of 1947."
In fact, we did not get as much. I had been pressing, as Lord Addison may remember, to get more timber out of Germany. I saw difficulties in getting it from Canada or Newfoundland. There are masses of the right sort of timber in Germany, but in 1947 we obtained only 104,737 standards—although Lord Henderson had said the Government hoped for 100,000 standards during the first six months of the year. In 1948, the figure was down to 78,380 standards and in 1949 it was 88,556 standards. If any people ought to supply us with wood to build houses, surely it is the German people who helped to bomb our houses down. We ought to press for more of this timber out of Germany to help us overcome our material difficulties in the housing situation.
I notice—and these are my concluding words—that the Lord President of the

177
Council, speaking in London on January 29, 1946, in his own inimitable style, used these words:
"The Government will just go bang on housing with all the vigour it can command, and build and build and build until every family has decent accommodation."
If we had had some phrase like that in this otherwise somewhat dull gracious Speech it might have enlivened it quite a lot. Four years have gone by since Mr. Herbert Morrison uttered those words. If this lack of progress, these expanding waiting lists, are the only result of the vigour that the Government can command, I think it is about time they went back and gave place to someone who will build more houses for the people of this country.
5.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, we have now come almost to the end of what I regard as a most interesting debate—particularly that part which has taken place to-day. It has covered a number of subjects, and perhaps it will not be out of place or unusual if I refer first to some of the speeches which have been delivered in the latter part of our proceedings this afternoon before I deal with some of the earlier ones. I should particularly like to mention the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, which dealt with a very important question. It was a question which was raised earlier in the debate and on which a reply was given by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, as Lord Tovey rightly said, knows his subject, and he dealt with it in a very clear, forceful and interesting manner. I would like to join in the congratulations which were extended to him by Lord Tovey.
Then there was the interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. He spoke on a subject which was dealt with yesterday by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—that is the question of agriculture—and he also mentioned the rising feeling on the question of some kind of Home Rule for Scotland. He is not alone in having to deal with that problem; the same question has been raised in my own country of Wales. I will certainly convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland the points which he has made. I was also interested in the speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tovey, who raised the question of
178
compulsory church attendance in the Services. Noble Lords will remember that the discontinuance of compulsory church attendance was made some four or five years ago under great pressure from Service men themselves. Whilst I share much of the noble Lord's apprehension about this matter, I should like to tell hint that the situation is not so gloomy as he suggested and that so far as the Royal Navy is concerned there is a slight improvement.
I come to the main questions which have been raised in the course of this debate. When we listened to the Conservative speeches and read them in the Press, we could not get away from the Election. I think what has really happened should be made quite clear. After four years of Tory campaign in the Press and on the platform, in which every disgruntlement and grudge has been exploited and little recognition has been given to the difficulties with which the nation was faced, after an unprecedented amount of money has been used, not only by the Conservatives but by some trading concerns, and after the many lavish promises made by the Tory leaders during the Election, the Labour Party came through and have gained substantially. They have certainly not lost the Election. To the Labour Party has been given the largest vote that has ever been given to any political Party in this country.
The three major political Parties submitted their programmes to the people, and if it is said that Socialism is defeated, what has happened to the Tory programme, in view of the fact that the Labour Party have received votes far in excess of the Tory Party? And what has happened to the Liberal programme? I am not in any way disparaging the efforts of the Liberal Party, because they worked very hard on this occasion, but it was hardly noticed. It can he said that rarely in democratic history have a Government elected immediately after a war retained their position so solidly after a period of five years. The Coalition Government of 1918 had a much easier task confronting them than that which faced the Labour Government of 1945. As everyone knows, their collapse in 1922 brought little credit either to those in that Government or to our political history. Nothing of that kind has occurred after the Second World

179
War. The Labour Government have emerged from their great testing period stronger and more united than ever, with a great record of work and legislation behind them. It is true that the Election has left a situation which is awkward, but it would he fantastic for any person or Party to imagine that the result of the Election in any way indicates that the country has turned its back on the Government who have so successfully brought the nation through its most difficult post-war period. We can say that the 13,500,000 electors who resisted the campaigns of the other Parties have decided that Labour rule is much preferable to the return of Tory rule.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his interesting speech yesterday, referred to the increase in the Conservative poll as compared with 1935. For some reason or other he made no mention of the substantial increase in the poll of the Labour Party. From 1935 to 1950 the poll of the Conservative Party increased from 11,750,000 to 12,500,000, an increase of 750,000. But from 1935 to 1950 the poll of the Labour Party increased from 8,325,000 to 13,248,000, an increase of very nearly 5,000,000. I can understand the noble Viscount being somewhat concerned about the growing strength of these two political Parties. If the increase during the next five or ten years is as marked as has been the increase of the Labour poll during the last fifteen years, I have no doubt at all what the result is likely to be.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I did not refer to the Labour Party because I was not then engaged in any general survey of the movement of the polls in those three Elections. I was pointing out the fact that the Conservative poll had fallen very largely from 1939 to 1945, and then recovered itself, and that the main feature of this Election was that the Conservative Party had mobilised their reserves, which had been demobilised in the previous Election. If I had been making a general comparison, I should certainly have referred to the Labour Party. My comparison was between 1945 and 1950, and I brought in the earlier date merely in order to make my point.
VISCOUNT HALL: The noble Viscount did not mention anything of that in the
180
course of his remarks. He simply referred to the size of the poll of the Conservative Party in 1935 and 1950.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I said why I was dealing with them.
VISCOUNT HALL: 1945 was not mentioned.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Certainly, it was.
VISCOUNT HALL: I think it can be said that as a result of this Election there are now very few safe Conservative seats. The strongholds are held mainly by the Labour Party. Let me give a few figures. There are forty-two Labour members who had a majority of over 20,000 each, compared with only ten Tory Members with such a majority. There are 135 constituencies where Labour had a majority of over 10,000, and only 94 where the Conservatives had a similar majority. I do not think the Conservatives have very much to shout about as a result of the Election.
It was to be expected that the question of nationalisation would take a prominent part in this debate, and particularly the nationalisation of steel. It was again raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I shall not deal with the matter very fully in my reply, because it has already been dealt with—perhaps not to the satisfaction of the noble Viscount, or members of his Party either in your Lordships' House or in another place—by the Leader of the Liberal Party, who put the matter in its proper perspective when he asked whether it was pertinent to raise the matter at the present time. It is evident that the Conservatives have some strong reason for raising this question. We no longer have a Steel Bill: the Act of Parliament to nationalise steel has been passed—there can be no question at all about that. The agreement entered into is well-known, not only to noble Lords opposite but to all those who took part in the debate in this House. There is some time yet to decide what the action of the Government is likely to be, but there is no question at all about the opinion on this question of steel nationalisation of those mainly concerned in the production of steel.
My noble Leader, in the course of his speech yesterday, referred to the great majorities given to Labour candidates

181
who fought in what might be regarded as the great steel centres, whether it was Sheffield, Middlesbrough, Kettering, or any of the South Wales or Scottish seats. Indeed, two Members who left the Labour Party because of the introduction of the Steel Bill fought steel constituencies, and were heavily defeated. The same thing can be said in relation to other centres of nationalised industries. Some time ago I heard a remark made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, as to the dissatisfaction of large numbers of men who were employed in the nationalised industries of this country. The reply has now been given, because in every mining area of this country the Labour majorities are larger than ever before. In one mining constituency where the Member had the largest majority of anyone in the country, I saw it suggested (I have not checked the figure) that he received 90 per cent. of the votes recorded. The same thing can be said of the railway centres, whether it be Crewe, Derby or Swindon. When we come to the great cement centre of Gravesend, there a Labour Member was returned. All of those areas registered their complete confidence in His Majesty's Government's policy.
In a debate of this kind the economic position must come under review. I wish noble Lords opposite would indicate a much greater appreciation of the difficulties which confronted the Labour Government when they took office in 1945. I remember a statement which was attributed to the Leader of the Opposition in another place by an American columnist. He said that he had interviewed Mr. Churchill, who had pointed out how difficult it was going to be for him to have to face the House of Commons (this was just before the 1945 Election) and indicate to those men and women who had served in the Services the kind of country to which they were coming back. It was not a question of "Homes for heroes." He said that the peace-time output of this country was only about 30 or 40 per cent. of what it was in pre-war days; that our export trade was less than half of what it was; that the nation was bankrupt; that we had sold large amounts of our overseas securities and built up sterling balances in the Commonwealth and other countries; and that one half of our merchant fleet had been sunk. That was the situation with
182
which the Government was then confronted. I think it can be said that no Government in peace time was ever faced with greater difficulties than was the Labour Government. In addition to the difficulties of production, no fewer than 8,000,000 persons—those serving in the Services, and those producing equipment for the Services—had to be transferred from the jobs they were then doing into peace-time jobs. That was done with scarcely a hitch.
What is the position to-day? After less than five years, faced with all those difficulties, and handling that difficult economic situation, we have built up the production of steel in this country, as a result of the efforts of those who are employed and those in charge of the industries, to about one-third above what it was in 1938. Whether it is under private enterprise, or whether it is a nationalised industry, here are the results of the efforts of management, technicians and the people employed Men who have faced difficulties such as they and the Government have had to face are capable of facing almost any difficulty likely to arise in future. This applies not only in relation to production for our own use. The volume of our exports is about half as great again as in 1938 (I am giving the 1949 figures) and one-tenth greater than in 1948. The total of exports and re-exports for the year 1949 was no less than £1,840,000.000. About 44 per cent. of our exports and re-exports went to the sterling area, 22 per cent. to Western Europe, and one-tenth to the dollar area. The Colonies and Commonwealth countries were our largest single markets.
Very few suggestions lave come from noble Lords opposite in regard to increased production, with the exception of the suggestion that we should drop nationalisation, or in the talk about incentives. I was rather pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, raised this question to-day, and also that the matter was raised by my noble friends Lord Crook and Lord Williams. As the noble Viscount rightly said, the use of incentives is not a new method in our industrial concerns in this country.
Some of us worked under incentives fifty years ago. As a matter of fact, when I did some useful work the whole of my time was spent on a basis of piece work—payment by results. I would not

183
work under any other system. There have been many changes in the method of production in this country—in the mining industry, in the agricultural industry, in the engineering industry and in almost every other industry—and it means that the method of incentive or the form which it has to take—the measurement or the yardstick which must be applied—has also to be changed. The trade unions, the workpeople and the employers in this country have been well aware of the advantages of incentives of this kind, but that does not mean that we ought not to continue to press for it in those industries where it does not exist. It can be said that both the managements and the trade unions are doing everything possible to deal with this very important matter. Indeed, the Trades Union Congress General Council endorsed a policy which was agreed by all the affiliated unions—this was only two or three months ago—and which recommended that a review should be made within each industry with a view to extending systems of payment by results over the widest possible field.
In the course of his speech, the noble Viscount to-day referred to the question of taxation. This was a plank in the Election programme of the Conservative Party, and the matter was stressed very forcibly. The Government and the Trades Union Congress are fully aware of what is required in this matter, and, indeed, much has been done. Allowances were given in the 1948 Budget which were of considerable assistance in connection with tax upon overtime and, indeed, tax upon wages generally. I do not want to spend too much time upon this question, but let me give one or two instances. As a result of the allowances and reductions which were brought about in 1948, a single man earning £6 a week, with £1 a week overtime, now pays 4s. 10d. on his £1 a week overtime, when he earns it.
LORD HAWKE: Suppose he is a single miner earning £15 a week, what would be the amount of tax he would pay?
VISCOUNT HALL: A single miner earning £15 a week does not object very much to the payment of tax. I could not give you the exact figure but he could not
184
complain any more than anyone else who is earning £15 a week. I thought we were concerned mainly about the lower-paid men. I think I am in as close touch with miners and industrial workers as the noble Lord. I am not suggesting that they do not complain. Let us see what the result of income tax is. A married man with a wife and one child can earn up to £6 a week before becoming liable to any tax at all, and a married man with three children can earn £8 a week before becoming liable. Even if he is earning £10 a week, he pays only 3d. in the pound income tax, or 2s. 6d. per week. Where is this complaint that it is because of income tax that these men are not prepared to work overtime? Really it is an exaggeration of something that does not altogether exist.
The noble Viscount just touched upon the question of devaluation. At this stage I see little benefit in going over the history of this subject. The reasons which led us to accept devaluation were fully explained—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Viscount will bear me out that I did not go over the past history at all. The whole of my remarks concerning devaluation related to constructive measures which ought to be taken to hold and then appreciate the value of the pound.
VISCOUNT HALL: I entirely agree. I myself did not want to go over past history. I am going just to touch upon it; the noble Viscount will realise that one can do only that in a debate of this kind. Of course, the full effects on our trade, our exports and imports and on prices are not even yet apparent. Nevertheless, on the most difficult and dangerous part of our economic problem, the dollar gap, the immediate and admittedly short-term benefits have been striking and very much in our favour. I do not want to suggest in any way that in this matter we are out of the wood. We have a hard task before us in ordering our affairs so that we can live without special external aid. But we must not underestimate the progress we have already made towards achieving our aims.
I want to turn now to the speech which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in his most genial manner. I really thought he was going to complete the introduction of his speech by endeavouring to urge my colleagues and myself

185
to bring into your Lordships' House all the Independents who were defeated at the last Election. Perhaps he would make distinctions, but he seemed to be so benevolent! He, together with the right reverend Primate, have given the House strong arguments and, indeed, have said strong things in connection with the housing situation. There, again, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, fully appreciated all the difficulties with which the Government are confronted. It he looks into this matter quite impartially, as he always does, I think he will be bound to admit that a considerable amount of work has been done.
I am not going to refer at length to the past, but let us just deal with the last four and a half years. In the last four and a half years no fewer than 1,120,292 homes have been provided for the people of this country. Of that number, no fewer than 790,000 are newly built houses or flats. May I compare that with what happened in the first four years after the First World War? It was not only my noble friend who was responsible; he had a Government behind him who really controlled his actions. But that Government built 320,000 houses. In four and a half years we have prodded homes for four times as many people as the Coalition Government did from 1918–
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: There were not the same number of homes destroyed in the first war.
VISCOUNT HALL: That is quite true; that is what I am corning to. The figure of 1,120,000 includes, of course, the repair of a Very large number of those houses which were damaged, and buildings on sites of those which were destroyed. And this brings me to the point that it was not only a question of building houses; it was a question of repairing damaged houses—and not only houses but buildings of all kinds which were damaged and which had to be repaired. I think it can he said that there was almost as much labour (possibly more) and almost as much material used for the repair of dwellings and buildings of all kinds as for the building of new houses.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, also referred to the waiting lists. We all regret that there are these waiting lists. They are very formidable lists. What we have
186
found during the last four and a half years (and I am not using this as an argument as to why more houses were not built) is that more people want houses. Incomes have increased; and instead of "doubling up" in houses—that is to say, sons and daughters living with their parents—these young people now require—quite rightly: no one is complaining—homes of their own. In former days, they could not afford it. If you were to go into the mining areas in those days you would find that people there, when they first married, could not afford to live in anything but two rooms. Nowadays persons have their names placed on waiting lists twelve and eighteen months before they intend to marry; and local authorities have to make a very close scrutiny when houses become available as to the persons to whom those houses should be let. I must say that there is no complacency, and indeed no room for complacency, by His Majesty's Government in connection with this great housing problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, also referred to difficulties in relation to timber, and before I leave this matter of building I ought to refer to some other aspects of the subject. Nearly every sphere of our social and industrial life required some repair to buildings or some new buildings. His Majesty's Government have been very concerned about oil refineries, new generating stations, schools, hospitals and factories in development areas—and even, it may be, an occasional food office.
LORD HAWKE: Arid British Council offices.
VISCOUNT HALL: It may be. But they have released buildings which they had occupied for some time. I cannot see any difference between building new houses and building good offices which the Food Ministry can use for their purposes, at the same time releasing accommodation for the people to live in—unless of course it is done on an excessive scale. There has been a shortage of material. There is a scarcity of timber I accept the figures which the noble Lord gave of imports of timber from Germany. It is not only a question of obtaining it on the spot, and there have been difficulties in connection with transport. I can assure the noble Lord and the House that His Majesty's Government are giving the

187
housing problem priority among all the problems with which they have to deal.
My noble friend the Leader of the House undertook that I should say something on the question of rural housing in reply to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who has informed me that it will be impossible for him to be here this evening. The noble Earl will be pleased to know that permanent houses completed, including houses built privately, in rural areas number 120,900. Those under consideration at present number 33,000, and tenders approved add a further 163,000. We are hoping for a further large number of completions in the course of a short time. The noble Earl particularly referred to the very important matter of rent adjustments, and called attention to the difficulties which arose in connection with numbers of the agricultural workers living in council houses with very high rents. The attention of the Minister is being directed to this point.
I am afraid that I have taken up a considerable amount of your Lordships' time in dealing with this matter. I would conclude by asking that some appreciation—though I know that one does not expect much appreciation in politics—may be given to His Majesty's Government; for after all they have carried this country through one of its most difficult peacetime periods to a point where, generally speaking, the people of this country are healthier, better and happier than they have been for a long time.
LORD WOLVERTON: Would the noble Viscount deal with the all-important question of the rural water supply, which
188
was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Portman? It is of the utmost importance in the part of the country in which I live—namely, East Anglia.
VISCOUNT HALL: The noble Earl was good enough to say that as he had produced a large number of details in connection with this matter he would not expect a reply to-day. But I had intended drawing the attention of the Minister of Health to the points put by the noble Earl, and this I will certainly do.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
6.38 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to midwives; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read la; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before we adjourn, may I make the intimation that there will be no Sitting of your Lordships' House to-morrow?
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before seven o'clock.