I beg to move,

"That during the present Session whenever the House stands adjourned and it is represented to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does so require, he may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and the Government Business to be transacted on the day on which the House shall so meet shall, subject to the publication of notice thereof in the Order Paper to be circulated on the day on which the House shall so meet, be such as the Government may appoint, but subject as aforesaid the House shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to the day on which it shall so meet, and any Government Orders of the Day and Government Notices of Motions that may stand on the Order Book for any day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet; provided also that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker, be authorised to act in his stead for the purposes of this Resolution."

This Motion is in the customary form providing for the recall of the House during an Adjournment if the public interest so requires. It is most desirable that we should receive this power immediately. The House will be familiar with the form of the Motion and will be aware that it has been put into operation on several occasions.

Question put, and agreed to.

I have to acquaint the House that this House has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, of which for greater accuracy I have obtained a copy, which is as followeth:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

My peoples and My Allies are united in their resolve to continue the fight against the aggressor nations until freedom is made secure. Then only can the nations, released from oppression and violence, again work together on a basis of ordered liberty and social justice.

I am confident that victory is assured, not only by the prowess of the Armed Forces of My Empire and of those of My Allies, but also by the devotion of the Civil Defence Forces and the tenacity and industry of My peoples. These are now enduring, where they live and labour, the perils as well as the hardships of war.

The staunchness of the men of the Merchant and Fishing Fleets has added lustre to the ancient traditions of the sea.

The resistance of My people has won the admiration of other friendly Powers. The relations of My Government with that of the United States of America could not be more cordial, and I learn, with the utmost satisfaction, of the ever-increasing volume of munitions of war which is arriving from that country. It is good to know in these fateful times how widely shared are the ideals of ordered freedom, of justice and security.

Members of the House of Commons.

You will be asked to make further financial provision for the conduct of the war.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

Measures will be submitted to you for compensating those whose home or business property has, at any time since the outbreak of hostilities, been destroyed or damaged by enemy attack, and for extending insurance against the risk of such damage to all forms of moveable property which are not at present protected.

Further proposals for legislation will also be made to improve the conditions of those who may now or in the future require assistance from public funds.

Apart from these and such other measures as may be required for the effective prosecution of the war, My Government will take every possible step to sustain the health and well-being of My people in their ordeal.

I pray that the Almighty may give His blessing to your counsels.

( in Royal Air Force uniform ): I beg to move: thank my constitutents for allowing me to attend primarily to my Royal Air Force duties. My hon. Friend who will follow me will deal with the war from the civilian angle, for which he is particularly well qualified to speak.

I am well aware that not only is this a compliment to my constituency, but that it is also a compliment to the Service, the uniform of which I have the honour to wear, an honour which would be profound in even the lowest possible capacity. Further than that, I realise that I have the honour to-day of representing that brave but dwindling company, the pilots and men of the Auxiliary Air Force, the week-end fliers, the amateurs, who did not hesitate when the real test came. Further, although I realise that the choice of myself is a special compliment to the Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons of the Fighter Command, I know it is equally intended for the Bomber and Coastal crews whose untiring efforts in all weathers carry the war with devastating effect into enemy territory. Believe, me, Mr. Speaker, if the Royal Air Force is heroic, and it is heroic, it knows fear, and in knowing this fear it is perhaps the more heroic. May I assure the House that the comradeship and interdependence of the fighting airmen and the aircraft workers in the factories is one of the finest and most enduring things which have come out of this war; but it does not end there.

The pilots of the Royal Air Force receive great praise from a generous nation, but all that the craftsman in the factory gets is the satisfaction of the conscience and the gratitude of the pilots. A man who enjoys a good fox hunt will surpass himself if he knows he is well mounted; that is the precise feeling of our pilots and air crews to-day. They are ready to press home their attack with the certain knowledge that their aircraft will respond and that, although often riddled and torn, their machines will probably bring them safely home so that they may once more return. I would like to say one word of heartfelt praise for those bulwarks of the Service, the non-commissioned officers and the rank and file. Their devoted work in keeping aircraft serviceable so that the unit can always deliver its full striking power is ceaseless. Often they are bombed and shot up on the ground, but they do not get into the headlines. Mutual understanding and companionship is all-prevailing throughout all the ranks of the service. Fitters, riggers and armourers would rather die than leave a plug untested, or a gun uncleaned, or indeed anything to chance.

The Gracious Speech is the shortest for many years. Unhappily those familiar words,

I have spoken at some length on the Royal Air Force, about which I am more particularly qualified to speak, but the same spirit of determination exists in the Navy, on whose unceasing efforts the safety and well-being of us all depend, and also in our great Armies which live only for the day when once again they will be back in that struggle which was broken off through no fault of theirs. Nor let us forget the Home Guard, whose numbers have now reached astronomical proportions, and whose aggressive spirit is second to none. This war has shown as ever before that this Empire can produce men like Captain Warburton Lee, of Narvik, like Captain Fegen, of the "Jervis Bay," like Flight-Lieutenant Learoyd whose magnificent exploit at the Dortmund-Ems Canal is still fresh in our memory, like young Flight-Lieutenant Nicholson, who, in spite of the fact that he himself was on fire, attacked and brought down his adversary and brought his machine safely to the ground, and like Corporal Nichols, who blew up that bridge before the retreat of Dunkirk.

We in the Royal Air Force await the time when every day we shall pursue this war, not with 100, not with 500, but with 1,000 aircraft, into enemy territory. To-day the youth of this country stands firmly behind the Government. We stand firmly behind our leaders; all we say is, "Lead on, lead on to victory, and we will follow, for that victory is as certain as that the day follows night."

I beg to second the Motion.

It is my proud privilege to second the Motion which has been so ably and eloquently moved. In my person there is no qualification for this task, but perhaps my long association with London local government and with the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, and my knowledge and sincere efforts to assist in the development of London's Civil Defence service, might at such a time make it not inappropriate that one otherwise so unworthy should be given so great an honour. London, at all times a great city, was never greater than she is now. The pride of all those, however humble, who seek to speak in her name was never more justified than now, when the efficiency of her public services and the courage of her common citizens proclaim her greatness. To the contrast, ever present, of poverty and wealth, palace and slum, beauty and ugliness, which has been typical of London life through the ages, there is added now a further contrast more significant still. On the one hand, the wanton destruction of the humble homes of the simple poor and, on the other, the quiet, dogged, cheerful determination of the dwellers therein that this senseless savagery shall serve for nothing more than to increase the certainty of the ultimate victory that they will win. On the one hand, broken and battered factories, silent, still, but, on the other, the countless establishments still untouched, humming with the industry of eager men and women bent upon making more than good the productive capacity thus lost.

People such as these can never be beaten. They will win and, winning, will deserve, nay, will demand, a freer, fuller life as the outcome of their efforts, and they will not ask in vain. Some of the damage done to-day will remain through the years, weathering into honoured scars to remind Londoners yet unborn of the fight which this generation fought on their behalf, but the greater part of to-day's devastation will disappear, having served as an opportunity for us for saner and wiser planning of homes and workshops, parks and playing fields, broad highways and pleasant by-streets of the Greater London yet to be. That thrilling task that the future has in store to work upon in thought and plan, it is not too soon now to begin. Among all the pressing problems with which His Majesty's Ministers will be faced, I am certain that they will not neglect the preparations which will be necessary for the fulfilment of that task. London will live, and live to be more beautiful, more dignified more loveable than ever. There is, I believe, a common saying, derived I know not whence, that what Lancashire thinks to-day England will think to-morrow. That claim, I submit, is of doubtful veracity, for what Lancashire will think to-morrow London often already has forgotten. But this is perfectly certain, that what London is suffering to-day other parts of the country have already suffered and others yet, alas, will still have to endure. But even more certain than that is that the spirit of Londoners is not peculiar; it is common to our race.

Bred as we are in surroundings of ever broadening liberty, we know the full import of that for which we fight. We seek no mere military victory in this conflict but victory over the idea that might is right, victory over the idea that the individual counts for nought and the State for everything, victory over the idea that national or Imperial greatness are of any worth at all at the cost of the development and expression of the human mind and soul. We strive for victory, not merely that we may live, but live in freedom, not merely that we may restore to our country the conditions that prevailed in August, 1939, but that we may build in England's green and pleasant land, as also in others equally dear and pleasant to our neighbours, the New Jerusalem of our dreams. When Blake penned those stirring words he vowed, "I will not cease from mental strife," and there lies the prime duty on us all, by every effort of thought and deed and word, to appreciate and to proclaim those ideals which must be built into the very foundations of the new society that we seek, for without them we build in vain and there is no victory. We fight for freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom to give our gifts in labour for our community. We strive against the claim that one race shall dominate all others, one creed suppress all others and one race subjugate all others. In our victory we fight for the freedom of all. On the details of the new society which we seek opinions will differ. The economic structure which some of us would desire will not commend itself to all, but in this we are united, that that structure, whatever it be, shall be the result of the free deliberations of a free Assembly, freely elected by a free people. That spirit, I believe, breaths through the Gracious Speech to which we are moving a Loyal Address in reply. That spirit, I believe, inspires the arduous labours of His Majesty's Ministers. That spirit, I believe, permeates the whole marvellous effort of the peoples of this Commonwealth. That spirit, I am confident, will carry us to a triumphal issue of this conflict and to the dawn of a happier and a nobler era.

The hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Squadron-Leader Grant-Ferris) and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) have been paid what I always regard as the highest compliment that can be paid to unofficial Members of the House. I was thankful that it was never offered to me, because I have always regarded it as the most difficult Parliamentary task to be imposed on Members. The House will agree that I am not paying an empty compliment when I say that the two speeches we have heard are well up to the traditions of the past. The hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras spoke in uniform, and he was entitled to express his pride in that uniform, for it is the uniform of the Force that in the last four months has saved the nation. His speech shows the great advantage which this House possesses in time of war, that Members on active service habitually take part in our Debates. He spoke of apprehension and lack of confidence, but I do not think there was much reason for that. He showed himself, with his humour and deep feeling, to be an experienced Parliamentary hand, and I do not think that this is the last important speech we shall hear from him.

The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is new to the House, but it is clear that he is not new to public service. I knew that he had great concrete knowledge of administration, but I did not know until he spoke here that he had such a vision of administration, such a love of his people and such a high eloquence, which it is very difficult to get across in this House. He spoke of the future after the war. It is clear that he is performing great service in Civil Defence now, and the House will see that in the baffling problems of reconstruction that will face us after the war his is a mind which will be of invaluable service to the House.

The Gracious Speech is a speech on the war and contains only two paragraphs which deal with the ordinary kind of social legislation with which we would be concerned in times of peace. I regard these two references to legislation as part of the scheme for winning the war, because the removal of a sense of acute injustice among any section of the population is part of our war effort. That is certainly the background of the Bill to be introduced for spreading the loss by war damage over the community. That Bill will be closely examined in the House. My hon. Friends here are, of course, especially interested in the Bill which is foreshadowed for dealing with the household means test. For many years I have always had the experience, when speaking in quiet meetings in the suburbs of towns where non-political citizens attend, of being asked more questions on the house-hold means test than on any other subject. I have been shaken by the sense of humiliation and bitterness felt about it by men of mild political opinions. The Prime Minister's statement covered the ground, but we cannot form a completely final judgment until we have the Bill and the Regulations. I hope and believe that we shall be able to show that, even in the midst of war, a great step forward in social progress can be taken and an acute controversy can be settled by general consent.

The rest of the speech deals with the war, and I would address to the House a few considerations about it. I feel that one can say at the opening of this new Session that we can now look forward to the rest of the war with more reasoned confidence than at any time since it began. Hitler had the opportunity, if he could defeat us, of defeating us quickly just after the fall of France. That was his opportunity, but he has not made this into a short war, and I am convinced that, if we look at the conditions, in a war of length the cumulative long distance forces will progressively come over to our side. The Prime Minister made an observation the other day which I think was very significant. Hitler has at the moment great temporary advantages, and he is no doubt striving to dig himself in so as to try and end the war in a stalemate. From that point of view I would say that the future of the war is now in the Mediterranean, because, if he does not dig himself in there, he will not be able to obtain supplies to dig himself in anywhere at all. I will not put to the Prime Minister questions about the Greek campaign, because he will no doubt say anything on that subject which he desires. There are, however, two special topics in regard to the war in the Mediterranean on which I would like to say a few sentences because they have not been much ventilated in the House.

It is clear now that the key of the war in the Mediterranean rests in the hands of those who control the policy of the French African Empire. They have Tunis, Morocco and Algiers from which they could attack Libya and attack Graziani from behind. They have troops in Syria which could assist us and reassure the Turks. They have a considerable Air Force and a powerful Fleet, far more powerful than the 50 destroyers for which we were so grateful. Most important of all, they have bases in the Western Meditertanean—Oran, Algiers and Bizerta—which would enable them to cut the Italian communications and leave the Italian forces in Africa in the air. These facts are worth while pointing out, because the Prime Minister, in a broadcast speech not long ago, told the French that when we won our victory all would be well. That was a very magnanimous utterance. But it does entitle us to point out now that they can share in the rewards of victory, not simply on account of our magnanimity, but by signal services at a decisive moment. France can now turn the scales of the war in the Mediterranean on which all else depends and it has taken such a shape that she still has an opportunity of snatching triumph out of defeat. That opportunity is in the hands of the governors and generals in Africa who can still call their souls their own.

There is one other feature of the war on which I would like to point out certain considerations. I remember about three or four years ago speaking to the then Chief of the General Staff. It was after the Abyssinian war. I said to him, "This is a bad business in Abyssinia." He said to me, "Yes, and it will be a bad business for Italy if ever she is in difficulties. Look at her commitments." Italy may have an Empire in East Africa, Abyssinia, Eritrea and Somaliland, but as far as I can see, she has not the resources of oil and other materials to maintain her troops there for more than a few months, excepting a trickle obtained by air or by running through our blockade and unless she can break our blockade, I think it would be a miracle for her to be able to hold out there for six months. Undoubtedly, Mussolini calculated that Great Britain was to be defeated as easily as France and that he would be able to supply his troops in East Africa through the Suez Canal but that does not seem likely to happen. I say it is time to point out that Italy is faced, in that area of the war, with the prospect of a most frightful disaster.

The Prime Minister spoke the other day about Graziani perhaps not advancing until the spring. If he does not advance until the spring, his resources in East Africa will be near exhaustion. I think that will become clearer in a month or two, and I think it would be wise to adopt what Herr Hitler has described as "psychological warfare." Let this fact be known in Italy and to the troops themselves in East Africa. The Abyssinians are waiting for their retribution and it will take a most unpleasant form, though not more unpleasant than that of being suffocated by poison gas—the method which the Italians adopted with the Abyssinians some years ago. I think if these facts were known, it might help us to create demoralisation in the sense of destroying the enemy's morale.

The only other feature of the King's Speech to which I would draw attention is a passage to which I listened with deep interest and which is, if I may respectfully say so, very opportune and very wise indeed. It was that passage which calls attention not only to the prowess of the Armed Forces and to the endurance under peril of the merchant and fishing fleets, but to the tenacity and industry of the mass of the ordinary folks of this country, to whom the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley made such touching references. I think that is very wise. These men in the Armed Forces are not separate from the nation. They are part of the spirit of the nation, and that spirit is to be found, not only among the men in the civil population, but among their mothers, their sisters, their sweethearts and their wives. This war is a conflict between the spirit of 45,000,000 free Britons and the people of the Commonwealth, against the spirit of 78,000,000 Nazi robots and slaves, and the spirit of Britain to-day, after a year of war, when we see what Hitler does to conquered countries, is more utterly resolute than it was when the war began.

I do not intend to intervene for long between the House and the Prime Minister. I know the, House wants to hear the Prime Minister, and certainly I do. But I wish to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in the compliments paid by him to the Mover and Seconder of the Address. They are no empty compliments, because the high standard that has been set of recent years on these occasions has been more than maintained by them. It is always a marvel to me how, year after year, we are able to discover debating ability and the power of expression among some of the quiet back benchers who are, apparently, prevented by their own modesty from taking a more active part in our discussions. There is an impression that Parliament is decadent. Well, each year at the beginning of the new Session we have ample evidence to show there is no truth in this view. We have certainly had ample evidence to that effect to-day.

It was a happy idea that two London Members—and I speak with feeling as a London Member myself—should have been selected for this great dignity in this year of 1940. Other parts of the country are suffering the horrors of air attack and in some cases suffering dreadfully to-day, but London was the first place to feel the full force of a brutal attack on civilians, in September last, and the courage and fortitude of the people of London have won the respect and admiration, not only of our own people, but of people all over the world. The other day I came across some New Zealand and Canadian troops. They came here with the idea that the homeland was all right but that we were a decadent people. They have changed their view after visiting London and seeing the daring and courage of the men, women and children of our capital city. It was an appropriate thought on the part of the Mover to refer to the splendid example set by His Majesty who has not only suffered in his own home but has visited the people in their shelters directly after their homes have been destroyed and their belongings damaged. This has been a terrific encouragement to the whole of the people of London. It was also a happy thought that we should have had a serving Member to move the Address and a leading citizen, the mayor of an East End borough, the borough that has perhaps suffered most from air attack, to second it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Address did credit to the junnior Service, that Service which has now won the hearts of the whole nation and has done so much to encourage our people in their determination to see the war to a successful conclusion. Last year, I think, the Address was moved by a serving naval officer and seconded by a serving soldier. To-day the junior Service has taken the lead.

It is now six months since world opinion thought that we were down and out. When our Ally disappeared from the scene, many of our best friends thought we were left to face an impossible task. We have surprised mankind by our success—and it is a success to have achieved what we have in six months. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the prospect of victory, which seemed almost impossible last May, has now become a possibility, and we have to thank the Government. We must feel satisfaction that in creating a real national Government we have united the people in a determination to make a complete contribution towards ultimate victory. But I think it is right to give a warning against undue complacency. We are only at the beginning of the battle; we have a long road to follow; we have big tasks in front of us. We have to realise that if we are to secure victory, we must get the co-operation of every man and of every woman in the country. It is as well that we should realise, at the opening of this new Session, that we have by no means reached the maximum of our effort. There are still idle men and women in the country, and idle plant, that can be utilised for economic purposes, and it will be the responsibility of the Government and of every Minister to sweep away difficulties, to cut red tape, and to see that our national resources are used to the full. I see in the King's Speech that spirit, and I can assure the Prime Minister and the Government that as far as my friends are concerned—indeed, as far as the whole House is concerned—we are prepared to give him every power and every support in order to make this really a totalitarian war on our part, so that every resource of the country shall be used to the full.

Even in times of the bitterest political controversy and party strife it has always been customary for all parties to listen with appreciation to the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder of the Address, and even when sometimes the circumstances have not entirely sustained the compliments which were paid those compliments have not been denied. But today I am sure that all the compliments which were paid by my right hon. Friend opposite, who speaks for so many hon. Members who are not officially engaged in the work of Government, were not only sincere but were well deserved. We were very glad indeed to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Squadron-Leader Grant-Ferris) and I think it is gratifying to the House that one of our fighter-pilots who has taken part in severe actions, and will be engaged again, should be able to take his place here to-day to discharge his Parliamentary duties. I entirely agree with what has been said about the desirability of Members of Parliament serving not only in the military forces but in all other forms of warfare and discharging their Parliamentary duties at the same time or in alternation. No doubt difficulties arise, but I think they are well covered, and that the good sense of the House and of hon. Members will enable these dual and occasionally conflicting functions to be discharged.

In bygone days the House of Commons not only struggled for political power, but it did conduct a very great part of the business and activities of the country. Hon. Members led troops and squadrons of the Fleet and discharged all kinds of functions of Government at the same time as they conducted their work here. Some of the things that they did would not entirely commend themselves to our present higher standards of decorum, but, none the less, that this House should be a House of active, living personalities, engaged to the hilt in the national struggle, each according to the full strength that he has to give, each according to the aptitudes which he possesses is, I think, one of the sources of the strength of the Parliamentary institution, and will carry forward into the future the traditions which are inherent and the precedents which have come down to us from the past. I thought the House was absolutely right in the cordial welcome which it gave to their speeches, and we hope that we shall hear both hon. Members again on matters which they are particularly qualified to speak upon. The eloquence and oratorical gifts of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) and the fervour with which he spoke of the tasks which we shall win the right to face when our warring days are over will, I am sure make the House feel that we have in him a Member who will be a very definite reinforcement of our ranks when we have important contributions to make to the problems which lie ahead.

My right hon. Friend, if I may so call the one who sits in the place appointed for the main focus and spear thrust of Opposition, made us a very interesting speech, but I know that he and the House will forgive me if I do not attempt to deal with the war situation. I have on several occasions dealt with the issues as they arise, and I do not feel that this is a moment when it would be very convenient to make a statement on the war in the Mediterranean theatre—the two wars going on there, in both of which we have the very greatest interest. There is the defence of Egypt and the Canal, against greatly superior numbers of the enemy, which six months ago, at all events, looked rather a difficult affair, a doubtful affair, but which at the present time gives us a measure of confidence that we shall be able, as I said, to give a good account of ourselves when the invasion forces fall upon us—when they do fall upon us. And then there is the valiant, sudden uprising of the Greek nation, who, although taken by surprise and struck a felon's blow, have already almost entirely purged their soil of the conscript invaders, who were launched upon them upon an enterprise which cannot be described as other than pure, unmitigated brigandage. We have both those theatres to consider, and I can only say that we shall do our best. I feel that deeds, not words, are what are expected from us, and I certainly hope that we shall be able to give from our resources, which are always heavily strained, a helpful measure of assistance to the Greeks, and that we shall be able to discharge our responsibilities to Egypt in defending its soil and in guarding the vital artery of the Suez Canal.

It is customary for whoever leads the House on these occasions to give to hon. Members some account of the immediate Business which lies before them. The House will meet in the immediate future on the usual Sitting days. The Debate on the Address will be continued and will, I hope, be brought to a conclusion on the third Sitting day. Subject to your concurrence, Mr. Speaker, I think we might devote ourselves to general topics on the first Sitting day and that we might, on the second Sitting day, debate production and man-power and, on the third Sitting day, the Army. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will be ready to give the House some account of his recent adventurous journey and the position generally of the great Armed Forces over which he presides and which are gaining in force, numbers and equipment as every week passes by; but that part of the discussion will clearly have to be in secret if the House is to be given the kind of account which it is entitled to receive, and would expect.

As to the immediate state of our work in this new Session, apart from the great Measures of finance, there are the two important Bills mentioned in the Gracious Speech. The War Damage (Compensation) Bill has perhaps lagged somewhat behind our hopes in its preparation. It is a Bill of great complexity and difficulty, but I can assure the House that every effort will be made to bring it before Parliament at the earliest moment and that it will be a Measure of amplitude and scope which will deal effectively with the damage which now falls, now here and now there, upon individuals throughout the country. It will give effect to the feeling that there must be equality of risk and equality of treatment in respect of the damage done by the fire of the enemy. In other ways, many people have suffered material loss by the conditions of the war, but this Measure deals with damage done by the fire of the enemy and must be confined to that. Otherwise we should get into difficulties which would be beyond our powers to unravel. I feel that, because one man's home is smashed, that should be no special misfortune to him and that all whose homes are not broken up should stand in with him as long as the need may last; and even if all the homes of the country be levelled, then we shall still be found standing together to build them up again after the fighting is over.

There is the Means Test Bill on which I made a statement and which the House will, no doubt, await with interest. This Measure will to a very great extent end the question, which has been a subject of controversy between parties, but it will do more than that; I think it undoubtedly takes a step forward into those regions of social justice which are mentioned in the Gracious Speech. It is a step particularly adapted to the times in which we live, when households are situated very differently from what they are in peace, and when the means of individuals may not be the sole guide to the administration of relief in its various forms.

Will the Bill be passed before Christmas?

That will depend to some extent upon the House, but it will certainly be pressed forward by the Government. There is one other Measure which requires to be dealt with before Christmas, and that is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We also propose on the first Sitting day to set up the Select Committee on National Expenditure and the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Member. Any other necessary Business will, of course, be brought forward as and when required. I must also inform the House of the Government's intention to propose, on the next Sitting day, a Motion to give precedence to Government Business, to provide for the presentation of Government Bills only and to stop the Ballot for Private Members' Bills, following the precedents of the last Session and of the last war.

I have carefully considered this matter, and I feel sure that these proposals will receive, and certainly deserve, the general assent of the House. Anyone can see that in present circumstances our efforts must be concentrated upon those matters or measures which are vitally connected with the effective prosecution of the war at home and abroad. So far as opportunities for Debates are concerned, the House must have noticed how many general Debates we have had, and I see no reason why that process should not continue in the new Session. We are, in fact, instinctively reviving the ancient practice of the House, which was that the Government of the day got through its necessary Business with considerable expedition and the House devoted itself to debating, usually on Petition, whatever were the topics of general public interest. I am wholly in favour of that. I believe, if this House is to keep its hold on the imagination and the interest of the public, that it is necessary that the great questions which interest the nation out of doors and occupy the Press should also be the questions subject to current discussion in this House. I very much deprecate the House falling unduly into the debating of details and routine, and losing sight of its larger duty of giving guidance and encouragement to the nation and administering when required the necessary corrective to the Executive. Therefore, I consider that this practice which we have of very often disposing of Business rapidly and then having an extensive Debate upon the Adjournment, although it appears to be an innovation after the quarrels of the last 20 or 3o years, is no more than a reversion, under forms very slightly different, to the process under which the House of Commons gained its great ascendancy in the public mind. I hope that there will be an agreement to adjourn the Debate on the Address in time to go into Secret Session for the purpose of considering a motion relating to the Sittings of the House and to the methods with which we transact our business and arrange our time table. We must have this Motion to-day if the work of the House is to be satisfactorily discharged in the coming week.

The time-honoured ceremonial and procedure in which Crown and Parliament have played their part to-day carry with them to anxious minds the balm of con- fidence and serenity. When our beloved Sovereign and the Queen come from their battered palace to a building which is not without evidence of the strokes of war, when the Sovereign comes to open Parliament in person and calls his faithful Commons to the discharge of their duties, at every step, in every measure, in every formality, and in every Resolution that we pass, we touch customs and traditions which go back far beyond the great Parliamentary conflicts of the seventeenth century; we feel the inspiration of old days, we feel the splendour of our political and moral inheritance.

We are frequently asked to make declarations about our war aims. Some may think that example is better than precept, and that actions speak louder than words. To-day, in inaugurating a new Session of Parliament, we proclaim the depth and sincerity of our resolve to keep vital and active, even in the midst of our struggle for life, even under the fire of the enemy, those Parliamentary institutions which have served us so well, which the wisdom and civic virtues of our forebears shaped and founded, which have proved themselves the most flexible instruments for securing ordered, unceasing change and progress; which, while they throw open the portals of the future, carry forward also the traditions and glories of the past and which, at this solemn moment in world history, are at once the proudest assertion of British freedom and the expression of an unconquerable national will.

His Majesty's Government are conscious with gratitude that they enter upon this new Session, not only with the formal and official support of all parties, but also, I trust and believe, with the general good will of the House. Immense surrenders of their hard-won liberties have been voluntarily made by the British people in order to serve in time of war the cause of freedom and fair play, to which, keeping nothing back, they have devoted all that they have and all that they are. Parliament stands custodian of these surrendered liberties, and its most sacred duty will be to restore them in their fullness when victory has crowned our exertions and our perseverance.

We have a long road to travel. I have never concealed from the nation or from the House the darker side of our dangers and burdens, because it is there and because I know that it is in adversity that British qualities shine the brightest, and it is under these extraordinary tests that the character of our slowly wrought institutions reveals its latent, invincible strength. Up to the present this war has been waged between a fully-armed Germany and a quarter- or half-armed British Empire. We have not done so badly. I look forward with confidence and hope to the time when we ourselves shall be as well armed as our antagonists, and beyond that, if need be, I look to a time when the arsenals and training grounds and science of the New World and of the British Empire will give us that material superiority which, added to the loyalty of constant hearts, will surely bring victory and deliverance to mankind.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that on the next Sitting day there would be a general discussion. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is here a growing opposition to the policy of the Government regarding the conclusion of the war, and whether any arrangement will be made to ensure that the discussion takes place in such a way that that opposition will have the fullest opportunity of expressing itself so as to give the greatest advantage to the Debate.

Mr. Tinker.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I asked a question. There have been on the Order Paper and in various discussions many questions which are showing an opposition to the Government's policy in connection with how to bring the war to a conclusion, and I asked whether there is no possibility of arrangements being made so that the Debate on the next Sitting day will be of the most valuable character and will give an opportunity for the Opposition to express itself.

That really is not a question for me to answer. The House accepted what I said, namely, that there should be a general discussion on the first Sitting day, and that discussion will be unfettered and unlimited. No doubt if the hon. Gentleman should be called, he would make a characteristic contribution.

Although there may be a desire to close early, I wish to take advantage of this occasion to say a few words immediately on the Address. I wish to refer first of all to one of the Bills mentioned in His Majesty's Speech, namely, that relating to the household means test. Before the Prime Minister goes, I would like to say that when he made his statement we accepted it in the spirit in which we thought it was made. But one or two points now appear to be presented rather differently, and if that is so, I am afraid the Bill will have a rough passage through this House. I want the household means test to go entirely. I do not want there to be any question at all of its being patched up. We therefore ought to give a warning that although we did not question the Prime Minister's statement, we shall, after a careful review of the matter, have to watch it very closely when it comes forward as a Bill.

The second point I wish to deal with is one which has been brought to my notice in recent weeks in regard to our war effort. We are trying to get all the workshops to carry on after the air-raid warning, or what is now called the "Alert," has been sounded. That raises a rather peculiar position. A man injured at his work by enemy action is not entitled to workmen's compensation; he is entitled only to payment under the civilian scheme. Workmen are now asking why they should take on this added risk through carrying on work until danger is close if they are not to be entitled to compensation. That is one of the matters that will have to be very carefully watched. If we are to give the people the idea that they must carry on—and they want to carry on—then we must also assure them that their rights will be protected if they should be disabled through enemy action. It is hardly fair to these workmen that they should have to lose their rights, which they would otherwise have under the Workmen's Compensation Act, if they are injured by enemy action while following their employment. I believe they are entitled to full payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I wish to draw the attention of the Deputy-Leader of the House right away to this matter, which will come forward later in this new Session.

Another matter that I want to deal with—and this is my chief point—concerns the rationing scheme. The exigencies of war have put this country in such a position that it cannot provide as much food as might be desired, and a rationing scheme has had to be introduced. The rationing scheme covers a number of articles. Perhaps hon. Members are not aware what they are. Each person is entitled to eight ounces of what are called "fats": this includes two ounces of butter and six ounces of cooking fats. The tea ration is two ounces each. The bacon ration is four ounces and the sugar ration eight ounces, and meat to the value of 1s. 10d. per person is allowed each week. Certain of these articles are subsidised by the State, but even so we are not able to provide that each person in the State gets the ration. That is the position that has now been created, in regard, for instance, to butter. The poorer section of the community are not able to buy their butter; shopkeepers get a stock on hand, since out of every 100 customers perhaps 20 are not able to buy their rations, yet they are not allowed to sell the butter to other people. They must return it, or make a return to the Minister of Food, who will tell them what to do with it. If the shopkeeper sells it to another person, he is guilty of a crime. What is happening? The shopkeepers are getting rid of the extra butter left on their hands by methods that are illegal, with the result that some persons are getting more than their ordinary ration, whereas what the State intended was that each person should receive the same amount.

If this House of Parliament means anything at all, it stands for social justice and equity. That means that we ought to ensure that every person, whatever his means, ought to be in a position to obtain the full ration if he desires it. That is not happening at the present time. The poorer people cannot get their rations because of monetary difficulties. Let us take the case of the old age pensioners. How is it possible for them to get their rations? Under the communal feeding system which has been so much talked about people can get a meal for sixpence. Allowing three meals a day, that is 10s. 6d. a week. It is impossible for the old age pensioner to do that and get the other things which he requires. In addition to the old age pensioners, many of our poorer classes cannot get their rations. I ask the House to set about providing subsidies that will make it possible to give the people their full rations. The subsidy being paid at present amounts to £88,000,000 on the various articles I have mentioned. Why cannot we adjust the subsidy in order to make it possible for everyone to get his full quota? Surely at a time like this, when we are calling upon the whole nation to help towards the successful prosecution of the war, we cannot look lightly upon a state of affairs in which one section of the community is not receiving what it ought to have. If the House is satisfied that such people cannot get their rations because the prices are too high, even though those prices in many cases are regulated, it is for us to see that they do get them, either by giving them the means directly or by means of a subsidy. It is unfair at a time like this that a certain section of the community, because of their means, should be able to get greater supplies than others. I put myself in that favoured class. I am no better than the ordinary citizen, and I have no right to be in a better position in time of war than he is in. It is time that the House recognised its duty to the citizen. When a man joins the Army as a private, he is entitled to rations equal to those of a general. When we are at war, and everybody is brought into the fight, it is for us to see that every citizen gets his full ration allowance, as a soldier does. I read a saying by Lord Stamp the other day to the effect that we had to tighten our belts. I say that no man ought to be called upon to tighten his belt by two notches, until everybody has tightened his by one. I do not know Lord Stamp personally, but I question whether he has done any tightening up at all yet. In London I put up at hotels, and I do not find much difficulty in getting all that I want.

I want to refer to the Ministry of Food, and to the remark made by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, who is now suspended from his duties. On 8th October the hon. Gentleman claimed that if the Ministry of Food meant anything at all, it meant social justice and equality to every citizen. The Ministry of Food has a big task. I appeal to the Minister, knowing the difficulties that he has over the rationing system, to devise some better means, so that every citizen can get his share. I call upon him to give a lead in this direction. We must devote our attention to such things as that. I have no doubt about the outcome of the war, because I know the feeling of the country about it; but I want those members of the community who are not so well placed as we are ourselves to feel that we are at all times thinking about them, and doing our best to make their lot better than it is. We have to keep up the morale of our people; if ever they feel that we are neglecting them there will be a slackening of the war effort. Parliament can go a long way in keeping up the fighting spirit of the people. We have had two grand speeches to-day from the mover and the seconder of the Address. The mover, who is in the Fighting Services, made a good speech, and the seconder, who is the successor of the late Mr. George Lansbury, made a speech worthy of that great man. I have always thought George Lansbury the greatest and most honest man that I have ever met. His successor spoke with obvious sincerity and honesty in every word. His main theme was the position of the poorer classes. I want that taken to heart by everyone. Then, our success in this war cannot be long delayed. Keep up the spirit of the people, and victory is bound to come.

The Debate on the Address is traditionally an occasion upon which political parties define their attitude to the Government for the current 12 months. To-day, as we have no political parties, it is left to individual Members to do their best on their own account. Although it would be nice to do this at some other sitting, which, no doubt, will be the big day, I am sure that other and more important Members of this House will be trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on that occasion; and it seems that one Member, at least, might attempt this task to-day. We have had congratulatory speeches all round, and I congratulate the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Address on their speeches.

I have no doubt that great numbers of our fellow-citizens are still quite uncritically delighted with the present Government. I am equally convinced that a great many of our fellow-citizens outside this House are not. What is more, their mood is apt to change to one of growing frustration. They look in their newspapers from day to day, and find that nobody is trying to express their views inside this House. I propose to make the attempt. I shall be asked whether I am criticising our Prime Minister. I am not. Neither I nor any of those who feel as I do fail to look back to our fears—and, indeed, our expectations—of the summer, and to look again at our present position; and none of us fails to realise that something like a miracle has been brought about, largely through the personal qualitites of the Prime Minister. We gratefully acknowledge the splendid things that this Government did when they first came to office—above all, the wonderful new spirit that they put into all of us. But there are people who are asking what is happening now? I think it comes to this: that in May last we thought we had received a real clarion call to join in a joyous co-operation with a new Government amenable to the public will and acting on principles which people could really understand. We find that we are still in the hands of a set of remote, apparently very well-satisfied, mandarins, far removed from our will and acting on principles which we do not understand. As to our Prime Minister, whom we all love—I mean that quite literally—there is one thing which does get us down. That is the way in which he seems to say, "Inasmuch as you are criticising one of these little ones, you are criticising me." That is dangerous. If he sheds his popularity upon others, by and by their unpopularity will come back on him. I do not know what will happen if the country loses confidence in the Prime Minister, because, quite frankly, who else is there?

We have to face the fact that this war will be a great deal nastier than it is now. The Germans are still spending £100,000,000 a year more than we are on war preparations. It would be fairly safe to say that some of this money is being spent on weapons designed to make life on this island a great deal more unpleasant. Of course, we shall destroy a great many of those weapons before they become effective. In one way or another I think that it is safe to say that what we are going through now can properly be described as an elementary introduction to hell on earth. I believe the people of our country will go through any kind of hell to achieve our great purpose of wiping out Nazism really on two conditions. One is that they are convinced that the Government have a real grasp of the situation and are doing their best for the protection of the people and for the amelioration of their suffering, and the other is that they are given some assurance that, in going through all this, they are not going back to the hideous years between 1918 and 1939. If things remain as they are now, I shall do what I can to sustain, during the coming months, the criticism of the Government if they do not fulfil either of these conditions.

I prove my point, at first, with regard to the well-known case of air-raid precautions. I do not know whether the decision not to build deep shelters was right or wrong, but when the people of London proved that it was wrong, it would have been better not to have thrown about such words as "fifth columnists" in describing those who made that allegation. But if you are going to dig, it is not a bad plan to ask unemployed miners to help. I asked a question about this matter the other day and received a lecture from the hon. Lady, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, about the difficulties to be overcome and the problems to be solved, and I am not sure whether she did not mention that certain interests had to be reconciled before any operations could be begun. If any Minister and group of civil servants are unable to start some kind of digging within one week of making a decision to dig, that Minister and those civil servant should be dismissed because they are not up to their job. But worse than that was the delay of 11 or 12 weeks after the beginning of the bombing. The hon. Lady told me that it was not her fault. Whose fault was it? Has he been dismissed or what? You could have done such a splendid thing in this regard. You could have asked the miners to come and you could have brought them to London in flag-bedecked lorries or have asked them to march in with bands playing and Welshmen singing. You could have done something spectacular about it. That is one of the difficulties to be solved. This is not the way to get on with the war.

I am told by someone whose word I cannot doubt that he has been to half-a-dozen leading estate agents in his city who supplied him at once with the names of houses containing 100 rooms, and running into three figures. What about that? I can almost hear the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health reading me another lecture on the difficulties, saying that they are unsuitable owing to the condition of the drains, water supply and so on. How much more suitable are they going to be 12 weeks from now? I cannot believe that a nation spending £12,000,000 a day on war could not by now have taken over hundreds of these houses to receive the people from the bombed cities. That would not solve the whole problem, but the people want to see that the Government are facing it in the kind of way they expect them to face it. That has not happened. Why not take the preparatory schools, which are all equipped with kitchens, matrons and everything? They have had to send the boys and girls home, but their parents can generally maintain them out of their own resources. We are trying to maintain people who cannot mantain themselves out of their own resources. The Government will have to choose between the claims of the rather special education of these little luxury boys and the boys of the mothers who have been bombed in our industrial cities. It is essential that the choice of the Government should coincide with our choice.

There is the question of basement shelters. I do not know whether the ground or the second floor is the safer. What is happening there? It may be that the Government have already taken over and made available for shelter a great many buildings for such accommodation. If they have, it has been done in a way which has made no impression upon the public confidence. I only offer it as an example to show that the Government have not got a grasp of the situation and do not, in the eyes of the public, seem to be doing their best. We can hardly go through Question Time without being told, on one issue or another, that a committee is investigating the matter and that all relevant considerations are being taken into account, that a report is expected shortly, and that when the Government have considered it, a statement will be issued. One Minister, asked yesterday when a statement was to be issued, said that it would be issued in 48 hours, and I think that most hon. Members present saw the Chief Whip sit up as if a charge of shot had been put into him because of the shock. I say this in all seriousness. It appears that along the whole length of the home front the Government are about two jumps behind the situation. The British people, who are very tough, will not countenance serious slackening of the war effort, but I am wondering what will happen if the war situation takes another three jumps ahead.

I come to something that is even more serious. If the Government mean to fight this war in the only way in which it can be fought and won, then, submarine campaign or not, there will not be enough consumable goods in this country in six months' time to enable the great block of the community on between £5 and £10 a week to go on consuming on the basis of £5 to £12 a week. It is no use telling us in six months' time that the hon. Member for arnstaple (Sir R. Acland) was utterly wrong, because we have plenty of material and these people can consume up to £5 or £12 a week. If you tell us that in six months' time, it will be proved that you are conducting the war wrongly. Many hon. Members who normally would be sitting opposite might perhaps think I was saying something very unpopular because the £5 to £12 a week group contains most of the skilled workers and most of the junior members of the salaried classes. That is the group which will have to come down from the £5 to £12 a week standard to a £3 or £4 a week standard if we are to win the war. Are the Government considering the position that is likely to arise if cuts of that order are to be made? The consumption of the very rich, though spectacular, is not economically very important. Morally it is vital and crucial, but, theoretically and economically, you can go through this war with a small group of people consuming much more than £5 or £12 a week. Morally you cannot. You will not get the necessary cuts made, which is equivalent to saying you will not get your war production, unless shareholders, company directors and landlords and all the rest of that group come down to the soldier's wage too. It will take in the lot of them. Nobody can estimate the new thrill of hope which would come from these things, the new willingness to make sacrifices, to go anywhere, to do anything, to work any num- ber of hours at any job, which would cut right through this nation if we cut down to a soldier's wage. I quite agree that with the kind of differences you get between the private, sergeant, lieutenant and captain, these people would understand and tolerate them, but greater differences than that you cannot excuse in war time. I want to know whether the Government are planning at all. There is no indication of it in the King's Speech, and the fact that it is not there leads me to think that this Government does not mean to run the war right.

There is one other important matter, if people are to go through hell on earth and suffer these reductions in their standards of living, they must be convinced that they are doing it for something worth while. I do not want to be misunderstood; I know that the fight to destroy Nazism is a very good thing. For innumerable people it would be a sufficient motive. I am not so absurd as to think that the whole of our people are all agog to hear a closer definition of our war aims, although many of them are, nor do I suppose that in every third-class railway carriage passengers are talking about the boundaries of Austria, the status of Czecho-Slovakia and the real interpretation of Article 16 of the Covenant. But what I am saying is that millions of our people have got inside them a gnawing anxiety which I think can be expressed more or less in these words: What kind of country is this to be when this is all over? It is no use hon. Members pretending that this is not so, or that these people can be put off with the happy phrase, "Get on with the war and do not worry about what is not your business." I had almost intended to apologise for bringing up this subject in the House to-day, until I heard the Prime Minister say that he thought the House would be in danger of losing its repute if the great questions which are interesting the nation outdoors should not also be the chief subjects for current discussion in this House. I say this to the House: Discuss this subject now. If we disagree, so be it, we can still be united in our determination to destroy Nazism. Do not let us keep the thing dark as if it was somehow indecent. These people think it right to ask this question, because once before they were sold the biggest pup in history by very much the same kind of people who are telling them to get on with the war and mind their own business.

The King's Speech says that the health and well-being of our people will be studied by the Government. What else? The question people are asking is: When this fighting is over, whose country is this to be—ours or someone else's? What is it the Germans are saying about us? They call us a pluto-democracy although they fail to recognise the fact that their Government is a precarious balance between big business and party bosses and cannot be removed except by force. But their charge is unfortunately too true. Politically we are more equal than the citizens in any other country, but economically, for the last 20 years, our lives have been run by the self-selected nominees of a small group of individuals. Moreover, I submit that this is the root cause of our present evils. Nazism itself, indeed, the whole of this war, arose not through a breakdown of democracy, but through a breakdown of pluto-democracy all over the world. I believe people want to know whether we are going back to that system again when this struggle is over or whether we are going on to our economic democracy as well as the political democracy which we have now.

Economic democracy does not mean the uncompensated expropriation of every existing ownership. Nor does it mean that thousands of small men will not be carrying on their little businesses and running and managing them in very much the same way as they are doing to-day. But it does mean that the power to control this tremendous industrial and economic organisation which is a feature of our present age must be taken out of the hands of private individuals who have no responsibility at all to the community. These powers must be vested in all of us, I wonder whether any hon. Member will get up and deny that. We are talking now, for the second time in a quarter of a century, about the new spirit of each for all and all for each, as found in wartime, being carried over into the tasks of peace. This time let us do it. The Prime Minister said that even should all homes be levelled, then we should be found standing together to build them up again. Let us go to that task in peace-time. Indeed, I am not worrying about the hours which will have to be worked; we will work in an entirely new way to get this job done, but on one condition—that our great brick fields and steel works are not being worked by powerful people for their own good, and that the land on which we shall build our cities shall be ours, so that we shall know that private individuals are not making great profits out of the land.

I have often confessed in this House that through my upbringing I am entirely cut off from the feeling of nine-tenths of my fellow countrymen. But on this occasion I am not asking for something I have not got. I am appealing to my fellow members of the privileged classes of this country. Are we prepared in this great hour of national peril to give up, not 7s. 6d. in the £, not even 17s. 6d. in the £, but personal power? Before any man gives up 17s. 6d. in the £, he has already received out of the common pool an income equal to the income of 400 Spitfire pilots, and after he has made this tremendous sacrifice he is still left with the income of 50 Spitfire pilots. Let us see the man who claims that his contribution to the war effort is equal to that of 50 Spitfire pilots. So I say again, that I am not appealing to my fellow members of the privileged classes to give up 17s. 6d. in the £; I am appealing to them to maintain national unity by giving up something much more important—their personal power over the economic life of this country. I shall take whatever opportunities I can during the coming 12 months of saying this, and if in the course of those 12 months we have not given an affirmative answer to that question, a very heavy load of responsibility will rest on our shoulders.

When today, I raised the question of some arrangement being made for the Opposition to express itself, I believed I was raising a somewhat serious question. When a general Debate takes place in the House, a member of the Government gets up and makes a speech. Immediately he has finished, a Member of the Front Bench on this side of the House gets up and makes the same speech. Afterwards, a Member on the Liberal benches rises and makes the same speech again. That is not the way to carry on a Debate or to get any advantage out of Parliament. At the present time there is being conveyed a sort of idea that there is no opposition to the Government, to the Government's conception of the war, or to their policy in connection with the war. On one occasion the Prime Minister said that this war is a continuation of the war of 1914–18. That war was one of the most imperialistic wars one could conceive. Mighty Imperialisms were competing with one another on the question of empire. As the present war develops, it becomes clearer every day that the Prime Minister was right in saying that this war is a continuation of the war of 1914–18. Capitalism, power and empire are the big questions in connection with this war.

There is a great deal of talk about freedom and democracy, but let it never be forgotten that the Foreign Secretary has put his name to a pamphlet presenting the British case which states quite clearly that the question at issue is not one as between democracy and non-democracy, but something different. He says that when Hitler made a non-aggression pact with Russia, Hitler betrayed Europe. What is the Foreign Secretary's conception of Europe? His conception of Europe is of powerful capitalist and imperialist States united against the Soviet Union. That is why the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Foreign Secretary say that Hitler betrayed Europe when he made that non-aggression pact with Russia. The Empire is concerned with power, but it is concerned especially with stopping the advance of the working classes. In the "Catholic Herald" recently, there was an article reprinted from the American Catholic Press, and the writer of that article, in discussing Britain, defended the policy of the late Prime Minister and said that he was quite correct in his policy of trying to incite Germany against Soviet Russia and thereby destroy two nuisances at the same time. But that policy did not work out, and instead of Britain watching Germany and the Soviet Union destroy each other, the dollar Imperialists of America are deliberately inciting this country to more desperate war with Germany in order that two powerful competitors of dollar Imperialism may be destroyed. Like many other hon. Members I have been in America, and nobody who has been there wants to talk too much about freedom and democracy in America, where there is in every big industry organised and hired thugs, and gunmen always ready to attack the working classes.

I have often heard freedom talked about here. If we are fighting for freedom in Europe, if we are fighting for the freedom of those nations so often mentioned why not talk in a language they can understand? To-day the Prime Minister said that deeds spoke louder than words. If you want to talk freedom to the people of the continent of Europe, then free India. The Seconder of the Address said that it was not simply a question of victory for the Empire, but that what mattered more than anything else was freedom to think and speak. But Nehru is in gaol, sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment, for thinking and for speaking what he thought. If you want to talk of freedom, if you want to make an impression as far as freedom is concerned, you have a way to talk to the people of the continent of Europe—free India. But there is no question of that being done.

The same thing applies to all the precious talk there is about the new Jerusalem. It is significant of the feeling that is being aroused in Germany—make no mistake about this—that the working class movement in that country is alive and becoming more and more active. It is significant of the feeling that is growing all the time among the masses of the people in Germany that Hitler has to talk more and more now about bringing in a Socialist programme after the war, and to talk about the great reconstruction there is to be after the war. In this country we also hear talk about what is to happen after the war. But we had these promises during the last war. I remember them; I remember the promises about a land that was to be fit for heroes to live in, homes with roses round the door, and so forth. We have heard the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) making an appeal to his privileged friends. Will the Lord President of the Council get up at that Box and say that it is the intention of the Government to take away the wealth of the wealthy and use it in the interests of the people as a whole, that the Government are determined to bring about a new Jerusalem in this country where there will he no gluttonous and extravagant wealth at one end and poverty, suffering and degradation at the other? Shall we get any evidence from the Benches opposite that hon. Members there have any intention of giving up their privileged position in life? No, everything they do shows that they are determined to strengthen their position, even at the expense of the masses of the people.

What is the use of talking about a new Jerusalem after the war when there is a Purchase Tax to-day? We have heard all this talk so often, and all the time heavier and heavier burdens are placed on the working classes. In my constituency, the miners and the agricultural workers are working for the barest minimum of wages. In parts of my constituency the agricultural workers work hard, and in other parts the miners are engaged in their dangerous work, for minimum wages. Nearby, where some of the big Government contracts are being carried out, men working above ground and getting overtime are making half as much again as the miners make in their most dangerous occupation. On top of the hardship and poverty which exist in my constituency, and in so many other constituencies, there is this Purchase Tax. With rising prices, low wages, and resolute determination on the part of the employers, who have the wealth, not to increase wages if they can possibly avoid it, but rather to keep them down, what a weight it means on the masses.

What do we see in the case of shelters? Have we seen the Minister or the Government prepared to use the wealth of this country to provide protection for the people? On 1st July, I drew attention to the fact that the most backward area in this country from the point of view of protection was Birmingham. I said that Birmingham was represented by a body of hard-faced, shell-backed Tories who had not the least interest in the welfare of the people. Then we had the case of Coventry and Birmingham being heavily bombed. I say that it is a scandal, a shame and a disgrace that such inadequate shelter provision should exist in these cities. Night after night, from Birmingham and Coventry, women and children have taken buses into the country villages, where they may find shelter or they may not. Then we are told that we are to have a new Jerusalem after the war, Is there no money in the country and no material? Yes, but those who have power in this country, those who own the land and those with wealth, are determined to hold on to it.

I remember the Lord President of the Council saying that if we could not build bomb-proof shelters for all, it was better not to build them for anyone. In other words, if you cannot save everybody do not save anybody. But the people of London go down to the tubes, and the Government have been forced to recognise the tubes as shelters. The Government have decided that the tubes may be used as bomb-proof shelters; but they cannot hold everybody. That is a repudiation of the Minister's policy; but having decided to use the tubes as shelters—and they are bombproof shelters—the Government ought to give the same measure of protection in other parts of the country. In Birmingham and Coventry one finds great concentrations of wealth and industry. Wealth has been pouring out of these places, but when it comes to the protection of the people, their care and their welfare, as I said on 1st July, we find there is no part of the country which has been so neglected. Yet the representatives of these cities sit on the Government side of the House, representing dozens of directorships. Would they be prepared to give up one of these directorships? I say "no." Karl Marx on one occasion said of Great Britain that it would rather lose thirty-eight of its Thirty-Nine Articles than one thirty-ninth of its wealth. That applies a thousand times over to the Tories on the other side of the House.

In regard to the dependants of the soldiers, if there is to be a Bill dealing with the means test, surely it should apply to the parents of the soldiers. I have a case of a woman in my constituency who is threatened with eviction. She has a husband and four sons. Her sons are in the Army and she is not entitled to a penny from the Government. She can obtain an allocation from her sons, but from the Government she is entitled to nothing. Surely something should be done in this matter. But the big question is how to bring this monstrous war to an end at the earliest possible moment. That is a question which should be in the thoughts of everyone. Yet what do we find? We find that the Government are concerned with how we can make it worse, and how we can spread it. They have the idea that the worse it gets the better. Certainly the present policy of the Government is to give no attention to this all-important question of ending the war. I know that the Government are hoping, from day to day, from month to month and from year to year, but the Prime Minister has let us know, and I am sure it will be a pleasant thought for Members in this House, that the war will be continuing during 1943 and 1944.

Why should anyone be prepared to contemplate with equanimity such a terrible fate for humanity? Why should we not be discussing what possible way there is to bring to an end this terrible catastrophe and extricate people from this terrible hole? Of course, there is the question of the peoples in Europe, and about them I have heard Members of this House even suggest revolution. If it is to be a revolution in France, I am favourable. I am favourable to a revolution in Belgium, and I am all for it, if it is to be a revolution in Germany. But if Members of this House want revolution in those countries, then I am going to advocate that a revolution would be a good thing for this country. I know we have some friends in the Labour movement who wish to have here a revolution by consent. They say, "Please won't you let us have a revolution. If you do not let us have it the Communists will collar everything." That is the revolutionary propaganda of certain of the lieutenants in the Labour movement. They say, "For God's sake help us to have a nice peaceful revolution so that we can prove these Communists are all wrong."

The ruling classes are deceiving and deluding the masses of the people of the country. Let us get a Government which will take over the land and conscript the wealth of the country and use them in the interests of the masses of the people. That would be understood by the Continent. Let us get a people's Government which would free India and the Colonial people, instead of chasing after new territories. That is a language which the ruling classes of the country cannot speak. They can never speak a language which the people on the Continent can understand. Therefore, I am happy to know that there is a movement to bring about a Govern- ment which will speak a language that the people of the Continent can understand. Over the wireless the other night someone was telling the people of this country that in 1917 the Germans sent a little bald-headed Jew into Russia in order to stir up trouble. I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he and those associated with him are in earnest when they have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in Moscow. He is supposed to be developing friendly relations, and yet from the B.B.C. you get such an ignorant, impudent slander as that directed against the great leader of the Russian revolution. Not only so but they propose de facto recognition of the Baltic States—not de jure recognition. Therefore, they hold on to the shipping and they hold on to the gold.

It is impossible to get anything but deliberate sabotage of any possibility of friendly relations while you have the present Government and the present Foreign Office. I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is growing opposition to the Government in this House and in the country. Let us have a people's Government which will use the wealth of the country and speak in the people's language to the people of the Continent, which will build up friendship with the mighty Soviet Union and with the masses of the people on the Continent, which will put an end to tyranny of all kinds and restore lasting peace to Europe and set the feet of our people on the road to progress and to a better life.

I feel that the speech to which we have just listened deserves some comment. The hon. Member began by saying that he told the Prime Minister earlier to-day that he was raising an important matter. I had begun to think that what he was going to say might prove him to be correct for once, but it was not so. Some time ago there appeared a disgraceful document, signed by two Members of this House under the title of "A People's Government for a People's Peace"—disgraceful because it designed a convention which was obviously intended to be an infringement of the Privileges of this House and to be an instrument of surrender to the enemy, and I thought that at last we were going to be told what this people's peace was going to consist of, what the terms would be, what grounds there were for supposing that the Germans would accept it, and why on earth it was to be called "People's." We listened instead to the usual claptrap. Any sort of Communist presentation of the case about this war is doomed from the start, because it is not morally honest and morally respectable. Never since Judas Iscariot betrayed his Master has there been such a conversion as there has been within the ranks of the Communist party. The truth is that the Communist party did not betray their master, because their master is serving in the Soviet Union, and the explanation of this change of front was not any genuine change of opinion in their ranks but because their master had changed his front in another country. I could not help noticing that the hon. Member spoke about freeing India. Is that a coincidence? We know what Hitler promised Stalin. He offered him India. That has been known for some time. Is it a coincidence that the hon. Member now suggests freeing India? Does he mean withdrawing British troops so that India may suffer the fate of Bessarabia, Finland and the Baltic States?

Would the hon. Member mind telling me if it is Stalin's or Hitler's confidence that he is in, or where he got his information about offering something which one did not possess to the other?

If the hon. Member has not been studying international politics recently, he should do so. It is obvious what the terms of that bargain must have been. It is plain to anyone who has been studying international politics that the thing that Russia was after was India, and that was the bait which Hitler must have offered to Stalin at that meeting. If I had not thought so before, I should have thought so from the speech that we have just heard, faithfully reflecting, as it always does, the foreign policy of the mass of the Communist party in this country. What would this people's peace be? There was an event in history to which the hon. Member referred which I do not consider altogether inapposite at present. At that time there was a great Empire in Russia, no doubt decadent and guilty of many tyrannies, but it was being attacked by the German Empire. How did it fall? It fell because the Germans got into touch with the Communist party in Russia, and tried to get them to negotiate what they described as "A people's peace by a people's Government."

That convention, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, is in effect a criminal conspiracy designed to bring about a Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for this country. The analogy between 1917 and 1940 is not so remote as to be lost on the clever brains directing Communist policy in this country or the German general staff. It has been my task sometimes to listen to some of the German propaganda, and I ask the House to believe me when I say that there is more than a coincidental relationship between the propaganda that is going over the German station, "Workers' Challenge," and the speeches which the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) are making at various points in the country. There is a close resemblance, obviously reflecting a common desire, and I make the charge that the so-called People's Convention in January is a deliberate attempt to usurp the privileges of Parliament and to cause a surrender on the lines of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to the enemies of our country.

There are one or two observations I should like to add arising out of the gracious Speech. The two eloquent and noble speeches to which we listened at the opening seemed to me to strike two important notes—leadership and comradeship. Leadership is a policy of which our antagonists claim to be the monopolists, but that is not so. There is no reason in the world why there should be any antithesis between leadership and democracy. Democracy, and particularly our own free people, has always responded to leadership, and I should like to echo the appeal to the Government of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Address to lead on, because there is no degree to which the people will not follow if strong and vigorous leadership is appointed. The secret of leadership is an appeal to the spirit of comradeship, which was referred to by the hon. Member who seconded the Address and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland), for it seems to me that the effect of the war, so tragic in many respects upon the people of this country, has been this. It is as if the inhabitants of a country are brought together in a single house and stand in the wreck of all their fortunes when that house is destroyed. They face one another and find that they are brothers. It is true that when brothers have anything to share, they share it, and if they have anything to suffer, they suffer it together. Therefore the word must go forth, whether one accepts everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple or not, that so long as there are acres in this country capable of the production of food, and so long as there is a pound of credit in the Bank of England, the people must not starve and the children must not be left neglected. Once the whole nation recognises that fact, and if it is given to recognise it by Government edict, I do not believe that there is any degree of sacrifice which they cannot be called upon to endure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple referred to a feeling of criticism which exists in the country. I think there is truth in what he said. There is a feeling, strange as it may appear, in the present time, when we are fighting for our institutions, that in some way some of our institutions have let us down. It is important to analyse and to give effect to that feeling. All government is of two parts. There is the constitutional part of the Government which governs the kind of way in which we live, and there is the Government machine, the thing which the Government have in their hands as an instrument with which to apply their will. When we say that we live under a better system of government than the Germans, for instance, we do not mean to imply that our own Civil Service is necessarily a good one. What we mean is that it is better to live under a free system of Parliamentary democracy than under a dictatorship.

I regret that there has not been on the part of the Government a greater inclination to look into the efficiency of the entire Government machine—the Civil Service, the permanent personnel of the Fighting Departments, as distinct from the Army or Navy, the distribution of functions between different Departments, and the question as to whether there should not be a new function of the Civil Service created above the others. I feel that the Govern- ment really would be wise to take into account the fact that parts of our Government machine are growing somewhat obsolete. I do not want to deal with the details of an obviously complex matter, but let me cite one or two examples of what I have in mind. First, with regard to the war machine. The war machine starts with a political direction in the shape of the War Cabinet. Then there is a series of Departments, each with a political head in the shape of the Minister responsible to Parliament. But there is no staff in the war machine of adequate size to plan the war as a whole from the Civil Service and permanent Service point of view. It would be untrue to say that the Departments have no contact with one another. We know that the Chiefs of Staffs are in close contact but these contacts are points of contact and are not institutions; they are not permanent people. There should be at the command of the War Cabinet a permanent staff capable of advising it on all major questions of war policy, a Department containing Service chiefs, economic chiefs and propaganda chiefs.

Then there is the question of distribution or function between Government Departments. All modern States have a Minister of Economics. We have not one. The immemorial business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to study revenue and expenditure. He studies economics only as ancillary to those questions, and yet everybody knows that our real problems are economic and not revenue problems at all. The Minister of Economic Warfare studies another branch of it, and the Board of Trade studies a third branch, yet there is nobody examining from an objective point of view economic problems as a whole. A word about personnel. For years the Civil Service has really been immune from criticism in this House. Minister after Minister has stood between the House and his Department and has been shot away and has disappeared in the process.

A new Minister has been appointed who has in Opposition shown great promise and great idealism, and to the surprise and mortification of everybody he has repeated the same mistakes and advanced the same arguments as were heard from his predecessor. The fact of the matter is that the Minister is acting as a mouth- piece. Our real masters are the civil servants or, in the case of the Service Departments, the permanent personnel of the Departments. Nobody has ever been able to get behind the Treasury Bench to criticise the personnel of that Department. When a business is not being run particularly well there is a well-known method of reorganisation; those who have been doing badly get the sack. But those in the Civil Service and the Fighting Departments have been for years immune from dismissal for incompetence.

They get promotion.

They get promotion instead. Only the other day I was talking to a prominent member of the Foreign Office, who said that half the embassies in parts of the world which he mentioned to me were filled with "duds," because you could only get rid of them by promoting them to other places which, for the time being were thought to be unimportant. There is not a single Department in the whole apparatus of Government where that is not true, where it is not possible to get rid of people who have been proved incompetent. It would be invidious to mention one Department rather than another in that respect. The fact of the matter is that our Government machine has proved to be obsolete. It needs drastic reform. It needs the power of dismissal applied mercilessly to the personnel. It needs a redistribution of functions; new Departments should be formed. I believe that sooner or later we shall be driven to adopt these measures. I believed that this winter was the great opportunity. I thought that when the danger of invasion passed, about the end of September, the Government would really get busy on this job. So far they have not done so, and the winter is passing away. I believe profoundly that unless this problem is tackled, and tackled soon, it may prove a greater obstacle to winning the war than the actual antagonism of the enemy.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put and agreed to.—[ Mr. Holdsworth. ]

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting day.