With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following statement. I have now been able to examine, with my colleagues, the possibilities of marking the Centenary of the Great Exhibition of 1851 by some national display in addition to the British Industries Fair. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as President of the Board of Trade, said on 28th March that in spite of the difficulties then foreseen methods could undoubtedly be found involving relatively little new construction work outside the programme already in course of planning, and that he was examining whether some progress towards the building of a permanent centre for the British Industries Fair could not be achieved in time for the Centenary.

It is now clear that under the revised investment programme no new construction work, for such purposes, can be undertaken for 1951. Nevertheless, the Government feel that it would not be right on this account to abandon the celebration of the Centenary, and we, therefore, propose to mark it by a national display illustrating the British contribution to civilisation, past, present and future, in the Arts, in science and technology, and in industrial design. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is, therefore, inviting the Arts Council of Great Britain to make arrangements, in association with other bodies concerned, for a Festival of the Arts in 1951. The Festival would not be confined to London, and provision will be made to link up with it existing ventures in Edinburgh and elsewhere, and to encourage new ones. Wales, for example, must play its part. The Festival will include events in music and drama, opera and ballet, together with exhibitions of painting, sculpture and photography.

Separate consideration will be given in due course to arrangements covering architecture and town planning in its design aspects; books, and the showing of notable British films, including documentaries. Besides the Festival, there will be two major national exhibitions. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, is inviting the. Council of Industrial Design to sponsor a first-rate design display which will include consumer goods, civil transport, certain classes of capital goods and some handicraft production, and some displays showing the historical development of some industries.

I am arranging for an Exhibition of British achievements in science and technology to be organised by the Central Office of Information on behalf of the Research Councils and other scientific bodies. Both the Festival and the Exhibitions will be held in existing buildings. Provision will be made for co-ordination between these projects. They will cover, at a national level, the field of the 1851 Exhibition and will, I believe, mark its Centenary as worthily as our resources will allow.

This statement is of some importance and one which will be welcomed. It is a good proposal that the Great Exhibition of 1851 should be commemorated, and I feel it all the more so, since I happen to be one of those, who, by an accident of office is a Commissioner of the Exhibition. It was, incidentally, with some surprise that I found a permanent body still existing from the Exhibition of 1851. This body has carried on many useful purposes in the century which has intervened. In the list of objects which the Lord President has just intimated as those which he desires to commemorate, I trust it will also be possible to include some of the purposes which the Commissioners have carried out in the intervening century, particularly their work in cultural advances overseas. As the Lord President knows, the British school at Rome, and, I think, a notable amount of activity in Greek archaeology have been under the sponsorship of the Trustees. It is well worth remembering that the Exhibition, which was of great interest to the people of this country, has led to activities outside this country of an international aspect. We should also keep this in mind when we are considering how best to commemorate it.

We shall look with great interest at the proposals for the Festival and particularly the passage in the Lord President's statement that provision will be made to link with the festivals in existing forms in Edinburgh and elsewhere and to encourage new ones. We trust that those who successfully promoted the rather remarkable Festival in Edinburgh last year will be given a full opportunity to co-operate, and perhaps to suggest either new ideas or elaborations of the existing ideas which the Lord President has just mentioned. In general, I think it is a worthy object, and one which will be given a welcome from all parts of the House.

I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the friendly observations he has made. It will be of the utmost importance that there should be co-operation, and he can be sure I will take into consideration the suggestions he has made, including the point about Edinburgh. We shall welcome suggestions from all quarters which will be given understanding consideration.

I am sure we all welcome the statement made by the Lord President. It is going to afford a splendid opportunity to show what Britain possesses and what Britain has done in the field of art, science and industry. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would consider the Victoria and Albert Museum as a suitable centre for the main part of the London exhibition. The Victoria and Albert Museum would be peculiarly appropriate because, it will be remembered, it was built out of the profits of the 1851 exhibition. When it is fully restored from war damage it will contain one of the finest exhibitions of decorative and applied art in the world. There will also be plenty of room to house a loan exhibition of fine paintings.

I welcome what the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said about international art, but I would remind the House that in this country we have, often in private collections, some of the finest works of art, both painting and sculpture —international work as well as British—that have ever been created. It would be possible to house those conveniently in the Victoria and Albert Museum effectively and to display them there. I am also delighted that the plan includes all kinds of artistic events, among them ballet, music and drama, which the Arts Council has done so much work in fostering all ever Britain, and also that the Arts Council is being asked, with other organisations, to make the arrangements for the exhibitions and celebrations. I very much welcome the whole plan as conceived and laid down by the Lord President.

In the circumstances, bearing in mind its name, the Victoria and Albert Museum must necessarily be taken into consideration, in view of the fact that her late Majesty and the Prince Consort were so actively associated with the exhibition of 1851. The hon. Lady can be sure that the Victoria and Albert Museum will be prominently featured. I will keep that in mind, together with all the other useful suggestions.

This is a somewhat pleasant but irregular proceeding. There is no Question before the House. Mr. Charles Williams.

May I add one suggestion? I feel sure that we shall welcome the proposal which has been made, but I was not sure if there was to be included an exhibition of British art and an attempt made, which I am sure would be successful, to gather together some of the privately owned pictures. I would like to emphasise what the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) has said. I hope that on an occasion such as this every effort will be made to see that the finest objects of British art are gathered together and shown to the public of this country and to the world as well.

The hon. Gentleman can be quite sure that that matter will be sympathetically considered.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say where it is intended to have the permanent home of the British Industries Fair? He said something about it being housed in existing buildings.

We have a number of existing buildings in mind but they have not yet been inspected. As soon as it has been decided an announcement will be made.

May I ask the Lord President whether it has been decided what portion of these events are to be held in the vicinity of Birmingham, having regard to the existing buildings at Castle Bromwich?

I am most anxious that this shall not be a wholly London affair. I am very wishful that Scotland, Wales and the English provinces shall be active participants, and we shall consider the importance of Birmingham in the Midland area.

Has the issue of a memorial postage stamp been considered, not only for the benefit of stamp collectors all over the world, but as a means of advertising?

That has not been thought about, but it is well worth considering and I will see that the matter is gone into.

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

It was over a year ago—in November, 1946—that I presented a similar Measure to the House. That Act had two main provisions. First, it empowered the National Debt Commissioners to make advances to the Public Works Loans Board for local loans up to a maximum of £250 million. The advances so far made amount to £220 million. The House will see that there is only about £30 million left. This being so, the powers conferred on the National Debt Commissioners by the present Act will be exhausted so far as we can judge early in January.

The second thing done by the last Act was that it empowered the Board to incur commitments to lend up to a maximum of £500 million. That was an overall sum. It had to include the £250 million which they were empowered to advance. So far, the commitments to lend, plus the advances actually made by the National Debt Commissioners through the Board, amount to £445 million. The actual balance left is approximately £55 million. Therefore, it is necessary that the Board should receive further lending powers without delay. The present Act has been in force for just over 13 months. When we asked for the powers which were conferred when it was introduced we intimated that the amounts then agreed to might last for over a year. In fact, they have lasted for 13 months and, with the balance still in hand, they may last for another month.

The new Bill is very short. It is simple and contains only four Clauses. The first Clause authorises the £250 million, to which I have referred, as a maximum sum which may be advanced by the National Debt Commissioners to the Public Works Loan Board for local loans until the next Measure is passed. Clause 2 authorises the Public Works Loan Board to incur commitments to lend up to £400 million in all. Until the act is superseded they can actually advance the £250 million to which I have referred and promise to advance a further £150 million, making a total of £400 million. Clause 3 authorises the writing off from the assets of the Local Loans Fund of the outstanding principal of certain loans made in the past under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923. The details of this are given in the Schedule and also in the Financial Memorandum. Although these loans are written off from the Fund, it does not necessarily mean that they will be a total loss. Though the Fund will no longer have any interest in attempting to recover them, the Exchequer will take over that work and do what it can to do so. Clause 4 remits certain arrears of interest which are now completely irrecoverable. The reason why the interest must be mentioned separately from the principal is that arrears of interest have never been entered or looked upon as part of the assets of the Local Loans Fund.

I may be asked how this Bill, with powers to make loans and to enter into commitments up to £400 million, squares with the announcement of the Government that they intend to cut expenditure on capital investment. No doubt it has been noticed that we are asking for powers to make advances up to £250 million, the same amount as was asked for last year when the present Act was passed. There is to be a Debate on the White Paper which has been issued setting out the policy of the Government in relation to capital investment. I am sure that the House has no desire to anticipate that Debate or to discuss that side of the matter now.

Perhaps I should remind the House that the last Act asked for £500 million as an overall sum. The total we ask for here, which will include both advance and commitments, is only £400 million. When this Bill has been passed—as was the case with its predecessor—all commitments entered into by the Public Works Loan Board under the powers conferred upon them under the previous Act, will be carried forward. They will form part of the commitments under the present Bill. The majority of the commitments already entered into are for housing and ancillary projects. As those who have read the White Paper will remember, such projects are scheduled to be completed.

The commitments and advances tinder the present Act amount to £445 million.

Of these, actual advances have amounted to £220 million. Therefore, the commitments which will be carried forward under this Bill amount to £225 million. Those amounts, as and when they can be advanced, will be taken from the £400 million which we are asking the House to sanction under the present Measure. Although we appear to be asking for powers to permit advances up to £400 million we are only granting power to the Public Works Loan Board to advance and commit themselves to a further £200 million, if we take into account the present commitments which will be carried forward. That is a great decrease compared with last year, when we asked for power to enter into commitments up to £;500 million. The carry-forward last year was only £130 million, so that the new advances and commitments then gave the Public Works Loan Commissioners power to go to a total amount of £370 million, as compared with the £200 million I have just mentioned.

It is hoped that the amounts under this Bill will enable the Commissioners to go forward for an appreciable time, but it is impossible for us to say how long it will be before we have to come back to the House for a renewed authorisation. We hope that this Bill will run, if possible, for as long as its predecessor, but I would not like to commit the Government to a definite forecast. Hon. Members will see that we are not asking for nearly as much as we asked for last year and that the reason why we want the money is that the Loan Commissioners are fast running short of funds. For these reasons, I hope that the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.

We on this side of the House are not satisfied with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. It is true that we have the important Paper on Capital Investment in 1948, and it is true that it is to be debated, but I should have thought that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would have taken every opportunity of enlightening the House on at least some of the issues contained in that White Paper. It will not be possible, without repeated Debates in this House, for hon. Members and the country to grasp the implications of that formidable document, and the repercussions it may have on the life of this country.

As I understand, the Financial Secretary said that he was asking for a sum considerably less than the Government asked for last year, that the last Act asked for £500 million, whereas this Measure will empower the expenditure of £400 million, of which commitments amount to some £200 million, allowing only some £200 million of fresh money. I appreciate the difficulties of the Financial Secretary under conditions such as this. I myself, when Financial Secretary, had to introduce the Public Works Loans Bill following the financial crisis of 1931. On that occasion a good many questions were asked about the shrinkage which was to take place, and to what extent the Government measures were adequate to deal with it.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that a considerable proportion of the commitments made were in respect of housing, and that the housing programme would continue until the run-off began to show. The period of the commencement of this run-off, and the effect it will have upon our circumstances, is of vital importance not merely to individuals in this country but to the local authorities and to the great building trade—the trade with a million people—which is looking anxiously to see how this run-off will develop and what preparations they will have to make to transfer a considerable quantity of their labour to other fields of activity. If the runoff which is predicted takes place in the second part of next year, a considerable diminution in what one might call the carcass construction of houses is almost bound to take place if efforts are to be concentrated on finishing the houses. As I understand it, a considerable restriction is being made upon the proposals to commence construction, so that again an imbalance will take place during that period. Every effort was first directed to finishing the hulls of houses and those whose work lay in the later stages were relatively in difficulties. Now, as the hump passes, the carcass builders will be out of work—though not necessarily out of employment, if they are transferred to other employment—and great pressure will fall upon those trades engaged in finishing the hulls already constructed.

It is quite true that these are general considerations which will be reviewed in the Debate, but they will require more than one Debate before they are fully appreciated. This Bill involving £400 million has an appendix showing the unfortunate circumstances which overtook a farmer of Nettlehill Farm, Uphall, Westlothian, Mr. Thomas Cook of Saltaugh Grange Farm in the County of York, Mr. Ernest William Nickerson and Mr. Charles Alfred Peck of the Glebe and Rectory Farms, Thoresway, in the County of Lincoln, and of Mr. Thomas Ford Robinson of Nuthill, Wranglands, and Weghill Farms, Burstwick and Preston, Hull, in the East Riding of the County of York——

One other—another Scotsman.

Yes, but that is a case of arrears of interest—which, as the Financial Secretary properly said, does not fall into exactly the same category—on sums borrowed by Mr. Alexander Fowlie and Mrs. Mary Ann Fowlie, tenants of the farm of Mid Culsh, New Deer, Aberdeenshire. I think the Financial Secretary will agree that this is a striking example of the way in which our financial affairs sometimes, like the trunk of the elephant, are used to uproot an oak tree and sometimes to pick up a pin, because these are small transactions in comparison with the gigantic sums, and still more gigantic issues, affected by the White Paper.

It is impossible for us to carry the matter further just now when the whole financial policy of the Government is obviously undergoing a great recasting. The terms of this Bill foreshadow that to some extent, and the White Paper describes it in somewhat greater detail. However, a great recasting of financial policy should not be confined merely to one or two occasions in the House of Commons. Every possible opportunity should be taken of explaining the crisis in which the country finds itself, and the measures which the Government intend to take to deal with that crisis. Otherwise, sudden measures of great stringency fall upon an unprepared public and give rise to disappointment, if not panic. The Financial Secretary has lost an opportunity this afternoon, but I hope it may even yet be possible for him to add a little to the rather circumscribed statement he vouchsafed to the House at the beginning of this Debate.

I rise to support my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) in his comments on this Bill. As he said, it is indeed a curious fact in this Bill, that small items in the Financial Memorandum covering only some £16,000 or £17,000 of debts, are dealt with in great detail, and yet the Financial Secretary was unable to offer any information as to how the big figures included in the main part of the Bill are broken up. I shall not deal with the small debts at the beginning of the Bill except to point out that, somehow or other, two Scotsmen got away with it, two Yorkshiremen and one farmer from Lincolnshire, and that apparently none of the honest people South and West of the Thames have done otherwise than pay up all their debts. I am not astonished that my right hon. and gallant Friend omitted Aberdeen, because I always though they were never in debt up there.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not asking for quite so much this year as last year because of the financial cuts under the White Paper. He then used a phrase which has now become common form on the Treasury Bench, that we are some time, somewhere to have a Debate on this matter in the immediate future, and that, therefore, he could not say anything today. In other words, he has abdicated from his position as Financial Secretary to the Treasury in asking this House to grant loans. After all, we are the House of Commons; he is asking us for this money, and is not really telling us much except to say that some time in the future we may have some information if we are clever enough to get it out of Ministers.

I do not want to be unkind to the right hon. Gentleman, but he has had some days in which to prepare for the Second Reading of this Bill. He has terrific sources of information behind him and surely he could have been told how much is represented by the cuts. In all probability that must be something in proportion to the total bill. I should like to know how much of this reduction—I will leave out the cuts because they may come on later—is due to the fact that during the last period which the Bill covers, no more money will be needed for temporary housing. I think I am right in suggesting that on that account there should be a very considerable saving in the amount of these local loans.

Again, we are asking where we are on this matter. This is a very large amount of money for the purposes of loans. Is any of this money which is being granted in this way going to the nationalised coal industry? I do not know; some of it may go there and some of it may not, but we have never been told. The right hon. Gentleman never told us of the details for which he wants this money. Again, as far as this money being used in any way is concerned, it might easily go—though I do not say I am technically correct, for I do not pretend to be—for use in the expenditure of £1,000 million for the nationalised railways. On the other hand, we may be asked for another loan for that on another occasion.

The usual practice of the Treasury, when they are bringing forward a Bill of this kind for such a considerable amount of money and when relating it to other loans not necessarily of the same type but not too dissimilar, is that they gave a greater explanation than we have had this morning in this matter. It may very well be that the right hon. Gentleman was not supplied with the answers to the points put by my right hon. and gallant Friend and myself, but there are other occasions on which this Bill will come before the House and I ask the Financial Secretary, with very great respect, to provide this information, remembering that the people of this country are continually being appealed to—now by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and formerly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton)—to loan money to the Government. It is very rarely that in this House we get a chance of probing how that money is used. This is an occasion where, I imagine, the money loaned to the Government is bound to come into the picture to some extent.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in future, in dealing with such matters as these, not to allow himself to be pushed into the background, but rather to tell those connected with the Treasury that the proud record of his office in the past compels him to tell the House and the country as a whole what is being done, what the money is wanted for and why it is wanted. In my last few words I would only say that I am glad at any rate that the position is not quite so bad as it was 12 months ago.

I can speak again only by leave of the House. If I might briefly reply to the points that have been made, the first point I would make is that this is only an enabling Bill, and therefore, it is quite obviously impossible for me to say how this money is to be split up, which was, I think, the phrase used by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). It is an enabling Bill for the future, to empower the Public Works Loan Board to make advances by way of local loans. These local loans will go almost entirely to local authorities, who must, as the House will remember, come to the Treasury under the Act of 1945. They cannot make an issue or seek an advance on the Stock Exchange or in any other way, as they were able to do in the past.

This money is required to meet any commitments or advances which the Public Works Loans Board may desire to make from local loans funds. The Treasury and the Board act in conjunction with the Departments concerned. Normally, it would be the Ministry of Health, and it certainly is the Ministry of Health where housing and ancillary projects in England are in question. It is, therefore, quite impossible for me to give the hon. Member for Torquay any indication of how the figures will be broken up, as the money has not yet been advanced. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) called attention to the lists at the beginning of the Bill, and I understood him to draw some sort of analogy from the fact that there was a difference betwen the sums there and the possible changes that the White Paper will make when the cuts envisaged in capital expenditure are implemented.

I must not give a wrong impression to the right hon. Gentleman. I merely indicated that they were admittedly small sums, and that in comparison with the general sums mentioned both in the body of the Bill and in the White Paper, we could perhaps have dispensed with the Clause by Clause analysis of the Bill which the Financial Secretary gave in favour of a much more general statement.

As I indicated, it was not for me to make a general statement on the Government's policy on capital investment, or on any changes which the Government contemplate in that direction. It would, in my view, have been clearly inappropriate and most certainly out of Order when, within a week or so, we are to have a full-dress Debate on the White Paper as such. A further reason why it would be inappropriate and wrong on my part to deal with capital expenditure is that today we are dealing with the very narrow issue of whether the House will or will not grant the Government the power to lend through the Public Works Loan Board certain sums, to local authorities in the main, for certain purposes.

There are signs that the local authorities in the future will not want so much money. Their future capital expenditure will presumably be reduced by the Government's policy on capital investment, hut, it would have been wrong of me to deal with this in its wider aspects, when I am only asking the House to pass this short, simple Measure with one single aim.

I do not wish to keep on interrupting the right hon. Gentleman but to say a loan of £400 million is a narrow issue is in these days a little of an under-statement.

The issue is a narrow one, but the amount involved is large. Let me repeat, this is only an enabling Measure. We are not asking the House to lend this money to unspecified local authorities. We are asking the House to give us, through the National Debt Commissioners and the Public Works Loan Board, power to make advances and enter into commitments for sums which, in the aggregate, will not amount to more than £400 million between the time this Bill is passed and another one projected and agreed. I did not follow what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the losses, which are listed in the Financial Memorandum in some detail. I would point out to him, however, that these losses are agricultural losses. They have been incurred under the Act of 1923, and, if he will look at the details, he will see they were almost entirely incurred under the Conservative Government in pre-war years.

I do not wish to keep on interrupting but if the right hon. Gentleman trails his coat he must expect to get it trodden on. In fact, the loss incurred in the first of these items is a specific loss which came to fruition in 1931, after two years of Socialist Government.

It may have come to fruition in 1931, but that particular Government was a minority government and was only in office two years. The whole loss was not incurred in that particular year, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will find, in the main, that these losses were incurred in the inter-war years, when we had a Conservative Government in office. I think what I have said covers the main points put by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The House can have no serious criticism to make of the Bill as it stands or the amounts contained therein. I hope, therefore, that we may now get the Second Reading.

After the rather provocative remark by the Financial Secretary on the previous Debate, we cannot let this Financial Resolution go. He intimated that the real reason why we are incurring this expendi- ture—and this is only a very narrow point indeed concerning Mary Ann Fowlie and Alexander Fowlie, who came from Aberdeen—has something to do with the Conservative Government of other years. He also used that rather stale excuse that everything that was done wrong at a certain time—in 1929 to 1931—was because the then Government had not an absolute majority. They had enough majority to put on the Closure on a great many occasions.

This is not a matter of policy. We could have raised it at considerable length on the Second Reading of the Bill. These debts are small debts, and no one blames the Government for them. But when the right hon. Gentleman tries to make out that we are to blame, it is completely unbecoming to his office. The right hon. Gentleman laughs. To make a provocative remark of that kind when we are trying in every way we can to get this Bill through fairly easily is unbecoming to his office. It would have been very awkward for the Government at this moment if we had divided on it. We have behaved very well, and all I would ask is that in future, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to get on with these things, not to provoke hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. It takes a lot to make me speak, and I only speak when I have something vital to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has, on this occasion, made use of reproaches which were unworthy.

So far as this small debt is concerned he has nothing to say about it, and I have nothing very much to say against it. Unless there is a Scotsman present who could give us real evidence of the character of these people, we might almost let this go. I would emphasise one thing. This is a comparatively small amount and the House of Commons is passing it, rightly, and giving a short time to it. It is a pity that the House of Commons does not give such careful consideration to the very much larger things with which it has to deal on some other occasions.

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

Hon. Members will be aware that the United Kingdom Government played a prominent part in the drafting of that part of the United Nations Charter which deals with trusteeship. There is no legal obligation under the Charter to place mandated or other territories under the trusteeship system. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government felt it desirable to give a lead towards bringing the trusteeship system into operation, and they did so by offering to place under that system our mandated territories in Africa, entrusted to us under the policy of international regime and which were not ready for either self-government or independence. The Government's policy regarding Tanganyika, Togoland and the Cameroons was announced in this House by the Prime Minister on 23rd January, 1946, and that policy was not challenged. The proposed terms of the trusteeship were laid before this House before being submitted to the United Nations for approval. Furthermore, the approved terms have since been laid before the House.

In regard to our Colonies and Protectorates, His Majesty's Government still adhere to the assurance given to this House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 23rd August, 1945. During the recently concluded Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, a resolution was tabled by another delegation urging us to place some or all of our Colonies and Protectorates under trusteeship. The United Kingdom delegation vigorously opposed this suggestion which in the end was not carried. The present Bill is quite consistent with the previous policy of the Government and, indeed, makes no difference to the status of any of our non self-governing territories. The object of this Bill is to provide for the application of Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation made thereunder to the situation now obtaining as a result of the termination of the League of Nations and the creation of trust territories under the United Nations. Certain mandates were set up by the League. Of these, ten are now administered as trust territories under the Charter of the United Nations. First of all, there is that part of Togoland which is under British administration, that part of the Cameroons which is under British administration, and Tanganyika. They are all administered under United Kingdom trusteeship. New Guinea is under Australian trusteeship; Western Samoa is under New Zealand trusteeship; French Togoland and the French Cameroons are under French trusteeship; and Ruanda-Urundi is under Belgian trusteeship.

The placing of these territories under trusteeship did not involve any change in the administering authority. That is to say, the country responsible for their administration to the League is the same now under the present system. There was, however, a change in the case of the former Japanese Mandates in the Pacific. These naturally are no longer under Japanese trusteeship, but they have been placed under the trusteeship of the United States. There has been a slight change in the case of Nauru Island. The Mandate for Nauru was conferred by the League of Nations on His Britannic Majesty. The administration was actually carried out by Australia with the consent of the Governments of the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The trusteeship agreement, as approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, nominates the Governments of Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand as the joint authority for the administration of Nauru. But there is also provision for the actual administration to be carried out by Australia unless otherwise agreed by the three Governments concerned. As to the other Mandates set up by the League, three have become four independent States; they are Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan. The only other two mandates which were established by the League were Palestine and South West Africa, and the Union Government have declared their intention to continue administering South West Africa in accordance with the Mandate.

The Charter of the United Nations provides for the administration of trust territories in one of three ways: first by a single member, secondly by two or more members jointly, and thirdly by the United Nations as a whole. Article 77 of the Charter, which is the relevant Article here, states that the territories which may be placed under trusteeship need not be limited to former mandates. It has been necessary to examine the effects of the changes I have mentioned on the laws of this country. Many Acts of Parliament apply or refer to mandated territories. Some refer to mandates exercised by His Majesty, without specifying which of his Governments, some to United Kingdom Mandates, some to Dominion Mandates and some to foreign Mandates. They are to be found in a number of Acts dealing with a variety of subjects; for instance, Colonial Development, Air Navigation, the Army Act, Customs, and so on. In many cases an Act passed for the United Kingdom contains a Clause authorising the extension of the Act by Order in Council to a territory under United Kingdom Mandate, in the same way as to a Colony. The purpose of the references in existing Acts is to place mandated territories in the same position as other dependencies of the country, whether that country be British or foreign, exercising the mandate.

With the end of the League the mandatory Powers voluntarily declared to the League their intention to continue for the time being administering mandated territories in accordance with the mandates until, of course, other arrangements had been made or agreed with the United Nations. There is, however, this difficulty. We are not certain in law that the references in our Statute Book continue to apply or are now applicable to a mandated territory not placed under trusteeship; for example, in the case of Palestine. It is even more doubtful whether these references continue to apply to a mandated territory when it has been placed under trusteeship. Those are our difficulties, and it is for this reason that we must amend our Statutes by this Bill.

The main purpose of the Bill can very shortly be summed up in these words. It is to provide that existing Statutes referring to mandated territories shall first apply to mandated territories which have now become trust territories, and secondly shall continue to apply to mandated territories which have not become trust territories. The Bill does not make any general change in the operation of the Acts, but it may affect the application of Acts of Parliament in certain circumstances; for example, when a territory becomes a trust territory and there is a change in the Government responsible for administering the territory. Of course, the Bill does not affect the law of any Dominion or of any trust or mandated territory under the administration of the Dominion Government. It only deals with the application of the United Kingdom Acts and subsidiary legislation thereunder.

Perhaps I may deal with the details of the Bill quite shortly, Clause 1 (1, a) places a trust territory administered by a single country in the same position, in so far as the effect of our Statutes is concerned, as if the country were administering it under mandate. This is a simple case, of course, and the rule applicable is quite obvious. This paragraph will apply to all the normal cases of the present trusteeship territories. Paragraph (b) is a little more complicated. This paragraph covers the case where a trust territory comes under the administration of more than one Government or of the United Nations itself. In these cases it is not thought that any general rule can be laid down, because for one thing, such a position is entirely novel. There is no mandated territory under the actual administration of more than one Government.

Subsection (2) of this Clause enables the adaptation of our Statutes where there is a change in the country responsible for administering a trust territory. There has been such a change in the case of the islands which were originally under Japanese Mandate. Subsection (3) provides that the termination of the League shall not affect references in Acts of Parliament to mandated territories. This provision, of course, will affect Palestine and South West Africa. Therefore, this Subsection, unlike the rest of the Bill, will apply in the interpretation of future as well as past Acts, since it may well be convenient to continue to refer to South West Africa or to Palestine for the time being as mandated territories. This Subsection also covers retrospectively the interim period between the termination of the League and the placing of the various trust territories under trusteeship. Hon. Members will recall that there was such a gap and such an agreement made between the various Powers which were operating the mandates. Subsection (4), besides limiting the effect of Subsections (1) and (2) to existing Acts, provides that the Bill shall operate to a limited extent on subordinate legislation in addition to its operation on the Statutes themselves. We shall thus avoid having to make amending regulations in every case where subordinate legislation is concerned. The remaining provisions of the Bill are clearly supplemental, and I hope and trust the House will now give this Bill its approval and a Second Reading.

I can say straight away that we on this side of the House regard this Bill as entirely non-controversial. I should say, in passing, that this is the second occasion today on which we have had the advantage of a Bill coming from another place which has, to some extent, been partly digested for us. I confess, I had the greatest difficulty in understanding this Bill, and I was relieved to see that their Lordships, who are far more learned than I could ever aspire to be, and who have already given consideration to this Measure also found it complicated.

My hon. and right hon. Friends appreciated the stand and attitude which the Colonial Secretary has taken in connection with Article 77. He made it quite clear at the United Nations organisation that it is permissible but in no way obligatory to place, first, mandated territories, secondly, territories detached from enemy states—such as the Italian Colonies—and, thirdly, territories which are so placed voluntarily by the states responsible for their administration, under the trusteeship of the United Nations. When certain Powers made an attempt to get us to put all our Colonies under that trusteeship the right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly—and I know with the full support of all political parties in the country, with the possible exception of one—stood against it. Inded, it would be very doubtful if, constitutionally, any Government could take those steps.

In the case of some of our Colonies, their relationship is direct with the Crown. For instance, during the Napoleonic Wars the people of Malta deliberately placed themselves under the protection of the Crown, which specifically undertook that if at any time it removed that protection, it should give the sovereign rights back to the people of that small island. There are no major points which I desire to make in connection with this Bill, but from what the Under-Secretary said I was not quite clear what the position of South-West Africa and Palestine would be technically under Subsection (3). I take it they are to continue nominally as mandates.

indicated assent.

I see I am right in assuming that.

Well, Palestine is, but South-West Africa is rather a special case. There the Union Government have said they will continue to administer it as if the mandate still applied.

I will certainly not press the question about South-West Africa. The Under-Secretary referred to the difficult case of Nauru. There, I take it, a de facto Australian administration will continue, which is satisfactory. The only other question to which I should like a specific answer is that I imagine we are correct in assuming that territories such as the Cameroons and Tanganyika, formerly mandated, can, under this legislation, benefit under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, and can also raise loans under the Colonial Stock Act. If the answer to those questions is in the affirmative, I have no further comment to make.

I can answer both those questions in the affirmative, and can give the hon. and gallant Member the assurances he desires.

The question which I seek to raise today concerns the misappropriation by an official of the Post Office of certain moneys belonging to the Bagillt Welcome Home Fund. Though this matter is primarily of interest to the people of Bagillt, to the 524 ex-Service men there, and to those who have collected the fund, it also raises a question which is of some general importance.

The facts are these. The Bagillt Welcome Home Fund was duly registered with the War Charities Commissioners. In May, 1944, at a public meeting, the local sub-postmaster, a man called Mr. Beattie, was appointed treasurer of the Welcome Home Fund in succession to a previous treasurer who had left the district. The people of Bagillt very naturally assumed that this man, being a sub-postmaster, was a man of credit. They knew him quite well and had no reason to suppose that he was not a man of credit. Further, it was particularly convenient to appoint him treasurer because in the village of Bagillt there are no regular banking facilities except those supplied by the Post Office.

The committee of the Welcome Home Fund instructed their treasurer to invest such moneys as he received in cash in 3 per cent. Defence Bonds, and he was to invest that money in the names of the trustees for the time being of the Bagillt Welcome Home Fund. At the time Mr. Beattie was appointed there was already £300 invested in 3 per cent. bonds, and a bond book had been issued by the Post Office Savings Bank Department and duly stamped by that Department in London. From the day this man was appointed treasurer, he misappropriated all the money, and nothing whatever was properly credited to the fund. For that fraudulent conversion he is now serving a sentence of four years' imprisonment. The total deficiency was £1,197.

What I want to make quite clear is that no claim has been made on the Post Office for the whole of that amount but only for one amount of £300. The reason why we believe very strongly that there is a claim upon the Post Office for the £300 is as follows. Mr. Beattie was instructed to invest the money in 3 per cent. Defence Bonds, and on two occasions he produced the bond book, which I now hold in my hand, at meetings of the committee, and in the bond book were entered two sums amounting to £300 in all and both times the entries were not only correctly made but also stamped with the official stamp of the Post Office. When the police were closing in upon this man, he crossed out the entries in the book, but we have the evidence not only of the committee who saw those entries before they were crossed out but also of the forensic laboratory at Preston that those entries amounted to £300 and are correctly stamped with the Post Office stamp. My contention is that when doing this the sub-postmaster at Bagillt was acting in his capacity as a servant of the Post Office and not in his capacity as treasurer of the Welcome Home Fund. I have already been in communication with the Postmaster-General and I would like to read a short extract from his letter in answer to mine. The Postmaster-General said:

"It seems to me to be quite clear from the full inquiry which has been made that the sub-postmaster received the sum of £300 to which you refer in your letter in his capacity as treasurer of the Welcome Home Fund, and in disposing of it irregularly he failed in his duty as treasurer to the fund and not in his capacity as sub-postmaster. I am afraid the fact that he chose to conceal £300 of the £1,197 with which he absconded by letting it be understood that he had used it to purchase Defence Bonds cannot be accepted as justification for the Post Office to assume liability for the loss."

This is the important point:

"Indeed, it would be open to anybody, whether or not officially connected with the Post Office, to have practised the same kind of fraud."

It is rather alarming if it is true that it is open to anybody not connected with the Post Office not only to make a false entry in a bond book but to stamp it with the official stamp of the Post Office. I do not think it could really be done, nor do I believe that this is the real view of the Postmaster-General. I do not believe it for this reason. This man Beattie not only defrauded the Welcome Home Fund but also practised extensive frauds upon the depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank. He entered in their books the amounts they deposited and stamped them with the official stamp and then did not enter those amounts upon the return which has to be made to the Post Office Savings Bank every other day. He simply kept the money. In the case of these private people I understand that the Postmaster-General has made restitution in full to the extent of £1,600. Therefore, the private depositors have got their money back but the charity—if we may call a Welcome Home Fund a charity—has not been so treated and has lost the whole of the £300 deposit as well as the rest of the money not entered in the bond book.

I cannot see any real reason why this differentiation should have been made. It seems to me that when the sub-postmaster was making entries in Post Office Savings Books or in the bond book and stamping them, he was in both cases acting in his capacity as a servant of the Post Office and not as a servant of the Welcome Home Fund or any other organisation. If there had been a similar case of a servant of one of the Big Five banks doing that, I have no doubt that an action would have lain against the bank and that they would unquestionably have paid up. I understand that the Post Office cannot be sued, and possibly for that reason—I do not know—the Post Office is not at the moment prepared to pay up——

Will the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) make it clear whether or not he is suggesting that the charity has a legal claim against the Post Office?

I think it would have a legal claim, but I am not a good enough lawyer. I understand that the Post Office cannot be sued in the same way as one can sue a bank.

Legal proceedings could be taken.

If we do not receive a suitable answer, maybe we will do so. It seems to be a most dangerous doctrine to put about, that because we have as a treasurer or connected with a committee someone who is an official of the Post Office, that automatically takes away from us the protection which private people have if that man commits a fraud. Very rightly, it is a very common thing for Post Office officials to be appointed treasurers or secretaries of committees and charities of all kinds. They are used to dealing with accounts and are generally of the highest probity and, therefore, they very naturally get those jobs. If as a result of this case, it gets about that if a Post Office official is connected with a fund and a fraud is committed in the Post Office, one loses the ordinary protect- tion which any other depositor would have, that is rather dangerous. It would mean a very great loss to the country if Post Office officials were in any way discouraged from doing the very good work they now do. There is strong local feeling on this matter and the people of Bagillt cannot understand why private depositors get their money back but the Welcome Home Fund cannot get its money back. I commend this case to the Assistant Postmaster-General and hope he may be able to give a sympathetic answer.

As I made a remark to the hon. Gentleman I should not like it to be thought that I was in any way suggesting that he should take legal proceedings rather than bring the matter here to the House. I think he has been very wise to bring the matter here and not to have it dealt with by legal proceedings. It seems to me in conformity with what the hon. Gentleman said that the Post Office should consider this as a matter of what is morally right or wrong rather than as a matter of pure law. I hope it will be possible for them to consider this application sympathetically.

I think the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) has stated his case with the moderation and persuasion which we usually associate with his remarks in the House. I think we both approach this problem not as lawyers but as laymen. It is perfectly true that we have both had legal advice. That is apparent from the remarks made by the hon. Member himself. The facts in the case are not in dispute at all, but our contention is this; that the sub-postmaster of Bagillt—this small township of 5,000 people—was acting purely in his capacity as treasurer of the Welcome Home Fund and not as sub-postmaster. In point of fact, he was engaged in quite a legal form of extramural activity in the same way as other members of the community would be so engaged. In other words, apart from being sub-postmaster, as a citizen he was taking part in other organisations. It must be remembered that the original entry in the book was not made by the sub-postmaster.

As a result of the expansion of their activities the committee was strengthened, and the scope of the Fund enlarged. Mr. Beattie was appointed treasurer, and the bond book came into his possession, as treasurer, and he received the money. There is no doubt about that. It is perfectly true that he presented to the committee the savings bond book which contained forged entries. There is no doubt about that, but it is very interesting to note that while the committee were evidently satisfied with the entries which had been made in the book, they never asked for any particulars with regard to the other money, amounting to £800, which is also missing. Further—and this seems most unusual—they did not even ask what had become of the interest. After all, there had been interest paid on the original £300 and that had been paid into the local branch of the National Provincial Bank, I am informed.

To come to the fact that the person who committed this fraud was the sub-postmaster; is the hon. Member trying to argue the general principle that where defalcations of this character are committed by individuals who are not acting as servants, either to the Post Office or to a bank, the employers should carry their liability? There are, unfortunately, many cases among club officials—the secretary of a sick club, the secretaries of various other charitable funds—where there have been defalcations, but these clubs do not ask that the employers should meet these defalcations. It seems to me a sate analogy to say that if an official of a corporation or a transport undertaking were secretary of a sick club, and there was a deficit, no one would expect the corporation or the transport undertaking to meet the cost. Yet because it happens to be the Post Office, we are being asked to meet the claim.

It is very ingenuous to argue that the sub-postmaster had access to the stamp. I think the hon. Member's case more or less rests on that point. There are more ways than one of forging a book and it does not mean that no other individual, if he were evilly disposed, could not have forged the book. Quite frankly, I do not think there is anything in that point at all, because the book could have been forged, even if the treasurer had not been the sub-postmaster. Therefore, I do not think there is much in the hon. Member's claims.

I do not wish to score a debating point in this matter, but I must say this: the Welcome Home Fund consulted solicitors. We have here a copy of their letter. The legal advice which was given to the Welcome Home Fund committee was that there was no case in law against the Post Office—and that advice was right. In 1924, there was a somewhat parallel case, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies ruled that the Post Office was not responsible. Therefore, while I appreciate the attitude of the hon. Member in wishing to look after his constituents, by making representations to the Post Office to get them to meet this payment, our case is that on moral grounds there are no reasons why payment should be made. When this sub-postmaster was appointed, we took all the usual precautions of inquiry into the gentleman's character. First, we found that he was a lieutenant in the Royal Ulster Rifles during the last war—an officer and, one would suppose, a gentleman. The character given to him by the Army authorities was "exemplary." The second reference we asked for was from his last employers—Messrs. Courtaulds, "the" Courtaulds—and again his character was given as excellent. There was no dereliction of duty on the part of the Post Office with regard to the appointment of this individual. The fact is, we have been let down en this matter.

Another point is that there has been a tremendous amount of lack of supervision. But the accounts of that post office were examined at the appropriate period of time. Another point which has been argued is that hardship has been caused. Quite frankly, I am afraid I cannot accept that. The fact that there have been defalcations must have caused a tremendous amount of disappointment; the annoyance must have been considerable and, no doubt, people have vented their feelings very freely, perhaps to the hon. Gentleman as representative of the Division. There has been a certain amount of inconvenience caused, but there has been no real hardship. The main point is, of course, that these people have received less than they would have done. My right hon. Friend has given every consideration to this case; we view it sympathetically, but we find there is no reason in law why payment should be made. An unbiased examination of the facts would lead to this situation being accepted—that it was not in his capacity as sub-postmaster, but in his capacity as treasurer of the Welcome Home Fund that these offences were committed.

I think the hon. Gentleman is answering points which I did not make. I did not plead hardship or negligence on the part of the Post Office. The real point is this: what is the difference between the postmaster making an entry in this bond book and stamping it, and making a fraudulent entry in a post office savings book? Why should the Post Office honour one and not the other? That is the point I should like cleared up.

If the defalcations had been made by someone who was not a treasurer of the fund, in all probability the Post Office would have honoured them, as, indeed, they did in the case of defalcations from the Savings Bank accounts. But the fact is that Mr. Beattie received the money as treasurer of the fund and not as sub-postmaster.

My hon. Friend has given a full and fair explanation which, I am sure, will be very much appreciated but, sitting here independently, in an almost judicial capacity, as it were, I feel there is a difficulty about the point about cancellation. If the cancellation was made properly, or could have been made properly by Mr. Beattie, in his capacity of sub-postmaster, I find some difficulty in following the argument that there is no responsibility on the Post Office because it could have been made by someone else. I do not follow how the cancellation could have been made by someone else.

If anyone desires to commit a forgery, he can do so. It could be committed on the actual Defence Bond book.

May I put my point this way? Did not Mr. Beattie, in his capacity of sub-postmaster, stamp and cancel that document in a way in which he would have done, quite properly, if he had paid the money out to someone else who was entitled to the bond?

I do not wish to recapitulate what I have already said, but let us take the normal Post Office practice in issuing Defence Bonds. When the money is paid it has to go to headquarters, and a book is issued. It is only when the book is full that it goes to the head office of the Post Office. Mr. Beattie received this money as treasurer of the Welcome Home fund. The fact that he happened to be sub-postmaster was coincidental. He made an entry in the book, and stamped it. Other people, even if they had not held the job of sub-postmaster, could have done the same thing, had they been evilly disposed. It is our case that this offence was committed by Mr. Beattie as treasurer of the Welcome Home fund, and not as a Post Office official.

It is unfortunate that I was not present when this Debate started but, nevertheless, I believe that what I am about to say may prove to be material to the question under discussion. I have had a little experience of the way in which the Post Office system operates, and I can say that, having regard to the extraordinarily large dimensions of that system, there is, correspondingly, a very small amount of crime in the Post Office. It is to the great credit of the nationalised industry which we call the Post Office that there should be so high a standard of honesty among its many thousands of employees. If, as a result of this Debate, it should go out to the country that the Post Office puts unnecessary temptation in the way of their employees I think it right and proper that that impression should, here and now, be corrected.

Anyone who has had experience at the criminal Bar will know from the cases which go to the Central Criminal Court—that is, cases which come within the jurisdiction of that court—that cases of Post Office employees are few and far between in comparison with the general calendar of crime which is dealt with at that court. The defendants concerned in Post Office crimes are, as a rule, quite untypical, in their outlook, of the general run of Post Office employees. Nevertheless, I think it only right to point out that crime in the Post Office, like crime elsewhere, has largely—not wholly, of course—an economic basis. It would be futile to deny that if employees were given a wage which was such as to enable them to have the minimum amount of luxuries for themselves and their families, the present small incidence of crime in the Post Office, and out of it, would become smaller.

This would not be the proper occasion to embark on the large question of the wage structure within the Post Office system, but I have had representations made to me from time to time about this matter. Not being a trade union leader, I have perforce had to say to those who brought this matter to my attention that, while I was sympathetic, they ought to seek their remedy through the official and trade union channels. I believe it would be wrong not to take this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied that Post Office employees are getting a sufficient wage, having regard to their onerous duties and to the fact that many are put into a position where, should they succumb to temptation, they can do a great deal of harm to the community? It is to their credit that crime comes within so small a compass but, nevertheless, I think it is the duty of my hon. Friend to see that even that small incidence of crime becomes smaller by bettering the lot of Post Office employees, not merely in respect of wages but general working conditions. If that were done, I am sure that criminal conduct on the part of Post Office employees should become an absolute rarity.

I would like now to raise another subject, and not to detain my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General. I do so because, last week, on the Criminal Justice Bill, I hoped to make comments on two or three items, and was unable to do so. Today, I content myself with calling the attention of the House—although I appreciate that there will be no possibility of a Ministerial reply—to the recruitment of probation officers, as envisaged under the Criminal Justice Bill.

The hon. Gentleman cannot raise, on the Adjournment, matters involving legislation, which is what he is attempting to do now.

I am not asking for any further legislation, Sir. All I wish to do is to call the attention of the House, and the Home Secretary, to the existing scale of salaries of probation officers, under Statutory Rule and Order, 1946, No. 1967

That would require legislation, and as the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask for legislation, that would be out of Order.

If I wish to call the attention of the House to the existing salary scales of probationary officers, is that to be interpreted as requiring further legislation?

It is very difficult to answer that question. There is nobody here to answer. We have nothing before us to show whether it requires legislation or not, but if the matter requires legislation it is out of Order.

May I point out that the existing scale of salaries of probation officers is provided not by legislation but by Statutory Rule and Order? In view of that fact, I submit that I am in Order in discussing the scale of salaries.

Perhaps I had better hear what the hon. Member has to say?

It is obvious from the various points of view raised in discussion on the Bill last week that there is increased scope for work by probation officers, and there will be an increased need for more probation officers in the country. There will be an extension of the use of this service, and, if I may refer to the Fifth Schedule to the Bill——

The hon. Member is about to do what I have suggested he cannot do, and he must not do it.

Very well, Sir, I will confine myself to the salary scale. At the end of the Debate last week, when the Under-Secretary sat down, I interjected to say, "Is he aware that the scale of salaries is entirely inadequate?" May I for the information of the House, enlighten it as to the scale of salaries? Under Statutory Rule and Order, 1946, No. 1967, is laid down the scale of salaries to be paid to probation officers. In regard to those over 30 years of age it may be said that their salaries were raised by approximately £100 with the passing of this regulation, and, therefore, men officers commence at £400 per annum. I am more concerned with those under 30 years of age because I believe that there are many who feel that the probation service offers them a career. If we regard the probation service as a calling, and agree that there are some individuals with private incomes, it may be that they can afford to take up the probation service in the same way as other individuals take up the profession of medicine or missionary.

When I inform the House that the present scale of salary for a probation officer at 23 years of age or over is £305 per year, and for a woman probation officer of 23 years or over, but under 24, £290 a year, and there on until the age of 29 it goes up by increments of £10, and, in some cases, £15 per year, it will give some indication of the pitifully inadequate salaries which we are paying to these very responsible people in public life. A rough calculation shows that £305 a year for a young man of 23 works out at £5 18s. a week. I ask the House whether it can contemplate anyone maintaining a decent standard of life on a salary of £5 18s. a week, thereafter rising to £385 a year at the age of 29? I must admit there is an allowance of £30 for those in the Metropolis, but that obviously is eaten up by the increased cost of living in the London area.

I will content myself by saying that probation officers are needed in ever-increasing numbers because of the postwar neurosis of these difficult years when domestic lives are upset considerably, homes have been torn apart by the exigencies of factory service or war service by husbands and wives, and children being sent from homes already wrecked, and the probation officers find themselves in the difficult position of reclaiming human salvage and in the reclamation of home lives. I submit to the House—and I hope that this will reach the ears of the Home Secretary—that if we are to provide an adequate probation officer service necessitated by the needs of our people, we shall have to see that we improve the scales of salaries so that those who undertake this arduous and onerous task can live at least in decency and comfort themselves before they attempt to uplift the difficult conditions of those with whom they come in contact in the course of their work.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) has said about the salaries of probation officers. My purpose in rising is to deal briefly with some of the grievances that are felt at present in Scotland. We would very much like to know—those of us interested in housing problems in Scotland—how we are likely to fare under the new housing cuts which have been announced in the White Paper. I think that we have a very genuine grievance in Scotland that in this White Paper, which is a comprehensive document dealing with the United Kingdom, there is no specific reference to Scotland, and we are unable, from the statistics in the White Paper, to ascertain exactly how Scotland is to fair under the proposed cuts which are to take place in 1948.

The housing position in Scotland has been stressed over and over again in this House, but today the difficulties that surround the local authorities in Scotland are more serious than ever before. In my constituency of Ayrshire, last Sunday, I visited a little village called Woodside, in which miners live, and all the houses there should have been condemned at least 20 years ago. There are no amenities of civilisation, there is no light, no water supply, no sanitation, and we have people who are suffering from tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases living under conditions which are a disgrace to civilisation. These people see all around them new prefabricated houses, but they know that there are no houses for them.

As far as I can make out, it will be a very long time before the people who require to be rehoused in derelict villages in Ayrshire and other parts of Scotland will get the houses they need. There is nothing that more angers young married people who are waiting for houses than to see houses let on some kind of points system, and to find that they are left out. In Gravesend, recently, I talked for some considerable time to young newly-married people unable to get houses under the allocation of points system. The question of how to allocate new houses is a very grave problem for the local authorities, and in many parts of Scotland it is making the lives of members of town councils an actual burden. The person who can devise a scheme of letting municipal houses to satisfy everybody does not exist. Whatever way the houses are let, there are innumerable applicants who are dissatisfied, which means that members of local authorities have to meet the criticism of the homeless, of people living in overcrowded conditions of the newly-married, and of all the other people who need homes so urgently. The local authorities in Scotland are greatly perturbed about the prospect of housing there. We on this side of the House urge the Government to remember that they will stand or fall on this housing problem, and that it is the most important social problem affecting the people of Scotland. It affects them in innumerable ways.

For example, there is a case which I am putting before the War Office at the present moment, and on which I have received very little satisfaction indeed. It concerns an Army captain who has tried unsuccessfully to get a house for the last ten years. He is a man who has devoted 25 years of his life to service with the British Army. At the present time, he is being threatened with eviction, and has nowhere to go. That is a plight which is common to many people living in Scotland. I do not wish to assert that the Secretary of State for War is unsympathetic, but the fact remains that this man is being threatened with eviction. Similar complaints are being made in all parts of England, Scotland and Wales. Serving officers and men are being threatened with eviction, after having given the major part of their lives to their King and country.

I respectfully suggest to the Secretary of State for War that this is not the way to encourage men to go into the Army; that these threats of eviction should be suspended, and that soldiers who are now living in married quarters or drill halls should be allowed to remain where they are until they can get alternative accommodation. I mention this case of Captain McGrath, who has been threatened with eviction from his home in Cumnock, because I think it is a typical case. I wish that the Secretary of State for War who had such an enlightened record in the Ministry of Fuel and Power would hold his hand in this case, and would decide that a Labour Secretary of State for War should not sanction proceedings which may result in a serving officer with 25 years' service being evicted. This man has a wife and three children.

At Question time recently, I raised the matter of 15 people living in two rooms in a village in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland replied that there were not 15 people, but only 13, an answer which did not give very much satisfaction. Such conditions prevail in the towns and in the countryside of Scotland. As far as we can see, there is likely to be a slowing down of the housing programme, which is being resented by local authorities who are anxious to have the problem faced in the spirit in which our constituents sent us to this House. We know that there is objection to national expenditure on housing at the present time. But we must take a strong line on housing, and we must press for the continuation of expenditure on housing in Scotland with as much determination and persistence as hon. Members opposite fight for their battleships, their cruisers, and for the other armaments of war.

There are other complaints to be made against the War Office in Scotland. One of them is the question of the large amount of land which is still under their control in Scotland, and which is being used for the purpose of what is politely called "practical military training." The other night, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) raised the question of whether the War Office were acting wisely in giving notice to acquire 8,000 acres of land in Roxburghshire for the purpose of military training. As far as I am aware, no adequate answer was given to the point raised by the same right hon. and gallant Gentleman that 22,000 acres of land, on which it would be possible to rear 8,000 to 9,000 ewe sheep, are going to be taken over by the War Office for the purpose of practical military training. We deplore that proposal, and ask the War Office to reconsider their decision in the matter. The Government should impress upon the War Office that food is more important than military operations, and that the rearing of sheep is more important at the present time than tank exercises.

The question of agriculture in Scotland is one which is causing great anxiety throughout the length and breadth of the country. We are not satisfied with the complacency of the Secretary of State for Scotland when he says that there are sufficient skilled or unskilled labourers on the land. We wish to impress upon him the necessity for putting up a case in the Cabinet against the War Office and against the Minister of Defence, and to ask that the people who are now being conscripted for the Armed Forces should be transferred to the land, to the mines, and to useful industry. They should be taken out of uniform and put back once more into civilian occupations. We cannot afford to have 1,500,000 or 2,000,000 people in uniform at a time when we badly need every available man on the land, in the mines, and in the factories in order to build up our export trade and the basis of national prosperity in this country.

Finally, I wish to raise another question which is exercising the minds of people in Scotland at the present time. It is the question of whether the Government are going to answer the demand, which is being made from all sections in Scotland, for a greater measure of self-government for the people of Scotland.

Any such question as that would, of course, require legislation.

I was talking about inquiry, not legislation, Mr. Deputy- Speaker. I was saying that the demand is being made at the present time for an inquiry.

The matter of an inquiry would at some stage, presumably, involve legislation in the last resort.

I have made my point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

I have listened with close attention to the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I would be more convinced of its sincerity if he had left out what I consider to be a very unfair insinuation that hon. Members on this side of the House are more concerned with the construction of battleships, cruisers, and tanks than they are with housing for ex-Service men. As an ex-Service man, I am just as keen as is the hon. Member to do everything which lies within my power for the housing of ex-Service men, and I am sure I am right in associating other Members on this side of the House with myself in this matter.