Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 367: debated on Wednesday 18 December 1940

House of Commons

Wednesday, December 18, 1940

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Private Business

Ministry of Health Provisional Order. (Shipley) Bill

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Questions

Great Britain and Italy

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Government are unwilling to publish a White Paper setting out the negotiations between the British and Italian Governments prior to the outbreak of war, on similar lines to the one published already, covering negotiations between the British Government and the German Government?

I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject on 4th December.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that since then the Greek Government have published a White Paper covering the negotiations between Italy and the Greeks? Is there any reason why the Government cannot do the same, or is the right hon. Gentleman trying to cover up some appeasers at the Foreign Office?

The hon. Member knows me well enough to believe that I do not want to cover anything up. There is nothing whatever mysterious about this matter; it is simply that as at present advised the Government are not publishing a White P per. But I am bearing in mind the point raised by the hon. Member as to the publication of the Greek Government, which we are studying.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he became converted to the idea of full disclosure?

American Republics (Neutrality Zone)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether His Majesty's Government have recognised, directly or implicitly, the claim of the American Republics to establish a 300-mile limit from their shores within which belligerent operations may not take place?

The views of His Majesty's Government on this question were set out in their reply to the communication of 23rd December, 1939, addressed to them by the Acting President of the Republic of Panama on behalf of the Governments of the American Republics. I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the statement.

Abyssinia

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position in Abyssinia; and whether all steps are being taken to treat that country and its Emperor as allied in the fullest sense?

Information as to conditions in Abyssinia is naturally difficult to obtain, but the movement of revolt against the Italians appears to be making progress. It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to extend to the Emperor Haile Selassie, as well as to all elements within Abyssinia willing to bear arms against the enemy, all possible assistance is their fight for freedom.

Do I understand that they will be treated in the same manner as the other Allies fighting with us in the campaign against aggression?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will give consideration to the question of playing the National Anthem of Abyssinia on the wireless, since this matter is one to which great importance is attached in Abyssinian circles, and because the B.B.C. programmes are listened to in Abyssinia?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of the importance of this point, which has been brought to my Noble Friend's attention. It is thought at present that the list of National Anthems cannot be added to. I do not deny, however, the importance of the point which the hon. Member has raised and which we shall remember.

If it is not played, does it not constitute a discrimination against a nation, of whom His Majesty's Government have already said, four months ago, that they were prepared to treat them as Allies in the some way as our other Allies?

No, Sir. I think we should be doing a disservice to the cause of the Emperor and his friends, and the cause of freedom, if the hon. Gentleman attached any particular importance to this particular matter. The policy of His Majesty's Government, as stated by me to-day, is perfectly clear, and I am glad to say that it is having considerable success.

It is not that I attach importance to the matter—it would not matter if I did—but that the Abyssinians do.

Tangier

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the number of Spanish troops and guns now in Tangier; and whether the guns include guns of position?

I regret I cannot give information regarding Spanish military dispositions. But, as I stated on 11th December, my Noble Friend's information does not indicate that the Spanish authorities are erecting fortifications of a permanent nature at Tangier. The Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs has since given His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid an assurance that the Tangier Zone will not be so fortified.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether there are any German planes or ships in Tangier?

Is the right hon. Gentleman so well satisfied with other assurances given in regard to the International Zone that he is prepared to accept this particular assurance?

( by Private Notice ) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the further unilateral act of the Spanish Government in the International Zone at Tangier, and what steps are being taken to secure the reinstatement of the dismissed British personnel?

On 13th December, His Majesty's Consul-General in Tangier was notified by the local Spanish authorities that the non-Spanish employees of the international administration were being replaced by Spaniards that morning. An official communique was published in Tangier on 16th December stating that

"the High Commissariat of Spain in the Spanish Protectorate in Morocco had assumed charge of the services of the police, finance, health, public works and, in short, of all those services now dependent on the international administration of Tangier."

His Majesty's Consul-General at once lodged a formal protest with the local Spanish authorities. The House should know that, in the course of earlier conversations held with the Spanish Government with a view to elucidating the full effect of the Spanish law published on 1st December, His Majesty's Ambassador was assured that the collective and individual rights of British subjects at Tangier would be safeguarded, and that no hurried economic changes were contemplated. The further unilateral action of 13th December, with all the consequences which flow from it, has now been vigorously taken up by His Majesty's Ambassador with the Spanish Government. In particular, representations are being made designed to elucidate the precise significance and practical effect of the general assurances given by the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, and to safeguard the interests of the British subjects concerned.

Will the Government carefully consider the advisability of facilitating a supply of food through the British blockade to a Government who treat British subjects and British rights in this high-handed and aggressive manner?

I used the language which I did in my original reply to show that this further unilateral action, with all the consequences flowing from it, is being taken up by His Majesty's Ambassador in order to indicate the gravity with which His Majesty's Government view the latest developments.

Will the Government consider suspending, if not terminating, the Anglo-Spanish trade and financial agreement?

We had better leave the discussions which are taking place between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Spanish Government to take their course. Naturally we shall endeavour to keep the House informed of the latest developments as fully as possible, in the circumstances.

What reply do the Spanish Government make to our protests? Do they simply say: "Your protest is noted," or do they give a more definite answer? Are our protests in writing or merely verbal?

The reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's Question is that our protests are very often both oral and in writing. The reply to the first part of the Question is that we have received certain answers from the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs to which I made reference in my reply. The further vigorous representations which are being made by His Majesty's Ambassador are couched in language which my hon. Friend can feel satisfied is very definite.

Are the other Governments whose countries are parties to the International Statute of Tangier taking strong diplomatic action also with the Spanish Government?

If the negotiations should, unhappily, not take the favourable turn which the Government desire, will the Government bear in mind that we are still allowing oil to reach Spain, and that it might be stopped?

Women Detenues (Exchange)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will endeavour to arrange, through a neutral Government or the International Red Cross, for an exchange of British women prisoners of war held by Germany and Great Britain?

The question of arranging for the repatriation of British women detained by the German Government in exchange for German women detained by His Majesty's Government is being kept constantly in mind. But my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that in present conditions transport both by land and sea presents very serious difficulties.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in a letter received from one of these prisoners, dated 1st October, it was alleged that they had had no change of clothing for five months, had not received any parcels or letters of any kind whatsoever, had been fed on potatoes, and had no occupation, and in view of these circumstances and the small number of British women involved, will he take steps to make representations in the proper quarter at the earliest possible moment?

I realise the seriousness of the position, and His Majesty's Government are also, unfortunately, aware of the difficulties which exist in putting things right. My hon. and gallant Friend has done a service in drawing attention to these conditions, and I can assure him that the Government also realise the gravity of the matter.

Atlantic Air Service

asked the Secretary of State for Air why the civil air service to Lisbon has been severely curtailed recently; and whether this one rapid channel of communication with the United States of America will be fully restored?

The recent cur- tailment of the civil air service to Lisbon was due to difficulties which led to the temporary suspension of landplane flights on this route. I am glad to say that these difficulties have now been surmounted, and the flights have been resumed.

It would not be in the interests of security and safety to disclose details of schedules, but I can answer the hon. Gentleman by saying "Yes, regularly."

Ministry of Information

Italian Troops

asked the Minister of Information whether he will arrange that in broadcasts, and other official or semi-official statements, Italian soldiers should not be referred to in terms of contempt, but as truly patriotic citizens who are rightly unwilling to conquer foreign territories and slaughter people against whom they have no quarrel, and otherwise disgrace the ideals of Garibaldi or Massini, in order to satisfy the Fascist ambitions of Mussolini's Government?

My right hon. Friend sees no reason why he should give publicity to the high opinion of the enemy forces which the hon. Member apparently entertains. It has, however, been frequently made clear that it is not the Italian soldiers and people, but their leaders who are principally to blame for the disasters which have befallen Italy.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in all these matters which come through the Ministry of Information, that in Italy as in other countries there are two nations, and that by far the bigger nation is a friend of ours and a friend of peace?

Film "49th Parallel."

asked the Minister of Information what is the amount advanced by the British Government towards the production costs of the film "49tlh Parallel"; what proportion of the profits the Government will be entitled to and what proportion of the loss will the Government be called upon to bear and, in the event of the non-completion of the production of this film, who gets the salvage?

The net amount advanced to date by the Ministry of Information towards the cost of this film is £22,086 13s. 7d. In answer to the last two parts of the Question, the Ministry's contribution is expected to be substantially less than half the total cost and the Ministry will share pro rata with the other financial participants.

Post Office (Telegraph Service)

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that telegraph offices of delivery are not always able to inform addressees of the dates on which telegrams have been handed in; and whether he will cause the date as well as the time of handing in to be telegraphed without additional charge?

The time and date of handing in are already included in messages from abroad. The great majority of inland telegrams are delivered on the day on which they are handed in: but in the relatively few cases where this is not possible the standing instructions are that the date as well as the time of handing in, should be shown in the preamble.

Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that those instructions are more closely followed?

If my hon. Friend can give me any instance of their not being followed, I shall be glad to look into it.

Royal Naval Reserve

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why a certificated master mariner with many years of sea experience has, in the majority of cases, no higher rank than that of a lieutenant, receiving exactly the same pay and conditions as a Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve man; and why it is that in 90 per cent, of the cases a Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve man who has had no sea experi- ence whatsoever is placed in a superior position to that of a Royal Naval Reserve man?

The Admiralty fully recognise that officers of the Royal Naval Reserve have invaluable sea experience, and it is for this reason that many of them are appointed in command of small craft where this experience will be of most use. Naval expansion has inevitably created a preponderance of vacancies in the lower commissioned ranks and the majority of Royal Naval Reserve officers must unavoidably serve in these lower ranks. It is, however, only infrequently that they find themselves in positions inferior to those held by officers of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and in these cases there are always special considerations.

Will my hon. Friend inform the House what are those special considerations?

I think it is well known that there are many officers in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve who have great sea experience and are very useful officers indeed.

Are not the facts as stated in the Question on the Order Paper? Are not the bulk of the Royal Naval Reserve men of long sea service, and is it not the case that in the ranks of the Royal Naval Reserve there is growing bitterness about the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve men being placed in higher positions?

I cannot accept the statement in the last part of my hon. Friend's Question. If he has any specific cases in mind and will bring them to my notice, I will have them looked into.

Does the position of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken apply equally to Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and Royal Naval Reserve men ashore?

Tanganyika Territory (Social Services)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Tanganyika recently sent a considerable war gift to this country and also set up a special economy committee to make good the gap thereby created in its reserves; that the committee has proposed cuts in medical, educational and agricultural services because of the impaired taxable capacity of the territory; and what steps are being taken to prevent these inadequate services from being crippled in this way?

The Government of the Tanganyika Territory made a contribution of £100,000 to His Majesty's Government in July last, and on 9th December the Legislative Council passed unanimously a resolution approving the offer of a further contribution of £100,000 to be placed at the disposal of His Majesty's Government towards the cost of the war. This additional gift has been gratefully accepted by His Majesty's Government. Both gifts have been drawn from the Territory's Reserve Fund and not from cash balances. The Reserve Fund was instituted in 1956 to provide the nucleus of a future development programme, and it was never intended that it should be used to supplement ordinary recurrent expenditure. While the Government of Tanganyika is of necessity refraining from expanding social services in the manner and to the extent that might have been possible but for the war, it is not the case that they are being crippled. In fact, the provision in the Territory's 1941 Estimates for the three services referred to by my hon. Friend exceeds the actual expenditure in 1939 by the following amounts: Medical £17,000; Education £5,000; Agriculture £6,000.

In view of the recommendations of the economy committee that there should be drastic cuts in the social services, will my hon. Friend watch the position rather carefully, since already the social services are inadequate in the Colony?

I am afraid my hon. Friend is putting it rather high when he suggests that the recommendations were for drastic cuts. There were some recommendations for cuts, but as I have pointed out, in each case the expenditure is to be increased during the next year.

West Africa (Cocoa)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Imperial Government has bought the cocoa crop in West African territories at a lower price to the growers than that of last year; whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt because of the increased price of imports and that the lower price will still further seriously affect the growers; and why in these circumstances have import duties on foodstuffs and other everyday commodities been increased?

The principal reason for the reduction in the price to be paid to the producers for the cocoa crop in the West African territories is that events in Europe have further reduced possible markets for cocoa and thus made it inevitable that a large part of the forthcoming crop will not find a market overseas. It has, therefore, been found necessary, particularly in view of the increasing demands for assistance from Colonial producers of crops other than cocoa, to limit the liability undertaken in the Cocoa Purchase Scheme by reducing the price to growers. This was done, however, only after careful consideration of the views of the Colonial Governments as to the minimum necessary to maintain reasonable standards of living, and my information is that, far from there being any widespread dissatisfaction in the West African Colonies concerned because of the lower price which is being paid for the crop, there is general appreciation of the generosity of His Majesty's Government in again buying it at a loss. Although it has been necessary to increase certain import duties for revenue purposes, care was taken to avoid placing any undue burden on necessary commodities.

Will my hon. Friend carefully watch the question of import duties, because in the last adjustment some of the increases fell on the normal commodities consumed by the native people?

Of course, this matter is being carefully watched at the Colonial Office, but the total increase which is charged over the whole range of import duties that can be enforced as a result of this Order does not exceed £250,000, and when my hon. Friend remembers that this is spread over a population of 20,000,000, he will see that it cannot have a serious effect on the native population.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal more cocoa being consumed now as a result of the restrictions on tea, and is there any truth in the statement that tons and tons of cocoa are now being destroyed?

I am afraid my hon. Friend is not quite correct. The amount of cocoa consumed at the moment does not exceed the amount consumed in pre-war days. Unfortunately the trouble is not the amount of cocoa produced, but the facilities for bringing it from where it is produced to this country.

Are steps being taken to preserve surplus stocks of cocoa, instead of destroying them, for post-war use in Europe?

That matter is receiving consideration at the present time, and there will be a considerable amount of storage done during the course of this year.

Is the Minister aware that the chief product of cocoa, namely, chocolate, is unobtainable by working people in this country?

British Honduras (Refugees)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the Refugee Industrial Settlement of New York for settling refugees in British Honduras; what industries will be encouraged; and what number of persons will be accommodated in the first settlement?

This is a scheme which originated before the war for the settlement of not more than 80 European refugee families in British Honduras for the purpose of setting up a hand embroidery industry and engaging in agriculture. Certain conditions have been laid down by the Government for ensuring the finance and the proper organisation of the scheme, and these will have to be complied with before the families are permitted to enter the Colony. In view of my hon. Friend's reference to the first settlement, I should explain that even if this scheme is successful it does not follow that a further settlement will be permitted. As indicated in reply to a Question in the House on 18th April, 1939, the possibility of settling in British Honduras surplus population from certain West Indian Colonies will have to be considered before any proposal for large scale European settlement.

Gibraltar (Evacuees)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many men, women and children, respectively, have been evacuated to this country from Gibraltar; how many remain here; and how many have gone to Jamaica?

The figures are 1,690 men, 5,359 women- and 3,920 children. None of these people have been sent overseas to Jamaica or elsewhere.

Can arrangements be made for these people to be evacuated from London into the country, because, having come from Gibraltar to London, they have rather jumped from the frying pan into the fire?

I think my hon. Friend has a Question on that subject put down to another Department.

Transport

Coal

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consult with the Secretary for Mines and make the necessary arrangements to insure that adequate supplies of coal shall reach the Chislehurst, Orpington and Sidcup areas of the Chislehurst Division of Kent before Christmas?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which, my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines gave to his Question on this subject yesterday.

While realising the great difficulties, can the Minister assure me, so that I can assure the people in my division, that every possible step is being taken to remedy the coal shortage in that area?

I can assure my hon. Friend that, although he lives in a particularly difficult district, the situation is being tackled, and I do not think that he will find there will be a shortage in the future.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the serious congestion of coal in Nottinghamshire owing to the difficulty of getting the coal away from the pits; and what steps he is taking to relieve this congestion?

I am aware that, owing mainly to shortage of wagons which are held up at the receiving end, there is some difficulty iii clearing coal from the Midland areas. The steps to be taken to relieve the situation are engaging my attention and that of my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines. Meanwhile there has been some improvement in the position.

Will the Minister not merely give his attention to taking steps, but actually take those steps, because this question is getting rather urgent? Furthermore, is he aware that the collieries are no longer informed directly by the Railway Control when the coal can be forwarded to a particular destination, with the result that the information often comes too late to become operative?

I will hear that point in mind. I would like to assure my hon. friend that the clearing of the coal mines is engaging our active attention, and steps are being taken.

; Is not the trouble due to the fact that trucks are full up with steam coal?

Are not these and similar troubles mainly caused by the slowness with which merchants are unloading railway wagons and will the Minister do all he can to induce and, if necessary, compel them to unload the wagons much more rapidly?

The whole question of trucks and demurrage is receiving very urgent attention at the moment, and I hope to be able to announce an agreement on that subject, which has been in dispute for some time, in the very near future.

Is the Minister aware that if he sends the coal to Bilston, it will be unloaded with the utmost rapidity?

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to free the railway lines for the transport of coal and other heavy goods, he is considering a further reduction in the number of long-distance passenger trains, especially on Sundays; and whether, in cases where two important centres are connected by two or more railway systems, he will consider reserving one of these systems exclusively for goods traffic?

I am examining with the Railway Executive Committee how far it might be possible to provide means of transporting more coal and freight 'traffic by further reduction of passenger traffic, which, as my hon. Friend is aware, has already been seriously interfered with and curtailed. It must not, however, be assumed that freight and passenger traffic is readily interchangeable.

Is the Minister aware that some Departments are actively encouraging passenger traffic at this very difficult time?

Ordnance Factory Workers

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that men and women travelling by omnibus to a particular ordnance factory are at work and on the road for about 15 hours a day; that when engaged on the nightshift they leave home at 6 p.m., arrive near the factory, and then have to wait an hour or more before clocking-in at 8.30 p.m., and that this is the practice in all kinds of weather; and will he take steps to expedite the opening of a loop-line which would remove the cause of these inconveniences and which is a question that has been under consideration by the appropriate Department since the early part of the month of May of this year?

I have asked the Deputy Regional Transport Commissioner to look into the specific points regarding the omnibus services with the local representatives of the Ministries of Labour and Supply. As regards the latter part of the Question, I am assured that before the loop line could be opened for passenger traffic work would be required on safety grounds, and that even so it is doubtful if, owing to the limited capacity of the line serving the factory, it would be possible to provide a satisfactory train service.

Is it the intention of the Minister to consider re-opening that loop line in order to remedy the inconveniences which men and women are now suffering who work in that part of the country?

May I ask my hon. Friend to see me afterwards? I think we can see daylight through this problem.

Evacuees (Visitors)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that those visiting evacuees lose a great deal of time owing to train delays; and whether he will extend the period of cheap tickets for this purpose to four days?

It has already been agreed that the period shall be extended by one day, and I do not feel that any further extension could be justified.

Now does my right hon. and gallant Friend know where the encouragement comes from?

Armed Forces Pensions and Grants

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. Ambrose Warner, of 39, Canterbury Road, Colchester, volunteered for service in October, 1939, was at once posted for service in the 95th Light Anti-Aircraft Battery, Royal Artillery; that he never had a serious illness in his life, and was passed by a medical board A 1; that he died while on service on 19th January, 1940, at Chelmsford; that Mrs. Warner, left with three children, ages five years, five years and eight years, was requested to leave her house, and is now living in Stoke-on-Trent; why was Mrs. Warner not allowed a pension; and will he at once order an investigation into this case?

I am having further inquiries made into this case and will write to the hon. Member as soon as these have been completed.

Local Authorities (De-Rating)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the serious effect on the pre-war finance of local authorities caused by the De-rating Act and of the increased difficulties caused by the war; and will he give serious consideration to the issues involved, or appoint a committee or Royal Commission to report as soon as possible?

My right hon. Friend does not think that the financial difficulties with which certain local authorities are faced under war conditions can properly be ascribed in any special degree to the de-rating provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929. De-rating was enacted as a measure of reform of the system of local taxation, and it was accompanied by Government grants, which are subject to periodical revision. These grants are an integral feature of the long-term arrangements between local authorities and the Exchequer, and my right hon. Friend would not regard the present time as opportune for such a review of those arrangements as would be involved in the inquiry which the hon. Member contemplates.

Is the hon. Lady aware of the financial difficulties of local authorities, and, if so, what steps are being taken to solve this difficulty?

My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the difficulties of certain local authorities.

Does not the hon. Lady agree that de-rating was instituted because of the tremendous unemployment in the country, and that now that the Minister of Labour has solved the unemployment problem the Act becomes unnecessary?

Education (Camp Schools)

asked the President of the Board of Education what is the capacity of the camp schools in England; and how many children are at present using these modern boarding-schools?

The 30 camps now being used as schools have a maximum total accommodation for 8,500 children. The number of children in these camps at the beginning of this month was 6,191. It should be added that the accommodation was designed on the assumption that the camps would be used by relays of schoolchildren for short stays and that while there is still spare room, which my right hon. Friend would gladly see taken up by the local education authorities concerned, experience suggests that for prolonged occupation in winter it is advisable to limit the number of children in the camps to a figure considerably below the maximum indicated.

No, Sir, I think there is room at the moment for about 1,000 additional children on the winter basis. My right hon. Friend and I are now in touch with the local education authorities. We are indicating that if education authorities cannot fill that winter accommodation, we may have to ask them to admit children from other areas who are willing to use the camps.

British Prisoners of War

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of attaching an officer to the department of the Red Cross organisation, dealing with prisoners of war, who would act as a liaison officer between that organisation and the War Office and be responsible for bringing to the notice of the authorities, financial and any other difficulties encountered, with a view to their being surmounted at the earliest possible moment?

The War Office maintains very close touch with the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society and Order of St. John, and I do not think any advantage would be gained by attaching an officer to that body. Indeed, I can see some serious disadvan- tages in the possibility of prejudicing the non-governmental character of the Red Cross organisation.

Rabbits, Scotland (Destruction)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to associate with the intensive campaign for the destruction of rabbits the elimination of sparrows, the depredations of which are estimated to cost the country annually the sum of £8,000,000?

No, Sir. The two pests unfortunately cannot be dealt with in the same way. My right hon. Friend has, however, delegated powers to Agricultural Executive Committees which enable them to take steps for the destruction of sparrows and other harmful birds.

While thanking the Minister for his informal answer, may I inquire whether any use is to be made hereafter of these destroyed sparrows?

Is the Minister prepared to accept the offer of the miners of Scotland to dispose of the rabbits free of charge?

That is not the question on the Order Paper. I should require notice of that.

National War Effort (Members of Parliament)

asked the Prime Minister whether in order to expedite organisation for the successful prosecution of the war, he will consider forming a panel of Members of the House who can be appointed as unpaid additional under-secretaries to any Government Department where special problems require urgent decision, such appointments to be terminated when the particular work is completed?

I have been asked to reply. It has already been made clear that the Government are anxious that hon. Members who are desirous of assisting the national effort should be given every opportunity for so doing. I do not think, however, that my hon. Friend's proposal, which it would be undesirable to effect without legislation, would be a suitable one:: any difficulties such as are indicated in the Question can best be dealt with by other methods.

Will the Minister indicate the other methods which are going to speed up the very many urgent problems?

It is not possible to go into this matter by Question and answer.

May I have an assurance that all the problems upon which decisions are urgently needed will be dealt with absolutely at once? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the vast and wide experience of those in this House which is not being taken advantage of?

I think the length of that Question is almost equal to the length away from the subject of the original Question.

Ministry of Supply

Binoculars

asked the Minister of Supply whether, in connection with his appeal to the public to surrender their binoculars, he is making arrangements to purchase the stock in the hands of retailers?

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will undertake that where the owner of a pair of binoculars, who hands them over free of charge for the use of the Armed Forces, has his name and address clearly stamped on the glasses every effort will be made to return the binoculars to their owner at the termination of hostilities, on the understanding that no compensation will be paid in any case in which the binoculars are not in tact so returned?

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will now make a statement on the stocks and acquisition of binoculars?

All the binocular manufacturing capacity in this country is employed solely on Government orders, and no new stocks are being supplied to retailers. Arrangements have been in progress for some time to purchase all suitable binoculars in the hands of retailers and dealers, who are given exhibition cards to show that all their suitable stocks have been sold to the Ministry and that those remaining are unsuitable. Where the owner of binoculars handed over free of charge has his name and address clearly marked on them, every effort will be made to return them to him at the termination of hostilities, on the understanding suggested by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis).

Scrap Metal

asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that substantial quantities of scrap iron have not been collected from rural areas; what steps are being taken to collect it; and if all requisite steps are being taken by his Department to obtain the maximum result in the collection and the use of waste materials of all kinds?

Some 4,500 voluntary local committees have been formed to co-operate with the Iron and Steel Control for the purpose of organising the collection of scrap iron and steel in rural and semi-rural areas. Their efforts have already yielded substantial quantities of scrap, and it is expected that further large quantities will be forthcoming. As regards the last part of the Question, I think that all practicable steps are being taken, but I shall be glad to consider any further measures which my hon. Friend may suggest.

asked, the Minister of Supply whether h.6 has considered taking steps to render ineffective stipulations in fue contracts and other legal titles to property, requiring iron railings to be maintained around such property or the ground on which the buildings are placed, or around private gardens, in order to facilitate the collection of iron for salvage purposes since land superiors are insisting on these stipulations and preventing the removal of the railings?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has considered these legal difficulties, and he will certainly use his compulsory powers to overcome them if this becomes necessary. For the moment, however, voluntary surrender of railings is proceeding at a satisfactory rate.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I raised this matter on 1st August and that the fact that it has not been actively dealt with is resulting in the slowing-down of salvage work. Will he hasten these compulsory powers?

The flow is keeping in proper relation to the need, and we regard these as reserves which we can mobilise when required.

National By-Products, Limited

asked the Minister of Supply whether he is satisfied with the activities of the National By-Products, Limited?

The company is carrying out its contractual obligations to the Ministry of Supply in a satisfactory manner.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this contract was drawn up before the war and that the prices now being paid are absurdly low? In the interest of security, as well as in the interest of the soldiers, the whole matter should be reviewed. A messing conference held recently were informed that the Government were unwilling to vary the contract.

The contract is one which is on a profit-sharing basis between the company and the troops, and on that basis it is very favourable. It would be a strong measure for the Government to break a contract which is legally binding.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the bonuses are paid only six monthly and that, if troops are sent abroad, they gain nothing out of them?

Under the contract after the payment of agreed profits three-quarters of the additional profits are returned and one-quarter is retained by the company. That seems a reasonable contract, and it would be a very strong measure to repudiate it by a unilateral decision.

If I furnish my hon. Friend with particulars, will he endeavour to have the matter looked into?

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is still a great deal of waste and that anything done to minimise it by making the benefit of the contract come to the troops is in the national interest?

Food Supplies

Milk

44 and 45.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) what steps he is taking to acquaint the public with the fact that, although the price of milk has been raised to the consumer, the farmer is receiving no benefit from the increase;

{2) whether he proposes to warn the public of the acute shortage of milk with which this country will be faced next winter unless the farmer, already faced with great difficulties, is offered an economic price for this vital product?

The recent rise in the retail price of milk is entirely due to the increased price guaranteed to farmers for the 12 months beginning 1st October, 1940. To meet the increased price to farmers it was not necessary to raise the retail price for a whole period of 12 months, and the rise in the retail price was, therefore, postponed to 1st December. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to her Question on 11th December, stating that my Noble Friend had given instructions for a detailed survey to be prepared of the milk supply position for the whole of the coming year. So soon as this is available he will, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, take all possible steps to safeguard and maintain supplies.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the milk supply is decreasing daily and is likely to decrease much further, that it is very difficult to keep the survey up-to-date, and that, unless the farmer is given a better price for his milk, it will not be there next winter?

The shortage is not entirely due to the uneconomic price. There was a very severe drought last autumn.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that at some factories using milk for manufacturing purposes large quantities of skimmed milk are wasted; and whether he will take steps to secure the prevention of this waste of a valuable product?

If my hon. Friend will inform me of any instances to which his attention has been drawn, I will have inquiries made immediately.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the Tact that old age pensioners are required to pay 4½d. a pint for milk, it is the intention of the Government to place an income limit upon those entitled to obtain cheap milk at 2d. a pint for their children under five years of age?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the fact that abuses of all kinds in connection with the free and cheap milk schemes have been reported to Captain J. D. Dunkley, the milk officer for Newcastle; that families with an income of £7 to £8 are obtaining it; that recipients were trading this milk to others and that cases existed where it had been given to animals; and whether he will investigate these charges with a view to remedial action?

I have been asked to reply. My Noble Friend's attention is called from time to time to alleged abuses of the National Milk Scheme, and whenever specific instances are brought to his notice full inquiries are made through the special staff of inspectors who have been appointed for this purpose. My Noble Friend desires me to take this opportunity of correcting the assumption existing in certain quarters that it is an abuse of the scheme for families with the scale of income he mentions to obtain milk at the cheap rate. There is no upward income limit to the provision of milk at the reduced price for nursing and expectant mothers and children under five years of age. The object of the National Milk Scheme is to ensure that those for whom milk is specially necessary on nutritional grounds are encouraged to consume the prescribed quantity of one pint per day, and my Noble Friend therefore does not intend to amend the National Milk Scheme in the manner suggested.

Rationing Law (Enforcement)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that on 21st ultimo at Wisbech police court, during the trial of alleged offences against the ration order, evidence was given that a young lady acting upon instructions in an unsigned circular letter from the Ministry (F.I.G./ENF 16) visited several shops with a ration card made out with a fictitious name and address with the object of tricking tradesmen into breaking the regulation; that she admitted her instructions were to pretend to be a normal genuine purchaser and to ask for a joint obviously in excess of the coupon ration; that the bench in imposing a nominal fine, deprecated the methods used as being contrary to British sense of justice; and, in view of the official promise that agents provocateurs would not be used, will he withdraw the circular and inform food officers not to use these methods in future?

In order to enforce the rationing law it is essential for the Ministry to employ representatives to obtain evidence when there are reasons to think that traders are breaking the law. My Noble Frend is, however, entirely opposed to any representative of his Department using methods of persuasion to induce tradesmen to break the law; in any case where these methods are used strong action would be taken. Unless the law, however, is properly enforced supplies of rationed foodstuffs will be unequally distributed. This my Noble Friend is not prepared to contemplate. I have not seen particulars of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have asked for these and will communicate with him as soon as possible. I cannot, however, accept the description contained in his Question of the Ministry's circular. It contains nothing which could be regarded as an instruction to trick tradesmen into breaking the law.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the circular states that it will probably be convenient for books and cards to be issued in fictitious female names? Is that a proper procedure to adopt?

There is no other method by which people could obtain goods at shops where they are not known. It is unfortunate, but it is necessary. Strict instructions have been given that persuasion or pressure should not be used or appeals made to the sympathy of the shopkeeper.

As this took place in my constituency, though I was not consulted and knew nothing about the Question, may I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that the prosecutions were welcomed, though the methods by which they were instigated are deprecated?

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman guarantee that, when he employs ladies for this purpose, they shall not be of attractive appearance?

Bread

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now in a position to make some further statement regarding the Government proposals to introduce vitamin B1 into the bread supply to the public throughout the country?

Yes, Sir. An advisory committee, including scientists and representatives of the various trade and other interests involved, has been appointed for consultation on administrative and technical questions arising in connection with the introduction of synthetic vitamin B1 and calcium into white flour. The committee have held two meetings and made recommendations on numerous matters of principle and detail. At the same time negotiations have been proceeding with manufacturers and potential manufacturers of aneurin, with the result that I am able to confirm that it is expected that the distribution of fortified flour on a national scale will commence next spring.

Are we to understand that it is the Government's intention to adhere to the unpleasant idea of granting a monopoly to a single firm? I make no innuendoes and cast no aspersions, but if the Government have nothing to fear, they have nothing to hide. Why cannot we have a clear statement whether this monopoly is to be continued, as the matter needs clearing up?

The firm in question is the only firm at the moment in a position to produce at all, and although it is a monopoly it is not the same thing as the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Other firms are getting ready to produce, but at the moment there is only one firm. There is no question of the Government giving a monopoly to any particular firm.

What steps are being taken to restore the national health after it has suffered from the fortified bread and the pasteurised milk?

In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory way in which this matter has been handled, I shall raise it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Public Luncheons

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that at the time he is calling the nation's attention to the need of our food supplies, public luncheons are being held; and will he put a stop to the extra supplies of food involved, as the shortage of food is becoming more acute?

Yes, Sir, my Noble Friend has just announced that the supply of meat to catering establishments is being reduced by one-third as from 16th December. This reduction is certain to restrict greatly the quantity of meat for consumption at specially organised public luncheons, and additional supplies will not be authorised for that purpose.

While I am glad that efforts are being made to check this kind of thing, may I appeal to the Minister to urge Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament, when invited to address people, that public luncheons should be done away with at a time like this?

Speaking for myself, I should be very glad if they were done away with.

Why not abolish these public luncheons? Is the Minister aware that if people cannot get meat, they can get game or poultry? Is he aware also that these luncheons take up a lot of time of Cabinet Ministers and ruin their digestive apparatus, and that they talk a lot of nonsense?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman except with regard to the latter part of the Question. The whole question of catering is under discussion.

Would it not be a bad thing to close down public luncheons, as the Minister of Food would then lose opportunities of making his declarations?

Will the Minister recognise that whereas these subsidiary foods by themselves may not constitute a very large amount in total food value, the aggregate of all the subsidiary foods may require to be controlled so as to contribute to our total of food commodities?

Canned Fruits

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why he announced the restriction on the import of canned fruit, which has led to hoarding and profiteering, before he applied the policy of rationing to these commodities.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the increase in retail price of canned fruits; what steps he proposes to take to control the distribution; and whether he will make price control effective at once.

My Noble Friend proposes to introduce a maximum price Order for canned fruits. He has no evidence that the recent announcement in regard to the restriction of these imports has led to hoarding or profiteering on any large scale, but he is having inquiry made with a view to considering what further appropriate action is necessary.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that when a public announcement of this kind is made the obvious course for the consumer is immediately to get supplies, with the result that in this case there was a rush on the retailers, many of them were sold out in 24 hours and the price was raised? If an announcement of this kind is to be made, ought not action to be taken immediately after?

That is not always possible. It is not always the case that an announcement of price control makes prices go up. If I may mention onions once more, the announcement of the control brought the price down before the order was brought out.

Bananas

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the widespread preference for bananas rather than oranges and the much higher food-value of bananas over that of oranges, he will consider raising the ban on the importation of bananas and, if necessary, replacing it by a ban on the importation of oranges.

No, Sir. My Noble Friend is satisfied that from the nutritional point of view oranges are in the present circumstances more important than bananas.

Is the Minister aware that this matter is one of great concern on the Clyde, where there is a serious lack of canteen facilities, and will he consider the matter from that point of view?

As far as bananas are concerned, the ban cannot be reconsidered because other uses must be found for the ships that carried them.

As the question of substitutes comes in, will the Minister look at it from that point of view and from the point of view of canteen facilities?

Animal Feeding-Stuffs (Potatoes)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the decline of employment in the Stanley, county Durham area, upon which the district is almost wholly dependent, it has been decided to authorise the erection in that area of one of the factories for the conversion of potatoes into animal feeding-stuffs, particularly as this crop can be successfully grown in North Eastern counties and upon land which may not be suitable for other crops?

No, Sir; in selecting sites for potato drying factories, my Noble Friend has had regard principally to the areas in which a surplus of potatoes is most likely to occur. The county of Durham was considered but rejected as less suitable than the six localities which have been chosen.

Can the Minister indicate other directions in which his Ministry may be concerned that will help to alleviate unemployment in county Durham?

Civil Defence

Rescue Work

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the cases in last Sunday night's air raid on London in which the whereabouts of entrapped people were only discovered by a faint tapping, and of other cases in earlier raids where the use of whistles proved effective in guiding the rescuers, he will reconsider his previous refusal to recommend the carrying of whistles by persons living in dangerous areas and will ensure a larger supply on the market of whistles or of other small instruments for producing a penetrating noise, seeing that whistles are now unobtainable in most shops?

For the reason given in my reply of 19th November, my right hon. Friend is unable to make the general recommendation suggested by the hon. Lady.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the reasons given were completely inconsistent, one being that the whistle would lead the rescuers to depend on it and the other that the rescuers were thoroughly well trained? While no rescuer who was not a fool, whether trained or untrained, would think there were no people entrapped because he did not hear a whistle, does my hon. Friend realise that the use of whistles has actually proved effective?

This is a practical operational point which has been carefully considered. The question whether, if whistles were provided, they could be heard or could be used has been examined, and in many cases it has been shown that they could not be used. The great danger, if a general instruction were made, is that it might be presumed that if there were no whistle, there were no trapped casualties. In many cases which have been examined it has been found that the reports that casualties had been left were rumours which were unfounded. These rescue parties, who are engaged in work of a depressing and difficult character, are behaving with great gallantry and skill, and I have seen how carefully they examine the cases where there is any doubt. At present in London no case is left unless the Controller himself gives the word that no trapped casualties are left. This is a practical operational point which has not been decided without careful consideration.

Internees

asked the Home Secretary how many persons of enemy origin, now in internment camps, have been released, refused release, and not yet dealt with, distinguishing, if possible, between those released under the various categories and giving separate figures or at least separate totals for those who are interned in Canada and Australia?

According to the latest available statistics, the release has been authorised of approximately 8,700 persons of enemy origin, including 94 in Canada and 37 in Australia. Approximately 6,500 applications for release have been refused as not satisfying the conditions laid down in the White Paper. Many internees have applied successively under different categories, and it is accordingly not possible to say how many cases have not yet been dealt with. Apart from applications which have been referred to tribunals or advisory committees, the number of applications for release now under consideration in the Home Office is very small. My right hon. Friend circulated in yesterday's Official Report, in reply to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), a statement showing the numbers released under the several categories.

Will the hon. Gentleman look into the problem of internees who are friendly aliens and have joined His Majesty's Forces, but whose wives are still interned in the Isle of Man?

asked the Home Secretary what will be the position of aliens who would normally be entitled to obtain visas for the United States of America at an early date and are prevented from doing so only by the insufficiency of means of transport; whether such aliens, if interned, will be released if they come under any category other than emigration; and whether it will be open to them, whether interned or not, to join the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps with a hope of being released therefrom if subsequently able to emigrate?

Interned aliens who are unable to obtain visas for the United States may apply for release on other grounds in the ordinary way. Those who have been already released on being granted visas will not be re-interned merely because they have been unable to sail owing to lack of shipping accommodation. The third part of the Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Does my hon. Friend realise that this creates a new situation which puts these people in great difficulty, as many of them, until a week ago, had every reason for believing that they would be able to go to the United States within a few weeks or months, but now, because of lack of shipping facilities have had their hopes deferred? They thus lose the chance of emigration for which they have been waiting, and if they do not go, they will be interned for the duration of the war. Will my hon. Friend consider whether, in consultation with the War Office, a statement can be issued for their guidance as to what they had better do?

Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme (Extension)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the concern expressed in letters and resolutions received by hon. Members dealing with the Personal Injuries Civilian Scheme; that a new problem has arisen since the scheme was introduced due to people working during the alert warning; have the Government considered the representations made to them on this matter; and can he make a statement on this matter?

I would ask my hon. friend to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.

Later

In the light of recent conditions, His Majesty's Government have carefully reviewed the existing arrangements for payment of compensation for members of the civilian population who are injured or killed as a result of enemy action, and have decided upon material improvements in the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme. They will extend the disablement provisions of that scheme to include the whole adult population and not only those who are members of Civil Defence organisations or are gainfully occupied. They will also increase the injury allowances (payments for temporary incapacity) under the scheme for all classes of gainfully occupied persons and unpaid Civil Defence volunteers injured on duty so as to make them comparable with the maximum amount of compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The injury allowances at present payable to Civil Defence volunteers and gainfully occupied persons will therefore be increased to the following weekly rates:

The following weekly rates will be payable to persons not gainfully occupied:

The Government consider that the scheme I have just described is preferable to a supplementary State Insurance Measure, which has, moreover, many difficulties. It is not intended, however, to prejudice the rights of persons where the existing contract of service and conditions of employment provide for supplementation; neither do the Government see any objection to private persons effecting individual assurances with the insurance market, but they are opposed in principle to systems of group insurance against war risk.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be aware that, by reason of industry, transport and the railways working during alerts, the saving of thousands of production hours has resulted; in view of that fact, will he consider the advisability of sending a circular to all civil servants reminding them to administer the new scheme as generously as possible and to give immediate attention to all applicants when that is required?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions will administer the scheme sympathetically and will have regard to what my hon. Friend has just said.

Is the Chancellor aware that the scheme does not cover the very large number of cases of neurosis and of people suffering from shell shock consequent upon enemy action, and that all those people who are insured under National Health Insurance will come on the funds of approved societies because they do not come under his scheme?

I do not think that my hon. Friend should assume that to be the case, and I suggest that he waifs for the scheme, which wild have to be presented to Parliament, when he will see that the matter has been borne in mind.

I understood my right hon. Friend to say that gainfully occupied men in hospital would get 21s. and that, in the same circumstances, a woman would get 14s.; can I have explained to me the reason for this extraordinary differentiation?

I think that my hon. Friend had better wait for the publication of the scheme.

It is retrospective in the sense that it will apply to payments being made for injuries which have already taken place. The increased rates will begin to be payable on or after 24th December.

I gather that in cases in which the injuries have taken place the sufferers have already qualified under the scheme; will payment be made to all these cases from a date to be fixed later?

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to seeing that claims are met promptly, as probably 90 per cent, of the total trouble connected with this matter arises from the delay?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions will have regard to that matter.

Yes, Sir, in the circumstances of the scheme. I should like hon. Members to appreciate that the scheme will be laid before Parliament, when they will see the exact details of it. I think it will be wise for them to wait until the scheme is presented.

Why have all the other Questions been answered except that which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate)? Have we to wait till the Bill is introduced before the Minister gives his reasons, and, if so, will that not prejudice the fight that we shall have to put up against the differentiation which my hon. Friend pointed out? Is the. Minister aware of the recent statement made by the Minister of Labour regarding appoint meats of women, which are equal—

There is no particular reason why I have not dealt with the matter, no grounds of sex or anything of that kind, or in regard to the hon. Member who put the Question to me. I think it will be better if this matter is explained in due course by the Minister responsible, and I hope that there will be no occasion for a fight.

National Finance

Income Tax

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the wide extension of the liability to payment of Income Tax affecting workmen with moderate wages who have to pay daily omnibus fares amounting to 1s. 4d. to 1s. 6d. and upwards, equivalent to £23 to £26 5s. and upwards a year, he will take the necessary steps to have such payments deductible from income as necessary business expenses before assessable income is arrived at?

I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of extending the existing Income Tax allowance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the omnibus is the workman's equivalent of the commercial traveller's motor car, and can he say what deduction is allowable in the case of a commercial traveller's motor car?

Purchase Tax

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether school caps, which are generally a compulsory article of wear at schools, may be exempt from the Purchase Tax, seeing that blazers and sports shirts, which are in the nature of luxuries, are exempt?

No, Sir. I regret that I am unable to provide exemption from tax in this case.

Government Departments (Treasury Investigating Section)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why, in appointing a business expert to overhaul the machinery of certain Government Departments, whose name is to remain anonymous, he has departed from the policy adopted by the War Office and the Ministry of Pensions where the names of the business experts have been announced?

No single business expert has been appointed to overhaul the machinery of certain Government Departments. As I explained to the hon. Member on 10th December, the staff of the Treasury Investigating Section has been substantially strengthened both from outside and from within the Civil Service. As regards the War Office and Ministry of Pensions, the hon. Member presumably has in mind committees which have been set up to review matters connected with those Departments. Details of the membership of those committees have been published.

Royal Air Force (Bombing Operations, Photographs)

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the outstanding success of the bombing operations of the Royal Air Force over enemy territory, he will take steps to release a greater proportion of aerial photographs testifying to these magnificent achievements for publication in the national Press as well as for foreign consumption?

I am fully alive to tine importance of this matter, and it is our aim to release as many of these photographs as we can, subject to the requirements of security.

Business of the House

Has the Lord President of the Council any statement to make in regard to the course of Business?

Yes, Sir. We desire to conclude the Second Reading of the War Damage Bill and to obtain the two Money Resolutions; also the Motion to approve the Coal Mines (War Levy) Scheme. We hope that the House will agree to passing this Motion formally, in view of the promise which the Prime Minister made that an opportunity will be found later for a full Debate on the coal industry. Amendments to the Local Elections Bill are expected to be received from another place, and they will be considered on the next Sitting Day.

Bill Presented

Air-Raid Precautions (Postponement of Financial Investigation) Bill,

"to postpone the investigation to be made under Section 10 of the Air Raid Precautions Act, 1937, until the year nineteen hundred and forty-one"; presented by Mr. Herbert Morrison, supported by Mr. Ernest Brown and Mr. Malcolm MacDonald; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

Message from the Lords

That they have agreed to—

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,

Naval and Marine Forces (Temporary Release from Service) Bill,

Railways Agreement (Powers) Bill, without Amendment.

Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Bill, with Amendments."

Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Bill

Lords Amendments to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 8.]

Conduct of a Member

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read, and ordered to be printed. [No. 5.]

Orders of the Day

War Damage Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [17th December ], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

The House has already devoted one day to the consideration of this Measure, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has already stated the general approval of my hon. Friends, of the main purposes of the Bill. I know that a considerable number of hon. Members desire to make their contributions to the Debate, and therefore my comments will not be of a lengthy character. It is not customary, I believe, for hon. Members to criticise the draftsmen of a public or private Bill, but I believe I may be permitted to offer them some tributes of commendation in this case. I think every hon. Member, whatever he may think about the actual provisions of the Bill, must feel that those responsible for its policy and drafting have, in distractingly difficult circumstances, produced a Bill which reflects the highest credit upon their intellectual ingenuity and effort.

Every hon. Member who has spoken has referred to the complicated character of the Bill, and no hon. Member who has read it doubts the fact that it is a Bill of extreme complication. Apart from the Law Officers of the Crown, I know of only one hon. and learned Member who would, I think, have enjoyed himself in dealing with this Measure, and that hon. and learned Member is now engaged on a diplomatic task of a complication exceeding even that of this Bill in the legislative sphere. I refer, of course, to His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow. But, however much we may admire the drafting of the Bill, we must recognise that it is an improvised Measure. It does not pretend to be perfect. If the House accords the Government that recognition, that it is an improvised Measure, and makes allowances on that account, then the Government owe it to the House to show an attitude of receptivity towards suggestions which may be made for its improvement on the Second Reading, during the Committee stage or afterwards. I say "afterwards," meaning even after the Bill becomes law, because events are moving with great rapidity and we shall be compelled to rely more than ever, upon the fairness of the machine of national administration which will administer the Measure and upon those Ministers whose daily and hourly task it is to supervise that machine. We shall have to rely upon them to bring forward with great promptitude such measures as may be necessary for improving and adding to this Bill.

I am not sure whether the House as a whole realises for how short a period the Bill as it stands is to remain in operation. The insurance which it provides lapses in August of next year, that is to say, in less than six months' time. (Hon. Members: "No.") It is a little more than six months from now, but it will be not more than six months after the Bill becomes law. Therefore, within two or three months, if not already, the Government must be actively considering and preparing the Measure which they propose to introduce to replace that now before the House. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not bring forward this Bill with any unctuous claim that its principal motive was to relieve individual hardship. I think that, perhaps, would have antagonised some hon. Members on this side. But the right hon. Gentleman was frank enough to say, in his speech here and in his broadcast last night, that the Bill is necessary for the support of credit and economic security. In other words, it is, primarily, a Bill for the protection of large and small owners of property. Large and small owners of property together constitute but a small class of the community. I recognise that there is a certain amount of provision made in the Bill for dealing with tenants, and tenants, of course, constitute a proportion of the community overwhelmingly superior in numbers and, I venture to say, even in importance in war-time, as compared with the owners of property. Therefore, in the few remarks which I propose to make I shall seek to direct the attention of the House to the position of tenants under the Bill.

The first class of tenant for which it makes provision is the poorest class of all, that is to say, the class of tenant who has no means and is often uninsurable, or at any rate uninsured. If I were to make a general criticism of the Bill, it would be that much more elaboration has been devoted to providing against pecuniary loss—however important that may be as a contribution to our economic stability—than has been given to providing against the immediate hardship of individuals. There is a considerable distinction to be drawn between hardship in the form of pecuniary loss, and the immediate hardship which falls upon a person who is bombed out of his home. I am not saying that it is not necessary to make provision for both. Under our existing system it is not always easy to say, with certainty, when property has been damaged or destroyed, whether the poor man or the rich man will suffer the most immediate effect from the damage. I think it is, perhaps, for that reason that the Bill has found acceptance in all quarters of the House, purely as a wartime Measure.

As the war proceeds, it will be, in our view, necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to ponder more and more on the true meaning of the words which he used when he introduced the Bill and which he emphasised in his very clear broadcast last night. I refer to the words "economic security." Those words are often found in the mouths of hon. Members on this side of the House, but I am not at all sure that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer used them yesterday, he meant precisely the same thing by them, as we mean. In referring to "economic security" as one of the main objects of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman was really referring to the economic stability of property interests. I do not dispute for a moment the great importance of maintaining that at the present time, but when we refer to "economic security," we mean the prevention of immediate economic personal hardship, such as afflicts the great majority of the people who are affected by this war damage I say that, in the next few months, the wise policy of the Government, with a view to the morale of war workers and all others, will be to focus their minds, more and more, on the question of making provision in respect of that class of the community.

This, of course, is no time for theorising, but I have by me a report on this subject by a Select Committee, which was submitted to the House some time ago, and I shall read it because I think it expresses what I want to say better than I can myself. This is what was reported to the House by one of its own Select Committees:

I want particularly to refer to the poorest class of the community. This class is dealt with in Clause 50. I would like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be good enough to explain a little more about the provision that is being made for these people. This class of people is referred to on page 6 of the Financial Memorandum. I will read 'it to the House and remind hon. Members of the Part of the Bill of which I am speaking: to them than have been devoted to the provisions for compensation for property-owners. Would the Minister be good enough to explain why these hundreds of thousands of people have been included in the provision for the insurance of personal chattels along with people who will be able to pay substantial premiums for the insurance of their furniture and clothing? We are dealing with a class of people whose incomes fall below those limits which are laid down in the Financial Memorandum, and a vast proportion will have incomes very much smaller than £400 a year if married and £250 a year if single. We are really dealing with hundreds of thousands of people who are on the £2 10s. and £3 a week mark, the class of people who are being bombed out of the industrial areas and who would not be able to find the premium for insuring against loss of their furniture and clothing. Why is this class of persons suddenly put under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade? To me that indicates that not as much thought has been given to their position as might have been given. The Board of Trade will use the Assistance Board for dealing with these persons, and while one cannot cavil at the use of such machinery, I confess I would have preferred some better method than that.

I certainly should like to have seen the Ministry of Health brought into the matter. At present those people are being compensated for the loss of essential furniture and clothing by authority of Treasury directions. I am not aware that those Treasury directions have ever been published. Can they be published? If a person is bombed out of his house, what is he getting? What directions have the Treasury given to the people who are already administering this phrase, "essential furniture and clothing"? If an owner-occupier is bombed out of his house, there is a limit of £500 which he may be advanced under the insurance scheme. That may be apportioned, between the building society and the owner-occupier. I would like to know what are the Treasury directions which provide for the compensation of that poorest class of the community who are bombed out of their homes, who are put into rest centres and who have not a penny with which to buy new furniture and clothing. Further I should like to know why the Board of Trade are going to administer that part of the Bill and what consultation they will have with the Ministry of Health and the local authorities. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be good enough to recognise the magnitude of this problem in relation to the Bill as a whole, and to give us some more elaborate assurances on the point when he addresses the House.

There is one other point which I wish to make, briefly, in relation to tenants, and that is, what machinery is to ensure that a tenant whose house is damaged will be able to obtain prompt repairs? I gather from the Bill that under the provision for cost of works, the cost of works may be paid either to the owner or to the tenant. But who is to decide to whom it is to be paid? Suppose they both make claims. Suppose the landlord delays in making the claim because he thinks the property is worth repairing for the moment. It is true, according to one provision in the Bill—I believe in Clause 9, Sub-section (2)—that by excessive delay the landlord may forfeit his right to compensation, but that will be small comfort to the tenant whose roof is half blown off and who cannot get the necessary repairs done. Therefore, I should like to know what provision there will be for prompt restoration on behalf of the tenant if the landlord is tardy in making his claim for compensation, either on the value basis or on the cost-of-works basis. I should like to see the interests of tenants represented more strongly on the War Damage Commission in administering this Part of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that there would be, I think, four members of the War Damage Commission. I do hope that that Commission will not be constituted in such a way that it is only able to look at the interests of large property owners, and I should like to see someone appointed to that Commission specially charged with seeing that justice is done, not only to the owners, but also to the tenants of property damaged by the war.

I conclusion, I desire to add my recognition of the difficulties, great and small, in the preparation of the policy and of the draft of this Bill. It is, of course, very far from perfect, and it will therefore depend all the more upon wise and fair administration, first by the War Damage Commission, second by the Treasury— and I hope the Financial Secretary will not forget what I said about publishing the directions under which loss of essential furniture and clothing is compensated—and third by the Assistance Board under the President of the Board of Trade, the poor Board of Trade, wit its wide ramifications, all the jobs which are put upon it and the innumerable extra Ministers tacked on to it. I really think it was a mistake to put this additional burden upon the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman and his subordinates. I hope that between now and the Committee stage it will be considered whether this task could not be more appropriately—I will not say more sympathetically—discharged by the Minister of Health or some other Government Department. I hope that the Government, during the Committee stage and after the Bill becomes law, will recognise that however important to large property owners the provisions of this Bill may be and undoubtedly are, the prompt rehabilitation of owner-occupiers, and the tenants of ordinary small dwellings, ought to be a matter of paramount importance in the administration of the Bill. It is on that understanding that I believe that the Bill will commend itself to the House and to the country as a valuable contribution to the defence of the nation.

I appreciate the sympathy which my hon. Friend extended to the Board of Trade on its having to work important parts of this Bill. I do not propose to detain the House for more than a very short time, but there were one or two points put yesterday to which an answer seems desirable.

In view of the large number of Private Members who wish to speak, would it not be possible for my hon. and gallant friend to defer his explanation? We have already had three Ministerial speeches.

This Bill is in more than one part and is, after ail, concerned with my Department, about which questions were asked yesterday. I do not think the House would appreciate it if they got no reply, and I shall take very little time. It is quite obvious from yesterday's Debate that it is not necessary for me to amplify the very lucid explanation which my right hon. Friend gave of the whole Bill, and I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the House long. After listening to the Debate yesterday, I came to the conclusion that the Bill was almost unanimously supported, at any rate in principle, and I think that such criticisms as were made dealt mainly with points which could quite fairly be called Committee points, although there were one or two which were not. My right hon. Friend appeale3 to the House for co-operation in making this a workable Measure, and there is no doubt whatever from the speeches we have heard that there will be full co-operation to make this as good a Measure as is possible. Neither he nor any of us, therefore, will object to criticism of the character we heard yesterday.

My observations will deal mainly if not entirely with Parts II and III of the Bill. Those Farts, as the House is aware, deal mainly with two schemes—the Business scheme and what is known as the Chattels scheme, the former covering movable plant, machinery, office equipment and so forth, and the latter dealing with furniture and clothing. Yesterday, the main criticism was directed against the fact that the Chattels scheme was voluntary and not compulsory. That seems to be the real point about which hon. Members wanted to have information. It was asked winy, if it was thought that the other Government schemes should be compulsory, should not this be also? If people in urban areas, where most of the bombing has taken place, are suffering, why should not people who are fortunate enough to be outside those areas contribute their share? It was also pointed out that it was contrary to the principle that has been laid down and accepted that all should contribute towards whatever damage has been done. That is a very powerful argument, and it is one which would be bound to lie considered if it were possible to obtain a scheme that was workable in the circumstances. But, frankly, the difficulties of administration are so great as to make a compulsory scheme almost unworkable.

One of the first difficulties to be considered is this. It is vital, in a compulsory scheme, to see that everybody insures to the full value of his chattels. The tendency will be that people in less vulnerable areas may be inclined, perhaps, not to put the value of their chattels so high. In order to make certain that the full valuation was recorded in every case, it would mean a very large staff throughout the country.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that in the great majority of ordinary fire insurance schemes the fire insurance companies never dream of sending investigators to check the valuation? They allow the person to value his own property, and could not that be done as a rough-and-ready method under this Bill?

That may be so, but there is a very great difference between fire insurance schemes—which usually charge a premium of 2s. per cent, and do not always accept the insurer's valuation when it comes to settlement—and this scheme. The insurer may insure his furniture for as much as he likes, but it does not follow that he will be paid all of it. Neither could we afford to do that, because public money is involved in this case. Even as a rough and ready method, as my hon. Friend said, the fire insurance scheme is not really satisfactory, because this kind of difficulty may arise: The insurer might have very valuable furniture or fixtures which, of course, he covers to their full value. But, when it is a question of insuring against enemy action, it does not always follow that he would be prepared to pay a premium at the proposed rate on those kinds of articles, which cannot in many cases be replaced by money at all, and he may well decide that the best thing to do is to get them to as safe a place as possible. I merely point that out to show the difference between ordinary fire insurance and the scheme that we have in mind. Another suggestion was that we might do a rough and ready calculation with Schedule A valuation. It would be very rough and ready, because the size of the house is not always an indication of the value of the furniture in it. There is another point, not a big one, to be remembered. Some people have made a hobby of collecting valuable articles of furniture, for their own entertainment, whereas other people spend their money in other ways. I am not sure that those who have valuable furniture would be very happy to pay this large premium on stuff which it would be very difficult to replace, and which, indeed, might be irreplaceable.

But the really big argument against this suggestion is the administrative one. It is very difficult to get an exact idea of the magnitude of the task which would confront us. There are, I believe, something like 13,000,000 houses in this country. Allowing for the fact that a large number of our householders come below the £400 income limit, and would, therefore, be eliminated, I think there will probably be something over 2,000,000 people who would have to be insured if this were made compulsory. Machinery would have to be created to see that the chattels were valued at their full worth. Let me tell the House of the insurance schemes which will operate under Government auspices when this Bill becomes law. The Commodities Insurance scheme probably covers something like 170,000 people. I cannot give exact figures with regard to the Business scheme, but it would probably involve 200,000 to 300,000 more people. In addition, you would then have the number which I have just indicated—I have not the exact figure, but it would be something in the nature of 2,000,000. To create a staff for this purpose would be impossible in present conditions—the existing staffs of insurance offices are already depleted by national demands. I do not think that it would be possible for this scheme to be compulsorily administered. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) asked a question with regard to those who come under the £400 and £250 income limits. The instruction given to those who administer this scheme is to interpret the limits with the utmost elasticity. The people referred to in these categories will continue as before, because they will not be insured under this Bill. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the object that the scheme shall be administered with very great elasticity.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman was good enough to say that the Treasury direction will be interpreted with the greatest elasticity, but "elasticity" implies that it may be stretched in two directions—an unsatisfactory direction as well as a satisfactory one. Is there any reason why the Treasury directions should not be published, so that the country should know by what measuring stick compensation is to be granted for the loss of essential furniture and clothing?

I cannot answer that off-hand; but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a question, I am sure he will get an answer. Of course, elasticity operates both ways: sometimes forward and sometimes back. We appreciate that a very strong case has been made for compulsory insurance of chattels, but I must ask the House to believe that there are enormous difficulties in the way.

I should like to refer to two other points. In connection with Part III of the Bill, which deals with the amendment of the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, we have issued a White Paper which shows very clearly how this Bill will affect the operation of that Act, and which, I hope, will be of assistance to hon. Members when we come to the Committee stage. Part III of the Bill will be administered by the Board of Trade, as in the case of certain other Acts, largely by Departmental Orders; the most important of which will be placed on the Table of the House. As in other similar cases, all the interests concerned will be fully consulted. As I said at the beginning, most of the points —apart from the big question—which were raised yesterday were Committee points. As my right hon. Friend indicated very clearly yesterday, he is most anxious to get the assistance of hon. Members in all parts of the House in improving this Bill. One thing that we are all agreed upon is that we are anxious to make this very complicated Measure a just and workable one.

I listened with attention to the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend. Great interest is being shown in this question of insuring the furniture of the household. Although there are undoubtedly great difficulties in the way of making it compulsory, I do not feel that my hon. and gallant Friend has shown that those difficulties are insurmountable. Probably one of the greatest difficulties would be that once you admitted that you could have compulsory insurance on a fire insurance basis for a householder's furniture, it would be rather difficult to defend your refusal to adopt a similar method for the insurance of the house; and you might have to break away from the Schedule A principle altogether. But that is a point upon which I wish to touch later. It seems most important that the insurance of furniture against this risk should be practically universal and compulsory. There will be many small households where most of the occupiers' worldly means consists of the furniture and the money that has been spent on making a home. That is so even when the people are tenants. If it is important that a man who has bought his house, probably on a hire-purchase basis, should be covered, it seems tome equally important that another who has set up a home, and has perhaps not bought the house but has spent practically the whole of his capital on furnishing it, should also be provided for. It does not seem to me that, of necessity, in a compensation scheme to cover furniture and household effects, everybody must be insured up to the hilt. There is a good deal to be said for some limit, but perhaps in both directions. As regards the more modest households which are provided for in another way, I should also have thought that it might be possible to combine the fire insurance machinery and the actual amount for which a man has already insured his property for fire. I believe a large majority of householders in this country are insured against fire, and, to provide for the cases where there is either no insurance or where it is altogether inadequate, you might bring in the Schedule A basis, and say that the fire insurance shall not be less than so much, but it can be more.

Schedule A, as my hon. Friend knows, refers entirely and only to the fabric of the house. There is no insurance for the fabric in this Bill. The insurance is for the chattels, and Schedule A has nothing to do with it.

I am aware of what my hon. Friend has said. The idea is that, first of all, you have insurance based upon fire insurance, but there are some cases where people are under-insured or are not insured at all, and if you provide for them, it would seem to be possible to base the contribution in some degree upon Schedule A. If a man is living in a house of a rental of, say, £50 a year, one can be sure that he has a certain amount of furniture. There should be a way of getting over the difficulty. These points will have to be gone into in Committee, and the main object in raising them is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall consider them, and by raising them to-day, we may perhaps facilitate what otherwise is likely to be a very difficult and prolonged Committee stage, and we know that the whole House is anxious for the Bill to go through as soon as possible.

I come back to Part I and the question of Schedule A. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer denies that there will be a good deal of inequality in many respects under Schedule A. The whole House realises that he has had a most difficult task and that he has given a great deal of consideration to it and has put forward what appears to be a workable scheme I understand that the learned Attorney-General is to wind up the Debate, and perhaps he may be able to convince us beyond doubt that the Schedule A method is better than the fire insurance method or using the machinery of the insurance companies. I cannot see that that would involve a tremendous amount of machinery and extra staff. All these properties are insured already for furniture or the actual houses and properties themselves. There will certainly be cases where the annual rent of certain premises is out of all relation to the value of the building, as so much depends upon where it is situated, and for what it is used.

The chief points which I raise or which have been put forward against using the fire insurance machinery appear to me to be the following: A man may be over-insured. That will not hurt the scheme, and I do not think that the fire insurance companies ever pay more than the value. A man may be under-insured. The man who has taken out the insurance or has provided for a fire risk has been satisfied to cover himself to that extent, and, if that was the only individual risk which he could foresee, presumably it would be enough compensation for him in the present circumstances. There really is not, as fair as I can see, any real reason or any great hardship if a man does not get greater compensation if his house is bombed than he would have got under his own arrangement if it had been burnt to the ground. The only other thing that occurs to me is the question of cases where there has been no fire insurance taken out. They would not be very many, and certainly they could be dealt with by valuation. There are many different interests concerned. It may be the mortgagee and the ground landlord, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that these were conflicting interests. My experience is that whenever there are conflicting interests, they have taken very good care to see that the property is adequately insured, so that I do not think there will be any trouble over that matter.

There are two more points to which I want to draw attention, as they may need some further consideration before, and when the Bill goes into Committee. There is the question of the position of the mortgagee as related to the equity holder. Take the case of the house which is completely knocked out, and is not to be rebuilt and in respect of which the valuation is to be paid. Under the Bill, as I understand it, the mortgagee is allowed to treat that property as if it were in default. You can take the whole of the valuation money to pay the mortgagee. In many cases the compensation paid will not be the full value of the property, so that presumably the mortgagee will get the whole of the money and the equity holder or actual owner of the house will receive nothing at all. In an ordinary commercial transaction that may be all right. You have borrowed money upon your house and have undertaken to pay it back, and if the house does not realise it, there is nothing left for you, hut this does not seem to be on all fours with that case. This is not an ordinary commercial transaction or one into which a man has entered, but is something which has come upon him, and we are providing some compensation. If this is to be compensation, you must consider the equity holder as well as the mortgagee. The valuation will not cover the whole property, and if it does not, he is entitled to some compensation as well as the mortgagee, and it will have to be considered whether the percentage that the mortgagee receives in certain cases should not be the 100 per cent., but something less, leaving some compensation for the equity holder.

The only other point to which I want to draw attention is that of compensating charities and places of public worship and other classes of property, which are either going to make no contribution to the compensation fund, or only a very limited contribution. It appears to me that their compensation should not come out of the fund estimated at £200,000,000 which is being made up by property owners. Churches, to take one example, are the property of the whole nation, and I do not see why, if churches are destroyed, the rebuilding of them should be put upon one particular section of society. I therefore suggest that the Chancellor might consider that a church is a public building.

It is not intended that any payment made in respect of non-contributing charities should be brought into account for the purposes of deciding whether a further contribution is necessary.

I gathered from what was said that they will come out of the second £200,000,000.

They will not even come out of that. They will come out of State funds, but will not be brought into the account which may have to be struck from time to time—first of all, the £200,000,000 and then the 50 per cent. State contribution, making £400,000,000. When that is reached, you will have to start a new contribution, but they will be outside that altogether.

The last thing that I want to say is this: The hon. Member who opened this Debate to-day from the Opposition Front Bench referred to what he called the "economic security" feature of this Bill and rather questioned what the Chancellor meant by that. I understood differently from the hon. Member. I think this Bill is most important from that point of view. It is not only a question of safeguarding property owners and preventing a large section of the community being ruined as a section. It has a much bigger influence. You cannot allow a large proportion of the wealth of the country to be in jeopardy and remain in jeopardy, because that would upset the whole of the financial stability of the State. To that extent, therefore, apart from anything else, this is a most important Measure, and the Government and the Chancellor are to be warmly congratulated upon having introduced it.

Like everyone who has spoken of this Measure, I feel that the Bill is to be welcomed and will be received with very great pleasure throughout the country, and if I rise to make a few suggestions or criticisms, they are not in any way in derogation of that statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he would welcome suggestions and, I hope, criticisms too; I am sure that he will get them when we come to the Committee stage. I feel that the hon. and gallant Member who spoke for the Government will not be surprised that his explanation of the reasons for not making private chattels compulsorily insurable will not be accepted by many Members of the House. I think that was well dealt with by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I do not propose to elaborate it except to say that I have no doubt whatever that more will be heard on this question on the Committee stage. Then I hope we shall convince the Chancellor that the compulsory insurance of private chattels is possible and feasible. At any rate, I hope that his mind is not finally closed on that question. I am rather puzzled at the different rates of contributions for different types of insurance. According to the introductory statement, the amount expected to be realised from the contributions from property owners is £200,000,000 in all, payable over a period of five years. That is £40,000,000 per annum, and this £40,000,000 is a contribution in respect of property worth something like £8,000,000,000. Thus the annual contribution is to be one two-hundredth part of the total value.

But when you come to private chattels, the annual contribution is 30s. per £100, or three two-hundredths of the value, and I fail to understand why there is this great disparity in the contributions between property owners and private chattels. It may be that one reason is that in the insurance of private chattels you will get only the bad risks, but if that is the explanation, a premium three times the amount will mean considerable injustice and hardship to the owners of private chattels who are also not the owners of property. Moreover, the State is to make up to the owners of property any deficiency in their contribution up to £200,000,000, but no such contribution to the owners of private chattels. I realise that in a certain measure there will be payment made to people of small moans, not compensating them for their furniture which has been destroyed, but merely for the necessities involved, but I still feel that the disparity is so great that it does need explanation.

I also presume that the kind of risk which is contemplated as regards private chattels is very similar to the risk in respect of business effects. The premium there is the same as the premium for private chattels, 30s. per cent., but the contribution in respect of the insurance of business effects is compulsory. Therefore, you are taking in the good risk with the bad risk, and one would have imagined that there would have been a smaller premium for the insurance of business effects as compared with the premium for private chattels. It all seems to me as if the question of contributions has not been properly and fully considered, otherwise there would not be these considerable disparities in premiums for three different types of insurance, and I should be very glad if somebody would explain how it is there are these considerable differences.

The thing I really wanted to discuss is the question of the future redevelopment of those towns and cities where damage has taken place. I was very glad to find that the Bill recognises that the making of payment in respect of war damage must be executed in accordance with the public interest and that it intimates that the Treasury will give directions for securing the public interest. But, so far as I can gather, it is not obligatory on the Government to make public these directions, and it is of very great importance that everyone concerned with the replanning of the great cities should be made fully aware of what are these directions. These directions are, after all, to be given by the Treasury, which, presumably, are not great authorities on town planning and reconstruction, after the closest consultation with the Minister of Works and Buildings, who, I understand, is studying the question of postwar reconstruction and replanning of war-damaged areas. The Bill says nothing about such consultation, and I hope that we can get an assurance that these directions will not be given until there has been the fullest possible consultation with the Minister of Works and Buildings.

Some attempt has been made in the Bill to provide for the right reconstruction and replanning after the war, but there are at least two matters that are not referred to in Clause 8, Sub-section (1), which deals with this subject. There is in that Clause no reference either to road improvements or post-war replanning as being aspects of the national interest which the Commission must take into account. For instance, with regard to road improvements, a property may be damaged on the route of an improvement under contemplation. Obviously, it would be better in the national interest that such a property should be acquired for the improvement in its damaged condition rather than after it has been reconstructed by a cost-of-works payment. However, that is not one of the factors which the Commission have to take into account in considering the national interest. I have no doubt that the Chancellor might be prepared to accept an Amendment putting that provision into the Clause. As to post-war replanning, this might involve dealing with damaged property otherwise than by reconstruction under a cost-of-works payment. Obviously, it might be better, from the point of view of post-war planning, that the property in question should not be repaired, but should be acquired by the local authority, which is the town-planning authority. That, again, is a matter which ought to be a factor which the Commission should be able to take into account.

I respectfully submit that they cannot, as the Clause now stands. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks they can, I would assure him that many local authorities do not think so. In any case, there is need for some clarification.

I should have thought it was there. Certainly, it is intended to be there. The words are:

"As respects town and country planning, the provision of housing accommodation, the development of industries and services …"

I should have thought that the improvement of roads came under the words "development of industries and services," and that post-war planning came under the words "as respects town and country planning." Certainly, what the hon. Member has said will be looked into.

I do not want to argue the point with my right hon. and learned Friend, but I assure him that there is considerable doubt on the matter in the minds of those who have studied the Bill. If we can have an assurance that the point is covered, or that, if it is not, something will be done about it, I am sure that will be satisfactory. Another point to which I want to refer is the provision that the Treasury are to give directions to the Commission for safeguarding the national interest as far as planning and other matters are concerned. Those directions will be of the utmost importance, but it is not required that they shall be laid before Parliament either for approval or for information. I regard that as a very grave defect. Many of the points which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned affect the work of local authorities in its various aspects. I consider that associations of local authorities should be consulted before the directions are given, for otherwise the directions inevitably will fall short of the necessities of the case. The local authorities are the best judges of the needs of their particular areas, and I hope the Chancellor will see that before the directions are given the local authorities are consulted. Clause 8, sub-section 2 (b) provides that in certain circumstances the Commission have power to make a value payment in lieu of a cost-of-works payment. Such a case might properly arise in connection with the need for road improvements, but unless the Commission were in touch with the local authorities, they would not know whether a particular property was in the line of a road improvement or not. Therefore, it is essential that the Commission not only in relation to the directions that are given originally, but in dealing with all the claims that are made, should be in the closest touch with the local authorities so as to ensure that a particular property which might be required to be dealt with by the local authority in one way is not dealt with by the Commission in an entirely different way.

Another point is that in certain cases where a property is needed by the local authority in respect of any of its services, instead of the Commission making either a cost-of-works payment or a value payment, it should be possible for the local authority to acquire the property at the value at which it stood in March, 1939. Under the Bill, the local authority would not have any power to acquire the site, but I feel that such a power would be very valuable to local authorities. They would be able, of course, to exercise it only if they required the property in connection with one of their services or one of the duties for which they were responsible. In that case they would require the site as well as the building. I hope that the Chancellor will consider that point sympathetically before the Bill reaches the Committee stage.

I trust the Chancellor will accept my suggestions in the spirit in which they have been made, that is to say, in the interests of the smooth working of the many important duties which local authorities will have after the war in carrying out replanning and reconstruction, which I know the Chancellor himself has very much at heart. If he could meet the points I have made, it would give very much satisfaction to the local authorities.

I am very pleased to pay my tribute to the Bill, which I regard merely as a platform on which we have to build the ultimate solution of this problem. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) put a point which I am sure interests every hon. Member. He asked what is the position with regard to a poor man getting immediate repairs to a bombed house. If the hon. Member has had as much experience as I have during the last few weeks, he will know that that duty falls upon the local authority, but that the local authorities, in and around London, are so overwhelmed with jobs that the position is positively chaotic. They are not able to cope with the situation, and are falling back on builders or anybody else who can lend assistance. However, the job is primarily one (for the local authorities. The hon. Member also spoke about furniture. It was not my intention to deal with that matter this afternoon, but it is a very important matter. In my constituency, which is essentially a dormitory constituency, comprising largely working-class people, it is the question of how people are to get new homes that causes anxiety. I hope the Chancellor and the Department will consider this matter. At this most crucial phase, when these people are wanting some sort of home and clothing, they have to face a 30 per cent, increase in costs. The matter is very important to these people, and I must say that although I am a hidebound Tory, I tend to become a little Socialistic when it is a question of dealing with problems of this kind.

I want now to deal with some of the practical points that arise from the Bill. It seems to me that we are trying to form an equal-angled triangle of three parts. One part is the Government, and one part the property-owners, but I am afraid the base of the triangle is on the other side of the water. I can see how we can meet our repairs and rehabilitate our country, but no one knows what will be the dimensions of the base before the war is over. Therefore I regard the Commissioners' job as very serious. I hope they will exercise it with elasticity and with sympathy.

I now wish to put one or two problems to the House which have been put to me in my constituency. To deal with them will require the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job. I had a case brought to my notice last week. It is the case of a man who had received compensation from a gas company for total incapacity. He received the substantial compensation of £1,100. He knew that sum would not keep him for life, and he was advised, probably rightly, to put his money into property. He brought property and incurred a £2,200 mortgage. That property has been damaged. It is old porperty, assessed as an old house, and half his tenancy is gone. He asked me what he is to do. At the moment he has gone to public assistance. I asked whether any arrangements were being made in regard to rating, believing also that the mortgager would not press her claim. But the mortgagor is a widow dependent on the interest of her money, and unless she receives it she also will be on public assistance. I put this case of two people, who in the eyes of many are bloated capitalists—[ Interruption ]—at any rate, if they are not "bloated," they are tainted with capitalism. It shows that some other measure will have to be adopted to meet such cases.

Another point which arises is that of the value of destroyed property which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday, is based on a pre-war date. Let us try to examine that. I think I have as much knowledge as anyone in the House of occupying-owners— that great body of people who have attempted to solve the housing problem by their own industry and putting their savings towards a home. Let us take the case of a man who has paid £100 towards his home—that is a very generous sum these days—which he is buying for £700. He has £600 borrowed from an insurance company, a bank, raised by private mortgage or provided through a building society. When this man's home is damaged the value is to be assessed on a pre-war date; but I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and certainly the Commissioners, to consider what the value will be. The site will be left, but the value of the property to the man is what he paid for it, plus his mortgage costs, and, of course, the costs of our legal friends who had a corner in the transaction. Then there are stamp duties and all those other expenses comprising the whole sum this man had to meet. A lot of this money will be exhausted. I do not know whether the Government will be generous enough to give the Stamp Duty back, or whether they will pass it on. The lawyers and the mortgagor most certainly will not be reimbursed. I think it will be found that the Commissioners will take the brick-and-mortar value only. I know that hundreds of these cases may arise. In such cases the man has £100 at stake, and he will lose his home and his cash, and will, very likely, be saddled with the mortgage money unredeemed. Therefore I want the Government, when the Commission is set up, not to bind them down with the rules of the Medes and Persians. I do not know what form this Commission will take, but I suggest that in the areas where damage occurs a panel of responsible people who would give their services free could be set up. They would not only act in an advisory capacity, but would also have local knowledge of property and of the distressed persons.

There is another question arising in regard to value—the Schedule A, or what was suggested as the capital levy. I know perfectly well that there may be anomalies in any values that are made. There may be a lot said about this being a scheme to reimburse property owners. Of course it is, but, as is very often said, it is the property owners who pay the tax in this country. I would remind hon. Members that the £200,000,000 will fall upon property owners. I am not grumbling, because we are all in this job together, and whether we come out of it with a penny or a pound, we all want to pull together. Therefore do not let us have any jeering at the expense of the property owners. Out of the 13,000,000 who are on the rating lists, 4,000,000 are occupying-owners—that is a very large percentage—and I find that there are 1,750,000 mortgages with building societies. Many people think that if a man's house is not mortgaged with a building society, he has acquired it on his own account, but on investigation it will be found that 2,250,000 carry mortgages with insurance companies, have private mortgages, or money raised through the banks. Many occupying-owners have financed their businesses with the backing of their houses. Do not let us forget, when we are putting this big Measure on the Statute Book, that there are 4,000,000 families who are occupying-owners.

I am an old local government man, and no one appreciates more than I the difficulties of local authorities. Here may be a golden opportunity for certain improvements to take place. I took part in 1918 in the Committee of Reconstruction after the war, and a chaotic mess it was. Do not let it happen again. If we are to plan forward, let us plan with our labour, with our local authorities and with our materials. I am sure that hon. Members on this side will do all they can to help. The damage will probably be spread all over the country, and the skilled mechanics, the bricklayers and the plasterers, should do a little planning now. See that a fair proportion of the boys of 14 and 15 who are now going into jobs go into those essential key positions which will be required to build up the country. Coming to bricks and mortar, if we want planning ahead, there are plenty of practical men in the House. You do not want to go outside to self-appointed committees. These men do not want paying. They would be pleased to show the Government how it is possible, not only to plan ahead for a better England, but to show us a practical way in which to plan. Then there is the problem of timber. Probably the Norwegian and Scandinavian ports will be denied to us for a long time, but we have huge plantations in Canada.

It does not seem that the question of Canadian timber is within the purview of the Bill.

We were talking about planning ahead, and I was trying to indicate where the planning should take place. I hope that in this planning ahead we shall not lose sight of the very practical part which will be necessary. It is these essentials which will enable us to start directly the war is over, and, with good will from all in the House, we shall get our rebuilding done in an expeditious and satisfactory manner.

Like the last speaker, I also have a considerable practical knowledge of the subject, because, whereas the last speaker has been engaged in budding for a considerable portion of his life, I have had 25 years' experience of the surveying side; that is mainly why I intervene in this Debate. I have imposed latterly a certain amount of silence on myself because of a certain position I hold, which, I understand, by custom prohibits me from taking a too frequent part in Debates in this House. I have to disclose that I have a personal interest in the matter, like the last speaker. This is part of my personal business. I intervene, not only because, in common with other sufferers from bombing, I shall possibly be deprived of a considerable proportion of my savings and the results of many years of work if the Bill goes through in Us present form, but because I want to see justice done to that portion of the community who, through no fault of their own, will be compelled to suffer a certain amount of confiscation of their thrift and assiduity. I am convinced that, when we get into Committee, the main battle will take place on the compensatory Clauses and possibly also on the question of the compulsory insurance of private goods and chattels.

The equity holder is the person who, after all the other proprietary interests have been settled, is supposed to own the house. He has bought it with a limited amount of capital, is trying to complete the purchase by paying off a loan, and is looking forward, after 20 years probably, to owning his own house. I am convinced that there is a danger of that proprietary interest not getting the same compensation as the mortgagee or the owner of the fee simple. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech yesterday, and in his wireless broadcast said he wanted to spread the burden fairly, and I cannot understand why there is some discrimination in the contribution to be made by various classes of property owners. I am not complaining of the 2s. in the £ on Schedule A assessments, because I am sure the Treasury have taken expert opinion on the matter, and they think that is a reasonable premium. At any rate, if we are to have some form of insurance scheme, we have to pay an adequate premium. I cannot understand those who will insist that this is not an insurance but a compensation scheme. In my opinion, it is just as much a matter of insurance as health insurance and other schemes contributed to by the workmen, the State and the employer. Those who will get compensation out of this Bill will be paying for it very heavily.

To give an example, where a house is assessed for Schedule A purposes at a net annual value of £50, the owner, subject, of course, to the method of recovering part of his contribution from the various interests, has to pay £5 per annum premium. In other words, on a comparatively modest house an extra ground rent of £5 is being created. Those who are forced to pay that premium should be entitled to fair compensation if their property suffers damage. I cannot understand the difference in the premium between different classes of owners, particularly the 6d. in the £, to be paid by owners of open-air racing tracks. I hope the Attorney-General will tell us why that discrimination has been made between the owner of private property, who has to pay 2s. in the £ on the assessable value, and the owner of an open-air racing track, who is asked to pay only 6d. The incidence of the contributions is dealt with in the Fifth Schedule. I am not quite sure that I tinder-stood that correctly when I read it. Am I to understand that a direct contribution will be made by the occupier of the premises and that he, in turn, will pass on a portion of his premium to certain other proprietary interests? In that case, should I be right in assuming that, under Part II of the Schedule, where an owner holds a lease having less than 10 years unexpired, and if his ground rent is three-quarters or more of the net annual value, he can ask the ground landlord to pay 95 per cent, of the premium?

If I am not correct, I should like to be in. formed of the proportion that will be borne in the case of leasehold properties by the owner of the fee simple. If there is one class of proprietary interests which will come out of the war, without loss, whatever damage is done to the hereditaments on the land, it is the freeholder, who will in the main have his asset fully guaranteed. In many cases it will have appreciated considerably in value, especially if there is a large amount of building not carried out, due to total loss, as is contemplated in certain portions of the Bill. If the basis of compensation is a cost-of-work basis and not a value basis, presumably the house will be reinstated in its entirety in a better condition than it was before the war, and the freeholder will come into that reversion at the end of 10 years or less, in the case of a short lease. That is a substantial point which will have to be looked into. Perhaps my reading of the Fifth Schedule is right. I hope it is, because in circumstances like that, the owner of the leasehold should not be asked to pay the whole of the premium, because the person who is entitled to that valuable reversion in 10 years is obviously the one who will benefit most by this method of compensation.

I would like to say something about the compensatory Clauses. Other hon. Members have touched on this matter, and we shall have to go into it carefully in Committee, because, as I read the Clauses, they are not entirely satisfactory. It appears that there will be two bases of compensation—one, the cost-of-work basis and the other, the valuation basis. I agree with the cost-of-work basis because it is obviously fair. If you are to reinstate the property and compensation is to be paid on that basis, no one will have any fault to find with it. When, however, we come to the value basis and find that the value is to be based on some speculative figure which exists in the mind of some district valuer after the war, and based on the value in March before the war, I suggest that it will 'be one of the main causes of considerable argument when these cases come up before the Commission for settlement. If the purpose of the Bill is to reinstate the homes of the people who have suffered under bombing, how can you possibly give the owner of a home some arbitrary figure which will not be sufficient for him to rebuild his home? After all, that is what we are aiming at. If we want to give back to the people the homes they have lost —and it makes no difference whether they are landlords or tenants, because every tenant has to live in a house owned by somebody, and a considerable proportion of houses are held by owner occupiers—then we must see in equity, fairness and justice, that the owners of demolished or damaged homes are given back proper homes in which to live. If that is not done and compensation is given to some proprietary interest like a mortgagee, who has only put a certain amount of capital in the property, and may be in many cases a rich corporation like the Prudential or a bank or even a building society; and if they are to be compensated to the full while the actual owner of the physical structure cannot get his home back, there will be considerable discontent after the war, and probably before the end of the war if the people get to know that that is the way in which this Bill will be administered.

Let me give a concrete example. Under the Bill, owners of factories or business premises, or even of houses, can be reinstated before the end of the war if it is in the national interest that it should be done. Therefore, the owner of a big filling factory or munitions factory which happens to be bombed can be reinstated on a cost-of-works basis, yet the owner of a little house has to wait for the reinstatement of his home until after the war, although I admit he gets 2½ per cent, interest on the figure at which his house will be assessed. After the war, however, because he does not happen to occupy some building which is in the national interest to rebuild, he will get some figure which will rot be sufficient to meet what he has put in in the past both in capital and labour. Reverting to the question of the contributions, do I understand that under this Schedule a certain amount of the contributions in the case I have mentioned will be passed on to the ground landlord and. in addition, one-third, or two-thirds as the case may be, can also be recovered from the mortgagee? If so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that more than the full contribution paid by the direct contributor will be recoverable from the ground landlord and his mortgagee.

While I am on the question of mortgagees, may I ask the Attorney-General, as I asked the Chancellor when he was speaking yesterday, whether banks acting in the capacity of mortgagees are included in the Bill? As I have understood the speeches so far, mortgagees have generally been defined as building societies, but there are other large classes of mortgagees. I know from my own experience that many small owners of property have borrowed their purchase money from the banks. In those cases the borrower is personally liable, not only to the extent of his asset in the house but of his own personal means, to repay the mortgage. The War Emergency Powers Act, of course, precludes the banks from insisting on the repayment of their loans at the moment, but the fact remains that those, who hold bank mortgages or loans on their property will be compelled to pay the loan back in full at some time or other to the total extent of their personal assets. I ask, therefore, whether bank mortgages and insurance society mortgages are included in the Bill in the same category as building society mortgages.

I want to make a suggestion which the Chancellor will perhaps investigate before the Committee stage. In fire insurance policies, in addition, to the value of the house, an additional sum by way of rent is often covered, so that, if the building is burned down and no rent is recoverable, even if the tenant holds the premises on lease, the rent is insured in addition to the cost of the building. Would it not be possible to bring within this scheme the insurance of rent as well? I hope that what I am about to say will convince the Chancellor that it might be in the interests of the National Revenue to include something of this nature. The Inland Revenue are not able to gather a portion of their taxes under Schedule A because properties have been damaged and no tenants are in occupation. I do not know what the amount will be that the Chancellor will lose in Schedule A taxation owing to war damage, but I should think it would amount to a substantial sum. If it were possible to insure against the loss of rent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would gather 8s. 6d. in the £ on the rent, at the standard rate of Income Tax, and in the case of larger property owners he would get Surtax as well on the rent, which would then be paid by way of insurance. It is not such a revolutionary proposal, but something which is very practical.

There is another reason why I put forward that suggestion; in many cases the small property owner who has lost his house still has to pay his ground-rent and his mortgage interest, and although he may be able to get some relief by arrangement with the freeholder or his mortgagee that burden remains and will remain, presumably, until the end of the war, and will be due to be paid at some time or other. In the meantime he has no beneficial occupation. He is paying a freeholder for the use of the land although he cannot use the building which he has himself put on the land or has acquired through a builder. Therefore, I suggest to the Chancellor that it might be well for him to consider this point. I do not think the premium would amount to very much. It is done in the case of five insurance, as the Chancellor knows, at the rate of 1s. 6d. per cent, at the present time, and I should not think the cost of the premium would be anything like as great as the cost of insuring the house itself.

There is another suggestion I would make. As the Chancellor has told us, many houses have been only slighty damaged, to the extent, say, of £50, but they have become derelict and are unoccupied. Perhaps a piece of a bomb has gone through the roof, the roof is leaking, the owner of the property cannot pay for the temporary repairs and the local authority cannot do repairs because they cannot get the material or labour. Wind and weather are causing that property to deteriorate. I do not know whether under this Bill any payments will be made by way of compensation for deterioration due to indirect enemy action, because the deterioration due to wind and weather is indirect. I suggest to the Chancellor that just as we have a Salvage Corps for the main purpose of saving insurance companies as much as possible when a fire occurs, so it should be possible to get some sort of salvage corps to effect temporary repairs to properties which have been damaged, so that they shall not further deteriorate in value. Otherwise, not only will the actual owner suffer but, presumably, the Treasury also, because until those properties are put in order by somebody the Treasury will not be able to recover taxation on them.

There is not much more I want to say, because I wish to take part in the Committee stage. With the practical knowledge which I possess, and which many other hon. Members possess, I say that the Bill has met, generally speaking, with a favourable reception, and I think that all owners of property, and tenants as we'll, will be grateful to the Chancellor and to the Government for having had the foresight to bring in such a Bill. As the Solicitor-General said yesterday, the last word has not been spoken on the Bill. The Government do not claim that all wisdom is included in it. If the Government will meet those of us who do know something about this matter and who may have some interest in it—and there are 4,000,000 owner-occupiers, who make up a considerable proportion of the earning population of the country—I am certain that he will meet, with nothing but help in getting the Bill through the Committee stage as quickly as possible.

I hope and believe that the Chancellor has one object in view in bringing this Bill forward. He mentioned something about it yesterday. He wants to see that the economic stability or security of the country is not affected by an act of the enemy, because if it should be then the morale of the people will go very quickly, and we may be in danger of losing the war. Speaking as a family man, I know of no higher object than the safeguarding of the home, where family life starts and almost invariably ends. Therefore, I say to the Chancellor that if his purpose is to safeguard the homes of the people—of course, other interests are included, factories and businesses, the owners of which are also entitled to compensation—he will deserve credit not only from hon. Members but from those large numbers of people who are to-day being pushed from pillar to post, who are not living in homes but living in shelters, tubes and other places, and are only waiting for the time when they can get back to "Home, sweet home." I therefore compliment the Chancellor upon bringing in such a comprehensive Measure, and I hope that he will meet those of us who have substantial points to put forward on the Committee stage as favourably as we have met him on the reception of this Bill.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw fair. Bellenger) referred to people who borrow money on mortgage from a bank, and said he understood they were liable for its repayment even if the mortgaged property had been destroyed. That is also true of a mortgage from any other source—from a building society or anyone else. I mention that in the interests of stating the position fully. While congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who have collaborated with him on the introduction of the Bill, I wish to mention one or two points in connection with Part I. in order that lie may have the opportunity of giving them quiet and undisturbed consideration. First, there is the point that the rate of contribution has been based on the net Schedule A assessment. I can readily understand how attractive and convenient that basis was to those who drafted the Bill, but the anomalies which are bound to arise are simply staggering. I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a specific case which came to my attention only this week. In one of the best shopping centres in London there is a shop which is assessed under Schedule A at £3.500 a year. The real value is in the land, owing to its situation. If the building were demolished it could be replaced to-morrow for about £1,500. It is only a retail shop. The contribution which the owners of this property will have to pay is 2s. on £3,500, which is £350 a year.

That is a specific case; but let me put another case for his consideration where the position as to the value of the land and buildings is entirely reversed. We will imagine a case where there is a big fine building costing £50.000 erected upon land which cost only £1,500. There the Schedule A assessment would be at the same figure—as near as one can calculate, £3,500 a year. Taking a 7 per cent. basis on about £50,000 it will come to £3.500. Their contribution wall be £350 a year, just the same as the contribution in respect of the small shop. In their case the community stands to be liable to replace as far as possible £50,000 worth of property. In the other case it is liable for only £1,500 for the same consideration. I am not criticising my right hon. Friend but I am merely pointing out the facts, because this is a very striking example of an anomaly and I could not forbear bringing it to the attention of my right hon. Friend. No doubt it is an exceptional case but the truth is there.

I really wanted to complain about what I might call a definite black spot in Part I of the Bill, the limitation of liability for contribution on the part of the mortgagees. The Bill provides that mortgagees shall be liable to contribute a certain proportion of the contribution that has to be paid in certain cases in which the mortgage arises

Why should there be any limitation such as is provided in the Bill of the mortgagees paying their share of the contribution? I must admit that I have been too nervous to try to tackle the liability to contribution on the part of the ground landlord, and I have been waiting until one of my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench explains it to us upon the Committee stage. The Fifth Schedule has a mysterious columnar form at the end which I suppose tells us what proportion is to be borne by the ground landlord. I have looked at it, but I have left it to wiser heads. As far as the mortgagee is concerned, there seems to be no possible answer to the point that I am raising. Why should their contribution be limited to dwelling-houses of a rateable value of not more than £100 or, to farm premises, not exceeding £250? Why should it be limited to any particular type of property? This is not a case of relationship between landlords and comparatively poor persons as tenants, but perhaps between big capitalists and bigger capitalists. Why should there be any restriction whatever on the type of property on which the mortgagee is liable to contribute a due share of the contribution? I am at a loss to understand it. It may be said that we have not had very much time to digest this very long Bill and that this may be a white elephant which I am raising, in which case I shall be well content, but I am unable to see any justification whatever for this position arising between the equity owner and the mortgagee in respect of liability to make this contribution. That the liability should be confined to houses of £100 a year and farm premises up to £250 a year seems utterly unfair.

Let me ask hon. Members to visualise the position of an equity owner, whatever the nature of the property, whose property has already been entirely demolished. He is liable under the Bill to pay his contribution as though the property were still there. He pays the contribution in the sure and certain knowledge that he is paying for the benefit of a mortgagee based on legislation which is retrospective and that, at the most, he is possibly securing 20s. in the £ for his mortgagee or mortgagees. I have very little doubt that before the Bill becomes law my right hon. Friend will have dealt with this serious defect in Part I. May I emphasise the point that the Bill clearly visualises the compulsory insurance of all classes of property? There are initial words referring to machinery, plant and the like. Therefore business premises are clearly visualised as part of all property which is to be covered.

Will my hon. Friend explain to me and to the House one point? Suppose the mortgage is for 80 per cent, of the value of the property; does he suggest that 80 per cent, is the compensation to be paid to the mortgagee and the other 20 per cent, which would in the effect be the value of the equity, be paid to the mortgagor?

Is my hon. Friend referring to all properties or only to those of under £100 a year?

My hon. Friend is taking me away into rather deeper waters where I did not wish to go, but, broadly speaking, the answer is "No," certainly. The mortgagee will take the whole of the compensation up to the amount which will cover his mortgage. Suppose for the sake of argument the property was believed to be worth originally £1,000 and that £800 had been found on mortgage. The compensation payable is £800; does my hon. Friend suggest that the mortgagee should receive 80 per cent, of the money, that is to say £640 and that the other part of it should be paid to the equity owner?

No. The mortgagee should get the whole lot. Is my hon. Friend in favour of my argument that the mortgagees are getting away too well?

Then I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which may emphasize the point I have been trying to bring to my right hon. Friend's notice. I do not want to take up any more time of the House, but I must re-emphasise the possibility of the most extraordinary anomalies arising from this basis of Schedule A assessment. The other important point is that mortgagees are being unfairly benefited because they are not to contribute what they should. It is monstrous that they should not contribute at all except in certain specified cases which are laid down in detail in Clause 19.

It has been said that this Bill is very comprehensive. Naturally so, and it is so comprehensive that it must be complicated. There are many questions which hon. Members would like to ask the Minister and to which they will require a reply, but I have one or two questions regarding the agricultural aspect of this matter. In Part I, fixed machinery is included in the 2s, rate; is fixed machinery included also for the agricultural section under the 6d. rate? I see in Clause 15 (2, b ) that know that county war agricultural committees have power in regard to grazing these lands but as I go about the country I can see that many of these grounds are not grazed. Is it not desirable to put into the Bill a provision that if these sports grounds are to have the cheaper rate an undertaking must have been given that they will be used for grazing purposes at the same time.

I turn to Clause 45, on which I should like to ask a question. I understand that farm produce will be compensated for with goods and chattels and that insurance on compensation premiums will be compulsory, the sum being fixed by the Board of Trade. I want to know how you are to fix the value of these goods and chattels or farm produce. If it is to be on Schedule A assessment I do not think that will be satisfactory. The insurance of farm produce is, generally speaking, very different from the insurance of goods and chattels -which are goods in trade, because the value of the crops varies when they are brought in to the farm buildings and places where they will be more vulnerable to damage. This commences largely, say in September, and runs on to the end of the winter. The produce, not only for threshing and distribution among the people, but primarily as food for the animals on the farm, will be consumed by the time the end of the winter comes. Therefore, it has a variable valuation throughout the year.

I want to know what is to happen if you have a valuation fixed for one period, and if the damage takes place at a time when the value is above the average? The average throughout the year is the only fair value you can take. Are there to be regulations by which one will get only a proportion of the damage which has been done? It should be made clear that the full value of the damage will be paid when the value is up to the compensatory value or over it. I take it that the sum is to be 30s., which, I think, is very high in this case. If you are paying 30s., you are paying for a valuation which does not exist for a large part of the year. If you are paying for it when it does not exist, then you should get the advantage of receiving full compensation if it is destroyed when it has been brought from the fields and has become vulnerable.

Suppose there is dual damage on a farm. Suppose damage takes place at one period of the insurance and then, compensation having been paid, further damage is done. Is there to be any premium paid? If 60, for what period? One cannot be expected to pay for another full period, in respect of only a portion of the year. I am afraid it will be found that 30s. is a high rate and I should like to see it reduced. Then I would ask, when will payment be made? A man who loses all the stuff which he has grown for consumption by the stock on the farm, if he is to retain the life of the stock and continue operations, must immediately try to obtain other food, and that will have to be paid for. Consequently, I hope the payments will be made at the earliest day possible, and I should like some statement as to when that is expected to be. I should also like to know whether these premiums will be allowed to be included in the farm accounts when they are being made up for Income Tax purposes. It is in the interests of the public that produce should be insured against loss, because it would be a loss not only to the farmer but to the State. These charges should be allowed by the Income Tax authority to be included in the accounts for Income Tax purposes.

Those are not all the questions which I should like Co ask on this complicated Bill, but I think they are all that I am justified in putting to-day in the hope of getting a reply. If we can have a reply to those questions and to others which have been made it will simplify the procedure when we arrive at the Committee stage. Otherwise, we may find a considerable number of Amendments put down purely for exploratory purposes. If answers can be given to these questions now, so that during the Recess when we are considering the matter we may have fuller knowledge, some of the more complicated questions which might otherwise arise at a later stage may be eliminated.

I want to join in the universal song of praise and thanksgiving. I do so sincerely and I think I am consistent, because, from the beginning of the war, we on these benches, and especially the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), have advocated some such Measure as this. The answer which we got in the early days was that it was impracticable and so, forth, but I am glad that at long last we have learned that we have now to do things which were formerly regarded as impossible and impracticable. The House has evidenced, by the discussion which has taken place, a real appreciation not only of the Bill but of the difficulties of the Government, and it is not with any desire to add to those difficulties but rather to help towards a solution, that I would like to raise a matter in which I am particularly interested, because of the constituency which I represent and for other reasons. I believe that the Chancellor described it as rough justice. In some areas it will be particularly rough justice.

One point I want to make has already been brought out in practical form by the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford). I think the House has shown that probably Schedule A provides the soundest basis for assessment, but we shall make a mistake if we say that it provides a basis, without some general modification or elasticity. The hon. Member for Rusholme quoted an individual building, but you might also take whole constituencies such as some of our constituencies in Central London. It is well known that rateable values there are very high indeed. They are high not because the buildings are valuable. Some of the buildings are very ancient and could well be replaced. As a matter of fact, from many points of view we could appreciate their demolition, but their owners are in a difficult position because they are assessed at a tremendous figure. Many of these businesses already feel that they have had such a blast from the war and that they ought to receive some recognition. Many are small manufacturers whose output has been cut down by the limitation of supplies and other considerations. In my constituency there are businesses running at a loss, in the hope that they may be able to survive the war and that they will not have to be resurrected. Sales have almost disappeared because of the dispersal of the population. Now they are being asked to meet this situation on the Schedule A basis. The illustration given by the hon. Member for Rusholme may seem exaggerated, but there are whole constituencies to which it applies as a generalisation and where carrying on is very difficult.

There are also cases in which business concerns, because they could afford it, have moved the whole of their plant into the Provinces, leaving just a central office, often one room only, as a postal address to keep up old historic associations. In doing so, they have saved on rates, and their Schedule A assessment corresponds, with the result that their saving is colossal. Some of these concerns whose premises have been taken over for war production are in a sumptuous position. Locally, they are only paying rent on a small office which is probably not assessed at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should understand that this is not an isolated case. It is general: I do not complain of the firms having moved: it is a good thing that they should move out, and it is good that those economies should be made. But there are many business concerns which are unable to do so because they have not the necessary means. They are at the present time carrying on under very considerable difficulties. It seems to me that they should receive special consideration, particularly in view of the fact that the replacement value, in their case, would be a mere fraction compared with the average replacement value. This is a point of considerable importance to the constituency which I have the honour to represent.

There is a second element of rough justice. The Bill provides for two forms of compensation, one based on pre-war valuation, the amount of which will be credited to the firms concerned and on which they will be entitled to 2½ per cent, interest, while other concerns will receive replacement immediately, the Government bearing the whole of the cost. The consideration which will decide between the two types of case will be public necessity, and, probably, primarily war considerations. That again is a differentiation which cannot be justified, although it is necessary in the public interest. In the first place, I would suggest that the additional costs, over and above the actual pre-war value, may be very considerable, and I suggest that those costs should not be debited to the general fund. We have already been informed to-day by the Solicitor-General that in the case of charities, the replacement will not come out of the fund. It seems to me that there is an equally valid case for the contention that the excess above the actual value—due to war-time costs, should also be borne by the Government and not by the fund. There is a second consideration. Firms which are not "in the swim" in the war will receive 2j per cent, interest on their pre-war valuation and will have to wait for it, whereas other firms which are concerned in war industry will not only get replacement but will consequently be left in a position subsequently to adapt themselves immediately to peace-time production and thus gain a substantial advantage over their competitors. Consideration should therefore be given to the question of some further compensation to those who are compelled to wait. I am not suggesting that the Bill should be based on replacement value; I do not know whether it is practicable; but if it were so, the justice would not be quite so rough and would be more satisfactory.

When he introduced the Measure the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to say something on the position with regard to bank overdrafts. It is well known that many concerns carry on without mortgages simply by dealing with the bank in the ordinary way. They have substantial assets and go to the bank for an overdraft when they need to increase their plant. They pay the bank handsomely for it and the bank is often, to all intents and purposes, the owner without any responsibility. It therefore seems to me that we should have more information than the Bill contains on this question of mortgages and the liability to contribute. Presumably the Chancellor was pressed for time and may have had difficulty in dealing with that question.

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade spoke this morning he rather alarmed me because two or three things he said gave me the impression that people whose income is under £400 a year, if married, or £250 a year, if single and who will come under what he calls the "free scheme," are to be ruled out. He certainly gave the impression that these people would not be able to participate in the other scheme. I hope that is not true. I hope it was a misapprehension on my part and that people with less than £400 income, who may have built up a very fine home, will be able to come into the voluntary scheme. I had assumed that that was the case until I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary this morning. He certainly gave the impression that they were ruled out.

There is another point I want to stress. I think the Government have tried, honestly, to cover everything, but there is one thing which is not covered and which to many people is of vital importance. That is what I call survival. Let me give an illustration. A business concern established for 70 years has already suffered war damage because their stock, in bond at London Docks, has been partly destroyed. Acting on the advice of the Board of Trade, they have dispersed the rest of their stock over the country and put some in another dock, because the bulk of the bonded warehouses are at the docks. They have lost more there. If it was any commodity other than tobacco, they could move it where they liked and for that they would have the example of the Ministry of Food. But, because of the Treasury officials, they are told that they must keep it in bonded warehouses. There are a few bonded warehouses in more or less safe areas but they are full. Suppose this firm is now waiting for the next bombardment of docks. If the rest of their stock goes, the possibility of replenishing it is practically ruled out. This firm, without much advertising, has built up, by the quality of their products over 70 years, a world-wide reputation with a fairly substantial export trade. Now they look like being extinguished because their stocks are liable to be wiped out by enemy action. I do not know whether the Financial Resolution would cover them, but that does seem to be a case where the question of survival comes in. If their stocks are wiped out, they are finished. They have to wait patiently and hope for a resurrection after the war. Their good name and practice are their real assets.

Another question arose during yesterday's Debate in regard to which I think this House, before giving a Second Beading to this Bill, is entitled to have some information. That is the question of the negotiability of the indemnities due. They carry 2½ per cent, interest. The question was raised yesterday and the Solicitor-General said that they were not negotiable. He said further that there would be an opportunity for allowing negotiation after proper investigation. It seems fairly evident, however, that many big or small business concerns must have the money immediately if they are to carry on. They may hare nothing left. If these indemnities were negotiable, they could go to their bankers and raise credits to carry on. But if, as was suggested, they have to wait until the whole question has been considered—and we know what "consideration" in this kind of matter means—then the acquisition of fresh stocks alone, leaving out of account the question of fresh premises, may be impossible. I see prospects of substantial business concerns being extinguished. I am particularly concerned that, just as we must keep down human casualties, this Bill should be made into a successful means of keeping down casualties among the businesses and industries of this country. I hope to have assurances on that point.

The subject matter of this Bill is so highly technical that a layman naturally approaches it with some diffidence, but the circumstances in which it is introduced and the purpose it has in view are, happily, without precedent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has invited the House to apply its collective commonsense and experience to help him to make this great constructive and courageous Measure work and effectively perform the purpose that we all have in mind. That must be my excuse for intervening in this Debate, for joining in the welcome which has been generally accorded to the Bill, and for venturing to draw attention to one or two matters which will require special attention in the later stages of our consideration of the Bill.

I think no one will quarrel with the basis on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proceeded in preparing this Measure. It is, clearly, impossible to foresee the extent of the damage that we shall have to meet. The Chancellor had to begin somewhere, and he has aimed at making provision for damage to the extent of £400,000,000. We all hope—and I am sure no one more fervently than the Chancellor himself—that that estimate will prove to be substantially in excess of the fact. Some concern was expressed yesterday about the disposal of any surplus which may be in the fund at any subsequent time. It is true that in the Explanatory Memorandum we have an assurance of the intention that any such surplus shall inure to the benefit of the people concerned. The Solicitor-General yesterday underlined and emphasised that assurance. But some of us who remember, for example, what happened to the Road Fund, when a very distinguished predecessor of my right hon. Friend found some difficulty in fortifying the Revenue, would like those assurances made a little more detailed and more specific, and would like them, if possible, embodied in the Bill. Nor can there be any reasonable criticism of the basis on which this fund is to be created. The "fifty-fifty" arrangement between the property-owners and the Government appears to be equitable; and it will, I think, be generally accepted as reasonable.

But when we come to the question of how the fund is to be raised, there is likely to be much more criticism. It is to be raised, I understand, by annual levy at the rate of 2s. in the £, based on the Schedule A assessment. We have already been told—and instances have been given—that that basis is in itself illogical. But we must accept again the dictum of the Solicitor-General yesterday, that it is not always prudent to pursue an argument to its strict logical conclusion. It may well be that no more workable basis for this levy could have been found. I want to draw attention particularly to the serious burdens which this levy imposes. Two shillings in the £ does not sound very much, but the £ has already been whittled down to 11s. 6d. by ordinary Income Tax deduction. The 2s. will be based on an assessment which takes no account, for example, of such matters as empty premises, which represent a substantial reduction in the annual income available. I anticipate that this contribution will prove to be not only a very heavy burden, very difficult to meet, but that in some cases property-owners will find it virtually impossible to meet this contribution.

I do not want merely to make a plea ad misericordiam. The effect of this Bill and of this rate of contribution is to call upon owners of property to make good within five years damage which has occurred in two years of intensive warfare, warfare in which both the extent and the rate of damage is quite without precedent. I submit that that is not a reasonable basis, and, indeed, that it has, in it, an element of injustice. We are told frequently, and we are at pains to tell the world, that we are fighting this war to preserve liberty and the benefits of our civilisation and of our institutions for posterity. Surely, it would be right to ask posterity to bear some part of the price that we have to pay. There is a further point which I think is not without relevance. This scheme will produce for the Treasury something between £40,000,000 and £50,000.000 a year. Both during the war and, I think, for some time afterwards, it will be virtually impossible, by reason of the shortage of materials and labour, to spend anything like that sum. I should be the last to suspect my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is such a perfect model of cherubic innocence, of wanting to go one better than his distinguished predecessor, by fortifying the revenue in advance. But certainly this rate of contribution will result in the Chancellor finding himself the happy possessor of millions of pounds, for which he can find no employment whatever, except to use it in discharging the ordinary revenue obligations of the country. Therefore, I ask seriously that the Chancellor should consider a drastic reduction in the rate of contribution, with, of course, a corresponding lengthening of the period for which the levy is to be made.

There is a second point that I would mention. There is no provision in this Bill to cover such liabilities as those for ground rents, mortgages, and debenture interest. I appreciate the difficulty of making an arrangement of that kind, although a good case can be made for it on behalf of those trustees and others who have teen encouraged for years to regard investment in property as highly sound and proper. But, at least, it seems to me that property owners should have some kind of assistance, by way of moratorium or otherwise, analogous to that already given to business people, who have lost their livelihood by reason of the evacuation of the civil population in face of threatened enemy action. There are many detailed points falling to be discussed in Committee. There is the arrangement for the direct contribution, which seems a little cumbersome. There is that marvellous Fifth Schedule, which seems to me largely incomprehensible, and, where I can comprehend it, inequit- able. There is the question, which has been already raised, of the limitation of the liability of mortgagees to contribute to the cost of insurance. There are details of payment. Surely, for example, in the case of value payments, interest should be paid, and should not merely accrue. It should be made clear, I think, that payment for the cost of works should be completed when the works are completed, and should not be left, as appears to be proposed under the Bill, indefinite. But these are points of detail. I want to ask the Chancellor, in conclusion, whether he will consider seriously an alteration of the rate of contribution. I appreciate that it concerns a fundamental feature of this Bill, but I ask him to reconsider it, because I believe that it is necessary to do so, if the Bill is to be made a just and a workable Measure.

As our time is now very limited, I shall confine myself to making a few observations, which I hope, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider between now and the Committee stage of the Bill. Having regard to the uncertainty of the situation and the timidity of the last Government, I also join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Government upon having had the courage to introduce this Measure. I was very pleased when I read the following in the explanatory memorandum:

I hope that between now and the Committee stage the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the use of the word "chattels," which is used in the Bill. I have looked up the word in the dictionary and I find that it means personal property. Would it not be better to use the words "personal property" rather than the word "chattels"? The ordinary people—and I only desire to speak on behalf of the people among whom I was born—look upon the word "chattels" as an obnoxious word. I can foresee that when people have to make application far compensation, they will look upon that word in the way in which they have always been brought up to look upon it. It is no use the Financial Secretary smiling at this suggestion. This question will cause a good deal of feeling among ordinary people, though it may not among the people with whom he is associated. I am speaking about the people in general.

I strongly protest against Part II of the Bill being on a voluntary basis. It should be compulsory. I listened very carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, and, in my view and that of Eon. Members on this side of the House, he made out a very weak case against the suggestion that it should be put upon a compulsory basis. He spoke about the difficulties of administration. Those difficulties will have to be dealt with by the Assistance Board or the Board of Trade administering the voluntary scheme. The difficulties would be the same if the scheme were put on a compulsory basis, and what the hon. Gentleman gave as an excuse is really no excuse at all. I hope that when the Government consider the subsequent scheme that is to follow the experience of the present scheme, they will introduce a scheme on a contributory basis in proportion to the income of the individual. The people of this country are swinging round more and more to that point of view. They do not want to depend upon charity or upon some official in the South of England who may put a different interpretation upon a regulation from that of an official in the North of England. The people want to know their rights. They do not want to have to go, cap in hand, or in humiliation, for that to which they are entitled. They are prepared to face their responsibilities which regard to this matter, and I hope that the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer will consider the point.

Thousands of people are going to Buxton and district, to the Lake District and into the hills. I am not speaking critically of those people, but we shall find that in many cases they are not facing their responsibilities. The tendency of a large number of them will be not to contribute to the scheme at all. We are all in this war and, therefore, it ought to be a national responsibility. People in industrial areas, generally speaking, are suffering more as the result of enemy action, and therefore it is not fair to place burdens upon them when this ought to be a responsibility upon every individual in the country. For that reason it would be better to put this scheme upon a compulsory basis. I see it is proposed that the premiums and a certain amount of administration should be placed in the hands of the fire insurance companies and of Lloyd's. The organisations with which I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House are associated say that events are demanding that the State should accept responsibility with regard to this kind of thing, and that we cannot afford to have profits made out of war. Surely, after the experience we have had of the successful administration of the Trades Facilities Act, the Essential Commodities Act and a number of others, and the efficient way the Board of Trade have administered certain schemes, we are entitled to expect that no company should make profit or receive commissions. As the Board of Trade have made a success of a number of schemes of this kind, this Measure ought to be left in their hands to administer.

I must apologise to right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench for not having been present during all the Debate, but that has not been my fault. I have been elsewhere on the business of the House. I apologise because I am not sure I may not be about to ask a question, to which, perhaps, some answer has already been given. But I think I am putting a substantially new point, and I will at any rate put it as concisely as I can. I understand the intention of the Government is to give the War Damage Commission entirely arbitrary powers over charities. I should like to ask whether it might, conceivably, be considered by the Treasury that some charities should be allowed the option of contracting into the scheme on a non-charitable basis. I speak without authority, as there has not been time for the charities with which I am more particularly connected to examine the Bill thoroughly, or to take advice, and I would not in any way wish to commit them, but it seems to me just possible that some charities may be prepared to pay the full contribution instead of the one-third contribution provided by the Bill, on the understanding that they should, thereupon, have the same contractual or as nearly as possible the same contractual right as anybody else. I am not quite certain whether anybody would wish to take that option if it were given, but it is worth considering.

Whatever the answer may be, and particularly if it is in the negative, I would ask whether anything could be done to make a little less arbitrary the authority, given in the case of charities, to the War Damage Commission? As the Bill stands, it is absolutely arbitrary; the Commission decides what sum shall be paid, when it shall be paid and to whom. I think I am right on that point. For instance, suppose you get a very great amount of war damage in one town where there is a great deal of educational charity. Not to put too fine a point upon it, suppose there is a great deal of war damage in Cambridge? This power can well be used—I am sure there is no intention so to use it—to give the Treasury complete control over the whole of those institutions. If they could decide what amount should be paid to each university and to each college, they might be given complete control. It might be argued that in a totalitarian State the whole of education, learning, science, research and the production and distribution of ideas is controlled by the Treasury and that in a non-totalitarian State it is not, but I think it would be a misfortune if, by the product of an unfortunate "blitz" incident, we were to slip over to the totalitarian side of the fence in that respect. I do not suppose that we can get very much in the way of an assurance at this moment but I hope the Government spokesman who is to reply will be able to tell us that there will be full frank and free discussions on this and cognate matter before we get to the Committee stage.

The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) rather took me aback by congratulating the Government on introducing this Bill. If I were to speak on this Bill within the four walls of orthodoxy, I Should have to congratulate the Government, because I think it is a real masterpiece but when the hon. Member has so much to say about social justice and the new world order when this war is over I cannot understand the meaning of his congratulations. There are many points in this Bill to which I could refer and I would do so by way of trying to be helpful if time were not limited. But there are one or two points to which I must refer. First, there is the basis of contribution. It has been decided that the basis of contribution shall be Schedule A and I propose to give the House two definite cases which show anomaly and injustice. Suppose a man buying a house from a building society is encouraged, and rightly so, to buy the adjoining house as a means of increasing his income in later life. What happens? When he is being assessed for Income Tax on Schedule A, the house he occupies is assessed at £24. The adjoining house which he has bought is assessed at £40. Where is the justice? How can you say that this is an equitable way of collecting this contribution? When we come to the rateable value what is the position? Those two houses are each assessed at £22, whether one is occupied by the owner or by his tenant. Therefore, the basis on which this contribution is to be collected should have some reconsideration.

Is the hon. Member stating an actual case or a hypothetical case? How does he explain the difference between the two houses?

I am speaking of an actual case. The second case of which I know is even worse. A man has bought two houses, and for Schedule A purposes the one he is occupying is assessed at £38 and the one he is letting is assessed at £105. What an anomaly that position is. My purpose in intervening in the Debate is to put forward an alternative, and I do so in the hope of reaching that new world order of which so many people speak but do not understand. I put for- ward this alternative in the Budget Debates, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not do me the courtesy of even referring to it. My right hon. and gallant Friend may smile, but I take these matters rather seriously. I am thinking of the people as a whole and not of any particular class, and I am thinking of those people who up to now have had a very hard and rough deal in the main.

My proposal is this. To be fair and just to everybody, whether he has suffered partial damage or total damage, the damage should be assessed at the time it takes place. I do not want a man to wait until the war is over, to wait, it may be, for two, three, or more years. I understand the position regarding difficulties of labour and material, but I do not understand why a man because he owns a house, should be put under any greater hardship than any other person in the community. Therefore, I want such a person to have issued to him what I term a property replacement certificate, to bear interest at the rate of 2 per cent, per annum. He would hold that certificate until the property was rebuilt, and he would get assistance for rebuilding in the following way. I want the Government to have power to issue money. Accepting, of course, that damage by the enemy is the responsibility of the State and basing my theory on that, I suggest that the certificate to which I have referred should be issued, that when it is ready and the time is opportune for building, the man would go to the bank, and the bank would finance the rebuilding on the certificate with the money issued by the Government. When the property had been erected, the certificate would be withdrawn and so would that proportion of money issued, and it need cost the State no money at all to deal with demolitions caused by the enemy.

It may be asked why 2 per cent, interest should be paid on the certificate. I suggest that because I am an advocate of low interest rates. I do not want the property owner to suffer in consequence of that principle. Therefore, I would impose by Statute upon all property owners on annual premium—it might be 6d. or 9d. or at the most 1s.—upon which all property owners would pay that percentage which would go into a common pool. Any man who had had his pro- perty damaged and who was the holder of a property replacement certificate would then draw from the pool the balance between his 2 per cent, and what had been his pre-war income from the property, so that he would, in fact, get social justice. I cannot go into the minute details of the scheme, but I assure the House that I am out to avoid inflation. This scheme would not provide inflation, but would, in fact, restore the country, on whatever town-planning scheme maybe devised, at no cost to the community. We have had a large number of soldiers and other people arriving in London, and as a result a great deal of property has been pulled down by demolition squads, making property a total loss, some of which might have been saved if a little discrimination had been used. A man who has suffered complete loss by bombing and by demolition is in a worse position than a man who has suffered only a partial loss. One might have a case of property worth £1,000 which has been damaged to the extent of £500. The method of compensation is that £500 will he spent so long as it does not cost more than the property value. Therefore you may spend £1,000 on property which is worth only £1,000, and as a result only replace part of the property. I submit therefore that there are many points in this Bill which require very careful consideration.

I think I should probably meet the convenience of the House if I do my best to deal with the many questions which have been put rather than deal with the more general issues which have been raised from time to time. My right hon. Friend said, when he introduced this Bill, that it is one in regard to which he welcomes suggestions, and all the suggestions which have been made will receive careful consideration. Parliamentary drafts men have a task which is in some ways comparable to that of cricket umpires—their activities are apt to escape notice except when they are thought to have made, or have made, a mistake. I should like to express on behalf of the Parliamentary draftsmen gratitude for the tributes which were paid by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), and others, with regard to the work they have done on this extremely complicated Measure. My hon. Friend referred, in considering in particular the case of tenants, to the fact that although they may not have to contribute, they undoubtedly want to live in houses, and will want to live in fully repaired houses, as soon as possible after war conditions become normal. As the House knows, there are many cases to-day where temporary repairs have been carried cut which make houses inhabitable, but which, when conditions become normal, will be replaced by proper and permanent repairs. Of course, that work must be conditioned by the availability of labour and material, local requirements and so on. I quite agree that it is important and that there must be the necessary machinery for seeing there is no undue delay when labour and material are available, and that proper post-war reconditioning is carried out subject to town planning and all the other conditions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) and others raised the question of the insurance and pointed out the anomaly which existed under the Schedule A contribution basis. The difficulties of taking lire insurance figures, or some of them, were pointed out by my right hon. Friend. There will undoubtedly be many cases in which that figure will be too low, where you would have to have machinery to see that the proper figure was arrived at in order to obtain the proper contributions. There are other cases, cases, for example, of modern lire-proof buildings, where the proportion of the value at fire risk is not 100, but something more like 40, where special provision would have to be made to deal with them. There is also the fact that the Bill covers damage to other than buildings—earthworks, the garden, and land generally. That is not covered by fire insurance at all, so you would have to have some further special machinery to decide what were the proper contributions in respect of those interests which are covered by the Bill. For these reasons, that was felt to be impracticable, and we have adopted the Schedule A basis. It has been pointed out that there are anomalies. Of course, there are. No doubt there are anomalies in individual cases between the Schedule A values on similar properties.

The hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) put the case of an expensive site and a cheap building and a cheap site and an expensive building. I agree that, if you start with the idea that this contribution is in all cases comparable with the amount of State-contributed money at risk, you can point out extreme anomalies. On the other hand, if you regard it as a contribution to be made by property owners on the basis of the machinery that is available and ready to hand, I see no alternative to the Schedule A basis, nor do I think on analysis some of the anomalies are quite as unfair as they might appear to be at first sight. Take the case of the man who has a not very expensive building on a valuable site. In the case put he got £3,500 a year rent. I agree that the total damage that may be done is very much less than is represented by the capitalised value on his Schedule A 10s. in the £ contribution. He has a site in effect at risk which, if the building is blown away, will produce nothing and. when the building is restored, will produce £3,500 a year. I do not shrink from those anomalies. The method of measuring this contribution by the annual value of the proprietary interest, including site and buildings, has the enormous advantage that it is ready to hand and is not substantially unfair if one considers the property interest as a whole.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer justifies a reduced rate of contribution in the case of agricultural properties in recognition of the fact that so large a proportion of the annual value is attributable to the land rather than to the buildings. Could not the same principle be equally justly applied to cases of property where the site value is very high in relation to the total value of the property.

That would mean an examination of every case. My hon. Friend canvassed the idea of trying to value all the structures of the country apart from their sites. There were varying estimates as to how long that would take. The lowest was three and the highest 20 years. It is that practical difficulty which forced one back on some machinery which is ready to hand and which on the whole represents the annual value of the property interest, I agree including the site, which is much less liable to damage in itself than the building but which becomes unproductive if the building is destroyed and is not set up again.

If you start trying to draw lines, you get into administrative bog of delay from which this simple test enables one to be free. I do not minimise the fact that anomalous cases exist and can be produced.

Another point of general principle which was raised was with regard to mortgages. There is something to be said for the view that the mortgagor, the owner of the equity, who is normally in possession and wants to remain in possession living in the house, should bear the premium or the contribution to provide against the risk which, if it eventuates, will make the house uninhabitable until money comes in to put it back again. He is the man who normally wants the house, whereas to the mortgagee it is security for a personal debt for which the mortgagor is liable. There would be something to be said for that view, but in the Bill we have not taken that line with respect to a limited class of mortgages. Those are the mortgages which come within Clause 19, Sub-sections (5) and (5). My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked whether it covered mortgages by banks. It will cover a mortgage by a bank if the mortgage is of the kind described in Sub-section (6), that is to say,

When a bank has a security they schedule it in their books against a particular property. In that case would they be responsible for the contributions?

I should have thought not, but one cannot give an opinion without seeing the exact documents. In the building society case, undoubtedly the relation between mortgagor and mortgagee is different from the rela- tionship that exists in many other cases. It is much more like the relationship of landlord and tenant. We know that the man in the building society house regards his instalments as rent, and in the sense in which it includes a sum for the annual occupation of the house it is like rent, although he is the owner of the equity. Therefore, it was thought right to differentiate between those cases and the ordinary mortgage where there is no provision for repayment by instalments. A man may have raised money on his house to put in his business and the loan is not connected with the property secured. In those cases we have said that the mortgagee is to make the contribution. That is an important point and has to be borne in mind in considering the fairness of these provisions as between mortgagor and mortgagee. Some opinions have been expressed, and they can be considered, that other mortgagees should (be made contributors, and some criticism has been made on the limitations contained in Subsections (5) and (6). They can be considered and discussed on the Committee stage, but I think the House will realise that there is a great difference between what I call the building society mortgage or similar mortgage and the ordinary commercial mortgage. Once one gets into the area of commercial mortgages one might find oneself in difficulties.

Another point was raised with regard to the provision that if there is a value payment it goes to the mortgagee in extinction of the mortgage debt, any balance being handed over to the owner of the equity, if there is a balance. All I want to say about that is that it is, of course, the normal principle of our law. If property secured by a mortgage is turned into money, then the mortgagee has the right to have the debt repaid out of that money. One will find that principle in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, covering cases where property is compulsorily acquired.

But is not the mortgagor in this case paying the premium to secure the mortgagee's capital?

The mortgagor will be paying, but not all the premium, and recovering some part of it. I shall pay the premium on my house in order that I may get it repaired, so that I can go on living there. That surely is the primary motive of people who own houses, whether subject to mortgages or not, in paying contributions and coming in under this scheme.

Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley), and perhaps by others, to the planning section. All I should like to say, and I say it quite generally, but also categorically, is that it is my right hon. Friend's intention that there should be the fullest consultation over the widest field with all Departments interested and indeed, with others concerned in that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) asked a number of questions. He asked "Why 6d. on an open-air racing track?" For the same reason that it is 6d. for agricultural land. On the whole, land which is not built over is a very much less risk than land which is built over. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw asked me about the Fifth Schedule. I do not see him in his place at the moment, but I can put it on record for his benefit that his interpretation of the table at the end of the Fifth Schedule was right, and also his reference to the position of the mortgagee, as I understood him to put it.

He and certain other hon. Members take objection to the pre-war value basis for the value payment. I quite agree that that is a matter about which you can argue, and if there were inflation, as we hope there will not be, it is a matter to which, no doubt, this House would direct its attention in the future; but I would draw attention to the provisions of Clause 5, which lays down the test as to when there is to be a value payment and when there is to be a cost of works payment. The test is this: There will only be a value payment if the making good of the damage

Finally, there are some miscellaneous questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) asked whether fixed machinery will be included in the 6d. It will be if it is within the definition in Clause 41. He asked about farm produce which varied in value at different times of the year. We will endeavour to afford facilities for this to be done. He asked whether, if there were double damage, the man concerned would have to take out another premium. The answer is "Yes," if the policy has been exhausted by the damage done. For example, if the policy covered a sum of £800 and the first damage was for only £200, the policy would not be exhausted. My right hon. Friend asked that payment should be made as early as possible. Of course, every step will be taken to see that that is done. He asked whether the premium would be deductible for Income Tax purposes, but the answer to that is, I am afraid, "No."

Reference was made by the hon. Member for-Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) to the word "chattels." I am afraid that "property" would be too wide, because it would include all sorts of things like securities and investments. I can assure him that the insurance companies and Lloyds will not be making profits in the work which they are doing; they are being employed to do the administrative work at a reasonable sum because it is cheaper for the State to do it in that way and more efficient than if the State set up its own organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked whether charities could have the option of contracting in; we will consider that point. I rather gather that he may be putting further representations to my right hon. Friend. It is intended that the Commission, in exercising their wide powers, shall have regard to all the proper interests of the charities concerned.

A proposal, which I did not completely follow, was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis). It seems to me that his certificates would increase potentially the purchasing power in the market. With regard to his suggestion, and to the suggestion made by another hon. Member, which is, in effect, insurance against loss of profits during the war, I would remind him of the Prime Minister's statement in which he said that unless public opinion and the judgment of the House were prepared to separate damage resulting from the fire of the enemy from all those other forms of war loss, and unless the House was prepared to draw the distinction very sharply between war damage by bomb and shell and other forms of loss which are incurred, we could not attempt to deal with this matter.

I have endeavoured in, I realise, a somewhat disjointed way, to deal with the variety of points which have been put forward. We shall later be able to consider the general principles, as well as the details, of the Bill, and the various Committee points which have been raised. Before I sit down I should like to express on behalf of my right hon. Friend his gratification at the favourable reception which the House has given to the Bill and at the tributes which have been paid to him and to those working with him, as well as at the constructive spirit in which all the suggestions have been put forward.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[ Mr. Boulton. ]

War Damage [Money]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

(Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to war damage to immovable property and to goods, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

I do not wish to detain the Committee, but there are one or two points which have been raised and to which no reply has been given. I am afraid that if the Financial Resolution goes through, we shall not be able to have those points clarified. The first point concerns the extent of what is covered. I raised the point in a previous Debate. The mere replacement of stocks at some future time will not resuscitate a business concern, and unless the interpretation covers such a liability and will keep alive the concern, it is of very little use giving anything else. It is a sort of business fatality, and unless we have that wider interpretation, business fatalities will he ruled out whereas if it is only business first-aid, the business can be helped and carried on. I do not know whether I have made clear the distinction. The other point arises on the question as to when the money will be available for replacement of stock or for depositing the certificate, or whatever is issued, with the banks for immediate loan. There again, this question of business fatality against business casuality arises, I hone those two matters will be made clear before the Committee agrees to the Financial Resolution, so that we may know exactly what is covered.

This Financial Resolution is drawn in the widest possible terms. There is nothing exclusive in it which would prevent a discussion on the Committee stage of anything which is relevant to the Bill. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must have misheard what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was saying just now, when he gave a quotation from the speech of the Prime Minister in which he foreshadowed the introduction of this legislation and in which, as the House heard just now, it was made quite clear that what was proposed was to deal with war damage and not with questions of loss of earnings or loss of goodwill. It may be taken that the Committee has accepted that that is the principle on which we are now working. This Resolution, which is necessary in the case of a Bill like this, has been drawn in such a form that every relevant consideration may he brought up. The whole matter is open for discussion.

It does not limit anything in one way or the other. The hon. Gentleman will see in paragraph ( a ) that the provision regarding "payments in respect of war damage" has no qualification.

I appreciate the wide drafting. I am glad to see that the drafting of this Financial Resolution was drawn up in such a way, and I think it will be appreciated by the Committee. I accept what was said, and I heard the repetition of the Prime Minister's statement, but that does not cover the question of making available immediately the money needed under this scheme.

We shall be able to discuss that on the Committee stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Ways and Means

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

War Damage

Resolved,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to war damage to immovable property and to goods:—

Resolution to be reported; Report to be received upon the next Sitting Day.

Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Coal Mines (War Levy) Scheme

I beg to move,

"That the Central (Coal Mines) Scheme (Amendment) Order, 1940, a draft of which was presented to the House on 12th December, be made."

Before the Order is made I would like to voice a word of criticism to the effect that this Order is being made somewhat under pressure because of the wartime emergency. It does not meet with the entire approval of all of us. I had far rather it had been a national charge rather than a charge on the industry. I recognise at once that something must be done for the derelict mines, and the mines which will become derelict because of lack of trade, so that they shall be kept in order as much as possible. What I do not like is that this fund is created with public money but will pass under the control of the coalowner, and I am perturbed by the fact that the allocation of this money will very likely be determined by the coal-owners. I do not find anything in the Order that gives either Parliament or the coal miners a voice in saying how it shall be allocated. It appears to me that we are bolstering up private enterprise and that, when the end of the war comes, the owners will be in a better position than they otherwise would have been. Although I have to agree with the Order now, I must take this opportunity of saying that had I had my way, it would not have been passed in its present form. The money would have been granted by Parliament in such a way that the whole thing could have been watched as it progressed. As it is now, it is a patchwork scheme for which the public are paying without having full control. I do not wish to Divide the House on the matter, but I do not want a Measure like this to be passed without letting the House know how we feel about it.

I share the views of my colleague that we cannot, at this stage, take steps to prevent the passage of this Measure, but it is fit and proper that we who have strong reservations with regard to this proposal should say just a word or two. The necessity for this Order has arisen because of the inability of the coal trade to agree among themselves on an adequate distribution of the orders obtained in that industry. Had the suggestion been made, privately or otherwise, to the coalowning community, there would have been fair distribution throughout the country. South Wales and County Durham, which are most affected by the loss of the export trade, would have had, at all events, a portion of that trade restored to them by additional orders being brought to those areas. We should not then have had the melancholy spectacle of large numbers of active, competent, qualified young men being drawn into the Army, where their technical skill will be lost. The population taken away from these areas will run into many thousands. Had the Government taken a strong line, and said that it was necessary to distribute the orders and to preserve the coalmining areas as they were, there would have been no necessity for this singular change, from which, in my judgment, County Durham, certainly, will never recover.

Following the speeches of my two hon. Friends, who have many qualifications to speak about the mining industry, I think I ought to point out that the Miners' Federation, the coalowners and the Government have for some time been considering the parlous condition that certain coalmining areas are in as a result of the war Whatever we desire, if there is not financial aid of some kind for those areas, many pits will not only be closed for the war, hut will be closed for good. We have had too much experience in the Durham area and in Wales to have any illusions as to what that means to our community. This is a levy upon the industry as a whole, to compel the better-off areas and mines to come to the rescue of the poorer ones. It is a good thing for the industry and for the country that the 1930 Act was passed, to give some sort of aid and organisation to the industry. While that has been limited to the particular districts, this order will extend it to the whole of the industry. I think it is a good thing that we can have this for the war period. We have our own opinion as to administration and that sort of thing, but the central fact is that it is a case of life and death for some mines in at least two areas, which are suffering, through no fault of their own, but directly as a result of tin war. The Miners' Federation is definitely behind this draft, not because it believes in the system of administration, but simply because it sees this as the only way to save the mines in certain areas. I hope the House to-day give its approval to this Order.

I wish to join with hon. Friends who have spoken with regard to this Order and to say that I agree with them that it was inadvisable to oppose it at this time. Since the collapse of France in the war the mining industry has entered upon parlous times once again and something has to be done in order to assist the exporting districts. The thing that strikes me most about the Order is that it is like a number of other things which are done during the period of the war. Things that are bitterly opposed by certain sections of the community at one time are agreed to later on. We who belong to the Labour party do not require to object to a scheme of this kind, for I would remind the House that this principle was embodied in the Coal Mines Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons by Mr. William Graham when President of the Board of Trade in the Labour Government; it is the principle of a central levy. The idea of a central levy to assist the mining industry is therefore not a new idea. My hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines is not presenting anything new in this respect; it is the principle that was discussed very feebly on that occasion, and it was due to the opposition of those who today are supporting this principle that the idea of a central levy was cut out of that particular Measure. T believe that if that principle had been adopted at that time the mining industry in this country would have been in a far better position than it is to-day. We are taking this makeshift Pleasure in order to tide us over the present difficulties, but I agree with my hon. Friend who spoke first that it is not good enough to have the mining industry treated in this way. These are merely makeshifts in order to ease the position in the industry for the time being instead of bringing in a Measure sufficiently comprehensive to place the industry in a sound position. I hope that the results of my hon. Friend's Order to-day will be to tide over the difficulties which the exporting districts are experiencing and that there will be some improvement and stability in that industry in the future.

It has been more or less agreed by the people who support this Measure that I shall not make a speech to-day and that the real Debate be postponed for a full day's exchange of opinion on this matter when the House reassembles. I think that that will be to the advantage of everybody in the House, and is very necessary indeed in order to cover other phases of the troubles of the mining industry in these days. I will just say that this is a Measure approved by the representative organisations on both sides. The Miners' Federation and the employers have given their consent, and the employers have put this scheme forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) said that this is not a novel Measure, but that it was part of the legislation proposed by the Labour Government of 1930–31, and that it was the President of the Board of Trade of those days who was the strongest advocate of the national levy which did not succeed in passing through Parliament at that time. It is not novel or revolutionary, but I would remind my hon. Friends in all parts of the country, and especially those who come from mining areas, both employers and work people, that this Measure is necessary. If we are to avoid the closing down and the abandonment of many pits in this country, something of this kind must be done. I am sure that when the Bill is examined in its full details, it will be found to be generally 'beneficial. I believe it will achieve the objects which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Adams) has in view and that the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) will not be as deeply founded when we come to discuss this. I will make this warning in advance: this in itself does not mean an addition to the price of coal. This is an arrangement by which people pay into a national fund, from which pits and districts will draw, and what is drawn out will exactly balance what is paid in. It does not imply an alteration in the price of coal and does not vitally interfere with the organisation which has existed for 20 years regarding the regulation of prices within the industry. I am glad that the House has been content not to have a Debate. We have no time now, but when we come back after the Recess I shall be ready to say all that can be said in favour of this Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,

"That the Central (Coal Mines) Scheme (Amendment) Order, 1940, a draft of which was presented to the House on 12th December, be made."

Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Haywards Heath District Gas Company which was presented to this House on 26th November and published, be approved."—{ Mr. Grenfell. ]

Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932

Resolved,

"That the Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the undermentioned areas, namely: Mr. Herbert Morrison. ]

The remaining Order was read and postponed.

Ministry of Information. (Foreign Broadcasts)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Munro. ]

I desire to raise, briefly, some questions connected with the Ministry of Information, and I want to start by saying how sorry I am that the Minister is ill with influenza. I wish him a rapid recovery and a happy Christmas and New Year. I asked for the Adjournment to-day because with every month that passes the importance of what is commonly called propaganda, but what I much prefer to call the propagation of the truth, increases in relation to the rest of our war effort. That is true not only because every month we are nearer to its end and not only because with every month our power to win the war—and thereby honour our pledges when it is over—likewise increases and becomes manifestly greater, but also because month by month the invading Nazis are seeking wherever they go to destroy the personal, public and constitutional law of every country in Europe.

They are seeking to destroy the very memory of international law as a factor in the relations of different people and—this is most important—are seeking to destroy the moral and ethical standards on which law, order and, indeed, civilisation itself ultimately rest. Month by month it is vital and urgently necessary that we should oppose the gospel of nihilism and the enthronement of immorality by a positive message of our own, and that we should be able to bring to everybody in every country where they go—indeed, to every country throughout the world which is a victim by reason of their aggressions—the hope of a return within a measurable future to a system of morality, co-operation and the rule of law, a return which will bring those things back to the daily lives of the people in every country, and bring them back to the life of the society of nations in which they all live.

Recent events in Albania and in Italy—and above all, the most recent events in Italy, if the most recent reports are true—have lent an even greater urgency to what was already urgent. I want to bring the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, for whose presence I am grateful, to some questions on which decisions will have to be taken, and as I hope great improvements made, before the House reassembles after the Recess. It was for that reason necessary for me to raise these matters now, and I hope it is also opportune to do so because, thanks to the new appointments which have been made at the Ministry of Information and which, I think, have been very widely welcomed, the whole work of the Ministry in all its Departments is, we may hope, in a plastic condition in which, without any more of the violent and drastic shocks to which it has too frequently been subjected, it may now be moulded gently, gradually, but firmly, towards progressively better results.

The questions to which I want to draw attention are related to the propaganda which we do by the foreign broadcasts of the B.B.C. I have always expressed, both in the House and outside, my admiration for the work which the B.B.C. have done in foreign broadcasting with the means at their disposal. I express that admiration again. They have won a splendid reputation throughout the world for the honesty of their news, and in other ways, with which I will not trouble the House now, they have very considerable achievements already to their credit. I say that I admire them for what they have done with the means at their disposal. But I have never believed, and I do not believe now, that the means at their disposal have been nearly enough, and if I may say so without offence to any of the people concerned, I do not think that anyone who has had anything to do with this has had nearly big enough vision of what could be done and should be done by way of foreign brodcasting from this country to the people in other lands. I say that because it is my profound conviction that of all the work that can be done outside these islands by a Ministry of Information, broadcasting represents'90 per cent, at least of what can be effectively achieved.

It is more than six months since I said in the House, in a Debate on the day when King Leopold surrendered his army to the Germans, that the foreign broadcasting sections of the B.B.C. were working in what I ventured then to call vile conditions. I said—and it is the exact point that I want to lay before the Minister to-day—that they had no proper office space, no adequate studio space, no proper organising power; that they were grossly understaffed, and that they had not enough real experts or people with radio personalities. I went on to suggest that the new Minister should take some big decisions which would pull the foreign sections clean out of Broadcasting House, which would re-house them elsewhere in some adequate establishment of their own, which would strengthen their personnel, and which would give them more transmitter time even if it meant cutting off time from the British public. In the six months since then many improvements have been made in the foreign broadcasting of the B.B.C. New languages have been added—one of them a month ago, too late, as I thought, but still, added. Time has been increased on many of the programmes; feature programmes have been added in respect of some particularly important countries. But the material conditions in which these people are working have remained the same, and in consequence every improvement by way of additions to the programmes, to the time, or to the languages, has only meant that the difficulties of the personnel have correspondingly increased.

This is a very serious problem, and I wish that the Minister would go there one night, at nine o'clock or ten o'clock, and see exactly how these people are working. Let him look at half-a-dozen men and women in a tiny room, with two little tables and a couple of typewriters going all the time, trying to think, to discuss, to write, to correct broadcasts which have to be given in a few minutes' time. Let him see what difficulties they have to get studio space, to get people to rehearse programmes in foreign languages before they give them, and so on.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—( Mr. Boulton. )

If Ministers will go and do that, they will see that the conditions are really intolerable. It is in the interests of all concerned, if foreign broadcasting is important, and I am sure we are agreed upon that, that some trouble should be taken to improve these conditions. Likewise they ought to be given more staff. I refuse to believe that either of these things cannot be done. I am quite sure that if Ministers would search the City of London, they would still find some buildings which the Minister of Aircraft Production has not yet laid hands upon. His activities in that direction are being watched with anxiety in some quarters, indeed in many quarters. I know of one building, from which I have already had to take part in a collective broadcast, which is admirably suited for these foreign broadcast sections, where the transfer could be made in a very short time indeed. I urge upon the Minister to look at that building, and others if he likes, and see that the thing is done now and that these people are put in quarters where they can do proper work. I hope, too, that he will make an inquiry into the staffing of these foreign sections to see whether they have enough people, and enough people of a high quality. He should see whether these people of high quality are doing work 'which is not so important which could be done by others.

We always hear about waste in the Ministry of Information. It makes me tired, but there is waste in every Government Department. If the Ministry of Information could shorten the war by one day, it would save the nation far more than it has spent in one year of war; but if this business was run properly, it might shorten the war by many months instead of by one day. I urge upon the Government to give more money, more men, more transmitter time, and to do everything they can to improve the material conditions and the opportunities which are furnished for this vital work of broadcasting to other countries. As I have raised this question, perhaps I may go on to say something about the speakers who are used in these broadcasts. I do not know enough about it, but I think those who follow it very closely would mostly agree that we have not yet done all that is possible in using people with what I may call radio personalities and serialising them at regular intervals at a regular time, so that people in other countries would knew when to tune in to hear them. Everyone in this country who on Saturday nights listened to Mr. Raymond Gram Swing in his broadcasts from America will realise what I mean. We ought to have scores of Raymond Gram Swings to whom the people of Europe would wish to listen, and who they would know would be on the air if they switched on at a particular time. Something has been done, but I do not think it has been enough. More could be done to find the right people to give regular broadcasts in this vital work of national service. I do not think the Government have yet gone far enough in encouraging, allowing, or instructing, the B.B.C. to use speakers of the nationality of the countries to whom the respective programmes are addressed.

That observation applies both to news and to talks. Broadly speaking, if we are allied with Norway, Belgium, France and so on, and have talks and news to those countries, it ought to be the principle that the news and talks are done by people of those nationalities—that Norwegians shall talk to Norway and edit the news to Norway. I fully agree that you must have a British military censorship, I admit that you must have British consultation at every point, but I also submit that a Norwegian is much more likely to know what is good news in Norway than a British editor, however able he may be to make up news for the British public I could give examples from other countries of ludicrous interference by British editors with news which has been prepared by foreign members of the staff for their own countries. I hope the Minister will look into it. Again, improvements have been made, and perhaps have been carried farther than I know, but it is a matter which deserves attention because the presentation of news is most important. It is not much good to send a long account of how the King visited factories on the day that Narvik was evacuated and mentioning the evacuation of Narvik in a single sentence at the end. I do not say that that happened. I give it as an extempore illustration of the kind of thing I mean. I think it is desirable, broadly speaking, that people should speak to their own nations—that a Belgian should speak to Belgium. I do not mean that there should not be English speakers too. If they have a message to give to Belgians, or if they speak for different sections of the community, it is desirable that they should be allowed to speak, but more should be done in using speakers of these other nationalities.

I now come to something more controversial, on which I hope and believe Ministers do not really disagree, namely, that Germans and Austrians should be put on the air to speak to Germany and Austria. I have frequently proposed this to Ministers, and I have had sympathetic answers. Some months ago an official person gave me what he thought was the true explanation of the refusal to put Germans and Austrians on to Vienna. It was that, while a German will gladly listen to an Englishman, because he will say, "Here is an enemy but an honest one, and I will hear his point of view," he would not listen to a German, because he would say, "This is a traitor who has left my country," and he would switch off at once. That seems to me to be founded on a total misunderstanding of the situation in Germany and Austria. There are millions of people, perhaps tens of millions, in those countries who are opposed to the crimes which Hitler has made their nations commit but are powerless to do anything about it. There are Germans who speak on these programmes. One had a big position in his own country before he came here. He has a very characteristic and extraordinarily good radio voice. It is known to every German, North, South, East and West. He speaks every night. We know that our programmes are listened to more and more, and what he does is the best part of the programme, and is so thought in Germany. They should make a new start. They have made a start.

I was told the other day, and I hope it is true, that they have had some talks by the eminent German writer, Thomas Mann, who perhaps represents as much as anybody can the spirit of what anti-Nazi Germans call the true Germany. Thomas Mann, whose democratic writings since the war began are magnificent pieces of work, is willing to speak to Germany. So far he has been writing scripts and he sent them from New York. They are translated and spoken from London by a German announcer. It would be better if we got him to record them and to send them over. He is only one. There are lots of anti-Nazi Germans here who would be only too happy to do anything, within the limits of policy that we would agree with them, to state our point of view and tell the German people about the conditions in our country. I cannot believe that the voice of a trade union leader who used to have a following of hundreds of thousands of people in his part of Germany, who was known by them not only as a political chief but as a hero during the Nazi persecution, would not arouse a new hope in their breasts and perhaps help at the right moment to start the movement by which I believe the war will end.

Lastly, a word about censorship. If we have these speakers, there must be co-ordination of policy. It would be absurd in time of war to put on the radio speakers who fought a policy for which this nation unitedly stands. I do not believe, however, that there would be the-slightest difficulty about agreement on general lines of policy. Subject to that, I hope the Government will reduce censorship to the minimum. I will not go into past examples or discuss the responsibility of Ministries not represented on the Treasury Bench now. I want to urge the Ministry, however, that it would be disastrous if it were thought that every speaker who went on the air from this country represented the British Government point of view. We are a democracy, and there must be differences of opinion, but, provided they support a common line of policy, surely there ought to be the greatest latitude allowed. I remember the Prime Minister's skillful, and, as I thought, wise answers to questions yesterday about Sir Robert Vansittart's recent broadcast. He said that even the diplomatic adviser of the Government should be given latitude to express his own point of view. I hope that in this matter the Government will adhere to that policy and allow their speakers, British or foreign, the latitude which is desired in order that the common cause for which we and our Allies are standing may be pre- sented in a living and powerful form to the other nations of the world.

I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has said. This weapon of propaganda is our Fifth Column, and while it is not to be regarded as a substitute for military effort and striking hard blows of a physical nature at the enemy, it is the most important supplement without which we cannot win the war under a very long time. Therefore, if we are out to shorten the war, we must try to undermine the morale of the enemy and do so in a way which I do not think is being fully exploited. I feel strongly, too, that we are not making sufficient use of the large number of anti-Nazi refugees who are in this country. It stands to reason, if we really understand the mentality of those whom we are fighting, that if they listen to one of their own people, they are listening to a representative of a people which is not united. It is not like this country, where 99.9 per cent, of the public turn off a renegade Englishman speaking from Berlin. They are much less united than we are, and therefore we can exploit that internal situation to a much greater extent than they can exploit things against us.

Therefore, I feel that if they hear more of their own people, speaking with their own turn of phrases, which no Englishman can possibly supply, their own little clichés, which no one save a person born and bred in Germany or Austria can express, it is likely to have an important moral and psychological effect upon a very large section of the public of our enemy. Therefore, I support what the hon. Member for Derby has said in this direction as in others. Could we not do more to show in our broadcasts to the enemy how our democracy works in spite of war? Let it be inserted in the news that here, in spite of war, there is freedom of speech, freedom of meeting, and that Parliament sits and discusses all matters of common concern. Let us give them a picture of how democracy in war time compares with dictatorships in war time. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some satisfaction on these points.

May I ask the Minister one question before he replies? Could he give us an assur- ance that in the broadcasts to Italy by British speakers the censoring, which has been going on quite a lot in the last month or two, of some of the most important parts of very important broadcasts will be reduced to an absolute minimum?

I wish in the first place to thank the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) for having raised this matter at so opportune a moment and for having spoken, if I may say so, in such a constructive, knowledgeable and friendly spirit. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is extremely regretful that he has not been able, owing to a sudden and, I hope, temporary indisposition, to answer him himself. It has not been said to-day but it is often said, that propaganda is the spearhead of our war effort. That, of course, is exaggerated. The spearhead of our war effort is the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, the British Expeditionary Force and the British and Imperial Armies of the Nile. But it is the shaft of our war effort, and it is our 'business at the Ministry of Information to be perfectly satisfied that that shaft is made of the authentic autochthonous wood, that it is well balanced, well constructed and well poised. There is a theory that we are in some hesitating way imitating the methods of Dr. Goebbels; but that is not true. We are prepared to do exactly the opposite of what Dr. Goebbels is doing. We are aiming at a long-term policy of confidence and not at a short-term policy of smash and grab. German diplomacy, as German propaganda, is always based, and always has been based, on what I may call the military or warrior point of view. Our diplomacy and our propaganda must be based upon what might be called the mercantile or business man's point of view. We must aim at creating and maintaining credit. We do not want flashy achievements. Therefore, our propaganda must be, as the House will recognise, much slower, much less sensational and infinitely more honest than anything done in the totalitarian States. Therefore, when the hon. Member for Derby mentions a positive message and speaks about the need, quite rightly, of honesty and morality, he may be assured that my right hon. Friend is in complete agreement with him on that point. My right hon. Friend does not hesitate for a moment to miss some flashy point and to avoid some immediate score in order that he may maintain the slower but, in the end, infinitely more effective system of trying to create confidence at home and abroad.

I wish to pass now to the special points made by the hon. Member for Derby. He spoke, and quite rightly, about the material conditions in which foreign broadcasters, especially, have to work in Broadcasting House. That large cement battleship was not, initially, designed to house the enormous number of extra staff which has been required by the war. One might say, in the second place, that war conditions entail far greater strain and congestion than any which had been contemplated. I can assure my hon. Friend that attempts have been made to improve those conditions. I myself have seen the conditions. I agree with him that they were almost intolerable, and were not such as enabled anybody, any staff, to work at their best. I beg him to believe that, in spite of the great conflict between the advantages of dispersal and the advantages of concentration, and the great difficulty of allowing people to be housed-out, so to speak—so that one is not always, especially amid the difficulties of communication and transport, in immediate contact—we are trying, with the very willing co-operation of the authorities at Broadcasting House, to meet the points that he has made. As regards more staff, better staffing and better conveniences, that matter also is being dealt with. I do not think that my right hon. Friend would hesitate to come to this House and to ask for more money if he were absolutely convinced that the money were necessary.

The hon. Member spoke also of the need to increase our effort in foreign broadcasting. He very rightly reminded the House of how, six months ago, he urged that very thing. I should like to give him some figures to show that, when I say my right hon. Friend has shown great energy and devoted great thought to this problem, I am not merely making phrases in defence of my Ministry. I will give him these figures: In December, 1939, a year ago, broadcasts were given in 16 foreign languages; to-day they are given in 30 foreign languages. In December, 1939, 66½ hours per week were devoted to foreign broadcasting; to-day 144½ hours are devoted to it. I think the House will see that this broadcasting has been very much increased under the guidance of my right hon. Friend. I can assure the House that there are plans for the future which will, I hope, shortly create an even greater increase. I do not wish to present Dr. Goebbels with any detailed statement of these facts, but I am certain that they will give great satisfaction to the House and to our friends in foreign countries.

The hon. Member referred to the German broadcasts and to the need of building up radio personalities. That is a very difficult thing to do. One finds very often—I hesitate to say so in the presence of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. V. Bartlett)—that radio personalities, though good upon the microphone, do not really represent the considered opinion of their countries. Although they may charm and delight, it is not always easy when dealing with so sensitive a thing as minority opinion in an enemy country to be perfectly certain that your radio personality is not creating indignation and rage and that he is not in fact presenting to his own people the point of view that they would wish to hear. The hon. Member also touched on the making of records. It is a good point, and I am grateful to him for having made it. He referred to the making of records by men like Thomas Mann. Here I would like to fully endorse the tribute the hon. Member paid to a writer who is probably one of the greatest novelists of our time. His idea is good and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will go into it. We must remember always that the standard of broadcasting is one which is always difficult to maintain and that, whereas a good broadcast—and I am sure the hon. Member will agree with this—creates no more than a momentary ripple of appreciation, a bad broad-cast creates a lasting typhoon of indignation. One must always remember that it is much more damaging to go below your standard for one minute than to maintain your standard for a period of time.

The hon. Member also referred to the need for greater intensification and for throwing upon the nationals of the countries which were being addressed, not merely a greater proportion of the broadcasting but allowing a greater liberty in scripts and enabling broad- casters to say to their own people what they want, in their own way. I think he will agree that a great improvement has been made in that respect. When my right hon. Friend came to the Ministry, these foreign broadcasts were merely translations of the English bulletins. I think the hon. Member may assure any of his friends who are doing foreign broadcasting, that if they feel that anything is, in any way, unjustly or unreasonably suppressed, they can always appeal to the chief editor. The control of these wireless broadcasts must remain in British hands; that is essential. The hon. Member also spoke a great deal, very much to the point, about the need for enabling these people to conduct their own talks in their own way and for having some greater co-ordination a little higher up in the B.B.C. I think that is being arranged. It is too early to say yet, but I think we are trying to co-ordinate as well as we possibly can, what may be called the foreign side and the home side of news presentation. I hope we will be able to do that without interfering seriously with the existing machinery of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) suggested that we should emphasise the freedom note. That is being done. I think it is to be done to an even greater extent than it is being done already. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) asked for an assurance that in broadcasts to Italy a little less censorship will be introduced. I will go into that point carefully. I agree that this is the moment when we should talk to Italy in the voice of Garibaldi and not in the voice of the B.U.C. announcers.

In conclusion, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Derby for giving me this opportunity to pay to the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation a tribute for the endurance, hard work, patriotism and physical courage which they have shown in circumstances of very great strain and difficulty and without much thanks from the public. I should like to say that my Ministry at least, and I am sure all Members of the House, are full of the admiration for the staff of the B.B.C. for the way in which they surmounted great technical difficulties and endured a great moral and physical strain.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.