May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any announcement to make regarding the rearrangement of Business for next week.

Yes, Sir. Following the exchanges which took place across the Floor of the House on the Business statement for next week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House undertook to consider a rearrangement through the usual channels. The rearrangement has been made which the Government hope will meet the general convenience of the House. The suggested rearrangement is:

Monday, 3rd November—The Motion to annul the Control of Engagement Order will be considered until 9 o'clock; Consideration of Motions to approve the Cinematograph Film Orders.

Tuesday, 4th November—Consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure and the Government's proposed -Amendments of Standing Orders.

Wednesday, 5th November—Second Reading of the Burma Independence Bill.

Thursday, 6th November—Second Reading of the Overseas Resources Development Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Friday, 7th November—Second Reading of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Perhaps I may add, in view of the comments that were made about the non-availability of copies of the Defence Regulations, that I collected 3I copies in my own office yesterday and sent them along to the House by six o'clock last night. One hundred further copies are being collected from other sources and will be available in the Vote Office today. I hope that this will meet with the convenience of hon. Members and I want sincerely to express my regret that hon. Members should have been placed at any inconvenience in considering the Measure.

Having myself procured one of the Home Secretary's 31 copies of the Defence Regulations this morning, I would only say that he is, of course, aware that the existing volume of Defence Regulations was last reprinted and published in February, 1946, and that very many of the Defence Regulations have since been amended or altered or cancelled, so that the existing volume is really very little guide to hon. and right hon. Members in ascertaining what are the existing Defence Regulations. Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out no hope that the reprint which has been promised for some time will be available before the Second Reading of the Bill next week?

Obviously this is a matter which to some extent would depend on the mechanics of the printing industry, and I cannot give any definite promise, but I will assure the House that I will do the very utmost that I can to help the House in the consideration of this Measure. I hope that the steps that were taken may be regarded as evidence of good faith in the matter.

I tried to make a suggestion yesterday on this question. When I was practising, Messrs. Butterworth used to keep Defence Regulations and Statutory Rules and Orders up to date. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) says the volume he looked up is only up to date until February, 1946. I do not know whether it was Messrs. Butterworth's edition or not. There are law lending libraries and I imagine that hon. Members on both sides of the House have friends in solicitors' offices from whom they might get the loan of these orders so that they can be up to date when these things are considered next week.

Might I make a suggestion? I appreciate the points raised by my hon. Friend, but he has overlooked the fact that it is not so easy to keep these publications up to date. So many rules and orders have been introduced that I suggest that my right hon. Friend should consider making up a list of the orders which affect Defence Regulations, in addition to those which appear in the present volume. That might help hon. Members who want to discuss the present position of the regulations, and enable them to put their finger upon the relevant orders. It would enable them to have some form of reference to these orders, which are not actually in one of the printed editions. It also might indicate which of those orders vary portions of the published volume.

I believe that the Lord Chancellor's office keeps up-to-date copies of the Defence Regulations. I would suggest to the Home Secretary that he might have a word with the Lord Chancellor, who might be good enough to let the Library of the House have an up-to-date copy.

I would like to suggest that a list of the new orders as they come out be kept in a prominent position in the Library. It is impossible for hon. Members all to keep in touch with these orders. If my suggestion were adopted we should really have no excuse for not knowing of their existence.

I have listened to the suggestions that have been made by hon Members in various parts of the House. I will see that each of them is promptly and carefully considered. I will endeavour to carry out such of the suggestions as are feasible. In any other way that I can be advised, either by hon. Members or by persons in Government Departments, I will endeavour to minimise the inconvenience from which the House is at present suffering.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I should like to thank the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) for his kind remarks and the kindliness he has shown to myself and my colleagues who turned up here in the hope, if that is the right word, that we might have an opportunity to speak on the previous Bill. Perhaps I am luckier, or it may be unluckier, than my colleagues. At any rate, I now have the opportunity to to say a few words on this matter. This is a very short Bill, and it has a very simple purpose. I do not think I can do better than read from the Preamble of the Bill which says:

"Authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund to the States of Jersey and Guernsey of amounts equal to sums received in respect of Crown revenues accruing in those islands."

This authorisation is necessary to implement an agreement reached between His Majesty's Government and the States of Jersey and Guernsey whereby the island authorities will become responsible for certain expenses in the islands which have previously been met by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. In return for that, the island authorities will receive from the United Kingdom Government sums equivalent to the sums which are derived from hereditary revenues of the Crown in the islands, some of which are paid from the islands into the Exchequer in the United Kingdom. The States of both Jersey and Guernsey have approved the arrangements by Resolutions, and His Majesty's Government now recommend to this House that the necessary authority should be given to implement the agreement. The principal expenses for which the two islands are now to assume responsibility, are the salaries of the two lieutenant-governors, together with the upkeep of Government House in each island. There are also certain lesser expenses involved, to which I will refer in a moment.

The immediate reason for these negotiations in the agreement, and, secondly, for this Bill, is a change which has taken place in the office of lieutenant-governor. In the past, that is to say, up till 1st April, 1947, the lieutenant-governors in the islands were military officers, and among their duties was the command of the garrisons stationed in the islands. They were, therefore, paid from the funds of the War Office, which also maintained their houses and their establishments. It has now been decided to withdraw the garrisons, so that there is no longer any reason why the lieutenant-governor should retain military status. It would, therefore, be quite inappropriate that the War Office should continue to bear the cost, and a new arrangement of some kind obviously had to be sought.

There has been general agreement on all sides that it is desirable to maintain a lieutenant-governor in each island to act, on the one hand, as His Majesty's representative, and, on the other, as a link between the island authorities, the Privy Council and His Majesty's Government. Elsewhere in the Empire, it has long been the practice that the salaries of governors and the expense of their offices should be borne from local funds. I believe I am right in saying that these particular posts in the Channel Islands have been the only exception to that rule—though, of course, where a governor was also a military commander-in-chief, there was, in some cases, a contribution from the United Kingdom funds—and the States of Jersey and Guernsey have now readily consented to fall into line with the normal practice elsewhere.

It has been agreed that, in consideration of their undertaking this obligation, His Majesty's Government should hand over to them each year a sum equal to the net proceeds received by the Exchequer from the hereditary revenues of the Crown in the islands. In the past, these sums have been collected in the islands by His Majesty's Receiver-General, and he has paid out of them the cost of collection and certain miscellaneous administrative expenses, relating, in particular, to prisons and to certain payments to Crown officers in the islands. The surplus which was paid into the Exchequer by the Receiver-General before the war, after those deductions, varied between about £6,000 and £7,000. Since the war, the position has been rather different. For the year ended March, 1946, the surplus was a good deal smaller—about £3,500–but, in the following year, ending March, 1947, the surplus was very large—£33,550. That was an entirely exceptional sum, accounted for largely by wartime arrears.

So far as it is possible to make a calculation, it is reckoned that in future the surplus may be as high as £10,000 to £15,000, due largely to the increased values of the land upon which the dues are payable to the Crown when land changes hand. In addition, it is part of the bargain that Government House in each island, and certain other Crown buildings, will become the property of the island authorities. On the other side of the balance-sheet, the annual cost of the obligations taken over by the States will be about £17,000, which is the approximate cost of the upkeep of the offices of the lieutenant-governors in the islands. The figure of £10,00 to £15,000, which I mentioned as the surplus to be paid over, is the net figure. I have already explained that the States are to take over payment of certain expenses paid in the past from Crown Revenues by the Receivers-General—contributions to the salaries of the Crown officers, upkeep of prisons, etc. The net surplus to be paid over into the Exchequer in future will be increased, therefore, to that extent, because these sums will no longer be paid by them, but will be paid out of local funds. On the other hand, the States will get a corresponding increased amount under this Bill.

The taking over by the States of the payment of these expenses is rather more than a book-keeping transaction, since it will involve a great simplification in administration. The States will now assume a direct responsibility for a num- ber of local services and payments which were borne in the past, either entirely by the Government, or partly by local funds and partly by Government funds. These will now be taken over directly by the States. It will be noticed, from the last sentence in Clause 1, that the Bill is to apply to the islands of Jersey, Guernsey and Jethou, but not to other parts of the Channel Islands. The reason for this is that no Crown revenues are received from any other island with the exception of Alderney; and Alderney is the subject of separate legislation passed in 1829 and 1923, and does not therefore come to be dealt with under this Bill. The House will be aware that traditionally the association of the Crown with the islands has been very close, the islands being the only part of the old Duchy of Normandy which has never been relinquished. It is very gratifying that the representatives of both islands, to whose friendliness in the negotiations I should like to pay tribute, have approved these new arrangements for continuing this very ancient association. The arrangements seem to the Government to be simple, practical and fair. I, therefore, commend this Bill to the House, and ask that it be given a Second Reading.

I should like first to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on an admirably clear exposition of a difficult and complicated subject. As he says, this arrangement seems to be perfectly fair as between the Exchequer on the one hand and the Channel Islands on the other. Once the decision has been taken, a decision which I, personally, very much regret, not to maintain garrisons in the Channel Islands in future, then some arrangement of this character naturally ensues. The decision not to maintain garrisons is not a matter for which the Home Secretary is in any way responsible. It is a military matter, and that decision has no doubt been taken upon military grounds. I feel, however, that it will be generally regretted that the long connection between the Channel Islands and His Majesty's Forces is apparently now to be severed. Once that decision has been taken, it follows that the expenses of maintaining the lieutenant-governor in each of the islands fall upon the islands themselves in future, and we on this side therefore express our agreement with the provisions of the Bill.

Can we take it that this Bill embodies the whole of the financial adjustments that have arisen out of the recent conversations between the Home Department and the island authorities, and can we have an assurance that no duress was imposed upon the island authorities in arriving at this agreement? It is amazing and surprising to me that the Exchequer have got such an excellent bargain. These islands have suffered enormously as a result of occupation by enemy forces, and they are faced with an enormous problem of reconstruction, having regard to their potential capacity to reconstruct. It seems to me surprising that in these circumstances they have willingly taken upon themselves the added burden which is the net result of this Bill. I have a great affection for the islands of Jersey and Guernsey. Although it was implicit in the speech of the Under-Secretary, I should like to have an assurance that the islands have willingly accepted this agreement, and an answer to the question whether this Bill represents the sum total of the financial negotiations between the Government and the islands.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole) that there was no sort of duress. The States in both islands have already approved, by resolutions in their assemblies, the outcome of these negotiations. With regard to the question of His Majesty's Government having obtained a good bargain, I would point out that there are two sides to that. The Government are satisfied that it is a reasonable bargain for both sides. On the question of whether this Bill represents the sum total of all the negotiations between the Government and the islands, I suppose that my hon. Friend has in mind the various questions relating to rehabilitation and compensation which have been raised in this House in the past. It would not be so right to say that this Bill represents the outcome of all those negotiations, as to say that no doubt both parties had in mind, when agreeing to an arrangement of this kind, that there had been fairly generous treatment meted out by the Government. As the House knows, there were considerable sums paid by the taxpayers of this country for the rehabilitation of these islands, and that must inevitably have been taken into account by the negotiators of both sides.

In connection with this Order, I would like to point out—

There is no Question before the House. I put the Question, collected the voices, and declared that the "Ayes" had it. Therefore, that matter is finished, and we cannot go back to it. To do so would be contrary to our Rules. I thought the hon. Member wanted to talk on another Order.

May we have a short explanation from the Financial Secretary of the reason for this Order?

This Order is to reduce the tax on tub pairs and sculls, of not less than nine feet in length, from 33⅓ to 16⅔ per cent. It follows a promise given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor when the Finance Bill was before the House some months ago. It was agreed that it would help racing crews who use these craft for practice if the tax were reduced.

This Order, relating to road vehicles, follows on an Order made in June this year, when the Financial Secretary came to the House with an Order the main purpose of which was to bring what are known as utility vehicles within the scope of the Purchase Tax—

Have we not disposed of this Order?

No, we are now discussing the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No 3) Order.

The hon. Member is going a little too fast. This Order is consequential on the Order passed in June, which was debated in the House, and the main purpose of which was to bring utility vehicles within the scope of the Purchase Tax. At the time that Order was discussed, it was pointed out from these benches, not only that it was undesirable to impose Purchase Tax on utility vehicles, but that the definition therein proposed, which defined such vehicles, so far as I remember, as possessing side windows to the rear of the driver's seat, was itself a definition which would bring within the scope of the Purchase Tax a large number of vehicles which ought to be excluded from that tax on the ground that they were commercial vehicles. It is quite evident that the criticisms which we made of the definition on that occasion were fully justified, because if Members will look at the Schedule to this Order they will see a long list of the types of vehicles which were brought within the scope of the Purchase Tax as recently as June last, but which will now be excluded from the scope of that tax by the operation of this Order.

On that occasion it was pointed out that the Home Secretary's "Black Marias" would probably have to bear Purchase Tax, and, in consequence, we now see that prison vans are to be excluded from the tax. We go further and find that bullion vans, mobile cinemas, mobile canteens, travelling libraries, travelling shops, mobile printing presses, pantechnicons, and horseboxes are to be excluded from the scope of the Purchase Tax. I remember also pointing out that, so far as I could see, hearses were vehicles which contained side windows to the rear of the driver's seat, and were constructed for the carriage of passengers. The Financial Secretary doubted whether hearses were constructed for the carriage of passengers. It is evidently now admitted that the original Order included hearses within the scope of the tax, and that that was going beyond the object of the Order made last June. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House why, while this Order excludes hearses from the scope of the tax, it goes on to say

"… but not including hearsettes."

Is there any Member of the House other than the right hon. Gentleman who knows what a hearsette is? I presume that it is a miniature, or toy, hearse, but before we pass this Order, I think we ought to have the matter explained to us.

There is a further point about which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. All these vehicles were brought within the scope of the Purchase Tax for the first time in June of this year. The new Order comes into operation as from the first day of September. What is the position as regards Purchase Tax on prison vans, bullion vans, pantechnicons, horse-boxes, hearses and hearsettes which have been bought between June and 1st September this year? Is the tax paid on them to be refunded?

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. This Order arises out of a promise which I gave when we had a Debate in June or July, following the Order which had been made bringing what were termed shooting brakes, otherwise utility vehicles, within the scope of Purchase Tax. I said then that although we had consulted the trade, it had been very difficult to arrive at a definition of the kind of vehicle we had in mind without catching up in the net a number of vehicles of various kinds which quite obviously were commercially used and not strictly passenger-carrying, and which we would normally like to see excluded. We have since then, been in touch with the trade, and, as this Order shows, we now, in its Schedule, exclude vehicles by name which we think should be excluded. I would like to inform the right hon. Gentleman that prison vans and fire tenders have been subject to the tax since Purcase Tax was instituted in 1940, and what we are doing now is to take the opportunity, I hope rightly, of excluding them from the burden of Purchase Tax.

A hearsette, I am told, is a limousine which carries passengers but which has in front provision made for a small child's coffin, say, that of a baby. These are quite obviously passenger - carrying vehicles, which it would not be difficult to make, with slight alterations by removal of the front part, into ordinary passenger-carrying vehicles. We have therefore thought it right not to include them here. As to the payment of Purchase Tax on vehicles mentioned in the Order between the date when the first Order came into force and now, I understand that there is not a very large number but we fully realise that the tax will have been paid on some of these, and, where that has happened, we are very willing to deal with them individually if application is made to Customs and Excise.

I am sorry to trouble the Financial Secretary once more, but I think that the House ought not to pass Orders which are, on the face of them, incomprehensible. If hon. Members will look at the title of this Order they will see that we are told that it applies to fancy and ornamental belts. In the margin of the Order itself, they will see the words:

"reduction of rate of purchase tax on certain belts."

When we read the body of the Order, we are told that the basic rate of Purchase Tax shall be substituted for the higher-rate in respect of belts falling within the following classes—fancy or ornamental articles of a kind suitable for personal or domestic use, including artificial flowers, photograph frames and paper weights. It is a curious definition, because very few paper weights are suitable for personal use. So far as these belts are concerned, I must confess to being extremely puzzled. I can understand a belt being for personal use, but I cannot understand a belt being for domestic use, unless it is used for giving one of the children "a bit of a strapping." It is not at all clear in this Order what kind of belts are to be affected by it. Are they belts worn by ladies; belts worn by men; are they what are known as surgical belts—what, in fact, are these belts? It is not at all clear, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain the matter to the House.

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Act of 1940 which brought Purchase Tax into operation, together with the amending Act of 1942, is a perfect jungle. Year by year since in Finance Acts we add to it, and make alterations, until now it is very difficult to know where one is. In the Schedules of the Act of 1940, certain broad categories and definitions were laid down as to articles, and there was one which covered fancy or ornamental articles of a kind suitable for personal or domestic use. It is not suggested that paper weights are articles of personal wear, but there was a lumping together of a number of all sorts of miscellaneous items, including certain things which could be worn on the person, among them belts. That explains the reference, because we have here to legislate by reference to the 1942 Act, to which the right hon. Gentleman has called attention.

Belts are of two kinds. One kind, known as haberdashery, and the other, fancy, normally worn by women. We want now to take all these belts and reduce the rate on them to 33⅓ per cent. except where the belt can still be said to be a fancy belt in the sense that it has certain precious metals in it, or semiprecious metals, or mother of pearl adornment or ornament or anything of that kind, which makes it not an ordinary belt in the accepted sense of the word. It has in the past been difficult to differentiate between one kind of belt and another. We hope that this change, which simplifies the definition, will make it easier for all concerned, and enable those people who want to buy ordinary belts to be able to do so at a cheaper rate. With that explanation, I hope that the House will grant the Order.

After the crowded benches of yesterday and the rather highly-charged atmosphere, the House today seems almost unreal, but the situation which I wish to bring to the attention of the House, I can assure hon. Members, is far from being unreal. I wish to draw the attention of the House to what I consider the neglect and, in some cases, the shocking neglect of surplus Government property. I admit that the Government have had a very great task in the last two years, with the enormous quantities of property left on their hands.

My complaint falls into two classes. First, I complain that surplus Government property has been left in many cases, uncovered and unguarded, and allowed to go to rack, ruin and rust. Secondly, I complain that when it has been sold, it has been sold in some cases, in a most unsatisfactory way, which has left a very nasty taste in certain people's mouths, and there has been a suspicion of negligence and favouritism almost amounting to corruption. I hope to prove these two points. I want to ask the Government if we can have a thorough inquiry into this so that the facts may be known and where suspicions are unfounded they can be swept away. On 30th July, 1947, I asked Question No. 84, addressed to the Ministry of Works, and that Question was suggested to me by my own constituents because of what they had seen at the Kelstern Aerodrome. On that aerodrome there were tens if not hundreds of thousands of bedsteads, and the scandal was so widely known that the place was called Bedstead Alley and it was a great joke.

Where was this?

At Kelstern in Lincolnshire. As I said, the aerodrome was known as Bedstead Alley and there were almost mountains of bedsteads. There they were rusting away completely uncovered, and not only that but they were unguarded and a standing temptation to the public. There was no one to look after them at all. In my reply to Question No. 84 I received a written answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works stating:

"Kelstern is used as a clearing depot for beds and bunks declared surplus by Government Departments. Owing to the shortage of covered storage accommodation the less valuable equipment is stored in the open. The work of sorting and re-issuing the equipment is proceeding as quickly as possible and in present conditions the stock is not deteriorating."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1947; Vol. 441, c, 60.]

On 4th August I went with one of my friends to visit the aerodrome to have another look for myself and for two hours I walked or motored round it and no one challenged me at all. The property was left in the open and if one cared to go and help oneself there was no one to hinder one. The first thing I did was I went to Hut BK52, which is the Ministry of Works' Office and that was the only hut I found locked. The official who was supposed to look after affairs was away, the hut was locked and there was no one on the site—no one to challenge those wishing to go round and help themselves. I should like to give a report on three or four of the huts I visited. The first hut I visited was BK53 which contained tens of thousands of what are technically known as "biscuit" mattresses for beds. The three "biscuits" are made into one Service man's bed. My complaint is that this hut had got a perfectly good lock on the door and the key was in the door but the door was wide open, and how long it had been like that I do not know. Obviously no one was interested to care about the contents. The hut was left open to the wind and the weather and the contents were deteriorating.

I then went to Hut BK 62 which was the photographic development block. There again there was a perfectly good lock and key with the key inserted but the door was wide open. Many parts of the equipment had been taken away and not too cleverly either, but I saw in that hut rolls and rolls of very valuable lino and nobody was bothering. If we had wished to take them or throw them into the back of the car no one was there to stop us. I remembered how much the ordinary housewives in the country would have liked to have supplies of that very nature. I then went on to Hut BK 16 and this I think is the greatest scandal of the whole lot. That was the workshop hut and the door was not only wide open but as well as having the normal lock there was a lock inside too. This was a great workshop hut. Inside there were cookers, heaters, electrical heating plates, refrigerators, water heaters, tanks, and portable coppers, many of them new, but there was no guard about anywhere and no one seemed to take any care of them at all. On the north of the aerodrome in a large hangar there were huge piles of these bedsteads which were in part covered a few days after my question, but it was typical Government eyewash, I do not mean merely this Government but all Governments. The tarpaulins were put in front of these great piles but the back was completely uncovered and the weather got in at the back of the great stacks where the stuff was left uncovered. It had suited someone to put these tarpaulins across the top and over one side to cover these bedsteads and there they were left.

I was told that many thousands of these bedsteads had been coming into Louth station since May, 1946, and as far away as from Scotland, and that after transport had been paid to bring them right down they had to be manhandled again and brought by road these ten miles to get them to this aerodrome—to be left neglected. It seems to me that this was an absolute scandal. That is why I have brought the matter up. The local farmers who are being urged by the Government to produce more and to take care of what we have got ask themselves naturally why they should exert themselves when Government officials do not seem to bother. Why should they put themselves out when they can see in their own fields this great wastage. In the "Market Rasen Mail" of Saturday, 26th July, it said,

"Every kind of wire mattress used in the service must be represented in the giant Kelstern stock pile. The reporter saw some almost new bearing the names of famous makers. Others had springs and steel supports red with rust. There were enough two-tier bunks alone beside the potato field to provide beds for a battalion and rain glistened on them and on all the other bedsteads following a shower."

This is the point I want to make.

"Some of the bedsteads were sheeted down with tarpaulin coverings but more were without any protection at all. Six cars passed during the half hour the reporter spent walking round looking at the bedsteads. But the drivers gave no more than a glance at the odd piles lining the road. 'They have got so used to them that they don't bother.' said the farm worker."

If we are going to ask the farmer and the farm worker to put their best foot forward and make a special effort in this time of emergency I feel that the Government themselves ought to set a better example. In "The Times" on Thursday the Minister for Economic Affairs is reported as having said this at his Press conference:

"We have not reached the production levels necessary for our winter supplies and so our whole production programme is in jeopardy."

It is very difficult to get farmers and farm workers up in those remote areas to believe our position is in jeopardy when they see before them such neglect.

In answer to my Question the Parliamentary Secretary said that this was a re-issue depot and that, therefore, we must expect things like that. I thought I would check up at another place and so I visited the Barkston Heath Aerodrome, near Grantham. I went there on 30th September but there were a lot of people working on that 'drome, including officers and men. Even there we were allowed to go round for half an hour before we were challenged and I found there that there were hundreds—I would not say thousands though they looked like thousands because a pile gets greater when one gets near to it—of steel filing cabinets that seemed to be little used. The drawers were pulled out and thrown anywhere and going to rust. Nobody cared and these very steel cabinets are things we cannot get very easily in civilian life. At the side of them—again it looked to me like thousands—there were numerous six feet steel airmen's cupboards all left open. The drawers were open and there was nobody bothering. Nobody seemed to care.

I found the same thing as I found at Kelstern. There were great piles of bedsteads in all degrees of rust, and some were obviously new. Inside No. 3 hangar were tens of thousands of these iron bedsteads, which had at great labour been piled there, some very well piled and some badly. Most of them were in some state of rust.

What is more important is that in that hangar I found modern bacon-cutting machines thrown on the floor. I was told afterwards that they were awaiting repair, or were surplus, or something like that. They were left in such a state that if they had been owned by private enterprise or had belonged to anybody personally, someone would have kicked up a row. I complain that there is apparently nobody, under our present system, who is prepared to go and kick up a row about it. I found on a scrap-heap just outside No. 3 hangar some wheeled stretchers with rubber tyres. I was told that they had been used for wheeling patients into operating theatres. Their tyres were burst open and they were thrown on the scrap-heap. Nobody bothered. It seemed just about equal to the easy way in which the Minister of Health announced yesterday that 50,000 hospital beds in the country were not occupied merely because he could not staff them. Nobody seems to bother.

I found also on the site of this scrap-heap a great quantity, not heaps, of steel safes, just chucked about, nobody caring about them. Nobody is worried. Then there were quite a number of bacon-cutters with electric motors attached, just tipped out, ready to rust, and left to wind and weather. One of the airmen who, by then, had challenged me asked what I was looking for, said, "You should go and see some of the aerodromes nearby. This is a mere nothing. This is quite good compared with those." That is why I am asking for an inquiry and for information.

There are two other cases of neglect that I would like to bring to the notice of the House, again in my constituency. A year ago I raised a matter in the House about some huts in Donna Nook. A local farmer would have liked to use them for normal agricultural purposes, but he could not get possession. Now the doors and windows have been smashed. Somebody from the nearby prisoner-of-war camp came to pull down first this, and then the next thing, to burn them. Had the farmer been given permission to take possession of those huts he would have looked after them, but he was not. Nobody cared, and the huts were finally destroyed.

Here is a further example, again from my constituency. A year ago I asked about the huts on the Waltham aerodrome near Grimsby. The local rural district council wanted to use the huts for the homeless. A certain number of the huts were surrendered to the rural district council, but not the whole lot. Now the council are asking that the remainder should be given into their possession, because they fear that squatters will take possession of them this winter. Surely it is better to let the local authority deal with the matter in an orderly fashion than to allow unorganised squatters to go in and take possession.

Last week I was in Waltham and I went to have a look at this site. On one part were the huts which a year ago the Government allowed the council to use. Fires were burning, windows were clean, and clean washing was hanging out. On the other side were the huts which were not given to the local authority, and they were in a very different state. There has been neglect, and there has not been that sense of urgency in dealing with this matter which would have existed had the property belonged to some individual person. It is nobody's business, so nobody cares and nobody does anything.

My next complaint is perhaps more serious. When various items of Government property have been sold there has, in some cases, been a suspicion that favouritism has been shown to certain buyers and that better prices that could have been obtained have not been realised. In some trades there is a definite feeling that there is corruption of one degree or another. I think that matter ought to be investigated. To substantiate what I say perhaps I might give three examples. The first is from Barkston Heath again. I found a large pile of iron coal boxes. They were terribly rusty. I put my hand into one of them, and I said to the fellow who was taking me round, "These have been out here for a long time full of rust." He said, "We sold"—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this is not a matter of "tut-tut". This is Government property that has been allowed to be thrown away. I rather resent that interruption of "tut-tut".

I was told that 1,300 of these coal boxes had been left on the site. More than a year ago 1,600 had been sold. The man who bought them had made such a great profit that he had not troubled to move the other 1,300. These had ceased to be Government property but they are still there, although they have been sold—or rather given away. I want to know why such things are allowed to happen. I was told that the Ministry recently sold something like 1,780 tons of scrap beds to a Leeds firm. I shall not give the name of the firm. I do not think I ought to say the name. I was informed that the price per bedstead was something less than is. The men who were doing the work of handling them said that there was a firm in London, one of the biggest and best known multiple stores, reselling these beds at 35s. 11d. after they had been taken to Leeds and had just been sprayed so that the rust could not be seen. If it is true that beds sold for something under is, are being resold at 35s. 11d. it is gross scandal. I do not know. I am merely asking for information. It is because I am not sure that I am not giving the names that were given to me. The information was passed on to me by people who should know what they are talking about.

The second thing that I found there was a large heap of what were called repairable enamelware. There were jugs, washbasins and things like that. I was informed that they had been sold once by the Ministry of Supply but because, when they were delivered the buyer found that they were in a worse state than he had thought, they have all been dumped back at Barkston Heath. When they were sold, was it a condition that the buyer should send them back if he did not want them? To whom were they sold and at what sort of price? This is not the way I should handle such things in my business.

My third example is that the Board of Trade admitted some months ago in answer to a Question of mine that 71,000 pairs of officers' Army shoes had been sold to a Brighton firm at 26s. a pair. These shoes were resold, to my knowledge, at between 65s. and £5 a pair, free of coupons. The trade hotly resented this. I will not give the name of the Brighton firm. Why were they not sent to the boot trade centres of Leicester, Norwich, or Northampton? It is a scandal that property is being thrown away like that. I want an assurance that the fear that some traders have that one must have a friend in the Ministry if one wants to get a plum is unfounded. When I raised the matter of the iron bedsteads in the House one firm wrote to me and said they would like to be put in touch with the Ministry which would be handling them because they had agricultural buyers who needed them for Polish and Irish labour. I did my best, but finally the firm wrote:

"It is no use kicking against red tape because if you do you get nothing. So one has to bow down to all these restrictions in the hope of getting a little" bit of material to keep the business going. But when one does get a little, it is nothing but a flea-bite to what the favourite firms get."

We are entitled to know whether there are favourite firms on Government lists. If there are, they should be removed for it would be a scandal. I am certain, from my knowledge of my own constituency, that Government property has been neglected. If it has been neglected to this extent in one constituency, what must the scandal be all over the country? From my own knowledge, I do not think that the best prices have always been obtained for what is sold. When I asked the Minister about this on 6th August he said he would look into the question and make a report. It is three months since he made that promise, and I hope he will now give us a report.

The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) usually makes three charges against the stocks policy of my Department. He has today added to those a charge associated with price and commercial conditions of sale. But I would like, first, to deal with the charges of physical neglect. It is sometimes asserted that we are holding excessive stocks of goods which would be of use to the ordinary domestic consumer. The hon. Member did not mention that charge today, but I would like to deal with it briefly because it is a common misunderstanding. We have a double function in this matter. We receive certain types of stores that are declared redundant by other Government Departments and particularly by the Service Departments, and we dispose of them partly to meet other needs arising within the machinery of Government and partly to the public.

Secondly, in the difficult supply conditions ruling in the markets for furniture of various kinds, we have to hold stocks to meet needs which are presented to us by other Government Departments. I think that it can be demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that our stocks held for this second purpose, which are our only real stocks, are far from excessive. I will take for an example, the question of bedsteads to which the hon. Member referred in his previous Questions and again today. Just before he asked his second Question on this matter, our total stock of beds was 50,000, held for the second purpose, that is, to meet the needs of Government Departments. That was in July.

I suppose they were not all at Kelstren. It appeared as if they must be.

Those are for the first purpose for which the stock is held, namely distributing them to different uses, but the stock for issue to Government Departments was only 50,000. Then, in a single week we had demands from one of the Service Departments for 65,000 beds. We now have in prospect from various directions, particularly the movement into this country of various types of foreign workers, a potential demand for somewhere between 120,000 and 160,000 beds and equipment for hostel purposes. Thus, far from our stocks being excessive for this purpose, they are dangerously low. At the moment we have only 14,000 pillows and less than 20,000 mattresses of the normal type in stock. In regard to cutlery and crockery, we are literally living from hand to mouth. Thus any conception of my Department holding on to stocks in excess of those needed for the continuous flow of demands upon us is quite mistaken.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether that supply which the Ministry are keeping in hand includes the same equipment which has been used hitherto by the German prisoners of war, because many of these E.V.W.s and displaced persons are going into prisoner of war camps and it is interesting to know whether they will use the same equipment as the prisoners of war?

Part of the equipment might be used for that purpose but the standards for these civilian camps are considerably in excess of Service standards and a fortiori, prisoner of war standards, so that a very large net demand for furniture of all kinds will arise as a result of substituting E.V.W.s for prisoners of war.

Will they be given priority over normal civilian demands?

We have to supply the demands put up to us by Government Departments arising out of Government policy, such as the bringing in of these persons.

Would the hon. Gentleman say what additional amount will be required by the E.V.W.s over and above that required by the prisoners of war?

That would be a very uncertain calculation. I can only say that the sort of figures involved are between 120,000 and 160,000, and that our stocks even of beds, amount to only 50,000. It is perfectly clear that we are running at a dangerous minimum rather than an excessive level of stocks.

I now come to the charges of physical neglect. The House should realise that the shortage of covered accommodation arises from the deliberate decision of this Government in 1945 to release two million feet of storage space for the use of industry. It was felt that storage space was so heavily concentrated in Government hands that industry would find it extremely difficult to do with as little as was left to it. It was perfectly clearly realised when that decision was taken that this would necessarily involve some open-air storage.

I am informed that at Kelstren a lot of the stuff was left outside while the hangars were empty.

When we come to the case of Kelstren, the hon. Member will know, as I informed him, that I myself visited Kelstren. He has made two charges, first, of these' beds being out of the hangars and, secondly, of the hangars not being locked. On the second charge I have two things to say. First, that my information was that this was during working hours, and I should like from him particulars of dates and times. I will certainly look further into any statement he feels able to make that, outside working hours, they were unlocked.

I can reply to that question at once. It was 4th August between eight and ten o'clock at night.

In that case I will have further inquiries made, because I was assured that at all times when the men are not actually working in the hangars and sheds, they are all locked. As far as the storage of these beds out of doors is concerned, the hon. Member will realise that beds come into that depot in every condition, and that most of the rust that he saw on them was the rust they had, when unloaded from the lorries. This was an exceptional period of very good weather, and when I visited there later, they were all covered. I am assured that all stores which could deteriorate by exposure to rain had been covered before the series of droughts came to an end. So much for the charges of physical neglect.

The last charge is that these stores are not properly guarded. This was the charge amongst those originally made which I thought to be the most serious, and I went into the matter carefully. I assure the House that there is no sub stance in this charge whatever. In my Department we are responsible for 150 different stores, of which 12 are these aerodromes. The total loss by theft from all these 150 stores was only £3,500 in the 12 months ended in August—

As far as you know.

—and of that only £2,200 arose from thefts on the part of outside persons; that is to say, less than one-twentieth of one per cent. of the value of stocks held. Much more important than that, to provide even a token guard on these 12 aerodromes—for example, a night watchman in each case—the charge would be not less than £3,000 a year, that is, greatly in excess of the losses from all the 150 stores for which we are responsible. Moreover, to keep a real watch on the 12 aerodromes alone would cost £20,000 a year to offset against external losses of £2,200 from the whole 150 stores. That would be a wild and irresponsible waste of taxpayers' money.

May I say, in answer to that, that within five miles of Kelstren there is a large Polish camp where there are hundreds, if not thousands of men kicking their heels not knowing what to do with themselves. It would not cost a penny more to put on a guard.

To provide a properly manned and paid night guard to these 12 stores would cost nearly ten times as much as the loss from the whole of our 150 stores. Therefore it is safe to conclude that we are not holding excessive stocks; that it is necessary, to realise covered space for industry, that open air storage in certain cases should be permitted, but that what could be done to protect these beds from weather has now been done; and that the provision of further watchmen is not possible or financially desirable. The hon. Member did not give me notice of the other type of charge, so I am not in a position to make any statement upon the various price matters that he raised, some of which are not the concern of my Department. However, any information leading to the kind of conclusions he suggested, with which he can supply me will be exhaustively investigated.

I am grateful for the opportunity of making some representations which arise out of the Fish Sales (Charges) Order which has been passed today and which takes effect from the 20th September. It is only fair that I should begin by saying how much good work has been done by the Ministry of Food to sustain the fishing industry, and how much the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has done to get to know an industry with which she was perhaps not wholly familiar when she took office, and how much she has felt, as I think she has, the hardships undergone by fishermen in earning their livelihood. It is relevant to mention in connection with my representations that it is the Ministry of Food which first took out accounts of how much was made by fishermen, and that those accounts showed what I had always maintained in regard to the fishermen with whom I am familiar, men owning small boats, that their average earnings work out at about £2 15s. a week. I am not talking about large fishing combines or companies which may well make large profits—an entirely different matter—but about the average takings of a fisherman going out in a small boat, 20, 30, 40, even eighty miles away from our shores.

When these Orders were first brought in, it was understood, and it is still understood, that the levy is imposed in order to produce money to run the Control in respect of transport and allocation committees, many of which have functioned with great success and advantage to everyone concerned. So far, on the figures it appears that the amount of money coming in from these levies has about equalled the amount expended on running the Control. In the first place I ask very earnestly that this process should be watched because the fishermen feel that it would be wrong if it were not watched and if the money coming from these levies were to exceed substantially the sum expended on running the Control. One observes under this regulation which we have passed that the levy on white fish has been doubled; it has gone up from fivepence to tenpence a stone. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us, and thereby explain to all concerned, why the levy has been doubled. In that connection it is also right to point out that the control has been taken off mackerel. There we owe a great deal to the Minister. At one time the control was such that the fishermen could get no price for mackerel which would make it worth while their going out for this fish, with the result that the public were not getting any.

There is one other matter I shall mention because I know this process is under constant review. Under the order which has been passed, there is a liability to pay a charge in respect of fish bought for bait. The regulation has been passed and there would have been no chance of dividing the House on it. I should like this reviewed, because in my submission these levies were never meant for fish bait. They were meant to apply to sales where fish was going to the consumer. Only a few days ago I was talking with some fishermen in a little cove named Cadgwith, and they said they had to use gurnards for bait, and as it happened they have none available in their own waters. They asked why they should have this liability, when the levy should only apply to fish sold to be consumed. It would be just the same if a levy were imposed on fishermen buying nets or gear, for this is an impost on an essential implement of the fisherman's trade.

May I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beeehman) on his ingenuity on getting the Adjournment today, and thank him for his appreciation of the work we do in my Department. We fully appreciate the contribution which the fishermen are making, and I think the hon. Member will agree that whenever they ask for help or advice we have been only too willing to serve them. He was quite right when he said that the Fund was originally introduced in order to equalise the transport charges which the fish trade would be called upon to bear. I expect he also appreciates that by imposing this levy we are helping the producer, who is thereby enabled to enjoy the maximum price for his fish. If the levy were not imposed, it might be that the first-hand merchant might have to reduce the amount he pays to the fisherman in order to pay for transport. We have found that this scheme has worked very well, but I must confess that I think he is under a misapprehension so far as the proceeds of this Fund are concerned. I think he suggested that perhaps it was being administered in such a way that the income is greater than the expenditure.

I said it might become so. It has been pretty well equal.

I am glad the hon. and learned Member has raised this point, because I think certain Members of the trade suffer from the same misapprehension. At the risk of wearying the House, I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman certain figures. It was in the year 1946–47 that the Fund showed a surplus of £781,917, and this was in some measure due to the fact that we anticipated there would be a second increase of railway rates, but this did not materialise. At the same time, however, there was a drop in the average cost of carriage of herring, as a result of the switchover from rail to road transport. It was agreed that the surplus should not be lost to the industry. The figure I want to draw to the attention of the hon. and learned Member is the estimated shortfall of £935,000 in the ensuing year. This sum is higher than we expected, and due in part to the increase in railway charges as from 1st October, 1947, and also due to the fact that the Fund has been run at a loss during the summer months. The excess over the £781,917 will be covered by employing a reserve Fund of £150,000. I bring these points to the notice of the hon. and learned Member in order that he may reassure those sections of the trade who, perhaps, believe that the Ministry of Food are doing rather well out of the Fund. I will look into the question of bait again, but he need have no fear about that. Before we introduced the new order, we did of course consult every section of the trade, and they all concurred in the arrangement. I can assure him that before any amending order is introduced we shall, as is customary, continue to consult the trade.

I wish to bring to the attention of the House today the question of the recruitment of teachers by the Ministry of Education and local authorities. With the passing of the Education Act, 1944, it became very evident that the teaching profession of this country would have to be augmented on a very considerable scale. The Act envisaged a considerable development in every aspect and stage of the education service.

The development of the nursery schools in the days of the war came to an unhappy end with the ending of the war; but, the Ministry are anxious to see a much larger extension of nursery schools throughout the country. It is the hope of the teaching profession that in every street of this country there shall be a small nursery school providing for the needs of the families of each area. I believe that if the Ministry showed the commendable drive for recruitment which they have shown in the emergency training scheme, it would be possible for us to have an adequate supply of nursery school teachers. If these young people are to be forthcoming, it must be made perfectly clear that the nursery school teachers will not have to work much longer hours than their colleagues serving in other schools. I recognise that with the demands of industry for married women labour, and the extraordinary hours which some married women are called upon to work, it is necessary for the nursery school to be opened earlier than the ordinary day school, and to remain open after the day school has closed. This is an amenity I welcome, but I feel that if an adequate supply of nursery school teachers is being trained, the work can be shared out, and it will be possible for this part of the Education Act, 1944, really to come to fruition.

Another question which makes the recruitment of teachers one of great urgency is the size of classes in this country at the present time. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sitting on the Front Bench this afternoon, for nobody in this House played a greater part in bringing to the Statute Book of this country that major educational Measure, which it is quite wrong to call the Butler Act. I do not mind calling it the Butler-Ede Act or the Ede-Butler Act, but I much prefer to call it the Education Act, because it was the result of the constructive endeavours of all Members of this House. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the fact that education is impossible under the conditions which prevail in some of our schools at present. I wish to know from the Minister, if he is to reply, what steps are being taken to ensure that the emergency trained teachers are reaching the schools where this problem of large classes is most severely felt. There is a danger that the emergency trained recruits will go to the most progressive authorities. We welcome those authorities in the field of education, but it is desirable, in the interests of education itself, that these teachers should find their way also to those areas which have been neglected in other days.

I am aware that the Minister has stopped recruiting for the emergency training scheme. He has said that he now has enough recruits, with the exception of those people who are still serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown. Is the Minister satisfied that he has enough women as well as men? I cannot quite understand the complacency with which it is said that we now have enough men to keep the old proportions. I want to see far more men in the teaching profession in order to maintain that balance which is very necessary in the schools of this country. That balance is possible if the Minister ensures, through this emergency training scheme, that no young people who prove that they have the ability, and feel they have the call, are denied their opportunity.

It will be to the everlasting credit of the late Minister of Education, Miss Ellen Wilkinson, that early in her administration she sent out to every education authority in this country an instruction that no child should be forbidden his chance of being trained as a teacher simply because he came from a poor home. I am the son of a miner, and I know how hard, indeed how almost impossible, it has been for the child of a poor man to have a university education unless he has obtained one of the few scholarships which have been available. It is one of the measures of which this Government have every right to be proud that it is now possible for the child of a working man, be he a farm labourer, a road sweeper or a miner, or serving the community in any other constructive way, to have an education according to his ability.

When the Education Act, 1944, was being considered in this House, the phrase "education suited to age, aptitude and ability" was much used, and I fear that there were many cynics in the teaching profession as well as outside it at that time; but it is becoming increasingly evident that it is possible for us, with a Minister of Education who shows vision, and with local authorities who reveal the necessary drive, so to change our education service that the school is suited to the child and not the child moulded to suit the school.

One other aspect to which I wish to refer is the extraordinary position in the infants' schools of this country at the present time. There, we have an outstanding example of the teaching profession having kept itself abreast of modern development, for in the infants' schools we have a body of professional workers who are aware that their job is creative. They are developing the talent of the very young, and in so doing they have to give up more of their evening time than many of their colleagues who teach the older children. Those people in the infants' schools are faced with the added difficulty that their classes are at present larger than the average classes in the other types of school. When I was a schoolmaster, I always said to myself that I would give this advice to hon. Members in this House, that the job in this world to be avoided, I was going to say, but I do not want to hinder the recruitment of teachers for infants' schools, was, for me, the infants' school. The demand on the patience and the nervous energy as well as on the talent of the teacher in the infants' school cannot easily be appreciated by those outside the teaching profession. The Minister must direct his attention to a greater recruitment for the infants' schools. If this be done, then his hopes of giving the 1944 Act real life will become a possibility, but otherwise his work will be bound to fail.

I would remind the House that the success of the 1944 Education Act, depends more upon the teacher, who is in direct contact with the children, than it possibly can either upon the local administrators or even the Ministry itself, but the teachers must be made to feel that they are not merely being given the baby to carry. Many added duties have been showered upon them during past years. In many schools they start at nine in the morning, and they have no break at all from the children until the very end of the day. I believe that the mid day meal, welcome as it is as a social amenity and a social advantage, must be watched very carefully by local administrators. We can produce a tired teaching profession unless we are very careful. In my opinion—and perhaps in this House it is only my opinion—they ought not to have saddled upon them the duty of supervising at the mid-day meal. I believe that to be the job of trained supervisors and welfare workers. My right hon. Friend, at various conferences, has heard me saying things much along the same lines.

My hon. Friend has heard me on similar occasions.

I have, to my sorrow, heard my right hon. Friend express a different opinion. I trust that with the passing of the years he is becoming more mellow upon this subject. I can look to him as one who is always prepared to learn and who has an open mind on this point. If the teachers are to become supervisors in canteens as well as instructors in the art of education, we are going to produce a tired profession. In a democracy it is dangerous to have a tired teaching profession. In the afternoon session we will have an irritated pro- fession, with the consequent difficulties between child and teacher. I trust that the observations I have been able to bring before the Home Secretary, whose interest in education is unabated, although he has turned his energies in other directions, will result in his being able to tell us that the teachers shall be given every encouragement at this time when so much strain is placed upon them.

I am very glad that we are favoured with the presence of the Home Secretary, because the subject to which I wish to refer briefly is one which indirectly at any rate and perhaps to some extent directly should receive his attention. I hope that I will be as pithy and concise in my remarks as the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) in the hope that hon. Members opposite will listen with rapt attention.

Where are they?

They must have heard the grievances which are being voiced by a great number of people in London in particular about inflated rents for furnished and unfurnished flats. London is different from most other cities because the cost of living in the metropolis is very much higher. That is particularly so in the West End where land is dear and where an opportunity for charging prices for property, totally out of proportion to its worth, exists. Great advantage is taken of that. Time and again we have a situation where perhaps three or four-roomed flats become vacant and the incoming tenant is asked to pay not only a high rent but, in many cases a considerable sum of money for the furniture. I have a case in mind where £2,000 was coolly asked for a flat situated within a mile of the West End of London, where the furniture in its intrinsic value would not be worth more than £200 or £300 at the outside. People do this kind of thing and yet the Government have been unable—perhaps they can explain the reason—to deal in an effective manner with this ramp which is growing greater every day.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you had the time, leisure and inclination to come with me, within a mile of where we are now, I could show you vast erstwhile tenements which have been in Government occupation and which are now vacated but not actually let, or not actually submitted to the public because of the period which seems to elapse between the occupancy of these buildings and the time when they are derequisitioned. I have never been able to understand that. Many people in London desperately require homes. I am considering this purely from a nonparty point of view. The Government should pay closer attention to this matter. We are facing a housing shortage. The Government are not responsible for the circumstances which make it impracticable to get the requisite timber to build the houses. It is estimated that the population of Greater London is approaching the enormous total of something like 10,500,000 and many people require premises not merely for habitation but for business.

Yet we have a number of property owners and estate agents operating in London whose activities, to put it mildly, are open to grave and serious question. They are the people who have procured some of the choicest property at prices far below their value. Sometimes they were purchased during the blitz when prices were low.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be proposing something which would require legislation. If that is so, it would not be permissible on an Adjournment Motion.

I am very grateful indeed for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Humble Members like myself learn quite a lot from your kindly guidance.

May I take it that, as the hon. Member has learned, he will not pursue his argument?

Heaven forfend that I should endeavour, by devious methods, to transgress in a way which you would naturally resent. I wanted to point out that what I was saying, with very great respect, does not necessarily need legislation. I certainly did not speak with that in mind. It might be very good, if, for example, the Government gave a very strong stricture against this kind of activity without having the question of legislation in mind. I am sorry if my remarks appear to be confused or in any way appear to cause you serious perturbation of mind as to whether I was transgressing. I can assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I have not got legislation in mind. I merely wanted public opinion in general, and the Government in particular, to express views upon what they feel, to use a phrase which in some cases I feel is justified, is a "racket" in commandeering property and using it for the advantage of certain types of property owners who shall be nameless.

If my somewhat disjointed remarks have served no better purpose than at least to cause people to inquire more closely into this thing, they will not have been without avail. In Liverpool, one of our most important cities, where I had the privilege of serving for 18 years on the city council, being unopposed on every occasion, the corporation were able to build flats of three and four rooms which, before the war they let off at rentals from 6s. to about 10s. per week, and they made a profit. On the other hand, one finds erected in London, purporting to be called flats, ramshackle dilapidated buildings for which an incoming tenant is asked to Pay £5 or £6 per week. Surely that is in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

If the hon. Member thinks it is in Order, why should he be so anxious?

Perhaps my sight is at fault, but I thought you gave an inadvertent twitch, and in my zeal and anxiety to co-operate with the Chair, I interpreted it as the preliminary physiological movement to calling me to Order. If I am wrong, I am sorry.

No, the hon. Member is not wrong.

Then in that case, I have the wisdom to anticipate what might have been a mild admonishment from your lips, and that is why I made the remark. All I can say, in conclusion, is that it is time attention was called to this matter. I hope that on a subsequent occasion the House will be able to deal with the specific complaints which I and other hon. Members would be prepared to present in order to deal with what is a very serious matter, a growing evil resented by a great many people, particularly in the metropolis.

In the Debate on the Gracious Speech, I raised a question which I said might cause a lot of controversy, but I found that, far from causing controversy, I received encouragement from every side of the House on the very important point which I raised. It was the question of Imperial integration. I tried to show, in my speech at that time, how our population was far too great for these islands, and the density of population far greater than that of almost any other country in Europe. I said that our population was rising in these islands to 50 million. It was 46,200,000 in 1938, and it has been heavily increasing since then. We have also been drawing inhabitants into the country to help us out with our industries, and our intention at present seems to be that we have to bring these people into this country in order to help us to export our manufactures so as to import the food which we need. Yet these people whom we are now bringing in are eating a large part of the food that we are importing. In fact, the margin between the export of the manufactured goods and the imports of the food which these people consume is not going to leave us a very big benefit, and probably we shall find that, as time goes on and the export market is drying up, we may be sorry that we are bringing so many people into these islands to increase the already crowded condition in which we live at present.

When Britain was at its most prosperous peak, between 1890 and 1900, we had between 40,000,000 and 42,000,000 inhabitants, and those figures include Southern Ireland as well. At present, we have a population rising to 50,000,000. In that prosperity which we enjoyed between 1890 and 1900, we were the supreme masters of the world. We had practically the whole of the China trade, a large part of the trade in India, because India had not undergone the great industrialisation which has happened since, and the large part of which has been caused by the shortages of commodities during two wars; we had the whole of the South Seas trade, we had a terrific trade with European countries which were then not industrialised as they are now. Eighty per cent. of the ocean-going mercantile marine of the world was ours, either sailing under our flag or under another flag, but still ours; and 85 per cent. of the marine insurance business of the world was done in this country. We became so prosperous that our money and investments went out all over the world and produced an income that allowed us to buy food which otherwise we should not have had.

May I ask my hon. Friend a question? He is trying to make a case now that the years 1890 to 1900 were, in fact, our most prosperous years. Can he give any statistics on the amount of food grown in this country in relation to the current year and the amount of food imported into this country in relation to the current year, and can he say if there was less food coming into the country in those ten years pro rata to the population? Would he not agree that most of the people were worse off, in spite of that prosperity?

I am not arguing whether we are better or worse off in regard to;he masses of the people and their nutrition. If my hon. and gallant Friend will wait for me to develop my argument, I will supply him with the statistics which he himself could have got, if he had wanted them, from the Library. In all that prosperity that we enjoyed between 1890 and 1900–and I am not saying that the working classes enjoyed that prosperity, but only that that degree of prosperity was enjoyed by the country as a whole—with all that prosperity, when we were the undoubted masters of the world, we could not support more than 40,000,000 inhabitants. How do we, then, ever hope to be able to support 50,000,000 at the present time? It is impossible to do it, and the proof of that is that, as we went on towards 1908 and 1910, unemployment began to develop on account of other nations becoming industrialised—consider the rise of Germany—and we were not able to support that amount of population consequent on the increase between 1900 and 1910.

What I suggested in my speech on the earlier occasion was that we should study very carefully what would be the results to us and to the other nations of the Commonwealth if we developed a system of Imperial integration, and I pointed out to the House at that time that the only reliable, sure and certain markets on which we could depend at present were those markets which had grown up and had been developed through the emigration that went out from this country between 1900 and 1914, when it was at the rate of 250,000 a year. Since I last spoke, it has been pointed out to me that there are also other markets. I know there are, but I definitely said, "certain markets." One of our better markets at the present moment, in Europe, though one which I would not consider quite certain, is Sweden. I have been in Sweden recently, and I was having lunch with an important industrialist—

Why?

To satisfy my hunger.

With knowledge or food?

He asked me "What would Britain do if Russia moved into Sweden?" I told him "In all probability, exactly what Sweden did when Germany went into Norway." He replied "Would it not be dangerous for Britain to have Russia in Narvik?" I answered "Was it not dangerous to allow the Germans to go through Sweden to attack Norway in the rear?" He then said that, in two World wars, his country had become rich and prosperous, and was now like a big fat worm waiting to be gobbled up. That is the state of the foreign markets throughout Europe. None of them could be called certain or reliable. The only ones upon which we can look with any certainty as being reliable are those which were, very largely, built up throughout the Dominions and the Empire generally, by emigration from this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like Canada."] My hon. Friend says, "Like Canada." Canada is a great market, and in the matter of importing and exporting, it is one of our best markets. I would like to see a continuation of emigration from this country into the Commonwealth and Empire so that the population of the British Isles can be brought down to about 35 million. We could feed that number, and the people who emigrated would be building up reliable and certain markets for our exports.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member's speech, but he seems to be in grave danger of repetition.

I admit that I am in a little danger of repeating something which I said in the Debate on the Gracious Speech, but I want to emphasise the fact that, by bringing down our population to about 35 million, we shall not only be able to feed ourselves from our own products, but we shall be building up sure and certain markets in the Commonwealth to our own and everybody's benefit.

I have listened to my three hon. Friends who have spoken since the close of the Debate on the Fish Order, which was originated by the hon. and learned Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman), and I will see that the red herrings which have since been introduced are brought to the immediate notice of the appropriate Ministers. I will undertake that the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) shall be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, and that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ncwcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) shall be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. In dealing with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick), I should be helped if he would give me a list of the Ministers whose activities were not brought to my attention, because it will enable me to send a general note to all the others.

At an earlier stage in our proceedings today, the question of the Business for next Friday was discussed, and certain suggestions were made with regard to information that it might be possible for me to afford to the House in anticipation of that Debate. I have given further attention to the matter, and I think that some hon. Gentlemen are confusing Defence Regulations and Statutory Rules and Orders which were made under Defence Regulations. As far as I know, no one now has the power to make a Defence Regulation, but certain of them were continued in being by the Act of 1946. The Bill which we shall be discussing next Friday proposes to revoke some of those, and to continue, or to modify in some respects, certain others.

The only change which has taken place since the bound volume, the current volume—which I have arranged to have made available—is that certain orders have been revoked. I propose to have a list of those orders which have been revoked prepared, cyclostyled, and placed in the Vote Office for the information of hon. Members on Monday morning. It may, however, be to the convenience of hon. Members who desire to study this matter during the weekend if I now state the orders, so that they can appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and so that, when hon. Members get their copy of today's proceedings, they will be able to glance at the record and compare their volume with it. There are very few of them.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the revocation of certain orders which had taken place. Did he mean orders or regulations?

I meant regulations. I am sorry to have fallen into exactly the same error. Regulation 1, which deals with false fire alarms, was revoked by Section 31 of the Fire Services Act, 1947. The Defence (Administration of Justice) (Scotland) Regulations, 1940, has been revoked. Regulations 19 and 20 of the Defence (Agriculture and Fisheries) Regulations, 1939, have been revoked. The Defence (Amalgamation of Police Forces) Regulations, 1942, has been revoked. Regulation 4 of the Defence (Parliamentary Under Secretaries) Regulations, 1940, has been revoked, and so has Regulation 2 of those Regulations, so far as it provides for an additional Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.

Paragraphs (1B) and (3) of Regulation 13 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, have been revoked, and Regulation 2 of the Defence (Functions of Ministers) Regulations, 1941, has been-revoked. Inadvertently, it appears to have got into the Bill to be continued. As it has already been revoked, there is no power of resurrection, and an appropriate Amendment to remove this literary blot on the Bill will be placed on the Order Paper at the right stage. I hope this statement will be for the general convenience of hon. Members who may desire to study this matter during the weekend.

I feel quite sure that the House will greatly appreciate the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. If I may say so, I think that it justifies the anxiety which was expressed from this side of the House, both this morning and earlier in the week, with regard to the arrangements for the consideration of the Measure to be taken next Friday. Even so, I do not think that the situation, even now, is quite satisfactory, because the anxiety which we were expressing was, very largely, based upon the insufficiency of the supply of copies of the existing regulations which are to be continued, and the difficulty which we were experiencing was how Members were to avail themselves of the exceedingly few copies which now appear to be in existence in order to study the matters which are coming under consideration.

Perhaps the hon. Member did not hear the statement which I made earlier today with regard to the arrangements that have been made. Thirty-one copies were placed in the Vote Office yesterday before one o'clock, 100 were brought here before noon, and I hope to make others available early next week.

I very much appreciate that, and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not having been able to be present this morning in order to hear his previous statement. I feel that what he has just reminded me of still further justifies our appreciation of the line he has taken, and of the merit of the questions which were raised the other day. I hope that it will be borne in upon the Government how dangerous it is to bring before Parliament, at such comparatively short notice, a Measure dealing with complicated matters without making adequate provision and taking adequate forethought so that we can consider it with due care and attention.

The Home Secretary has taken a great deal of trouble to be helpful in this matter. I wish to put to him one further difficulty which arises, and that is that as soon as the last printed volume of Defence Regulations was published in February, 1946, a good many of the regulations were amended by subsequent Statutes, and in particular by the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, which the House passed at the end of the last Session. As the volume stands, it is a little misleading, unless the Amendments are incorporated. I appreciate that there are certain technical difficulties in incorporating the amendments, and although I do not suggest that the Home Secretary can take action now, I thought I would take this opportunity to put the point to him so that he and his advisers may consider it.

The volume contains, of course, two sets of regulations—those continued by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, and those preserved by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Acts. We shall be discussing next Friday those coming under the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill. I do not think that for the purposes of next week's Debate, the others will be very much in the picture. As soon as the House reaches a decision on the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill, a new volume will be prepared—I am assuming that the Bill next Friday becomes an Act—which will contain those regulations which have been continued, and all the regulations under the Supplies and Services Acts in the form in which they will be extant at the time of the publication of the volume. I hope that in that way hon. Members and the public generally will have available to them a complete statement of these regulations. I hope also to profit by the experience of the last few days, and to make certain that in future there shall be available, not merely for the House but for the general public, a reasonable supply of these important volumes for the benefit of those who have reason to take an interest in them.