Sitting of 27 February 1951

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
SHEFFIELD EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Rural Houses (Reconstruction)
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions have been recently imposed on the issue of permits for the reconstruction of rural cottages.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): Because of restrictions on capital investment, local authorities have been asked to limit the licensing of work for the repair, conversion or improvement of existing dwellings in general to about 80 per cent. of the amount licensed in 1949. No special restriction has been placed on the reconstruction of rural cottages.
    Captain Duncan: Is it not a fact that the allocation to the county councils is 80 per cent. for housing and reconditioning? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, in view of the urgent necessity for reconditioned houses if he wants to carry out the agricultural expansion programme?
    Mr. Fraser: This 80 per cent. does not refer to new housing as such. It refers only to housing improvements, repairs, reconstruction and so on.
    Commander Galbraith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the licensing authorities find, as a result of their experience,
    1882
    that the imposition of a strict financial limit beyond which they are unable to issue licences operates to restrict the work of reconstruction, even where labour and materials are available? Will he be good enough to look into the matter and, if he finds the complaint to be well-founded, will he take remedial action?
    Mr. Fraser: In special cases we have already done so.
    Captain Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some counties, like the county of Angus, the effect of this will be materially to reduce the amount of reconstruction of rural cottages, which will have a deleterious effect on the agricultural expansion programme of his own Government?
    Mr. Fraser: This is the policy which was pursued last year, and I am not aware that there is very great resistance to it.

    Tuberculosis (Swiss Treatment)
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the provision of beds in Swiss sanatoria for Scottish tuberculosis patients.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): Exploratory discussions are now proceeding with the authorities of certain Swiss sanatoria as to the charges they would make for the treatment of patients from this country. These discussions will be concluded shortly and I hope it will then be possible for the Government to reach a final decision.
    Mr. Stewart: May we understand that the 300 beds available in Switzerland will still be made available for Scottish tuberculosis patients?
    Miss Herbison: At this point I could not give a definite answer to that question.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Has the hon. Lady seen the strong recommendation in favour of this course by the medical officer of health for Glasgow?
    Miss Herbison: The very fact that the Department and the Secretary of State have been carrying out these exploratory

    1883
    steps shows very clearly that we are fully aware of the use to which these beds might be put.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand that the hon. Lady has been vigorously exploring these things, but surely it would be as well now to come to some decision.

    Hospital Boards' Accounts
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Summarised Accounts of Regional Hospital Boards, etc., H.C. No. 54, for the year ended 31st March, 1950, presented to Parliament on 13th December, contents of which have already been made available to the Press, is not yet available to hon. Members of this House.
    Miss Herbison: The summarised accounts of the regional hospital boards are presented to Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in accordance with the Statute and will, I understand, be published to morrow. The recent Press publicity related to a memorandum issued by my Department to regional hospital boards for administrative purposes.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is it desirable and in accordance with precedent to issue a précis of the contents of these reports before they are at any rate on the point of being published? Has there not been an extraordinarily long delay?
    Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong when he says that this memorandum was a précis of the report, which will be before Parliament tomorrow. It is true that certain of the facts were contained in what was issued, but it certainly was not a précis of tomorrow's publication.

    Housing, Highlands
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the 1,887 houses built in the Highlands in 1950, were burghal; how many landward; and how many were in connection with land settlement.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The latest information shows that 1,894 houses were built in the Highlands in 1950. Of these 809 were in burghs and 1,085 in landward areas. Three of the landward houses were in connection with land settlement.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Has there been any attempt to implement the recommendations of the Land Settlement Report made at the end of the late war, and does the Minister intend to take any further steps in this matter?
    Mr. Fraser: We have not yet decided to launch any large-scale land settlement scheme. We have rather been playing it down, for reasons which are well known to the noble Lord, since the end of the war.
    Commander Galbraith: What percentage of the total demand in the Highlands area do these 1,894 houses represent?
    Mr. Fraser: I could not say offhand, but the demand has been more adequately met since the war than it was before.
    Brigadier Medlicott: May we have a translation of the terms "burghal" and "landward," for the benefit of the English Members?

    Air-Raid Shelters
    Mr. J. N. Browneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy with regard to the retention of air-raid shelters in thickly-populated areas, especially those in back courts.
    Miss Herbison: The policy of His Majesty's Government is that existing shelters should be retained for the time being.
    Mr. Browne: Is the Minister aware that in Govan, at least, the shelters are dirty, damaged and insanitary and are used for purposes other than that for which they were intended? Can she please take steps to ensure that if these shelters have to be retained, they should be closed to public entry?
    Miss Herbison: Glasgow Corporation have already had authority, in the first place, to brick up these shelters, which were a danger to public health. Since then they have been given full authority to brick up every shelter in Glasgow.

    Potatoes and Sugar Beet
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what quantities of potatoes and sugar beet were lost in Scotland last year through lack of labour.
    Mr. T. Fraser: According to my information, none, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the statements made by one of the convenors of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland that large quantities of potatoes have been lost through lack of labour?
    Mr. Fraser: I am aware of the statement but I am not aware of the foundations for it.
    Mr. Snadden: Can the Minister give any indication whether the potato acreage for this year is to be kept up?

    Re-armament Work, Highlands and Islands
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to obtain a share of re-armament work for the Highland area and particularly for Shetland, where unemployment remains high.
    Miss Herbison: My right hon. Friend is in close touch with his colleagues in the Defence and Production Departments regarding the placing of re-armament work in Scotland, including the Highlands and Islands.
    Mr. Grimond: Would the Minister bear in mind two points; first, that possibly some sub-contracting might be done in the area and secondly, that certain raw materials, such as iron ore, might be economically worked in the present situation?
    Miss Herbison: I can assure the hon. Member that all these points are very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of the maximum distribution of industry, particularly at this time, as it will show people that the Highlands are playing their full part in the country's defence programme?
    Miss Herbison: It is not only at this time that this Government have known of the importance of those matters.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Have the Government not been long enough in office to make a contribution of their own?

    Poultry Feedingstuffs
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to allow a greater distribution of poultry feedingstuffs and, in particular, to relax the restrictions on the supply of feedingstuffs for those wishing to set up poultry farms.
    Mr. T. Fraser: No, Sir. Until the feedingstuffs supply position is more assured. I am afraid that no improvement in ration issues is possible; nor can any modification be made of the terms under which newcomers to the industry may receive rations.
    Mr. Grimond: Does not the Minister think, now that the currency position is better, that we could make a bigger distribution?
    Mr. Fraser: I am afraid that is a matter which goes beyond this Question.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: Is it not more desirable to send feedingstuffs to Orkney and Shetland than to Gambia?

    Finance and Trade Statistics (Committee)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Committee presently investigating the financial relationship between England and Scotland is likely to complete its report.
    Miss Herbison: The Committee on Scottish Financial and Trade Statistics has been meeting regularly and I understand that it is making good progress. I am not yet able to say when its report will be ready.
    Mr. Grimond: Is there any hope that we may have the report before the Budget may I ask?
    Miss Herbison: None at all.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Has there been any change in the personnel of this committee, since other appointments have more recently been made?
    Miss Herbison: That is another question.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Can the hon. Lady assure the House that the committee will leave no stone unturned?

    Timber (Felling Licences)
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time that elapses between the date of an application for a licence for felling timber and the actual issue of the licence by the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. T. Fraser: It would be impossible to state the average time taken without re-examining over 8,600 licences issued in the last year. However, where an inspection is unnecessary the licence is normally issued in about one week. Where an inspection is necessary, and no complications arise, the time taken is normally about four weeks.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Children's Allowance
    Captain Ryderasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in His Majesty's Stationery Office pamphlet, Pay in the Regular Army, under the title, Marriage Allowance, the reference to an additional 5s. children's allowance is misleading, as this allowance is not, in fact, additional to the normal statutory allowance; and if he will make this clear in future editions.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for calling my attention to this point. The wording of the pamphlet will he changed in future editions.

    R.A.S.C. Launch (Loss)
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances the Royal Army Service Corps' general service launch "Cassandra" was lost in the Bristol Channel on 30th January, 1951, while in tow of the Royal Army Service Corps' vessel "Sir W. Campbell"; whether a crew were on board the "Cassandra" at the time of the mishap; and what was the financial loss incurred.
    Mr. Strachey: The "Cassandra" was being towed by the Royal Army Service Corps' vessel "Sir W. Campbell" from Falmouth to Menai Bridge. The weather deteriorated and the master of the towing vessel attempted to make for sheltered waters. Unfortunately, the "Cassandra" sank before these could be reached. There was no crew on board at the time of the
    1888
    mishap. The estimated financial loss is some £400.
    Mr. Wilson: Does not the Secretary of State agree that this vessel had been in Falmouth for a considerable time? If it could not have been repaired locally, could it not have been taken under tow at a more favourable time of the year than the middle of January?
    Mr. Strachey: I suppose that the authorities miscalculated the weather conditions. That might happen.

    Recalled Officers (Clothing)
    Mr. Llewellynasked the Secretary of State for War (1) what uniform, other than outer clothing, will be issued to officers called up under Class Z Reserve who have no uniform; and at whose expense;
    (2) whether he will publish a list of outer clothing which will be issued to Class Z officers on recall.
    Mr. Strachey: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of articles which will be issued free on loan to officers who are recalled for training and do not provide their own uniform.
    Following is the list:

    Item and Quantity to be provided by Army if nor brought by Reservists—

    Badges, cap

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Titles

    …

    …

    …

    1 pair

    Bags, kit

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Jerseys, pullover

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Shirts, flannel

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Socks

    …

    …

    …

    2 pairs

    Ties, khaki

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Towels

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Boots

    …

    …

    …

    1 pair

    Greatcoat

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Beret (blue or khaki)

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Anklets

    …

    …

    …

    1 pair

    Battledress blouse

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Battledress trousers

    …

    …

    …

    1 pair

    Denim blouse

    …

    …

    …

    1

    Denim trousers

    …

    …

    …

    1 pair

    Notes:—

    1. Knife, fork and spoon will also be provided.

    2. Cartons for the storing of civilian clothes can be provided by the Army, but reservists are advised to bring their own suitcases for this purpose.

    3. Badges of rank/chevrons (both for officers and other ranks), if not brought will be issued on loan for the period of training.

    4. The following articles will not be provided and should be brought as required by all personnel:—underclothing, pyjamas, toilet articles, braces and medal ribbons.

    Class Z Reservists (Call-up)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for War what additional demands on land for training areas during the coming training season will be made as a result of the intended call-up of Class Z reservists.
    Mr. Strachey: It is not envisaged that the call-up of Z reservists will necessitate the use of any large areas of land not now used for training, except as provided in Command Paper 7278, but some acceleration in the use of land provided for in that Paper may be necessary.
    Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the interests of agriculture, so that anyone whose land is to be used for training will have the maximum possible notice? In his reply the right hon. Gentleman spoke of large areas. I did not ask about large areas but about additional areas.
    Mr. Strachey: I do not think that it will be a large problem. The Class Z reservists who are concerned are going to Territorial camps, and it will only be a larger number of men who will be training in those same camps.
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the forms of application for marriage allowance now being sent to Class Z reservist officers about to be called up have to be countersigned by the officer's commanding officer; that this may mean that the marriage allowance may not be paid while the officer is in service; and whether he will accept the countersignature of other responsible persons so that the application form can be sent in well before the officer is called for service.
    Mr. Strachey: The "notice to join" which will be issued to recalled officers about two months before they are required to report for duty will make it clear that despite the wording of the marriage allowance application forms, no countersignature will be required.

    Young Married' Officers
    Mr. G. P. Stevensasked the Secretary of State for War if he will so amend King's Regulations that the wife of a soldier who marries after the age of 21 and is commissioned before the age of 25 will be eligible to travel with her husband at public expense in the event of his being posted overseas.
    Mr. Strachey: No financial inducement is given to an officer to marry under the age of 25. If he does so, he receives the rate of marriage allowance appropriate to a warrant officer, but no other married benefits. If a married soldier is appointed to a commission below the age of 25, I think it is equitable that he should be required to conform to the rules which apply to officers generally in the circumstances which the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Stevens: Will not the loss of that privilege act as a disincentive to a keen soldier obtaining commissioned rank?
    Mr. Strachey: That is a wider question—whether the inducements to marriage, if we can call them so, should apply to officers under 25. That has been very carefully considered and the age limit of 25 has been chosen.

    Courts-Martial
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the inaccuracy of some Press reports of general courts-martial, he will, in the public interest, as soon as judgment has been pronounced, publish either the summing-up of the Judge Advocate or a statement of the charges and a summary of the evidence.
    Mr. Strachey: The proceedings of all courts-martial, including the summing-up of the Judge Advocate, take place normally in open court and are therefore available to the public and the Press who attend the hearing.
    Mr. Keeling: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect on discipline, on recruiting and on public opinion when misleading Press statements are made, as in the recent Linsell case, which suggested that the accused fired the fatal shot while on duty on ordinary sentry-go? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to do anything to counteract that tendency?
    Mr. Strachey: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member's intention, but I rather doubt whether the publication of the necessarily lengthy proceedings of courts-martial—they are very difficult to summarise, and it may be unfair to do so —would serve that purpose. What I am sure matters is that the Press should publish full and balanced accounts. I am, sure they try to do so.
    Mr. Soames: Is it not a fact that many erroneous reports which appear in the Press are brought about by insufficient information being handed out by public relations officers? Will he ensure that those officers are instructed to give to the Press the fullest information about courts-martial?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not think that we can hand out our views of a case, even after it has taken place. All we can do is to see that the Press have access to report the case.
    General Sir George Jeffreys: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that a court-martial is an open court, surely there cannot be any objection to publishing at least a summary of the charges, possibly the summing-up of the Judge Advocate and perhaps a summary of the evidence so that it would be available to the public and there would be no excuse for any newspaper omitting or concentrating upon any part of it?
    Mr. Strachey: Again, I strongly sympathise with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intention, but all these things are public in the sense that they take place in open court and are fully accessible to the Press.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that similar inaccuracies arise in the course of the reports of ordinary legal proceedings and that it is a very dangerous step indeed to try to give to the Press information which they can perfectly well collect for themselves?

    Stores (Auction)
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Secretary of State for War why material, plant and equipment capable of being used in the present defence expansion programme for the equipment of camps and the training of troops is being offered for sale by public auction on 21st February at the Command Engineers Depot, Canterbury.
    Mr. Strachey: The majority of these stores were unserviceable. The remainder were of obsolete pattern and were no longer of use.
    Mr. Baker White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that included in the sale were 1,300 gallons of wood preservative, 9,000 lb. of paint, 35 gallons of varnish. 800 quires of target paper and
    1892
    230 targets? Does he not think that it is a waste of the taxpayers' money to sell things which are serviceable and useful?
    Mr. Strachey: In the judgment of the competent authorities, they were not serviceable and useful.

    Regular Commissions
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many Regular commissions were granted in 1950 and how many in 1949; what number of new Regular officers each year was necessary for the size of the Army contemplated in 1949; and what number is necessary to the size of the Army now contemplated.
    Mr. Strachey: In the calendar year 1949, 1,057 Regular commissions were granted. The comparable figure for 1950, taking into account alterations in the terms at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, was 792. To maintain the present establishment of Regular officers, an intake of 714 is required. The total Regular officer establishment, which is not necessarily proportionate to the size of the active Army, is now under examination. These figures do not include officers for such corps as the Royal Army Medical Corps, who are recruited from special sources.
    Mr. Low: As the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter personally, will he tell the House if he has yet reached any conclusion about the present rates of pay for officers?
    Mr. Strachey: That is another question, but of course, the rates of pay for officers have just been increased.
    Brigadier Head: Will the Secretary of State say whether the present intake of officers into the Royal Military Academy covers the increased numbers which will be leaving when the 18 months' retention expires at the end of the year?
    Mr. Strachey: That question is linked with that of whether or not it is right to revise the Regular establishment for officers, and that is under examination. I do not want to anticipate the conclusion of that examination, but it is probable that we shall want an increased intake of Regular officers.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: When he is reviewing the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that, when they join up, a large number of people with academic qualifications are either made into clerks or sent to the Army Educational Corps? Would it not be better if a higher proportion went to the fighting units in order to provide officers?
    Mr. Low: When the right hon. Gentleman says that it is another question, will he bear in mind that in his own memorandum he has expressly linked the two things together in the paragraph about the point that pay especially affects the matter?
    Mr. Strachey: Of course, pay affects the number of Regular recruits, officers or men.
    Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War what approaches he has made to headmasters of grammar schools and public schools in view of the comparative dearth of candidates of high quality for Regular commissions; and what advice he has had from them.
    Mr. Strachey: A personal letter is sent from the War Office to headmasters of all public schools and grammar schools three or four times a year. Headmasters are reminded of the advent of the Army entrance examination and are invited to see the selection procedure at a War Office Selection Board or the Regular Commissions Board at first hand. They are also asked whether they would like an officer to talk on the Army to the senior boys at the school. A representative cross-section of the schools is being circularised in order to obtain the views of parents, boys and schoolmasters about the Army as a career.
    Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House when he has the result of the circular?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that some weeks ago a very high military authority went into a high school in Birmingham to speak and stipulated that neither governors nor women should be present? Will he discourage that sort of attempt to introduce propaganda into schools?
    Mr. Strachey: The purpose of the visit was to draw the attention of both boys and masters to the Army as a career. I do not think that could be described as propaganda.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) was the sole dissenter and that the remainder of the persons consulted were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal?
    Mr. Hamilton: What evidence has my right hon. Friend that candidates of high quality are found exclusively in grammar schools and public schools? Might not a more fertile ground be Dartmoor?
    Later—
    Mr. Yates: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On Question 26, I put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for War in regard to the visit of a high military authority to a school in Birmingham to speak to the boys on Service conditions. The hon. Member for Kidderminister (Mr. Nabarro) made what appeared to me to be a personal reflection upon me by stating that I was the sole dissenting governor of the school. I want to say that that is quite untrue. In my presence, the hon. Member made a statement that I tried to keep Lord Montgomery out. I say that that is quite untrue, and an unfair reflection upon me. I say it is quite untrue that I objected to a Ministry official being present, because I was anxious to be there myself to hear him. Therefore, I think it is quite unfair that a statement like that should be made. I think the hon. Member ought in fairness to withdraw that accusation.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made his explanation. We cannot have these personalities flung across the Floor of the House, and I think we had better leave it at that for the moment.

    General Stores (Sale)
    Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War what general stores have been sold by his Department or with his Department's authority during the current financial year; and what general stores he has estimated in Vote 7 Z (2) will be so sold during the next financial year.
    Mr. Strachey: It is estimated that the value of general stores sold by my Department in the current financial year will be £1,075,000 and in the following year £950,000. The value of stores declared surplus by the War Department which have been sold by other Government Departments during these years is not readily available.
    Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman justified in selling the vast amount of stores represented by the £1 million at a time when he must really want everything on which he can lay his hands?
    Mr. Strachey: I have confidence in the Quartermaster-General and his Department to retain all the stores for which they have good use.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this very seriously? We are getting disturbing reports about the amount of stuff which is being sold, including some which is not surplus to establishment.

    Stores Depot, Kenya
    Mr. Julian Ameryasked the Secretary of State for War how much money was spent on building up the military base at Mackinnon Road, Kenya, which has now been abandoned.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) on 22nd November, 1950.

    Prisoners of War, Korea
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War what information he has about the existence, location and condition of the 61 British prisoners of war taken in Korea.
    Mr. Strachey: The belief that seven British officers and 83 other ranks are prisoners of war in enemy hands is based on information disclosed by five British soldiers who were recently released by the enemy. I am awaiting further details from the same source regarding the location and condition of these prisoners of war.
    Mr. Keeling: Has the right hon. Gentleman got the names, and can he explain how the number has risen from 61, which was the figure given last week by the Minister of Defence, to 90?
    Mr. Strachey: These are simply reports from the five men who have come back. We are investigating them very carefully and shall, of course, publish them and let the next-of-kin know as soon as we are sure of our information, but we have to make very careful inquiries before making any statement.
    Mr. Keeling: What about the increase in number from last week?
    Mr. Strachey: We now believe, again from the same source, that these additional numbers have been seen in enemy hands.
    Mr. Gammans: Has the right hon. Gentleman any news of the additional men who are missing but who are not officially reported as prisoners of war?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.
    Mr. Duncan Sandys: Has the right hon. Gentleman still received no information whatsoever from the enemy side?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. Efforts are continuing on the part of the International Red Cross, who are unremitting in their efforts, but I cannot claim that they have made any real progress.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is this country making efforts on its own, or must all efforts on behalf of the prisoners be made through the United Nations or the Unified Command?
    Mr. Strachey: They have been done by the International Red Cross, which I think has much the best chance of getting in touch.

    Troops, Korea
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will visit the British troops in Korea.
    Mr. Strachey: This suggestion will be considered; but all three Services are involved in Korea. The matter will be kept under review in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Keeling: Does the Secretary of State agree that a visit from him would be more valuable and that his vote here would be no more indispensable than the vote of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg)?
    Mr. Braine: In view of the intense interest shown by hon. Members on all sides of the House in the welfare of our troops in Korea, would the right hon. Gentleman consider drawing a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House to accompany him when he goes there?
    Mr. Speaker: This Question deals only with the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Keenan: Can I ask the hon. Gentleman who raised the Question whether he is prepared to go with the Minister when the occasion arises?
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for a party of journalists and trade unionists out of industry to visit the 29th Brigade in Korea to ask the men questions and meet them away from any official sources, and issue a report on their visit.
    Mr. Strachey: Experienced journalists accredited to the national newspapers are with our troops in Korea and, as the House knows, they send reports which are published in this country not only of the fighting, but also of the conditions faced by our troops. Unquestionably, these conditions have been exceedingly severe during the past winter and it would be to do less than justice to our men to seek to minimise in any way the hardships which they have inevitably undergone.
    Nevertheless, all reports indicate that our troops are in good heart, that their morale is high and that their fighting reputation is outstanding. I make repeated and searching inquiries as to the availability of supplies of protective winter clothing, medical stores and other necessaries. I am completely satisfied that there are ample supplies in Korea but I can quite understand that in the rapid war of movement which is taking place it is most difficult to keep all units supplied with every one of the very large number of articles which they need at all times. I have called for a report on the distribution of winter clothing in Korea.
    In these circumstances, I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion would serve a useful purpose.
    Sir H. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not an answer supposed to have some relation to the question?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Members of this House, and particularly relatives of the men out there, are receiving letters which are causing a great deal of uneasiness? Would it not be better if a delegation of this character were sent out in order that they could interrogate the men and report?
    Mr. Strachey: In reply to that supple-mentary question, for the reasons I have given I do not think so. If I may say so, these seem to me to be precisely the reasons why the suggestion of my hon. Friend, which otherwise might have been a good one, would not serve a useful purpose at this time.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Whilst appreciating the fact that journalists might play a useful part in this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman say what on earth this has to do with trade unionists?
    Mr. Strachey: I should have thought it concerned trade unionists very closely. Many of the men serving in Korea are trade unionists—[HON. MEMBERS: "Non-sense."] Certainly; and certainly this very much concerns their fellow trade unionists.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade unionists of this country have proved their loyalty and worth to the country as well as any other section of the community and that thousands of them are now serving out there; and in view of that, does he not think that a constructive suggestion of this kind would tend to allay the public anxiety with regard to these men?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morganasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers in the Middlesex Regiment are still experiencing considerable delays in the receipt of their mail on the Korean front; and what steps he is taking to remedy this state of affairs.
    Mr. Strachey: Air and surface mail for the Middlesex Regiment is being des-patched by every available means. In active operations it may not always be possible to avoid some delay in delivery but all practicable steps are taken to keep transmission times to a minimum. If the hon. Member cares to let me have details of any particular case which he thinks calls for inquiry, I shall be pleased to look into the matter.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that rather complacent reply is not an answer? These complaints continue although he gave an assurance on 12th December that the establishment of an A.P.O. would probably improve matters. Before the right hon. Gentleman considers paying a visit, will he do something to clear up the matter?
    Mr. Strachey: It is useless to pretend that we can always eliminate delays in the delivery of mails in Korea, especially when a war of movement is going on, as it is today. We will certainly do our best to minimise these difficulties.
    Major Lloyd: In view of the fact that some of these men are known to be members of the Co-operative Society, could not some members of that Society go out to Korea?
    Mr. F. P. Crowderasked the Secretary of State for War when boots of Finnish pattern designed for use in snow reached the 1st Battalion of the Middle-sex Regiment serving in Korea.
    Mr. Strachey: I have called for this information and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Crowder: Is not the Secretary of State aware that it is his personal responsibility to know the details of these matters, and to see that the winter clothing concerned actually reaches the troops on the ground? Is he also aware that, according to my information, soldiers in this regiment have suffered very heavy casualties owing to frostbite and pneumonia because of the non-arrival of winter clothing?
    Mr. Strachey: I very much resent the suggestion of the hon. Member, which is completely unfounded. The responsibility of the War Office is to see that these supplies are in Korea, and that responsibility is being fulfilled. The authorities on the spot have the very difficult task of seeing to the distribution of the supplies within Korea. I have every reason to suppose they are fulfilling those functions properly.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the supplies of winter clothing for the 27th Brigade, and for this battalion in particular, which arrived on 3rd and 8th
    1900
    November, as he informed the House, contained no boots of Finnish pattern for cold weather clothing?
    Mr. Strachey: That is entirely contrary to the facts. The boots which arrived on those dates included the Finnish ski boots in question. As a matter of fact it was reported in the newspapers. The correspondent of the "Daily Express" with the 27th Brigade, writing on 20th November said:
    "The boots they have issued are the best in Korea; they are ski-ing boots."
    Mr. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Ormsby-Goreasked the Secretary of State for War how many Regular Army reservists volunteered for service in Korea; and how many of these are now serving in that country.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that this information is not readily available. I can say, however, that 1,125 ex-soldiers, of whom 1,054 are still serving, enlisted on a special engagement for service in Korea. These may include some Regular reservists.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Are not these figures very disappointing, and would the right hon. Gentleman consider making another appeal for volunteers, to be put across with a great deal more imagination and drive than on the last occasion, so as to reduce the need for using very young National Service men?
    Mr. Strachey: The 29th Brigade which was raised for Korea does not contain National Service men.
    Mr. Ormsby-Goreasked the Secretary of State for War how the prices for necessities sold by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes to our troops in Korea compare with prices for similar articles in this country.
    Mr. Strachey: The price policy in Korea is similar to that throughout the Far East. Korea prices generally are the same or lower than those prevailing in Hong Kong. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the prices of a representative list of commodities in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Korea.
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a cake of soap which costs 5d. in this country is being sold for 9d. in the N.A.A.F.I. in Korea, and does he think that this is a reasonable surcharge?
    Mr. Strachey: It is not a surcharge. Certainly prices in both Hong Kong and Korea are inevitably more expensive than in this country. That is not true in all cases, but it is true in some.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that the cheapest handkerchief obtainable by troops in Korea costs 1s. 8d., and will he bear in mind the amount of pay of troops in Korea and see that N.A.A.F.I. bring down their prices so that they are more in line with the soldiers' pay?
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member will see the price list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think it would be wrong to force N.A.A.F.I., who already are operating at anything but a profit in Korea, to sell at prices which are below a sane and reasonable level, considering the very much greater expenses and costs of selling the items in Korea.

    United Kingdom price

    Hong Kong price

    Korean price

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Cigarettes: packets of 20

    …

    …

    3

    6

    1

    1½

    11

    United Kingdom beer:

    Imperial pint, 20 oz.

    …

    …

    1

    4

    —

    —

    to

    1

    6

    Reputed quart, 24 oz.-26 oz.

    …

    …

    —

    2

    1½

    1

    9

    Writing pads, airmail

    …

    …

    6½

    7½

    7½

    Envelopes, airmail

    …

    …

    5

    6

    6

    Chocolate: 2 oz. bars

    …

    …

    5

    6¾

    6

    to

    to

    6

    7½

    Razor blades:

    Pal

    …

    …

    2

    1½

    1

    Gillette Blue

    …

    …

    3½

    3

    3

    Toilet soap:

    Palmolive:

    3 oz. tablet

    …

    …

    5½

    —

    —

    3½ oz. tablet

    …

    …

    —

    9

    8½

    Levers Easy Shaving Sticks

    …

    …

    8½*

    10½

    9

    Hair preparations:

    Brylcreem, size A.45

    …

    …

    2

    3*

    2

    2½

    1

    10

    Vaseline Hair Tonic

    …

    …

    2

    6½*

    2

    2½

    1

    10

    Toothpaste:

    Kolynos

    …

    …

    1

    6

    1

    6

    1

    3

    Macleans

    …

    …

    1

    6*

    1

    3

    1

    4

    Chewing gum

    …

    …

    1½

    1½

    1

    Matches

    …

    …

    2

    1½

    1

    Boot polish:

    Cherry Blossom No. 3

    …

    …

    7½

    9¾

    9½

    Tea: per lb

    …

    …

    3

    0

    5

    7½

    5

    9

    Sauce, H.P.: per bottle

    …

    …

    1

    3

    1

    6

    1

    7

    Fruit: 26-oz. cans

    …

    …

    2

    0

    1

    10½

    2

    0

    * Including Purchase Tax.

    Brigadier Clarke: If the Minister admits that prices in Korea are high, why does he not give active service pay to compensate the men?
    Mr. Strachey: There is no such thing as active service pay. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member is thinking of local overseas allowance. If prices in Korea are shown to be high, or higher than in Hong Kong, then a case for that would arise.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Minister assure the House that the prices in question do not include, either to other ranks or to officers, any element of Purchase Tax?
    Mr. Strachey: That is another question.
    Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Is it really such a tragedy if the N.A.A.F.I. make a loss in one theatre of operations when we know that they make such enormous profits elsewhere?
    Mr. Strachey: That is precisely what is done.
    Following is the list:

    Compassionate Leave (Personal Case)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Salford, East, is likely to receive a reply to his letter of 15th January, with reference to the refusal to give compassionate leave to 22377484 Private G. Ravenscroft, Ayrshire Barracks, British Army of the Rhine, to visit his father in hospital who has since died.
    Mr. Strachey: A reply has now been sent to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hardy: May I ask the Minister why it has taken such a long time as from 15th January to reply, and also what disciplinary action has been taken against the officer who refused permission? Would this have happened if it had been an officer who made an application to see his dying father? Would he have been treated in the manner in which this man has been treated by the unit in which he is serving?
    Mr. Strachey: As my hon. Friend knows from the letter I have sent him, it took some time to investigate this case. I thought it better to investigate it clearly before writing to him. I have explained the circumstances fully to him. I have explained that I think the procedure of the unit was to blame, but I certainly would not accept the implications of the latter part of his supplementary question.
    Mr. Hardy: But what disciplinary action has been taken?

    Ex-miners
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for War why ex-miners who are serving as National Service men will not be released under the scheme recently announced.
    Mr. Strachey: Underground workers in the mines are not normally called up for National Service in the Forces. The few who are serving either left the mines voluntarily before call-up or were not reserved. There would be little advantage in giving these men the opportunity of returning to the mines.
    Mr. Hynd: In view of the fact that any ex-miners who are serving as National Service men are obviously volunteers, is it not a pity to spoil the concession
    1904
    recently announced by making this small exception?
    Mr. Strachey: The concession was announced quite clearly as applying to members of the Regular Forces.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what instructions he has given to commanding officers in Germany about the reply they are to give to soldiers who have been miners and wish to make application to return to work in the mining industry.
    Mr. Strachey: Instructions have now been issued to all commands to ensure that all other ranks on normal Regular and certain short service engagements who have had at least six months' experience of underground work in the mines, and who are below the rank of acting sergeant, shall be offered release, provided they are prepared to work underground and they fulfil certain other conditions.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Why cannot the same conditions be extended to National Service men?
    Mr. Strachey: I gave the reason in reply to a previous Question.
    Mr. Osborne: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of the numbers involved? How many coalface miners in the Army come under this category?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will this apply also to ex-miners who are serving in Korea?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot say without notice.

    Non-Fighting Elements
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War what is the distribution by corps and departments of the 168,700 officers and other ranks described as non-fighting elements of the Army.
    Mr. Strachey: It would not be in the public interest to give a numerical analysis. But these officers and men are employed on such duties as the supply, service and maintenance of fighting troops, including medical, dental, educational and pay duties, the manning of base organisations at home and overseas, and on training.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously expect the House to believe that it is not in the public interest to give particulars of these men, about whom the Minister of Defence has already made a statement, and is it not very detrimental to the fighting reputation of the Army to know that such an enormous proportion of men are non-fighting elements? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of giving particulars, and is he taking any steps to comb out these non-fighting men?
    Mr. Strachey: I most seriously maintain that the security authorities take the view most firmly that any answer which tended to give the order of battle of the Army as a numerical analysis would be most undesirable. That is their settled view, and I should be loath to overrule them on such a matter.
    Mr. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman try to reconsider this? If he cannot give any great detail, it surely should be possible to break down these figures into some details. It really is not an order of battle—it is an order of non-battle, unfortunately.
    Mr. Shurmer: Would my right hon. Friend, in the first instance, take away as non-combatants all the batmen to the generals and other officers?
    Mr. Eden: The hon. Member has raised a very interesting point. Could we have that breakdown, and all the rest of the breakdown also, of the figures?

  HOUSING

    Allocation, Portishead
    Mr. Leatherasked the Minister of Local Government and Planning why he has refused permission to the urban district council of Portishead to erect three houses extra to their programme when all equipment, labour, etc., for these three houses is available in the district.
    The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): I am prepared to reconsider this matter if the Portishead Council can satisfy me that three additional houses can be built with the available building labour and materials.
    Mr. Leather: Is the Minister aware that the Portishead Council have already told his Department that they are entirely satisfied?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but I am not myself entirely satisfied. I am prepared and anxious to see in every area building to the limit of the available labour and materials, and if Portishead can show me that they can do better they shall have their licence.
    Sir H. Williams: Would it not be better to let them try first?
    Mr. Vane: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that every local authority can build three more houses if they show—
    Mr. Speaker: This deals with Portishead only.
    Mr. Leather: In what way does the Minister want further proof? We have already given it to him on paper. What more can we do to convince him?
    Mr. Dalton: Perhaps the hon. Member had better come and have a talk with me.

    Private Building Licences
    Mr. Profumoasked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he will consider sanctioning the issue of private building licences in excess of the ratio of one in five to districts where he is satisfied that such action would more speedily alleviate the housing shortage without interfering with the local authority's council housing programme.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

    Programme
    Mr. Profumoasked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he can indicate the extent to which the Government's present housing programme will have to be reduced as a result of the proposed defence plans.
    Mr. Dalton: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15th February.
    Mr. Profumo: Does this mean that building trades will be reserved occupations, and in view of the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred me, if we are to believe the boast of his predecessor that under his policy the country was getting the maximum possible number of new houses, how is it that with the vastly increased demand on manpower and raw materials because of

    1907
    the defence plan, we can expect no reduction in building? Does not this make nonsense of the previous boasts of the Government?
    Mr. Dalton: That is a very long supplementary question compared with the statement of my right hon. Friend, which I will read:
    "There may be some interference with the completion of local housing programmes"—
    that is, consequent upon re-armament—
    "but it is not our intention to reduce the housing programme as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 653.]
    Mr. Profumo: That was what I had in mind.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Income Tax
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in calculating the individual liability for Income Tax, he will allow as an expense out-of-pocket expenditure necessarily incurred by a person in the conduct of public business or recognised voluntary service where there is no remuneration.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): No, Sir. Income Tax is charged by reference to income from particular sources and expenses can only be allowed as a deduction from the particular source of income to which they relate. Out-of-pocket expenses incurred in doing unpaid work for the Government can be reclaimed. There is nothing to prevent similar arrangements being made by other bodies many of whom do in fact arrange to repay expenses.
    Sir I. Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that whereas a director, a trade union secretary, or even a Member of Parliament, can get an allowance where he gets fees, persons who work for, say, the Women's Institutes, the British Legion, the Manor House Hospital, or even an old age pensioner who is a J.P., have to pay it out of their taxed income, and will the Chancellor make a concession in the Budget?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. There is nothing to prevent the voluntary bodies to which the hon. Member referred from
    1908
    paying these expenses, but I do not see why the taxpayer should pay them.
    Mr. Woodasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far his regulations Permit the housekeeper's tax-free allowance to be available to spinsters as well as to widows and widowers.
    Mr. Gaitskell: A spinster is entitled under the law to an allowance of £50 if she employs or maintains a resident housekeeper for the purpose of looking after a child for whom she is entitled to Income Tax relief. It is a condition of the allowance that a woman claimant must be either incapacitated or engaged full time in business or employment, except in the case where the child is the claimant's brother or sister and the housekeeper a female relative.
    Mr. Wood: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter before his Budget Statement, in view of the considerable difficulties suffered by an unmarried woman who gets left with a farm or other business to carry on and who is not the recipient of these benefits which can be received by widowers or widows?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member will not expect me to comment on that, but I will take note of his suggestion.

    Customs Officer (Journey)
    Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why a Customs officer on 9th February, 1951, travelled in a hired car from Newport Pagnell to Daventry and back in order to advise on the completion of a form; and what was the mileage travelled and the cost incurred.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The journey in question was not a special journey to Daventry for the purpose stated. In the absence on leave of the regular officer of Customs and Excise at Newport Pagnell, who is responsible for a wide country area, and who uses his own private car on official business, it was made by an officer deputising for him to visit several traders in the Towcester and Daventry districts in the course of his ordinary business. The mileage for the round journey was about 52 miles and the cost £2 11s. 9d.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: As the advice given at Daventry was only to give the answer "Not known" to the questions

    1909
    where the information was not readily available, could that not have been done by telephone?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have already explained that it was a visit to several traders.
    Mr. David Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the waste of the taxpayers' money involved by this Question is greater than the sum involved by the use of the car?

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with regard to increasing the categories of persons to whom post-war credits will become payable.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: While realising that we are now in the close season for Chancellors of the Exchequer, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to see that there are proper opportunities for debating this question of post-war credits during the debates on the Finance Bill, which has not been possible in the last few years?
    Mr. John Tilney: As so many ageing and sick people are in urgent need now of post-war credits, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having them serially numbered according to the age of the owner and making them transferable so that they can be sold at a discount through the bank?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I will take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. Murrayasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will repay to parents the post-war credits that belonged to their sons who fell on active service during the last war, in view of the fact that many parents are suffering hardships resulting from deferred payment.
    Mr. Jay: If a parent is the person legally entitled to the post-war credits, he or she can obtain payment on reaching the qualifying age of 65 for a man or 60 for a woman. Earlier payment would require a change in the law, and I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.
    Mr. Murray: Is not my hon. Friend aware that some of these people who have lost their sons in the war cannot understand the attitude of mind of the Ministry on this matter? Will not he have a further look at this matter to see whether he can recommend that legislation he passed so that these unfortunate people who have lost their sons can have the money paid to them?
    Mr. Jay: I will certainly take note of the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman cannot anticipate the Budget Statement to make a very welcome concession here, how was it that his right hon. Friend could do so to refuse one in answer to Question No. 46?

    Comptroller and Auditor General (Report)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for pages iv to xv of the Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets. 1949–50, Volume 1, being the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, to be published as a separate White Paper at cost price.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No. Sir.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason I asked the Question was to enable a wide public at a cheap price to have this view expressed, so that the whole Socialist policy could be condemned out of the mouth of the Comptroller and Auditor General?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The reason I did not accept the hon. Member's suggestion is that it would be wasteful, confusing and constitutionally improper.
    Sir W. Smithers: Any port in a storm.

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Butcherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why cups presented to schools to encourage children in sports and swimming, are charged at 100 per cent. Purchase Tax, instead of the lower rate charged on other electro-plated articles.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Because they fall into the category of articles similar in character to vases and as such are chargeable at the 100 per cent. rate.

    U.S.S.R. Debt
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is in debt to this country; and what arrangements His Majesty's Government have made for the repayment of this money.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Including substantial private claims approximately £1,100 million, almost all of which dates from before 1917. The Soviet Government are in process of repaying the amounts due to His Majestys Government in respect of civil supplies provided under the Agreement of 1941; £36 million is at present outstanding. They have, however, refused to recognise the pre-1917 debts and successive Governments have been unable to make any arrangements about these.
    Brigadier Clarke: Will the Minister admit that it was not very clever to send jet engines to the Russians when they could not pay the debt they now owe us?

    Anglo-Canadian Wheat Agreement
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the additional sum payable to Canada on the conclusion of the Anglo-Canadian Wheat Agreement, through the difference between the world price and that paid under the Agreement.
    Mr. Gaitskell: None, Sir.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does that information refer to the assumption of His Majesty's Government that no sum was payable, or is it the result of discussions with Canada at which it was agreed that none is payable?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The matter was discussed in May, 1950, with Mr. Howe, and the result was that no further payment was to be made.

    Raw Materials (Commodity Committees)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which countries invitations were sent to serve on the groups to be set up to advise on scarce raw materials; what answers have been received; and whether he can now announce the composition of each group.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the composition of the Commodity Committees and the dates on which they are to meet, as announced by the Central Group of the International Materials Conference.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why no invitation was sent to O.E.E.C. as such and what arrangements he is making to see that the work of O.E.E.C. and these commodity groups is integrated?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The question of the relations between O.E.E.C. and the commodity groups is being discussed between Dr. Stikker and representatives of the other countries concerned in Washington.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has set up the commodity groups without consultation with O.E.E.C. and that there was no plan before the setting up had been agreed between the two bodies?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The matter was discussed in Paris informally between the Ministers in the O.E.E.C. Council and, as a result, it was decided that Dr. Stikker should visit Washington, but, as a result of the political situation in Holland, his visit was rather delayed.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Was Indonesia invited to take part, and has she accepted?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid that without notice I could not specify which countries have accepted and which have rejected the invitation.
    Following are the particulars:
    Copper, Zinc and Lead Committee—26 th February
    United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, Canada, Belgium (for Benelux), Chile, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Mexico, Norway and Peru.
    Sulphur Committee—1st March
    United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, Canada, Union of South Africa, New Zealand, Belgium (for Benelux), Brazil, France and Italy.
    Cotton and Cotton Linters Committee—5th March
    United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, India, Belgium (for Benelux), Brazil, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Mexico and Peru.
    Tungsten and Molybdenum Committee—8th March
    United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.
    Manganese, Nickel and Cobalt Committee—12 th March
    United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, India, Union of South Africa, Belgium (for Benelux), Brazil, Cuba, France, Federal Republic of Germany and Norway.
    Wool Committee—2nd April
    To be announced at a later date

    B.B.C. Overseas Service
    Mr. Profumoasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will hold discussions with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence before deciding whether to make any change in the grant-in-aid for the British Broadcasting Corporation's Overseas Service.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Before recommending the House to approve an Estimate, I naturally consult those of my colleagues who are interested.
    Mr. Profumo: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman has already consulted, or will consult? If it means that he will consult, will he please bear in mind that broadcasting is the only known medium for piercing the Iron Curtain and that any defence plan can be only a matter of patchwork unless it makes the fullest possible use of this medium? Would it not be better to increase rather than to decrease this programme?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am in process of consulting my colleagues. I am well aware of the importance of broadcasting to the Iron Curtain countries, but I am also aware of the importance of economy in public expenditure.
    Brigadier Head: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, although we all realise the importance of economy in public expenditure, to spend £4,700 million on defence and to cut the vital part of our defence in the cold war, which is broadcasting, seems to be a bad place to start economising?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not assume that that implication is involved.
    Major Tufton Beamish: Has the right hon. Gentleman already decided on a cut of half a million pounds in the grant-in-aid? Did he decide on that before consulting the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Defence?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman better await the publication of the Estimate.

    Stationery Office (Equipment Depreciation)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why His Majesty's Stationery Office trading accounts contain no charge for depreciation of equipment; and how much would this involve if normal commercial standards were adopted.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The trading accounts of His Majesty's Stationery Office have always contained a charge for depreciation of equipment. It was decided last year to follow the same practice in the informal accounts of the publishing service: the charge for depreciation to be included will be about £200.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that this criticism was made by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his Report? Does he agree with the Chancellor's earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) that the Auditor General's Reports are wasteful, useless and unconstitutional if they are reprinted?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir, I do not agree with that implication.

    Official Cars
    Mr. Bossomasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the reasons for the increase in the number of official cars from one in 1938 to 35 in 1950.
    Mr. Jay: The Coalition Government decided in 1943 that each senior Minister should have an official car, on the ground that the pressure of public business made it wasteful of time and effort that they should not be provided with motor transport; and subsequent Governments have endorsed that decision.
    Mr. Churchill: Was there not a war on at that date?
    Mr. Bossom: Did we not hear a moment ago from the Chancellor that he believes in economy in public expenditure? Why spend 35 times as much as in 1938?
    Mr. Jay: As there is a reason for economy, that is the reason for not wasting the time and effort of Ministers.
    Sir H. Williams: Why do not Ministers do as private Members—drive their own cars, instead of having chauffeurs?
    Mr. Jay: Because quite a number of them have not their own cars.

    RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (EARNINGS)
    Captain Ryderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what limits are imposed on the earnings of civil servants who have retired with pensions or superannuation allowances; and whether he will review these limits.
    Mr. Gaitskell: None, unless the pensioner is re-employed in Government service. In that case he may receive as much of his pension as is needed to make up the pay of his new appointment to the pay of his former post. On the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), on 12th February.
    Captain Ryder: Does not the principle that is followed here date back to 1834, and is it not time that this matter was reviewed in the light of the present need for increased production?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It was reviewed in 1949, and the position is as I have stated in my answer.

MINISTERS' ANSWERS AND STATEMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS)
Major Guy Lloyd: I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, with regard to what happened following the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday; after which, as I understand it, a right hon. Member opposite was able to prevent any further discussion on the subject, or any further question, merely by uttering the words that he begged to give notice that he would raise the matter on the Adjourn-
1916
ment. He has not done so as I notice up to date. So possibly, Mr. Speaker, though only possibly, the question of good faith might arise.
Apart from that, there is also the question of effectiveness which might arise because, as you, Sir, are well aware, it takes a long time, it is quite a chance in fact, whether one is ever able to raise the matter on the Adjournment. So that on the question of effectiveness it might be possible to close the discussion on a very vital matter arising not out of Questions, but out of a very important Ministerial statement. It might be possible to close any discussion or further question, either by the Leader of the Opposition or anybody else, for quite a long period of time.
I suggest, Sir, that some of us are rather distressed by what may be a wrong interpretation of your Ruling yesterday to the effect that even if it was not a Question, even if a statement had arisen out of an original Question, none the less the mere uttering of this abracadabra, those magic words, "I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment," closes discussion for a long and perhaps indefinite period of time. I should be very grateful if you would tell me if I am correct in assuming that that is so or whether in fact a Ministerial statement can in future not be closed down by the mere uttering of these magic words.
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison rose—
Mr. Speaker: I hope I shall be allowed to answer the question which has been addressed to me. If anybody takes objection to what I say I have no objection to anybody raising the matter, but surely I might be allowed to answer the question first of all.
I have gone into the matter carefully, and I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, Eastern (Major Lloyd), for having raised this question. I am quite satisfied that under our customary procedure—there is nothing written—if an hon. Member says he is going to raise the matter on the Adjournment that stops further questions. An example happened today in Question Time, and in my view there is no difference whether it comes from a supplementary question to a statement or a

1917
supplementary question in answer to a Question itself. Therefore I am satisfied that so far as the custom of the House is concerned that procedure is correct, and I had no alternative whatsoever but to accept the point of order presented to me.
I admit that it was somewhat unusual, but the circumstances also were somewhat unusual. I quite agree that when a statement is made, Members should have ample opportunity to elucidate various points about which they may have difficulty. But that does not of course mean unlimited questions. That could not be. Therefore I think the matter for the House to consider—I have not fully considered it myself—is, should the rule remain absolutely firm, and therefore, as the hon. and gallant Member put it, be possibly open to abuse? Or, on the other hand, should the responsibility be entirely thrust on the Speaker for accepting or not accepting? Because if he said, "I accept it," then hon. Members who still wanted to ask Questions would feel aggrieved. That would be thrusting a little more responsibility and a heavier burden on the Speaker. I should be glad if hon. Members would consider these points, and, indeed, I should be quite prepared to consider any representations which are made to me.
There is one further point on which I would ask for consideration. I know that hon. Members were anxious to ask questions. It is rather difficult sometimes when we have statements. This practice, which was begun before the last war, has been carried on ever since, and it sometimes develops—as yesterday it developed—with a good deal of heat. After starting off yesterday with a complicated statement which required study and consideration, we had a good deal of heat. It really developed into a kind of disorderly debate. That is not very dignified for Parliament.
Can we do anything about that? That is another consideration I should like to put. Could not we return to what happened once upon a time when these statements were made in the House on a Motion for the Adjournment with an agreement that debate should not go too long? It is very difficult for the Prime Minister or any Minister to be crossexamined—up one moment, down another, with questions being fired at him. It is much better if he is able to make a
1918
considered statement. Then points could be put to him in a more considered way. That is what I should like to say to the House, but so far as the procedure yesterday is concerned I stand unrepentant, because I think I had no other option.
Mr. Churchill: As I understand, Sir, you have the power to bring questioning to an end. Why was it necessary for this measure, this step which you thought was right to be taken yesterday, to be left to a Private Member of the House by invoking this doctrine of saying he would raise the matter on the Adjournment? You surely have the power, not only by the rules of order, but by your own personal appeal to the House; by the power of calling other Business, and, if I may say so, by the respect entertained for the Chair, to do it yourself. I do not see why it was necessary that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should have been employed at all.
Mr. Speaker: I quite agree. I suppose I had the power but, if hon. Members remember, I had appealed to them to consider the matter, to read the statement, and perhaps later on we might have debated it. But no notice was taken of this and I confess that I rather jumped at the straw which was handed to me. There are dangers about it which I quite admit. It was my intention in any case to close down Questions, to the indignation, no doubt, of something like 30 or 40 rather heated hon. Members.
Mr. Churchill: On this question I think we are indebted to you, Sir, for having given us a Ruling on whether there is any difference between the Adjournment operating on supplementary questions put as the result of a Question or put as the result of a statement. Your Ruling is that it makes no difference.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Churchill: I am very much obliged to you, Sir. It would have been very awkward if it did, because obviously the Opposition would never facilitate Government business by asking Questions. It would have been a very great pity if that had occurred. But I suppose on the present Ruling that you have given the Government can, on any day, make a statement at any length, on any subject, however controversial, however unexpected, and immediately afterwards an hon.

1919
Member from behind them can, with perfect Parliamentary deportment, say, "In view of the grave importance of this statement to which we have all listened with so much pleasure, I beg to give notice that I will raise it on the Adjournment, whether I ever get an Adjournment or not."
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I gather, Mr. Speaker, that you have invited some expression of opinion about this matter. I should like to say as Leader of the House, and speaking, I hope, for my right hon. Friends, that I think our view would be that it is best for Mr. Speaker to exercise a wise discretion as to when he thinks a sufficient number of questions have been put in relation to the subject. I think that that is better than other devices being brought into play. But, of course, the questions did go on for a long time yesterday. I should prefer myself that Mr. Speaker should continue to exercise his undoubted right of discretion and, that when he thinks there has been enough, he should bring the questions to an end.
Mr. Speaker: That raises the two questions which I put. Should I automatically accept notice that an hon. Member will raise the matter on the Adjournment, or should I use my own discretion to accept or not accept? Those are the two points. It is only fair to say that I got notice of this matter only this morning. I should like to have all these questions looked up and then I should like to have time to consider the matter. I am perfectly willing—if it is now made clear—to use my own discretion. If an hon. Member thinks that he wants to stop a lot of supplementary questions, I shall accept that notice or I shall not, and I shall stop the business as and when I think the dignity of the House demands.
Mr. Eden: You have asked us to consider this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the whole House wishes to consider what you have said. One point of substance arises which has not yet been touched upon. In the ordinary course, when an hon. Member gets up to say that he would like to raise a matter on the Adjournment, that normally happens as a result of a Question and the hon. Member who gives that notice is the one
1920
who has asked the original Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. I am telling hon. Members, who perhaps have not been here quite so long, that that has been the position in this House for a great many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is the normal practice. I stand to be corrected. All I am saying is that that should be considered because, of course, that in itself is a safeguard against, shall we say, any hon. Member attempting to stop the discussion merely because he does not like the questions which are being asked.
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, that you wish to consider the matter. For the guidance of the House, might we know what the position would be if a further statement were to be made on the same subject tomorrow, for example?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) is quite correct in saying that in former days it was always the hon. Member who had asked the original question who said that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment. But I have noticed of late years that, quite often, someone comes in and hunts someone else's hare. I think we might have a Ruling on that.
Mr. Speaker: I should be very glad to give a Ruling. I noticed what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said, and I knew that he was not quite accurate. As the Prime Minister said, I have known other hon. Members to come in and jump the claim. I should be quite prepared to rule that, as far as Questions are concerned, the notice must be given by the Member who asked the original question.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Churchill.
Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Should I be in order—
Mr. Speaker: We are still on the first point of order, and I have called the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).
Mr. Churchill: I am only anxious, in order to clear up the matter as much as possible, to know whether you, as Speaker, have a right to be a judge of a statement by an hon. Member that he will raise a matter on the Adjournment and to accord it or to deny its validity, as you do in regard to terminating Questions and so forth. I should only like to know what your decision is upon that.
Mr. Speaker: I should like to have time to consider that. I gave an ad hoc Ruling about hon. Members who asked a Question. I think that was simple; but I think that I might have time to consider further matters.
Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Should I be in order now if I were to move that, in view of the very satisfactory nature of your replies, this matter be considered on the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: I do not quite know what I should rule. I think I can rule that I will not accept that Motion.
Sir Herbert Williams: May I bring the matter back to the fundamental practice of the House? None of us has a right of audience in this House unless either we are asking a question or answering one or speaking on a Motion. The new practice which has grown up of making statements is quite contrary to the rules of debate. No Minister ought to be permitted to make a statement unless, first of all, he moves the Adjournment of the House. You said that yesterday there was a disorderly debate. It was a disorderly debate in the sense that many who took part made statements, used arguments and did not ask questions. I think that this practice will only be brought to an end if we return to the fundamental rule that we have no audience in debate except on a Motion.
Mr. Henry Strauss: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on one point regarding the custom of the House? Am I right in assuming that an hon. Member should only give notice that he will raise a matter on the Adjournment if that is, in fact, his intention, and that it would be improper for him to give notice unless he proposed to take immediate steps to endeavour to raise the matter at an early date?
Mr. Speaker: I would not accept that. I cannot tell what the intention of an hon. Member may be. To tell the honest truth, I shall be quite frank with the House and say that it is often a very great help to me, because one knows what supplementaries are, and sometimes someone keeps raising a hare which has nothing to do with the original question. Then a sensible hon. Member gets up and says, "I will raise this matter on the Adjournment," and I am very grateful to him.
Mr. Strauss: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I was not seeking to put any additional burden on you, Mr. Speaker. I was only asking, for the guidance of hon. Members themselves, whether I was right in assuming that no hon. Member ought to make that statement unless he had that intention.
Mr. Poole: On that point, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully suggest that you have no means of ascertaining whether the hon. Member does intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment, because the mere signing of the book in your office does not mean that an hon. Member intends to raise it. He might seize any opportunity when the House terminates its ordinary business earlier than usual. It would be beyond your power to discern what an hon. Member's intentions were.
Mr. John Foster: May I put one consideration, Sir, which I ask you to take into account when you are studying this matter? As I understand it, the rule which has grown up in the House and which, as you stated, is not written down, depends on the rule of anticipation. The rule of anticipation is that, when the supplementary questions are going on, if an hon. Member says that he wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment, the custom has grown up for the Chair to rule that the matter which is to be raised on the Adjournment would be anticipated by further supplementary questions. The principle underlying the rule about anticipation is that the further debate which is being anticipated will prove a more effective means of debating the question. Therefore, the rule has grown up that supplementary questions will anticipate the more effective debate raised on the Adjournment.
The point I want to make for your consideration is whether the fact that nowadays the Adjournment is balloted for

1923
means that it is not an effective means of discussing the matter. Therefore, supplementary questions do not anticipate this as the least effective means of discussing the matter. My suggestion is that this would reconcile the views of the Leader of the House and of all those who thought that the mere use by an hon. Member of the words "I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment," is not sufficient to stop further questions and answers. It would leave the matter in your discretion, Sir, because, if you thought that the matter could be more effectively raised on the Motion for the Adjournment, you would they say that the supplementary questions were anticipating the final Adjournment Motion. May I also call your attention to Standing Order No. 9, which says that it is in your discretion, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether the rule of anticipation shall be applied by stating that the matter being anticipated could be effectively discussed at the time when it is to be discussed.
Mr. Speaker: I am not really prepared to go as far as the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) indicates. There has been a custom, which we have had for a long time, and, from even the questioner's point of view, I think it is very often rather convenient for shutting out further supplementary questions and enabling other hon. Members to proceed with their questions. Actually, it is based on the rule of anticipation, and I quite admit that it would have been right to use it yesterday, perhaps more than on any other day, because the whole subject was governed by a Motion which. I gather, is coming before the House on Thursday week.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In the further consideration which you have been good enough to promise, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the right of hon. Members to raise matters on the Motion for the Adjournment would you please bear in mind that the present system provides that hon. Members shall ballot for the Adjournment Motion. In those circumstances, it is possible for hon. Members who will not raise a matter at all in the House to ballot for the Adjournment Motion on exactly the same basis as hon. Members who have given notice in this House of their intention to raise a matter
1924
on the Motion for the Adjournment. Will you please, therefore, consider the desirability of giving some priority to those hon. Members who state their intention to raise a matter—
Hon. Members: No.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: If I might say so to the House, we have only a limited time today, for we cannot suspend the Rule. We have taken nearly half an hour already on an interesting point, but one which I should like, if I may, to have the opportunity of considering in all its implications. I think we might now get on with the business.

RENT RESTRICTION (GARAGES)
Mr. Harold Davies: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the rent for garaging cars in the Metropolitan area of London.
I sincerely hope that this innocent little Bill will not have such a cataclysmic effect on the discipline of this House as was produced when we discussed the appointment of an admiral, and I also sincerely hope that the House will see fit to let this Bill go through.
We all know that garage rents, especially in the London area, are extortionate, and, according to calculations which I have made, must be such that, in some cases, garage proprietors of different types are getting their capital expenditure returned somewhere in the neighbourhood of about two years. One concludes that if one were able, in most of these cases, to obtain figures of the capital expenditure involved in building these garages, it would be found that, in many of them, garage proprietors are undoubtedly receiving interest in the neighbourhood of of 50 per cent.
It has come to my notice that, particularly in the West End, the West End Association of Garages has made a basic minimum charge. It would be unfair of me in this House if I were to say straightaway that that basic minimum charge was extortionate or unfair, and I would prefer not to do that here, but I do want to point out that these garage proprietors

1925
enjoy a terrific monopolistic situation in the London area, and I think that this House might well consider some such Bill as the one I am trying to introduce.
I want to point out that with many people today, the possession of a car is by no means a criterion of wealth. The possession of a car by a good many people, especially commercial travellers and others, is an absolute necessity to enable them to earn their living. There are many of this type of person living in London, many of whom operate the oldest types of cars, upon which is levied the iniquitous horse-power tax, as compared with the general tax paid in new cars. They are thus bearing a heavy burden which has been placed on the shoulders of those least able to bear it.
The passing of this Bill would ease their burdens considerably, because many of these people cannot afford to pay the high rent charged for a garage in London and the Metropolitan area night after night, with the result that their cars may be seen left out in the streets at night in all kinds of weather, creating extra difficulties for the police in the prevention of theft. I believe that there are thousands of cars left out every night in those circumstances, in London, and that some such Measure as this will be welcomed in helping to take many of these cars off the streets. I understand that before the war there were 3,000 public or semi-public garages in London. Today, the figure is probably twice as many again. I should like to know how many of these garages are really worth the rents charged for them, and what is the real economic basis of those rents?
Since 1933 local authorities have had power to publish information for the assistance of landlords and tenants regarding their rights and duties under the Rent Restriction Acts, and proceedings have been instituted under those Acts so far as housing is concerned. When we put those Acts on the Statute Book, we set up fair rent tribunals. I believe that under this Bill we could use those tribunals, and that local authorities should be requested to keep a register of all garages, which register should be open to public inspection. This would help, not only to maintain an economic and fair rent for the garages, but to track down stolen cars in the Metropolitan Police area.
1926
I do not think it is a difficult matter to calculate a controlled rent for a garage. It could be based on a standard rent, taking, say, 1st September, 1939, as the date of that rent. If I were asked what would be the position with regard to garages built since that date, I would say that the average economic rent for a garage in that area in 1939 should be taken as the basis for calculating the rent of new garages. The 1939 rent could, therefore, be calculated on a percentage of profit giving a fair return on the capital expenditure over a period of between five or 10 years, depending on the fabrication and the type of material used in building the garage, or, alternatively, we could use the county court and the justices.
Mr. Erroll: I beg to oppose this Bill because, laudable though its intentions may appear to be, it would have exactly the opposite effect to that desired by its proposer, and, indeed, to that desired by hon. Members on this side of the House. Surely, the best way to bring down the rents of garages is by building more garages so that there is not so much competition for the space available. We on this side of the House fully realise that it is not practicable at the moment to build many garages. Therefore, superficially, a method of control of price is attractive. But what would be the effect of such a Bill? It would merely mean that many people who control the letting of their garages would no longer let them as garages, but would prefer to use them for some other purpose, which would mean that the congestion in the remaining garage space would be greater than ever.
The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) suggested that there had been some great profiteering over garage accommodation in the London area. In actual fact, however—particularly in the case of large public garages—garages have put up their prices since the war less than almost any other industry. For instance, the garage in a central area which before the war was charging 2s. 6d. a night, now charges only the standard price of 3s. 6d. When we consider how much their rents and expenses have gone up since 1939, that is a very moderate increase indeed. I suggest that at the present time we do not want to see any more control, particularly of garage rents, which can only make the position worse and not better.

1927
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12.
The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 196.

Division No. 42.]

AYES

[4.5 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Adams, H. R.

Freeman, John (Watford)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Allan, Arthur (Bosworth)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Manuel, A. C.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Gibson, C. W.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Gilzean, A.

Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

Awbery, S. S.

Glanville, James (Consett)

Mellish, R. J.

Ayles, W. H.

Granville, Edgar (Eye)

Messer, F.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Baird, J.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Mikardo, Ian

Balfour, A.

Grenfell, D. R.

Mitchison, G. R.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Grey, C. F.

Moeran, E. W.

Bartley, P.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Monslow, W.

Benn, Wedgwood

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llaneffy)

Moody, A. S.

Benson, G.

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Beswick, F

Gunter, R. J.

Morley, R.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Bins, G. H. C.

Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

Blackburn, A. R.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)

Mort, D. L.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Moyle, A.

Blyton, W. R.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Murray, J. D.

Boardman, H.

Hamilton, W. W.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Booth, A.

Hannan, W.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Bottomley, A. G.

Hardman, D. R

O'Brien, T.

Bowden, H. W.

Hardy, E. A.

Oliver, G. H

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hargreaves, A.

Orbach, M.

Brockway, A. F.

Harrison, J.

Padley, W. E.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Hastings, S.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hayman, F. H.

Pannell, T. C.

Brown, George (Belper)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)

Pargiter, G. A.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Herbison, Miss M.

Paton, J.

Burke, W. A.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Pearson, A.

Burton, Miss E.

Hobson, C. R.

Peart, T. F.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Holman, P.

Poole, C.

Callaghan, L. J.

Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

Popplewell, E.

Carmichael, J.

Houghton, D.

Proctor, W. T.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hoy, J.

Pryde, D. J.

Champion, A. J.

Hubbard, T.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Rankin, J.

Clunie, J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Rees, Mrs. D.

Cocks, F. S

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Coldrick, W.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Reld, William (Camlachie)

Collick, P.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Rhodes, H.

Collindridge, F.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Richards, R.

Cook, T. F.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Robens, A.

Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)

Janner, B.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Cooper, John (Deptford)

Jay, D. P. T.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Cove, W. G.

Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jenkins, R. H.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Crawley, A.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N)

Crosland, C. A. R.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Grossman, R. H. S

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Royle, C.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Daines, P.

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

Shackleton, E. A. A

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Keenan, W.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Kenyon, C.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

de Freitas, G.

Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.

Simmons, C. J.

Deer, G.

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Slater, J.

Delargy, H. J.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Diamond, J.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Dodds, N. N.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Snow, J. W.

Driberg, r. E. N.

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Sorensen, R. W.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lindgren, G. S.

Sparks, J. A.

Edelman, M.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Steele, T.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

McAllister, G.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

MacColl, J. E.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

McGhee, H. G.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

McGovern, J.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Ewart, R.

McInnes, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Fernyhough, E.

Mack, J. D.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Field, Capt. W. J.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

Finch, H. J.

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

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

McLeavy, F.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Follick, M.

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Foot, M. M.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Forman, J. C.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thurtle, Ernest

Timmons, J.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Wigg, G.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Tomney, F.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Vernon, W. F.

Wilkes, L.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Viant, S. P.

Wilkins, W. A.

Wyatt, W. L.

Wallace, H. W.

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)

Yates, V. F.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

Younger, Hon. K.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Williams, David (Neath)

West, D. G.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Mr. Harold Davies and

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)

Mr Donnelly

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Williams, W. T (Hammersmith, S.)

NOES

Alport, C. J. M

Head, Brig. A. H.

Odey, G. W.

Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Heath, Edward

Ormsby-Gore, Hon W. D.

Arbuthnot, John

Henderson, John (Cathcarl)

Osborne, C.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Beamish, Major Tufton

Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)

Pickthorn, K.

Bell, R. M.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Powell, J. Enoch

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Profumo, J. D.

Birch, Nigel

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Raikes, H. V.

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

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Bossom, A. C.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

Renton, D. L. M.

Bower, Norman

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hurd, A. R.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

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

Robson-Brown, W

Brains, B. R.

Hutchison, Colonel James

Roper, Sir Harold

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Ropner, Col. L

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Jeffreys, General Sir George

Russell, R. S.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Jennings, R.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Scott, Donald

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Kaberry, D.

Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir Walter

Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.

Keeling, E. H.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Butcher, H. W.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Kinley, J.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Channon, H.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Snadden, W. McN

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Spence, H. R (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lennox-Boyd, A T

Stanley, Capt. Hon, Richard (N Fylde)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lindsay, Martin

Stevens, G. P

Corbett, Lt.-Col Uvedale (Ludlow)

Linstead, H. N.

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

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

Llewellyn, D.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Crouch, R. F.

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Storey, S.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Davidson, Viscountess

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Studholme, H. G.

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Summers, G. S.

Deedes, W. F.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Teevan, T. L.

Digby, S. W.

McAdden, S. J.

Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.

McKibbin, A.

Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)

Drewe, C

Maclay, Hon. John

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Tilney, John

Dunglass, Lord

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.>

Touche, G. C.

Duthie, W. S.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Turner, H. F. L.

Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E.

Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

Turton, R. H.

Fisher, Nigel

Maitland, Cmdr. J W

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Vosper, D. F.

Fort, R

Marples, A. E.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Foster, John

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Maudling R.

Watkinson, H.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Webbe, Sir Harold

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Mellor, Sir John

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Gammans, L. D.

Molson, A. H. E.

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

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

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Wills, G.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Nabarro, G.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Nicholson, G.

York, C.

Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S

Nugent, G. R. H.

Harvey Air-Codre A. V. (Macclesfield)

Nutting, Anthony

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hay, John

Oakshott, H. D.

Mr. Errol and

Mr. Harmar Nicholls.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harold Davies, Mr. Mikardo, Mr. Snow, Mr. George Darling, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Driberg, Mr. Reeves, Lieut.-Colonel Lipton and Mr. James Johnson.

RENT RESTRICTION (GARAGES)
  RENT RESTRICTION (GARAGES) BILL
  "to restrict the rent for garaging cars in the Metropolitan area of London," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND ESTIMATE FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1951–2 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £929,264,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, namely:

    CIVIL ESTIMATES

    CLASS I

    £

    1. House of Lords

    33,000

    2. House of Commons

    275,000

    3. Registration of Electors

    300,000

    4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    1,200,000

    5. Privy Council Office

    10,500

    6. Privy Seal Office

    3,500

    7. Charity Commission

    25,000

    8. Civil Service Commission

    162,000

    9. Exchequer and Audit Department

    131,000

    10. Government Actuary

    16,000

    11. Government Chemist

    71,000

    12. Government Hospitality

    35,000

    13. The Mint

    10

    14. National Debt Office

    10

    15. National Savings Committee

    300,000

    16. Overlapping Income Tax Payments

    7,000

    17. Public Record Office

    27,500

    18. Public Works Loan Commission

    10

    19. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    6,000

    20. Royal Commissions, &c.

    44,910

    21. Secret Service

    1,400,000

    22. Tithe Redemption Commission

    10

    23. Silver

    1,600,000

    24. American Aid Counterpart Funds

    300,000

    26. Miscellaneous Expenses

    50,000

    Scotland:

    27. Scottish Home Department

    310,000

    28. Scottish Record Office

    9,000

    CLASS II

    1. Foreign Service

    4,400,000

    2. Foreign Office Grants and Services

    10,000,000

    3. British Council

    620,000

    4. United Nations

    1,400,000

    5. International Refugee Organisation

    866,000

    6. Commonwealth Relations Office

    590,000

    £

    7. Commonwealth Services

    482,000

    8. Oversea Settlement

    140,000

    9. Colonial Office

    300,000

    10. Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

    8,000,000

    11. Development and Welfare (Colonies, &c.)

    6,500,000

    12. Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)

    150,000

    13. Imperial War Graves Commission

    500,000

    CLASS III

    1. Home Office

    920,000

    2. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)

    2,500,000

    3. Police, England and Wales

    8,890,000

    4. Prisons, England and Wales

    2,100,000

    5. Child Care, England and Wales

    1,975,000

    6. Fire Services, England and Wales

    932,000

    7. Supreme Court of Judicature, &c.

    400,000

    8. County Courts

    100,000

    9. Land Registry

    10

    10. Public Trustee

    10

    11. Law Charges

    160,000

    12. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    30,000

    Scotland:

    13. Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)

    191,500

    14. Police

    31,000

    15. Prisons

    208,000

    16. Approved Schools

    55,000

    17. Fire Services

    14,500

    18. Scottish Land Court

    5,000

    19. Law Charges and Courts of Law

    50,000

    20. Department of the Registers of Scotland

    10

    Ireland:

    21. Supreme Court of Judicature, &c, Northern Ireland

    21,500

    22. Irish Land Purchase Services

    610,000

    CLASS IV

    1. Ministry of Education

    66,000,000

    2. British Museum

    137,000

    3. British Museum (Natural History)

    73,000

    4. Imperial War Museum

    10,000

    5. London Museum

    6,000

    6. National Gallery

    33,000

    7. National Maritime Museum

    8,500

    8. National Portrait Gallery

    6,500

    9. Wallace Collection

    8,000

    10. Grants for Science and the Arts

    1,700,000

    11. Universities and Colleges, &c, Great Britain

    11,000,000

    12. Broadcasting

    5,300,000

    13. Festival of Britain, 1951

    3.000,000

    Scotland:

    14. Public Education

    9,250,000

    15. National Galleries

    10,000

    16. National Library

    6,000

    CLASS V

    £

    1. Ministry of Local Government and Planning

    2,395,000

    2. Housing, England and Wales

    9,000,000

    3. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

    16,850,000

    4. Ministry of Health

    1,230,000

    5. National Health Service, England and Wales

    120,000,000

    6. Registrar-General's Office

    1,120,000

    7. Ministry of Labour and National Service

    7,200,000

    8. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

    225,000

    9. Ministry of National Insurance

    74,000,000

    10. National Assistance Board

    32,350,000

    11. Friendly Societies Registry

    21,000

    12. Central Land Board

    1,200,000

    Scotland:

    13. Department of Health

    620,000

    14. National Health Service

    14,350,000

    15. Housing

    3,500,000

    16. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues

    1,900,000

    17. Registrar General's Office

    172,500

    CLASS VI

    1. Board of Trade

    2,600,000

    2. Services in Development Areas

    2,400,000

    3. Financial Assistance in Development Areas

    350,000

    4. Export Credits

    10

    5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees)

    225,000

    6. Ministry of Fuel and Power

    2,000,000

    7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

    24,000

    8. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

    6,450,000

    9. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services)

    8,550,000

    11. Surveys of Great Britain &c.

    830,000

    12. Forestry Commission

    2,250,000

    13. Development Fund

    480,000

    14. Ministry of Transport

    830.000

    15. Roads, &c.

    10,300,000

    16. Mercantile Marine Services

    160,000

    17. Ministry of Civil Aviation

    6,100,000

    18. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

    1,780,000

    19. State Management Districts

    50,000

    Scotland:

    20. Department of Agriculture

    1,260,000

    21. Department of Agriculture (Food Production Services)

    2,000,000

    22. Fisheries

    465,000

    23. Herring Industry

    235,000

    24. State Management Districts

    10

    CLASS VII

    1. Ministry of Works

    2,352,500

    2. Houses of Parliament Buildings

    250,000

    3. Public Buildings, Great Britain

    10,300,000

    £

    4. Public Buildings Overseas

    645,000

    5. Royal Palaces

    130,000

    6. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    200,000

    7. Miscellaneous Works Services

    400,000

    8. Rates on Government Property

    3,500,000

    9. Stationery and Printing

    4,650,000

    10. Central Office of Information

    775,000

    11. Peterhead Harbour

    18,000

    Ireland:

    12. Works and Buildings in Ireland

    70,000

    CLASS VIII

    1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

    75,000

    2. Ministry of Pensions

    33,000,000

    3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &c.

    410,000

    4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    2,950,000

    CLASS IX

    1. Ministry of Supply

    80,000,000

    2. Ministry of Supply (Trading Services and Assistance to Industry)

    12,500,000

    3. Ministry of Food

    150,000,000

    4. Ministry of Transport (Shipping and War Terminal Services)

    3,200,000

    5. Ministry of Fuel and Power (War Services)

    30,000

    6. Foreign Office (German Section)

    1,450,000

    7. Administration of certain African Territories

    865,000

    8. Advances to Allies, &c.

    2,000,000

    9. War Damage Commission

    500,000

    10. Burma War Damage Payments

    43,000

    11. Board of Trade (Strategic Reserves)

    16,000,000

    12. Ministry of Supply (Strategic Reserves)

    7,500,000

    13. Ministry of Food (Strategic Reserves)

    30,000,000

    Total for Civil Estimates

    855,292,000

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS

    1. Customs and Excise

    3,300,000

    2. Inland Revenue

    10,000,000

    3. Post Office

    58,000,000

    Total for Revenue Departments

    71,300,000

    Ministry of Defence

    2,672,000

    Total for Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments together with Estimate for the Ministry of Defence

    929,264,000."

CANNING INDUSTRY (TINPLATE SUPPLIES)
4.18 p.m.
Mr. Baker White: It is my purpose this afternoon to draw attention to certain serious shortages in the materials that are necessary for the preservation and transport and packaging of food. Those materials are tinplate, horticultural cardboard used for making nonreturnable containers, and lids for returnable containers, lead foil and waxed paper. It is my belief the responsibility for these shortages rests fairly and squarely upon the Government. If there had been a little thinking ahead, they need not have arisen.
I must apologise for inflicting a few figures on the Committee. In 1949 our total production of tinplate was 664,000 tons. Exports totalled over 194,000 tons, leaving over 469,000 tons for the home market. In 1950 production rose to 690,000 tons and exports rose to over 247,000 tons, leaving over 442,000 tons for the home market. In other words, the home market received a smaller allocation of tinplate on a higher production. I do not know the total amount allocated to all food canning purposes because the figures given by the Minister of Food are contradictory. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman when he replies will clear up the discrepancy.
According to a written answer he gave to a Question on 1st May, 1950, fruit and vegetable canning received 82,000 tons in 1949 and about 80,000 tons in 1950. He said:
"The figure of 80,000 tons which I have mentioned for 1950 is much below the quantity requested, but I am afraid it is all we can spare as supplies are just now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 159.]
In the same reply, he also said that the 1949 allocation was fully taken up. On 7th December, 1950, in a written answer, his Parliamentary Secretary said that about 64,000 tons of tinplate was used for canning home-grown fruit and vegetables in 1949, and 57,000 tons would probably be used in 1950.
It will be seen that there is a discrepancy of 18,000 and 23,000 tons respectively between those two sets of figures. It is clear that the quantity of tinplate available for home-grown fruit and vegetables was about 7,000 tons less in 1950

1937
than it was in 1949. We know for certain that home food canning as a whole had less tinplate in 1950 than in 1949 and that the allocation for all food canning in the first quarter of 1951 was 20 per cent. below that for the same period of 1950.
My calculation is that, broadly speaking, this means that for every 100 tons of food put into tins in the first quarter of 1949, only about 64 tons will be put into tins in the first quarter of this year. As a result, several canning factories have had to close down for the time being. Others are working on short time. The last thing we were told was that in the second, third and fourth quarters of 1951, allocations for food canning are likely to be—and I quote the right hon. Gentleman's words:
"greater than originally planned but not up to the 1949 level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 74.]
While the allocation to our own food canners has been cut down, up to the present there has been no reduction in exports. They have increased, especially to the Argentine. The Argentine received 16,043 tons in 1949 and 32,519 in 1950.
Now, at the last moment, exports are to be cut to help the home producer. The question I want to put is this: when are they to be cut and by how much? I put this question because, on 15th February, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, because of the acute shortage of tinplate at home, he would restrict exports of tinplate in certain directions. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"I am sure the hon. Member will be glad to know that an appreciable proportion of the amount going to export has now been diverted to the home market."
I emphasise the words "an appreciable proportion" and "has now been diverted." In reply to a further question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), the President of the Board of Trade said:
"I am well aware that there is a general shortage of tinplate at present, and this is likely to go on for another few months. While this is likely to continue, we have cut down exports quite sharply."
In reply to yet another question, put this time by my hon. and gallant Friend the
1938
Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), the Minister repeated:
"We have made reductions in the export of tinplate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 599.]
I want to emphasise that he twice reiterated the statement and that he used the past tense.
But what are the facts? According to the Trade and Navigation Accounts for the month ended 31st January, 1951, we exported that month 25,528 tons of tinplate. In December, 1950, we exported 20,523 tons. In November the figure was 21,413 tons, and in October 18,894 tons. These figures appear to be a flat contradiction of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that
"an appreciable proportion of the amount going to export has now been diverted to the home market."
In fact, exports of tinplate in January increased by 5,000 tons as compared with the previous month and by over 4,000 tons compared with November.
I hope and I believe that we shall be given an explanation of these discrepancies. The answer may well be that the cuts in exports were not made until February. If that is so, it would be interesting and valuable to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by his phrase "an appreciable proportion" and by the other phrase "quite sharply." Does it mean a cut of 8,000 to 10,000 tons a month or something like that? I think we should have the figures and should be told when the cuts started. I put this question: Is it not a fact that what the President of the Board of Trade called "an appreciable proportion" is really a cut of about 1 per cent. in the first quarter of the year and a cut of a further 3 per cent. in the remaining quarters? I have no official information but that is my calculation, from what industry as a whole have been told.
This shortage of tinplate has created a feeling of uncertainty throughout the whole great horticultural industry. It is made all the worse by the fact that it comes at the end of two difficult years. I often wonder whether the Government realise that fruit and vegetable growers must plan their cropping months ahead and that when they embark upon the considerable expenditure involved in it they must have some certainty that they

1939
will be able to sell their crops. There is no such certainty today, at any rate for the large-scale growers of peas for canning. There is anger in the industry about the way it has been treated. The Minister of Agriculture and other Ministers continually appeal to the industry to increase its production of food. I must warn them that one more bad season and a large number of small horticultural growers will be driven out of business altogether.
That brings me to another shortage—that of horticultural cardboard. Since the war foreign importers have been able to enjoy the advantage of using non-returnable wooden containers which were not available to our own people. We realised why they were not available. But our people have worked out a very useful and very effective substitute by using a non-returnable cardboard container and by using a cardboard top for the wooden bushel and half-bushel returnable boxes.
What has happened? Having got well into their stride and having in many cases installed special and very expensive packing machinery, they have now been told that there is to be a drastic cut in supplies of cardboard. To take one example, a firm which manufactures three-quarters of the country's output of 12-lb. cardboard baskets had a target of six million of these 12-lb. baskets for 1951. They will be very lucky if they can produce four-and-a-half million.
With regard to the general situation, I cannot do better than read a letter sent a few days ago to one of the biggest fruit growers in Kent. It says:
"With reference to supplies of returnable bushel and half-bushel box covers, we are very sorry to inform you that it will not be possible for us to manufacture these in 1951. As you are aware, the supply position of cardboard has deteriorated steadily for some months, and it has now reached the critical stage where we have been forced to suspend the manufacture of many of our horticultural lines, including 4-lb. and 6-lb. baskets."
Why has this shortage arisen? It has arisen because the Government have failed to pursue a sensible, vigorous and continuous policy over the collection of waste paper, which is the raw material from which this cardboard is made. I can put the waste paper position very shortly indeed. The present rate of waste paper
1940
collection is about 800,000 tons a year; the consumption is already up to the 900,000 ton mark, and the needs of defence will probably put it up to the million ton mark before the end of this year. Until recently the deficit has been made up by using accumulated supplies. Now these are gone. My belief is that there is now less than four weeks' supply of waste paper available in the country.
There is another shortage to which I must refer briefly. The matter was raised on 13th February at Question Time by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). It is the shortage of oiled paper wraps used for the storage of apples in gas chambers. Time and time again since 1945 the Minister of Agriculture has urged upon British fruit growers the necessity of improving the quality of their products and particularly the standard of presentation to the consumers. The horticultural industry has done everything it can to comply with that request, but what is the good of the Minister's asking the growers to improve presentation—to raise the quality of the presentation—when other Ministries are cutting down the supplies of the very materials they want to achieve that end?
Mr. Baldwin: Co-operation and co-ordination.
Mr. White: There is another aspect of the tinplate shortage to which I must refer—the shortage of biscuit tins. Manufacturers say that, as a result of the shortage, supplies of biscuits are piling up at the factories while there is a shortage in the shops. I wonder if the Government realise that the lack of one 8 lb. tin in the industry does not mean a loss of 8 lb. of biscuits to the housewife; it means the loss of 80 lb., because such a tin is used altogether anything up to 10 times.
Then there is one other point to which I must refer. Two, if not more, firms of manufacturers have tried to get round the shortage of tinplate for soups by packing dessicated soup in lead foil. These soups have proved very popular with the public. But what has happened now? Having created the demand, having manufactured large quantities of the soup, the manufacturers have now been told by the Government that they will not get any more lead foil for packing it.

1941
I have tried to put before the Committee the facts and figures governing this grave situation. The truth of the matter is that this is another Government muddle—a muddle like groundnuts, like the muddle over fuel supplies, the muddle over meat. The Government have failed to keep a proper balance between exports and home demands. They agreed to send too much tinplate to the Argentine. The result has been to give the Argentine every possible assistance in holding out in the negotiations. Unwittingly, the President of the Board of Trade has been señor Peron's best friend. How much of the 13,169 tons of tinplate sent to the Argentine since August has come back here with meat inside it? The answer is less than 200 tons. With that tinplate, Argentina has been able to can about 65,000 tons of meat.
As always, the worst sufferer from this muddle is the housewife. Her meat ration has been cut; she is finding it increasingly difficult to get tinned soups to make up for it; in some areas there is a shortage now of tinned fish as well; there is a shortage of biscuits; and there is bound to be in the next three months a shortage of tinned fruit.
It has been argued that a quantity of the tinplate we export comes back to this country with food inside it. That is perfectly true. We get Australian and South African jams, South African ham, Malayan fruits, Australian fruit and Australian fruit cakes; but a great deal of what comes back is expensive food. The housewife cannot afford French tinned ham at £550 per ton to be sold at 10s. or 12s. a lb.; she cannot afford tinned chicken from Holland at 6s. 6d. for a 10 oz. tin. Tinned sausages from Germany, Czechoslovakia and Belgium work out at about 9d. per sausage—a somewhat expensive meal for a hungry family of four.
There are other things coming in inside tinplate. From Holland we are taking tinned cauliflower, tinned beans and, of all things, tinned brussels sprouts. I am sure that that fact will be very interesting to the broccoli growers of Devon and Cornwall, and to the brussels sprouts growers of Kent and East Anglia, who are having such a difficult time selling their produce. Another point. British canners have been unable to take up the peas grown in this country because of the
1942
shortage of tinplate, but we are importing French peas inside of the tinplate that our pea canners cannot get.
There is another and much more serious aspect of this muddle. When he replies to the debate, the Minister may say that the adjusted allocations are sufficient to meet current public demand and to avoid a breakdown of supplies. Suppose public demand is met and that the now idle canning plants are set to work again. Well and good. But what about the needs of defence? Large stocks of tinned food in easily transported paper board containers are an essential part of our defence preparations. Anyone who had anything to do with Civil Defence in the last war knows the vital need in rest centres of stocks of soups and other tinned foods. I should like to ask whether there is a single defence organisation anywhere in the country today that has got adequate stocks of tinned food in hand, because if war came tomorrow they could not draw on local grocers' stocks: they are already run right down.
Anyone who travelled the road from Algiers to Sfax in the war years, or the road from Alamein to Tunis, will recall one thing about them—the millions of tins glistening in the sun along the roadside. A modern army has an insatiable appetite for tinned food. What stocks have been put aside to meet the needs of the Services? Judging by what happened in the early days in Korea, practically nothing at all. There is another link in this chain of defence. The housewife in her home, with that jealously guarded stock of tinned foods put by for emergency. What hope has she of being able to stock up today? As far as tinned goods are concerned, she is living, like her grocer, from hand to mouth.
This peril of aggression has not come on us over night. It has been obvious for three years. In the matter of reserves of tinned foods what have the Government done? They cut down the allocation of tinned plate to food manufacturers in 1950 and they sent more tinplate abroad than they did in 1949. They cut the allocation to home canners by a further 20 per cent. in the first quarter of 1951. Sometime since 1st February—not a day before—they woke up to the peril of the situation and decided to keep more tinplate at home. The action that the President of the Board of Trade has said he

1943
has taken should have been taken two years ago.
It is another defence failure; another dreadful example of too little and too late; because the task today is to produce not only enough tinned food to meet current public consumption but to fill our defence store cupboards. Their emptiness testifies to the Government's failure.
This Government have an infinite capacity for being blind to shortages and crises until they burst upon their head. Coal, meat, metals, tinplate—they are all part of one long dismal story. The Government have failed again and again to think more than 10 minutes ahead. In the matter of food preservation they have betrayed British horticulture once again; but, much worse than that, they have betrayed the interests of the British people.
4.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. John Freeman): I apologise to the Committee for intervening at this stage with what will be some rather soporific remarks, but I think it will be helpful if I say a few words on the facts of the tinplate situation which, as I am sure hon. Members on all sides will agree, is the most important of the shortages we are discussing this afternoon. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) accused us of having done nothing whatever about this problem. The root of the difficulty, of course, is a shortage of tinplate being produced in our British mills, and it is a very good thing that the Government took action in this matter three years ago in a way the effects of which will begin to be felt fairly shortly.
Before the war our production of tinplate was about 900,000 tons a year, of which about 400,000 tons used to go to export. During the war there was considerable concentration of that industry in order that the South Wales steel industry could concentrate on a higher rate of production of what were relatively more important products to the war effort than tinplate, and by 1946 that 900,000 tons which had been produced before the war was down to 543,000 tons, of which about 112,000 tons were exported. We have been gradually building up from that and the figure of production in 1950 was 742,900 tons. The difficulty hitherto in
1944
building up the rate of production of tinplate has been the difficulty in getting back to the somewhat antiquated hand mills in South Wales the labour which was dispersed during the war, and I shall have a word or two to say about that in a moment.
The shortage of tinplate, together I suppose with steel sheets, has been one of the major shortages in our post-war economy, and to deal with it in the long-term the first stage of the steel industry development plan included the building of a modern continuous strip mill at Trostre in South Wales. This mill is due to come into operation in the late summer this year. We shall then have continuous strip mills at Ebbw Vale and Trostre, together with the South Wales hand mills, producing tinplate, and the sort of level of production which we might expect as a result of that is something like this.
In this current year Ebbw Vale ought to produce 200,000 tons, which is what it is producing at the moment and is its maximum capacity; Trostre will probably come into operation in the late summer, and it would be over sanguine to expect that more than about 40,000 tons will be taken from it during this current year; from the hand mills we expect about 520,000 tons, making a total production in 1951, provided all goes well, of some 760,000 tons.
Mr. Douglas Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is using the expression "current year." Does he mean January to December?
Mr. Freeman: Yes. I am not talking about the financial year but about January to December.
In 1952 there should be no change at Ebbw Vale; Trostre will, we think, produce about 250,000 tons; the hand mills will probably produce about 500,000 tons—a little less than they are producing this year—and that, which I conceive to be a conservative estimate, will give us a supply of tinplate in the calendar year 1952 of some 950,000 tons. From 1953 onwards Trostre should be in full production, and I think it can be said with some confidence that our total supplies, provided we can keep up supplies from the hand mills, will be substantially over a million tons. It is impossible to say exactly what, because no one knows exactly what the output of Trostre will be.

1945
As against that forecast of production, demand is probably something like this. A million tons a year is the stated demand at the moment; that is to say, a million tons is what people are trying to secure in terms of orders at the present moment. But, of course, they are trying to get a million tons against the general background of a well known shortage, and it is pretty certain that if tinplate were in anything like free supply a million tons would prove to be an under-estimate.
Mr. Boothby: Does that include tinplate for export as well as for manufacture in this country?
Mr. Freeman: Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am just about to break up that figure. That million tons is calculated roughly like this: home requirements for food packing purposes, about 400,000 tons; home requirements for purposes other than food packing, about 200,000 tons; exports, about 400,000 tons, which is the same as prewar; and I can say to the Committee that I have not the slightest doubt that with anything like a free supply the demand for export would go very much higher than that.
Whether or not that million tons is a substantial under-estimate, what is quite certain is that the demand is likely to grow. Indeed, the consumption of the flat products of the steel industry is one of the best indices of industrial progress in any country. Whether or not at some time in the future it will be considered wise to put down another major tinplate mill in this country, it is quite clear from these figures of probable demand and supply that the output of the hand mills will be urgently necessary for as far ahead as it is reasonable to forecast.
No doubt there are a number of reasons why men are unwilling to go into these hand mills in South Wales. It is a particularly unattractive type of work in many ways, and there are now in South Wales other forms of employment available which there were not before. I have no doubt at all that one of the main reasons why they are unwilling to go there is a fear that, when Trostre gets into full production, their jobs may be gone. That fear is, so far as we can see, completely groundless, and I am anxious to state at this Despatch Box and to have it known in South Wales that those who might be
1946
available to go into the hand mills should not be deterred from doing so by any fear that in future for as far ahead as it is reasonable to foresee their jobs will become redundant.
Mr. W. Robson-Brown: In referring to the possible erection of a further tinplate mill does the hon. Gentleman mean a new hot strip mill or an additional cold reduction mill and finishing plant for the production of strip tinplate at Swansea as part of the Margam project?
Mr. Freeman: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I would rather not ride off into what is an extremely technical matter. Let us put it this way. Whether or not it is necessary to undertake further extensive capital development of the tinplate industry, I would rather not discuss at the moment which method the Government might in the end choose.
The present labour situation in this industry—which, I may tell the Committee, is practically entirely concentrated in South Wales—is that in Ebbw Vale and the hand mills there are about 17,500 workers, of whom just over 13,000 are rated as productive workers. Another 1,500 men could be employed immediately if we could get them, and the effect of that would be a further production of about 100,000 tons a year of tinplate. Both the steel industry itself and the Government have made every possible effort to recruit labour to this industry, but in the event I have to tell the Committee that all we are doing is keeping the figure just about steady; we are matching the rate of wastage with the new entrants.
When the new mill at Trostre has to be manned up later this year it will certainly take some men who are at present operating in the hand mills—probably a couple of hundred or so; not a large number—but this will lead to some falling off of production from the hand mills. Within the last year, we have managed to bring in, with the full cooperation of the workers in the industry, and settle in South Wales 300 Italian workers, who have so far done very well and appear to be settling down. We are investigating at this moment the possibility of carrying that experiment further, but I think that hon. Members on both

1947
sides of the Committee will realise that the people we should like to see doing this work, if we can possibly get them, are the people of South Wales whose traditional work it is.
Finally, let me say one word about allocation, as I see it, which is admittedly from a rather different point of view to that of the hon. Member for Canterbury. First of all, let us see roughly what the figures were for 1950. For home consumption for food packing purposes 272,000 tons were delivered; for home consumption for non-food purposes 270,000 tons. Let me tell the Committee, incidentally, that the total United Kingdom consumption for non-food purposes is made up of tinplate known as "wasters," which is tinplate not suitable for food packing purposes or for high grade export. Therefore, the non-food packing consumption in the United Kingdom is in no way the rival of food packing for the horticultural industry. Fifty-three thousand tons of prime tinplate was exported for British oil companies overseas, and I do not think that anyone can dissent from that relatively small export for an extremely important purpose. The effect of not exporting that particular tinplate would be that it would have to be obtained from dollar sources, and as it is not available at present from dollar sources, the British oil companies would lose that business.
Mr. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that 53,000 tons of tinplate has been applied for the export of high grade lubricating oil and similar products from this country, or was it sent to our refineries overseas to enable them to distribute such highly refined products from there?
Mr. Freeman: The tinplate is exported to the British oil companies at their refineries overseas. Of the rest of the exports, which total together about 220,000 tons, roughly one-quarter has been tied to what is called, in the rather horrible jargon of the food trade, clothing food imports. I think that hon. Members will understand what that means. The remaining three-quarters has been what is called free export. Taking these last two exports, other than exports to British oil companies overseas, about 144,000 tons went to Commonwealth
1948
countries and British Colonies, and between 103,000 and 104,000 tons to the other countries of the world.
I ought to advise the hon. Member for Canterbury at this stage that if he adds up these figures he will find that they do not quite agree, and the reason is that some are taken from the Trade and Navigation Accounts and some from deliveries. I can assure him, however, that I am presenting him with a substantially accurate picture. In almost every case, these are exports which the Government hold to be vital and which are at present at their minimum. That is to say, that to cancel or cut them further would be either a specific breach of some agreement which we have with another country or would seriously interfere with our colonial policy, or would deprive ourselves of some import which is essential to us, or, at least, would be permanently damaging to the proper pattern of our overseas trade.
I am not suggesting that there is not room for debate about exactly what the level of exports to a particular country ought to be. But it is important, in dealing with that point, that the Committee should appreciate that we cannot just say that we have no responsibility in these matters. It is proper for hon. Members who represent agricultural and horticultural constituencies to present their case in this House, and it is equally proper for the Commonwealth countries to present their case. The House has to hold the balance between them and recognise that powerful arguments can be adduced on both sides.
Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman has given us an analysis, which is of great interest and value, of the supply of tinplate for 1950. My hon. Friend referred to the substantial reduction in the tinplate available to the tinning industry of this country since 1949. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give us only the 1950 figures. Will he tell us about the 1950 figures as compared with those for 1949?
Mr. Freeman: I was not proposing to take up the time of the Committee in going back to 1949, beyond saying that, as I followed the remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury, I had no reason to dissent from the figures which he gave on that point.

1949
I intended to address myself to the point which he made about the difficulty of reconciling the Trade and Navigation Account figures with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. I had not time, during the few minutes in which the hon. Member was speaking, to make quite certain that I had calculated these to the last decimal point, but the discrepancy is, roughly, this: in the last few months of 1950 there was a substantial back-log in deliveries of tinplate already contracted for and waiting for shipment, and the Trade and Navigation Accounts for December and January—the two months which he quoted—showed not only deliveries of tinplate for export purposes made in those months, but also the working off of the back-log which had built itself up.
Excluding deliveries to oil companies, in December, 1950—a five-week month—5,600 tons of tinplate a week were delivered from the mills for export purposes. That is quite different from what is shown in the Trade and Navigation Accounts. In January and the first half of February, 1951—a seven-week period—only 3,000 tons a week were delivered from the mills for export purposes. It is true that there has been a substantial cut, and I think that the Trade and Navigation figures will show that in subsequent returns.
Captain Duncan: Which foreign countries were affected by the reduction?
Mr. Freeman: I would prefer not to deal with that. I am anxious to let the Minister of Food deal with it.
Under the Iron and Steel Control Order No. 62 the whole of the supply, procurement and acquisition of tinplate is licensed. No one may acquire tinplate without a licence and no one may dispose of tinplate to any one without a licence. So, the distribution of our tinplate is controlled by the Government, and, so far as we know, there are no leakages, and, at any rate, no substantial black market.
To sum up, all our home requirements, other than for food packing, are met from wasters which are unsuitable for food packing or for export. No one in his senses can complain about the exports which go to the British oil companies overseas. The question is whether what is called specified tinplate which has to be
1950
divided equitably between export and Ministry of Food demands is divided on a reasonable basis. The Minister of Food, who lives much closer to that particular aspect of the problem than I do, will, at a later stage, express the Government's opinion on that point.
I would ask the Committee to realise that it cannot be denied that both these claimants are exceedingly important and that neither is anything like satisfied. I apologise for the length of my intervention in such a short debate and for its somewhat and nature, but I thought that it would be useful for the Committee to have all the facts, which would enable the remainder of the debate to be focused rather more sharply on the problem.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Edgar Granville: The Committee is grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having spoken so early in the debate and for the information he has given. He did not quarrel with the figures that were quoted by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White). I would not say that the Parliamentary Secretary has repeated his success in the iron and steel debate, but, nevertheless, he has given us this information. I hope the Government will not think that he has covered the whole problem and disposed of all the criticisms. I hope that we shall have a reply on some of the wider questions by the Minister of Food.
I was very interested in the reference to the Welsh tinplate industry. I am very glad to know that there is to be some increase in production and supplies. I hope that we shall also be told the position in regard to tin and the Cornish industry. I hope that there will also be an increase in production from this source of supply. I hope that the Government will say something about the progress that has been made in research into substitutes for these various items in short supply and whether they have been able to discover any new sources of supply.
There is a great deal of anxiety in industry and trade about the tin position. It would seem from the reports we have had that there is something in the nature of a metal famine approaching. It is not a cold but a most formidable war that is putting a tremendous strain on the metal resources of the world by way of competitive stockpiling, which is being

1951
done largely by bulk purchasing. There are, of course, serious shortages of copper, zinc and nickel, as well as of tin, for the consumer goods industry as well as for the re-armament programme and the export industry.
Mr. Boothby: Is not the hon. Member confusing the supply of raw materials with the manufacturing of tinplate? The supply of raw tin has nothing to do with this debate.
Mr. Granville: That may or may not be so, but I think it has some relevance to the subject.
I want to deal more particularly with the question of consumer goods and the supply of tins. I repeat that there is an overall shortage of tin, and that this shortage throughout the world is, directly or indirectly, affecting the re-armament programme, the export trade and the consumer goods industry. There is a considerable shortage of tins for the consumer goods industry.
Mr. J. Freeman: Obviously, a shortage of tin metal might, in the long run, have some impact on the production of tinplate, but I can assure the hon. Member that it does not at the moment.
Mr. Granville: I will show the Parliamentary Secretary in the course of my speech, that it does. There are a variety of reasons for this shortage. A great many people in the retail industry are afraid of a famine and a rise in the price of tin. They think that they must do something about it by increasing their stocks. There is also a fear of an increase in the Purchase Tax. [Interruption.] The hon. Member ought to know enough about the food industry to realise that this is relevant, instead of interrupting with an un-Parliamentary epithet. A number of retailers are stockpiling tins of various commodities because they fear the possibility of a rise in the Purchase Tax. These proprietary articles, some of which are the products of the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Frederic Harris), are well known.
Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing rose—
Mr. Granville: If the hon. Member does not know it, let him go out and ask the first retailer he comes across what stocks he is carrying on his shelves.
Mr. Gerald Williams: Stocks of what?
Mr. Granville: Stocks of tinned goods, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Canterbury. Of course, the big merchants and manufacturers can buy supplies in large quantities, but the small man has not the capital to make forward purchases. The result is people are finding that when they go to the suppliers they are told that they cannot have their supplies of tins. I want to know what is the Government's policy. Are they, in fact, rationing tins on the basis of the status quo? Is the control on the basis of the requirements of 1950? I should like the Minister of Food to tell us the basis on which allocations are made to the retail and wholesale trade.
Reference was also made to the Argentine—I think a figure of 65,000 tons of tin has been given. I should like to know whether it is true that tinned meat has been sent to the United States from the Argentine. I notice that the President of the Board of Trade is to visit the U.S.A., and I believe that we have now appointed our representative to the raw materials conference at Washington. I believe that representative is to be Lord Knollys. I should like to know whether tin is to be one of the subjects which is to be discussed and considered by one of the five or six groups which are to be set up at that conference. I believe that tin is, but I should like to know.
Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking about tin or tinplate?
Mr. Granville: I am referring to tin and tinplate. I believe that tin is on the agenda of that conference, and I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate whether that aspect is to receive consideration. I ask that because the shortage of tins for retail goods and canned food, etc., which was referred to by the hon. Member for Canterbury, is, as he said, becoming an extremely serious problem.
We have had all this trouble about meat, and I do not think that the domestic consumers in this country can be asked to take a further cut in their food. Can the Minister of Food give us an assurance that the stockpiling which is taking place for military purposes—we

1953
only know what is reported in the Press—will not result in serious difficulties in the supply of canned food to the domestic consumer? Can the Minister give us an undertaking about that today? I notice that the American tin can industry consumes about 30 billion tin cans a year. If we are to have a cut in the volume of our tinned food, if that is what we are to expect from the statement we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply today we ought to have international fair shares in the matter.
This question should be raised at the Washington conference, and the food needs of our civilian population should be pressed by His Majesty's Government. In a speech a few days ago the Minister of Labour said that a nation's real war potential was the technique and morale of its civil population. I repeat that there ought to be fair shares. The United States has, I suppose, the highest standard of living in the world, and the consumption of canned foods and tinned commodities there is higher than that of the rest of the world put together. If we are to make sacrifices for the re-armament programme or even for our export trade this country ought, as a result of that conference, to be put in the position of having fair shares because the civilian population here have borne the brunt of the sacrifices with regard to food. That has been so in the case of meat.
I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade is going to Washington to discuss the overall question with his opposite number, Mr. Charles Wilson, who is in charge in this sphere in America. My view is that the Minister of Supply is the man to send to discuss the matter to which I have referred. He understands the metal trade; he is in the business. The President of the Board of Trade is to discuss the question of sulphur supplies. I hope that whatever agreement is made about the integration of defence it will be made clear that our civilian population have taken as much as they can bear, and that there must be no cut or serious diminution of the supply of tinned food to this country.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Boothby: One can get away with murder on the platform; one can get away with murder
1954
after dinner; one can sometimes get away with murder on the air; but the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) knows this House well enough to realise that one cannot get away with murder in the House of Commons. I do not say that one has to know everything about the subject one is discussing, but one has to have a clue. The hon. Member has not got a clue.
Mr. Granville: I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman with interest—
Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member—
Mr. Granville rose—
Mr. Boothby: I have not given way.
Mr. Granville: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Boothby: I did not need to give way to the hon. Gentleman to know that he would listen to me with interest—
Mr. Granville rose—
Mr. Boothby: I will give way to the hon. Member when I have finished the comment I was making. The limiting factor is not tin at all, but the tinplate manufacturing capacity in this country at the moment, as anyone knows who has given the slightest thought to the subject.
Mr. Granville: If the hon. Gentleman will take himself away from his television economics into the world which affects the ordinary housewife, he will find that the speech he is now about to deliver will be directly related to the supply of tinned food and tinned commodities in this country.
Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member still has not got it right. I am not talking about raw tin, but about tinplate; that is, about what is put round so-called tin cans. In the case of all the food and fish sold as tinned food, the limiting factor is not tin. It does not matter what Lord Knollys or any Minister does in Washington, it will not affect this problem in the least. What will affect it is how much tinplate can be produced in South Wales, and how soon.
The only constructive suggestion which the hon. Member for Eye made was that we should send to Washington a Minister for metal. He said that the President of

1955
the Board of Trade should deal with sulphur, and the Minister of Supply should deal with tin because he knows about metals. If we are now to send one Minister to Washington for each raw material, I see a better chance of bringing down this Government than I have seen for some time.
I wish to speak briefly and only because it happens that there are in my constituency two canning firms of considerable size and importance—Crosse and Blackwell's and Maconochie's. Both have been extremely anxious about their tinplate supplies for some months past. It worries me greatly, because horticultural products are not the only products that go into tin cans. Another food—dare I say it?—herrings, go into tins; and very good they are when tinned.
During recent years, when we have lost so large a proportion of our export markets on the Continent of Europe the herring fishing industry—I have no doubt that one of my hon. Friends will later mention pilchards—has come to rely to an increasing extent on the canning industry. If any serious deterioration took place in the supplies of tinplate to the canning industry, it would have a really disastrous effect so far as the herring industry is concerned. I say without hesitation that the canning of herrings is now the most hopeful development for the future of the herring industry in this country.
We know too well what has happened to the great Continental markets for cured salt herrings; and the development of canning is vital. About 9 per cent. of the total herring catch has been taken in recent years by the canning factories, which is a substantial proportion. I do not think that the figures I am about to give contradict those which were given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. My information is that exports of tinplate for the first 10 months of 1950 were approximately 205,700 tons, compared with 160,300 tons during the corresponding period in 1949. That is to say, that in the first 10 months of 1950 we exported 45,000 tons more of tinplate than we did in the first 10 months of the previous year. I think that at this moment, when the stockpiling of food is more necessary to this country than it has ever been before, to export tinplate
1956
to soft currency areas which is desperately required for the canning of our food is insanity.
I think that, during this period of shortage, and until the full South Wales production capacity comes into operation, we ought further to cut down our exports of tinplate to the soft currency countries. Even when it is turned into canned food there and re-exported to this country, as it is to a considerable extent, it is madness to export it; and, if it is required by them for any other reason, then we are losing the canned food which we now so desperately need.
I understand from the canners that an addition of something between 15,000 and 20,000 tons per annum would probably meet their requirements; that is to say, only half the increase in our exports last year compared with the year before. The comparative figure is trivial; but for the sake of 15,000 or 20,000 tons—I agree that some concessions were recently made—we have been threatened with the complete closing down of both the Maconochie and the Crosse and Blackwell canning factories. The repercussions of that, not only upon the herring industry, but upon our food supplies generally, would be absolutely disastrous.
This is a matter of relative advantages from the national point of view. The Minister has posed a question, and I have no hesitation in giving the answer—that, as far as specified tinplate is concerned, there should be a reduction in our exports to soft currency countries during the next 12 critical months sufficient to satisfy the total requirements of all the food canning factories in this country.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Marshall: I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), because the points that I want to address to the Minister rather lead from the points which my hon. Friend has already put. My hon. Friend has just mentioned the necessity to ensure, in the national interest, that in no circumstances whatever should tinplate suddenly become unavailable in sufficient quantities for the herring industry. At the same time, he had the courtesy to turn to me and say that if I was called I should probably mention the question of the pilchard industry as well.

1957
As far as I can understand, the present position relating to the canning processes of fish is this—and I think I will stop at the word "canned" and not use the word "tin," thus avoiding confusion. The allocation that was made last June and the basis of that allotment, and the allotment that is likely to continue, will probably be exactly the same percentage as before with regard to fish. But the difficulty is this. The vagaries of the fish themselves are well known to hon. Members. In certain industries such as the pilchard industry it is possible that for a certain part of the season when fish are not available to be caught, other products have to be processed so that the whole factory can keep alive and become an economic and efficient unit in the service of the national interest.
Let us say that the other side of a factory is engaged in pea canning so that when they are not canning pilchards they are canning peas. If the amount of tinplate allocated for that purpose is reduced, it means that if the fish are not available during any part of the season the factory will have to run down and will thus not be an efficient unit able to deal with fish when it comes in at a later date. This point has been put, by letter and other means, to Ministers from time to time, but there has not been a satisfactory answer yet. If the Ministers concerned believe, as I trust they do, in the vital need for sufficient tinplate for the fish canning industry, then they must equally realise that those factories which are also concerned with other forms of processing as an ancillary industry must have a sufficient supply of tinplate.
Another point I want to make is this. If the Minister is equally interested in ensuring that in every way we conserve that form of food which we ourselves can obtain either in our island home or from the seas which gird our island home, it must be necessary for the Minister to encourage these industries to venture forth into new processes which they may not as yet have developed. For example, if a factory decides to turn to the canning of crabs as a new venture as well as their present canning of fish, in order to take in a surplus of crabs and use them in the national interest, so that we do not have to import crabs, what will be the position of such a factory? Are they to get
1958
further allocations of tinplate or are they only to find themselves in the position of having to cut down what they are already doing in the canning of other forms of white fish? If the Minister can say, "If that is a good thing to do we will allocate them so much more tinplate" it will give a future to that industry and it will enable it to go ahead and develop.
I do not wish to detain the Committee long. I simply wanted to make those few points and to reinforce the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East. I sincerely trust that the Minister, in replying, will indicate that he has listened attentively to the points which my hon. Friend made concerning the export of tinplate to soft currency countries. Our first vital need is to ensure that we have sufficient tinplate in our own country to can our own produce, not only because it is a sensible thing to do, not only because it is also a help to all those people who produce or catch the necessary products to can, but also because it is vital to defence.
There is no Member listening to my speech who does not remember that at the beginning of the war one of the chief things that we were asked to do as citizens, apart from those serving in His Majesty's Forces, was to see that there was a certain quantity of canned goods in the larder. We are all aware that today there is not a larder in the United Kingdom which is not well night bare. Let us ensure that the processing industry does not come to a standstill simply because we have exported tinplate.
5.29 p.m.
Mr. Dye: While there may be Maconochies and other firms in Scotland and in other parts of the country, one area which in recent years has developed greatly in the producing and canning of fruit, vegetables and fish is Norfolk. This is a very important part of our economy. The growing and canning of fruit and vegetables have to be planned over the year in order that the factories may be fully employed for the greater part of the year. This matter has given rise to some concern. These canning factories have not been able to make the arrangements which they would desire to make with the growers, and this is particularly true in the case of peas.

1959
There is a very rapid process by which the farmers having grown their peas in great quantities; the viners go to work on the farms, the fresh peas are taken straight to the factories where they are cooked and canned and then stored for later consumption. If the canners cannot make hard and fast contracts with the growers the supplies of peas will not be forthcoming. Therefore, it is necessary that the local canners who require peas should know not only the quantity of tinplate that will be forthcoming for them, but the time it will arrive at the factory. The anxiety that is caused should, if at all possible, be allayed and the canners in Norfolk and other parts of the country should know how their supplies are coming along.
Nobody at the moment can foretell the size of this year's fruit crops. Frost and other things may intervene, but, given a normal crop, unless the canners can take a large share of it, the growers will not be able to dispose of it at reasonable prices to cover their costs. I was worried two years ago when visiting Northern Ireland to find that the local canners were importing rhubarb from Holland to can inside their allocations of tinplate and sugar, despite the fact that in that same year both the cans and the sugar were in short supply to meet home requirements.
I ask the Minister of Food to be good enough to look into these questions and ensure that the allocation both of tinplate and of sugar to our local canners is used for canning home grown fruit and vegetables in the period of the year when they are fresh and available. I know that during parts of the year it is essential to import dried beans and peas or some other commodity, but while there is this abundance of fresh fruit and vegetables my right hon. Friend should be able to get an assurance from the canners that they will deal with home products unless, of course, between now and the period when there should be an abundance of home supplies available, something intervenes to cut down our home crops. Given an ordinary year we ought to be able to secure such an assurance from the canners about the supplies which they will receive, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take it up with the canning interests concerned.
5.33 p.m.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), that assurances such as he has mentioned are highly desirable in the interests of the different parts of the industry. Growers particularly would be happy to know that the canners have an assurance of tinplate for the market open to them, and they, in turn, should be expected to use as much as possible of it for home produce rather than for the foreign.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), I do not represent a constituency in which there is a risk of a factory closing down, but one in which two factories have closed down all ready. The fruit and vegetable factories in Blairgowrie and in Coupar Angus in East Perthshire closed down shortly before Christmas solely because of the shortage of tinplate. This has hit these two small burghs extremely hard. I do not want to advocate absurdly the claims of my own constituency, because everyone has his own particular plea in that respect, but these were industries started with a view to taking the place of an industry which had closed down because its products were no longer required for the war.
These canning factories were started with the sole purpose of restoring to those towns something of the prosperity which the war-time factories had produced for them. They were welcomed, and absorbed a considerable number of people. Something like 180 to 200 people have now been thrown out of employment. In this debate so far we have not heard the word "employment" mentioned, but it is a very important thing in small burghs like that, that 100 or 200 people should be thrown out of a job because it is no longer possible to run the industry in which they were employed owing to lack of an essential raw material. Had they got sufficient tinplate to carry on, they could have stretched over the difficult period between the completion of the canning of the old crops and the coming along of the new crops.
I particularly want to know whether the Minister would consider this matter from the point of view of employment. I see that yesterday the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

1961
Angus, South (Captain Duncan), said that the allocation of tinplate this year would be practically the same as last year, when it was 16,000 tons for fruit and 8,000 tons for jam. Last year there was a reduction on the previous year, and what we want to know is whether in cutting down further the exports of tinplate already mentioned, there would be more available for the fruit and jam industry.
In my constituency raspberries grow better than in any other part of the world. There are very large orchards there, which have been planted and extended since the war. The growers were encouraged by the Minister of Food to grow this fruit, which the climate and the ground suit so well. A large proportion of it is very liable to be wasted unless a sufficient amount of tinplate is made available, and I earnestly ask the Minister to reconsider this matter because of those factories which are closed down. It is essential that the canners should have supplies of tinplate in their hands to enable them to pile up a stock of cans ready for the crop when it comes along. We need a very big store of cans to deal with the peak period which, in my part of Scotland, is in the third quarter of the year. So far, indications show that the third quarter of this year will be very difficult. I hope we shall hear from the Minister that there will be more tinplate made available and less sent abroad.
There is a very strong feeling amongst the growers—and I think a genuine one and not altogether unreasonable—that tinplate is going to their foreign rivals and that it will come back with the goods in it, which they could have provided in this country had they had the tinplate. I do not think that that is an actual fact, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us facts and figures tonight to disprove it, so that we can reassure these people who have this genuine feeling. The growers believe that the amount of tinplate which is sent to their competitors abroad means that a smaller amount of fruit and vegetables will be required from them. That is what is worrying them, and an assurance from the Minister on that point is desirable.
This employment question is a very genuine one. Although the numbers are small, to a small community they are big. I have no doubt it is the same in other parts of the country. I am not trying to
1962
claim that we have the sole trouble, but I hope we shall hear something on that side of the question so that the home producers may know where they stand in this matter of producing food for the country.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. Tomney: I intervene for a moment or two to point out that most hon. Members have been advancing, as they usually do in debates of this character, the claims of particular industries or particular bodies. Very few hon. Members have dealt with the consumer aspect of the matter. My hon. Friend below me, the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), has on this occasion, as on others, made out substantially the same case as certain hon. Members of the Opposition have made out. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, did point out the position and the difficulties of the industry, and the fact that for the future a position will arise which will remedy the present shortage.
Any Government such as the present Government must not appear to be ruling for any particular section of the community. If it does so, it fails in its duty to the general public and to the consumer. One of the difficulties of the Government has been to work out the export market for the future which can provide full employment for the rolling mills, which can come into production and provide further expansion for what were formerly the distressed areas. They have to look at the broad picture in this country. On the other hand, there is great danger by excluding exports from other countries, of providing the employers and the canners of this country with an opportunity to manipulate the market to their own ends.
Therefore, in this short intervention, I want to say that the opening speech made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) was, in my opinion, beyond the bounds of decency. It was very insulting. We had the old gibes trotted out about meat, housing and now tin. What he did not say, and what the Opposition forget to say, is that the general standard in this country of all people engaged in all industries, including the canning industry, has risen considerably. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]

1963
The hon. Member also referred to the shortage of waste paper. He blamed the Government for that. Surely he must know that waste paper salvage and collection has been conducted for the last eight years chiefly by the local authorities. In my area the council had to cease the collection of waste paper because the price they got from the merchants did not cover the cost of collection. Let us bear in mind that the waste paper merchants are engaged in private enterprise, so let us have a little less of this nonsense and some more facts. With those remarks, I conclude my intervention.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. Baldwin: In the short time that I have available I cannot follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), very far, but I want to take him up on one point, and that is that we are not giving the consumers the attention in this debate to which they are entitled. The consumer is the one who will benefit from this debate, if the Minister takes any notice of our plea that we should keep more tinplate in this country to be able to can more of our own fruit so that the consumers can get fruit from this country on to their shelves.
Many times we have complained of the lack of co-operation among various Ministries. The trouble with the canning industry is that the same thing is happening again. Here is an instance where the Minister of Food, the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade should consult with one another to find out what the wants of each Department may be. Unfortunately, it seems always to be the ambition of the President of the Board of Trade to reach the export target no matter whether the exports are sent abroad to bring back something which is useful or not. With regard to the tinplate that we have been exporting to Argentina, we have been rather cutting the ground from under the feet of the Minister of Food, who was sticking out to buy meat from that country at a more reasonable price. We have now sent to Argentina the tinplate which they wanted to can that beef and send it to the United States of America. That shows a complete lack of co-operation.
1964
Another point which I want to make is that one should only send abroad the available tinplate in order to bring back goods which we cannot produce for ourselves. I have some figures, which are shown in the trade and industry returns under the heading of "imports, tinned or bottled fruit." These figures are given for 1949, 1950 and 1951. They show that in 1949 we imported £3,572 worth, in 1950, £36,922 worth and in 1951, £55,799 worth of this fruit. The figures for strawberries show that in January of this year the imports were £28,276 worth against an importation valued at £29 last year. I do not know whether that figure was partly because we chucked up a contract with Holland for £300,000 worth of strawberries, or not, but it looks very much like it. We must remember that we have not sent abroad sufficient exports to pay for those imports. The value of our imports in January of this year was £83,000 more than the value of our exports. That figure has risen very considerably during the last two years.
We have heard about the troubles of the fishing industry in Norfolk and South-East England. I would call attention to the fact that in the West of England we also have our problems. Close to my constituency there are two canning factories. This is the sort of thing that they tell me:
"Due to the shortage of cans, we had to stop apple canning very early."
The result was that there were many thousands of tons of apples in Herefordshire because nobody could put them into cans for storage.
Mr. Nabarro: And in Worcestershire.
Mr. Baldwin: These people also say:
"We have thousands of cases of goods on order that we cannot pack, due to lack of cans. Unless we get more cans for the fruit season, commencing May and finishing October, we shall he in a very bad position."
With regard to the months from May to October, I would call the attention of the Minister of Food to the fact that it was during that period that the allocation of cans to the canning factories had the biggest cut last year, when the allocation showed a 35 per cent. reduction over 1949. That is something which the Minister might take up with his colleagues, because it is in that part of the year in the horticultural districts that we

1965
particularly want the allocation of cans to be increased.
Another factory writes to this effect:
"During August and September, which is, of course, the plum and damson canning season, we were able to go at full capacity for the first fortnight of August, but after that we had to drop to no more than an eight-hour working day, whereas normally we run for 14½ hours. Even then, in the later part of some weeks we had to turn our workers off. …"
The hon. Member who said that we must think of the workers was thinking of the workers in the tinplate industry; we also have to think of the workers in the canning industry.
I said that I would take only five minutes and one of my hon. Friends whom I asked to remind me, has told me that my time is up, and I am much obliged to him for doing so. I would only add that as the Government have Cabinet meetings to decide issues on the higher level so they ought to have junior Cabinet meetings consisting of the various heads of Ministries, in order to make them co-operate one with another. The Minister of Food will say that he works in co-operation with the Minister of Agriculture, but I know that he does not. I hope that in future the Minister of Agriculture, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Food will get together and decide these issues before taking any decisions.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Wilkes: I enter the debate with a considerable amount of trepidation, because I am not an expert in tinplate. The shortage of tinplate has impinged on my constituency and I have been applying my mind to it and have come to certain conclusions. It is a very difficult position. If one adopts the doctrine that nothing should be exported until home demands are satisfied and that the export trade is a mere overspill of the home market — as many hon. Members opposite did between 1945 and 1947 when they expressed a certain amount of scepticism about the validity and potentiality of our export drive—it is easy to hold the Government entirely blameworthy for exporting tinplate while there is a very serious shortage at home.
But I also remember that precisely because we have for so long been exporting things that we needed at home,
1966
we alone of all the countries which received it, have been able to dispense with Marshall Aid. The position of the overall balance of trade which we reached a very few months ago before the change in the international trading position has created shortages at home and dislocations in supply. It is always a very fine balance as to which way we should divert supplies.
I am not prepared to say that the Government are blameworthy for having exported a great deal of tinplate which we could have used at home. Of course we could have used it at home. We could have used a lot of things at home, but we decided to concentrate on exports and have done our best to strike a fair balance. That does not mean that I am not entitled to draw the attention of the Government to the very serious position and to bring one or two facts to their attention. While it is obvious that we must export a considerable amount of tinplate to Iran, where it is required in the oil fields, and to the Commonwealth, because a large part of the Commonwealth tinplate comes back to us with other commodities, I am a little dubious about why we exported 176,000 tons to Egypt in 1950, when we exported only 61,000 tons in 1949.
I am also a little dubious as to why, if the total export value of our tinplate was £11,500,000 sterling in 1949, it should have increased to £15,500,000 by 1950. I reiterate the plea which has been made that our export of tinplate to the soft currency areas should be looked at with a very close and discerning eye. I cannot see why we should have needed to export more tinplate to Spain in 1950 than we did in 1949. Perhaps there is a good reason for it. If so, let us hear why we should have exported more to both Egypt and Spain in 1950 than in 1949.
It is a very difficult matter to strike the proper balance. The problem relates to not only canning but all producing agencies concerned with perishable and semi-perishable foodstuffs. A well-known firm of confectionery manufacturers in my constituency in 1950 trebled their exports to markets specially designated by the Government as desirable, and yet in the last three or four months of last year they were only able to undertake 5 per cent. of their export orders because of the chronic shortage of tinplate. I reiterate the plea that the Government should look again

1967
at the exports to soft currency areas, strike a still fairer balance, and allow more of the tinplate produced to be used at home.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Dunglass: We are glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Wilkes), for our very modest claim upon the Government. All we are asking is that the Government should strike a balance between the home and the export markets. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply was reasonable and convincing so long as he talked about the impossibility of getting increased supplies from home production. It is true that there is a programme of home production which looks ahead for a number of years, but there is very little chance of getting any substantial increase in tinplate from home production just now. It comes back again and again to the question of how we are to get it, and the answer is that we must cut the export allocations.
The hon. Member said that a possible cut of 20,000 tons in the export allocations would be a very annoying thing; but if it was diverted to the home market it would save the fruit-producing industry. The Minister of Food requires more convincing on this subject. He ought to face this fact and use his influence, particularly with the Treasury, to cut export allocations by some 20,000 tons if he is to save our fruit-growing industry this year. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) has spoken about the fruit-growing industry in Scotland. The two important areas there are expanding fruit production at the request of the Minister of Food. As a result of good prospects and expansion, certain canning factories have come to Scotland. They are particularly valuable in the industrial West where we have had to rely in the past almost exclusively on heavy industries because if unemployment comes we thereby get a diversion of industry.
There is one particular aspect of the fruit-growing industry which I want to mention in a sentence. The strawberry-growing industry has suffered in the past, and was almost annihilated by the incidence of disease. Now science and research have been successful in breeding
1968
certain disease-resistant, strawberry plants, and from now on, the strawberry growers are in a position to increase their acreage considerably. Over the last few years the canning of strawberries has increased and it has now reached 1,000 tons.
If, however, this shortage of tinplate is allowed to hit the fruit-growing industry, particularly the strawberry-growing section, this year, it will put the strawberry-growing areas right back to where they were five or six years ago, and will practically put them out of business. Therefore, apart from the general allocation, I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the strawberry-growing districts, so that this now rapidly increasing section of the fruit-growing industry shall not have its future jeopardised. Again, in closing, I make the point that I made on rising, that there is no way out of this other than that the Ministry of Food shall insist with the Treasury that exports shall be cut by 20,000 tons this year.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. Edward Evans: In view of the eloquent case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), I only want to make a few constituency points. A few weeks ago I had to raise in this Chamber the question of unemployment in Lowestoft. I said that one of the causes of this growing incidence, which is quite serious and is one of the worst in the country, is the fact that these new and developing industries of canning have been deprived of the necessary raw material.
We have several canning factories in Lowestoft and the neighbourhood. We have a large Co-operative Wholesale Society factory which produces a tremendous amount of canned fruit and fish for export. We also have a highly specialised export of high quality herring kippered in the traditional way. They are not dyed herring, they are the real thing. We say our herring are second to none. I would say that to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, East (Mr. Boothby), if he were here. That industry has developed considerably during the past few years, and it is a matter of great distress to us in the town that the inadequate supply of tinplate has resulted in a rise in the unemployment rate.
We all agree that it is essential to maintain our exports and that the export of

1969
tinplate is essential to the economy of this country. What is galling is that it is difficult to reconcile that doctrine with the import into this country, in our own tinplate, of the very goods which our own canners are crying out to can. That is not easily resolved I know. I agree very much with, the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) who said that, if we could only get an allocation of tinplate, it would provide these growing industries with a certain amount of stability and with the ability of maintain the market It would enable the horticultural districts, which are suffering badly, to take up the surplus horticultural products which otherwise will be thrown back into the ground.
We do not ask for a great deal. We on these benches are conscious of the difficulties of the Government. Indeed, I am sure. So are hon. Members opposite because, if they were on these benches, they would have the same problems. We know the Government have to maintain a high export of tinplate, but it would be of advantage to us all if the Government were to discriminate a little more against the exports to soft currency markets as against those to hard currency areas. I hope that those industries in my own constituency which depend on a reasonable allocation of tinplate will be allowed to continue, and that the gnawing anxiety of seasonal unemployment will be alleviated to that extent at any rate.
6.6 p.m.
Mr. Molson: I support the general plea that has been made to the Government to make available a larger quantity of tinplate for the canning industry. I was not aware, before listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), that there was anything disgraceful in an hon. Member putting forward the claims of an industry in his constituency or of the interests of those who work there. Perhaps it is necessary to remind the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have emphasised the great importance of this industry, both in our food and defence affairs, in order to provide stocks for the civilian population of the country, and also to give encouragement to the agricultural, horticultural and fishing industries.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry ot Supply gave us a useful and
1970
factual statement about the existing supplies of tinplate. What he did not explain was what I am informed is the truth, that in 1950 the amount of tinplate made available for the canning of food in this country was less than in 1949. Since he showed—if I understood his figures correctly—that there was actually an increase in the production of tinplate in 1950 over the previous year, it is not easy to understand why there should have been a reduction in the allocation to the canning industry. And for the first quarter of this year there was a further reduction of 20 per cent.
Our argument from this side of the Committee is that this is exporting a valuable raw material whereas, if it were made available to our industry, it would be possible both to reduce imports of tinned foodstuffs from overseas and also to increase our own exports. Some of this tinplate is being sent to European countries. In particular, a considerable quantity has been sent to Norway. From Norway the Minister of Food has bought quantities of sprats and brislings. These have been advertised by the Ministry of Food, and many people feel that this has been done to encourage the sale of products which are in direct competition with the fish caught and canned in this country. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will mention this to the Minister when he returns. I am also informed that, despite advertisement by the Ministry, these various lines of Norwegian tinned fish have not gone well, and that a considerable quantity has already been sold back to Norway. I should like to be informed whether or not that is the case.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the export of tinplate inside the Commonwealth. He apparently assumed that we on this side of the Committee would approve of the export of tinplate to Dominions such as South Africa and Australia. In both of those Dominions at the present time tinplate factories are being built and will come into production in the near future. Already the factory in Australia has been tendering in Malaya for the sale of their products, and it will probably be in production before the end of this year.
I condemn, and I have been seeking to draw attention to the export of tinned food from this country to such

1971
countries as the Argentine, Brazil and Canada. I object still more—and I shall be raising this matter, I hope, tomorrow —to the fact that this tinned meat is being sold to foreign countries after receiving the benefit of a subsidy from the British Exchequer.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey)indicated dissent.
Mr. Molson: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. The last circular which I have seen issued by his Ministry said that it would be discontinued after 1st May, 1951.
Mr. Willey: I believe that the hon. Member is referring to a circular calling the attention of the trade to a price increase, which is another matter.
Mr. Molson: I have just said that in that circular it was pointed out that the meat which is sold for export purposes is at present enjoying the benefit of a subsidy—part of the food subsidies that are being paid in this country—and that that is to be discontinued as from 1st May.
Mr. Willey: I apologise for interrupting again, but I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to create a wrong impression. These prices are averaged over a period, and it is for that reason, because the prices of meat have gone up, that it is necessary to make this increase in May. The result over a period would be that the meat will not carry any subsidy.
Mr. Molson: I very much hope that the Question will be reached tomorrow, and then, perhaps, we can have a full clarification of this financial injustice.
However that may be, I welcome the export of fish, and particularly of herrings, which are caught from this country. The particular firm in which I am interested would be able to sell a vastly increased quantity of home-caught fish in Malaya if only it were possible for them to obtain the necessary tins. At one time during the war they were using as many as two million tins a week, but during the first quarter of 1951 that figure was reduced to one-third of a million tins per week.
If only it were possible for a large quantity of tins to be provided, the industry would be enabled to regain prosperity, and to give assured markets for
1972
the catching of fish and the production of foodstuffs in this country. That would be not only of immense value to consumers in Malaya but would assure us of some reserve against an emergency. I therefore join with my hon. Friends in urging the Government to make a larger allocation of tinplate available.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The very short point which I wish to raise has considerable importance, not only to Cornwall and to the West Country, but to the export drive. Many hon. Members will be aware that the fish which in Cornwall we commonly call the pilchard is, in fact, a large sardine. How it came about that the identical fish is called two different names in places quite close together, I do not know. Possibly the ancient Cornish, in their trade in tin with the Mediterranean, got to hear the Latin name for the sardine, which is pilchardus, and this may have given rise to their description of their own somewhat larger fish. The fact remains that the pilchard is a sardine, although somewhat larger. One might say that it was a retired sardine, one which has escaped the nets of Spain and Portugal and which, getting into the more congenial, colder waters off the coast of Cornwall, has grown somewhat larger and has got a thicker skin.
Recently a British firm with Spanish experience of canning bought the pilchard canning factory at Mevagissey with the intention of canning, not pilchards, but sardines. They had proved to their own satisfaction from experiments that if they skinned and boned a pilchard and put it in oil, into the same sized tin as a sardine, they could produce a product which looked like a sardine, which tasted like a sardine, and which was, in fact, a sardine. Their only trouble is the allocation of tinplate—not only the quantity, but the size of the tins and the manufacturers who can deal with a particular sized tin, because the traditional tize of a sardine tin is different from that which is used for pilchards.
It does not need any knowledge of export trends or economics to appreciate that a sardine tin such as the one I hold in my hand—a somewhat handy tin—containing the tasty and well-known product which we associate with the word sardine, has a much wider world market

1973
than the somewhat clumsy tin, such as that which I now show to the Committee, which is commonly sold as a pilchard tin. Incidentally this tin, although bought in Cornwall in St. Austell, does not contain Cornish pilchards; it was packed in Japan and was inported by the Ministry of Food. This tin, however, is the standard size of a tin of pilchards.
It seems to me obvious that if it is possible to produce from the Cornish pilchards an item of food that can be genuinely sold as a sardine, it ought to make a very great difference to the export trade. At present we are exporting tins to soft currency countries such as Portugal and Spain, into which our friends on the Peninsula are packing identical fish to those which we have here—in oil which we could get here, and in our own tins—and are exporting them all over the world. If it is possible—and the firm of which I speak thinks that it is possible—for us to compete in that market, with our own tins and with our own fish, it would be highly desirable that we should do so.
In the past, the two basic exports of Cornwall have been tin and pilchards. Both these industries are depressed. I will not go into the question of tin, but the decline in the pilchards industry is largely due to an alteration of public taste. I have never met anybody who showed any inclination to eat starry gazey pie, which, I understand from the old books about Cornwall, consisted of a mixture of pastry, Cornish cream and pilchards; nor does one often find people who want to eat pressed pilchards. It is largely a question of taste. But if a new use could be found for pilchards, this is a matter which should seriously be looked into, and if the allocation of tin is hampering the development of what might be an important new industry, I hope that the Minister will study this problem.
6.18 p.m.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedfordshire): I think that by universal agreement this will be regarded as a very important debate. I am very sorry that it has been so short, because the importance of the subject justifies a longer discussion than we have been able to have this evening. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, who has already explained his absence later tonight, said that his remarks might prove to be something in
1974
the nature of a soporofic, and although the hon. Gentleman gave some very interesting information he left a number of points unanswered. The general result of his speech was, no doubt deliberately, a little to reduce the tempo of this discussion.
Though a very definite issue is at stake —an issue that at present divides Parliamentary parties—I venture to think that a number of hon. Members on the other side agree pretty generally with the arguments that we have put forward. Indeed, there have been a number of interesting speeches from the Government back benches largely in agreement with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White).
Any Government, from whichever party it was drawn, would have a tinplate problem to face, but it is our case that in this field, as in so many others, the planning of the Socialist Government has gone wholly wrong. No one can blame the tinplate industry; they have done their very best. Indeed, in the last six years their output has increased by 50 per cent. from the very low figure of 1945 to which inevitable war-time restrictions had reduced it. Nor can anyone blame the Opposition. As long ago as February, 1950, we warned the Minister of the situation that was developing and we urged that action should be taken, alike on the grounds of the benefit to the horticultural industry and of the great and urgent issue of national defence. But a whole year has gone by before there is any indication, in February of this year, of the Government beginning to have second thoughts on the question of tinplate allocations. The ways of planners are really beyond comprehension.
Two weeks ago in this House we had a debate on the virtual elimination of the meat ration, the no meat debate, and we had a discussion on the cessation of meat imports from the Argentine in August, 1950. Tonight we have another debate in which the Argentine Agreement is once more a very relevant factor, a debate which does in part turn on the Treaty signed with the Argentine in 1949–50. Although we are not getting any meat at all from the Argentine we have in fact doubled our tinplate exports to the Argentine between 1949 and 1950. Indeed, the exports last year to the

1975
Argentine were about 32,000 tons of tinplate, enough to pack 150,000 tons of meat if the Argentine meat had come back in cans made from the tinplate.
I would remind the Minister of Food that the export to the Argentine of tinplate last year, some 32,000 tons, is one half of the 64,000 tons we had in 1949 for the entire canning of the British fruit and vegetable production of that year. One half of our requirements for the vital horticultural industry were last year exported to the Argentine, although we have had no meat whatever from the Argentine since August, 1950. What we are asking for is to go back to the allocation of tinplate to home horticulture of the 1949 figure, which surely is not a very unreasonable request. We might have hoped that each succeeding year would bring an improvement on the previous year.
Mr. Boothby: My hon. Friend said the home horticultural industry. It is not only horticulture, but fish as well.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I were in danger of forgetting the interests of the Scottish fisherman, my hon. Friend, in an admirable speech, would certainly have reminded me of my omission—
Mr. D. Marshall: And the English fisherman.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: And the English fisherman also. That is the situation we have now to face. We are concerned not only as to how it has been brought about but how we are to improve upon it. Not long ago we had words of wisdom from the Lord President of the Council:
"The real problem of statesmanship is to see trouble coming and to prevent ourselves getting into the smash. We are determined that we"—
that is, the Socialist Government—
"are not going to be caught unawares by blind economic forces."
Once more here they are caught by blind economic forces in this as in every other field. The Government have absolute control over the allocation of tinplate. I do not think anyone will dispute that. They have a tinplate administrator and a Government Materials Committee which settles the allocations.
The trouble is that so many Ministers have different sorts of ambitions as to
1976
what is to happen to the limited supplies of tinplate, and all these Ministers are pulling in different directions. We have, for example, the Foreign Office deeply concerned and more than ever concerned since we made British Ambassadors into travelling buyers of meat in foreign countries. We have the Board of Trade with its obvious trading interests. We have as we heard today from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, the Minister of Fuel and Power and his own tinplate interest in the export of tinplate for the urgent oil industry in the sterling area. We have the Ministry of Food with a twofold interest—one in the canning of home-produced food and the other for export of tinplate for packing goods to be sent here for the British market.
It is our view that all these different interests are continually conflicting and whichever Minister makes the most noise, he is the Minister who, wins. Unhappily every indication in this debate is that the Minister of Food has lost. If I deal mostly with the horticultural industry it is because that is the industry of which I know most, being an East Anglian Member of Parliament and representing a constituency with a large horticultural interest. But there are many aspects of this problem and in the short time I shall occupy the Committee I hope to deal a little with them. There has been a steady decline in the allocation of tinplate to British horticulture in the last year or so. Some of the figures we know because they have been published but some we can only conjecture and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a firmer indication than we enjoy at the moment.
We know, for example, that in the third quarter of 1950 there was a reduction of 10 per cent. of the 1949 figures. We know there was a reduction in the fourth quarter of 25 per cent. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman last week, or the week before, that in the first quarter of this year there will be a reduction of 20 per cent. compared with the same period last year, which also represented a substantial reduction on the 1949 figures. It is rumoured that in the second quarter of this year there is to be a reduction again of 15 per cent. and in the third quarter a reduction of 17½ per cent. It would be interesting, and indeed it is

1977
urgent, that the trade and all concerned and Parliament should know whether those figures are right or not. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able either to confirm or to deny them.
It has been constantly represented in the course of the debate that too much tinplate is being exported. I believe that is true. Since 1945 exports of tinplate have jumped from 34,000 tons to 248,000 tons while there has been only the most trifling addition to the allocation for the home market. No one can accuse the Opposition of not realising the importance of exports. We have never shared the view of the Minister of Labour that:
"By some twist of the Tory mind it is good trade to persuade someone in a remote part of the world to buy our goods"—
was he thinking of the tinplate plant at Ebbw Vale?—
"but it is ruinous to allow the same goods to be consumed by our own people."
We believe in exports but all we asked for in the Coalition Government when that charge was made was an increase of 50 per cent. in the exports. This is a 700 per cent. increase, and this is a time when for the safety of British defence and the agricultural and fishing industries we should allow more to the home producer.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) and my noble Friend the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) that there has been far too great an increase in exports and it is intolerable that we should, since the Argentine ceased sending us any meat at all, have sent them 13,000 tons of the tinplate we so desperately need.
In the Dominion field and the field of the British Colonies no one would grudge these exports at all. We are delighted that Australia and South Africa, and in time other parts of the Empire, will be building their own tinplate plants, which will ease the situation. I would however remind the Minister of Food, if he makes much comment on Dominion allocations that Australia is now taking less than she took in 1938 or 1939 and that in the pre-war period Canada took 50,000 tons every year from us and now there is no export from us to Canada at all, or virtually none at all. So the whole story cannot be explained by a rise in exports to the Dominions.
1978
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury referred to the figures of January this year. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply said that there had been an increase of exports overseas this January due to a back-log which had accumulated towards the end of last year. If that is true it may well provide an explanation for some of the large export figures of January, 1951. I should be grateful if the Minister of Food could tell us if this also applies to the Argentine, because in December of last year we exported 1,617 tons to the Argentine. In January of this year we doubled it to 3,248, and an examination of the Trade and Navigation Returns does not suggest that there has, as yet, been any cut in Argentine exports. We would welcome an assurance that that cut is impending. I should also like some information about the exports to Russia on which there has been a curious silence during the last few months. My information is, and I stand to be corrected, that in 1949 we exported 2,800 tons to Russia and this year in the first three months directives have gone out for the exports to Russia of some 1,800 tons. I think we should have some information on that story.
My hon. Friends have drawn attention to the disastrous effect that this cut in home allocation has had on British horticulture. I know that industry very well. I know they were ruled out of the Agriculture Act of 1947, though they were promised that later effective security would be given to them. I know the soft fruit industry is doing its utmost to reach the target set by the Government and the vegetable industry is, under great difficulty and after two bad years, maintaining the high figure reached in 1947. Yet they have no security and nothing to hope for from His Majesty's Government. I would commend to those hon. Members on the Government side who spoke in effect, in support of our attitude to note the recently issued handbook for Socialist speakers, "Facts and Figures for Socialists," 1951, which says:
"Horticulturists are now enjoying a period of sustained prosperity."
That comes after two bad years. Because of the lack of security large numbers of contracts have been entered into by growers in East Anglia and all over the United Kingdom with manufacturers and canners and jam makers. They are

1979
depending on this source of outlet to take a considerable amount of their production. Yet this year the allocation of tinplate to canners is to be so drastically cut that it looks as if some 75,000 tons of home-produced fruit and vegetables may be unsold or sold as food for stock. If this is so we shall find we have struck a very serious blow indeed at the chances of the industry of successfully weathering the year that lies ahead.
I would remind the Minister of Food that every ton of tinplate taken from British horticulture or British fish canning means the loss of some three tons either of fish—where I imagine the same figure applies—or fruit or vegetables. Of course, as hon. Members have said, it is particularly in the field of pea production and pea canning that the most serious troubles are likely to arise. The stories told by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) of the closing of factories in his constituency can be confirmed by hon. Members representing constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom. Taking the Smedley group of companies alone, I know very well that if they had been able to get the cans, they could, both in Scotland and in England, have gone on packing sometimes either carrots, or beetroots or processed peas until May of this year until the fresh fruit and vegetables came along.
As has been said, this shortage is not only in the sphere of tinplate; it applies also to horticultural packing materials, through the whole field of materials; and the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade at Olympia about a fortnight ago offers no hope of much improvement. Most hon. Members will be conscious that it is in the field of defence that the greatest danger lies. I was lucky enough in the early days of the war to be Under-Secretary both in the Department of Home Security and the then newly formed Ministry of Food. I know something of the immense amount of work that went into collecting the vast quantity of tinned food, both for the Army at home and for the Army overseas and for the civilian population, and I shudder to think of what would happen if we found ourselves in desperate danger without similar preparations being made today.
1980
We all hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply would give us some encouragement. We hoped he would say something of the long-term plan in regard to home users. He told us about long-term production, but did not give us any indication as to how the home user will fare. We have heard of the new plant at Trostre to which we all wish success, but the Parliamentary Secretary gave no indication if any of that production is to be allotted to the home producer. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some indication. It will fall to the right hon. Gentleman to give us some assurance also on the short-term field, but from all we have heard it does not look as though we are to get much encouragement.
I seriously suggest to him that he should try to secure with his colleagues agreement on at least these three simple, fundamental issues. Firstly that when he imports canned food from overseas that the necessary tinplate is not taken out of the domestic allocation of the Ministry of Food; secondly that when he imports tinned goods from abroad he does not import goods which are competitive to what we can produce at home. Nothing is more maddening to the home producer than to lose his chance of a market and to see the goods and the tinplate arriving on his doorstep from abroad. Lastly I hope the right hon. Gentleman will struggle with his colleagues to get a greater allocation for the home market for this coming year.
We are asking him to give us today, in horticulture and fish and all the other trades, the same allocation as in 1949. We are not asking him to face the future. We learned from the Lord President that we have turned our backs on economic scarcity. We are not even asking him to do what they did in the capitalist days. All we are asking is to be given the allocation we had two years ago under Socialism. That seems a fairly reasonable request, but from the indications, it does not look as though the right hon. Gentleman will grant it.
My hon. Friends and myself feel that this issue is of such importance that we shall have to divide the Committee upon it. I am anxious, however, not to limit the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in reply. So we shall wait until he has finished his speech before I move to

1981
reduce the item. If of course the right hon. Gentleman can meet in full the position we have put to him, sustained as we have been by many speeches from hon. Members on his own side of the Committee, we shall have to consider among ourselves what action we should then take.
6.40 p.m.
The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): I wish I could start my contribution to this debate on the confident assumption that anything I have to say would lead to no Division taking place; but I am convinced that a Division will take place whatever I say. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let us wait and see. I will try to give such information as I can. I do not complain about this debate taking place, nor, indeed, about the spirit in which it has taken place. Since it happens to be my job to represent certain interests that are strong claimants on our supplies of tinplate, obviously I am not likely to object to pressure for more home supplies.
I have been greatly interested to hear reflections of some arguments which I have used myself from time to time in recent months in other places. Nor do I want to disguise the fact that I would have wished for more. I would have hoped that it would have been possible for the home producers of food to have been provided with more tinplate. I am talking about tinplate, because that has become the major issue of the debate. I do not think that we need worry about the other materials, although they are equally important. We really cannot escape facts. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply convinced the Committee that we face a complex situation. It has been a complex situation ever since I became Minister of Food.
On the first or second day after I took on this job, tinplate appeared on my desk as a problem to be faced arising out of the inescapable decline in production in our tinplate industry. I am now trying to answer the suggestion that this situation is due to some sort of neglect, or indifference, some sort of sitting down by Ministers and a failure to recognise their responsibilities. I recognised the effect and impact of this situation on my own job early in the summer, and I suggested that we might send a special mission to South Wales to try to solve, or, at least, to ameliorate, the grievous situation there.
1982
The Parliamentary Secretary gave some indication of the way in which there has been an erosion of labour in that industry through reasons that none of us can help. They are not due to any party philosophy, but just to ordinary developments which happen in the process of time. People just do not care much for work in this kind of industry. We undertook a special mission, which had some success. It also had some success in getting some Italian labour into the hand-mills, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Labour for his cooperation. But, on the whole, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary showed, we have not been able, in the field of recruiting labour, to do more than hold the line. We have been able fairly well to keep the labour force roughly where it is to compensate for the wastage which has taken place.
I am trying to show that we have been looking at this problem continuously for some months. In addition, last summer the Ministry of Food, when faced with the very serious emergency in the soft-fruit trade, arranged for an emergency issue of tinplate to the canners in Suffolk and other areas. On the whole, I think that they were satisfied with that emergency operation. Ever since last August, I have had frequent meetings with the trade to discuss the situation as it developed and to try to find out with them ways and means of making the best of the amount of tinplate available for home use. In consultation with the trade, we set up a permanent committee of trade representatives who are available for daily consultation with the Ministry of Food to solve the kind of problems mentioned here today, such as specific allocations. During the last six or eight months we have been able to iron out a whole series of problems of that kind with the good will and co-operation of the trade.
I have had assurances, in correspondence from the representatives of the fruit canning industry, of their satisfaction with the way in which we have tried to deal with this problem and to help them in the difficulties which they have to face. I have been asked in the debate why, if our own needs for tinplate are so great, we continue to export this commodity. It is an obvious question to which there is a very simple answer. Trade is a two-way affair. If we want imports from

1983
abroad, we must sell our customers what they want. We cannot be dictatorial in this matter. We must try to arrive at agreement with them. One of the articles which is wanted by the people from whom we want goods is British tinplate. It is, in fact, one of our strongest bargaining counters. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about coal?"] I am talking about tinplate for the moment. Let us confine ourselves to this particular subject.
The practical problem before us has been, and will continue to be, how to apportion our supplies between home requirements and exports. The Committee must recognise that a large part of our export of tinplate is sent abroad to pack food which we urgently need in this country. Some figures were given earlier. Let me give some more to show in detail how this rather ridiculed export of tinplate is used to bring food here. The programme of exports for food packs in 1950 was 38,223 tons. Of this, 14,000 tons went to South America for canned corned beef. I will come to the Argentine later. Also, 6,500 tons went to Denmark for meat and milk; 6,500 tons went to French Morocco for sardines; 4,500 tons went to Ireland for meat and milk; 825 tons went to Poland for frozen eggs; 2,300 tons went to Norway for fish; 700 tons went to Sweden for fish, and 500 tons went to Spain for tomatoes.
All these are articles of food which we need to supplement the diet of our people. In addition, we have entered into trading agreements with a large number of these countries in which they themselves have required us to give them supplies of this commodity before they were ready to agree to give us certain commodities which we wanted from them. Let us now look at what is called, rather oddly, free tinplate.
Mr. Molson: One of the main criticisms, which, perhaps, was made while the Minister was not here, was about the importation of fish from Norway and so on, which was regarded as being in direct competition with our own products. Is it or is it not the case that the Minister made an extremely bad buy in brisling?
Mr. Webb: I do not regard it as that; in fact, the importation of this canned fish has been very valuable and necessary. It has not in any way interfered with the selling of our own products.
Air Commodore Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman said that something like 3,000 tons of tinplate went to Scandinavia last year for fish. He must know perfectly well that at the same time last year tens of thousands of British-caught fish went for manure from British ports.
Mr. Webb: Probably the hon. and gallant Gentleman has pressed us on occasions about newsprint. We want Scandinavian pulp to make newsprint. They want to send that to us, and we have to arrive at some sort of agreement with them. In settling these agreements, we have to arrive at this kind of arrangement. This is one of the questions which is worked out on a normal basis. There is really nothing to worry about.
To come to the question of free tinplate, we really cannot seek to dictate to the countries with whom we enter into these trade agreements as to the use they will make of the tinplate we send to them. That, surely, would be a gross interference with their sovereign rights. We cannot say, "We will let you have this tinplate only if you use it for certain purposes." What we have done is to limit the amount of free tinplate; to leave it to them to use it in the way they think best, and to try to solve the problem of supplies in the general framework of our trading agreements. I think our trading agreements have given adequate protection to all the producing interests of this country, and, at the same time, have looked after our consumer interests, which are not less important.
May I also say that most of this free tinplate has, in fact, gone to the Dominions, and that it would really cause very serious difficulties in our relationships with the Dominions, and particularly the Southern Dominions, if we were to deprive them of the supplies of tinplate which they urgently need. I was asked to give figures about the Colonies. Of the total amount of these exports of free tinplate 10 per cent. has gone to the Colonies; the amount is 14,000 tons. Surely hon. Members opposite will not suggest that we should deprive the industries of our Colonies, on which we are to depend in the long run, of this essential element in the production of food?
Major Tufton Beamish: Nobody has suggested it.
Mr. Webb: All right, then; there must be some free exports of tinplate.
I now come to the main controversial point about the Argentine. I quite understand the anxiety on the point of our continuing to export tinplate to the Argentine. The short answer is that we have obligations to do so under the five-year trade and payments agreement of 1949, and, of course, part of the supply is used for our imports of canned corned beef. About two-thirds of the supply to the Argentine was, in fact, sent to pack our own imports of canned corned beef.
Let me now come to the effects of the present position, which is what is troubling everyone most at present. In the current year, under the agreement beginning 1st July last, Argentina has received her full proportionate amount for the first three quarters; that is, up to 31st March, 1951. But we have decided to curtail seriously the amount of the last quarter of the contract year. It has been decided to deliver only 4,500 tons, which is 3,000 tons less than the obligated amount. This decision was taken in the light of our recent negotiations. It might have been taken earlier, but we ourselves felt that, since we were discussing that agreement, it was not for us to take a provocative act like breaking the agreement until it was absolutely necessary. A mission is on its way—
Squadron Leader Burden: Is it not a fact that, under the agreement which the Minister has quoted, Argentina did, in fact, undertake—or so the Minister said—to supply us with 85 per cent. of their exportable surplus of carcase meat? If that is the case, why was the continuation of the export of tinplate carried on when they had abrogated that agreement?
Mr. Webb: There were, of course, points of difference between us. A mission is now on its way to Argentina, and I hope that we shall all agree that it would be inadvisable for me to say anything more about it. We have cancelled our immediate obligations to Argentina, and, as this particular matter will be the subject of further discussion, I hope we shall agree to leave it there.
The main concern expressed during the debate seems to have been about what is to happen now. What is really important, and what we should get quite clear,
1986
is that the amount of tinplate available for the home food industry this year will not be less than last year; that is, 270,000 tons. I wish it could have been more, but, in the present situation, I myself feel relieved to find that, at least, it will not be less. It is quite true that it is a tight figure; there is no margin, and it will be a hard job to allocate the quantity between all the people with canning interests in this country. But we got by last year, and I have no reason to suppose that, given the good will of the industry and the close, detailed consultations that we now have with it, we cannot get by this year as well, without undue disturbance.
Let us remember that we have additional requirements in 1951. During the present year, we must use our tinplate with these same priorities in mind. There are, first of all, the needs of the Armed Forces, which, because of defence measures, will involve the use of three times as much tinplate this year as in 1950. That is important, not only in regard to the needs of our Armed Forces, but also to increase the reserves of tinned food which they must carry in cases of emergency, and, of course, it is important to our general current stockpiling programme. Second, it is still the policy of the Government to expand exports to dollar markets as much as we can, and included in these exports are exports of tinned foods. That is a very valuable dollar-earning trade, and we still have to earn dollars. Then there are those other needs, which are causing so much concern in the House today and which, indeed, have caused so much concern in the Ministry of Food in recent months—the needs of the home market.
I myself, although I am not satisfied with all we have done, believe that on the whole we have arrived at a fair balance between all these conflicting claims on an inevitably inadequate supply. The problem in our own country is that there is a growing demand for home canned food. Even assuming that all the natural foods had been available, there is, in fact—it is one of the developments of modern life —an increasing demand for canned foods. Everything else being equal, we would have looked forward in this year to an extension of the output of home canned foods. It seems to me that, in the way the situation has developed, the position

1987
this year is likely to be as follows. We shall be able to hold the line where it is, but we shall not be able to extend or increase it to what we would have wanted or otherwise would have hoped.
Lord Douglass: The Minister has given an indication of cuts which are to be made in supplies to Argentina, but they are a comparatively small proportion of the total of 100,000 tons of tinplate exports. May I ask him whether, in regard to Egypt, Russia and some other countries, there are to be any substantial cuts that could make a total of 9,000 tons in the next year, which, with the Argentine cut of 3,000 tons, will produce an ultimate total of 12,000 tons, which will be sufficient for the canning industry?
Mr. Webb: I am glad to hear that we are getting the Argentine position in proportion, because, in reality, it is a small figure against the background of the total figure. I am coming to the Russian figures, athough I regret that I have not got the figures for the other countries. I can say, however, that cuts will also take place in exports to the Scandinavian countries—Denmark, Sweden and others. I do not know about Egypt, but other cuts have been made. We have been trying to get some sort of balance over the whole field.
The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) asked if military stockpiling was likely to lead to a reduced supply of canned food for the home consumer. No, Sir, I think not. For the reasons I have given, the situation will not permit an extension of supplies that might otherwise have taken place, but, even on this new estimate of our resources, I think we can maintain the present supplies of canned foods.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), suggested that we should cut tinplate exports to soft currency countries until the shortage has been overcome, but that is an impossible suggestion. We just cannot tell people that they must accept less in that sort of temporary way, and tell them that, because, for two months, we are in difficulties, we shall reduce their supplies. We will never get on well with any foreign country if we go about our business in that loose and untidy way.
1988
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White), who opened the debate, did so with a speech that was very fair and reasonable and which was directed to the nature of the problem, to which I want to reply. He said that we were exporting tinplate to France so that we could get peas. That is quite wrong. No tinplate goes to France, nor is it intended to send any there.
Two points of some importance were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), both of whom raised serious local questions concerning the closing of factories. The hon. Member for Bodmin also raised the question of the continued employment of labour. I would like to go into these particular problems in detail to see if there is some way of dealing with the situation, but, beyond that, I cannot say more tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), wanted us to ensure that all our allocations of tinplate, and sugar, I think, he said, are confined to home production. But how can one insist on that without a system of bureaucracy and regimentation which would go beyond anything I could ever visualise? It would really mean a dictation to the private manufacturer that I would not want to contemplate; and, even if we were ready to impose that kind of watch over what the manufacturer was doing, I am sure it would be quite impossible to administer under any regulation I could think of.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) raised a specific question about Russia. He asked whether or not we were sending tinplate to Russia. The position is that in the first quarter of this year, 1,800 tons of tinplate were sent to Russia in order to pack food coming to this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Crab."]—which we are glad to have, and which we can sell.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: What kind of food?
Mr. Webb: I cannot say offhand, but there was no free export of tinplate in that quarter. But the more important thing is that for the second quarter of the current year there is to be no export at all of tinplate of any kind to Russia.

1989
On the general question of unemployment in the canning industry, although I am very conscious of the fact that there is difficulty there, I feel that the picture was somewhat overdrawn. After all, there is in this particular trade a seasonal occupational unemployment arising from the fluctuation in supplies. The truth is that the amount of unemployment that has taken place this year, although greater than normal is, as far as I can judge from the information at my disposal, not seriously greater than in previous years. But, in any event, I can give the House the assurance that, supplies of tinplate being broadly comparable with those available last year—although there will, of course, be some diversion for Service purposes, and so on—there should be no additional unemployment in this industry because of our limited supplies of that commodity. If there are any particular problems in a certain area, I would like to look into them.
I have tried, as far as I can, to cover the general ground raised in this debate, a debate for which, I repeat, I am not ungrateful, because it has raised again a matter which we must regard as of immense importance. I would assure the Committee that it is my intention and that of the Ministry of Food to co-operate as closely as possible with other Ministries in securing a fair and effective distribution of such supplies of tinplate as are available to us. But I must point out that no one in the debate, so far as I
know—and I have heard most of the speeches—has said what he would have done. At least on this occasion we have not heard the cry, "Return it to the private trade," or that this shortage is all due to bulk buying. All we have heard is the simple and rather obvious allegation that it is all due to the incompetence of His Majesty's Ministers.
Such allegations about muddle and mismanagement are easy to come by. If they make hon. Members opposite happy, all right, but they do not solve the problem. The problem still remains, and it is only one of a number which inevitably arise from the straining of our depleted resources in the post-war world. It is inherent in the present situation. I claim that we have done all that was humanly possible to reduce the effect of this situation on our trading processes, and that we have secured a fair balance between our home requirements and our overseas requirements in apportioning our supplies of tinplate. Therefore, if we have to have a Division—and I suppose we have—I hope the House will support the Government in the course they have taken.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg reduce Item Class VI, Vote Trade, by £100.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 294.

Division No. 43.]

AYES

[7.10 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. w

Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)

Alport, C. J. M.

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

Davidson, Viscountess

Amery, J. (Preston, N.)

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Buchan-Hepburn, P, G. T

de Chair, S.

Arbuthnot, John

Bullock, Capt. M.

De la Bère, R

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Bullus, Wing Commander E, E.

Deedes, W F.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Burden, Squadron Leader F. A

Digby, S. Wingfield

Astor, Hon. M.

Butcher, H. W.

Dodds-Parker, A. D

Baldock, J. M.

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

Donner, P. W.

Baldwin, A. E.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M

Banks, Col. C.

Carson, Hon. E.

Drayson, G. B.

Baxter, A. B.

Channon, H.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

Bell, R. M.

Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)

Dunglass, Lord

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W)

Duthie W. S.

Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)

Clyde, J. L.

Eden, Rt. Hon A

Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

Colegate, A.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Walter

Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E,

Erroll, F. J.

Birch, Nigel

Cooper, A, E. (Ilford, S.)

Fisher, Nigel

Bishop, F. P.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Black, C. W.

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

Fort, R.

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

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Foster, J. G,

Boothby, R.

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Bossom, A. C

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

Fraser, Sir I. (Moreeambe & Lonsdale)

Bower, N.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

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

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Crouch, R. F.

Gage, C. H.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Crowder, F, P. (Ruislip-Northwood)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Braine, B.

Cundiff, F. W.

Gammans, L. D.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

Cuthbert, W. N.

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Low, A. R. W.

Ropner, Col. L.

Glyn, Sir R.

Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Russell, R. S.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

Ryder, Capt, R. E. D.

Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Grimston, R. V (Westbury)

McAdden, S. J.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Harden, J R. E.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Scott, Donald

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridgs)

Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)

Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)

Harris, F W. (Croydon, N.)

McKibbin, A.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Harris, R. R. (Heston)

McKie, J. H (Calloway)

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

Harvey, Ah Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Maclay, Hon. J. S

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Maclean, F. H. R

Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)

Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Hay, John

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Snadden, W. McN.

Head, Brig. A. H

Macmillan Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Soames, Capt. C

Heald, L. F.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Heath, E. R.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Manningham-Buller, R. E

Spans. Sir P (Kensington. S)

Hicks-Beach, Maj w. W

Marlowe, A. A. H

Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N Fylde)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Marples, A. E.

Stevens, G. P

Hill, Mrs. E (Wythenshawe)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Steward, W. A (Woolwich, W.)

Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col M

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maude, J. C. (Exeter)

Storey, S

Hollis, M. C.

Maudling, R.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Medlicott, Brigadier F

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Hope, Lord J.

Mellor, Sir J.

Studholme, H. G.

Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

Molson, A. H. E.

Summers, G. S.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Monckton, Sir Walter

Sutcliffe, H.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

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

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Mott-Radclyffe. C E

Teeling, William

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Nabarro, G.

Teevan, L. T.

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

Nicholls, H.

Thomas, J P. L. (Hereford)

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Nicholson, G.

Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N J

Nield, B. (Chester)

Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon. W.)

Hurd, A. R.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Thorneycroft, G. E. P, (Monmouth)

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

Nugent, G. R. H.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. H. (Scotstoun)

Nutting, Anthony

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. E.

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Oakshott, H. D.

Tilney, John

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Odey, G. W.

Touche, G. C

Jeffreys, General Sir G

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Turner, H. F. L.

Jennings, R.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Turton, R. H

Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Vane, W. M. F.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Osborne, C.

Vaughan-Morgan, J K

Kaberry, D.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Vosper, D. F.

Keeling, E. H.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Wakefield, E. B (Derbyshire, W.)

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

Pickthorn, K.

Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Pitman, I. J.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Powell, J. Enoch

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

Langford-Holt, J

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Watkinson, H.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Webbe, Sir. H. (London)

Leather, E. H. C.

Profumo, J. D.

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.

Raikes, H. V.

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Rayner, Brig. R

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Lindsay, Martin

Redmayne, M.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbriage)

Linstead, H. N.

Renton, D. L. M.

Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E)

Llewellyn, D.

Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

Wills, G.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)

Wood, Hon. R

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

York, C.

Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S. W.)

Roper, Sir H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Drewe and Brigadier Mackeson.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Bunn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

Adams, Richard

Benson, G

Brown, George (Belper)

Albu, A. H.

Beswick, F.

Brown, T. J, (Ince)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Burke, W. A.

Aden, Scholefield (Crewe)

Bing, G. H. C.

Burton, Miss E.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Blenkinsop, A.

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

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Blyton, W. R.

Callaghan, James

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

Boardman, H

Carmichael, James

Awbery, S. S.

Booth, A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A

Ayles, W. H

Bottomley, A. G.

Champion, A. J.

Bacon, Miss A

Bowden, H. W.

Chetwynd, G. R

Baird, J.

Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

Clunie, J.

Balfour, A.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Cocks, F. S

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Coldrick, W

Bartley, P.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Collick, P.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

Cook, T. F.

1992

1993

Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Pryde, D. J.

Cooper, J. (Deptford)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon, G. A.

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Cove, W. G.

Janner, B.

Rankin, J.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jay, D. P. T,

Rees, Mrs. D.

Crawley, A.

Jeger, G. (Goole)

Reeves, J.

Crosland, C. A. R

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

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Crossman, R. H. S

Jenkins, R H.

Reid, W. (Camlachie)

Cutlen, Mrs. A

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Rhodes, H.

Daines, P.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Richards, R.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Robens, A.

Dalling, G (Hillsboro')

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

Rogers, G. H. R, (Kensington, N.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Keenan, W

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Kenyon, C

Royle, C.

Deer, G.

Key, Rt. Hon C. W.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Delargy, H. J.

Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir. H.

Diamond, J.

Kinley, J.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Dodds, N. N.

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Donnelly, D.

Lang, Rev. G

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lee, f. (Newton)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Dye, S.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Simmons, C. J

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lever, L. M (Ardwick)

Slater, J.

Edelman, M.

Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N (Caerphilly)

Lewis, A. W. J (West Ham, N.)

Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S)

Edwards, W J. (Stepney)

Lindgren, G. S.

Snow, J. W.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Sorensen, R. W.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

MoAllister, G.

Sparks, J. A.

Ewart, R

MacColl, J. E

Steele, T.

Fernyhough, E.

MoGhee, H. G

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Field, Capt W J

McGovern, J.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Finch, H, J.

McInnes, J.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

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

Mack, J. D.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R (Vauxhall)

Follick, M,

McKay, J (Wallsend)

Stross, Dr. B.

Foot, M. M.

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

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Forman, J. C.

McLeavy, F.

Sylvester, G. O.

Fraser, T (Hamilton)

MacMillan M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H

Taylor, H. J. (Morpeth)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Ganley, Mrs. C S

Mallalieu, E. L (Brigg)

Thorneycrift, Harry (Clayton)

Gibson, C W

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Thurtle, Ernest

Gilzean, A.

Mann, Mrs. J

Timmons, J.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Manuel, A. C.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

Gooch, E. G

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

Tomney, F.

Greenwood, Anthony W J. (Rossendale)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Mellish, R. J.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Grenfell, D. R.

Messer, F.

Ungoed-Thomas A L

Grey, C. F.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Vernon, Maj. W F.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mikardo, Ian

Wallace, H. W

Viant, S. P.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)

Mitchison, G. R

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford. C)

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

Moeran, E. W.

Weitzman, D.

Gunter, R J

Monslow, W.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Moody, A. S.

Wells, W. T (Walsall)

Hale, J. (Rochdale)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

West, D. G.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Morley, R.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb gh, E.)

Hall, J (Gateshead, W.)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)

Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Come V'll'y)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

Hamilton, W W.

Mort, D. L.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Hannan, W

Moyle, A.

Wigg, George

Hardman, D. R

Mulley, F. W.

Wilcoek, Group Capt. C. A. B

Hardy, E. A.

Murray, J D

Wilkes, L.

Hargreaves, A

Neal, H.

Wilkins, W. A.

Harrison, J

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Hastings, Dr Somerville

O'Brien, T.

Willey, D. G. (Cleveland)

Hayman, F. H.

Oldfield, W. H.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Henderson, Rt. Hon A (Rowley Regis)

Oliver, G. H.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Harbison. Miss. M.

Orbach, M.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Hawitson, Capt M

Padley, W. E.

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

Hobson, C. R.

Paget, R. T.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Holman, P

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

Houghton, Douglas

Pannell, T. C.

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

Hoy, J

Pargiter, G. A.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Hubbard, T

Parker, J.

Woods, Rev. G. S

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

Paton, J.

Wyatt, W. L

Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)

Pearson, A.

Yates, V. F.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Peart, T. F.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)

Poole, Cecil

Hynd, H (Accrington)

Popplewell, E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hynd, J B (Attercliffe)

Porter, G.

Mr. Collindridge and

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Proctor, W. T.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

MALAYA
7.19 p.m.
Mr. Eden: I do not think the Committee will expect anything in the nature of an apology if we turn now from the issue which the Committee has just decided, to examine the situation in Malaya. I think the Committee will feel that we have a duty to pass events there under review from time to time, if only in justice to those who are serving there—and I use "serving" in the widest term to cover the planters and tin miners as well as the Forces themselves and the police.
It is about three years now or more since in Malaya there has has been constantly a state of war, by whatever more agreeable name we may care to disguise it. I feel that we need to make known the part which has been played by our own people, by the people of Malaya and by those who have worked with them during these last three years. We need to make it known, not only for our own purposes here at home, but in the wider world interest. I find, for instance, that many of my American friends are singularly lacking in information about what is going on. I do not blame them for that, but I think we should do everything which lies in our power to make the world understand the extent of the contribution we are making there. For three years or more our planters and the tin miners, the soldiers and the police, the Malay population—or large portions of it—and also the Chinese, have been living under a constant strain and under conditions little different from war.
During that time, and despite all this, they have made a signal contribution to the restoration of our economy and to our balance of payments with the United States. I do not propose to weary the Committee with figures tonight, but I have one here which I think I should give. I think I am right in saying that last year the value of the exports from Malaya to the United States alone, not including Canada, was about £122 million. As against that, they spent £10 million themselves in the United States leaving us with a favourable balance for the Sterling Area, in respect of that territory, of £112 million. That is a very remarkable achievement, particularly bearing in mind the conditions under
1996
which they have to work, and I think the Committee should pay tribute to that and to the men wo have made it possible.
A special tribute is also due to the troops. They have had a long test of endurance in an extremely exacting climate, and during that time each of the distinguished and famous regiments out there has added lustre to its annals by its achievements. I think tonight we might both think of them and thank them for what they have achieved. Equally, I am not forgetting the Gurkhas, whose record has been a brilliant one, or the Malay Forces and the police. Only yesterday morning I read of the losses which befell the Worcestershire Regiment in an ambush. The toll continues all the time and the fact that it seldom catches the public eye does not mean that the strain is any the less upon the men who have to be constantly on the watch.
I was glad to hear that we are to increase the Malay Regiment. That is a wise step to have taken. When we discussed the matter in the House last summer I spoke of the loyalty of the Malays and of the great majority of the Chinese in that country. I believe that still to be true of the overwhelming majority of the population. Since we last discussed the matter the Briggs plan has been brought into operation, and I hope the Secretary of State can give us some information tonight about the progress of that plan. How is it affecting security and the daily life of those who have to live and work in Malaya? What progress is being made with the regrouping of employees on plantations and in the mines, which, I understand, forms a large part of the resettlement plan? No doubt there is full consultation with the plantation and mining interests, but we should like to know about it and how it works.
Is the plan easing the strain which, let the Committee remember, grows more severe with the passage of years and not less severe for those who have been there all that time in that climate? What of the problems of resettlement, particularly in respect of the Chinese? When we last debated the matter we were told that one of the difficulties in the resettlement of the Chinese was the language question —the shortage of Chinese-speaking officers. Are we in a fair way to mending that state of affairs? Is progress being made there?

1997
The same language problem also arises in relation to the Malay Regiment, to which I have already referred. The arrangement is not the same as that which used to apply in the Indian Army, where we had officers who spent their whole lives in India and in one Regiment. In this case these officers are seconded, as I understand it, much as are the officers of the King's African Rifles or in West Africa. That is a perfectly good system, with which I do not quarrel, but it means that an officer must learn the language before he can make any contribution at all. Have we now enough Malay-speaking officers for this purpose and, if not, what progress is being made to meet that quite essential need?
If what I have said is true of the military situation, it is equally true that it is vital to strengthen the civil administration. It is no use the Army and the police killing Communists in the engagements which constantly take place if the home front is not strongly held. In that connection I was rather disturbed to see a report in "The Times" the other day, written by their correspondent, about the equipment of the police. I hope the Secretary of State can tell us that this state of affairs is being mended.
Here, in a very objective report, are these words about the police:
"The lack of trained officers…"—
that we know about—
"but the dangerous lack of arms and equipment is not easy to explain,"
It certainly is not easy to explain after three years. The correspondent continues:
"…especially as shortages were forecast by the police many months ago. These shortages will be more keenly felt when the first drafts of recruits conscribed under the new manpower regulations report to the depots."
The correspondent then lists the shortages which, he says, include
"small arms and ammunition."
Why should there be any shortage like that? His list includes:
"jungle-green uniforms and web equipment. Orders for delivery this year, which are urgently needed now, have not yet been supplied. This is affecting the patrolling and will restrict the ability of the force to clothe and equip speedily the new jungle companies. Only one-third of these can be equipped from stocks."
1998
It is rather disturbing to read such a report at this time of the day, after more than three years of these operations in Malaya, and I hope that we shall have some information about the position from the Secretary of State before the end of the debate. I hope he will not say that the position is getting better, because we have been told that once or twice before when we have asked about equipment shortages. It is time that it not only got better but that we could be told that the situation was satisfactory from the point of view of the forces who carry out these operations, be they police or be they military.
Another point in connection with the home front is this. What inducement, if any, is being offered to men of outstanding experience, who have served in Malaya, to stay on? I should imagine that in the present difficulties there must often be instances when the Secretary of State or the authority in Malaya would like to induce some men to stay. Can they make them offers to do so?
That leads me to another problem which was certainly much in mind when I was in Malaya, as I suppose it is today —the question of war compensation. Before anybody on the benches opposite becomes angry or indignant, let me say that this is not just a matter of paying large sums of money to rich rubber companies. It is much more difficult and much deeper than that because, as the Secretary of State knows very well, many of these claimants are not wealthy men. They are not even British, if that be a crime—I do not know—when these claims are made. Many of them are Malays and Chinese and people of comparatively small means, and it is certainly not good for morale that, when these men have claims against His Majesty's Government for war damage which occurred so many years ago, those claims should not now be met. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to tell us something about that.
Will he, or someone else, later in the debate, also tell us about the administration in Singapore, because the account of the rioting last December, which we all read, cannot have been very heartening reading for anybody. It seems that the casualties were 16 killed and 159 injured and that for a considerable period it was impossible to move about the city. That is the position as I understand it, and it

1999
is a fairly hard blow to confidence, especially if what happened in Singapore has its inevitable reaction further north. I know that a commission of inquiry is sitting, and I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to lift the veil in that respect, but I should like to know that the immediate lessons which must have been learned from what happened in Singapore are being applied now, even while we are awaiting the report of the inquiry.
Let me sum up the position as I see it. It seems to me that we have three tasks in Malaya: first, to win the jungle war; second, to maintain the morale and stability of the home front in Malaya; third, to win the war of ideas. If we are to repel the Communist creed, as well as stop Communist infiltration in the military sense, we have to put forward our faith in a positive fashion and not merely be content with denunciations of the Communist creed.
This brings us to one of the most important aspects of the situation in Malaya, and that is the question of the war of ideas. The greatest care has to be taken and the greatest energy has to be shown in what is being done in our publicity, on the same lines of what was done by the Political Warfare Executive during the Second World War. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will show a little of what is being done there. It cannot do any harm, because, presumably, others know what is going on.
Radio Malaya, I am told, is doing a pretty good job; but I have also heard —it may be wrong; I hope it is—that they are rather short of staff. If so, I should hope that extra staff would be provided, because, however eager we may be for economy, it would be the worst possible economy at a time like this to be cheeseparing in a service on which depends our conveying our message to those people. I am told—I do not know if it be true—that in Northern Rhodesia a quite considerable number of radio sets have been distributed by the Colonial Office or its authorities to the population there. I do not know if that is true, but if that be so, then I should think that there is an even stronger case for doing that in Malaya than there is for doing it in Northern Rhodesia, so that there may be a chance of the people in Malaya receiving our message—if it be a good
2000
message, as I hope it will be, which is being put out to them in that part of the world.
If publicity is important, and propaganda, so is education, and I must say that I was a little disturbed to read that, in those recent riots in Singapore, among those arrested was a lecturer at the new Malay University in Singapore. Of course, we are used to students kicking over the political traces in all parts of the world, but it is a little more considerable if dons are to start doing that. I do not know how far that happened, but it is a little disturbing that this should have happened, this new university having just been launched, with the good will of universities here, which sent out help to it.
I am not suggesting that we can avoid Communists being here or there in any university—even here in this country, perhaps: I would not know—but in that particular territory, where we are using a university to extend to the young people knowledge of what is our kind of way of life that we want to see established for them, and faith in a future free democracy, it seems a bit unfortunate if one of the lecturers turns out to be on the other side. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that this is not symptomatic but merely accidental, and that the Government will try to see that it does not happen again.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: As I understand it, the professor to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred has not yet been tried. If that is the case, it seems to me a little doubtful whether statements of this character ought to be made, while the case is still sub judice.
Mr. Eden: I am sorry if I was wrong about that. I said he was arrested. If he has not been tried, I ought not to have made the observations I have made, and I apologise to the Committee for doing so; but I was under the impression that the case had been dealt with.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): He is being detained under the emergency regulations.
Mr. Eden: Then I think I am all right.
Mr. Brockway: Within the last 10 days I asked my right hon. Friend, in

2001
a Question, whether a trial is to be accorded, and his reply was that this matter is still being considered. That being so, I fervently hope that the right hon. Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Mr. Eden) is not right.
Mr. Eden: I am certainly technically all right, in that if somebody is being held under emergency regulations, I am allowed to make observations on it in this Committee. I am relieved to find I have not transgressed to the extent that, for a moment, I thought I had.
Now I want to say one or two words, very briefly, about the wider scene in which the Malayan problem is set, because it is of little use examining the position in Malaya apart from this wider scene. I hope that the Secretary of State will, if he can, give us some indication of how co-operation is now at work with Siam to the north, and of the kind of relations that are established with the French in Indo-China. I know that this question of Indo-China is one which causes a ferment, but I submit that we have to make up our minds where we are in this business, and we have only two alternatives that lie in our power to follow in Indo-China at the present time—unless we are to enter upon a campaign in Indo-China, which I do not suppose hon. Members want us to do.
We have either to assist the régime which seems to be working with a greater measure of public support as the months go by—as I hope it is—or else we have to face it that the other alternative is to help the forces which are, in fact, Communist. That is the Communist alternative. I do not think that that can be challenged by anybody. We have to make up our minds where we stand on this question, and I hope that I may know from the right hon. Gentleman what is being done in this sphere in co-operating actively with the French. The commander in chief, General de Lattre de Tassigny, is a man of outstanding energy and ability, and I hope that our commanders are in touch with him, and also with Siam on the frontier, and that good arrangements are now being made.
I go back to where I began, and repeat this to the Committee. The most important thing of all, the most important contribution that we can make in this situation now, is, I believe, to make it
2002
quite plain that we intend to see this business through in Malaya; and the most damaging thing to do is to appear to hesitate, waver, or have doubts. I have no reason to think the Government have done that, but I hope very much that this debate will enable the Government once more to show that they are determined to see this thing through in the interests of the people who live in Malaya, Malays and Chinese alike, and that nothing will deter them from that. If they make that plain they will encourage our friends, and they will daunt our foes, which is the best way to handle this business in the anxious and challenging times in which we live.
7.39 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Williams: I think I ought to say, with regard to the last few observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), that, if I am certain of anything at all, I am utterly and completely certain that this Government intend to see this thing through. I am absolutely sure, too, that, if it were possible that any Government would not see it through, then they would forfeit the moral leadership of the world on this particular point. That would be so, not because of any economic interests, great and important though they are, but because at this moment, the situation in Malaya, as must surely be clear to all, is that if this country abdicated its position at this time, then nobody would suffer more than the people of Malaya. I think that that is recognised, and recognised fully, in Malaya.
On the other hand, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would probably agree with me that it must be made equally clear that, while we are going to see it through, we are going to see it through in the sense that we shall go right through to the end, which is the independence of Malaya under her own people, under her own Government, within, I devoutly hope, the British Commonwealth. There is a great job ahead, full of complexities and difficulties, but if we tried to find any other solution we should be betraying the people of Malaya.
A few months ago I was in Malaya with a delegation, and I am delighted to see three Members of that delegation on the Opposition benches tonight. I hope their presence there this evening does not

2003
mean they will engage in factious or fractious opposition on any question which may arise respecting Malaya, because the situation there is so serious that no point should be made the subject of party controversy. To do so would mean grave danger to the people of Malaya. That is not to say that I agree with every proposition hon. Members opposite might make in relation to Malaya. There were one or two propositions—perhaps more than one or two—made when the delegation was in Malaya upon which the Committee will not be surprised to know we were not in complete agreement. If that be regarded on this side as an understatement, I do not apologise. Still, while we were there we did make an effort together to investigate the facts and to get rid of some of our preconceived ideas as much as possible.
I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington would agree with this?—and after making my observations on this particular point I hope he will not regard it as a discourtesy if I do not follow him further in his argument. He said that, as he saw it, there were three aims in Malaya: one, to win the jungle war; two, to maintain morale and stability on the home front; and three, to win the war of ideas. Needless to say, putting his observations in that way, he found it necessary to number them so that the points could be put tidily, but I hope he will agree that they are cumulative and concurrent, and not consecutive ideas. For instance, the third aim, to win the war of ideas, is an essential part of winning the war in the jungle. If we do not win the war of ideas, whatever military force we bring to bear will be futile.
In attempting to win the war of ideas we must be able to show to the people of Malaya that we have something far better to offer them than anybody else has, and to do that we must break very sharply with some of the ideas which have obtained in the colonial field for so many years. We must, as the very basis of our approach to this problem, accept and advocate, wherever we have any influence, that there is no longer any question of racial superiority that as we proceed we are aiming for equality in racial relationship; that we recognise the
2004
dignity of the people of Malaya and the great place they will take in the future.
If the matter is approached from that standpoint we shall soon get into a little trouble with some of the things that we find in Malaya. If I have some criticism to offer I beg the Committee to appreciate that there is nothing carping about it, and that I concern myself, not with individuals and what they ought to do, but rather with what I observed in relation to tendencies.
First of all, I refer to the misgiving which I have concerning the field of industrial relations. I know it is tempting to think of our experience in this country, and to say that if it is not found in another country, that other country is necessarily inferior to us in some way. When there are no strong powerful trade unions, those of us with a trade union background feel that there is something wrong, not because we say that what we have in this country can be superimposed upon another culture but because we feel that in the development of a self-reliant labour force, trade unionism has its great place.
In Malaya I found that such trade unions as there were, were good; they were strong, enthusiastic, anti-Communist in outlook and manned by brave and vigilant men. They were manned by men who certainly knew their job, and if the trade union movement reaches a sufficient size in the economy of Malaya it can be one of the most important factors in winning the battle of ideas. I ought to make it clear that I am not asserting that a good strong trade union movement in Malaya would solve the problems which beset the people there. Far from it. But I would put it the other way round and say that the problems cannot be solved unless there is a strong powerful trade union movement.
It is important to bear in mind certain points raised in the Annual Report of 1949 concerning trade unions. I listened in complete agreement to the observations of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington regarding the sacrifices which people were making in Malaya, the threats with which they were faced and their courage in facing those threats. I do not in the least blame him for not referring specifically to the trade

2005
union side, but as other hon. Members might not have had the advantage which I had of getting into touch with the trade unionists there, I think I should draw the attention of the Committee to these very significant words on page 14 of the Annual Report:
"There is no need to stress the physical and psychological problem facing a voluntary trade union officer who after completing his normal day's work wishes to visit workers on the estate or mine, either to organise a meeting or to collect subscriptions, particularly if this has to be done at night. Not for him the armed escort or special security arrangements to allow him to carry out his legitimate and lawful business. He must make his way and take his chance as best he can."
That was brought home to me very vividly when I addressed meetings of trade unionists in Malaya, knowing as I did that some of the people who came to the meetings had come through bandit-infested country knowing full well that the bandits had them down as marked men because they were obviously the enemies of the Communists and were prepared to say so to the workers themselves wherever they had any influence. It should be known by this Committee that that great work is going on under the most awful conditions and in face of the greatest difficulties. I would not put the bravery of these men second to the courage shown by any other section of the community out there. Equally, I acknowledge the great courage that is shown by other sections of the community.
I have spent some time in referring to trade unionism in Malaya and the importance of giving it every possible encouragement because I must say, quite frankly, that I found in Malaya a line of thought which I quite understand and appreciate, but about which we must make up our minds if we are to talk of the prospects of winning the war of ideas. I refer particularly to the paternal relationship system which exists on the rubber estates. Speaking without reference to the official report in front of me, I am open to correction if I give a wrong figure, but I am under the impression that one in 40 is the number of trade unionists on the rubber estates. That being so, I considered it necessary when I was out there to look a little more closely into this question, to see why trade unionism, whilst strong in the cities and in Government service, was not
2006
strong on the plantations; in fact it was very weak indeed. I was told there was no mystery about that, and that I was rather wasting my time if I thought that trade unionism was the appropriate form of industrial relationship.
I was told that it did not suit the Asiatic and that he did not like this form of organisation, that it was a Western thought and he was not very interested in it. I was told that the worker on the plantation looked upon the planter as his father and his mother to whom he took all his personal problems, that it was an intensely personal relationship, and the great rubber industry and other industries in Malaya had been built up on this paternalism. I was told that there were great things associated with it, such as welfare schemes, in so far as financial sources permitted, hospitals on the estates and all sorts of other amenities, and that they were set up by men who were not just "chancing their arm" in a political argument but who deeply and sincerely took the view that this form of paternalism was the right type of industrial relationship, especially in Malaya. I think that I have put the case for paternalism as clearly as I can, but I see a great danger in it, for this reason.
I come back to the battle of ideas to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. If these agreeable, cap-touching, charming individuals who are the labour force on the plantations look upon the planter as their father and their mother, they will quite obviously look upon the Communists as their father and their mother if the Communists ever get into power in that country; whereas if it is possible to get a self-reliant labour force organised into trade unions, there will be a bastion against the advance of Communism and a great victory will be won in the battle of ideas. So I ask Members of the Committee to consider quite seriously whether or not this pre-trade union type of organism is any defence at all against Communism and whether this attitude of mind may not be at the root of one of the great difficulties which we have in facing the Communist onslaught.
I want to refer to the position so far as the legal and judicial work of the government out there is concerned. I was impressed by this. I did not like the arbitrary arrests and the idea of detention camps, but I recognised that these grim, beastly necessities were forced on the

2007
administration by the emergency. I wanted to see how the legal and judicial side reacted to the state of banditry and whether there had crept into the courts an attitude of counter-banditry, and I am delighted to say that I found that was far from being the case.
I found that while certain adjustments had been made and that the court of summary jurisdiction preliminary inquiries had been cut out, in the case of the bandits caught in the act and where witnesses could be brought forward so that the case could proceed for trial, they got a fair trial in accordance with the principles of British justice, with the presumptions in the favour of the accused, and they also had the benefit of being able to select their own counsel to conduct their defence. If that can go on while the most ghastly crimes are being committed up and down the country, then I say that that, too, is something which is important in winning the battle of ideas.
I beg Members of the Committee to be patient with me, because I am afraid that when I start talking about Malaya I do not keep an eye on the clock. Before concluding my observations, I think that I ought to refer to the great work which could be done by co-operative enterprise in Malaya. In particular I should like to remind hon. Members of the plight of the Malaya fishermen who, although they are excellent fishermen are not very good in carrying out trading activities. In consequence they are unable to break the price rings out there. They are in a state of destitution and appalling debt, at the mercy of money-lenders, and it is difficult to see how it is possible to solve this grave problem without co-operative marketing organisations.
This grave economic problem affecting so many people in Malaya is referred to in the Annual Report of 1949 in very strong terms indeed. On page 25, these words appear:
"It is to be feared that no real improvement of the fishermen's lot can be made until the very powerful marketing ring is broken. The whole question of fish marketing is receiving the attention of Government. Until a solution is found the fishermen will remain in the clutches of the middlemen."
That is, I think, a clear indictment, and hon. Members will, I hope, take note of it.
2008
Finally, I hope that in the course of his many duties it will be possible, at no distant date, for my right hon. Friend the Minister to go out to Malaya again. There were many people in Malaya who, rather to my surprise, did not consider our Government to be the greatest that this country had ever known. They had an entirely different idea. In fact, they were particularly outspoken on the subject. But they were all agreed that my right hon. Friend was a man of great human experience whose attitude to these matters won their respect and admiration, and I hope it will be possible for him once again to add his great influence and advice out there on the spot to the men who are dealing with these great difficulties.
7.59 p.m.
Mr. Pickthorn: This is one of the most difficult subjects, I think, upon which to address the Committee. One is almost equally caught up with diffidence if one has recently spent a week, or even a month in Malaya, or if it is a very long time since one saw a Malay. Yet our debates would become quite otiose and futile if everyone who took part in this, sort of subject was compelled to proclaim some kind of direct knowledge of it.
This is, in a sense, the extreme case of the colonial question. Here is a country where we took the population there, or brought the population there. We brought there almost all the things that matter to the population. We brought the rubber. We made it possible to clear the jungle and to use it for agriculture. We did not bring the tin, but we brought the value to the tin. There could not be an extremer case in one sense of the obvious beneficence of the outside power. That is one side of the matter.
But there is another side of the matter, that we did not do these things without our own interests being involved—nor was it right that we should. Nor would it be either convincing or intelligent for us to pretend now that our concern about this territory is wholly a concern for other people. I suppose it is pretty plain, to those who believe that power is still a part of politics, that the question of what Government is to continue, how and for what purpose, in this territory is one of the key questions of power not only for Asia but for all the world.

2009
We had better not be mealy-mouthed about that, or pretend that that consideration is not in our minds, although I think that possibly some Members opposite might perhaps be not ill-advised to offer some apologies if not for their own expressions, at least for the expressions of some of their predecessors in title on earlier occasions [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I agree that apologies are due from both sides, but I am making this speech. There are not very many Members present who remember, for instance, the sort of things that were said in this Chamber after the fall of Singapore, the kind of rejoicings there were from some Members. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes. Hon. Members can look it up in HANSARD. I can assure Members that this is an important matter.
I do not, with respect to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams)—I always try if I can to avoid military metaphors, although one slips into them—I do not frightfully like the "war of ideas"—[Interruption.] I could try to explain what "idea" means and also what "war" means, but a "war of ideas" is a very difficult expression. But I entirely agree with the intentions of those who have spoken before me that it is, in a sense, the most important thing before us here.
When we face that, we have to face the fact that we did commit the crime most difficult to forgive in an imperial State. We failed to protect; and that failure is much the deepest thing in the political experience of the people of whom we are talking. I have been rebuked before in this Chamber, and from the highest quarters, for having said that. I say it in no way to criticise the Government at the time of the fall of Singapore, or the Army, or the Navy, or the Air Force, or anyone else. But the fact is we failed to protect; and that is the deepest thing in the minds of that population, and the thing we have most to consider when we think about ideas and sentiments in this connection. That is what we should most apologise for, and that is what we have somehow to try to put right.
What is the situation in Malaya? I shall try to put it as shortly as I can. I admit that I have no direct information. This is the best I can do from hurried cross-examinations of persons who seem to me honest and expert. First of all,
2010
let us look at it from the European angle. There are something like 1,200 planters and something like 500 mine managers or engineers, each on the average responsible for something like 1,000 acres and something like 200 men. The result of all their efforts, as has frequently been said, is that more of all the dollars we have to spend is due to their effort than due to the efforts of the whole of the industry of these islands in which we live —an important consideration.
These men have been living, and much more their wives under the extremest strain. For long they have had to hear Secretaries of State telling them that it was not for want of effort at this end and that everything asked for had been sent out, although we have rather dropped that lately. How many of them have been hurt? I am told something like one in 20 has been killed or wounded, which is a very high rate of casualty. I do not know how many Members opposite would have proceeded to come here during wartime if in the space of two years or so one in 20 had been killed or wounded by bombs. I should have hoped that we would have stuck it out—[Laughter.] I do not feel so sure about myself, and Members may guess for themselves.
That is the situation under which they have been living. They have suffered much heavier casualties than their enemies have suffered. I hope that I shall be corrected if I fall into any error, but I am told that of the bandits something like 1,600 have been killed, something like 1,700 have been captured and something like 166 have been condemned to death, making a total of 2,466 in all, whereas the casualties which I hope even the most broad-minded Member opposite will allow me to call "on our side," have been 4,000—that is very much more than 2,466.
The result is that now there are beginning to be difficulties of recruitment. There are beginning to be difficulties for the obvious reason—I do not say this to attack anyone, but with the utmost sincerity—that some, very few, of the older people are beginning to say that they cannot face this. I would not blame them—I should be the last to do so, What is much more important is that young men cannot be recruited to go out and do these jobs. That is not as a result of their being afraid of stopping

2011
bullets. To do them justice they are probably as well prepared to take such risks as their fathers and grandfathers before them. It is because they feel that if they go into this career, in one, two, three or four years' time, the career may come to an end, and that therefore it would be foolish to embark upon it. And so there are great difficulties of recruitment.
Incidentally, I am told there is special difficulty in recruiting schoolmasters. I should also like to be corrected on this if I am wrong. I am told that a special concentration has been made on loyal schoolmasters and that there has been a specially high rate of casualties among schoolmasters. Is that true? I do not know whether it is or not.
That is the situation to meet which the Briggs plan was designed. I will not try to explain it elaborately to the Committee. It has done various things, and again I beg the right hon. Gentleman to correct me if I am wrong. I am told that it has resettled something like 120,000 squatters. That is to say, about 120,000 people, who by the Japanese or by subsequent disturbances had been turned out of their normal homes and situations and ways of earning a living, and had squatted, generally in places where they were most a nuisance from every point of view—other than their own, poor creatures, I am not blaming them. Those 120,000 have now been resettled where they are better looked after, where they make better livings, and make administration simpler.
I am told that there are left something like 300,000 such people who have not yet been settled. I tell the Committee these figures to give them some indication of the size of the problem involved, and I ask the Secretary of State whether my figures are about right. Secondly, because we are all accustomed nowadays to what are called, again in a military metaphor, targets, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is now the hope about the completion of that process; because after what is it now—is it 2½ years?—of what might reasonably be called war, and before that something not awfully different from war, and before that again war, if we are to continue to claim to be the Government of
2012
this country, we must be able, we must begin to be able to say, "Next year, or the year after, or the year after that, these things will have been done."
I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can without complacency or optimism give us any kind of reasonable guess about that? I think he had better be able to do so. I seldom quote "The Times," and I rarely agree with it, but it contained a remark in December which seemed to be about right. It was:
"Malaya, if not settled soon, will be lost."
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is true? Does he think that Malaya, if not settled soon, will be lost? and if not, what can he now tell us about the probable time-table of settlement? I am told that the most serious shortage is that of administrators, especially of Chinese-speaking administrators. I should like to ask what is being done about that? Where are they now being sent to learn Chinese?
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay a tribute of gratitude. I have no interest whatever in any of these matters, tin, rubber, pineapples or anything else direct or indirect, nor so far as I know has any relative or acquaintance of mine. I say that for the benefit of the giggling Gentlemen opposite, who think that immediate private profit is all that ever moves anybody. I do not know where they find that if not in their own heads. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pay some tribute to the mining and planting enterprises, because I am told that in this matter of the shortage of administrators, the Government have to an enormous extent fallen back upon them.
I do not say this in order to complain; I am quite sure that they would not complain. But the fact is that there has been a great deal of what really amounts to taxation of them, and a very great deal of putting on to them of work which the Government find themselves incompetent to do. I do not say that that may not have been necessary in the circumstances. What I do say is that if the party opposite, with its record in these matters has done that, and is not now generous in its acknowledgment of having done it, it will have upon its conduct sheet after its demise, in some six weeks or so, a sin even worse than those of which the

2013
Secretary of State for War is known to be guilty.
All sorts of administrators' duties have been upon these people—registration, special police work, the centralisation of labourers and squatters. Is it true, am I right in saying, that there are not Government administrators to do this work, that it is being done upon invitation by the private enterprises in that country? Is it true? If it is not true, I hope that we shall be told who is doing this work. I hope that it will be remembered that these men are, in these dangers, doing that work with no relaxation, no public holidays, no week-ends, nothing of that sort; and in this respect it is not only the Europeans of whom I am speaking.
I should like to ask a question about special constables. I do not wager my reputation—as it will be remembered the Foreign Secretary did on a famous occasion—upon the following sentence, but I think that it has enough prima facie verisimilitude for me to ask a question. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether it is true that special constables are now receiving 70 dollars per month, which is the wage fixed long ago, and fixed then in relation to the earnings of tappers, whereas tappers are now earning some 200 dollars per month? Is that true? Because if it is, persons who serve as special constables are quite obviously so serving by accepting upon themselves a very heavy taxation which they could avoid. They might do tapping and what not and earn three times as much. Is that true? When was that last put right?
I should like to ask a question about the cost of all this. I read in Mr. Oscar Hobson's column in the "News Chronicle" the other day—I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite all read that column, which seems meant to perform the odd task of making it intellectually impossible to read any of the other columns in the "News Chronicle"—the following:
"Any real improvement in the security of Malaya and Indonesia would bring a quick collapse of tin and rubber prices."
Do the Government share that view? because if so, that would give us all some measure of the Government's concern about the importance of this problem? What are the indirect costs in prices—certainly, there is money in everything? I am sorry I have aroused no laughter by that observation. There is nothing that
2014
can be wholly reckoned in money, but there is nothing that can be wholly reckoned leaving out the money side of it. I should like to know whether the Government agree that one great advantage to the whole world which any improvement in the security of Malaya would tend to bring would be a great decrease in tin and rubber prices? Do they take that view?
What is the so-called emergency costing? Do they know? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us. I am told that it is costing the Malayan Government over £30,000 a day, and that does not include the costs of the British Army, or the costs imposed upon the estates and upon private persons in the ways I indicated a few minutes ago? Do the Government agree that that is about the cost?
I turn to the last matters about which I wish to speak. It is certainly true that all governments are hateful. It is even more true that all Chinese hate all Governments even more than I do. Yet there are some Governments which are tolerable and legitimate, and a great deal of learning and metaphysics have been wasted on discussing which are such Governments. I will tell the Committee. The Governments which are tolerable are those which are taken for granted. Regimes which are not taken for granted are not tolerable, and do not endure.
Therefore, it is of enormous importance that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom should somehow manage to make it plain to all the world and to the inhabitants of all races in Malaya that this Government is permanent there and that its decisions are decisions. They should not again have a mess like the silly mess over the rubber duty the other day. I am not arguing whether the rubber duty ought to be three times as much as was first suggested, or what it ought to have been, but the way in which it was done and the determination one day that it ought to be X and three days later that it ought to be Y, which was a very much lower figure—we cannot go on governing upon that sort of basis.
The nonsense about taking the Chinese Protectorate into the Labour Department and then deciding, as everybody told them before, that it was nonsense and ought to be re-arranged, and then putting the Chinese Protectorate back in another way again; the nonsense about the trade

2015
unions—I am not arguing whether trade unions are or are not a good thing in the Kingdom of Heaven, here, or in Malaya, but the way the thing was done, the haste with which trade unions were almost forced upon people who did not want them and did not know what they were all about—I do not wonder the hon. Member opposite found some people a bit shy of it. They had seen their money go down the drain. They had seen the organisation which they had been invited, or almost pushed, into, go Communist, and then have to be de-Communised with great difficulty. I am now told that on the whole and in the main the thing is not going too badly. But the shifting and tergiversation and indecision did great harm.
Mr. R. Williams: is the hon. Gentleman addressing these remarks entirely to the history of trade unionism in Malaya or is he making a criticism of the efforts which the trade unionists are making there today? I am putting my question upon the assumption that he has acquainted himself with the efforts which they are making.
Mr. Pickthorn: I have done my best and I think I have made myself quite plain. I think, on the whole, as far as can be told, they are working usefully and honestly. The thing was done in the name of democracy and self-determination; that is the imbecile paradox in which hon. Members opposite are caught out. In the name of democracy and self-determination they are continually pushing down people's throats what they regard as the ideas which have made them what they think they are. They think them good ideas. The rest of the world does not take it for granted.
The next question I have to put concerns the hurry towards self-government. I suppose everybody would agree that the Malays as distinct from the Chinese would be pretty hopeless if there were no administrative control. I suppose everybody would agree that that is true who even exaggerate the effect when one section in a society is financially preponderant. Now, therefore, it may be necessary to persuade everybody in that country that we honestly desire, as for my part I do, that in sufficiency of time they should be a society and manage
2016
their own affairs and be equal partners with us. What is much more important and infinitely more urgent is that we should persuade them that that is not going to lead, and cannot possibly lead, to any very great change of régime in any very short period; because unless we can persuade them of that, we are not going to get the taking for granted of the regime by 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the population, without which neither this Government nor even competent administrators can ever get a country running straight again after a revolutionary situation.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Awbery: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), who asked the Minister questions the answers to which I could find quite easily if I went to the Library.
Mr. Pickthorn: It is because hon. Members opposite think the answers are so easy that we are in this mess.
Mr. Awbery: I am probably the only one in this House who has met and spoken to a large number of the bandits who are now in the jungle of Malaya. I was invited to go there in February, 1948, to inquire into the development of the trade union movement. That was before these men went into the jungle. I met them in various committees up and down the country from Penang to Singapore, and I obtained from them their opinions and aspirations as far as Malaya was concerned.
I want to deal with this point because I feel that in dealing with the bandits of Malaya and in wiping them out, as we propose to do, we should also consider and remove the cause of the trouble; otherwise, we shall only get into the same trouble again. These men, when I met them in their trade union committees, were demanding in particular three things: first, a higher standard of living for the working people of Malaya. As the hon. Member for Carlton said, there are 30,000 planters in Malaya who ought to receive the gratitude of my right hon. Friend. But there are 350,000 working on the plantations and in the tin mines who also should receive the gratitude of the Minister. The second thing which they desire, and which the hon. Member for Carlton ridiculed, was self-govern-

2017
ment, with which I will deal in my remarks. Third, they demanded that there should be a compulsory system of education throughout the country.
These men found that they could not achieve what they wanted. There was a feeling of frustration among them and they went on strike. There is little difference between a strike and the war in the jungle. They thought that they would achieve their objective this way instead of striking. They have not learned to use the industrial machine, and the hon. Member for Carlton does not want them to learn to use the industrial machine as we have learned it in this country. These men went into the jungle to achieve their objective.
Let me examine the matter in detail. The first demand was that they should govern themselves. I know that the Opposition will say that they are not fit to govern because they have not been trained and know nothing at all about democracy. Did not the Opposition say that about the Labour Party 20 years ago? [An HON. MEMBER: "They were right."] They said that we were not fit to govern, that they were the people who were born to govern. They governed us into three major wars in my life-time, and they would govern us into another one if they had the chance. I am hoping that the people of this country will never give them their opportunity.
The people in Malaya and in the other countries are moving very fast. The danger is that we are not prepared to recognise that they are progressing. We want them to stand still while we move on. It is a logical development in the Colonies, because conditions are ripe all over the world. I would put this point to the Minister. In Singapore we allowed the people to elect six of the 27 representatives of the Legislature. I understand that the six have been increased to nine, and I congratulate the Minister upon that progress. In the Federation I understand that there are approximately 67 representatives in the Legislature, not one of them democratically elected. Is that democracy? Or, are we trying to palm it off on the people of Malaya, the Chinese and the Indians, as democracy? They will measure our democracy not by what we promise, but by what we do. So much for the demand for self-government.
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Does the hon. Member really think that people are ready for full democracy when, as he has told the Committee, they have not yet learned to distinguish between the strike and violent, fighting action?
Mr. Awbery: I am not complaining about that, but we are not helping them to get ready for democracy by training them. The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. We have been in Malaya for 150 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Sir Stamford Raffles went to Singapore in 1821, and Penang was leased to us about 1826. In Malaya we were there a century ago, and we have not yet trained the people in democracy. So much for the effect on the standard of living of these people. The fundamental basis of the trouble in Malaya is the low standard of living of the working people. It is somewhat better than it was, but I believe that it is still very bad. The last thing that people see when they go from this country to the Colonies is the working and living conditions of the people, who are underpaid, underfed men and women, with no security at all.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Has the hon. Gentleman read the report of his own Government? It says that in British Malaya the standard of living is the highest in the Far East.
Mr. George Thomas: Which does not say much.
Mr. Awbery: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument. I shall try to prove that Malaya is much the same as many of the other Colonies. It is better, and it has been gradually growing better since the Labour Government have been in power. Underfed and underclothed men and women, without any security, are a fruitful soil for the development of Communism, and that is why Communism has developed. If the present Government had been in power 50 years ago and had helped these people, as we are doing today, there would be no Communism.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: How can the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that hundreds of thousands of Chinese left China to go to Malaya and Hong Kong if they thought

2019
they were going to a place where the standard of living was so much worse?
Mr. Awbery: Why did the people leave the depressed areas of South Wales? Because economic conditions forced them to do so to seek employment elsewhere. That was why the Chinese went to Malaya. The Chinese owned the tin mines, and they were employed there.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: Let us not forget that they stayed there.
Mr. Awbery: The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) referred to the £120 million worth of rubber and the £21 million worth of tin exported from Malaya. I am glad that this has helped the dollar position, but while we are taking all these millions from Malaya the tapper who was referred to a few minutes ago gets only one and a half dollars a day, which is equal to 3s. 6d. and the piece-work tapper gets two dollars a day, which is equal to 4s. 8d. That is the position of the workers on the plantations.
Mr. Keenan: What do the shareholders here get?
Dr. Morgan: They get £1,000 per cent. per annum.
Mr. Awbery: The position of these men has been so bad that it has driven them to Communism. If we want to destroy Communism we must remove the cause and improve the standard of living of the working people. There is a stirring among these people, and I hope it will continue.
Who are the bandits? Are they the riff-raff of Malaya? They are not; and I hope to prove that they are not, not by my own statements but by statements made by officers in our own Army during and after the war. Our job in Malaya is a very difficult one, for 40,000 of the 53,000 square miles are jungle, which provides good hiding places for the enemy and for the friends who supply them with water and food. That is why these men have carried on so long. They are fighting for an ideal. Whether the ideal is true or false is another thing, but when a man fights for an ideal he is the hardest of all fighters. They are the men who were said by an hon. Member just now to have lost faith in our Government in 1940, when we lost Singapore. They were
2020
told that Singapore was impregnable and that Great Britain could hold the fort in Malaya, and afterwards their confidence in us and our military machine was destroyed.
What have we done for these men? The Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces in Malaya armed them in 1941 and asked them to remain behind in the jungle to fight the Japanese in the rear. The general secretary of the Malayan Communist Party met the British general and made the arrangements with him. British officers gave these men lectures when they were in the jungle. One officer said that he was impressed by their enthusiasm and that they were probably the best material he had ever had in a training school. He said that it was impossible to find men keener to learn.
These men were taught to use the weapons left behind by our people. Eight guerilla groups were formed in Malaya which we fed and clothed, and manuals on guerilla weapons, demolition and tactics were distributed to them. Of course, their policy, discipline, routine and ethics were imported from somewhere else. We paid £3,000 a month to feed these men, and when they stopped fighting we gave 7,000 of them medals and presented each with a cheque for £45 so that they could rehabilitate themselves in civil life.
So much for the men we are fighting. We must be prepared to meet these men. What is the solution for us? What appears to me to be the solution is a clearer and more sympathetic understanding of the problems of Malaya, and a speedier application of the remedies we propose to apply. We ought to retain some of the finance which is now being exported, and to use it for the social uplift of the people who produce it. We ought to tell the Malayans that we will prepare them now for self-government, and that at some distant date, maybe in five or 10 years, we shall be prepared for them to have it. Even now there should be a system of land reform. The land is in the hands of the planters. We took the money there—
Mr. Pickthorn: We took the rubber there.
Mr. Awbery: At least we took some of the trees there 50 years ago. We must

2021
introduce land reform so that the people will realise that they have a stake in their own country.
Mr. Gammans: Does the hon. Member realise that the land in Malaya is nationalised?
Mr. Awbery: The hon. Member for Carlton said that we took the rubber there and that because we did that we had a right to the rubber and to the produce of the land.
Mr. Piekthorn: I never said anything like that.
Mr. W. Fletcher: May I remind the hon. Member that 50 per cent. of the rubber in Malaya is produced by the native owner of the land, and not by the European-owned plantation?
Mr. Awbery: I am glad the hon. Member has mentioned that, because most of the small producers in Malaya who work their own little plot of land at the present time are in the hands of the moneylenders.
Mr. Fletcher: Not at all.
Mr. Awbery: What we have to do is to regain the confidence of the people of Malaya. If we promise them some of these things and endeavour to carry them out, we shall regain that confidence. The chief thing, I say to the Minister, is speed, speed, speed.
8.43 p.m.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: The task of tracking the guerilla in the jungle is extremely difficult and exacting, but it is mere child's play compared with trying to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), in the illogical career of inaccuracy with which he has just presented us. Let me take one or two points. The hon. Gentleman said that the jungle provided food and water. Well, now, really. The jungle may provide shade, but it certainly does not provide food and water for the bandits. That is provided by a class of squatters who are being handled with great skill now under the Briggs plan.
Mr. Awbery: Thousands of these men lived in the jungle for five years. They came out in the evenings and got their food in the villages.
Mr. Fletcher: The food in the village is not exactly the same as the food in the jungle. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I had something to do with Force 136 and with those who were directly concerned. I shall make some comments on what he was saying about the bandits. I met some of them many years before he did, and under slightly different circumstances.
Let me point out another gross inaccuracy, and a self-evident one, which the hon. Member, with his reputation and knowing that he has been quoted in Malaya, should never make. How is it possible for him to bring forward, at the moment when so many of his colleagues are talking of the high price of rubber, the stupid and untenable thesis that anybody who produces rubber today is in the hands of the moneylenders? That is self-evidently not true. Let me point out to the hon. Member that the native producer, considerable quantities of whose rubber I handle out there in my normal type of business, is not in the hands of the moneylenders, but is earning very good money and is using it wisely and is not causing inflation. It is a total travesty of the truth that the hon. Member has presented to the Committee.
Mr. Awbery: I do not say that all the people who produce rubber are in the hands of the moneylenders, but a large number of the people with small plantations or their own small allotments are in the hands of the moneylenders.
Mr. Fletcher: When was the hon. Member last in Malaya?
Mr. Awbery: In 1948.
Mr. Fletcher: Since then, rubber has gone up from 1s. to over 5s. per lb., and that has entailed certain consequences with which the hon. Member, with an idée fixe which seems to haunt him in these matters, absolutely refuses to reckon. It is a great pity that at this moment, when understanding between the Malays and the Chinese is more necessary than ever before—and when actually it is worse, for reasons which I will explain—inflammatory speeches of the nature to which the hon. Member has treated us should be made.
At the moment, we have to think rather differently about Malaya to what we have done in the past three or four years. Three or four years ago, I remember

2023
making a number of speeches warning the Government of what might happen. Most unfortunately, those predictions of woe have come to pass. Today there is undoubtedly an improvement in the internal situation in Malaya—and nobody is more pleased than I am to admit it—but it is not a very great improvement and it is not fundamental, and it does not take into account some new and very disturbing factors.
The first thing that I should like to say is that the reason why the pace and volume of our success are not what they might be and what we could all hope they would be, is that even now so many Malayans, whether Chinese or Malays, do not yet think that we have either the will or the means to protect them from an invasion which they still fear. The Government are progressing—I am fair-minded enough to say that they are progressing—and the visit of the right hon. Gentleman was certainly helpful, as were the visits of a good many colleagues on both sides of the House; but there is still not yet evident in the minds of those who inhabit Malaya a definite feeling that we desire, and are able, to protect them.
On that, ground, their eyes—this is the theme of what I wish to say this evening—are turned outward from Malaya. The Malayan problem cannot possibly be taken on its own and circumscribed in the geographical limits of Malaya. What happens in Korea, and, even more, what happens, in Indo-China, is dominating the minds of the inhabitants of Malaya. The acid test of that is, undoubtedly, the volume of intelligence that we receive.
Within the last 48 hours I have heard evidence from a most reliable source in Malaya that since our success in Korea, and, even more, since the success of General de Lattre de Tassigny in Indo-China, the direct result is a greater volume of intelligence from many of the inhabitants of Malaya who have been forced to become very adept fence sitters —many of them have a natural inclination and aptitude for that—but they have not fully made up their minds as yet which is the winning side. A greater use of propaganda and the increased volume of success in dealing with the squatter problem would help. One of the most
2024
difficult problems, one of the hard core problems that cannot be got rid of very easily, is undoubtedly that of the deportees whom we wish to get rid of. That is a very difficult question on which the Government have received much advice from all sources. They are unable to carry it out yet, but it will undoubtedly increase the confidence of those still wavering in their minds when they see its successful achievement.
It reinforces the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) that the defence of Malaya is taking place today just as much in Indo-China as it is in Malaya. I follow these things very closely because I must confess to having an interest in most parts of the Far East, particularly in Indo-China, and the complete transformation which took place in Indo-China within a fortnight of the arrival of General de Lattrede Tassigny is a remarkable instance of what firm leadership and a great personality can do, particularly among people who are very sensitive to personality.
But it is far from being certain that final victory has been achieved in Indo-China and perhaps a slight investment on our part, visible investment in the way of troops and arms such as America is making to help in Indo-China, might pay a very good dividend. It is the finest insurance policy we could take out. The loss of Indo-China means inevitably the loss of the whole of the rice-growing area, which is really the most important single economic factor in the whole Far East. If only we can squeeze out a little extra help it will be greatly appreciated in France which, since the Pau meeting last year has made an enormous advance in getting Viet-Nam on its side and put Ho-Chih-Minh and his troops in a very difficult position. It must not be forgotten that Indo-China is not Chinese but Indo-Chinese and is presenting to us an opportunity for that resounding success quite near the doorstep of Malaya from the very place from which on the last occasion disaster fell on us. With a little imagination and a little extra effort, there is there the finest possible investment to be made.
I now turn to something which is not so palatable and does not show any such encouraging signs for the future, both near or distant That is the continued feeling between Malay and Chinese.

2025
Committees have been formed on a high level but that is not attacking the real problem. I am not saying who is right or wrong in this controversy, but the Chinese have a distinct feeling of injustice in not having received a fair do from the franchise point of view. Malays, owing to the greater rate of breeding of the Chinese and the great onrush towards economic domination, have a feeling of fear that what they have been given they might not be able to retain.
There is a situation in which real danger lies and the real danger must be realised by His Majesty's Government. That is that we may not be faced in a' few years with a small localised bandit and guerilla war in Malaya, but may see Malaya the battleground between the Chinese influence on one side and the huge 80 millions of Malays living in Indonesia on the other, called in to help. That is a possibility and it must certainly not be disregarded. Looking back to the history of Indo-China we see that over three centuries—and if anyone wishes to go to the great temples at Angkor he can see the living proof of it—a swaying battle between Indian and Chinese civilisations which in the end destroyed Indo-China.
There is a possibility that this may be repeated in Malaya. There were disquieting signs in the last few weeks and the last few months of pressure coming over the narrow Straits of Malaya from Indonesia into Malaya and there is a heightening of the temperature. The Bertha Hertogh incident, on which I shall say nothing because it is still sub judice, has its significance quite apart from the right or wrong of the case. It did show a disquieting degree, not only in Singapore itself, but throughout the whole of Malaya, of a readiness to receive propaganda form their fellow countrymen in Java and Sumatra.
Indonesia itself is in a chaotic condition. Let us hope that we are able before this possible, even probable clash takes place, so to establish in the minds of the Malays the justice of our Government. The proper pace at which it is safe to hand over self-government, taking into account that it is not the most vociferous or those who get elected who are the most effective, but the man in the street and the woman going down with her water pot in the village in the evening.
2026
Those are the people who appreciate Pax Britannica. They want to see that the new government which gradually replaces that gives an equal quality of justice and impartiality. Let us remember that it is a difficult policy which can be carried out only step by step and let us hope it will be at a sufficiently advanced stage before this possible great clash from outside may use Malaya as its battle ground.
In the economic situation of Malaya there is a greater opportunity for putting through many requirements, and for increasing expenditure to many desirable ends than anybody guessed, even 12 months ago. It is undoubtedly the task of the government, with the assistance of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, to make, not spectacular progress —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why on that side?"] Why on this side? Because a great many hon. Gentlemen on this side have just as much mind and heart and feeling for the people of that country as hon. Members on the other side of the Committee—
Dr. Morgan: A more stupid observation has never been made in this House.
Mr. Fletcher: I am complimented by the hon. Gentleman, but let me turn again to the more serious note I was attempting to strike. It is absolutely vital that the right pace in achieving this objective should be taken; not necessarily the most spectacular steps, not those we can talk about here, because they may not come to fruition for a good many years. But here is the opportunity of seeing and of gradually getting a basis on which all the peoples of Malaya will fit in their place. I see that hon. Gentlemen opposite are eager to get into the debate for which I do not blame them, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman, when he makes his reply, not to strike the note of the previous speaker, which is out-moded by years and no longer fits in with the facts, but to rely very much more on his own experience and the more up-to-date information at his disposal.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. Gammons: There is only one speech in this debate which has not lived up to the high level set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and that was the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery). I do

2027
not think he has done his Government and party any good by talking of the inhabitants of Malaya as being underfed and underpaid.
I would have had more respect for the hon. Member in using those phrases if he had taken part in the debate last week on the groundnut scheme where we had the duty of making exactly the same remarks with regard to the Africans who are working there. The hon. Member said that about the planters, police, miners and the people of Malaya. He made excuses for the bandits who are shooting them down, but he paid no tribute to them whatsoever.
There are two main reasons why we on this side of the Committee and, I hope, in all quarters, welcome this debate on Malaya. It gives us the opportunity of bringing the hot war in Malaya into the perspective of world events. It gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to the planters, miners, the men of the Army and R.A.F., the police, the Ghurkhas and all the people in Malaya who have stood so firmly during these three troubled years. The other reason why we welcome the debate is that it will give the Secretary of State for the Colonies the chance to satisfy the Committee that all that could be done is being done. Later, I want to ask him one or two specific questions.
From time to time the Government complain somewhat peevishly that our American Allies do not appreciate fully that for the past three years we have been fighting in Malaya exactly the same Communist enemy as their troops are now fighting in Korea. I agree that it is absolutely essential that our American friends and the people of the Commonwealth, in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, should appreciate what we are doing. But what I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman is what is being done by the British information services in America to make known not only the extent of our war effort in Malaya, but what it all means.
Has it ever been suggested, for example, that British planters and tin miners, while they are on leave, should go round lecturing to the Rotary clubs and to other similar organisations in the United States? Has it ever been suggested that
2028
Asian members of rotary clubs in Malaya should address fellow-members of Rotary clubs in the United States and Canada'? Have the Government ever considered inviting a delegation of American Congressmen to go to Malaya? Not only should we like them to see exactly what we are doing, but I think that we have a great deal to be proud of in what that country has done in the past 50 years. I hope, too, that it will not be long before there is another Parliamentary delegation from this country.
It is essential that everyone here at home should realise the sort of life that the Malayan planters and tin miners are living. I do not know whether even hon. Members realise that, unless they have been to Malaya. The planters live in their bungalows surrounded with barbed wire, with are lights shining on the wire, and with the telephone ringing once every hour when the police inquire whether the man and his wife are still alive. That is the sort of life that these men and women have lived for the past three years. I wonder whether people in this country fully realise that. I wonder whether they realise the danger that a planter or a tin miner runs when he leaves his estate and goes down a lonely road and runs the risk of being ambushed.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton referred to what Malaya has done in the economic sphere. This debate should remind us that the very welcome change in bridging the dollar gap is not primarily due to the efforts of this country. It is chiefly due to the producers of primary products throughout the Colonial Empire and the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend gave us the figures of Malayan exports for last year. Perhaps I might put them in rather different words. Exports from Malaya last year earned for the sterling area 360 million United States dollars. Exports from this country earned us 316 million United States dollars. Therefore, it is because of these 2,000 planters and tin miners that today the pound is able to look the dollar in the face once more.
Mr. Harrison: To complete the picture, would the hon. Gentleman tell us to what extent we exported goods from this country to enable Malaya to earn those 360 million dollars?
Mr. Gammans: If we take the figures, we find that it is the primary producers of the Empire who have filled the dollar gap. We ought to realise that. I hope that the Government realise, though it is rather out of the scope of this debate, that this will cause them a most difficult problem in the next 12 months, especially in connection with re-armament in this country. When we think of what has been done by the people of Malaya, we ought to realise, and others in this country ought to realise, that, but for their efforts, our finances today would be very different from what they are.
Now some questions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to be quite frank about the operations of the Briggs plan. Are things in Malaya better or not? That is what we really want to know. Some time ago, we gathered the impression that the bandits were really being brought under control, and then we got news of a new outbreak of murders, and we wondered whether the situation was, in fact, much better than a year ago. How many squatters have been removed, and how many still have to be removed? Why was it that the destruction of the bandit nest in Selangor a week ago was put out by the local government in such an extraordinary way that the "Manchester Guardian" referred to it as "a second Lidice"? Why is it that that operation could not have been explained to the public better than it was?
Mr. Wyatt: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the public eviction of people and setting fire to their houses?
Mr. Gammans: I would not describe it as "a second Lidice." At least, the people were taken out first, and were not murdered or burned to death in the houses, as they were at Lidice. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not get a chance of addressing the Committee, or he might have been able to explain his point of view.
Only last week, the Secretary of State admitted, in answer to a Question by me, that there is still a shortage of jungle green equipment, and we were told that 20,000 suits of jungle green had had to be borrowed from the Army. What has happened to all that equipment? In preparation for this debate, I went today to Wilton Road, at the back of Victoria
2030
Station, because, only a few months ago, I saw that some shops there were full of jungle green equipment. I asked the people in one of the shops if I could buy this equipment. I was told, "You could have bought all you wanted three months ago."
What sort of planning is it in which the Ministry of Supply sells jungle green equipment at one end of the scale, while the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies is trying to buy it at the other? We have had this matter brought up in this House several times, and it does seem extraordinary, whether we are considering re-armament generally or the war in Malaya, that equipment which is available and in first-class condition can still be bou—grt in our shops.
With regard to arms, what is the meaning of this phrase, which was used in the House last week:
"The latest requirements of small arms and ammunition for the Malayan Police and Security Forces including the Home Guard, are being despatched to Malaya shortly"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 58.]
Shortly, indeed? What has happened to the six or seven million rifles with which this country was supposed to have finished the last war? I must say that the Government can take very little credit indeed for the way in which this campaign in Malaya has been waged.
I want to ask one or two questions on a rather wider scale about the war in Malaya in regard to the anti-Communist war everywhere. If this were only a civil war in Malaya, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) remarked just now, it would be comparatively easy to put it down in a short time, but the danger in Malaya today is that it might be attacked from outside, and this fact prompts me to ask several questions. First, what are our contacts with the French in Indo-China and with the Viet-Nam régime? We are both fighting the same enemy, and, if the Communist forces should over-run Indo-China, Siam and Burma, overnight we should be faced with a first-class, full-scale war on our own frontiers. I agree with my hon. Friend that to the extent that we can help the French in Indo-China to that extent we are putting

2031
off the risk of having to fight that war on our own doorstep.
Second, I hope the Government have made it quite clear, not only to our American Allies, but also to the Peking Government, that we will never agree to a local settlement in Korea which does not take into account the Far East generally. What we want is not merely that the fighting there shall cease tomorrow on any terms. The only terms satisfactory to us would be guarantees for the security of Hong Kong, Indo-China and Malaya, because, if we patch up an armistice in Korea, the Chinese, in their present frame of mind, will merely transfer their armies further south to fight.
Third, what is our long-term security policy in South-East Asia? I feel that we should strive for a Pacific Pact as comprehensive in its scope and obligations to Asia as is the Atlantic Pact to Europe. Let us see what we have now. We have the United States fighting in Korea and the United States pledged to defend both Formosa and the Philippines. We ourselves have large Forces in Malaya and in Hong Kong. The French are in Indo-China in strength; both India and Pakistan are, presumably, very interested in what happens to Burma, and Australia, New Zealand and Ceylon would be all directly affected if the Red tide should come further south.
But all these are individual efforts; all these defence arrangements are individual defence arrangements, without any sort of central planning. What, surely, is wanted is some co-ordination of effort and some acceptance of joint commitments so that an attack upon any one part of this vast perimeter will bring the aid of all the other countries affected, as well. I suggest that the forging of what we might call the Grand Alliance for South-East Asia is, in the long run, as important as the forging of the Grand Alliance for the defence of Europe, and I would also suggest that that is primarily the responsibility of His Majesty's Government.
I want to ask about the stockpiling of strategic materials. I do not mean stockpiling in this country—a matter which we are to discuss later this week—but the stockpiling for our enemies. I want to know why we are stockpiling our potential
2032
enemies with the tin and rubber which Malaya produces. In the last six months of 1950, China imported, roughly 70,000 tons of rubber from Malaya. In the corresponding period a year earlier she imported 16,000 tons. Therefore, the quantity of her imports increased nearly five times. When I put that to the Prime Minister two weeks ago, he admitted to the House that the Government regard China as being in exactly the same category as Russia and her satellites for the purpose of strategic exports.
The question I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman—and I hope he will answer it—is whether he thinks it right that we should go on asking Malayan planters to risk their lives to supply rubber to a Government whose agents are daily doing their best to murder them, with the knowledge that that rubber is going to Korea to be used on Chinese lorries with which to fight the British Army. That is, of course, a matter of high policy, and may not affect the right hon. Gentleman directly, but, surely we cannot go on like this.
I know the difficulties, and there is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what they are. I know that we are not the only country producing rubber; I know that it comes from Indonesia, Indo-China and Siam. But we ought to try to evolve a plan with our American Allies to see that only that quantity of rubber goes to China which is reasonable and which bears some relation to her previous requirements, and that she is not stockpiling either for herself or for Russia.
Before we leave strategic materials, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something about the rubber conference which is now being held in London. It is the most mysterious conference of which I have ever heard. They do not seem to be prepared to give any terms of reference. Am I not right in saying that there are no representatives whatsoever of the rubber interests, either Asian or European? Am I not right in saying that the only people representing Malaya are two Government officials? What is the object of this conference? Is it to try to get some agreement on stockpiling ourselves and stockpiling our Allies? Is it to try to get some agreement on prices, or is it about the denial of strategic materials to Russia, and her allies?

2033
I want to say a word about constitutional progress. It has been referred to by one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman always makes some reference to it in every speech he makes on Malaya. We on this side, of course, do not dissent for one moment that British Colonial policy is based on the principle of the attainment of gradual self-government within the Commonwealth. So far as Malaya is concerned we have entirely welcomed, and do welcome, recent political advances that have been made there. What I would most earnestly remind the right hon. Gentleman about, and remind his hon. Friends, is that what Malaya wants today is not a new constitution but the restoration of law and order. What it wants is conviction that we have the will and the power to defend the country against external aggression. Malaya is not suffering from constitutional unrest but from deliberate attempts by agents of an outside Power to destroy it and all for which it stands.
The greatest hope we have is for the Chinese to co-operate with the Government. If they did that this whole business would be over in three months. The best way to obtain that co-operation is to make them feel that they are going to be on the winning side. I hope that before we talk too loosely about the constitutional changes in Malaya—and the hon. Member for Bristol, Central, talked about constitutions as though it was a matter of just putting out paper constitutions and hoping for the best—let us realise the fundamental difficulties that have to be faced.
Are we being quite frank about this? I do not know how Malaya is going to attain self-government. I cannot begin to see the pattern, because we are dealing with two races—Malay and Chinese. They are equal in number but they differ in everything else—in religion, in culture, in mechanical aptitude, in business knowledge, in fact in everything except that they live in the same country. We have had some very interesting examples in the history of this country and the Empire, since the end of the war, of the difficulty of reconciling plural societies when it comes to the attainment of self-government. In India and in Palestine there were two races, but the unity of the country could not be maintained in either case
2034
as soon as British power was removed. Exactly the same problem faces us in Malaya.
I do not want to go into great detail in this matter, but I want to utter this warning—that with the very best of motives the Government can do untold harm in Malaya by unwise and precipitate action. Unless we can get a form of self-government that reconciles the interests of these two races it will not be self-government at all. We shall witness a bloody civil war. All I can do is to express my own belief, that the only hope of Malaya evolving towards some form of self-government without risk of civil war is that in some capacity or another Great Britain remains a third and permanent partner.
It is not my business tonight to suggest how that will work out. That would be quite beyond the compass of this debate. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that to talk of self-government without taking into consideration the position of these two races, and to refuse to acknowledge where the real danger lies, is not doing good either to the Empire or to the people of Malaya.
For more than ten years the people of Malaya, both Asian and European, have been living most difficult and dangerous lives. They went right through the period 1939–41 feeling that Japan was likely to attack them. Then there were all the horrors of the Japanese occupation. That occupation was scarcely over before we had this banditry. I suggest that the best message we can send to the people of Malaya, whether Asian or European, is not only appreciation of their courage and endurance, but proof of our determination to stand by them and with them in the days to come.
9.21 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): I welcome, as did the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and other hon. Members, this opportunity of discussing the problems of Malaya. I want to begin —as the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington began—by expressing, I am sure for all of us, whatever differences we may have about questions of policy in Malaya, our deep appreciation of the courage and fortitude shown by all its people. For close on three years they

2035
have been living in daily and nightly terror and it is impossible to appreciate the circumstances in which they have to carry on their daily life unless one has seen and experienced them oneself.
I pay my tribute to everyone who is working in Malaya—to all the people in Malaya, to the planters, the tin miners, the soldiers, the police, the administrators, the officers and the vast mass of the people who are continually in daily and nightly peril. It is indeed a great tribute to them and, if I may be allowed to say so, the basis of sure confidence for victory in the end that, in spite of what they have endured for two-and-a-half years, they have not given in or collapsed in the face of this terror.
May I say, first of all, that I appreciate what was said by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and by other hon. Members, that we cannot wrench the problem of Malaya out of its context of Far Eastern problems generally. Indeed, all those who have worked in Malaya or who have followed the situation there know perfectly well that the barometer of morale, if I may use the term, goes up and down with events in the Far East generally. We are all fully conscious of the effect of events in Korea and, perhaps even more, the effect of events in Indo-China upon the people in Malaya.
Indo-China is the other side of Siam, and Siam is next to Malaya—and that is how the catastrophe came in 1941. It is, therefore, natural that they should see the problem in that way. I want to reassure the House that there is a very close association between ourselves and those who are fighting the same battle in Indo-China, both on the military side and on the political side. There has been close co-operation with Siam, for example, all the time, but I think it has improved immensely in the last year or so. There has been very close co-operation between the authorities on the Siamese side and those on the Malayan side. That is shown by the way in which the border has been safeguarded. Similarly, we are in close touch with Indo-China; there is close association both militarily and politically.
It has to be appreciated that we are fighting on more than one front in Malaya. As I see it, we have to do three tasks in Malaya, and to do them at the
2036
same time. First—and this has a first priority—we have to win the battle against the terrorists. That must be given first priority, and it is given first priority, in all the activities of the Government and the people in Malaya. That must be first, and I assure the Committee that it is first.
Second, there is the task, which has been a continuous one since the end of the war in 1945, of the rehabilitation of the industries that suffered for so many years under the occupation of the Japanese, for the Japanese lived on the country, pillaged it, and robbed it of those resources. The job of economic rehabilitation from 1945 onwards has been a very big one indeed, but the major industries have been rehabilitated, and the contribution they are making now to the prosperity of the whole Sterling Area is an indication of how well and how courageously that task of economic rehabilitation has been tackled and successfully accomplished.
There is the third one, consequent on a fact that all of us have to realise. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) said something about this, with which I agreed, in a speech with most of which I disagreed; but he said something with which I agreed, and it is the first time that I have ever heard him say anything in this House with which I did not disagree.
Mr. Pickthorn: Better luck next time.
Mr. Griffiths: The effects of the late war are profoundly disturbing, and have given rise to a great awakening in Asia. Do not let anyone imagine that in Malaya or anywhere in the Far East we are going back to where we were in 1939. Let me say, with great respect and kindness, that this is one of the facts we must realise. Let me say, also, with the profound admiration I have for everyone who is working in Malaya, that we must not have a nostalgia for the old days and let it affect policy, because the old days are not coming' back. Therefore, we must win what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington called the "battle of ideas"—and I join him in using the phrase, although the hon. Member for Carlton did not like that term. This battle is going on, and what we have to show is, if we can, as I believe we can—and if we can then I

2037
think we ought—that in Malaya, in addition to fighting the emergency and beating back the terrorists, in addition to maintaining the economic production of the country, which is so vital to the rest of the world, we can take steps—as we are taking steps—economically, socially and politically to build a new Malaya for the future. All these things are essential, and we are trying to do all those three things at the same time.
Now, as to emergency itself. At the end of last year the High Commissioner and General Briggs were over in this country, and we took the opportunity of their visit to London to discuss the whole situation with them, and to re-assess, in the light of the experience we had had since the middle of the year when the Briggs plan had been put into operation, the effects of the Briggs plan, and whether the Briggs plan was a sound plan; and we came to the conclusion that it was. We then discussed what further steps should be taken to expedite the operation of the Briggs plan, for if it is a sound plan the essential thing is to push it forward and carry it through with drive and vigour as quickly as we can. It had begun before the visit of the High Commissioner and General Briggs; since then it has been, to a large extent, completed.
We have made certain very important changes in the machinery of Government in order to ensure that the machine is such that it can make quick decisions and follow them up. At the Federal level there has been established a Federal War Council, which is presided over by the High Commissioner, and upon which there are representatives of the Malays and of the Chinese, and a representative of the planters, Mr. Treble, whom it has been my privilege to see and whose hospitality I enjoyed in Malaya during a week-end. There is this Federal War Council which is given authority to make decisions and to operate them.
At the district level there are several war executives, who are also representatives of the communities, whose duty it is to carry through and put into operation the decisions of the Federal War Council as quickly as possible. Therefore, there has been—if I might use a word which has become very current—a streamlining of the machinery, and the Federal War Council now has full authority from the Legislative Council.
2038
This is not an imposition. All this has been agreed to by representatives of the Federation of Malaya at the Legislative Council in the sense that they have for the purposes of the present emergency delegated their powers to the Federal War Council. To ensure that decisions arrived at by the Federal War Council are put into operation without having to go through a complicated machinery—inevitably complicated because of the federal structure of the Government in normal times—and to prevent their being held up for financial resources to put the plans into operation as quickly as they decide them, they have, by a decision of the Legislative Council, been authorised to spend at any given time up to one million Straits dollars, and 10 million dollars have been put into a fund at their disposal.
We are satisfied, therefore, that to begin with, both at the centre and in the district, there is a machinery of government which can act and which is acting quickly, and which has the financial resources with which to put into operation all the plans it desires. Our information is that the machinery is now working as satisfactorily as we believed and hoped it would when we set it up.
Mr. N. Macpherson: Would the right hon. Gentleman complete the picture? Is there anything between the Federal War Council and the districts? Is there no corresponding State organisation?
Mr. Griffiths: I omitted that. There is a corresponding State organisation. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that interjection, because there are federal, State and district organisations.
Secondly, it was agreed to be essential that we should now take certain other steps to be sure that the emergency had the first call upon the resources of the people and of the country, and a certain number of regulations have been passed and are now in operation. I admit at once that perhaps it might have been done before, but anyhow it has been done now. There is complete control over building of all kinds in Malaya to ensure that all building necessary for the purpose of the emergency gets first priority. They have taken another step of very great importance, and that is to pass regulations to enable them to conscript labour.

2039
The regulations have been passed and a director of manpower appointed. He is Mr. Foster-Sutton, whom those who have been to Malaya will probably know and have met. He is carrying out his new job with great energy and drive. It has been decided to register those in the age group 17 to 24, although it is not intended at the moment to call up those registered in the 17 age group. Between 250,000 and 300,000 in this group will be registered. In the first call-up, which would take place in the very near future, it is proposed to call up only 20,000. This was a very big decision for the Federal War Council to take in the circumstances in Malaya. It was taken with the full approval of the Federal War Council, and has, indeed, been supported by the Legislative Council, so that it is taken with the full accord of representatives of all the races in Malaya.
In our view, the machinery is now of such a character that decisions can be quickly arrived at and quickly implemented, and resources are available by which they can be put into operation quickly.
Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman referred to 20,000 who could be called up. Can they be called up for any purpose for which it is thought fit—police or labour —or is there some category into which they ought to be put?
Mr. Griffiths: They can be called up for service. The regulation does not say that they can be called up for a specific purpose, but for service in an emergency. In the main it is the intention that the first 20,000 to be called up shall be directed to serve in the police. A selected number will be trained to operate with the jungle police and some pari-military organisations. The regulation empowers them to be called up for service in an emergency.
Mr. Eden: It will be a selective call-up?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes. Those called up will be entitled to appeal to a tribunal which will decide in each case whether the call-up shall stand or whether the appeal against service is sustained.
Now I come to the assessment of the situation. I will be fair and frank with the House about the operation of, the Briggs plan. There has been some im-
2040
provement, but it is perhaps not clearly shown in the figures, which fluctuate sometimes from week to week, of the number of incidents. It is of the greatest importance that the situation should not be assessed purely on the number of incidents. One has to distinguish between major incidents and minor incidents of which there can be a very large number in the aggregate. There has been some improvement, but not the improvement for which I hoped. I think that perhaps the biggest test of whether or not there has been an improvement is whether it is now easier or more difficult for us to get information, which is so vital.
Squadron Leader Burden: Is it expected that the Briggs plan will show any spectacular results before the squatters, from whom the rebels obtain much of their ability to carry on the fight from the point of view of provisioning, have, in fact, been segregated?
Mr. Griffiths: I am coming to the question of squatters.
I have already warned the House against expecting any spectacular results either from the Briggs plan or in any other way. I am not holding out hopes of any spectacular results. If we could get all the terrorists out together into the field and our forces into the field, then the result would be spectacular and we should win. In the circumstances in which this battle in Malaya has to be fought, there can be no spectacular results.
The test to which I attach the most importance—and I do not want to put it too high or to exaggerate—is that the information is coming in better, and that means that slowly—and I emphasise the word "slowly"—but surely confidence is growing. I think that one can draw encouragement from that. As information increases, I think confidence will go on growing and that information will come to us in ever-increasing quantity and in increasing quality. I believe that there will be ground for believing that there has been some improvement and that the improvement made is sound and solid and upon which we can build our hopes for the future.
Mr. Eden: From the Chinese, too?
Mr. Griffiths: That, I believe, is most encouraging. There is a sign of increasing

2041
confidence among the Chinese and an increased willingness to co-operate with the Government.
Air Commodore Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman says that there has been some improvement. I imagine that he is referring to the casualties. Has there been any diminution in the number of rubber trees that have been slashed or telegraph wires that have been damaged? Will he give us some information about the physical aspect of the problem?
Mr. Griffiths: I prefer not to make the analysis entirely on the number of incidents but, taking the comparable three months of the year before, there has been a slight reduction in the number of incidents. I am not basing my confidence about the future upon the incidents, but upon my information that there is a growing confidence which is giving us more information which, in turn, is making it possible for us to operate much more successfully.
I come to the biggest problem of all, resettlement of the 400,000 squatters—in round figures—who have been all the time open to terror and from whom, partly through terror and partly because they have had supporters among them, the terrorists have derived sustenance of all kinds. Resettlement is one of the major contributions which we can make towards eventual rehabilitation. There are two ways in which this problem can be handled. The first is that all these people could have been taken from the squatter villages and put into detention camps. We could have made resettlement purely a military operation. I think that would have been a mistake and would have been a boomerang that would have come back on us. I am sure that we have the right policy and the more I study it the more convinced I am. I was also very much convinced by what I saw.
We can make this not only a resettlement of the squatters, but we can take them from unprotected areas and house them in protected areas, giving them better security and a better standard of life than they have had before. This great social change has been in operation during the emergency, and already 120,000 have been resettled. There are still about 280,000 to be settled. We hope that in the southern part of the Peninsula we can give priority to this matter. We hope
2042
that resettlement will be complete about May of this year. I would not like to give any target date for this class of resettlement, but I can say that it is proceeding satisfactorily. It is being done in a way that will bring an end to the emergency and will lay the foundation for greater accord in the future.
Now I would say a word about one other part of the problem, which is to get officers with a knowledge of Chinese. At the moment, the most pressing need is to secure resettlement officers, responsible for the great operation of resettlement, who can speak Chinese. The High Commissioner was in this country and he met the missionary societies and put the question before them, quite frankly, that here was a great piece of social work as well as emergency work. We said that if any of them felt that their great experience could assist us, we should be very glad to avail ourselves of their services. We believe that they will do a fine job as resettlement officers.
In recent months we have been able to secure, partly from this field and partly from other fields, 30 resettlement officers who can speak Chinese. We get large numbers of applications from people who feel they can do this job and we fall back upon them whenever we cannot get people who speak Chinese. The most difficult problem is to get officers who have a knowledge of Chinese, and if hon. Members know of any I shall be glad to hear of them. If I could find 100 officers who know Chinese and who could go to Malaya, it would be one of the biggest contributions which we could make.
Mr. Driberg: My right hon. Friend referred just now, in passing, to detention camps. Could he say a little more about detention camps, and, in particular, could he say whether there are now many more people detained without trial than there were last October when the number was 11,000, including many squatters and many admittedly innocent people?
Mr. Griffiths: I have not got the figure for the total number of detainees at the moment. I do not think it is very substantially bigger than the 11,000 which my hon. Friend mentioned. Let me admit at once that I do not believe it is possible in any system of detention, even with the best will in the world and the best machinery, not to find some innocent

2043
people detained. We had experiences like this during the war. What is taking place in Malaya is 18B procedure, just as we had it here. I would not claim for a moment that we have not made mistakes and have not detained innocent people, but the people who are detained have the opportunity of appealing to a tribunal which is representative of all the racial groups in Malaya.
Mr. Driberg: They do not all know that.
Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend wrote to me and told me that he had found that some of the detainees did not know that they had a right of appeal. I want to reply to him publicly and say that I have been in communication with the High Commissioner, that I have pointed out that I regard it as absolutely essential that these people shall know the full rights of appeal which they have, and that I have asked him to take special steps to see that this is done.
On the subject of equipment, one problem is that of providing green jungle cloth as quickly as we would like. I noted with some interest, but almost with incredulity, that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) said that he had been to a shop in the West End which had green jungle cloth.
Mr. Gammans: I said that they had had plenty until three months ago.
Mr. Griffiths: We have probably bought a lot of that and sent it to Malaya. This has been one of our most difficult problems. The Army authorities have helped us considerably and recently they have agreed to release 20,000 jungle green uniforms from their own rather limited resources. This is one of the most difficult materials to secure. We are not showing any kind of delay in buying the material, but the difficulty is that such material is not available. The productive capacity is not equal to the demands. I believe that on the whole we have now got on top of the problem and I hope that we shall be able to secure all the jungle green that is possible, but it is certainly a major problem.
Generally speaking, we are able to meet the demand for other items of equipment. The last report we had said that the supply position had improved immensely
2044
during the last few months and that the only deficiency which was likely to become serious in the near future was that of jungle green cloth. If we can overcome the problem of jungle green cloth I am reasonably satisfied about the equipment position.
The right hon. Gentleman asked if we were seeking to induce persons who are serving in Malaya, and have experience of the country, to remain there Yes, we are. We are doing this on a selective basis. Those who have experience of key posts, who even go there on retirement from their present positions, can serve as, for example, resettlement officers or in any of the new important posts made essential by the emergency.
On the propaganda side, which is of immense importance, we have asked Mr. Carleton Greene, who had wide experience of political warfare in this country between 1939 and 1945, to go to Malaya to take on this big task. He has been there now for about six months. He asked us for two assistants. We secured them. He has asked us for more assistants and we are doing our best to supply those, too. In addition to propaganda he is also responsible for broadcasting, and the reports we have had during the six but crowded months during which he has been at work are that he is making a really big contribution to this side of our work. All those who have been to Malaya pay tribute to him in this respect.
Therefore, in the past few months there has been steady progress. There is growing confidence, and on that we can build for the future It is a tough job. The battle is not yet won. I do not expect spectacular results, but I believe that by continuing the efforts we are making we shall win through.
Now I want to repeat once more what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, what I myself have said at this Box and also in Malaya and what I regret having to repeat again. With great respect to hon. Members opposite, when they continually ask us to reaffirm our determination to see this thing through, do they not see that they are causing doubt? Here, we can play our party politics if we like; here, we can say, "I don't like the Government," but all hon. Members' Questions about Malaya are repeated in Malaya. If,

2045
almost every week, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Prime Minister or any other of my colleagues, is asked, "Will you please repeat again that we intend to see this thing through?" what is thought outside is that hon. Members opposite think that we do not intend to see it through.
Mr. Eden: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to say anything of that kind. I did not say one word that could possibly be interpreted in that way. I was speaking for the party I represent on this side of the Committee. All I asked the right hon. Gentleman to do was to tell me. I have at least as much experience of international affairs as he has, and there is never any harm in repeating a good thing a good many times eventually, people will believe it.
Mr. Griffiths: I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman. He has not been here during the whole course of the debate, and hon. Members on his side of the Committee have asked that question. I am glad to have it from him that when they do ask for this assurance, they are not speaking for the party opposite.
Certainly, we intend to see this through. We are determined, in collaboration with the people of Malaya, to beat down this terrorism. I want to go further and express not only my view but my conviction. I do not think it is enough to win the emergency. Nor is it enough to win the day after the emergency. There is something more than that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said. That is, that not only are we determined to stand by, and work with, and help and assist with all the resources at our command to see this thing through, and win this fight against the bandits, but we also intend to help the people of Malaya in their economic development.
One of the most encouraging and imaginative things which has been done in Malaya is the setting up of the Rural Development Board, with Dato Onn in the chair, to raise these peasants from their poverty and illiteracy in the Kampongs. Who can see a kampong in Malaya without experiencing a burning desire to replace it with something better? There is the desire to improve education. Look at the facts. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ask about education. Ten years
2046
ago there were 240,000 children in the schools; now, there are 640,000. But even now, only half the children go to school, in schools in which double shifts are operated, with one set of children in the morning and another set in the afternoon. There is a growing passion everywhere for education, for new schools and for new training colleges.
The development of trade unions is very important. To hon. Members opposite, who sometimes think that I emphasise it too much, let me say this about trade unions. Remember what we do when we take rubber there, or when we develop tin—or any other industry in any other Colony. We take the workers away from their own native organisation, from their Kampong, and unless we replace it with another organisation we leave a vacuum which the Communists will fill if we do not do so. That is why, once an industry is brought into a country, it is courting disaster to leave the people unprotected by an organisation of their own.
For that reason, when I was in Malaya I made it my business to meet and to encourage the trade unions. People in this country who are interested in Malaya and in the rubber industry—I say this not in any way disrespectfully, but kindly yet firmly—can be more co-operative by encouraging the people on the spot to recognise that trade unionism can work for their benefit.
Equally, with regard to constitutional development, the problem of the future of Malaya is a very big one. There are some 5½ million people; 2½ million are Malays, about 1¾ million Chinese, and half a million are Indian. It is we, by our development, who have made this Malaya, with all its advantages and with, all its problems. It is we who have brought the Chinese there to work; it is we who brought the Indians there. The Malays were there already. The present-day Malaya, therefore, is a creation of 19th century capitalist development.
Here is the problem: how can we build a unified community which is now, in a sense, three communities, with separate religions, languages and divisions and, very often, separate communities? We have been working on this problem, and the Commissioner-General, through his liaison committee, has been working on it. The hope of the future of Malaya

2047
is that on the basis of racial co-operation we can bring together all these people, who share Malaya as a home, to build it together.
I should like my last words tonight to be to send a message to the people of Malaya that we shall stand by them right through to the end, until we have beaten this terrorism and until law and order and peace are restored to Malaya. Thereafter, we shall be with them, to guide and to help them and to assist them in their economic, social and constitutional development until, eventually, they are parties with us in this great Commonwealth of Nations.
Resolved:
"That a sum, not exceeding £929,264,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952."
Resolution to be reported Tomorrow: Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

SMOKE POLLUTION
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Although it is only six months since this question of smoke pollution was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath (Mr. F. Longden), I make no apology for raising it again tonight. It is now 645 years since Parliament first concerned itself with the nuisance caused by smoke and it seems that the rate of progress depends on the impatience and persistence with which we urge the need for action.
What the public often fail to appreciate is that when coal is burned in such a way as to foul the air it is being used uneconomically. As the Minister of Fuel and Power has pointed out, it is no longer true to say,
"Where there's muck there's money."
The truth is that where there is muck there is waste; indeed, it has been estimated that so uneconomically do we use our resources that we waste as much as
2048
80 million tons of coal a year. I do not want to put the case as strongly as that tonight, although I do not want to minimise the importance of fuel conservation from the national point of view.
An inefficient fireman who allows his chimney to belch out black smoke can waste as much coal in one day as a skilled miner can produce. Dr. Parker, the Director of Fuel Research for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, has estimated that of the 190 million tons of coal we burned in 1948, 7,250,000 tons went straight into the air in the form of 2 million tons of tarry smoke, over 500,000 tons of grit and 4,750,000 tons in the form of sulphur. In other words, we blew the work of 25,000 miners straight up the chimney and the air is fouled as far afield as the South-West Coast of Ireland and the Isle of Man where it has been said that they could tell when the wind was blowing from Lancashire because the white sheep turned grey. That waste alone is bad enough, but it is not the whole picture.
Those of us concerned with this problem of dirty air have a number of charges to add to the indictment. We believe dirt and smoke are bad for health. They ruin our buildings. They damage our agriculture. They make for drabness and depression in the industrial areas. It is not possible to calculate the total cost, but it seems improbable that it is less than £200 million a year. Let me take first the charge on grounds of health. The deposit of solid matter from the air varies from as little as 10 tons per square mile per year in the rural areas to as much as 2,000 tons per square mile per year in the worst industrial areas. I think it is probably true that between 400 and 500 tons per square mile per year is a fairly typical figure for our industrial areas, and it is there we have to look for the chief damage to health.
Sir Sylvanus Vivian, a former Registrar-General, has said that one of the reasons why the urban mortality rate is higher than that in the countryside is that the smoke from factories and houses reduces the effective sunshine. He has also pointed out that the mortality rate of children under five suffering from bronchitis and pneumonia is heaviest in Lancashire and in the West Riding of Yorkshire because of the smoke and the attendant fog and deprivation of sunshine.

2049
Sir Alexander Macgregor, a former medical officer of health for Glasgow, has said that smoke may reduce the ultra violet radiation by anything from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. and in the worst cases even more. It has been established that after periods of smoky fog, or "smog" as the Americans aptly call it, the death rate from respiratory diseases, for example, pneumonia and bronchitis, soars in the industrial areas. It seems that there is no direct connection between polluted air and the development of tuberculosis, but it seems fairly clear that a dirty atmosphere exacerbates the disease and may in the long run hasten death. There seems, on the other hand, a good deal of evidence for saying that there is a direct connection between smoke pollution and cancer of the lung. The smoke in the atmosphere contains various carcinogenic substances—I think that is the term—which include arsenic.—Doctor Stocks, also of the Registrar-General's Department, has summed up the position in these words:
"Either smokiness of the atmosphere is an important factor in producing cancer of the lung, or sunshine is an important factor in preventing its incidence."
I think it is only fair to add that at present research is being carried out into this problem by the Medical Research Council under the direction of Sir Ernest Kennaway.
My second charge is on grounds of damage to agriculture and natural life. In East Lancashire the pollution of the atmosphere is such that land in the Rossendale Valley needs an extra five hundredweight of lime per acre per year to put it into good heart. Around the Burnley district the figure is nearer half a ton. In the same area the dirt in the atmosphere kills the clover and makes the grass poor and coarse. There are a number of reasons for that. In the first place, smoke blocks out the sunlight. Second, the deposit of dirt on the leaves blocks out the sunlight and suffocates plants because it prevents them from breathing. Third, acids in the air lower the vitality of the plants; and last, acids in the soil make it sour and reduce its fertility.
I think the most interesting research into this aspect of the problem has been carried on in Leeds where it has been shown that lettuces sown on the outskirts
2050
grow to three times the size of those sown at the same time in the industrial area. Evergreens in the suburbs are five times as big as ones of like age in areas like Hunslet. In the centre of the city privet loses its leaves by November whereas in the suburbs it is green throughout the year. That is a terrible indictment of the smoke in cities like Leeds. To come nearer to Westminster, hon. Members will know that almost the only tree which flourishes in London is the London plane. The reason is that the plane sheds its bark every year and so avoids being suffocated by a coat of dirt. Even at Kew, a comparatively clean part of London, the dirt is so great that the National Collection of Conifers has had to be transferred to Kent.
Other effects of pollution are difficult to assess. All one knows is, to give one example, that the laundry bills in Manchester are much higher than in Harrogate. Chain stores find that their bills for decoration in industrial areas are twice those in the country. The joint stock banks spend far more on cleaning in the smoke ridden cities than in the rural areas. And, perhaps most important of all, the work of the housewife is made infinitely more difficult and infinitely more discouraging, and her curtains and furnishing fabrics rot much more quickly.
In this very Palace of Westminster we have had a painful and expensive lesson in the dangers of smoke pollution which has caused nearly as much damage to the fabric as did Hitler's bombers during the war. Even before the war the damage was estimated by Sir Frank Baines, Director of Works in the then Office of Works, to be about £1 million. Hon. Members have only to walk across Parliament Square to see the disfiguring effects of smoke on Westminster Abbey and St. Margarets Church. In the Chapter House of the Abbey, where Parliament used to meet 600 years ago, the 13th and 14th century paintings have been marred by the poison in the air. Another of our great London monuments, Greenwich Observatory, has been moved away, because the man-made filth made it impossible to observe the stars in their courses.
This is a terrible indictment of the effects of man-made pollution of the atmosphere. It is a terrible story, and one which I do not believe we can allow

2051
to continue. I would put to my hon. Friend a number of questions which I hope he will be able to answer. I ask him to tell us what progress is being made towards getting rid of atmospheric pollution. Is he satisfied with what is being done to create smokeless zones, in which Manchester and Salford have pioneered the way?
Mr. L. M. Lever: Manchester was the first to introduce them.
Mr. Greenwood: I am very happy to hear that Manchester was the first. Obviously, it was one of the cities where it was most necessary. It is as well, perhaps, that they have such public spirited civic leaders as my hon. Friend.
I also want to ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied with the production of dust extractors and other cleaning machinery for industry. Are we producing enough of the new coal fires recommended by the Fuel Research Station, and are local authorities installing them? Is the National Coal Board pushing ahead with the establishment of low temperature carbonisation plant for the production of smokeless fuel? Are the burning spoil banks of collieries being extinguished? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that we are doing enough to educate industry and the public in the importance of clean air so that the nuisance of dirty air may cease?
Drab and dreary towns are psychologically bad. Smoke and dirt are wasteful and unhealthy, and our people need something better. I hope that this debate will do something to stir the public conscience so that when our young people go walking on what Blake called our clouded hills, they will find them clouded as God intended them to be and not foully befogged by Mammon.
10.12 p.m.
Commander Noble: I am glad that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has had an opportunity to raise this matter. I should like to support him in what he has said. I am afraid that I cannot give the House figures similar to the most interesting statistics that he has given relating to this problem as it affects the whole country, but as a London member I should like to emphasise what he has
2052
said about the bad effect of smoke pollution on health and, of course, the very great inconvenience that it causes from many points of view. The root of the problem is that we have to make the makers of smoke as smoke conscious as are the people at the receiving end.
There is absolutely no doubt that people in London, especially those in certain areas, suffer considerably from the dust and grit contained in smoke. Those who had anything to do with convoys during the last war will remember that a ship which made smoke was a great danger not only to itself but to the other ships in a convoy. After a few ships had been sunk because of this, most ships in convoy, and those at sea in general, became smoke conscious, and the position changed. That is the outlook which we must instil into the makers of smoke.
Some of the large organisations in London have taken a lot of trouble on this question. The London Transport Executive which has a large power station at Lots Road in my constituency, has fitted a most extensive plant, over a period of months, which is now 100 per cent. complete. I have seen this plant and the amount of grit that it extracts in a week. It is remarkable to see it and to realise that, if that equipment had not been fitted, those tons of grit would be in the air of London. The British Electricity Authority at Battersea are taking similar action.
There is no doubt that a great deal remains to be done. I wonder whether the gas works in London, for example those at Fulham and Battersea, have taken similar steps to those taken by the national organisations. I would make a plea to the Minister to make certain that all new undertakings, whether national or private, should fit some grit or dust extracting plant. There is one other point which I should like to make in this connection. I understand that in the case of electricity undertakings, it is not the undertaking that Hs to make the decision. It is the Ministry of Fuel and Power which decides whether a new electricity undertaking should fit what is called flue-gas washing equipment. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will discuss this question with his right hon. Friend to make certain that there is never a case where that equipment is not fitted, especially in London.

2053
I was not quite certain who was going to reply to the debate tonight, as I was not sure, in consequence of the recent change-over, whether this subject still remained with the Ministry of Health, but I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning here in his new capacity, and I hope he will give us a most encouraging reply, and especially to the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman opposite, to show that he is fully conscious of the importance of this problem.
10.16 p.m.
Mr. William Paling: I think that we all feel that we owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for raising this question tonight, for many of us feel that it is a most important question both to the industrial towns and the villages of this country.
It is rather significant that, in my own constituency last week, a very well-known and important individual, who used to live in the town and has a great love for it, had occasion to visit Dewsbury for a semi-civic function. In his opening remarks, he referred to the town in terms something like this: "Dear old, dirty, grimy Dewsbury." He had a genuine love for the town, but apparently, no love at all for its dirt and grime. In towns like Dewsbury, and similar towns in the West Riding, which are situated in a basin, the smoke menace is something quite appalling, and is having a very detrimental effect on health, property and everything else. No matter how hard the local authorities may work to improve their services and amenities, the smoke menace very often undoes most of the work they attempt to do.
There is one point which I would like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. It concerns burning slag heaps. In addition to the smoke of industrial towns, where we also have colliery slag heaps burning away, we get not only the menace of the smoke but that of the sulphur fumes which penetrate into the homes of the people in the vicinity of the slag heaps. I should like the Minister to pay special attention to this problem. During the war, some attention had to be paid to the burning slag heaps, because the fires attracted
2054
enemy aeroplanes, and so the fires had to be extinguished. We went a long way towards solving the difficulty at that time, but now we have got back to the old order of things in which the slag heaps are again burning away and it is almost impossible to live in reasonable comfort in their vicinity, according to the direction from which the wind is blowing.
In addition to all that, we get the difficulties with which the housewife has to contend in keeping her home clean and her family healthy. If the Minister can give us any hope that this problem is being dealt with vigorously, in an effort to subdue the menace of smoke and sulphur fumes from chimneys and slag heaps, we shall go away feeling happy.
10.19 p.m.
Mr. Keeling: I support everything that has been said by the three hon. Members who have spoken, except that on one point I would join issue with the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). He blamed smoke for the fact that the fabric of the Palace of Westminster has had to be refaced recently at a cost of many hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is not due to smoke, but to the fact that the wrong stone was chosen by Barry 100 years ago. Westminster Hall, which is 850 years old, has stood up very much better, and has not had to be refaced to any large extent, which simply shows that William II and Richard II knew a thing or two about the right sort of stone to use in London's climate, which Barry had either forgotten or never learned.
Mr. George Thomas: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and to suggest to the Minister that if a man leaves his wireless on and is a public nuisance, something can be done about it, whereas this smoke nuisance, which can be far more evil, can apparently go unrestricted. The approaches to Swansea and South Wales are a dread to motorists and public alike owing to the dreadful smoke problem there. I live in the Rhondda Valley and we used to be smoked out in the days when mining was, its chief industry. In our village, we now have modern factories in place of the mines, and it is a clean, happy little town-

2055
ship. I hope that the Minister in reply to the most felicitous speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale will hold out some hope of abating this nuisance wherever it occurs.
10.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): I was almost beginning to think that hon. Gentlemen were so delighted with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) that I was not going to get a chance to reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale has been devoting a large amount of his time and energy and skill to dealing With river pollution, and I am delighted that he has now turned his attention, and his great gifts also, to the question of the pollution of the atmosphere. As he said, it requires quite a robust constitution and a very strong pair of lungs to flourish in a polluted atmosphere. It is fairly obvious to everyone, I should think, that smoke, dirt and soot inhaled into the lungs must have a deleterious effect on the vigour of the body.
The next point on which I wish to agree most heartily with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale is the fact that smoke abatement is good business economy. Approaching the smoke problem from two different points of view, it is obvious that smoke abatement and fuel economy go hand in hand. I can assure my hon. Friend that our Ministry work in very close conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and his Department, in all aspects of this work. I wish to do the Ministry of Fuel and Power full credit. I have here a whole series of pamphlets and booklets to which I would like to refer if only I had the time—one, for example, on the very point raised by my hon. Friend, that even where all the equipment is efficient, a stoker who is doing his job badly can cause a great deal of damage. The Ministry of Fuel and Power have issued a stoker's manual and run courses for the general education and the better equipment of stokers for carrying out their job.
I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) when he suggests that there
2056
is not even a legal code to deal with smoke nuisance.
Mr. G. Thomas: It is not very effective.
Mr. Lindgren: There is the Public Health Act, 1936, which embodies the provisions of previous Acts from the time of the introduction of railways in the 1840's.
I must say that, so far as the evidence I have been able to obtain is concerned, local authorities take their job very seriously. But, of course, their problems vary in degree, as do their opportunities of dealing with them. Last week-end I was in the City of Stoke. The problem there is widely different from that in the town where I live, Welwyn Garden City, and the resultant condition of the atmosphere has no direct relationship to the desire or energy of the local authority. Both authorities have, in fact, done their job as well as circumstances permit.
One of the problems is that under the Public Health Act, 1936, unless it is black smoke that is emitted it is a defence to prove that the best practicable means have been used to eliminate the nuisance. That lets out quite a large number of instances where there could be improvement. My own Ministry is always available to local authorities when they are in difficulty with any special problem. We are freely at their disposal although, of course, we wait until we are asked before we come to their help. That help is frequently asked for where there are special difficulties with special industries, and we have often been able to assist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale referred to the question of smokeless zones. My hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) has left the Chamber, but I cannot let Manchester get away with it. If they thought of a smokeless zone first they were not the first to put it into practice. There is only one local authority which has a smokeless zone in operation. It is the City of Coventry. The Manchester zone does not come into effect until 1952. To do Manchester credit, however, they had to have a period of delay so that industrialists within the designated area should have the opportunity to make the necessary changes in the supply of power for their factories.

2057
There are other local authorities who have taken special powers. It is possible for local authorities to take power by a local Act. There is a model Clause available for Private Bills and my right hon. Friend hopes to see local authorities taking greater advantage of local Acts to bring this about. The model Clause is there and we are watching the Coventry experiment with great interest. We shall watch all the other experiments to see whether we can bring this into general legislation later.
Smokeless zones, of course, depend very largely upon the planning of the area. If, as one finds in Sheffield, there are domestic properties and factories mixed up higgledy-piggledy, we know, being realistic and appreciating that we have to live, it is impossible to bring those areas into smokeless zones. Where factories are sparsely spread in the area and where the industries are of a type where a change of power is a practicable proposition negotiations are undertaken with the people concerned. The question is whether or not they can change over to smokeless solid fuel, gas or electricity.
That brings me to the question of whether industry generally is being as co-operative as it might be. The evidence I have is that it is, if not from the point of view of smoke abatement then because it has been shown to industrialists that it is a paying
2058
proposition to abate the nuisance. However, with the best will in the world, industrialists cannot get all the machinery they want for the change over. The production of that machinery is being facilitated and industrialists are taking advantage of it whenever and wherever they can. As for London, as a good Cockney I can only say that even in my short life there has been considerable improvement in conditions and that the real smut "pea-soupers" we used to have no longer come our way.
Other measures are being taken. Reference has been made to domestic supplies. I see it is claimed by some people, particularly some industrialists, that pollution by domestic users of fuel is greater than that by industry. That seems rather to be drawing a long bow—
Mr. Keeling: It is true in London.
Mr. Lindgren: As far as new housing estates are concerned, there has been co-operation between my Ministry and the Ministry of Fuel and Power and a group of solid fuel appliances has been approved.
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.

SCOTLAND
  Livestock (Statistics)
  Livestock (Statistics)
  Glenrothes Development Corporation (Farms)
  Glenrothes Development Corporation (Farms)
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
BRITISH ARMY
  Civil Employees (Housing)
  Civil Employees (Housing)
  Quartermasters (Retired Pay)
  Quartermasters (Retired Pay)
  Reservists
  Reservists
  SUPERANNUATION (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  SUPERANNUATION (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  OVERSEAS VISITORS (CARS)
  OVERSEAS VISITORS (CARS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Utility Upholstery (Price)
  Utility Upholstery (Price)
  Textiles (Substitutes)
  Textiles (Substitutes)
  War Damage Claims, Bristol
  War Damage Claims, Bristol
  Trade Balance
  Trade Balance
  Nigerian Cotton (Price)
  Nigerian Cotton (Price)
  Japanese Pottery
  Japanese Pottery
  Gas and Electricity Industries (Statistics)
  Gas and Electricity Industries (Statistics)
  Fishing Industry (Ropes)
  Fishing Industry (Ropes)
HOUSING
  Designs
  Designs
  Waskerly
  Waskerly
  Huts, Cardiff Area
  Huts, Cardiff Area
  PLANNING (ADVERTISEMENT REGULATIONS)
  PLANNING (ADVERTISEMENT REGULATIONS)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Plasterboard, Kettering
  Plasterboard, Kettering
  Building Industry (Incentives)
  Building Industry (Incentives)
  Hotel, Harrogate
  Hotel, Harrogate
  Bricks, Peterborough
  Bricks, Peterborough
  New Colonial Office (Capacity)
  New Colonial Office (Capacity)
  Alexandra Gate (Widening)
  Alexandra Gate (Widening)
  Building Work, Glasgow
  Building Work, Glasgow
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Statue (Central Lobby)
  Statue (Central Lobby)
  Members' Cloakroom
  Members' Cloakroom
  NATIONAL SERVICE (SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Brickworkers, Peterborough (Pay)
  Brickworkers, Peterborough (Pay)
  Workshops for the Blind
  Workshops for the Blind
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Steel-Making (Subsidy)
  Steel-Making (Subsidy)
  Basic Metals, Bristol
  Basic Metals, Bristol
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PENSIONS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PENSIONS)
  CLYDE BRIDGES AND FERRIES
  CLYDE BRIDGES AND FERRIES
  PALESTINE GOVERNMENT BONDS
  PALESTINE GOVERNMENT BONDS
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Committee Members (Lost Time Payment)
  Committee Members (Lost Time Payment)
  Hearing Aids, Sunderland
  Hearing Aids, Sunderland
  Smallpox
  Smallpox
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, SEVENOAKS AND MALLING
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, SEVENOAKS AND MALLING
TELEVISION
  Holme Moss Station
  Holme Moss Station
  Wales
  Wales
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Cooking Fats (Price)
  Cooking Fats (Price)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  ARMED FORCES (PROXY VOTING)
  ARMED FORCES (PROXY VOTING)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  POSTAL ORDER ISSUES
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government the total issue of Postal Orders in their main denominations for the year 1950.]
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the total issue of Postal Orders for the year 1950 was about 470,000,001 As the information required about the main denominations is lengthy, I will, with the noble Lord's permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the information referred to:

  20,000,000 at 6d.

  32,000,000 at 1s.

  24,000,000 at 1s. 6d.

  59,000,000 at 2s.

  47,000,000 at 2s. 6d.

  40,000,000 at 3s.

  17,000,000 at 3s. 6d.

  >26,000,000 at 4s.

  11,000,000 at 4s. 6d.

  42,000,000 at 5s.

  18,000,000 at 6s.

  10,000,000 at 8s.

  18,000,000 at 10s.

  41,000,000 at 20s.

  EX-SERVICE MOVEMENT FOR PEACE
  2.37 p.m.
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government what is the Ex-Service Movement for Peace and what is known of this organisation.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT JOWITT): My Lords, this body professes to be a non political organisation of ex-Service men and women, but its practical purpose would appear to be to promote the campaign of the Communist Party to hinder our defence effort.
  LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his reply. May I ask whether he can inform the House of the origin of this Movement?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this so-called Movement for Peace was founded in 1950 by a Captain Gaitt, believed to be a Communist, who acts as its secretary, the business of the Movement being carried on from his address. The first meeting of the Movement was held at Holborn Town Hall on November 25, 1950, for the purpose of hearing a report by Captain Gaitt on the World Peace Congress held in Warsaw.
  LORD CROOK: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his answer, which so graphically reveals this further attempt of the Communist movement to cloak itself in various guises.
  LORD HAWKE: Can the noble and learned Viscount say what is the source of the funds of this Movement?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know that. I have no doubt that the matter will be kept under observation.

  LIVESTOCK REARING BILL
  2.39 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, this is a Bill which I hope will give the House considerable satisfaction. Its purpose is to give effect to the Government's long-term proposals for increasing our home-produced meat supplies by better use of marginal land. The House will remember that these proposals were announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in another place last July. To put them briefly, they were, first, to provide a further £5,000,000 for the continuation of grants for hill farming

  595
  improvement schemes under the Hill Farming Act, 1946; secondly to provide £10,000,000 for the extension of these schemes to upland areas; and, thirdly and finally, to continue for five more years the subsidies for hill sheep and hill cattle paid under that Act.
  As your Lordships know, the possibilities of obtaining more meat from marginal land has for the past year been occupying the attention of farmers, land owners, scientists and, not least, the Government. In addition to investigations undertaken by the National Farmers' Unions, the land owners' associations and prominent agricultural scientists, the problem has been the subject of extremely useful debate, both in this House and in another place. For the past year, too, in particular, the Government have been making a very thorough investigation into the possibilities of improving the stockcarrying capacity of this land, with particular attention to the cost of improvement in relation to the likely increase in output. I should like to acknowledge now that, in this investigation, they have been assisted to a considerable extent by a Working Party of experts and officials of the Agricultural Departments.
  The term "marginal land" has been used in many different senses, but I think it will be agreed that when we refer to this kind of land we are referring primarily to land mainly in the hill areas of the country, lying between the true hill farming land, used for rearing hardy kinds of sheep, and the lowland areas, producing fat stock, milk and crops. This land is pre-eminently suited to the rearing of store cattle and sheep, and for this reason we refer to it in this Bill as "livestock rearing land" rather than as marginal land. There is no doubt that at the present time we are not getting anywhere near the production possible from this type of land. This is easily explained by the economic difficulties of these mar-ginal producers over a long period of time. Before the last war, the hill and upland areas suffered from severe depression. Since the war, farmers have profited considerably from our post-war agricultural policy, but the position of hill and upland farmers has not improved as much as the rest of agriculture. Of course, the guaranteed prices paid for fat cattle and sheep are to some extent, though not
  596
  wholly, reflected in the prices which hill farmers receive for their store cattle and sheep; but the fact is, as your Lordships who are acquainted with this type of farming are fully aware, that they do not receive the full direct benefits. One ought also to remember that this type of land produces very few cash crops.
  The first big attempt to deal with the problem of upland areas was the Hill Farming Act of 1946. As your Lord-ships will recollect, members of this House took no small part in formulating the provisions of that Act. Noble Lords will remember that it was largely based on the recommendations of the Committees on Hill Sheep Farming for England and Wales and for Scotland, which were under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, respectively. I need hardly remind you that the main purpose of this Act was to rehabilitate the country's hill sheep farms. Provision was made for grants, at the rate of half the cost to the farmer, to carry out sufficiently comprehensive improvements to restore the farms and make them sound economic units. Our hill farmers have taken full advantage of this assistance, and although there is still a year to go before the first five-year period is ended, schemes already approved or under consideration at the moment are estimated to cost some £9,000,000. This more than accounts for the £4,000,000 already provided for the grants. The subsidies for hill sheep and cattle have also been of great benefit to that type of farming. Whilst the Hill Farming Act of 1946 has been of great value in the long-term rehabilitation of our hill farms, however, it has enabled us only to start tackling the main problem. Although it dealt with the larger part of the upland areas, it did not, as your Lordships will remember, cover the lower slopes adjoining the hill farms, and the potentialities of meat production on this type of land, which is often of better quality and more favourably situated than hill farming land proper, are of course much greater. From the careful investigations we have made, we believe that there are between 3,500,000 and 4,000,000 acres of livestock rearing land in this country—that, of course, means Scotland, as well as England and Wales— apart from the land included under the

  597
  Hill Farming Act. This land could produce a great deal more, with the help of similar improvements to those for which assistance is available under that Act. We therefore propose in this Bill to make available on similar terms grants to those who will undertake comprehensive improvement schemes.
  These schemes may cover as many as twenty-three different kinds of improvement. They include the erection or repair of farmhouses, cottages and farm buildings, construction of roads and bridges, the provision of water and electricity supplies, the improvement of grazing, drainage and fencing and the planting of shelter belts, all things which. I think your Lordships will agree, may need to be done in order to make hill farming operations successful. I have emphasised that these schemes must be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure the rehabilitaiion of the land for hill fanning purposes. This principle will also apply to the new schemes for improving livestock rearing land, and your Lordships may therefore wish me to give some explanation of the Government's reasons for sticking to this principle. While it is true that limited works of improvement might increase the productive capacity of the land, whatever the improvements were, a scheme might not be an economic proposition if certain essential improvements were left undone. Clearly, it would be unreasonable for the Government, as the trustee of public funds, to agree to a scheme consisting of a random choice of improvements that happened to appeal to the promoters but that could not be justified as being sufficiently well planned to provide an economic return on the capital invested in the farm. It is therefore reasonable that any scheme should be comprehensive if it is to attract public money on such a wide range of improvements and at the comparatively high rate of grant proposed.
  It may, of course, be said that this condition deters some farmers from undertaking schemes. I do not think that that is, in fact, the case, or that it has been the experience in times past. The Departments do not require that the scheme should include improvements which are merely desirable; they insist only on those that are really essential. I have already pointed out the fact that the estimated cost of schemes approved or
  598
  under consideration at the moment in the United Kingdom is some £9,000,000, the grant on which would be considerably more than the £4,000,000 at present available. That hardly bears out the contention that owners and occupiers have been frustrated by this condition.
  Your Lordships will note that in Clause 3 of the Bill we propose to increase the maximum Exchequer contribution from the limit of £4,000,000 under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, to £20,000,000. Whilst we do not propose that there should be any precise allocation of grants between the different kinds of livestock rearing land, we think it will probably work out in this way: that this sum of £20,000,000—which, your Lordships will agree, is a very large sum for capital investment under presentday conditions-will be split equally between hill farming land and the other livestock rearing land farther down the hill That means that the £5,000,000 which was originally to be provided under the Hill Farming Act, plus this additional £5,000,000, will be spent on hill farming land and the remaining £10,000,000 upon stock rearing land. This £10,000,000 will not, of course, be sufficient to rehabilitate all the 3,500,000 to 4,000,000 acres to which I have just referred. If the average expenditure on improvements were about £20 an acre, it would be sufficient to provide only for 50 per cent. grant towards the improvement of 1,000,000 acres—about a quarter of the total area of land. We must therefore see that the available funds will the used to the best possible advantage; and in this connection we intend to rely, as we have done in so many other respects, on the judgment of the agricultural executive committees, the members of which have a thorough knowledge of local conditions which makes their guidance in these matters of the greatest value.
  Before turning to the detailed provisions of the Bill—I will not go deeply into them; your Lordships have read the Bill and are aware of what it contains—I should like to say one or two words about the subsidy schemes for hill sheep and cattle. Under Clause: 6, we propose that the subsidies which, under the provisions of the Hill Farming Act, are due to expire next year, should be continued for an additional five years. Let me say at once, in case there is any possible misunderstanding, that it is not proposed to

  599
  extend this subsidy to sheep or cattle grazed in areas outside the scope of the Hill Farming Act. We propose only that the subsidy should be payable under the same conditions as before; that is to say, on hardy ewe flocks kept on mountain and hill land suitable only for hardy breeds of sheep, while the hill cattle subsidy will be payable on cattle grazed on similar land or rough upland grazing. The rates of the hill sheep subsidy under the Hill Farming Act vary from year to year, according to the economic circumstances of the farmers. In 1948, after the disasters of the winter of 1946–47, it was 16s. per ewe, while last year it was only 5s. Numbers of sheep have increased steadily from that time, but the subsidy is still needed to keep this essential industry in being. So far as we can see, however, looking into the future, and subject, of course, to there being no further disasters due to climatic or other conditions, this subsidy may be no longer needed at the end of the five-year period envisaged in the Bill. Its withdrawal within the near future would be a serious blow to our hill farmers, as I am sure your Lordships will agree.
  So far as the hill cattle subsidy in England and Wales and Northern Ireland is concerned, it is paid at two rates —the higher rate on breeding cows and heifers, and the lower on other stock summered on hill land. In Scotland, the subsidy is paid only on breeding cows and heifers, the object being to encourage the establishment of breeding herds of hardy cattle on hill and upland farms. The objects of the subsidy in England and Wales are different from those of the subsidy in Scotland. They are, first, to in-crease the number of cattle on the hills; secondly, to encourage the summering of cattle in the hills, and thereby make room for more cattle in the lowlands; and, thirdly, to improve hill grazing. In England and Wales, the county agricultural executive committees, who act as the Minister's agents in administering the subsidy, have discretion to require that up to 60 per cent. of the subsidy is spent on improvements to hill land. Your Lordships may like to know that, since the subsidy was started, over £1,000,000 must have been spent in such improvements to hill land, so I hope that your Lordships will agree to the extension of these subsidies for another five years.
  600
  I should like to turn to some of the main conditions of the Bill, but I will be as brief as possible, because at this stage, I do not think your Lordships would wish to go into great detail. Clause 1 is extremely important. It ex-tends the classes of land for the benefit of which hill farming improvement schemes may be approved, as compared with the 1946 Act, substituting the expression "livestock rearing land" for the term "hill farming land" in that Act. We intend that any land will be eligible for grant, so long as it lies within an area consisting predominantly of mountain or heath and provided—and this requirement is important, because it is the second condition for receiving the grant—that the land is suitable for little else than the breeding or rearing of cattle or sheep. The purpose of the proposed grants is to encourage the production of store sheep and store cattle in land in the upland areas which is best suited for this and so to help increase the amount of homeproduced meat. We hope that the provisions of the Bill will encourage those farmers on marginal and hill land who went into milk production on rather unsuitable farms during the war to return now to stock-rearing activities, for which their farms are better suited. I do not mean that a farm which is rearing sheep or cattle will be disqualified because it produces some milk or milk products for sale, provided that this activity does not form the major part of the farming enterprise.
  Such areas as the downs and heath lands of Southern and Eastern England are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, but little of this land can be said to be suitable only for stock rearing. Also, much of this land requires a different agricultural system from the true stock breeding land in the upland areas. Nor is it proposed to bring within the scope of the Bill these areas of land in lowland districts which can be described as marginal land. These constitute only a small proportion of the total amount of marginal land in the country, and consist of pockets of land, in different counties, of varying size, character and situation. The problems relating to these stretches of land are often quite different from those of the stock rearing land covered by the Bill. Most of them are, or with improvement could be made, suitable for activities other than stock rearing, and

  601
  assistance for their improvement for these purposes is already available under the Marginal Production Scheme.
  Clause 2, which is important, extends for another live years the period granted under the Hill Farming Act. Clause 3 is also important. It provides for the maximum sum of £4,000,000 available for grants under the Hill Farming Act to be increased to £20,000,000 and, in addition, provides for the maximum amount of grant to be increased, by Order, by £2,000,000. Clause 6 gives the hill sheep and hill cattle subsidies a further lease of life for five years. Clause 4, which I think is worth your Lordships' attention, provides that improvement grants may be paid upon a contribution made by a person under an agreement under Section 10 of the Highways (Provision of Cattle Grids) Act. 1950. to the cost incurred by the highway authority of installing a grid on a public road, if the grid is required in connection with an improvements scheme. I mention this point because the provision was made as a result of an assurance given in this House during the passage of the Highways (Provision of Cattle Grids) Bill last year. If the contribution is repaid by the Highway Authority, the grant will have to be returned to the Exchequer.
  Clause 7 is of interest and importance to certain farmers in certain parts of the country. It deals with the control of rams and at this stage of the Bill I will not go into details about this clause—I hope that I am not breaking the hearts of certain noble Lords who may be gravely afflicted by the depredations of scrub rams, bur I think such noble Lords will be in a minority. Clauses 9 and 10 are important because they deal with the delegation of Minister's functions to Agriculture Executive Committees. Your Lordships will agree that as much authority as possible should be delegated from the centre to the local representatives of the Minister of Agriculture.
  I have done my best to make the main provisions of the Bill as clear as I can. It is a short Bill, but this is a subject which I know your Lordships will agree is of vital importance, both to the consumer and to the agricultural producer. By means of this Bill we hope to become, as time goes on, less dependent on overseas supplies of meat than we are now, and at the same time to make a worth-while contribution to the improvement of social
  602
  conditions in the upland areas of this country. The success of our efforts will depend largely on the co-operation that we receive from the farmers and land owners concerned. I am sure this co-operation will be forthcoming in full measure, as it has already been in the case of the Hill Farming Act. In partner-ship with them we should like to help the people in these remote rural areas to achieve the better living conditions which prosperity will bring, and at the same time to enable them to make their contribution, which I know they all wish to make, towards a larger and more dependable supply of meat. I beg to move that the Bill be read a Second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Listowel)
  2.59 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House may I briefly welcome this Bill? If it had come a little earlier and gone a little further perhaps our welcome would have been even warmer than it is. Your Lordships can feel that we have contributed a good deal to the production of this legislation. In many agricultural debates, both of a general character and on the subject of hill farms, noble Lords on all sides have urged on the Government the possibility of increasing our meat supply by the development of the resources of our marginal land. However, I should be sorry if, through our giving praise to this Bill, it were concluded that we were entirely happy about its extent. The noble Earl who placed the Bill so clearly before your Lordships himself made the point that it could at most deal with only a quarter of the land in question. It would be a pity if it went out from this House that we were satisfied with that effort, or that we should not like to see the financial provisions extended at an early date. Certainly, if noble Lords hope that through this Bill we shall become less dependent on unreliable overseas sources for our meat supplies, then the sooner it is extended the better.
  For my part, too. I wish that there were rather fewer restrictions in the Bill. It is true that the Government have come down the hill a little: we started with hill farms, and now we have come down to the uplands. But I believe that there is a great deal of marginal land, land

  603
  which is neither hill land nor upland, that could properly be reclaimed for the benefit of food production in this country. There are also in the Bill a number of administrative limitations. The noble Earl mentioned the words, "the demands of comprehensive schemes." It is true that in the Report connected with the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, there is reference to what are called "comprehensive schemes"; but in the Report of the Committee of which I was Chairman we spoke of the need for "co-ordinated schemes"—we felt that the word "comprehensive" went rather far. Even without the experience that we have had over recent years I should still feel it desirable to have co-ordinated schemes. But we have seen the Hill Farming Act working, and I do not think there can be much doubt, in spite of what the noble Earl has said, that it has acted somewhat as a deterrent, particularly on the smaller man, where that effect is least desired.
  Perhaps when we issued these Reports we tended to assume that these lands were in great estates, with their agents, offices, and so on, where it would be simple for people to prepare comprehensive and co-ordinated schemes. But, looking back, I should be prepared to go back on the words which I urged on my colleagues in making that Report, and to be rather less determined in the demand for co-ordinated schemes, particularly from small farmers. I am not proposing to move an Amendment on this point, because I believe the best way of dealing with the problem now is for His Majesty's Government to take note of what has been said, both in another place and in your Lordships' House, and to endeavour to deal with the matter by administrative circulars asking agricultural executive committees not to take too strict a view of the meaning of those words. That is all I wish to say about the Bill. It is unnecessary for me to go into detail, because the Bill has been fully discussed in another place, and has been placed before your Lordships fully and carefully by the noble Earl. I should simply like to bless the Bill on behalf of my colleagues who sit with me on this side of the House.
  3.4 p.m.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should first like to declare an interest in
  604
  this matter, in that I have a stock rearing farm in the Chilterns, although I do not think I shall be eligible for a grant under this scheme. I, in common with my noble friend Lord De La Warr, welcome this Bill—indeed, any of your Lordships would welcome a measure which is designed to increase production from our marginal land. In these days, when the weekly carcase meat ration is only six-pennyworth a head, a measure which will help to increase our livestock is one of considerable importance. One thing, however, is quite clear—namely, that this Bill will have no substantial result unless it is well administered. Delays in answering applications and making grants will do much to damage the object of the Bill. Possibly a particular case over which there may have been some delay may not be one of great difficulty, either in the area of land involved, or in the amount of grant asked, but the matter will have a much wider repercussion. Other possible applicants may see the difficulties which their neighbours have encountered in getting their grants quicky; they will see the endless time and trouble involved in making these applications, and, as a result, they may not apply—and in a good many cases they may be just the people who are in need of such a scheme as this.
  Recently, I have had brought to my notice two examples of administrative delay in similar schemes. In the first case a landowner applied for a reconditioning grant under the Housing Act, 1949. Exactly one year after he put in his original application, and after an enormous amount of correspondence, telephone calls, and endless waste of time, he finally got his grant. In the second case a farmer applied for a grant under the marginal land scheme to clear a certain piece of land on his farm. The land was inspected by the local district agricultural committee, who pronounced it—although they were not entitled so to do—a reasonable scheme. Then there was silence. The farmer did not want to see the land remain derelict for yet another harvest, and after some months —incidentally, remembering the exhortations of the Minister of Agriculture to produce more food—he decided to clear the land himself. He did so, and planted a crop and harvested it. Some time after that he was notified by the

  605
  Ministry of Agriculture that his application for a grant had been refused, because he had started the scheme before he had official approval. That is the sort of delay which prevents these Acts operating effectively. I hope the noble Earl, when he winds up the debate, will give a firm assurance that this measure will be administered quickly and efficiently.
  There is one question that I should like to ask the noble Earl—and I apologise for not giving him prior notice of it. During the Second Reading in another place the Minister said (Column 828, of Hansard, December 11):
  "However, I ought to say that the production of milk and milk products, such as butter, cheese or cream, on a farm devoted mainly to stock rearing, or which could properly be so used, will not disqualify it for assistance if the suggested improvements are for stock-rearing purposes."
  That statement is fairly clear. But is the reverse true? If there is a proposal to rear livestock on a farm which is devoted to milk production, will that farm then qualify for the grant? From the way in which the Minister framed his words in the speech to which I have just referred, it would appear that that is not so. If that view is correct, I think it is a great pity. After all, what the country wants at present is meat; and if the farm happens to be in a mountain, hill or heath area, and qualifies under the words of the Act, then L feel that it should qualify for assistance, regardless of whether or not it produces milk. It is possible that a large proportion of the farm may be undeveloped, and that some of the land will be of a poorer quality than that from which milk is produced.
  I was also rather disturbed to see, a little further down in the same column, that the Minister said:
  "… although land may be situated in an area consisting predominantly of mountain, hill, or heath, it will not be eligible unless it consists of land which, even after improvement, is suitable for little more than the raising of store cattle and sheep. Areas like the Chilterns, the Cotswolds, the Downs, the heaths in the south and south-west of England would, in general, all be ruled out on that score."
  I can assure the noble Earl that a good deal of the land which the Minister has included in that survey is fit for nothing else but rearing store cattle and sheep. I can also assure him that if, after the next Election, when he is again a private citizen and wants to take up farming, he
  606
  attempts to fatten cattle on my bit of the Chilterns, the only thing he will finish is himself.
  There is one final point which I should like to mention. When the Minister introduced this Bill in another place he gave this reason for his assumption:
  "We must look to increased production in the hill areas to help make good the steady loss of good agricultural land for housing, schools, new towns, playing fields and similar non-agricultural developments."
  Every year we fritter away about 50,000 acres of good agricultural land for development purposes, and in order to make good that loss of food production we are prepared to spend £28,000,000 on growing food on land which is nothing like so suitable and, nothing like so productive. We often hear that good agricultural land is built upon because it is much more expensive to build on land of poorer type. That may well be true, but I believe that if you are interested in food production the way to get your food is to spend £28,000,000 on the poor land and save the good agricultural land for producing food. The noble Earl did not use the argument advanced by the Minister in another place as a reason for introducing the Bill. If I thought that the Bill was introduced to offset the loss of food production caused by the reckless extravagance and waste of Government Departments and local authorities, then I could not possibly support it. The right way to stop that loss is by stopping the waste and extravagance, and not by introducing a Bill of this kind. However, I believe that this Bill has been introduced in a genuine attempt to help the hill farmer and the marginal farmer, and as such I welcome it.
  3.13 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I have always advocated spending more money on increasing the productivity of land in this country, and I was glad to welcome the Hill Farming Act which started the good work on the hill tops. I believe that in this matter of meat production we should start upon the job of rehabilitating the land of this country, because it is obvious, that when you are increasing your meat production you must commence with your store cattle and, therefore, you must start on the worst land. If your policy is to be successful, within a limited time you must carry the policy further down the hillside and out

  607
  into the plains. But the important point in these matters is to put first things first and start where the beast is reared, and then later on carry out the improvements in the lower parts of the countryside where the cattle will have to go to get fattened.
  The main thing we must do in this matter is to make certain that the Treasury is generous enough in providing the money for the schemes. Like the noble Earl, I have always felt that something could be done in this respect, and that the importance of improving the land of this country has not been fully realised. As the years go by it is becoming clearer and clearer that the reasons for improving the land of this country are becoming of greater and greater force. Let us take a few examples. In the matter of defence, I know that if one were to ask any Admiral —either British or American—what he thought would be the best protection for this country in time of war, he would say that it would be by this country not having to keep vast food convoys perpetually crossing the oceans, bringing the necessities of life to keep our people alive. It ought to be possible to calculate exactly how many escort vessels and how much effort would be saved by an increase in the food production of this country, and careful account should be taken of that in pressing the demands that the Ministry of Agriculture must make upon the Treasury.
  Let us take another matter. The population of the world is, as we know, steadily increasing—almost alarmingly. The ability of the citizens of the world to buy meat is also increasing. There is an enormous demand in the world—not merely a potential, but an actual, effective demand—for meat products, and the meat exporting countries are every year exporting less meat because more of their meat is being eaten at home. We in this country are the biggest meat importers in the world. Even as things stand at the moment, we are importing something like three times as much meat as any other country imports. In those circumstances, if the amount of meat exported by the exporting countries decreases by any perceptible amount, or if the countries who import meat increase their demands at all, we shall be in a very difficult position, as indeed we are now. Unless by some miracle some form of world price control
  608
  of meat appears—and that does not appear very likely, to say the least of it —there will be a steady bidding up of meat prices all over the world; therefore the Ministry of Agriculture and the Treasury should not consider merely what it is profitable to produce in this country now; they should be considering what it may be profitable to produce in this country in the future. The whole levels of profitability are clearly altering, and we must take due account of them.
  Apart from the economic argument—important as that argument is—the fact is that we should farm the land of this country better. It is good for a man to dig his garden, even if in point of fact he might be able to get better flowers by working overtime in a factory and going and buying them. And it is good for a country, for its morale, and for its men, to farm its own land; and the further we can push this policy in these marginal lands of ours the better. I am afraid 1 could not follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in the matter of the siting of towns. I personally think it would be a marked economic loss to this country—apart from what would be said about a dictatorial Government—if we had to build all our towns on the tops of hills or even a little further down.
  LORD CARRINGTON: There is a good deal of heath land, for instance in Surrey, on which we could build, since it is not good agricultural land.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I know there are disputes over this question and I know that there are areas of less good land which could be used for building. I am entirely aware of that point. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has ever sat on any of the committees concerned with this matter; if he has he will know that, usually, in the end, you find yourself building on the good land because there is no poor land in a suitable position. That is the tragedy of this matter. But, quite apart from that, this policy of improving our land by large Treasury grants is obviously the right one at the moment; and as we have started well on the hill tops, and have now pushed our activities a little further down the slopes, I hope that in welcoming this Bill to-day we shall also express our wish that there will be introduced at a later date a further Bill, taking us, so to speak, a little further down the valley.
  3.22 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCAR-DINE: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, who speaks with such experience on a subject of this kind, would be in his place to-day. As he is not, and as the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, is also unable to be present, it falls to me, as a mere Lowlander, to try to say something on behalf of Scotland in regard to this Bill. In the first place, I welcome, as all noble Lords who have spoken have welcomed, this attempt to create more livestock in this country. But, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has already pointed out, there is a danger that the schemes adumbrated in this Bill may, through their comprehensiveness—and the noble Earl who introduced the Bill rather stressed their comprehensiveness—defeat to some extent the aim of the Bill. I was extremely interested in what Lord De La Warr said with regard to co-ordination rather than comprehensiveness; I feel that it is important to spread these benefits and opportunities as far as possible, rather than concentrate them upon one individual effort. In that way they may, perhaps, bring better financial results.
  The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill mentioned the fact that the Minister, in introducing the subject in July last, stressed the point about the economic result; and the same element is brought into this Bill. If these schemes are to be appraised only or mainly on their economic value, I think we shall fail to get the best results. I am sure your Lordships will admit that these upland farms which, perhaps, have poor buildings and meagre equipment, are just those farms which would give a return on expenditure of this kind. But, according to the Bill, those farms are likely to be excluded from consideration. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke of the millions so far expended on this work as being an indication that already a great effect must have been produced upon these upland breeders. I think that that is not quite a sound argument. All it proves is that a large amount of money has been spent on This particular effort: but the whole of the money, or a large proportion of it. has been spent on one or two large schemes which provide opportunity for full comprehensive development and which will probably give a good return. But in the end it
  610
  will be in distributing the benefit to the larger number of the smaller farms that we shall get the better return. I share Lord De La Warr's hope that in giving their instructions to those who will administer the Act the Government will impress upon them the importance of doing so with the widest possible sympathy.
  There is one point that has not been touched on so far, and that is that there is apparently no altitude limit for the designation of what may be treated as livestock rearing ground—although it is laid down in the clause of definition that it must be "mainly mountainous,"or words to that effect. There are large areas, particularly in Scotland, which cannot be defined as either hill or lowland, which are marginal, and which may come within the limits of this Bill. I repeat that I hope that, in the administration of the Act, sympathy will be given to that aspect of the question. No one could have attended, as I did, the big sale about three weeks ago of Aberdeen Angus and Shorthorn beef cattle without being impressed by the strong desire of the farmers to acquire the best kind of bull for producing beef. The marked increase in the average price obtained at those sales came from the local buyers, not from buyers of animals for export. That, I think, is a good illustration of the intent of the farmer, if you give him the chance, to produce the goods. In giving a welcome to this Bill, I hope that the Government will not cease their good work but will continue it further.
  3.30 p.m.
  LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Bill. I personally cannot help sharing the feelings of other noble Lords as to the inadequacy of the sum involved, when compared with the great needs of the moment. In the situation as it was a year ago this Bill might have been considered an adequate contribution, but the situation is now completely altering. I hope that in the course of his reply the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will be able to give us some hint as to whether the Government have any "follow-ups," on a much larger scale to this measure. In my view a great many noble Lords, on both sides of this House, have the underlying feeling that the meat situation, and the general food situation, may be only a

  611
  passing phase. I fully agree with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, when he says that we should consider this position in the light of what, in the future, the comparative costs of overseas and home-produced meat and other produce may be.
  Last week I had the privilege of talking with Mr. Gardiner, the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, before he went home; and, a short time before, I talked with Mr. Holland, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, whom I know. It is obvious that these countries will be asking more money, having much larger home markets, and they will not have so much to send to us, whatever price we pay. Apart from the purely economic consideration, it seems to me that for the health of this nation we need a much more Cobbett spirit as regards our own soil. One cannot, therefore, help being a little disappointed with this mere £20,000,000; and one hopes that this situation will be altered. The Bill represents a great start towards helping the store cattle areas. It is only very much of a beginning, however, and the Minister of Agriculture in another place has been sincere in calling it a modest Bill. We need more of the spirit of writers such as F. E. Green who wrote a book called The Awakening of England—some of your Lordships may know that work. I was pleased with one particular sentence which I read—and it relates to lowland as well as upland areas:
  "The man who plants the Union Jack on a piece of land that was derelict in some home county, proud of having made it abundantly productive by his industry, would probably be regarded as a lunatic if he posed as an Empire-builder and yet this re-conquest of England's acres is surely as patriotic an act as the planting of a flag on some rocky waste at the other end of the world."
  Therefore, I would ask the Government, in the light of the present situation, whether they are really satisfied with a Bill of this scope.
  It seems to me that the corollary of standing up to the Argentine, if it was Tight to do that in the way that the Government have done—and it may well be so—is the introduction of a vastly increased livestock rearing programme. There is no other corollary to an attitude of firmness—which may be right— towards our overseas suppliers than that we must have a far larger attack on our
  612
  own ground. If we did have this much larger approach and attack, there would not be nearly so many arguments over the selection of schemes and over definitions. It is most noticeable that, with so little money available, and so many people wanting, if possible, to take part in this development of our own ground, a great amount of time has been wasted over this matter of definition and selection. There has already been a great deal of discussion in another place in this respect over the Bill. I cannot help thinking of Cobbett all the time—in the sort of situation in which our country finds itself. It seems to me that we shall get back to full life as a community only if we are prepared to balance up to the same extent agriculture and industry. The fact that the Dominions are eager for immigration, and larger home markets for their own food, is helping us with this opportunity.
  3.36 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like first to thank the House most warmly for the reception it has given this Bill; it will give useful encouragement to the people who have to work the Bill. It will help to make farmers and land owners in different parts of the country realise that it is their duty under the provisions of the Bill to try to produce meat and, for this purpose, to do their utmost to co-operate with their local agricultural executive committees and with us in the Ministry of Agriculture. This debate has shown that this is a matter which is quite neutral from the Party political point of view, and that all men of good will, to whatever Party they might belong, would be acting as good citizens if they tried to do their bit under the Bill.
  May I briefly reply to some of the points that have been made? The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, whose absence at the moment I know we all regret—I understand that he is recovering from a bout of influenza—said that he was not satisfied about the financial provision proposed in the Bill, involving £10,000,000, for livestock rearing land. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, who has just spoken from the Liberal Benches, shared his anxiety about the inadequacy of this measure of financial assistance. Briefly, the point is this. It is not entirely a question of money; it is a question of labour and materials. If we were to ask Parliament to vote a larger sum of money

  613
  to help these upland farmers, we should be obliged, if they took advantage of this assistance, to divert labour and materials from other tasks, and from other tasks in agriculture, such as growing corn crops and other types of farming which are not less essential from the point of view of agricultural production. I need hardly remind noble Lords that our total volume of capital investment has to be allocated carefully for a number of purposes, including defence requirements, and that it is impossible for us to use a limited supply of labour and materials in all the ways that we should like. May I say next that I know how genuine is the interest of noble Lords opposite in agriculture, and I feel that the farmers themselves who are engaged in other types of farming would be the last people to wish us to devote more money and thereby to attract more labour and materials to upland farming?
  Another point raised by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was that he thought the comprehensiveness of these schemes was restrictive. As I said in my opening remarks, I do not think that in practice that has proved to be the case, because so many farmers have come forward with their schemes, in spite of this condition of comprehensiveness. All that I should like to say on this point is that I believe that it is as much in the interests of the farmers as it is of the Government, as trustees of public money, that these schemes should be economic. It would surely be unwise for a farmer to spend a lot of money on improving the access road if he did not at the same time re-seed and put fertiliser upon poor grassland so as to be able to carry enough stock to make his farm an economic proposition. It is in his interests, as well as in the interests of the public, that these hill farms should be developed as economic units, and should be able to make a full return, both in money and in meat, for whatever investment is put into them. That is the reason why we insist on this condition. It is not because we want to hamper or restrict people in any way, but simply that we want them to make the best possible use of public money.
  The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in what was I thought a very thoughtful and constructive speech, made two important points. In the first place, he complained about administrative delays in the approval of schemes submitted. I am
  614
  a little surprised at these complaints. I cannot help feeling that they arise only from a small number of cases, in view of the very large number of schemes; which have in fact been approved. As; your Lordships know, some £9,000,000 has been spent or mortgaged on these hill farming schemes, and this has involved the approval of something like. 5,000 schemes. I can assure the noble Lord that, so far as is humanly possible, there will be no unnecessary delay in the approval of schemes under this Bill when it becomes an Act. 1 shall be grateful to the noble Lord if he will give me particulars of any specific schemes to which his attention has been drawn. I cannot help thinking that these delays, are an exception, rather than the general rule.
  LORD CARRINGTON: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The particular examples which I gave of delay in administration had nothing to do with, the Hill Farming Act I do not live anywhere near any area where that Act: applies, and I have no knowledge of the circumstances. My real point was that delay in administration negatives the result of the purposes of the Act, and I should like an assurance that the noble Earl will do his best to see that there are no such delays in future.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Lord. As I said, if he can give any information of unnecessary delay in respect of any schemes; for which the Government are responsible through the agricultural executive committees, naturally I shall be very much obliged.
  The other point that was made by the noble Lord was in regard to livestock rearing on dairy farms. What he asked, I think, was whether a farmer engaged mainly in producing dairy products would yet be eligible for grant under this Bill for livestock rearing purposes. The answer is, yes, provided that the farmer fulfils the necessary conditions. A livestock rearing scheme put up by a farmer who is engaged mainly in dairy farming would be eligible for grant, provided that his scheme was limited to improvements which would be used for livestock rearing. He would not be eligible if the scheme-was a dual-purpose scheme. I admit that that situation might cause difficulties.

  615
  For instance, if the farmer proposed to put up a farm building, such as a shed, that shed could equally well be used for dairy cattle as for beef cattle. Secondly, supposing he was going to build a road, that road might equally be useful to him from the point of view of driving his dairy cattle as from the point of view of driving his beef cattle. Those are cases which would not attract grant, because the scheme would be a dual-purpose scheme. But if he can show that the improvements he wants are improvements which will be to the benefit of his live-stock, whether cattle or sheep, then the scheme will attract grant.
  My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, made a most interesting and constructive speech from the point of view of Scotland. Your Lordships will have observed that my noble friend Lord Morrison was present, in case any points about Scotland were raised on which I had not been briefed by my Department. I may say that I was careful to consult with repre-sentatives of the Scottish Office before I attended this debate. I think I have already replied to his first point, about the comprehensiveness of schemes, except that I should like to emphasise that the schemes which have attracted grant under the Hill Farming Act have not been limited, as I believe he thought, to large farms. In all, about 25 per cent. of the total number of hill farms are covered by schemes under this Act. Of course, this is a cross-section; there are some small and some large farms. There is no foundation for the view that these grants have been paid only in the cases of people farming in a very large way. My Lords, I think I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. I am most grateful to the House for the welcome it has given to this Bill, and I shall welcome any co-operation that noble Lords care to offer me during the later stages of its passage.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
  3.47 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I am sure your Lordships will not be surprised to see the title— namely. Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill. Judging by the speeches to which I have listened in past debates, I imagine the surprise will be that this Bill has been so long delayed and that it does not contain many more amendments. It is rather interesting to note that we have present the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was responsible for piloting the principal Bill, a rather technical and comprehensive Bill, through all its stages in another place. I do not think he will feel it his duty to intervene in this debate, but I believe the day will come when the noble Lord will feel like intervening in a debate on town and country planning. This Bill has two very simple purposes to achieve—namely, to correct two errors that have come to light in the 1947 Act. That is bound to commend itself to noble Lords opposite. It has been discovered that there are two drafting errors in the 1947 Act which must be corrected. The first deals with the restoration of war damaged property, and the second refers to the period during which a local planning authority can take action against unauthorised development, or to enforce observance of the conditions subject to which planning permission has been given.
  I can take the first point very briefly— it is not necessary to delay on either point. There will be general agreement in your Lordships' House, and I think there has been for a long time, that the centres of our great cities should be made as attractive as possible. That has not been easy because many years ago they were built up areas. In this regard we were helped by the war. Many of the centres of our main cities were destroyed by enemy action, and it is possible to deaf with the question of rebuilding on more generous lines than hitherto. That was the purpose of the 1947 Act in this matter, but we have found that the wording does not carry it into effect. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will be well aware that

  617
  to do this and to redevelop on a big scale would interfere to some extent with private individuals who were anxious to restore their damaged or destroyed buildings to their prewar condition. Until recently it was thought that the power existed to deal with that situation, and I am advised that so long as the 1943 Act was in force the local authorities undoubtedly possessed the necessary powers, and it was intended by Parliament that they should be retained in the 1947 Act. But my two right honourable friends, the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Secretary of State for Scotland, have now been advised that planning permission is not required to restore a damaged building to its pre-war condition, so long as any part of the building remains standing. Such a gap in control obviously threatens all plans for redeveloping our great cities, and the purpose of Clause 1 is to close that gap.
  Another aspect of Clause 1 may disturb your Lordships, in so far as that clause imposes a requirement which deals only with war damage. It may be thought that this is to discriminate against the victims of war damage. In practice, however, only damage from enemy action is extensive enough to present any opportunity for replanning. To extend the clause, I agree at once, would achieve consistency, but I am assured that it would do so at the cost of too greatly and unnecessarily widening control. Such a course, I know, would not commend itself to your Lordships.
  There is one other aspect of Clause 1 which I should mention, as it may be causing some uneasiness to your Lordships. As the Bill stands the smallest works could be controlled—they could be controlled no matter how small they were —but the practical effect would be something altogether different. Application for permission to restore war damage will in future be necessary only in the main damaged areas, where the local planning authority, with the Minister's approval, have resumed control by means of a direction. The normal practice in these directions has been to exempt works below a certain cost from control; the level of exemption has been adjusted to the circumstances of the particular area. Your Lordships will agree, I am sure, that a higher figure is clearly appropriate where the property is substantial or redevelopment is not imminent. This practice is
  618
  to be continued, and I am authorised by my right honourable friend to repeat the undertaking which he gave in another place that he will review the directions which have already been made. Outside the blitzed areas the restoration of war damage is already permitted development under the General Development Order and will continue to be so.
  As to Clause 2, I have indicated that it is concerned with the period during which a local planning authority can take action against unauthorised development, or to enforce observance of the conditions subject to which planning permission has been given. It will be remembered that when the 1947 Bill was considered in your Lordships' House an Amendment was accepted by the Lord Chancellor providing that there should be some limit to the period during which a developer was at risk. Under that Amendment the local planning authority could act only within four years of the carrying out of the original development. It has now been found that the effect of this Amendment would be to deny the local planning authority any opportunity of enforcing certain types of conditions. That was never foreseen at the time of the acceptance of the Amendment. For example, if permission has been granted to use premises as offices on condition that the office use is discontinued at the end of say, seven years, no question of enforcement can arise until the seven years have elapsed. Your Lordships will see at once that, owing to the Amendment which we accepted in this House. it would then be too late. Clause 2 is designed to remedy this defect by providing that where the enforcement of conditions is concerned the four years shall reckon from the date of the alleged breach of the condition. Clause 3 simply amends the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in the same way that Clause 1 amends the principal Act. I think that I have said sufficient. I feel sure that your Lordships will find this Bill acceptable and will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  3.54 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am sure we are all obliged to the noble Lord for the way in which he has explained this measure to us. He almost took words

  619
  out of my mouth when he said that he was surprised, in view of the speeches which he had heard, that there was not a more comprehensive measure before us than the present one. I think that this Bill, so far as it goes, will be acceptable in all quarters of your Lordships' House, but I hope that we shall not have to wait much longer before we have a measure which will put right some of the patent injustices which are now taking place under the Town and Country Planning Act. I am not going into them to-day, but I can assure your Lordships that many people who were in favour of the good planning of our countryside are so disturbed about what is happening under the 1947 Act that they are becoming non-planning minded. And that is a bad thing. In a small island like ours, good planning is necessary, but, as I say, the working of the present Act is certainly setting a large number of people who were formerly in favour of it against the whole idea.
  To come to the provisions of this present Bill, I think that we are all agreed that where there has been substantial damage, either at the centre or on the outskirts of some town or city, that gives the opportunity of replanning the area as a whole. And I believe that there is no dispute in any part of the House that such an opportunity ought not to be missed. It is true that in some cases local planning authorities are not paying sufficient attention to the just schemes of those who had buildings in bombed areas before the War. Some instances have come to my knowledge in which the authorities are not being sufficiently sympathetic towards the tradesman who asks to have his shop, even if it is a building of a different type, on the same site, or near the site, where he built up his goodwill. That point certainly ought to be looked at by the Ministry concerned, for it is only right that such applications should be sympathetically considered.
  I think we are all at one on the general principle underlying the Bill, but it is rather odd that although the 1943 Act made water-tight provision so that that on which we were all agreed could be done, the 1947 Act, as I understand it, slipped up, the result being that if a part of a house is still standing, small though that part may be, the work which it is
  620
  proposed to do upon it comes to be defined as rebuilding rather than new building, and so no development permission is necessary because it is war damaged property. This means that, however hideous, inconvenient and old-fashioned a building may have been, the owner can proceed so long as he rebuilds it on the same lines and does not alter it at all, even though it will be completely out of conformity with what proper planning ought to provide upon that site. We did not intend that, and the Act which was introduced in 1943, when I happened to be a member of the Government, made water-tight provision against it. It is a pity that the Act of 1947 was not quite so water-tight. At any rate, we are all agreed now what should be done, and this Bill puts matters right. I understand that owing to the shortage of building materials and building labour not much of this work has yet taken place, so despite the slip in the 1947 Act no great damage should have been done.
  I should like to mention Clause 2, which this House insisted should contain a limit —as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor has put it—to the time when a person who builds without proper planning permission or, even more so, those who buy from him, should be at risk of having the building pulled down. When the Bill came to your Lordships' House there was no time limit, and any person who had not received planning permission was under the risk of having a demolition order made years afterwards. Some of us took the line that local authorities ought to be more vigilant than that, and we suggested a time limit of two years. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said he would accept a limit of four years. Accordingly, my noble friend Lord Carrington moved an Amendment, which was accepted. I see that the Minister of Local Government and Planning, as he is now called, said in another place that there was
  "a too amiable acceptance of a somewhat plausible-looking Amendment moved in another place,"
  and he went on to say:
  "Therefore we propose to restore the law to what it was before one of my noble friends so rashly accepted the Amendment in another place."
  We all know the amiability of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but I have not often found him

  621
  to be extremely rash. I find that when we were discussing this Amendment—I came into it; I seem to come into most of these town and country planning debates—I said:
  "I should have thought that the right thing to do was to put in this period of four years which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has offered at this present stage, realising that if the noble and learned Viscount feds that this should be reconsidered, he can propose some amending words at the Report stage."
  The Lord Chancellor said:
  "That is quite satisfactory to me, if I may reserve my liberty to come back to the matter on the Report stage."
  I should have thought that those warning words of the noble and learned Viscount and myself would have shown the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his Department the yellow light, if not the red light, and that they would have looked at this point very carefully before Report stage.
  They had another opportunity to look at it when the Amendments made to the Bill in your Lordships' House were considered in another place. I see that there was no discussion whatever about this Amendment. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning summed up the situation more amiably than the Minister himself. He said:
  "The fact is that in all good faith a noble Lord moved the Amendment, and that in all good faith it was accepted. The intention of the Amendment was good; it was that a person who had committed a breach of the law, either knowingly or unknowingly, should not for all times be put in peril of being pulled up for it. It placed a limitation on the period of time in which a local planning authority could call for redress from a person who had evaded planning permission. What happened was that the four-year limitation took effect from the time that planning permission was acted on."
  The words proposed, and accepted, have made it almost impossible for any planning authority to give temporary permission for a building, at any rate for longer than three and three quarter years. That was not the intention of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment; it certainly was not my intention in supporting it; and I imagine that it was not the Government's intention in accepting it. I suggest, with great respect to the noble Lord Lord Silkin, that he and his Department should have taken a look at this matter between Committee and Report stages and perhaps at that period
  622
  made the amendment which I think we shall all be glad to accept to-day.
  Of course, this matter is not controversial. I am glad to think that by this amending Bill we now have a limiting period, which is common ground between us, as was said in anotlier place, although we did not wish to do it in such a way as to prevent local planning authorities from giving temporary permission, as they often should do. I am prepared to accept this measure, with the assurance, given by the Minister in another place, and repeated by the noble Lord this afternoon, that the Minister will look through all these directions and see that small repairs to war-damaged property, where they are not part of a comprehensive scheme, do not require the owner to go through the rigmarole of getting permission. I am not prepared to move any Amendment on this point, because I have: no doubt that it will be done, and that where amendments should be made in the regulations they will be made. I advise noble Lords to give an unopposed Second Reading to this measure.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole-House.

  TITHE ACT, 1936 (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  4.7p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  HANNINGFIELD WATER ORDER, 1950
  4.8 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ESHER VISCOUNT ESHER rose to move to resolve, That the Hanningfield Water Order, 1950, made by the Minister of Health on November 11, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on January 24, 1951, be annulled. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving that the Hanningfield Water Order, 1950, be annulled, I am well aware that I am pursuing a lost cause. These proposals were considered by a senior inspector of the Ministry of Health at a local inquiry in March, 1950. The Minister accepted the case of the companies and an order was made by the Minister of Health in November, 1950. This is a £4,000,000 scheme, and obviously at this stage I cannot hope that the Government will agree

  623
  to annulling it. Nor would it be reasonable to refer it to a Committee of both Houses of Parliament, since the expense involved for the people who oppose it, who have only limited resources, would be great, and to do so would not be justified by our chances of winning. All I would do is to appeal to the Minister to go slowly, to take many bites at this cherry, and not to rush at once into the full expenditure that is necessary.
  My interest is on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. The Minister proposes to drown under his reservoir a charming and interesting house, built in 1560, which I think should be preserved, if possible, for the country. I remember once being in a small boat on the Nile and looking down over the side at the temples of Philae down at the bottom of the Nile. That is the effect the Minister is going to produce on this very interesting house. I do not believe that Mr. Dalton is the man to inundate the past unless he is forced to do it. No doubt if the estimates and anticipations of the companies turn out to be correct, when and if the population increases, when and if the new town of Basildon is built, then we shall have to destroy this house of"Fremnells"which I am trying to save. But surely it is not necessary to destroy it now, at once. The promoters of the inquiry admitted that it was not possible to carry out the whole works with great expedition. Nor is it necessary to destroy the house in order to obtain storage of 790,000,000 gallons of water instead of the 1,500,000,000 gallons provided for in the complete scheme. If the companies were to build the dam at the northern end of the acquired property, and raise the water level to 155 feet, this ancient house would at any rate be temporarily preserved, yet nothing would have been done to preclude the ultimate building of the southern dam and the ultimate raising of the water level to 180 feet when and if the population estimates are fulfilled.
  I appeal to the Minister to go slowly on this scheme. It involves £4,000,000 of public money, which expenditure was contemplated before rearmament and the financial restrictions which will ensue from that, and before increased taxation came into view. This expenditure must be most painful to the Treasury, as
  624
  the sacrifice of agricultural land must be to the Ministry of Food. So much depends upon when and if estimates, which are by no means certain, and which may turn out to be excessive, mature. In such case, the money the fruitful land and this old house will have been sunk to no purpose. I feel that the failure in Socialist enterprise is due not to the projects that they undertake (in fact, I think they have much more imagination in their projects than the capitalists had in the past) but to the lack of caution in the use of other people's money. I strongly urge that a little caution in this case, where £4,000,000 of public money is involved, will do no harm to their ultimate scheme, the second half of which may turn out to be unnecessary. I strongly urge that the companies should be required by the Minister to proceed with this work by stages, to take every possible step to delay until the last possible moment the inundation of "Fremnells" and the construction of any work affecting this house. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That the Hanning-field Water Order, 1950, made by the Minister of Health on November 11, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on January 24, 1951, be annulled. (Viscount Esher.)
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I have heard it said that two essentials in a good advocate are that he knows his case and that he presents it wisely, kindly and effectively. That has certainly been done in this case. But the noble Viscount asks a good deal when he wishes me to approach the Minister—and let us keep in mind the present Minister of Local Government and Planning—to"go slow"and not to rush. It would be something to ask the present Minister that, in regard to any venture on which he is engaged. But in this case, having regard to the circumstances, I can tell the noble Viscount that my right honourable friend will go slowly for the reasons mentioned—namely, the substantial changes since the Order was made last November. I feel sure that those reasons will cause him to go more slowly than he intended. How slowly he will go the noble Viscount will not expect me to say to-day.

  625
  The proposal that the work should proceed by stages may be possible, but I cannot give a firm undertaking that this is one of those plans that it is possible to take stage by stage. However, if it is, I can assure the noble Viscount that the work will be done in stages. I asked for particulars with regard to the house,"Fremnells,"and I have been advised that it is an interesting 16th century house. It has been altered a great deal and restored. I am advised that it has no archaeological interest, neither is it considered to have great historical value. It has not been scheduled as an ancient monument or a building of archaeological interest. But there is general agreement that it is a very nice house, with considerable charm, and that everything
  626
  should be done to preserve it. However, I wish to be quite frank with the noble Viscount: it is doubtful whether the scheme can be so arranged to safeguard this house, and I can hold out no hope for its preservation if the scheme goes forward in its entirety I thank the noble Viscount for the pleasant way in which he put forward his Motion.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, my remarks have received a much more favourable reception from the Government than I expected and, in view of that fact, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at eighteen minutes past four o'clock.