Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 379: debated on Tuesday 12 May 1942

House of Commons

Tuesday, May 12, 1942

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Private Business

London Passenger Transport Board Bill

Read a Second time, and committed.

RAILWAY COMPANIES (THOMAS COOK & SON LIMITE GUARANTEE) BILL. [Lords.]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon the next Sitting Day.

Aberdeen Corporation (Fish Market Rates) Orde Confirmation, Bill,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Aberdeen Corporation (Fish Market Rates); presented by Mr. T. Johnston; ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Coal Industry

Absenteeism

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can say, approximately, what tonnage has been lost during the past 12 months through avoidable absenteeism; and how much through disputes in the mining industry?

Particulars of tonnage lost through avoidable absenteeism in the coal mining industry are not available. It is estimated that during the 52 weeks ended 25th April, 1942, about 360,000 tons were lost owing to disputes.

Is it not very difficult to find out exactly what is meant by "avoid- able absenteeism," and surely the public ought to realise that fact?

I would suggest to my hon. Friend a test in one single pit to see whether it is easy or difficult to find out what is avoidable and what unavoidable absenteeism.

Consumers' Register

2 and 3.

asked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he is aware that the recent order to local fuel overseers to prepare a card index of consumers from indices in local offices is a waste of time, labour and money; and whether he will consider, as an alternative, adopting paragraph 4 in the Outline Scheme, Cmd. 6352;

(2) whether he will discuss with the Minister of Food the passing on of all notices of consumer's changes of address received by the local food executive officer to local fuel overseers as a cheaper, more expeditious and more accurate method of preparing a register?

The registers of controlled premises being made by the local fuel overseers are essential for improving retail distribution and eliminating uneconomic transport of coal. Any forms which may be obtained from consumers in connection with rationing will doubtless afford a useful check on the register but will not be available for some time and do not meet the present need. The registers must be in existence before any use can be made of notifications of changes of address, and in any event the notifications received by the food offices cover not merely the occupiers of premises registered under the Fuel and Lighting Orders but the much greater number of persons in possession of food ration books.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have recently been in some of these offices where as much as 60 per cent. of the labour is absolutely wasted owing to alterations through billeting and removals, etc., and that the suggestion in the Question will give an up-to-date register and save a tremendous amount of the wasted time that goes on in these offices?

I am anxious to save time, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, if we compile this register for the purpose of ensuring a fair distribu- tion, whatever is done by rationing and rationing orders will not meet that point. They are two different purposes. If my hon. Friend has any information of the kind that he suggests, I shall be very glad to receive it and to have the details of the kind of waste which he believes to be occurring.

My hon. Friend has not answered the point, which is that, in the register in preparation by the industry, in many cases 60 per cent. and sometimes as much as 80 per cent. of the labour is useless and a waste of time.

It is on that point that I would like to have the details that my hon. Friend probably has in mind. I shall be very glad to receive them at the Department or anywhere else.

Supplies, Midlands

asked the Secretary for Mines, whether his attention has been called to the serious situation which has arisen in Birmingham and the Midland area from coal shortage for domestic requirements; whether he realises the danger to the vitality of munitions production of reduced coal supply in the maintenance of power derived from gas and electricity; and what measures he proposes to take to increase coal output from the Staffordshire and Cannock Chase coalfields to meet the exigencies of the coal problem in the Midlands?

A revised scheme of distribution of supplies of domestic coal between collieries and merchants' depots has recently been brought into operation in the Midlands. There has been a certain dislocation while the change was being made, but it is expected that it will be of a temporary character. There has been no change in the programmed supplies for public utilities and war industries and the danger referred to by my hon. Friend should not therefore arise. As in every other district continuous effort is being made to increase production in the Staffordshire and Cannock Chase coalfields.

When does my hon. Friend expect that the negotiations now in progress will be completed so that the domestic coal interests concerned and the people may have hope of getting a satisfactory arrangement for supplies?

The supplies are coming forward, and we have to wait upon production. As my hon. Friend must know; production is tight at this time of year, and there is not an ample supply of coal for all civil demands.

Does my right hon. Friend think that steps should have been taken long since in regard to coal supplies in the Midland area?

What does the Secretary for Mines mean by "at this time of year"? Is it not the fact that production is better at this time of the year than in the winter?

Yes, Sir, but we are not yet quite through the winter from the standpoint of the consumer. We are consuming heavy quantities of coal now; and we are trying to redistribute the coal for very special reasons indeed which cannot even be mentioned here, and we are not through with our problem of distributing the available coal supplies. It would be easier if the production were on a larger scale.

Lost Time (Guaranteed Wage)

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of shifts lost when work was not available, under the Essential Work (Mining Industry) Order represented by the amount paid up to 31st March, 1942, to provide the guaranteed wage, and the causes of this lost time for which the employers are responsible?

Records providing detailed information are maintained at the pits but not centrally. Inquiries are in progress with a view to meeting the hon. Member's desire that further information should be available, but they will take some little time.

If details are recorded at each pit, are any sent on to the Department, either from the pits or the districts?

I will get what information is available for my hon. Friend, and I shall not delay in making the inquiries that he suggests.

If it is comparatively simple to obtain information about absenteeism, as apparently it is, why should it be so difficult to obtain information about the loss of shifts?

I do not say that it is easy to obtain information and to give an analytical account of absenteeism. It is not so easy because there are so many cases of absence which canot be explained without full investigation in each locality and in each pit.

Will the Minister take any action against those who are responsible for this situation?

Reorganisation

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister whether it was with his permission that the Secretary for Mines gave an interview to a correspondent of the "Daily Express" published in that paper on Saturday, 9th May, about a scheme for the future control of the coal mining industry?

I am informed that the Secretary for Mines, in a conversation with Press representatives in Yorkshire on Friday last, expressly refused to comment upon the Government attitude to re-organisation and that he did not authorise any statement of policy on his own behalf.

Trade and Commerce

Urniture (Price Control)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make in regard to the prices of furniture?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedge-field (Mr. Leslie), of which I am sending him a copy.

Retail Trade Committee (Report)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can arrange to obtain the final Report of the Retail Trade Committee before the Whitsuntide Recess; or whether, if that is impossible, he can make some early statement of Government policy with regard to the individual retail trader under war conditions?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, arising out of the Second Interim Report of the Board of Trade Retail Trade Commiteee, he is now able to make a statement regarding the attitude which is being adopted by the small traders throughout the country as regards the alternative courses of holding on, temporary amalgamation or closing down?

The Retail Trade Committee are preparing their Report with all possible speed, and I hope it will soon be completed. It would not be proper for me to make any statement of policy or comment on the attitude of traders before I have been able to study the Report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the detailed Reports from the Committee lead nowhere; that there must be a plan to deal with the situation; that it must entail protective legislation, otherwise the small shopkeepers will be squeezed out and only the big firms will be left; and that it is very serious and very urgent?

I am anxious that there should not be any undue delay, but it is a very representative Committee, representing all sections who have special knowledge, and it would be wrong, after this Committee had been appointed and had been working very hard over a series of months, for me, in advance of receiving their Report, to make any statement of policy they are advising me upon.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is over 12 months since this Committee was set up and that many small shopkeepers have been swept away in the meantime?

Lancashire Cotton Yarns (Weaving, Norther Ireland)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the reason for the diversion of yarn supplies in large quantities for manufacture in Northern Ireland; and, in view of the effect this will have on the present shortage of yarns in Lancashire, and as it involves an uneconomic use of transport in shipping yarns from the country and re-shipping manufactured cloth back again, he will alter this policy?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen the protest of the Lancashire Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers' Association against the diversion of cotton yarns and rayon fibres to Ulster, when they could be dealt with more economically, and are required, in Lancashire; and whether he will make a statement on the subject?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the anxiety of the Lancashire cotton trade at the arrangements for the Ulster weaving industry to produce utility cloth; that this diversion of supplies of yarn will prejudice the position of the Lancashire weavers who have for some time been working overtime in order to increase the output of yarn which has been considerably below requirements; and whether he is prepared to reconsider this decision?

I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given on Thursday last to my hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley).

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he had any consultations with the cotton trade in Lancashire before he made this agreement with Northern Ireland, and has he had any consultations with the Minister of Labour about it?

The arrangement was made last summer, and I have reason to suppose—I will check up my hon. Friend's particular words—that all the interests concerned were consulted. It is easy from the Lancashire point of view to exaggerate the importance of this arrangement, which covers less than 1 per cent. of the total production of yarn, and even a part of that allocation has not yet been taken up.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that this has caused great concern in Lancashire, because there were no consultations and the Ministry of Labour knows nothing at all about it? If there is a shortage of yarn, as was admitted last Thursday, why cannot this North of Ireland allocation be woven on idle looms by the weavers of Lancashire?

The question was gone into carefully last summer, and it is not practicable now to upset the arrangement made with the Northern Ireland authorities for the production of part of our utility cloth by using some unused capacity due to the cessation of the linen export trade.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the manufacture of utility cloth means four journeys by rail and sea, loading and unloading at the docks, and the use of the finest kind of yarns, for which there is a great shortage for Government orders in Lancashire?

In view of the fact that this arrangement obtained late last summer and that conditions are very different now, can the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter again?

I have never any objection to looking into a matter again, but it must not be taken that it will mean any change in the arrangement.

Is not the linen industry in Northern Ireland worthy of some help?

Apart from the question of worthiness, it was thought convenient to use it.

Clothes Rationing

asked the President of the Board of Trade the result of his further consideration of the claim for additional coupons for overalls made on behalf of shop assistants handling groceries and provisions?

As I informed my hon. Friend on Tuesday last, I am giving further consideration to this claim. I will send him a communication on the subject very shortly

Does the Minister hope to make an announcement relating to the further issue of coupons for different classes of workers in industry?

Announcements have been made from time to time on that subject. I do not know that any comprehensive announcement is called for in the future.

These things are dealt with section by section. A general statement was made not long ago about the general allocation of coupons for the next rationing period, and I do not think the time is yet ripe for a further detailed statement.

Questions

Board of Trade (Public Relations and Press Department)

asked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated cost of the publicity department that has been established at the Board of Trade under the direction of Mr. C. C. J. Simmonds; and what the relationship of this department will be to the Ministry of Information?

The Board of Trade Public Relations and Press Department, which has been in existence since before the war, works in co-operation with the Ministry of Information in the same way as do similar offices in other Government Departments. Its estimated cost is £5,500 a year.

Enemy Occupied Europe (Food Supplies)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare the present position as regards shortage of food in the European countries now under German occupation; and whether it is estimated that famine conditions will arise in any other of these countries besides Greece before the next harvest?

In Denmark food supplies have been well maintained. In Norway, the Netherlands and Czechoslovakia the diet, though well below pre-war standards, is not so inadequate as to cause marked under-nourishment. In Belgium, and to a lesser degree in France, a large part of the urban population is chronically underfed, while there has been a considerable diminution of supplies in the towns of Yugoslavia. It would not be surprising if further cuts in rations were to take place in these countries before the harvest. But these need not be on such a scale as to cause acute privations, provided always that Germany continues to supply Belgium and Norway with their minimum needs of grain. Much worse conditions, however, prevail in Greece, in some parts of Poland and in German-occupied Russia. On the mainland of Greece it is to be hoped that famine conditions will be averted by the proposed shipments of wheat. In Poland and occupied Russia the quantity of foodstuffs left for the native populations will depend upon the extent of German depredations. This is a subject upon which I should hesitate to venture any forecast.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the shipments arranged for Greece are entirely inadequate and ought to be multiplied several times in view of the conditions now prevailing?

It would be unnecessary to add to them or even to send these shipments at all if the enemy carried out their moral responsibility.

British Army

Bands and Theatrical Parties (Civilian Entertainments)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an opera company with an orchestra has been formed of serving men and women in the Western Command to go on tour round civilian theatres; that approximately 67 soldiers and 27 Auxiliary Territorial Service, in addition to one female and two male officers, are withdrawn from their military duties for this purpose; and whether he will issue instructions that bands and theatrical parties shall be confined to a part-time and subsidiary occupation for military personnel and shall be used only for the entertainment of troops?

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for drawing my attention to these proceedings, which, I agree, are open to objection. As I explained in my Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Evelyn Walkden) on 7th May, an Army Council Instruction is about to be issued which should have the effect of restricting such activities in the future.

Officers (Termination of Employment)

asked the Secretary of State for War why exceptional qualifications and experience are required by A.C.I. 422 to enable officers over 55 years of age to be retained, notwithstanding that they possess recent reports as to the efficiency they had shown and were showing in the performance of their existing duties, which for the most part were of a sedentary and non-combatant nature not suitable for young officers?

It is the policy of the Army Council to review the general fitness, qualifications, and experience of all serving officers who have reached the age limits at which they would normally cease to be liable for recall from the reserve and to decide in the light of this review whether their services should be further retained. As I explained in answer to a Question on 5th May, in practice some 70 per cent. of all officers over 55 are being retained. It is therefore clear that the Army Council Instruction is not being harshly applied and that the standard of qualifications and experience required to justify retention is not unreasonably exacting.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House was informed on 11th March last that the only criterion as to whether these officers over 55 were to be retained was whether they were doing their job efficiently or not, whereas Army Council Instructions say that they must be people of exceptional merit, possessing exceptional qualifications and experience? The House was not informed that that would be the case. I have had dozens of letters of complaint about this matter. Will my right hon. Friend give me an answer, because the statement which was made to the House is not being carried out and is at variance with A.C.I. 422?

The hon. Member has asked a Question and has been given the information.

On a point of Order. I am drawing the attention of the Minister to the fact that the House was informed of a particular matter and that the Army Council's Instruction does not carry out the assurance which was given.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers under A.C.I. 422/1942, paragraph 15, have been graded under "R," "S" and "T," respectively, how many of these officers have appealed; in how many appeals the original recommendation has been reversed; and in how many it has been confirmed?

13,059 have been graded "R," 1,789 "S" and 1,711 "T." 561 appeals by officers graded "T" have so far been dealt with by the Army Council. In 124 cases the original recommendation has been reversed.

Does not the grading "T" mean that these officers are not allowed to be employed in any of His Majesty's Services, and is not that rather hard and impolitic, considering that 1,700 officers have been turned out?

They have no special significance, except that they happen to be three convenient letters to use.

"R" means that the officers are recommended to be retained in their present employment, "S" that they are recommended for a change of employment, and "T" that they are recommended for no further employment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, owing to the delay in dealing with appeals made by the officers, they are in a very difficult position, because the 42 days' leave given pending their being put out of the Service expires, and they do not know whether to apply for civilian employment or not?

I gather that the procedure has been made quite clear to the officers concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in all cases of removal of officers under A.C.I. 422/1942, such officers are informed in what respect they have failed to come up to the required standard?

The Army Council Instruction specifically lays down that all officers reverted to unemployment shall be shown the reports upon them and explained the reasons for the decision.

Are there not certain cases in which officers have not been told, and do not yet know, for what reason they have been turned down? If I send my right hon. Friend instances, will he look into them?

The Instruction is quite clear on that point. If officers are reverted to unemployment for reasons other than those shown in the Army Council Instruction, a different procedure has been prescribed.

Do not the King's Regulations definitely state that any adverse report on an officer is to be communicated to that officer by the initiating officer?

An officer classified "T" is shown the report. This is, however, not an adverse report. This is a special review of the fitness of officers for retention in their present employment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases the immediate superiors of these officers have told them that they have given no cause for complaint and that they were doing their duty efficiently, but that owing to the terms of the Army Council Instruction 422, they were not to be recommended for further employment because they have not exceptional qualifications?

I cannot say whether individual commanding officers are saying that. What I say is that this is not what is laid down in the Army Council Instruction. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), the "T" reports are to be shown to all the officers concerned. That is clearly laid down in the Instruction.

I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers were reverted to unemployment for all reasons during the month of April?

Denham Depot (Conditions)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will seek evidence from the shop stewards and association representatives at Denham depot as to the conditions existing there?

I am always prepared to consider specific representations regarding conditions in War Department establishments which are put forward in the appropriate way by the recognised representatives of the employees concerned in the matter, and if they send me a statement giving the particulars into which they desire me to inquire, I shall be happy to consider it.

Are factory inspectors entitled to visit these places to see whether work is being done under the proper conditions?

I think the hon. Member had better put that Question down. Factory inspectors are not under my control.

Home Guard

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Young Men's Christian Association or Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes canteens have been ordered not to sell cigarettes to members of the Home Guard; what is the reason for this discrimination; and will he take steps to have it removed?

Members of the Home Guard have never been allowed to buy cigarettes at Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes canteens. As regards Young Men's Christian Association canteens, the Home Guard are not entitled to the cheap cigarette concession made to the Regular Army; and since it would not be practicable for a canteen to sell at two different prices, those which sell to soldiers at the cheap price, have had to stop selling to the Home Guard.

Are not members of the Home Guard soldiers in everything but pay and should they not be entitled to these privileges?

Would the Minister check up his information, because I have personal knowledge where members of the Home Guard have purchased cigarettes at N.A.A.F.I. canteens?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the removal of officers under A.C.I. 422/1942 from the position of adjutant in the Home Guard and their replacement by younger officers who not only lack the essential experience but who would be more suitably employed with Regular battalions; and whether he will take steps to prevent this waste of good material?

I am not aware of any such cases, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will send me particulars of any he has in mind, I will inquire into them.

Invasion (Church Bells, Ringing)

asked the Secretary of State for War what form of enemy incursion is to be signalled by the ringing of church bells; whether he is aware that the church bells are greatly missed by the people in the meantime; that they are not the most effective available signal; that the church is the only public building which is never on the telephone; that the use of church bells for any military purpose may legitimately be taken as a technical justification for any enemy action against any church; and whether he will arrange for some other form of signal to be devised and adopted, as he would have to do if churches are destroyed?

The ringing of church bells signifies the landing or imminent landing of parachutists or other airborne troops near the church. I know that church bells are greatly missed and fully sympathise with this feeling. The other points which my hon. and gallant Friend makes have likewise been fully considered, but I must ask him to accept my assur- ance that in spite of them the reasons for which this plan was originally adopted still hold good.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the church bells will ring out again?

Gibraltar (Leave)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether any differentiation exists in the granting of passes to officers, warrant officers and other ranks stationed at Gibraltar for the purpose of visiting Spain and Tangier?

No leave to Tangier is granted at present, while leave to Spain is restricted to a small number of officers and senior non-commissioned officers.

Cannot that system be extended, in view of the nature of the duties of other ranks at Gibraltar and the improbability of their being able to obtain leave anywhere for some considerable time?

I must leave this matter to the discretion of the Governor and Commander-in-Chief. Obviously, unrestricted leave into Spain would not be a very desirable thing.

Missing Personnel, Far East (Dependants Allowances)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been reached about the continuance of allowances for the wives and dependants of officers and men taken prisoner at Singapore, in view of the delay by the Japanese Government in giving any information?

Under the normal rule payment is continued for 17 weeks after notification that a soldier is missing. In the special circumstances this period was extended for the first of the Far Eastern missing (those at Hong Kong) for another 13 weeks, whereby dependants are assured of full allowances at any rate till near the end of July. It has now been decided that in all Far Eastern cases where the normal period (or for Hong Kong the extended period) expires before 31st July full allowances shall nevertheless be continued to that date; and having thus assured, continuance of the allowance in all cases for the present, the Government will then reconsider the matter in the light of existing circumstances and of any further information which may meanwhile have become available.

What steps have been taken, or are contemplated, to prevent any time-lag between the expiry of the allowances and the coming into force of any pension rights?

That does not arise out of the Question, which concerns the continuance of the allowances, and not going on to pension rights.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the allowances terminate on 31st July in any particular case, unless steps are taken before that date to make other applications to the Ministry of Pensions, there must be inevitably an interval during which no money is received?

I have said that all allowances are to be continued until 31st July. In the meantime, the Government will consider what further to do in the matter.

Am I to take it that although the date is fixed at 31st July, that does not necessarily mean that the allowances will stop at 31st July? Does it mean that the Government will consider the matter between now and then?

I cannot say more clearly than I have done what the position is. It is precisely as the hon. Member has stated.

General Sir Robert Haining

asked the Secretary of State for War on what date the decision was made by the Army Council to retire General Sir Robert Haining.

The decision that General Sir Robert Haining should be placed on the Retired List was made on 6th January, 1942, and he was informed of that decision in a letter dated 10th January. This is the normal practice in the case of officers for whom no further employment on the Active List can be foreseen. General Haining will, however, in com- mon with all other officers serving under a Reserve obligation, continue to be available for re-employment should his services be required.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 13th April, in this House, the Financial Secretary stated, in answer to a similar Question, that it was not possible for him to forecast the Army Council's decisions, and can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the announcement he has just made that the notice to Sir Robert Haining of his retirement was given him on 6th January? Was this because the hon. Gentleman was afraid of telling the House that so distinguished a general was not going to be re-employed?

No. Sir. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, in his reply, merely enunciated a general principle.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by doing that he misled the House, which had a right to know what was being done?

Recruiting Officers

asked the Secretary of State for War whether recruiting officers are classified as soldiers or civilians?

Recruiting officers are civilian employees of the War Department but are subject to military law.

If they are civilian employees, why are they subject to military law and required to wear uniform, and why do they not receive the same overtime payments as civilian staffs?

They are under military law under paragraph 1 of Section 175 of the Army Act, in order that they may be amenable to disciplinary control, and may be able to sign attestation documents.

As recruiting officers in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are officers on full pay, why are not the Army recruiting officers similarly treated?

Scientific Advice

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make any further statement as to the appointment of a scientific adviser to the Army Council?

With the consent of the Lord President of the Council, I have appointed Dr. C. G. Darwin, M.C., F.R.S., Director of the National Physical Laboratory, to be Scientific Adviser to the Army Council. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is appointing Dr. Darwin a member of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Ministry.

While warmly welcoming the new office and the appointment of this individual, may I ask whether it is intended to complete the picture by the addition of a technical engineering member of the Army Council?

Questions

Prisoners of War

31 and 32.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what guarantee he has that the boots and clothing sent to prisoners of war are issued to those in need, after the camp leaders have signed the receipts acknowledging the safe arrival of the parcels in the camp;

(2) whether he is aware that, in spite of the fact that an assurance has been given that adequate numbers of leather boots have been sent to meet the needs of prisoners of war, yet large numbers of prisoners are in hospital as a result of wounds on their feet caused by wearing ill-fitting sabots; and what steps does he propose to take to remedy this state of affairs?

I regret that I have no guarantee that boots and clothing received in prisoner of war camps will be issued to those who need them. The German authorities normally insist on controlling distribution. In some cases they refuse to allow our prisoners to wear leather boots when working beside German civilians, many of whom have only clogs. At other times they refuse on the ground that prisoners are less likely to escape in clogs than in boots. A strong protest has been made through the Protecting Power, and we shall continue to press for the camp leaders to be allowed, where necessary, to control distribution.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Germans send many parcels to this country for prisoners of war?

Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes

asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at regarding the suggestion made by the Select Committee on National Expenditure to attach representatives of the non-commissioned and other ranks to the headquarters of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes?

This question is at present being considered, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

Armed Forces (Posthumous Awards)

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that no military decoration, other than the V.C., can be recommended posthumously; and, having regard to the fact that acts of outstanding gallantry have recently been performed, for example, by aircraft crews at Augsburg who did not return, whether he will consider recommending that in future posthumous decorations be awarded for similar acts of gallantry in any of the three Services?

In addition to the Victoria Cross and campaign medals, the George Cross, the Indian Order of Merit and the Albert Medal are awarded posthumously. The question of extending the system of posthumous awards has been reviewed on various occasions in the past few years, both prior to the war and recently, and it is not proposed to recommend that any alteration should be made in the present practice.

Does my right hon. Friend recall, in addition to the wonderful bravery of the men at Augsburg, referred to in the Question, the more recent case announced during the last few days of two British officers who, at St. Nazaire, conducted a body of high German officers on board H.M.S. "Campbelltown" immediately before she blew up? Surely this action merits the award of posthumous decorations?

Atlantic Charter

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider a clarification of the Atlantic Charter, so that the peoples of enemy countries may be aware that we do not desire their destruction and that a decent peace awaits them as soon as they rise against their persecutors?

The terms of the Atlantic Charter are quite clear and do not seem to me to require any clarification.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that Clauses 4 and 8 need some clarification for those people in enemy countries who are likely to be friendly to us and who can be expected to rise against their oppressors?

Having regard to the fact that at the recent Allied Conference at St. James's Palace every delegate interpreted the Atlantic Charter differently, would it not be better to drop it?

Are not the speeches of Members of the Government repeatedly clarifying it?

Does not my right hon. Friend think these Clauses need clarification, and is he aware that the Lord Privy Seal has stated that they do?

Is not the best way to get each Cabinet Minister to give his own opinion?

In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Ex-Servicemen (Badges)

asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has been reached concerning the issue of badges to ex-Service personnel ineligible for the badge which automatically is granted to those who are successful applicants for pensions?

Can my right hon. Friend give an indication when he will be able to give a reply to a Question?

I am afraid that I cannot, but perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a Question during the next series of Sittings.

Factory Absenteeism (Penalties)

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the concern that is being caused in industrial districts by the imprisonment of young men and women for absenteeism from work of an essential character, and the stigma that attaches to such imprisonment, he will consider some other method of punishment that will be as, or more, effective, but will carry no prison taint, nor cause slowing-down of production through resentment or indignation among workers?

I have been asked to reply. Persons guilty of these offences are imperilling the lives of others, and the penalty must be adequate. There is no reason to suppose that sentences of imprisonment either are necessary or are imposed in any considerable proportion of cases, but I am not aware of any practicable substitute for imprisonment in the final resort. As my hon. Friend knows, it is within the discretion of the magistrates to assess the penalty appropriate to particular offences.

Surely something else could be done than to put girls of 18 and 19 in dock and imprison them for 30 to 40 days with hard labour? Cannot something be done to take away the stigma of imprisonment on young lads who are in their apprenticeship? Hon. Members on this side of the House who have served their apprenticeships will know quite well the difficulties involved.

Is there any worse stigma which can be applied to any man or woman than that of betraying their country?

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the variation of sentences inflicted for absenteeism, which is causing much concern? Will he go into the matter with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary?

Does my hon. Friend consider it is a desirable thing for juvenile courts to send a boy to prison for two months?

I do not think it is a desirable thing to send anyone to prison. What we and the Government are looking for is a means to uphold the law without having imprisonment in the background as a final resort.

Is an investigation made as to the reasons for absenteeism before prosecution takes place? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that longer hours are being worked and that young persons are not always physically fit to carry on?

In every instance full inquiries are made before prosecution takes place, which takes place only when felt to be a last resort.

Scotland

Deer Forests (Sheep Grazing)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the number of acres of deer forest in Scotland that have been taken over by his Department; the number of sheep placed on these forests; and the number that have been lost during the past two winters?

Possession has been taken of 72,000 acres of deer forest lands. Of these forests 23,000 acres are used in summer as an adjunct to a neighbouring sheep farm, while 5,000 acres are let as summer grazings to farmers whose stock has been displaced through the ploughing up campaign. The remaining 44,000 acres have been stocked with sheep by my Department. The stock put on up to November, 1941, numbered 6,620. Losses up to the winter dipping, 1941, the last date for which figures are available, were 1,103. The losses due to severe weather in the winter 1940–41 were heavy in all hill sheep flocks in the north of Scotland.

Alcoholic Poisoning (Inquiry)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make with regard to the recent deaths from alcohol poisoning in Scotland; and has the source of the alcohol been discovered?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that he is directing a public inquiry to be held under Section 3 of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1906, into the circumstances attending the deaths in Scotland between 7th and 28th April of the 14 persons who died after showing symptoms of acute alcoholic poisoning. In these circumstances I am unable to make any statement on the subject at present.

Boys (Registration)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many boys between the ages of 16 and 18 have registered; how many were called for interview; and how many elected to join pre-Service training units?

In all, 79,862 boys have been registered in Scotland, 39,072 of 17 years and 40,790 of 16 years. Complete figures of the numbers called for interview or who elected to join pre-Service units have not yet been received from all education authorities. Twenty-six authorities have submitted figures showing that 10,010 boys of 17 have been interviewed: of these, 6,003 elected to join pre-Service units. Nine authorities have interviewed 4,056 boys of 16: of these 2,777 elected to join pre-Service units.

Youth Service (Organisers)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local education authorities now employ a full-time organiser for work in connection with the Service of Youth?

Nine of the 35 Scottish education authorities (Aberdeen Burgh, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Clackmannan, Fife, Lanark, Renfrew, West Lothian) employ specially appointed full-time organisers in connection with the Service of Youth: two other authorities (Ayr, Dunbarton) have officials who give special attention to youth matters although not originally appointed for that purpose: in addition, several authorities have recently seconded headmasters to deal with the work arising out of the registration of youth, but these are not in the meantime regarded as full-time appointments.

In view of the enormous growth of the number of boys joining the pre-Service units, will my hon. Friend hasten the appointment of further organisers, because at the moment the work is quite beyond the powers of the directors of education?

I can assure my hon. Friend that in a circular we are issuing in the near future to local authorities it is intended to draw their attention to the importance of employing one or more organisers of youth welfare.

Advisory Council on Scottish Industry

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the composition of the Advisory Council on Scottish Industry; how many times it has met; and what are its powers?

The Council is composed of representatives of local authority associations, chambers of commerce, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Development Council and financial interests; and its function is to watch industrial movements and to advise me on questions relating to the location of industry in Scotland. The Council and its Executive Committee with representatives of Government Departments concerned have met on four occasions. I hope to have an opportunity of making a statement about its work in the course of the Debate to-day.

I take it the Committee is concerned with present as well as postwar problems?

Housing (Statistics)

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses completed in Scotland with State assistance from 1919 till 30th April, 1942, or the nearest available date; and the total amount of State subsidy paid in respect thereof?

Since housing subsidies became available in 1919, down to 31st March, 1942, which is the latest date for which figures are available, 279,152 houses were built in Scotland with State assistance. The total amount of State subsidy paid during the same period is £37,842,111. In addition, the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited, built 2,552 steel houses towardswhich Government advances of 1,015,564 have been made.

Ministry of Supply

Ordnance Factory (Earnings)

asked the Minister of Supply the number of persons employed on production as distinct from unproductive labour earning £6 a week and over at the Royal Ordnance Works, the address of which has been sent to him; and also the number of hours worked by the people involved for the week ended 21st February, 1942?

The number of employees of the Royal Ordnance Factory referred to who were directly concerned with production, and who earned £6 per week and over during the week ending 21st February, 1942, was 166. The average number of hours worked by the workpeople concerned was approximately 58.

Has my hon. Friend looked into the efficiency of this factory? It requires investigation both on the management and on the workers' side.

Damaged Army Motor Cars (Disposal)

asked the Minister of Supply whether his attention has been called to the practice of selling Army motor cars, wrecked in accidents, complete with tyres, however good the condition of the latter; and whether, in view of the rubber situation, he will give instructions to remedy this state of affairs?

Current types of Army motor cars are not sold: if beyond repair they are broken down and the parts are used again in Army service. Impressed vehicles or those of obsolete type badly damaged in accidents are handed over to the Ministry of Supply for disposal under the arrangements described in reply to Questions on 29th April and 17th December last. Most of them are repaired and used for essential purposes for which serviceable tyres are required. My right hon. Friend will consider whether any further arrangements are necessary to ensure that the tyres on the remainder are properly utilised.

If I give my hon. Friend an instance, will he investigate it? I have seen wrecked cars for sale with brand new tyres.

Questions

Mercantile Marine (Cigarettes, Canteens)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that Young Men's Christian Association and Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes canteens have been ordered not to sell cigarettes to members of the Mercantile Marine; and will he take any steps he can to get this discrimination removed?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport
(Mr. Noel-Baker)

Yes, Sir, I am aware of these facts stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, but he will realise that it is a matter of considerable difficulty. In consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my Noble Friend is giving it his consideration.

Double Summer-Time

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider extending double summer-time till September in view of the saving in fuel that would result?

The effect of any extension of the period on the fuel situation is one among a number of important considerations of which account must be taken. The matter is receiving attention, but I am not in a position to make a statement at present.

Will my hon. Friend consider, among other matters, the position of agriculture?

Certainly. The position of agriculture is one of the most formidable objections to prolonging the period of double summer-time.

Food Supplies

Milk Products

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how much milk produced in this country is going to factories for the manufacture of products other than foodstuffs?

None, Sir. In special circumstances permits may be granted to enable milk to be obtained for scientific purposes but the total amount so used is infinitesimal.

Milk for Invalids

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, on all applications and certificates for extra milk for persons suffering from tuberculosis and on similar documents, instructions have been issued that a cipher index should be inscribed instead of the word "tuberculosis"?

Medical practitioners have been requested to indicate nature of a patient's illness by means of a code reference when recommending a priority milk supply. The relative documents issued by the food office do not specify any illness.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this will give great satisfaction to tuberculous patients? How long has this practice been established?

I cannot say without notice, but my recollection is that it has been for some considerable time.

Questions

Housing (Statistics)

asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses, for England and Wales, completed with State assistance from 1919 till 30th April, 1942, or the nearest available date; and the total amount of State subsidy paid in respect thereof?

The number of houses erected with State assistance in England and Wales from 1919 up to 30th September, 1941, was 1,526,393 and the total amount of Exchequer contributions paid up to 31st March last was approximately £255,000,000.

Ceylon (Rice)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied with the rice supply and storage in Ceylon; whether steps have been taken to secure an adequate supply of rice; and how much extra land has been opened up for rice cultivation?

As I informed my hon. Friend on nth March, His Majesty's Government are taking all possible steps to deal with the situation. But I am sure he will agree with me that it is wiser not to say too much about them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether extra land has been put down for rice cultivation?

Trinidad (Re-Housing)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government are satisfied with the progress made under the present re-housing programme in Trinidad; how many slum buildings in the towns have been de- molished since the report of the Commission on the 1937 disturbances; the number of tenants who have left the slum areas for the new housing areas; and how the rents of the new houses compare with the rents paid for the slum dwellings?

Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend considers that the progress which has recently been made by the Colonial Government, and the Planning and Housing Commission, in re-housing in Trinidad has been very creditable in the particularly difficult circumstances now obtaining. Detailed figures of the number of slum buildings demolished since the report of the 1937 Commission and the number of tenants who have left the slum areas for the new housing areas are not available, but since March, 1940, housing has been or is being provided for a total of about 6,000 persons. The average rent for one or perhaps two rooms in the slum area is aproximately $5 a month, whereas the rents of a one bedroom type of cottage erected by the Commission has been fixed at $4 a month and for the two bedroom type of cottage, at $6 a month. These rentals are below the economic level.

Building Development (British Visit to the United States)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he will consider making the promised examination of United States building methods and materials on a comprehensive plan instead of, as now proposed, sending one man to the United States of America to make but a partial and preliminary examination which will require to be re-made whenever the full investigation is undertaken?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings
(Mr. Hicks)

As I have previously informed my hon. Friend, the Minister of Works has under consideration the question of sending a representative delegation to the United States to study building development and practice on the spot on a comprehensive scale, but in his opinion it would be premature to do so at the present time. My Noble Friend does not consider that such an inquiry would in any way be prejudiced by the forthcoming visit of an officer specially selected to study American methods of training and education which is only a limited and well-defined section of the more general field of inquiry ultimately contemplated.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that it is absolutely impossible for any one man to make a satisfactory investigation in the time he has stated?

It is not unknown in the building industry to get out your trial holes before you decide on your foundations.

In view of the ignorance that apparently exists in the Ministry, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Building Industry (Smaller Businesses)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether his Ministry is doing anything to stop the present progressive elimination of medium-sized building businesses throughout the country, whose existence will be indispensable in the post-war period?

I have no evidence that medium-sized businesses in the building industry have ceased to exist to any extent, but on this Question as a whole, which I agree is of the greatest importance, my Noble Friend is proposing to consult the employers organisations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the seriousness of the position of the smaller builders during the war is recognised by everybody, and is it not important that this position should not be allowed to continue after the war, when it would be disastrous?

Is it not the policy of the Ministry to bring about what is in effect a monopoly on the part of the big contractors?

I can only answer that if we desire some information, we have to go to the organisation from which we expect to get some advice. It would be a medium-sized job to discuss matters with those who are not federated.

Are not large firms like Wimpeys practically getting the monopoly to the disadvantage of the smaller firms?

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great alarm in the country at the disappearance of the small trader, and can he give an assurance that it is not the policy of the Government to squeeze out the small trader in order to benefit big business and State and municipally-controlled enterprise?

I can certainly give the answer so far as my Ministry is concerned that everything that is practicable to be done to encourage the smaller contractor is being done and that contracts are spread over as large a field as possible. That is the policy of the Department.

Civil Defence

Personnel (Protection)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the low-level machine-gunning and bombing of firemen and air-raid precautions workers in recent raids; and whether he will consider the arming of suitable National Fire Service vehicles with Bren guns, in conjunction with the appropriate authorities, in order that these men may defend both themselves and the town at the same time?

My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it would be undesirable for me to make any public statement about detailed aspects of our defence arrangements.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great dissatisfaction among the National Fire Service that they are not allowed to defend themselves when fighting fires in undefended towns and that they are tired of being classed as non-combatants?

Polish Officers

asked the Home Secretary at whose instigation a Polish officer was detained in Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow, and on what grounds was the order given for his release; why Polish officers, stationed at a place of which he has been given notice, must report to the police as aliens; and whether this condition applies to all Polish officers in this country?

The Polish officer to whom I understand my hon. Friend refers was detained for security reasons, and it would not be in the public interest to disclose the source or the nature of the information which led to the making of the Order for his detention. After careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case my right hon. Friend recently decided that he could now be released, subject to certain restrictions as to his place of residence. As regards the second part of the Question, Polish officers are not required to report to the police as aliens unless they have been released from their military duties and are in a civilian occupation. My inquiries do not indicate that there has been any departure from this rule at the place mentioned in the letter which my hon. Friend recently handed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that political vendettas in this country have ceased in the interests of the war effort, and is it not time that Poles were permitted to fight for Poland if you are asking our sons to do it for them?

The hon. Member may be assured that this man would not have been detained by order of the Home Secretary unless my right hon. Friend was satisfied that there was a good case for his detention at that time.

I am referring to officers interned on the instructions of the courts in Scotland, and I am asking why they are not put into the Armed Forces to fight for their country if you are asking our boys to do it for them.

I have no knowledge whatever of any officers detained by the Polish authorities in this country.

May I ask for guidance from you, Sir? I have tried three Departments on this issue. None of them knows anything, but the facts of the case are that these men are interned in Scotland. I want to know the reason why their services are not utilised in the Forces of either the Polish or the British Army, or why are they not given some useful work to do?

New Member Sworn

Hugh Nicholas Linstead, Esquire, for the Borough of Wandsworth (Putney Division).

Message from the Lords

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to approve a Treaty signed on behalf of His Majesty and on behalf of the President of the United States of Venezuela relating to the Island of Patos."—[Anglo-Venezuelan Treaty (Island of Patos) Bill.—[ Lords .]

National Expenditure

That they give leave to the Earl of Dudley to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee for Special Inquiries of the Select Committee appointed by this House on National Expenditure.

Orders of the Day

Supply

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Civil Estimates, 1942

Class I

Scottish Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed.

"That a sum, not exceeding £154,560, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland; salaries and expenses of the Scottish Home Department; expenses in respect of private legislation procedure in Scotland; a subsidy for transport services to the Western Highlands and Islands; a grant in lieu of Land Tax; contributions towards the expenses of Probation and of Remand Homes; a grant towards repair of flood damage and grants in connection with physical training and recreation."—[NOTE.—£77,500 has been voted on account .]

May I apologise in advance to the Committee if I transgress the voluntary arrangement which has existed for some years among Scots Members in Estimates discussions, whereby speeches are limited as nearly as may be to 15 minutes' duration? I was largely responsible for the inauguration of the arrangement, but it was never applied to a Minister introducing the Estimates. In any case, I understand that it is the general desire that I should take this opportunity of explaining the reasons for the appointment of a new Advisory Council on Scottish Industry, what it has already achieved, and the hopes—or perhaps I should say the anxiety—with which all Scotland looks to it in the future. In the great trade depression which supervened on the short boomlet of industrial activity in 1919 and 1920, following the last war, Scottish industry was very much worse hit than industry South of the Border. Our eggs were in too few industrial baskets. We had concentrated on the heavy industries, and, to a much greater proportionate extent than England, on the export industries, and when world markets collapsed and the disarmament policy of the Government synchronised with that collapse our unemployment figures in Scotland soared and some of our industrial areas were struck mortal blows. For example, in the four years 1931 to 1936, our unemployment among insured workers in all Scotland was never less than 23 per cent. It was, indeed, as high as 27 per cent. in 1932. It was always from five to seven in every 100 workers worse than in England and Wales; and if the contrast be with England alone, leaving out Wales, then the position of Scotland was infinitely worse. This disparity obtained right down to the outbreak of the present war.

If hon. Members will look at the Statistical Abstract issued by the Board of Trade in 1940, to be found in the Library of this House, they will see on page 8 a table giving the net loss by migration of population, decade by decade, since 1871. Take the figures for the last decennial period, 1921 to 1931. The net loss to Scotland's population by migration, that is, after allowing for all the incomers from England, Ireland and other lands, was 80 per 1,000 of the population. The loss in England during the same period was only 5 per 1,000. Now these figures, in my view, shout aloud about a situation which we Scots can only ignore much longer at our peril. They are pointers and indicators of the reasons for our higher death-rates and our poverty conditions generally.

There was also observable in the prewar years a disproportionate location of new industry. In the Board of Trade surveys of industrial development, which were published, I think, right down to the outbreak of war, I find that taking the six years 1932 to 1937 there were 3,217 new factories started in Great Britain, but Scotland had only 127 of these factories; that is one in every 25, a figure very much worse than our share under the formula known as the Goschen proportion, which is eleven-ninety-firsts of the total. Even so, I might add that while we got 127 new factories, we closed during the same period 133, so we lost on balance. As a sort of postscript to this rather dismal catalogue of trends and tendencies in the years between the two wars, the Lanarkshire Mining Association area, which covers territory including Stirlingshire, Dunbartonshire, and West Lothian as well as Lanarkshire, had a total coal output in 1913 of 23,000,000 tons, but in 1938 it had been reduced to 13,000,000 tons, a reduction of 40 per cent.

With these grave and serious disproportions in industrial location as between the North and South of the Tweed, one would have thought that the strategists and the planners in the rearmament period would have seen to it that the Government's war preparations did not still further load the dice against Scotland. I cannot, of course, to-day discuss the reasons why particular Government armament industries were located in particular areas. No doubt when their location was planned strategical considerations had to be given prior importance, and a location of new armament works prior to the fall of France would be a different matter from one planned after that collapse. But be the reasons what they may, during the year 1941 we had 4,500,000 square feet of our factory accommodation allocated to storage and less than 500,000 square feet allocated to new production. That is, one square foot to production and nine square feet to storage. For England the figure was one to production and two to storage.

That was the situation when I personally arrived on the scene at the Scottish Office. The stage then, I found, was set for a repetition, and indeed an intensification, of the disasters following the last war. I knew that it was pretty nearly useless for one man in a Government to try and reverse these processes. I had seen my predecessors, men in other parties with far greater influence and with as deep concern for their country's welfare, trying and failing. I had long been of opinion that the tragedy of unemployment ought not to be the sport or, if that word be objected to, the shuttlecock of party politics. As far back as February, 1926, and in succeeding years I pleaded in this House for all-party committees to consider immediately practicable schemes and concrete proposals for the relief of unemployment, to take the subject away from the arena of party politics. I asked for the appointment of a Standing Committee to consider schemes for the relief of unemployment and to report at intervals not exceeding one month during the Sittings of this House.

When I was entrusted by the Prime Minister with the varied tasks of Secretary of State for Scotland I solicited, on behalf of Scotland, the aid of all living ex-Secretaries of State for Scotland, men of all the political parties. I asked them to join with me in forming a Council of State to aid me with all their authority and experience, so that we could pool our joint efforts and enable me to speak with much greater backing than any of my predecessors in this office had ever enjoyed. I would to-day pay what tribute I can to the generous way in which all these gentlemen co-operated—Lord Alness, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Midlothian (Colonel Colville), and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. Under our joint umbrella we have set up several important and authoritative Committees, on herring, on hill sheep, on land settlement, on hydro-electrical development, on hospitals, and an Advisory Committee on Industry. This Advisory Council on Industry is composed, as I indicated at Question time to-day, of representatives of the chambers of commerce; of the Scottish Trades Union Congress; of the three great associations of local authorities, namely, the burghs, the counties, and the large cities; and of the Scottish Development Council, to whose work in the past in gathering information and making reports voluntarily and with great assiduity, I would pay and ask for general tribute.

This Advisory Council on Industry is presided over by the Lord Provost of the capital city, Edinburgh. United Kingdom Departments of State such as the Ministries of Labour, of Supply, and of Aircraft Production, and the Board of Trade all give us the assistance of the chief officers of their staffs. Here, if I may, because it is seldom one gets the opportunity to do so, I would like to say how much I am obliged and how much the Council on Industry is obliged to the present Minister of Supply, who has never forgotten that he is a Scotsman; to the Minister of Labour; to Sir Cecil Weir, Controller-General of Factory and Storage Accommodation; to Major MacKintosh, Scottish Regional Controller of the Ministry of Labour; to Major Jackson Millar of the Ministry of Supply; and to Mr. Oakley of the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

Well, I hope they are, and I would be very disturbed to-day to see any wanton divergencies engineered among them.

No, but I say I would be sorry, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with me in this, to see anybody trying to do so.

I know, but I hardly see any reason for merriment in the idea that for once we are getting all sections of Scottish industry speaking with one voice.

The hon. Member is entirely wrong. As a result of our joint efforts we have achieved some results in the better allocation of industry. The drift northward of industrial units is beginning, and the drift southward is being arrested, in so far as both movements can be procured by Government persuasion. The Advisory Council on Industry gathers all the relevant facts about, let us say, the telescoping of the pottery industry away from Scotland to England, or of some other industry away to Northern Ireland. The facts and data are gathered and presented to the Council of ex-Secretaries of State, by whom the appropriate steps are taken to see that Scotland's case is put before the Ministers of the Production Departments, and that the availability of industrial enterprises in Scotland to undertake a share in the nation's output is drawn to the attention of the proper authorities. For example—it is a small matter—we discovered that the War Office booklets on Scottish regiments were to be printed in London. This and other sections of the Stationery Office trade are now being transferred to Scotland—I do not know whether to Edinburgh or Glasgow, or some other centre. Everything likely to prejudice Scotland in securing a fair share of Government orders is the concern of the Advisory Council and the Council of ex-Secretaries of State to which I have referred.

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to proceed. I am probably coming to the point which he wishes to raise. Not only are we doing everything in our power to secure a better distribution of Government orders, but we are seeking to prevent unfair discrimination against industry in Scotland, as, for example, appeared to be the case in the woodworking firms on the Government's tendering list. We cause inquiries to be made as to why our telephone directories are printed in England. We strive to secure that the telescoping of industry will not be so devised that the trend will aways be in the Southward direction. We know that industries, once trailed away, are unlikely ever to return. I personally have seen the old calico-printing industry being concentrated and moved away from the Vale of Leven and the Blane Valley to England in the years from 1922 to 1930. The last Scottish calico-printing establishment was closed in May, 1930, and unemployment in the Vale of Leven rose in 1931 to 65 per cent. of the total insured population in the area. For six years the figure was never under 40 per cent.

The Council on Industry has been in existence since the beginning of February. It does not fight for one district as against another. Still less is it acting as a sort of commercial traveller, seeking orders for inefficient firms. I would stress the desirability of firms, and organisations of firms, not relying entirely upon the Council on Industry for aid and support in getting orders but putting forth their own energies and efforts to secure Government contracts. If I may also make a suggestion, it would be that in these days there is a great desirability that smaller firms should co-operate in securing national orders.

Our Council on Industry was instituted for the purpose of seeing that Scotland avoids a recurrence of the economic shocks and disasters which we endured during the great depressions in recent years. If we are to be of any service in securing upon Scottish soil the establishment or new industrial enterprises likely to have continuance after the war, we must be informed of what kind of enterprises are in the market, and where in Scotland there are buildings suitable and vacant, labour to be had and services like water, gas, electricity and so on available now, so that we may use our united persuasion in every direction to get these new establishments planted with us. The worst disaster that could befall us, and one for which we should all be blameworthy if through lack of effort and forethought we permitted it to occur, would be that the war should end with Scotland relying to an undue and disproportionate extent upon armament industries. When orders for armaments stopped, we might find ourselves, as after the last war, with vast problems which are practically unknown in London and the Home Counties.

It is impossible to claim, and I do not claim, that all the figures which I am about to give are due to the activities of the Advisory Council on Industry. There are manifestly other reasons and considerations—strategy, labour supply and so on—which are partially responsible for these figures. The facts are that during the course of this year 16 new industrial undertakings or extensions to existing factories in Scotland have been reported, and 11 new industrial undertakings in course of construction or in course of being transferred from other regions. In addition, there are 11 industrial undertakings for which presently a location in Scotland is being actively considered and examined.

Are these entirely new industries or industries being moved from the South?

I must be wary of what I am saying, because I am bound by considerations of Service interests. Some of them are new and some are being transferred, but I did not say from the South. I said from other regions. No doubt in the course of the Debate my colleagues and I will receive many suggestions. We are planning for the future, so that we may leave to our children a heritage of economic security and well-being which our generation in Scotland has not known. It will be our business to see that, when the committees report, early opportunity is sought for discussion in this House upon such subjects as sheep farming and to push for appropriate action being taken. On housing, nutrition, education and the contribution which limestone quarries, equalisation of freights and other measures can make, I have said nothing to-day. These subjects may be more properly discussed on the appropriate Estimates. It will be clear that I am precluded by security considerations from giving the precise details of the location of these new industries.

Some of them are. Most are in fact, but not all. This much I can say, that some at least of these industries are likely to have a peace-time continuance. I mentioned that, to the beginning of this year, new production capacity allocated by the Factory and Storage Control in factory accommodation in Scotland was less than 500,000 square feet. By the end of March, three months afterwards, the space allocated to new production had risen to over 1,000,000 square feet. By the end of April it had risen to 1,500,000 square feet.

There is one question on which I must say a word. There has been considerable anxiety among Scottish parents at the announcement that about 500 girls per week would be required from Scotland to help to perform very urgently required priority munition duties in England. Questions have been asked about it in this House and elsewhere.

The announcement made was that the girls were to be transferred only if they were taken to priority munition work. Questions were asked in the House why Scottish girls could not all be retained in Scotland. The Ministry of Labour have to accept facts as they are. The factories which are undermanned and where there is the most urgent requirement for the additional workers are, unfortunately, situated outside Scotland. Scotland has to contribute her proportion of the mobile workpeople required. That is the argument. I have, however, been assured that the figure has never reached 500 per week and that during the last three months it has averaged about 200 per week. During the past 18 months the average has been only 86 per week. For the girls who have gone south, the Ministry of Labour assure us that everything possible is being done to see to their welfare and comfort. Hon. Members have no doubt observed that one little additional concession was made the other day when the Ministry of Labour fixed at 7s. 6d. the maximum railway transport charge which these girls would have to meet when they went home on holiday. When all is said and done, the only way in which these temporary drifts Southward can be diminished still further is by the planting of more vital war work in Scotland. This is the goal that our Council on Industry has had continually in view. I do not claim that the Council on Industry method which I have described is the only way of escape for Scotland from being kept a poor relation and being relegated to a position below the salt. It is one way open to us now. If there are any other methods open, I shall be delighted to hear about them to-day.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Council have a staff? It is a relevant question, and he has not mentioned it.

It is relevant, and there is a whole lot of other relevant questions which I have not answered. I will, however, answer that one. The Council on Industry has a staff, supplied partly by the Scottish Home Department and partly by the local authorities' associations. What we are attempting to do is to mobilise our industrial forces behind our Council of ex-Secretaries of all parties, to ensure by our united persuasion and efforts first that we get our fair share of Government orders, and second that whatever steps are open to us are taken to stop the drift away of our industries, to put heart and initiative into our designers, our inventors and managements, and to ensure that we shall not sink placidly into the position of a derelict, impoverished country, subsistent upon scraps or doles. We have great resources, and I intend as far as I can to see that those resources are used.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? He is in favour of keeping our industrialists and inventors in Scotland; would he be in favour of keeping our politicians in Scotland?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will see the hopeless irrelevance of that question. I am doing my best to compress my remarks on a very important subject within a limited time. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well my views on the question of whether we should have Scottish Home Rule or not, but the question does not arise on these Estimates.

In any case, it is out of Order, because that must involve legislation.

In view of your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, I cannot imagine that any of the things about which the right hon. Gentleman has been talking would not involve legislation, sooner or later.

They certainly do not involve legislation at the present moment, and that is the point. Home Rule must involve legislation. In the case of industry, what the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about can be done during the war by Order in Council.

We were assured that the Chairman would rule very widely on this matter, and that we should be able to raise what we consider to be the very definite needs of Scotland, even though legislation would ultimately be contemplated in that connection. It seems to me that this just proves that the Debate will be absolutely useless.

I am quite prepared to let this Debate be very wide, out Home Rule for Scotland is certainly beyond any limit which I can allow.

Is it not possible that we who are from Scotland could decide to remain in Scotland and rule Scotland, by issuing an ultimatum instead of by legislation?

I will not intervene in the dispute between the hon. Member and the Chair. I would prefer to stick to my brief. I think I have proved that after the last war Scotland lost a disproportionate amount of her industry and had a disproportionate amount of unemployment. In this war it is our duty to seek to reverse those steps by every means in our power, and to prevent similar disasters overcoming us again. I have indicated the sort of steps that we are trying to take. I have indicated the sort of effect which those steps have already had, and I will conclude by saying that I have every hope and belief in the prosperity and future of our country. I do not believe that we shall become a derelict area, I do not believe that we ought to visualise ourselves as a derelict area, and I do not believe that we ought to visualise the appointment of gauleiters distributing largesse in impoverished areas. I believe in democracy, and I hope and trust that as a result of this Debate to-day, those who are giving their services gratuitously to this Council on Industry and to every other effort to ensure that Scotland gets her fair share of what industries the Government can give will be. encouraged. Every suggestion made to-day will be carefully noted and will be given effect to as far as possible. I conclude by saying, to all whom it may concern, that Scotland's bonnet is still in the ring.

I have not had any indication that the right hon. Gentleman intends to deal with the matter of the girls who were sent to gaol. Had he forgotten it, or did he not intend to mention it?

I had intended to mention it, but I had already gravely overstepped my time limit. We have made every possible inquiry as to what happened to those two particular girls who were given no option of a fine in England, and I have been in consultation with the Home Secretary in the matter. I shall be very glad indeed to convey whatever impressions one may get from this Debate to him.

The Secretary of State has quite rightly taken more than the 10 or 15 minutes which the Members of the Committee generally allow themselves on this occasion. But that does not apply to subsequent speakers, and I shall do my best to see that the ten-minute rule applies very strictly to myself.

If you have anything to say, you are on for half an hour; if you have nothing to say, do not start.

We have not all the gift of saying nothing so charmingly as the hon. Member. He is a Member to whom the House would gladly listen, whether he had anything to say or not. I cannot claim to reach that height, and therefore I shall do my best to speak with a sense of responsibility and with one eye on the clock. What the Secretary of State has broached to-day is a matter of the greatest importance, and not merely to the British Parliament. It is a world problem, the problem of the small nation, and although it is true that it cannot be solved finally without the introduction of legislation, the attitude which we are to adopt towards it is not a matter which can be settled by legislation. Certainly we must examine it to-day within the limits which the Chair has set. The problem of the small nation is one which has received a greatly added urgency in these last months and years. We have seen that, with the best will in the world, the most good-natured of small nations may be overrun, destroyed and enslaved without being able to defend itself against an aggressor. Therefore, some combination or association of nations is vitally necessary if they are to have the one sine qua non of all progress, that is to say, an opportunity of peaceful development. No solution which involves a separation of the nation of Scotland from the great complex of peoples of the British Commonwealth can, in my view, be a solution of the problems which we are now discussing. There is no doubt whatever that the number of Governments which sit in London has greatly increased in recent months, and the Scottish Government is not the only Government of the small nations now sitting within a very small distance of Westminster.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in favour of in independence for Scotland with federation to England?

I indicated to the Committee that I would do my best not to trespass on its time for more than 10 minutes. If I were to endeavour to answer that question, I would have to trespass on its time for several hours. In the great international body of which the hon. Member is a member, I think these problems have been repeatedly examined, and the solution is not always in favour of complete federation with local independence. In Scotland we have our difficulties, which are clamant and obvious to us in Scotland, but which we find difficulty in bringing home to the people South of the Border. They are problems which to some extent are shared with the great Northern counties of England, because the trend of industry has not only been away from Scotland, but there has been a tendency for the trend of industry to move away from North of the Trent. The steady rise of the insured population South of the Trent has been a feature of recent years. But it brings about a different position in Scotland from that in England. If we take the worst areas in England and compare them with those of Scotland, we find a great disproportion against our country.

Take the Northern regions of England, the trend of industry away from which has been greatly marked in recent years. Take the County of Durham, which is similar to our County of Lanarkshire, with industrial problems closely resembling those of the Lowlands of Scotland. Take the factor of overcrowding, which is not only important in itself but is a pointer to a great many other conditions. I got these figures for 1937, and I do not think they have varied much. In that year there were 330,000 families in Durham and 378,000 families in Lanarkshire. Of the Durham total 12 per cent. were living in overcrowded condi- tions. In the case of Lanarkshire 33 per cent. were living under such conditions. [An HON. MEMBER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was Secretary of State for Scotland for a long time."] I was not Secretary of State for a long time, put I was Secretary of State, and I have to take my share of responsibility for conditions in Scotland, as every Member of this Committee has. [ Interruption .] I am not attempting to pass the buck to anyone. I am saying that this is a national problem which has its roots far deeper than one single Secretary of State or Government can account for, or could be called to answer for. It is a very deep and long-standing question. [ Interruption .] Poverty and hunger existed in Scotland long before 1707. The very quality which the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) so frequently exhibits in this House is not that which makes for the maximum co-operation, which is the problem we are trying to solve in the case of Scotland. I will not go further into the housing figures, as I wish to keep within the time limit I have set myself, but taking district for district, the bad districts of Scotland are infinitely worse than the bad districts of England.

The Secretary of State has said, and rightly said, that the slump after the last war was responsible for a great deal of our troubles. I think that is true, but I do not think it completely accounts for them. He said, which is true, that it is difficult to get the attention of the great Departments in England drawn to the existence of Scottish problems. I am sure that is true. He himself gave an example in relation to the great falling-off in the output of the Lanarkshire coalfield. We have quite recently had an example of a committee set up to investigate entry to Scottish coalmines—the question of apprenticeship. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) put a very pertinent question. There is no Scottish representative on that committee so far as I know. A country with a completely different educational system is being inquired into by a committee with no knowledge of its educational problems. I think that is an example which indicates that this out-of-focus approach to Scottish problems still persists in Whitehall, and it is a thing which needs the constant corrective of the Secretary of State for Scotland, backed up by the utmost help which the Scottish Members can give him. If I may compliment the Secretary of State, I think he is doing valiant work for our country, and I shall be proud to give him all the help in my power. But he will require a great deal of assistance in that task, and that will have to be displayed in those smaller details such as those of which he was speaking to-day. A contract for a wood-working firm, the giving to Scotland of a certain proportion of Government work, may seem small and petty, but added together make the difference between prosperity and poverty, and make the difference between a nation conscious of itself with a hopeful outlook of its future and a nation which is falling into the territory of gauleiters.

If we are to utilise to the utmost the great qualities and resources both of men and material which Scotland possesses, we shall certainly need to exercise a greater amount of good-will towards one another than we have done in the past. Argument to the Scot is a vice more attractive than whisky. We would carry argument to the point of plunging ourselves into poverty as we have often, in the past, carried argument to the point of plunging ourselves into civil war. It is a problem which, with the great danger which is lowering and "which is dominating our thoughts, it may be possible for us to examine in a somewhat more friendly atmosphere than that in which these problems have been examined in the past. The social questions which have been raised will need to be examined and solved if possible. I was struck by the eloquent speech made from the Front Bench opposite in the Debate on the fuel situation, in which the hon. Member said, in effect, "Before you can settle these questions, you have to get out of the miners' minds the bitterness which many years have engendered in them."

Very probably it may be so. After all, the history of the miners in Scotland goes back to the period when slavery was the lot of the miners, and many miners' walks and annual festivals commemorate not the day of any Reform Act but the date when they were emancipated from being in some sense the physical property of those who were their superiors. The social conditions of Scotland reached an infinitely greater stringency and bitterness and the subjection of man to master than anything which corresponding English history has known. It may be that the solution of all the problems which we are discussing to-day lies in the eradication of that spirit of bitterness and hostility which still persists. I am sure it plays a very large part in the problems we have to consider. I am uneasy not only about the lack of Government action in our country, but about the lack of individual initiative on the part of the citizens. To take one example, let me refer to the question of a man having sufficient trust in the future of his country to lead him to build a house and settle down in it. In England, 2,500,000 houses have been built by the citizens as against 1,000,000 by local government aid. The figures in Scotland are completely different. There, 180,000 houses have been built by the State and the local authorities as against only 90,000 by individuals. [ Interruption .] It may be a matter of carefulness of money; but that is being too careful of money. That is simply another term for distrust of the future. That is one of the big problems that we in Scotland will have to grapple with. It was not my intention to speak as long as I have done: indeed, I had other points with which I wished to deal; but that is the gist of what I wished to say. Our small nation is showing, and has shown, a distrust of itself, not merely in State action but in private action. These are the great fundamental conditions into which our argument will have to be fitted, and towards the solution of which the Secretary of State has made a notable contribution.

The Secretary of State for Scotland has made it unnecessary for Scottish Members to make use of statistics which they must have collected for this Debate. Indeed, on many subjects he has brought us more up to date than the statistics which have been printed. When my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) drew a comparison between English and Scottish housebuilding he probably forgot, in the stress of making his argument telling, that, in all probability, the reason why so small a proportion of Scottish people build their own houses, in comparison to the proportion in England, is the drift South of industry, to which the Secretary for Scotland devoted practically all his speech. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman adds to the strength of any argument that we put forward to stop that drift South, and to get new industries located in Scotland, as well as getting old industries revived. It is not through any fault of the Scottish people themselves that they have failed to get orders from Government Departments, or from other places in England, or even abroad.

A shipyard in Scotland—I am not giving the locality—was without an order from December, 1938, to August, 1939—almost immediately up to the outbreak of war. That yard is one of the best equipped in Britain. It has seven slips, in which during the last war cruisers and other warships were built. The yard had been reduced to a maintenance staff of 400 men, although it had formerly employed 4,000 to 6,000 men. When I approached the Minister responsible I received the amazing reply that the reason this yard was not getting orders for warships, as other yards in the vicinity were, was that the firm did not build their own engines. Yet if that Minister, or any of his advisers, had visited the yard, he would have seen, just across the river, one of the finest engineering shops, which belonged to the firm owning the yard. By the end of December, 1939, that yard was fully employed; the slips were full, and fishing vessels were being equipped there as minesweepers and so on. Yet that yard, which could have built seven ships, was idle because some confounded fool in the Admiralty had blown up the Minister's head with ideas about this yard having no engineering shops and made him believe that, therefore, it should not get an order. The simplest local inquiry would have shown that the engine shop was almost facing the shipyard.

The same thing is going on in other parts of Scotland. Because of some prejudice the proper information is not given about industries in Scotland. We have to consider not merely Admiralty, or Government, orders; merchant ships are built in all our yards. Indeed, the Mercantile Marine is one of the greatest assets that this country could possess. Yet in the past, through Government action, not because of incompetence on the part of shipbuilders, but because of various international complications, ships which ought to have been built in our own country have been built in foreign yards. Unilever Limited in 1936 placed an order for 15 trawlers in German shipbuilding yards at a cost of £350,000. German shipyards on 1st April, 1936, had on their books orders from British firms for 44 vessels, of an aggregate of 133,924 registered tons. Most of the vessels were ordered for the purpose of utilising Britain's frozen credits in Germany. There you see international complications setting in and necessitating such a course or perhaps I should not say necessitating, for there may have been another alternative, which would have enabled those 44 ships to be built in British shipyards.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the 15 trawlers are fighting for Britain now; and that at the time he refers to there was not a trawler yard in this country capable of taking these orders?

Does the hon. Member really mean to inform the House that in 1936, when there was unemployment in most of those yards, there was not a shipyard in the whole of Britain capable of building those trawlers? Jones, of Buckie, could have built them in two years.

I assure my hon. Friend that the facts I have given are correct. A company with which I was connected owned the trawlers. They did not want to buy them from Germany, but they ultimately purchased them from another British firm who brought them here and operated them for about a year. At the time that these were being built; in Germany the British fishing industry, to its lasting credit, was building this grand trawler fleet which is now working for the Navy, including the survivors of these 15 vessels.

The hon. Gentleman has not met the point that in 1936 there were many slips available in the yards not only on the Clyde, but on the Tyne and at other places. They were empty and could have built these ships. I am giving this example, not as being something against the people who built them, but as indicating the international complications which sometimes arose and compelled these vessels to be built not in British yards but abroad.

I did not say only the Clyde. The Clyde is not the only place; that builds ships. There are places on the Moray Firth, in Buckie and in Banff building trawlers, and you get them being built also at Aberdeen and Frazerburgh. There is another point with regard to the connection between trawlers and shipbuilding. We had under our Fishery Board a number of antiquated fishery cruisers which practically found it impossible to outpace the foreign trawlers coming into our waters. I was fortunate enough, after hammering at the Scottish Office and the Fishery Board for several years, to get three of them discarded, one of which was 80 years old, and to get three new fishery cruisers to replace those that were scrapped. Not sufficient is being done to revive the fishing industry and to make it possible for the fishermen of the country to look to their own industry to provide them with a livelihood which would not only be secure but profitable. The fishing industry has gone down in numbers enormously in recent years, due to the fact that there are not sufficient facilities either for keeping away foreign trawlers from our own waters or for providing proper harbour facilities to enable them to have their catch brought in and sent to the necessary markets or cured on the spot. There is one little place which would be an ideal spot for the erection of a harbour. Its erection would not cost many thousands of pounds, and suitable curing establishments could be erected on the shore. I refer to the Port of Carradale which has for many years been one of the most active and industrious fishing villages in the whole of the fishing industry throughout Great Britain. It has been stated time and time again that the Moray Firth ought to be closed against foreign trawlers and kept as the preserve of British fishing vessels. According to a judgment given in the Court of Judiciary in Edinburgh, that is already the Scottish law. I will read a quotation from a newspaper on the subject:

That trial took place in Edinburgh in 1906, and if that is Scottish law, then no Government body, committee, or member of a Government has the right to overturn that Court's decision without an amending Act. If Scottish law closes the Moray Firth and no amending Act has subsequently been passed, then this particular action on the part of the Government was a contempt of court. Any Member of the House of Commons, if he tried to criticise the decision of a court of law, would be ruled out of Order, whether the decision was given either in Edinburgh or here in London. Mr. Speaker would have promptly ruled him out of Order, and yet foreign trawlers, basing their conduct on the action of the Government in Whitehall, are now fishing up to the three-mile limit in the Moray Firth. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will take note of that, will look up the matter and will inform his colleagues, particularly those who were responsible for this action, that the Moray Firth was hitherto closed against foreign trawlers and fishing vessels and that consequently there can be no further occasion on which they can sail through the nets which have been laid by our own fishermen from Banff, Macduff, Buckie and Lossiemouth in the Moray Firth.

I now wish to refer to the Forestry Commission, which the Minister did not mention. The Forestry Commission is not playing fair in Scotland. I hold to that view very definitely. It is closing down hill farms which have been providing good sheep for the market and is allowing to go waste large tracts of country amounting to several thousands of acres which ought to be utilised for the benefit of the community not only in Scotland, but here in England. I put this forward as a protest. There are two Members of Parliament on the Forestry Commission, one an English Member representing the Forestry Commission in the House of Commons, and the other a Welsh Member, but there is no Scottish Member upon that Commission. There are two. Scotsmen upon it, but one never hears anything about them. The Forestry Commission, apart from the ordinary report that it makes, is not getting the criticism that it deserves for the manner in which it is handling the afforestation which is going on in Scotland at the present time.

I conclude by asking whether there is to be not a drift of Northern industries, but a re-opening of industries in which Scotsmen and Scotswomen and Scottish lads and girls are capable of working. These industries can be re-opened, and once they are flourishing again and Scottish and other labour is induced to enter the factories, I hope that legislation will be provided so that huge combines cannot come along and buy up these factories and close them down and transfer the machinery to England, leaving the buildings standing, and men and women who had worked in the factories unemployed and starving, while they start new factories with old machinery in England and employ English labour in order to be near Whitehall, where, on Government contracts, the same freightage has not to be paid and entered into the cost of production as if the work had been done in Scotland.

It has seldom happened that the affairs of the Scottish Office have come up for discussion in this House in an atmosphere so friendly as it is now. There is great gratitude in Scotland for what the Scottish Office has been doing, and we are particularly grateful to its official head, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. Being Scottish, it necessarily follows there will be criticism, but I feel sure that in these circumstances there will be no carping criticism. As this is a British House of Commons and not purely a Scottish assembly, perhaps it would be only right that I should say something first of all about the real importance of Scotland in industry. To-day the industrial belt of Scotland, which lies across Scotland between the Highlands to the North and the Southern uplands to the South, is a busy hive of industry, but it is not merely to-day that Scotland is so important in industry. Still more so if we look at its past history. In fact there is no place in the whole world that can establish the claim that Scotland has to have been the birthplace of the great industrial revolution.

I hope the Committee will not be alarmed if I go back to the year 1763. In that year a young Glasgow mechanic, attached to the University of Glasgow, was taking a walk on Glasgow Green and was sorely worried. He was worried because he had been working on a quaint little steam engine or, as it was called in those days, a fire engine, that was used to pump water out of mines. What worried him was that this engine was not economically possible to apply as motive power to industry in general, because of its extraordinary extravagance in fuel. He worried over that, but as he walked and worried a great awakening came to him. He realised what was to be done, namely, to condense the steam apart from the cylinder, and in that way to avoid having to heat the cylinder over and over again after each cooling between strokes of the piston. That was the basic discovery that started the industrial revolution. James Watt followed it up by others. He developed the use of steam to push the piston instead of leaving it merely to atmospheric pressure, and went on with various other developments, resulting in the economically efficient steam engine which meant the beginning of the age of factories and manufacture on a large scale.

If one turns over the pages of history for about 40 years, one comes to another incident, again in that same locality. It was one day when there was a howling gale blowing from the West, holding up all traffic on the Edinburgh-Glasgow canal, when, to the astonishment of beholders, there burst upon their view two heavy 70-ton barges going ahead in the teeth of the gale and pulled by a little ship with some unfamiliar motive power. That was the "Charlotte Dundas", into which William Symington fitted one of James Watt's engines and a paddle wheel; and that was the first steamship. The American, Fulton, and many other people were greatly interested in it and its performances. He, William Fulton, ordered another engine from James Watt's firm, Boulton and Watt, and fitted it into the "Clermont" on the Hudson River. That was the first American steamship. So history has gone on with these great ships that have carried all over the world commerce and civilisation right up to the day of the "Normandie" and the "Queen Mary." James Watt, it is true, did not remain in Glasgow or Scotland. He drifted South. He became a partner of Matthew Boulton, and that union was fertile. It built up a great machinery works in Birmingham.

When I listened to my right hon. and gallant friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and some of his remarks about our Scottish disposition, I could not help thinking of James Watt, that highly strung, nervous, brilliant Scot, careless in business, liable to be cast down and depressed and inclined at times to throw up everything, becoming united with that well-to-do steady, healthy and able Englishman. I could not help thinking, too, that some of my friends who are patriotic Scots, as I am, and who talk about Home Rule for Scotland, might well pause for a moment over that wonderful union on a small scale between Scots and English.

I might go on to intolerable lengths merely citing important incidents in the evolutionary history of industry that have happened in that little bit of Scotland—such as the first Chamber of Commerce, and, in the case of shipbuilding, the first use of compound engines, the first construction of a sizable vessel of steel, the first turbine passenger steamer, the first high-pressure steamer—one incident after another one might go on citing, and not merely in one section of industry, but; in innumerable others. If we look not at particular incidents, but rather at the whole of industry, we see an equally interesting story; but the great thing that we notice about this story of Scottish industry is the fact that the history has been made up of a succession of predominant industries. Away back in the 18th Century, it was linen. Every parish, practically, grew its flax, spun and wove and bleached. As that century went on, cotton began to take its place. It became the predominant industry. About the end of that century, it drifted away, except for thread; the development of the sewing machine kept the thread industry alive, but otherwise, the cotton industry faded away, practically, from that part of Scotland. Then, with the development of the Steam engine, there came that great development of the heavy industries which have been the source of Scottish wealth and prosperity for a long time.

I would not say that the poverty is due to the industry. The wealth is due to the industry, but the poverty—I do not know. I will come to that presently. The trouble was the predominance of a particular industry in Scotland, and actually it shows us the way to which our efforts must be particularly directed for the future, in order to see to it that we develop in Scotland not one great predominant industry, but a great variety of small light industries. I remember that long ago, in my college days, there was considerable interest raised by a set of what we called cranks, who talked about an idea of "garden cities," the idea of taking a little bit of Hertfordshire away from its agricultural purposes and making a little city, while retaining the amenities of the country. It seemed to be a foolish idea. On my way to the House to-day I passed through that garden city actually in being, and there I saw a busy hive of industry, a most prosperous place, with various industries alive and flourishing. Let us not think that that idea in Scotland is wholly for the future, though one hopes that in time Scotland will have these garden cities dotted over its area; but even at present, we see a movement in that direction, encouraged particularly by the Committee to which the Secretary of State referred. I do not mean the Industrial Council. I ought to have said, in referring to the Secretary of State, that these are perhaps two of the most important bits of his work; first, the great political advance he has made of bringing in to his assistance as a personal council those of his predecessors in his high office who are available, and secondly, the installation of the great Industrial Advisory Council to which he referred. This step in the proper direction of Scottish industrial development has taken form in some of these industrial settlements that we see, more especially that situated in the triangle between Paisley, Renfrew and Glasgow. There is Hillington, a bit of agricultural land which was taken over, which has been fitted with up-to-date workshops and factories, which is now in busy operation, which has many of the amenities of a garden city, and is beautifully planted with trees, shrubs and flowers. There we see that definite progress along the path which opens to us in the future.

May I mention briefly one or two special points? I want to refer for a moment to the Secretary of State's reference to printing. That appeals particularly to me. Anybody who has anything to do with, and any interest in, books knows that some of the finest printing in the world is done in Scotland. It was only within the last week that there came to me by post a charming gift, a little volume of Greek verse. Whenever I opened it, I was struck by the beautiful typography—the beautiful printing. I turned over to the back of the book to find out where it was printed; it was printed in Scotland. Then I walked across my study and picked up a book which had solely to do with Scotland—a telephone directory. There was no trace whatever of its having been printed in Scotland. I have no doubt whatever that Scotland will be willing to take over the whole of Government printing with its ancillary paper-making, but falling short of that, might it not be given at least its fair share of Government printing?

One of the great handicaps of Scottish industry, as of industry in other places, is the problem of transport; but there is one aspect of that which I never see alluded to, and it is of immense importance, that is, the transport of power. When one carts power about the country in coal wagons and in oil tanks, one is adopting an enormously expensive method. When on the other hand, the power rushes along the electric cables of the grid, rushes along with the speed of light and in practically unlimited quantity, the great cost of transport disappears. That is a point which has a tremendous bearing on Scotland and its industries, because these congested areas of the heavy industries of Scotland were due to the fact that they had to be carried on close to the sources of power. If it is possible to take that power all over the country, there is no longer the necessity to chain industry to the Scottish districts. Industry drifts away, and naturally it drifts towards the populous parts of the country. That is to say, it drifts towards the South. Managers and directors too tend to congregate where they can meet their colleagues.

Owing to the pressure of time, I am afraid that I must cut out much of what I wished to say. I should, however, like to mention one other matter in connection with this question of transport. It is a matter which has been discussed over and over again. It is a scheme which, so far, no Government have had the courage or the foresight to carry into effect. It is the scheme to cut a ship canal across Scot- land at sea level. Great Britain interposes a tremendous obstacle in the path of commerce between the new world, on the one hand, and Scandinavia, the Baltic countries and Germany, on the other. Ships have to work round this obstacle. They have to steam through the Pentland Firth, or through the English Channel with its danger of fog. The cutting of a canal would not only save hundreds of miles of steaming and many hours expenditure of fuel, but would avoid these dangers. Such a canal would present an irresistible attraction to commerce.

I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. Member. The construction of a canal of this kind would involve legislation, and, therefore, it is beyond the scope of this Debate.

I do not think that such a vast scheme as this could possibly be undertaken without legislation.

I appeal to the Secretary of State to consider the advisability of initiating, or not initiating, legislation at some not too distant date.

That is the point. The hon. Member asks the Secretary of State to initiate legislation. In so doing I am afraid that he is asking for trouble. He cannot do that.

Is he not entitled to ask the Secretary of State to make a survey and ascertain the cost of such a canal?

I understand that that has already been done. A former Secretary of State did appoint a committee to make such a survey, and there was no legislation required for that.

I will conclude my "tactless" remarks by saying that in my mind's eye I see ships travelling, not across the arid deserts of Suez, and not through the fever-infested jungles of Panama, but through a prosperous, happy, countryside, dotted with garden cities, producing materials which these great ships can carry away and where these great ships can refuel. I think it would be a great pity if the Government were deterred from considering the possibility of making a preliminary investigation. Whenever a scheme for the construction of a great ship canal has been proposed it has always been regarded as an impossibility. I cannot do better than conclude by quoting the words used by a great Prime Minister of this country, Lord Palmerston, when answering a Question in this House on the subject of the projected Suez Canal. He stated on 7th July, 1857:

"It is an undertaking which, I believe, in point of commercial character may be deemed to rank among the many babble schemes which from time to time have been palmed upon gullible capitalists. I have been informed, on what I believe to be reliable authority, that it is physically impracticable, except at an expense which would be far too great to warrant any expectations of any returns. If the hon. Member for Bristol and his friends will take my advice, they will have nothing to do with the scheme in question."

May I pray that our present Secretary of State will not leave on the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT any such blot as I have just mentioned.

I cannot be expected to follow the very scholarly speech to which we have just listened. There is, however, one point I should like partially to correct. On inquiry, I think that the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr) will find that the garden city in Hertfordshire to which he made reference is largely populated by people working in London. I think he will find that in the course of time it has become a suburb of London, offering more pleasant conditions to those working in London, rather than combining a home for industry and residents. However, that is a very minor point. I am at a loss to understand the point of this Debate. Heaven knows that the problem of Scottish industry, which was so carefully analysed by my right hon. Friend, has always been urgent, but I am not clear why this Debate has come up at this particular moment.

I rise to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions about his new machinery. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) talked of Scotland as a small nation; it is, of course, but also it is on the fringe, like the maritimes in Canada and like Wales, and suffers from all the problems, particularly transport, which affects communities existing far away from the financial capital. I cannot see at the moment, in the machinery the right hon. Gentleman has set up, anything which gives me very much confidence that the future will be in accordance with his peroration. That is the trouble. In order to put this question of unemployment outside party politics, he has brought in these ex-Secretaries of State. It is one thing to put unemployment outside party politics; it is another to put employment outside party politics, and as soon as people begin to speak frankly, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove did in calling attention to the extraordinary differences in housing between England and Scotland, he had to refer to differences between public and private enterprise. He wound up his speech with a plea for greater private enterprise in Scotland. The Secretary of State said himself that he did not want any industry to think it could just go for help to this new Council.

Do I understand that these various committees have been set up by the ex-Secretaries Conference? I do not know if he thought, when I asked about staff, that I was trying to waylay him. I wanted only to get information, and that is what these Debates are for. He says he set up this Advisory Council composed of chambers of commerce, trade unionists, local authorities and, I think, the Scottish Industrial Advisory Council. The first thing one wants to know is, How does this differ from the old Scottish Economic Committee? His description of the Commissioner for the Distressed Areas was a gauleiter distributing largesse. When Lord Nigel Douglas Hamilton was trying that job—an impossible job—he, at any rate, did have for the first time a staff of people who were making some surveys. There was Sir William Goodchild making recommendations on specific industries—hosiery, furniture, and a number of kindred industries and lighter industries which Scotland needed, but we have heard of this problem for years and years. How far can a committee, sitting in Edinburgh, of the most distinguished persons, especially a representative committee, which is more and more hopeless for executive action, influence new industries in Scotland? How far is the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove right that you cannot make this separation between Scotland and England? You can get more dictionaries, you can get Scottish printing, you can influence Government orders to some extent. Without a Secretary of State, and without a St. Andrew's House, South Wales for some reason has had a much better share recently of new developments. I welcome it, because it was similarly afflicted with a distressed area.

Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I ask him this question, which I think absolutely fundamental. I very much appreciate what he is trying to do, and I appreciated his speeches when he made them from this Box. I appreciate his idea of trying to get unemployment tackled not as a party question, but that is a negative approach. It is not unemployment, it is the employment side. It seems to me that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove struck a note which has got to be struck again and again. On employment there is still a more rugged individualism in Scotland and a less willingness to co-operate on a voluntary basis than there is South of the Tweed. The Secretary of State says things are better. There is less accommodation for factory space and more for production. I do not think he could possibly say that these 16 new industries and 11 transferences, or new extensions, could possibly be due—he did not in fact say so; he said in some measure—to a body which has been in existence for only three months. I should like to know whether those new industries are not due probably to some survival of private enterprise. I know one or two which happen to be. In my own constituency and in the West of Scotland there were about 7,500 people making carpets not long ago, and, as in the last war, they were turned over to blankets, and within a month or two they were told to shut up shop. They shut up shop, and there are comparatively few workers left in the industry. The workers have gone, and the machinery, except in one or two cases, has been standing idle—textile machinery. Is anything to be done about this? It has been perfectly well known. It was a Board of Trade decision to close these factories down, and Scotland is left with these highly individualised plants which have been in existence for 120 years and longer and which are the pride of enterprise in all that area, and there is no redress. This is a practical question.

I want to know whether we are to discuss the practical needs of Scotland and Scottish industries and whether we are to be presented by the Secretary of State with some new practical machinery. Is there a national resources bureau? No. In my county coal is moving steadily South. I have had a derelict coal area for eight years, and the only thing done by the distressed areas officers was to put a community centre it it, which has been empty for years. This business of the artificial attraction of industry to areas where the natural resources are used up and the geographical lay-out is against new industries is a complicated problem. I do not see anything very much in this new committee unless it is to have a first-class research staff and first-class officers. We expect enormous things from the Secretary of State after the speeches he has made and the books he has written, and I believe he wants to do it, but he has to be backed by a new generation with a new outlook if we are to see a revival of industry.

I should like to ask particularly about the smaller trading estates in Lanarkshire. Are they now abandoned? It is difficult to speak of these things for security reasons: the industries that I should like to speak of cannot be mentioned at all. When one talks about light industries, one has to go into details. I feel that the problem which faces Scotland to-day is one of industrial leadership as much as anything else. I heard the other day of a man who won the confidence of a particular industry in the South by a method which is somewhat novel, by laying before the workers a complete balance-sheet telling them precisely every detail of what is going on, and to some extent over the last 10 years he has made for himself the name of an industrial leader. Who are the industrial leaders of Scotland? There is one very distinguished Clydeside shipbuilder who is sometimes mentioned as an industrial leader but whose name for some reason stinks in the nostrils of many people who speak for the Labour party. That is all wrong. We are in a war and in the most difficult position we have ever known in our history, but still that mistrust exists. I would make a plea for something of the same spirit with which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove did. We have the greatest engineers in the world produced from Scotland. We have technical training of a very high order. In spite of the decline in the natural resources, there are still considerable resources. Yet we have this appalling problem, which, as the figures mentioned by the Secretary of State show, makes Scotland far worse than the worst places in England. Why is this?

I think that it is a human problem as much as anything else, and we must secure in Scotland some leadership from the Secretary of State, which is beginning to come now, and some leadership from the Government. The industrial leaders themselves must have a plan and a policy for the South-West of Scotland, and it must be somebody's business to look not only at Kilmarnock and Ayrshire, but at the whole great belt so as not to allow the steel industry to go South as we have seen it go in the last 20 years. How can we stand up against German and American competition unless we have combination in these big industries? It has been nobody's business until my right hon. Friend set up the new Council to see that these various enterprises were looked after as a whole. I hope that my right hon. Friend will press forward with his plans and not be too modest with them, will get some help from the Treasury, will employ a first-class research team and will see that we do not suffer from the slump and appalling misery that we had after the last war.

It was not difficult to identify the industrialist who was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). He, like other people, has said hard things about that gentleman. I have only the slightest acquaintance with him, but I would like to tell the Committee one good thing to my knowledge that this very able shipbuilder did in the most difficult times about 1931. The banana planters in Jamaica, who were being threatened with extinction by a great American combine, badly required ships but had not the capital to put down for them. Sir James Lithgow's firm built a fleet without a payment in advance or a payment during construction or on delivery. He took payment in bananas as each consignment was sold, 25 per cent. of each account sale rendered by a firm in Covent Garden. During construction he had to pay the wages of his workmen and for the materials required in building the ships. That is to his credit. I am not an expert in shipbuilding, but I feel that in discussing the well-being of Scotland and its future, shipbuilding has to be considered as one of our greatest industries. It must, of course, come to the front, and we must endeavour to avoid the situation that arose after the last war when the yards were reduced to meet the reduced trade then existing. I am convinced that had they not been reduced the probability is it would have become a struggle for survival, the greater number of firms would have gone to the wall and only the strongest and most favourably situated would have survived. I do not believe that that problem will arise to the same extent immediately after this war, but it will arise sooner or later. Only this House, in my opinion, can put British shipbuilding, which includes Scottish shipbuilding, into a position—

Will the hon. Member tell the Committee why he concludes that the problems affecting shipbuilding at the end of the last war will not arise to such a degree at the end of this?

I do not think that we can go far into that question. I do not see how what will happen after the war will come into the present Estimates except as a slight illustration.

The initiator of this Debate has laid down certain principles governing his attitude towards industry after the war.

I understand that, but my point is that we cannot lay down in strict detail various methods which can be used after the war. There may be generalisations, but the hon. Gentleman asked the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) to go into details, and that would go beyond the limited measure of the Debate.

I will give the hon. Member an explanation in private. In speaking of the future of Scotland, we must draw on the experience of the past. Legislation is barred from the Debate today, and it is extremely difficult to discuss this situation within narrow limits. A situation ensued in this country before the war when we had almost 3,000,000 unemployed, and Scotland had its share. Nothing that individuals or the Clyde shipbuilding or any other industry can do without the assistance of legislation in this House will enable industry to carry on. They can only carry on so long as they are profitable, not only to the owners and managers but to the men in the industry. No reduction of wages to meet reducing costs brought about by excessive home or international competition can be justified if they go below economic limits. I am convinced that wages in this country will need to follow the trend they have followed in America in the past 50 years of giving a greater reward and a fuller share of life to all in the industry. That cannot be brought about by any industry or group of workpeople unless they receive the assistance of this House. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a magnificent oration in Edinburgh the other day when he spoke of the road from Edinburgh to Chungking. He visualised a free people all over the world living in happiness, peace and prosperity. That is almost a continuation of the noble words of the Atlantic Charter, but unless there is an increase in the standard of living of all countries, particularly the Chungking end of the road, that noble vision will never come about.

My submission is that, however able they are, industrialists need to have the assistance of the House of Commons in entering into reciprocal trading agreements which will enable those who wish to share our markets to give us a share of their markets at prices which will enable goods to be sold, decent wages and conditions to be given and returns to be earned. I am convinced that Scotland has sold goods for generations much too cheaply. I am equally convinced that she has bought goods for generations much too cheaply, and I cannot see any good arising therefrom. The drift South about which we have heard and the falling-off of the textile industry and of other industries occurred only because they cannot be carried on profitably. No employer, any more than any workman, wants to close an industry down. They want to see it continued. I am perfectly certain that my own countrymen are sufficiently determined and would not give up the struggle easily, but they had to give up the struggle because of excessive competition, and because of the lack of protection, such as there was in America, or of trading agreements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), whom I was sorry to interrupt when he referred to a fleet of ships with which I was once associated, spoke of the fishing industry and particularly of the need for building trawlers on the Clyde. I attempted to point out that the Clyde has not built modern trawlers, that it has not built any trawlers at all for many years. The little yards in Buckie to-which he referred are not capable of building trawlers and the Aberdeen firms specialise in a very small type of craft. I reiterate that the 15 trawlers to which he referred are doing magnificent service for this country in fighting the enemy, and I think the Government of the day showed great wisdom in allowing Germany at that time—I should have been very much opposed to it earlier—to build for us craft which are fighting our battles today. I say that the British yards that had specialised in building trawlers were full up with orders at that time.

Is the hon. Member suggesting that there is no shipyard on the River Clyde which could build trawlers, which could not have built the whole 15? Do not be silly.

No. What I am suggesting is that the Clyde had laid itself out for highly specialised work in warships and big passenger liners and cargo vessels, and had left it to someone else to build the smaller craft.

Is it not the case that you went to Germany because you could get them cheaper?

No. The building of trawlers is highly specialised work. The Clyde could do it, of course, but they would need to set themselves out to do it. People like Smith's Dock and the Humber yards have for years been doing that class of work. I hope that one result of this Debate will be that the Clyde will build trawlers. There is a great opportunity. Our countrymen have been content to stand by for many years watching Humber trawlers go to the fishing grounds in the north, passing Duncansby Head. The Aberdeen fish trade left the distant fishing to German trawlers. They were not willing to build the bigger trawlers required for this trade or to man them.

In discussing Scotland, we have to realise that we Scots have been so busy exporting ourselves to try to help other countries to develop that we have neglected our own country. I feel that the Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, clearly gave evidence of his desire to lead Scotland on to a new road, but I could not help feeling that his remarks were much too narrow. He seemed to be dealing with the situation during the war, but the situation which has been built up in Scotland, where we have 1–20th of the people living in one-half of the country, is not of yesterday's creation and cannot be cured to-morrow. It can be cured only by people of creative ability and good will, and in that connection the remarks of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lt.-Col. Elliot) struck a very responsive note in my heart when he referred to our "thrawnness" and our lack of getting together. If men of all parties could get together, in conjunction with the Government, to embark upon a scheme, which would cost probably only the cost of one or two days of this war, to bring light industries to Scotland, reviving the older industries and bringing in new ones, a great deal could be accomplished. In agriculture, marketing is being done in very much the same fashion as in our great, great grandfathers' time. By cooperative marketing, by working on cattle and livestock, and using refrigeration to take gluts off the market and save the appalling losses, a great deal could be done. In the case of fruit and vegetables there is a great opportunity to level out prices, again using refrigeration in order to avoid those feast and famine conditions which do no good to anyone.

Coal mining I am hardly qualified to speak about, although I have the responsibility of temporarily representing a constituency in Scotland where coal mining is of the first importance, but in that industry there must be scope for increased sales in regard to fuel oil and producer gas. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr), in his very interesting speech, referred to the Forth and Clyde Canal, and no doubt that is a project well worthy of investigation. I believe it is almost in the nature of a hardy annual. I wonder whether the thoughts of hon. Members have ever been directed to the question of constructing a port in the extreme North of Scotland. Within the lifetime of almost every hon. Member present we have seen Southampton grow from a small port to its present position. In my view there is an opening in the North of Scotland for a port at which cargoes, or part cargoes, and passengers could be landed. Every day and night in peace time there is a procession of shipping round the North of Scotland, and it does seem to me that cargoes for Britain on ships which are on passage between America and the Baltic or Russia or Denmark might well be discharged at Loch Erribol, where the whole Fleet could be accommodated and transported thence to any destination in Scotland or England.

In this connection I would point out that Scotland is crying out for railway development. The railway north of Perth is mainly single line—in 1942. It seems incredible. That single line was there when I was born 50 years ago, and there has been no change. Surely the water power to which the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities referred and which is going to waste could be applied to the electrification of the railway, and a double line could be put in to the north-coast and the west-coast. Transportation is essential if we are to bring to that area more than one-twentieth of the population, which is the proportion at present living there. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give consideration to this question of a northern port while he is considering the question of the Central Canal.

In regard to the lighter industries I would remind hon. Members that the motoring industry, which started in Scotland, came to grief very early. That was a great pity, because we had the craftsmen and the market available. Our craftsmen went to America and played a big part in the development of the huge industry at Detroit, and possibly also at Birmingham. I appeal to Scottish industrialists, whom I would gladly help if possible, to start building motor vehicles on a mass production scale, about which we have done nothing so far. There must be an opportunity also to keep going the aeroplane engine industry which has been introduced. We are also well qualified to embark on the building of complete aeroplanes, and I do not see why Scotland should not do her share in the production of wireless sets, domestic refrigerators and many other like articles of a similar nature. We have suffered by sending too many of our people away. The opportunity is there, and I earnestly hope that we shall take it and make use of it and make this country of ours not only a good place to be born in but a good place to live in too.

Owing to the great amount of competition there is among those who wish to speak, I propose to confine my remarks within a very small ambit. I should like to reecho the words of the Secretary of State about how much we can achieve by cooperation. I most strongly believe that, while each party hold our main and principal views, there is a vast field in which co-operation would be helpful to the interests of Scotland. I suggest that we should look at these matters primarily from the point of view of our being Scotsmen. Trade in Scotland has been brought up, as a result of the indefatigable energy of our ancestors, and the hard work and hard headedness of Scotland which has produced a level of workmanship which is second to none in the whole world. Whether you look at printing in Edinburgh or shipbuilding in Glasgow, or any of the other trades, the name of the Scottish operative has become world famous because of the thoroughness and skill which is devoted to his task.

At the outset I would say that we have a prime duty to keep those old trades going through the war. I know that the Secretary of State realises that he has the duty, for example, with printing, to see that, in these difficult times, when paper is scarce and efforts have to be made to get men into trades which are more vital, he will realise that there is an extreme national necessity to keep a sufficient number of these people going so that at the end of the war there may be an opportunity for these workmen to develop again trades which have made Scotsmen famous throughout the world in the years before the war.

Now a word about deep-sea fishing. At the end of the last war the Germans developed a new type of fishing fleet which did much to drive our boats from the sea. That fleet had all the facilities for catching fish, but also facilities for curing. The fact that that industry had planned beforehand meant a tremendous loss to it at the end of the war. Let us face the fact that they were in front of us. They were more efficient. They took the market from us, and we never recovered our position. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will bear in mind that planning should be done now which will put our fishermen in the place in which they ought to be on the map and which will not only secure for us but will retain for us one of the most valuable nationally of our industries. I feel sure that this plea will have the support of every Member who represents a Scottish constituency.

In laying plans now for after the war, the right hon. Gentleman must be willing to think on bold lines. A good deal of the trouble which arose in Scotland in the years between the last war and this was because everything was concentrated upon the heavy industries. The result was that when a time of slump came no industry was in being which could employ a substantial number of our people and tide over the difficult time. When that dreadful period 1929–31 fell upon our country, no part of the country was more deeply affected than Scotland. We have all seen the tragic sight of workmen in our cities standing at the street corners with nothing to do and with that air of hopelessness and dejection which falls upon people who would like to be busy but have nothing to do. I believe that careful thought and bold planning will prevent this happening in the future. If we are willing to co-operate in this matter we can prevent it. I would ask hon. Members on all sides of the Committee for support in pressing upon the Secretary of State the duty of trying to set up light industries. Let us not be content with what the Government can do for us, although, Heaven knows, everything should be done to see that we get a proper share to which we are entitled and which I believe we have not yet got. Scotland must never again find itself in the position of those fateful years which I have mentioned. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland has this matter fully before him.

I would add only one other point about general planning. I know that I shall get into trouble with the Chair if I speak about housing in general, but let me say a word about houses attached to factories. The planning of these must be upon an adequate scale, so as to enable workmen to work in the proper surroundings and to have adequate arrangements for working properly. I believe that that can be done. In the planning of the new Scotland, whatever it is, whether it be in regard to housing schemes or not, the Secretary of State should know that he has support from all sides of the House for the principle that the planning of Scotland should be done by Scotsmen. I know that a great amount of pressure is being brought to bear that we should plan as a whole country. By all means let us have any ideas that may be sound put before us, but I must emphasise the essential nature of the planning of the Scotland that is to be after the war being a matter solely for Scotsmen. It is encouraging to realise that in the Secretary of State we have a man who puts the interests Of Scotland first. Many of us have disagreed with him in politics, and many probably would do so again, but he will have my support as will any man who is Secretary of State for Scotland and who efficiently puts the interests of Scotland first.

In rising to address this Committee for the first time, I crave that indulgence which is always given in generous measure on certain occasions. I need hardly say that I speak with considerable diffidence, which is partly due to the modesty which is a pleasing and distinguishing feature of the Scottish race, and, secondly, because, as a professional man, I cannot claim that in a Debate upon a largely technical matter like this I can bring very many new points forward. I have, however, one solitary point which I shall bring before the Committee shortly. Before I do so, I am reminded of a letter which I recently received from a constituent and which drew to my mind the somewhat parlous state of a small but very honourable industry. The sound of the bagpipes is dear to the heart of every Scotsman. Unfortunately, there is a lack of the sense of the beautiful in the minds of some Englishmen, and certainly in the minds of the War Office and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Owing to their joint efforts, a small number of firms in Scotland who make our national musical instruments are finding times difficult. The Scottish Regiments are now allowed to have only one piper per company. The remainder of the pipes have to be bought at their own expense by officers or by well-wishers. They are subject to 66⅔per cent. Purchase Tax, and it seems altogether wrong that these instruments, which, after all, are destined to improve the martial spirit of the nation and which enter very little into everyday private buying and selling, should be so dealt with. As a start for improving small industry, I think that something might be done in that direction.

I said that I had one point to bring to the notice of the Committee, and I feel that, while I have not a great deal to say, the industry in question is important. I am sure it is one which must be very near and dear to the heart of the Government—I refer to the paper industry. Scotland, and particularly the East of Scotland, possesses a number of first-class esparto mills, and owing to the fact that the esparto upon which they run cannot now be obtained from abroad, they are compelled to look for other materials. Owing, however, to the expensive nature of the machinery, unless they get an adequate price from the Paper Control for their products, they produce at a loss. And I understand that that is, in fact, what is happening in many cases. There is one industry which, purely owing to a lack of co-ordination and effective treatment by the Government, is suffering unnecessary loss at present. As far as other points relating to that industry are concerned, I might mention that there has been a failure adequately to control the price of straw, which is a material now being used to take the place of esparto grass, and so long as that too is not properly controlled there will be dislocation in the paper trade.

There are two ways in which industry in Scotland may be improved. The first, certainly, is by attracting new industries to the country, but the second is by doing something to stimulate and improve existing trades. I have mentioned one instance, the paper trade, which employs many people all over the country, and which at the moment could be in a far better position than it is if the bureaucracy, which, I understand, looks after so many of our affairs to-day took a more intelligent interest and showed more business perception in conducting the management of those concerns. It seems to me that Scottish industry at the present moment is passing through a very difficult time. In this difficult time we are glad to know that Scotland has a Secretary of State whose mind is bent upon one object and one object only: that so long as he holds office he intends to do something for the good of his country. I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that the Members of this Committee, whatever may be their own views, are solidly behind him in that matter, but in the meantime tilings are going to be difficult, and the lot of the industrialist will not be a particularly happy one.

There is, however, another matter upon which I would like to say just one word. When we talk about industry we cannot merely include the man who runs the business or concern as a whole. The business includes the people who are employed in it, and in several of the speeches during this Debate reference has been made to the amount of unemployment and the state of stagnation which have arisen in various districts of the country. I remember having it brought very forcibly home to me some little time ago in a workman's compensation case. A man of 60, who was perfectly able-bodied, was perforce unemployed because the job in which he was engaged, namely, general labouring, was one in which, owing to the excessive competition, a man of his years could get nothing whatever to do. That sort of thing develops and develops as industry becomes depressed, and these people, who, if industry had been prosperous, might have looked to that industry to make some provision for them after many years of service, are left entirely dependent upon the State. In that connection it seems to me that while Scottish industry is being tackled, while you are talking about the location of new industries, while you are attempting to stop the drift South, the immediate needs of the old people who have been concerned in industry should be considered, and it would be my suggestion, irrespective of anything that has been done in industry, that something ought to be done in the way of stepping up the supplementary allowances for old age pensioners.

I am very pleased that I should be called immediately following the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Watt), so that I can offer him the felicitations that are usual on these occasions. I, with my two colleagues here, did my best to prevent his return to this House. We did him the honour, a thing which we do occasionally, of putting up a candidate of the Independent Labour party against him, and a man who has had that honour may well take a certain pride in being in, this House. I remember on one occasion that the late Lord Home, speaking from the place from which the hon. Member has just spoken, came into a Debate very late in the evening, after Scotsmen had been speaking steadily from two o'clock in the afternoon until nearly 11 o'clock at night; his first sentence was, "We Scots are a tongue-tied and laconic race." I think that that was probably the truest thing ever said, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh does not suffer from that taciturnity but is able to express himself clearly and adequately on these occasions. I hope that we shall hear him very frequently, but always well inside the limits which the Secretary of State for Scotland has proposed.

I cannot say that I am satisfied with this Debate, nor with the arrangements of the Secretary of State for tackling this problem. The central impetus for the future industrial development of Scotland is to come from five ex-Secretaries of State for Scotland and the present Secretary of State, who perhaps, by the time when this has to find practical application, may himself have joined the list of the "exes." Those Secretaries of State are the people who have held primary and central responsibility for the development of Scotland for the last 25 years, during which, as speaker after speaker has indicated, Scottish industry has been going steadily to the bad. Three of them, if my recollections are correct, are Liberals: Lord Alness, the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite to me, and the Secretary of State for Air; two of them, I think, are Conservatives, and one is a Socialist. Liberalism in Scotland may have some miraculous recovery in the future, but at the moment I think its representation in the House of Commons is two. Yet that is to be the dominating political theory which will operate in this Council, from which all else grows. Socialism, which seems to me to be the political theory which alone can have any reasonable application to the future problems of Scotland and the world, finds itself in a five to one minority in this Council which has to deal with post-war developments in Scotland. I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend, but with the dead weight of a five to one majority sitting on the top of his head, even he will have some difficulty in standing up erect and in putting before this country a policy which we are ready to apply.

After all, we have to decide what the political theories are to be on which we are to work in the post-war planning for Scotland. Is it to be capitalism of the old kind, as seems to be visualised by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson), who appears to have been so long away in England as to make his qualifications not as good as those of the rest of us? Is it to be by the old methods of private competitive capitalism or by large-scale industrialism, by trustification and combination, because a very large proportion of our troubles, in my view, arose out of trustification which, mark you, I do not think is going to vanish? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the calico-printing business. When I was a boy, in our little community of eight or nine thousand we had six calico-printing works. Every one of them vanished. The whole industry was concentrated down in Lancashire. If I looked at it purely as a detached economist without having any regard to the effect on the community in which I was living, Lancashire was the place for cotton to go. The big cotton port was there, and a big proportion of the other branches of the industry was there. Sheer economics would say that that was the place for cotton work to be done. It went there because the Calico Printers' Association believed that combination was the order of the day, and it was in that way that profits were to be made.

J. and P. Coats at the same time tumbled to the idea, but chose Paisley as the place where they would concentrate cotton thread work. Because of powerful trustification, they have been able to maintain that industry there, and, until they were overrun, dominated the cotton thread industry in some of the European countries as well. I noticed that at the annual meeting the Chairman complained bitterly about the Excess Profits Tax and the effect it was having on their enterprise. They had made only £3,000,000 profit last year, and instead of being able to pay 10 per cent. dividend to which shareholders had been accustomed for long periods of time, were now able to pay only 8½per cent. That is a case where trustification has reacted to the advantage of Scotland just as the calico-printing combine reacted to the disadvantage of Scotland.

We have to go further back than that. In recent years every one of the Scottish banks, quite voluntarily, not through any Government pressure, went into alliance with an English one.

Surely the hon. Member is not saying there is no Scottish bank which did not do as he suggested?

The hon. Member is stating in general what is correct, but I am sure he will be willing to be made aware that the Royal Bank of Scotland not only did not go South but actually attracted some other banks from the South into its orbit.

Would my statement in general be accepted, that the banks of Scotland, which previously had had complete independence and prided themselves on their independence, voluntarily allied themselves, with one exception, with associated banks in the South which were larger in power and influence and which could become a dominating influence over those Scottish banks? What is to be your banking policy? Has that been looked at yet? Are these five, six or seven Scottish banks, each with their own note issue, to continue as independent private profit-making enterprises after the war? I see dividends of 18, 19 and 20 per cent. being paid by the Scottish banks. They were paying them while Scotland was in misery. I should have thought that a horizontal combination of Scottish banks into one amalgamation would have been better than this vertical alliance with banks situated in the South. Similarly with the railway companies. Each of your Scottish railways has joined itself up with an English combine, and their central control, direction and policy, including development, such as the hon. Member for Streatham suggested, are decided in London.

Whether it was a mistake or not, these are fundamental problems which need to be examined. I do not believe that five ex-Secretaries can examine them in their spare time, nor do I believe that it is contemplated that the party system and all our party philosophies are gone for all time. Are you going to nationalise the banks and the railways? Are you going to control and direct industry? What part is the great Co-operative Movement to play? As soon as you decide these questions and come to the House of Commons with them, the whole thing will blow up in the air, not because people want to be argumentative, not because the Scots are "thrawn" and argumentative, but simply because the proposals do not meet with the acceptance of the political philosophy of any of us. The Secretary of State has to find some other machine. I think, for instance, that the whole of the Scottish Members of Parliament should be an advisory council, meeting together apart from meetings of this House, I do not know what meetings the Secretary of State has had with his ex-Secretaries. They cannot be very frequent. How much thought has the Minister of Health given to Scottish post-war affairs at the present moment? How much thought has the Secretary of State for Air been able to give, or the other right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has responsible military duties to perform? What time has he got to give to the post-war problems of Scotland?

I wish to keep within the time limits, although I think they are silly. One most pressing and urgent problem which will have to be faced is the rehousing of the people of Scotland. I see, Mr. Williams, you are getting ready to jump to your feet to tell me I cannot deal with housing on this Vote. I am not dealing with housing at all. I am dealing with the development of the building industry to meet post-war problems. Those Members who, like me, came to this House for the first time in 1922, with a special mandate about housing, have never yet had that mandate satisfied. Never yet have we been able to supply the wastage on houses in Scotland, let alone create development and meet the needs of the people. When we came to confront the problem, we found that there were not enough skilled artisans trained in the building trade. There is, in some branches of the trade, a very definite scarcity. Plasterers are a special example. Blocks of houses could have been completed so far as other branches of the building trade were concerned, but they were held up by the shortage of plasterers. There is a shortage of brick blocks, slates, all kinds of building materials. I do not know whether it is merely local or not, but I am told that already builders are finding that orders for Government building are slackening off. One contractor, not working on a large scale, who has been steadily employed for the last year or two, tells me that he has nothing on his books for six months ahead. I suggest that if the urgent Service needs have been met, the industry should not be allowed to become idle, but should be turned on to the most urgent housing needs.

More important still, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to try and arrange things so that Scotland shall have plans ready, so that when war industry is slackening down a large proportion of the available labour and material shall be switched over to the building of houses. Here is a relatively small example of what takes place. My hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has had brought to his notice a case in his constituency, and I have had similar cases in mine, where Service organisations, or near-Service organisation like N.A.A.F.I., walk into our areas and take possession of premises for storage purposes, displacing small productive businesses. They only want storage space, and to get that in Glasgow they turn out people who are actually producing. A box maker in the Camlachie area, making boxes for munitions, is turned out, and his skilled workers are put on the street, in order that N.A.A.F.I. may keep their cigarettes and chocolates on his premises. That does not seem to me a good thing for the future of Scottish industry; and apparently there is no appeal from that sort of thing.

I appreciated very much the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr). It was an academic speech. I was particularly gratified to learn, for the first time, that the great brainwave that brought about the industrial revolution came to the inventor when he was walking on Glasgow Green, which is entirely within my constituency. The Scottish academics of the present time will have to think in terms of the future, and present new ideas that will help development in Scotland. A Scottish ship canal, at a time when we are going into the air for transport, seems to me a most rubbishy proposal: one of those proposals which only appeal because they give people work. If mere is any more disagreeable work than digging a canal, I do not know of it. The only advantage of the scheme is that it would give people plenty of arduous, disagreeable, dirty work. The problem is not to find people work, but to meet the needs of a well-organised community. The work is only incidental. You set out to find wealth, and the work is necessary in order to find it. Our friend John Wheatley used to tell of two men in his constituency watching one of those big excavators tearing up the ground for the Glasgow-Edinburgh road, which was one of our schemes. One said to the other, "If they were working with picks and shovels they could employ 1,000 men, Joe"; and Joe said, "Aye, if they were working with teaspoons they could employ 1,000,000 men." I hope that the future that the world has to look forward to is not going to be one of arduous toil, and of finding jobs to keep people out of mischief; but one of finding homes for people, of finding food and clothing for people, and of finding recreation and enjoyment for people. I hope that our Government and our educational systems will direct themselves to these needs, the work coming in as incidental.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) for waking up this Debate. I was beginning to feel that it lacked reality. I hope that those of us who follow him will be able to keep up his standard. The Debate so far had been rather like the nicely-coloured pictures on the outside of the seed packets. I want to come down to brass tacks. What the vast majority of our Scottish people, irrespective of party, are interested in is the question of what sort of a show we are going to make of Scotland after the war. Almost everybody is saying that we are not going back to the status quo ante bellum, to that ter- rifically high figure of unemployment, to constant industrial troubles, strikes and unrest, and bad relationships between employer and employed. I hope we are going to stop the drift to the South, and the tendency of industry to go in for large combines and of business concerns to develop in the hands of multiple firms. That tendency has gone too far. It has done some good, but it has also done some evil. We have to get back to what is far more suitable to Scottish characteristics, allow the small trader to develop, and not let him be crushed down by the big fellow as he was steadily becoming crushed before the war.

A very few minutes is given in which to develop an enormous subject. I have touched briefly upon the conditions existing before the war. We must not go back to these conditions. What are the conditions during the war? We have seen the steady growth of the bureaucratisation of our industries. To a very large extent we have handed over our larger industries to the Civil Service activities of Government, and our whole Scottish industry has suffered in consequence. After the war we must see that the dead hand of State control is removed as far as possible and that our industry is given freedom of initiative and enterprise once again. I have a strong conviction that this system of the bureaucratic control of industry must inevitably mean more waste and inefficiency, and, generally speaking, is unsatisfactory to those concerned. The war has also seen a great many contracts go to English firms which should have gone to Scottish firms in Scotland. There are many instances, and many more could be brought, of which nearly everybody here knows, where the great English firm is given contracts in Scotland which the smaller Scottish firms should have had. What is even worse is that many small contractors have not got the jobs which they ought to have got from the big contractor, who, because of his English interests and connections, has given them, perhaps inevitably, to his friends. That comes from the London and Whitehall bureaucratic control of Scottish industry from which we are suffering at the present time.

I hope that we shall not go back to the status quo ante bellum and that we shall be freed from the shackles of bureaucratic control from Whitehall of our industries in Scotland. As soon as the war is over, and during the war, we should do our best to free it as much as we are allowed to do, but I am much more interested in the future. For the moment it is difficult for anybody in Parliament to make the slightest effect on the great powers of the Executive. After the war I hope that the Executive will to some extent be guided, and even controlled, by this representative Assembly. We want to make up our minds after the war whether we intend our Scottish industry to develop under bureaucratic control, going back to the old laisser faire idea, or whether we are going, as I believe we must, if we are to get any real contentment, happiness, economic security and prosperity, to democratise our industries in Scotland. We have to make them more truly democratic. We have to give all concerned in industry a full share in the development of industry. I believe in co-partnership and profit-sharing and in making every person engaged in industry regard it as his own. They must regard themselves as part of it and say "we" and "us," and not have the one at the top saying "I" or a few boards of directors saying "we." That is the way to develop a true esprit de corps without which those engaged in industry will never feel content or be given full economic security.

I believe intensely that we have to democratise our industry more. We have to give the workpeople—and by the workpeople in industry I do not just mean the labouring people but all those who are engaged in it, the clerical staffs, the managerial sections, the foremen and all concerned—the idea that it is their industry, so that their esprit de corps may be increased. There must be works councils, staff committees. All that has to come; it must not be repressed, but encouraged. But I am convinced that it will never be a success unless we have proper representation, because the more democratic types are likely to get elected, the more the councils must have the confidence of the management. I am convinced that the working people will see that they elect the right type of people, the successful people who will help rather than hinder the management of their own concern and will use practical suggestions for its benefit and for their own.

The whole question of the export trade after the war is likely to be an exceedingly difficult one, especially in so far as Scotland is concerned. Therefore, we must do everything we can, in thinking out the development of our industries in Scotland, to develop our own trade, and we may have to extend the practice of subsidising our export trade. I want to see the purchasing power of the Scottish people increased after the war. If we can increase purchasing power, we can increase our comparative prosperity. I want to see high wage rates, a generous pension scale, and a genuine agricultural policy on a sound economic basis. [ Interruption .] I realise that there are some hon. Members opposite who are perhaps rather surprised that a Member of my party can hold views of this nature, but I believe that we must go forward. I believe firmly that after the war we shall have to set up a National Wages Board in order to see that adequate minimum wages are given, and, if possible, to equalise the various rates of wages as between the various industries in Scotland. Inequality is unnecessary. It has grown up over the years. We shall never get real satisfaction in Scotland until we have a sense of equality.

What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by wages? Does he mean the wages of the workers or of the managers? Ought they to be equalised?

The weekly wage-earners are getting far too great a differential division in their earnings. I believe in a greater distribution of wealth and far more equality both in wealth and status. We ought to establish a National Welfare Board in Scotland for industry, so that all the manifold questions in connection with welfare could be under a centralised authority or direction. To leave welfare to individual firms is a great mistake. It should be done under centralised direction and, if possible, from the Scottish Office. I hope that we shall get down to brass tacks and not just talk in the air and that we shall realise that the best world of which we can think is to try and make a happy and prosperous Scotland. We shall not do it if we keep to the status quo or shackle ourselves with bureaucratic control from Whitehall. Only in a spirit of good will and co-operation can we make a new order in Scotland with our feet on the ground and our heads in the air.

I am not going to criticise the Secretary of State for Scotland on his speech, though, frankly, it did not come up to the standard that I had expected. No doubt in those things in which we chiefly see the results of his work, such as education policy, questions of nutrition and other relative subjects, he will make a success of the Scottish Office. When he departs from it, which I hope will not be for many a long day, he will be able to look back upon his term of office with the same satisfaction with which we have all seen him assume it. There are a number of points on which he touched, no doubt necessarily lightly to-day, and in the short time which I hope to occupy I would like to bring one or two other points to his notice. It is axiomatic that you cannot separate all the questions under consideration to-day for the preservation of Scottish industry from the questions of human welfare associated with them, such as housing and health and questions of security, relating, in turn, to old age pensions, unemployment, health insurance, and other questions, such as vocational training, in which my right hon. Friend is particularly interested. I am sure his efforts will meet with support from all sides of the Committee, whatever criticisms may be made in detail. These questions are inseparable from any consideration of post-war, or even wartime, planning.

Almost without exception to-day we have been compelled by the impressions made upon us by conditions which existed at that time to go back to pre-war simply to emphasise that all of us felt that Scotland had been shockingly neglected even compared with the depressed areas in England. Scottish depression was not the same thing as that which existed in the Special Areas of England. It was a long history of depression in agriculture and industry. Perhaps longest of all, and deepest because it was insidious and less immediately striking was the depression which affected the Islands and Highlands of Scotland. The drift south was certainly not confined to Scotland. It did occur in other areas. I think the Committee today is aware of the social consciousness which the public are developing in regard to the questions of the control of the location of industry, the distribution of population and all the kindred questions, psychological and otherwise, with regard to the mobility of labour. We have most definitely come to the conclusion that planning is absolutely necessary and is not the prerogative and special theory of any one political party. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) that there appears to be a great change of heart among many who not so long ago opposed us as abstract theorists and who to-day have given whole-hearted co-operation and are willing to go much further in years to come. When the right hon. Gentleman quoted figures of 23 to 27 per cent. unemployment, may I remind him that in one small part of the country which is of importance to me we actually reached over 70 per cent. of registered unemployed over parts of the two years 1937–38? That was in the Western Islands of Scotland.

In the measure that supplies to this country from the West and elsewhere are interrupted by the enemy and in the measure that England itself may be affected by possible invasion, with the result that a certain amount of disorganisation is inevitable, so must the contribution of Scotland increase. If Scottish industries were disorganised by invasion, you could turn to England, with the preparations which have been made and with the industrial resources which have not yet been completely tapped, and expect that they would be able to make up to some extent for loss of capacity from any disorganisation in Scotland; but I much doubt whether the preparations in Scotland are very far ahead of policy in the event of shipbuilding and industrial belts in England becoming disorganised. We can all get very easily any number of figures and examples, personally and indirectly, of these very small seasonal industries in Scotland, such as the fruit and other canning industry factories, which are producing much less than they used to do and are still suffering from slack time and under-production. Many have suggested that they should be asked to do something or should be taken over, not for storage, but for productiveness for the war effort.

As regards contracts, there is still a feeling that some of the larger English firms have come to Scotland with perhaps two-typist offices in Glasgow, Hillingdon or Edinburgh and have received, in competition with Scottish firms, awards of contracts which they have had to sub- contract out to a great degree to Scottish firms. I can give one example of a firm of carpentry contractors which was awarded a large airfield contract with which they were completely incompetent to deal and which finally resulted in such chaos, delay and excess of expenditure over the original estimate that part of the contract, after two years of wasted time, had to be taken away from them and awarded to another firm. These are not charges in the air; they are well known to many Members of this House. An attempt was made by the firm to say that they were not able to get the labour suitable and that it was not working in accordance with requirements. Well, that is the first complaint from any firm or local authority regarding the workpeople in that area. The workers there were efficient, but the new factor which came in was the incompetence of that firm to deal with the job in hand. In passing, I would like to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spring-burn (Mrs. Hardie) and others who have said they are not yet satisfied that the untrained proposed trainee labour, women and girls, in the far North, who are being sent to England, are being properly handled. Many coming from places like the Western Isles and the far North of Scotland would not object in the least to going to Glasgow and other areas, where they would be much happier and where the domestic and psychological upheaval would be partly avoided.

Surely you would not want girls to come to Glasgow while sending Glasgow girls out of the city?

No, but the point is that if this labour is required further South, every effort should be made to find girls as near their home area as possible. We shall be up against all sorts of questions if we do not take this matter into consideration at an early date. When the war is over and Scottish war supply industries collapse, so far as the war is concerned, we shall have the problem of the drift of these girls—this time back North—over again, perhaps to no jobs. I want to make one special appeal to my right hon. Friend, although I know he has many things on his mind. I want him, if he can, to influence his colleagues and the Secretaries of State of the past who are planning the future and see whether the Government will set up a Scottish Department of Planning definitely responsible in all fields of planning for post-war to him and to the House of Commons. That is a serious suggestion. In England, planning is well ahead and the best brains have concentrated on it; but in Scotland there is a number of committees concerned with it, and in passing, I would like to say that many of us are not satisfied with the personnel of some of the committees. The committees overlap, and there are on them the same old group of people with their satellites. There are on them the proprietors of small county newspapers, decadent squires from the Highlands, and so on. Those people have not planned in the past and they will not plan the future of Scotland; they are neither capable nor anxious to do it. I would like to have an assurance that Scottish labour is being consulted thoroughly and continuously through the Scottish T.U.C. I am aware that they have representatives on certain committees, but I would like to have an assurance from the Secretary of State that they are fully consulted.

I want now to deal with matters which particularly affect the constituency that I represent. I know that the Secretary of State supports us in resisting any attempt to push what he called a gauleiter on to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland in the form of a Commissioner for the North and North-West. The man is not born who could plan for the whole of the Highlands and Western Isles. It is a national job, and we have no wish to shirk it by putting it on to somebody else who is not capable of dealing with it. To attempt to put that sort of job even on to a group of men, with a Commissioner at their head, and an advisory council, is not the right method of approach. We should strengthen the hands of the local authorities and of the Secretary of State in the Government in planning reconstruction and effecting it.

One of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McKinlay), has already referred to a matter which we regard as being potentially a very important one for the North of Scotland in areas which may attract the enemy, namely, the depreciation of rateable values as a result of enemy action. My hon. Friend has the backing of many of us and of some authorities in the North of Scotland in connection with that matter. I welcome the Secretary of State's conversion to the flat-rate principle, to which I have been converted for some years, and I wish him all success in extending it. With regard to the Islands, I wish that the Secretary of State would act with vigour to protect the Harris tweed industry in the Hebrides. The main problem at the moment is that of export policy, and we would welcome a clear statement. I want him also to try to clarify the plans to put the fishing industry on a permanent economic basis, and also to look into the question of transport, in connection with which I would emphasise the need for reducing the excessive freight charges. I conclude by congratulating the Secretary of State on many things which he did not say in his speech, but which I personally know he strongly feels about, and also on the enthusiasm with which he has approached his main task. I wish him good fortune in his work, in which we do all support him and in which he has all our sympathy and good will.

As I happen to be the Senior Member for the City of Edinburgh, I feel I must congratulate the junior Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Watt), who has made such an excellent maiden speech. Considering the ease, the charm and the good nature with which he did it, he might have been addressing the Judges in the High Court, instead of this honourable assembly. I rise to make what I hope will be the shortest and most practical speech in the Debate. I intend to make one suggestion and stick to it, and not to ramble over ever so much ground without making any suggestions of any kind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who received such a remarkable reception in Edinburgh last Friday, asked, in his speech, for suggestions. I want to make the following suggestion. These Councils of State, consisting of great names and great men, when you get down to brass tacks, do not get at matters, and have not the knowledge to get at matters, as quickly as ordinary people in more humble circumstances.

Hon. Members have been talking about new industries. This is a practical matter. The only new industry which has been established in Scotland since the last war was established by three Members of the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) is one of them. I refer to the artificial silk industry. May I tell the Committee in a few sentences what happened? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Budget in which he imposed certain duties on silk, within three days I was rung up in the City of London and asked whether I could go to see five gentlemen from Switzerland who wanted to ask my opinion. I went to the office in question within a quarter of an hour. I found there the proprietor of a very great firm in Zurich, with his general manager, his accountant, the man who looked after his looms, and somebody else. The proprietor of that firm said to me, "We have come over to establish a new industry in England, and we want permission to get 17 aliens—our own countrymen—admitted to England, because they are experts and the business cannot be started without them. Can you help us? "In a moment it came to my mind that if I had anything to do with that new industry, it would not go to England. I said, Oh, yes." He asked, "Can you write a letter?" I said, "It is no use writing letters in politics'." One must get face to face with a man if one wants to get a matter through, whether it be with Lord Privy Seals, Prime Ministers, or anybody else. So we took a taxi and were at the Ministry of Labour within 10 minutes. The late Sir Arthur Steel Maitland was there, and he said, "Seventeen aliens—why, do you know that means a Cabinet council, and what will the Labour people say?"

This gentleman came over to establish a new artificial silk industry. Immediately my thoughts reverted to the linen trade in Dunfermline. I knew from my own knowledge that there were four or five beautiful factories there built of stone standing empty. They cost between £30,000 and £50,000 each. I thought of the young women in Dunfermline—highly-educated, nice, keen, anxious persons who were ready to do their duty. I said to Sir Arthur, "You and I have been talking on platforms for the last 10 years about tariff reform. Well, here it is." I told him that these people were coming over to this country to establish a new industry and that the Labour party would raise no objection if it could be proved necessary that these expert aliens should be brought to this country. He asked me to give him until 3 o'clock in the afternoon to consider the matter and that he would give me his reply at Question time in the House. I told my Zurich friend to come down to the House with me.

By mere chance I ran into Mr. William Adamson—and here may I take this opportunity of remembering the kindness of that great Scotsman. I told him that we wanted this new industry in Dunfermline and his reply was "Yes, we should like it there." I asked whether he objected to 17 aliens being brought into the country and he said, "No." I also saw my hon. Friend who represents Dunfermline and who I am happy to say is still with us. My Zurich friend had however made up his mind. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) had been talking about the calico printing trade in Manchester, and this man had in his hands a list of five mills in Manchester. I said, "What, go to a dirty smoky town when you can come to a fine open city which is as beautiful as Zurich? It has not a lake like Zurich but there is the Firth in the distance."

Afterwards we had a consultation, and as the result of three hours' discussion, the Zurich man went to Manchester, Mr. Adamson went to Dunfermline and I went to Edinburgh. We sent him maps and plans and a telegram, asked him to come to Edinburgh that night and that we would see him at Dunfermline the next day. On Saturday morning we saw him at Dunfermline and on Monday a new silk industry was founded in Scotland. That industry has been thriving ever since.

What is the moral? The moral is that these high authorities and these councils will not get down to brass tacks. What we have to do is to give local authorities and town councils an inspiration to look after industry in their own districts and to take whatever means they may think necessary to bring new industries to their localities. There ought to be a man in every industrial centre in Scotland, not in Edinburgh in the famous St. Andrews House but in the office of the local authority with power if necessary to go to Zurich or to any of the great manufacturing districts on the continent and to say "If you want to come over to this country we can tell you exactly what you should do." We should not wait for them to come here; we should go to them. One word sums up the whole position—production. Buying and selling are nothing. Production gives work and wages by producing from 20 per cent. of raw material 80 per cent. more work and wages. Production is the key to vitality. I would impress on my right hon. Friend who is doing so well that he should encourage local authorities to do everything they can to bring new industries to their own localities and so keep alive their own districts and Scotland also.

I am glad that the Chief Whip is in the Chamber, because I want to tell him how much I regret that this Debate, one of the two Debates which are allowed for Scottish business, has not been exempted from the Standing Order governing the Sittings of the House. I should have thought that, for a wide subject like this, it would have been obvious commonsense to suspend the Standing Order and allow Scottish Members fuller opportunities of speaking on a matter of such urgency. It is not at all dignified, nor is it reassuring to hear the Secretary of State having to rattle through his speech in 30 minutes like a man selling patent medicines, nor is it very profitable to listen to a man of the status of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) when he has to content himself with 15 minutes.

A great many matters have been thrown open to discussion in this Debate, and I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Watt) on his forthright speech and his close application to the subject and for his attitude toward argument. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove seemed to think that argument in Scotland was as great a vice as whisky. I think that the Committee should congratulate the right hon. and gallant Member on the excellent use he has made of his powers of argument, particularly on the Brains Trust. I congratulate him on being able, with true Scottish acumen, to capitalise them. But our argument is with the Secretary of State. I should be the last person to deny how much Scotland owes to his efforts. What are the industrial aims which the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated? They seem to me to fall quite sharply into three main divisions. He said that one of our aims must be to see that Scotland makes its maximum contribution to the economic arm of the war. Many of us are dissatisfied on this topic. I know that there are in places in Scotland factories being used as storage while in the same area there is adequate labour, particularly female labour, and adequate fuel and power and public services, and in the meantime we have this distressing development, rather difficult to understand, that our women are being exported South where there are hostels. In some places such amenities as entertainment halls have been provided and are still unoccupied.

We must all admit that the Secretary of State has done a great deal to ensure that Scottish resources are more fully utilised immediately in the prosecution of the war. He attempted to define his industrial aims. He said that after the last war Scotland lost a disproportionate amount of industry and retained a disproportionate number of unemployed. To try to avoid a similar state he is pursuing a difficult policy of what we might call balancing Scottish industry. I need not hammer the point. It is quite plain and acceptable. I think it a very great pity indeed that the Barlow Report, which had most valuable and well-ordered conclusions and abundance of evidence on the subject, has been so quickly buried. If my right hon. Friend succeeds in some measure in balancing by his telephone books, his development of printing and all types of ancillary industry, he will be doing Scotland a very great service, and incidentally an equal service to the United Kingdom, but I do not think he really believes he can attract these new ancillary industries to Scotland merely by his powers of persuasion. The hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) told us he wanted to have demonstrated that freedom of initiative which was formerly a characteristic of Scottish industry. If we are to have freedom and initiative, we can be certain that we are not going to get back these ancillary industries. I do not think it possible that we can bring them back for economic reasons alone, but we know the only conditions on which they can be brought back. Here is displayed one of the reasons why the Secretary of State stopped talking when he did.

It is plain that the industrial and commercial problems of Scotland cannot be separated from those of the United Kingdom. It is plain that, if you are to locate industry by licence, you cannot do it by a speech or a wave of the wand. You are not going to persuade one man to undertake light engineering in Dundee when his competitor is permitted to do the same work in Birmingham, unless you can guarantee him something approximating to equal rent, to equal rating and to the "postal charges" kind of freightage to which the right hon. Gentleman referred a fortnight ago. If we are to tackle the problem in a systematic fashion, it is clear that the Secretary of State must be able to tell us what is the attitude of the Government towards the whole question of post-war location of industry. It will involve a frank economic statement which could not normally be associated with the ordinary commercial procedure of this country, or indeed with the majority party within the Government, but we should be stupid if we did not believe that that majority party has shown itself capable of adapting and accommodating its programme to our actual problems, and I ask the Secretary of State to tell us whether we have any right to expect that in the future the Government will declare the precise principles—I do not ask for the detailed application—upon which it is going to develop post-war location of industry.

Even if we achieve that kind of balance, particularly in the area from which most Members on this side come, we shall be 70 or 80 per cent. dependent upon heavy industry. The Secretary of State said nothing about this, and again I think I can sympathise with his position. We are wasting our time, we are shadow-boxing, unless we know what is to be the actual attitude of the Government at the end of the war towards the heavy industries. I have always been behind the right hon. Gentleman when he wants to sing "Scots wha' hae." There is no part of the country which has been so badly treated as Scotland, mainly because we have been the stepbairn of Montague Norman's bride for 30 years, but if the Secretary of State or any other Member of the Committee is going to sing "Scots wha' hae" he will have to learn to sing it to the tune of the Atlantic Charter.

Perhaps I can put it this way. In the West of Scotland our three basic industries must be coal, steel, shipping and the associated engineering processes. No matter how you locate controlled industry, you cannot move your coal-fields nor your rivers. During this emergency we are seeing certain developments in these heavy industries which mean our salvation just now but will unless agreement is reached internationally, mean our damnation. One hon. Member referred to the steel competition that we have encountered in Sheffield. Look at the steel development that is taking place in our own Dominions. For 1938 the capacity of our Dominions was 3,500,000 tons. Last year it was 6,000,000 tons and this year it will have more than doubled the 1938 figure, which is grand and essential if we are going to win the war. Similarly the development of shipbuilding in America is staggering all of us and, again, were it not for that, no one could foresee a successful conclusion to this war.

I am sure the Committee is already familiar with the figures of American shipbuilding capacity. I was having lunch on Saturday with one of our shipbuilding authorities, and he told me that by the month of June one firm will be putting into the Pacific waters a 12,000-ton tanker hull every four days. We have seen in this country one remarkable ship which is the ocean V type of freighter, which from keel block to trial trip occupied four and a half months. That is magnificent, and it is our salvation. It is a grand ship. I am not going to defend the shipbuilding industry in this country standing still. I believe a similar type of vessel could be produced in seven months, not on the Clyde unfortunately, but on the Forth.

I hope the hon. Member will remember that the Americans are building ships at the moment almost without any stomach in them at all.

I have seen details of one of the ocean V ships, and I tell my hon. Friend, whose trade this is, that that type of freighter for capacity, speed and living accommodation, will bear comparison with any similar type of freighter produced in this country. I am not indicting the shipbuilding capacity of Scotland. Our people are making strides, but they cannot bring the industry to a standstill in order to introduce wholesale changes for mass production. It is the essence of our safety that they should keep on making such improvements as they can while they continue the process of producing as fast as possible.

Will the Scottish Secretary tell us whether the co-operators in the Dominions and the United States are to be our co-operators at the end of the war or once more our competitors? You cannot tell us anything about the industrial prospects in Scotland until you tell us something about our world market. You cannot tell us anything about our output until you tell us where and how it is to be funded. Mr. Philip Runciman, speaking of this problem a month ago, said something very odd when he stated that we should not bother our heads with what other countries are doing or might do. That cannot be the case. I appreciate the difficulties of the Secretary of State, but I repeat that we will be digging sand, unless he is honest enough to tell us when the Government are prepared to start negotiations with the Government of the United States and with the U.S.S.R.

Perhaps I might interpolate that I remember gladly how one of the big men in this country and this House in 1929–31 worked for a commercial accommodation with Russia. I refer to the Scottish Secretary, who as Lord Privy Seal did a very grand job. He should start now where he left off. We have had one advancement in our position with the definition of the Mutual Aid Agreement with the Government of America. We have to go further and have a definition of our international economic commitments at the end of the war. Otherwise all this talk is meaningless. There is no possibility of moving forward and planning Scottish resources until that is done.

I count myself fortunate in being able to catch the Chairman's eye in this Debate, which is of great interest to Scotsmen. I hope to deal with one or two aspects of the development of industry in Scotland, and more especially of the development of industry in that great city of which I am a native and for a division of which I am proud to sit. As the Secretary of State said, since the last war there has been a growing feeling among the people of Scotland, and more especially among those who stayed in Scotland and did not seek our fortunes and futures elsewhere, that the development of our economic and industrial life has been sadly neglected. This feeling was accentuated by the great depression of 10 or 12 years ago, which fell with particular emphasis on our heavy industries such as shipbuilding and the kindred engineering trades, with the result that a large part of our country became a depressed area. I agree that to-day the situation has changed very much for the better and that many of our industries are again working at full pressure. Nevertheless, in quite a number of parts of Scotland there is a surplus labour force, and the direction South of the men and women in that surplus labour force has given rise to considerable concern and dissatisfaction throughout the length and breadth of the land. I am glad to hear from the Secretary of State that the figures show some sign of reduction, but I say as a Scotsman that we want to stop this process.

We appreciate that the war effort has made inevitable the concentration of a large number of persons in certain parts of the country and that, unhappily, owing to what I consider to be faulty strategic planning, the munition works are at places very remote from some of the large reservoirs of population. Therefore, although we have bowed with reluctance to this Southward drift of our men and women, we have done so only as an emergency measure, and we demand of the Government that, as far as possible, they may put an end to the policy of shifting the population from one end of the country to the other instead of bringing the industries to where the people are. I am glad to hear the Secretary of State say that preliminary efforts have been made in that direction recently.

We Scotsmen may differ and do differ fairly violently in our own domestic political affiliations, but first and foremost we are united as Scotsmen, and we are determined that in the days to come industry and the economic life of Scotland must receive a square deal. Before dealing with the position in Edinburgh, may I pay a tribute to the Secretary of State for the effective preliminary step he has taken in regard to the furthering of Scottish industry? We have the Council of former Secretaries of State, the hydroelectric committee and the Scottish Council under my old friend and former municipal colleague the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and I think that that body will prove to be a most forceful and active organisation. I have a suggestion to make which I think may be worthy of some study. Has the Secretary of State thought of the position of Northern Ireland, where there is a Minister of Commerce, who has proved most useful in attracting industries to that part of the British Isles? I suggest that we could do with another Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office to deal with commercial and industrial questions, just as we have one to deal with agricultural and fishery problems. I throw that out as a suggestion worthy of examination.

I turn to the position of my own City of Edinburgh. Edinburgh does not and probably never will compare as an industrial city with Glasgow or the great cities of the Midlands. Indeed, I do not think it would be in our tradition or that the population would wish that we should become such a large industrial city. But that is not to say that we do not desire to have in our locality many more industries of a light nature both now and after peace has been restored. To the uninitiated, Edinburgh may seem to be a city give over to seats of learning and to such austere professions as the law, banking and insurance, with a background of purely local industries providing food both for the body and the mind in the shape of beer, biscuits and books. That is only one part of the picture. There are in Edinburgh—and by Edinburgh I mean the area surrounding the city—a number of engineering and building works admittedly only of moderate size compared with the great works in the South and the West, but nevertheless establishments which are capable of turning out products of very high quality both for civilian and for Service use. Again, we have the important rubber industry, recently threatened with extinction, but now happily given a reprieve, and I must thank my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Supply and the Minister of Labour for their great assistance and their sympathetic response to my representations on the subject of that industry. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly still room for expansion and development of other and lighter industries in Edinburgh, both as a matter of long-term peace policy and as a more immediate measure in connection with the war production programme.

I should like to give the Secretary of State and those who are charged with the promotion of industry a number of solid reasons why Edinburgh provides a good sphere for the further development of certain classes of industry. We have in the city a large and thriving youthful labour force which cannot be utilised in the existing industries in the city, nor yet be taken into the various learned professions upon which much of the life of the capital depends, and I say that that labour force is second to none in the United Kingdom for quality, having, as it has, that sound educational background which is and has been the hallmark of Edinburgh citizens for many generations past. Given an opportunity, this labour force could rejuvenate and expand our local industries. Again, we have enjoyed in Edinburgh for many years past a sound civic administration. Our bonds are honoured in the highest banking and financial quarters, our credit stands high in every money market and our rates are low and steady. Therefore, there is no reason why either private individuals or the State should not develop or establish industries in our midst with any fear of excessive overhead charges in the way of local rates and taxes. Water supply is very necessary for industrial development, and we have an excellent water supply, and behind it large and untapped reserves.

As regards public utility services, I can claim that they are well equipped and well managed, and that in particular the gas undertaking is generally recognised as being about the most progressive in the whole of the United Kingdom. Coal, another important and necessary adjunct to any form of industrial development, is readily accessible in the Lothians coalfields and in the admirable coalfields of Fife, providing ample fuel of first-class quality both for industrial and domestic use. As regards transport, we are connected with other areas by road and rail, and as a matter of interest before the war broke out there were in hand certain far-reaching proposals for the improvement of the local road system, plans of which have been drawn up and could be put into force after the war. Finally, at our Northern gate- way lies the ancient and historic port of Leith, providing adequate berthing and docking facilities for vessels of medium size and giving ready access to and from Edinburgh and the Lothians for seaborne trade.

These are, I submit, a number of sound reasons why Edinburgh should provide a fruitful field for the development of new industries and for the expansion of the existing industries in that part of Scotland, but we should not wish this development to take place in the haphazard manner of so much of the industrial development in the middle years of the last century, and we recognise that planning and forethought are necessary. At the moment, however, we are in the midst of a life-and-death struggle, and we are concerned to do what we can do within our boundaries to produce those engines of destruction with which to accomplish the downfall of Hitler and his regime, and it is true that the people of Edinburgh do feel some sense of frustration in that they have not to hand those factories and workshops in which they can feel that they are pulling their weight in this great struggle. For that reason we ask the Government to help us as far as possible by bringing essential war industries somewhere near our capital, so that we will feel that we are doing our bit in this struggle.

One further point. During the past few years I have occasionally read and heard irresponsible criticisms by a certain number of ill-informed persons to the effect that the people of Edinburgh have not shown sufficient interest in the progress of the war. That is a slander on the capital of Scotland and its people which I and every other citizen of Edinbugh greatly resent. We say, "Give us the means to help, and we will do the job and will do it well." But in these days of controls and bureaucracy we are not free agents. Without factories, without machine equipment, without tools, what can we do? Therefore I say that it is up to the Government and the great Supply Departments to assist us so that we may all pull our full weight in that great city. To any who would dare to cast any aspersion against Edinburgh and her people, I would say that in the Warships Week campaign Edinburgh collected the highest total outside the City of London, and that we were the first community in the British Isles to stage an Allies' Week, which has just finished and was a triumphant success, and that our youth of both sexes are serving in every branch of the Forces at home and abroad. Therefore, I say, let no one henceforth dare to say that we in Edinburgh are not determined to see the war through to the end and to victory.

My first purpose in rising is to pay a tribute to the administration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom I lately served as Under-Secretary. Freedom from the restraint of office enables me to say that in all the numerous Departments of Government for which my right hon. Friend is responsible he has certainly earned, and I think has obtained, the confidence and the approval of all sections of opinion in Scotland. That is not an easy thing to obtain, and it is of the highest value.

The duties and responsibilities of the office of Secretary of State have grown very much in the lifetime of this Parliament. In the years immediately before the war the two features of Scottish life which always gave everybody most concern were the continuance of industrial unemployment—much heavier than in England—and the extreme scarcity of houses. It was often suggested that the whole of Scotland ought to be treated as a Special Area. That was not done, but in the Special Areas Act it was the Secretary of State, and not the Minister of Labour, who became responsible to Parliament for its administration in Scotland. The duty was laid upon him, under the 1937 Act, of preparing trading estates, and of attracting by various methods new industries to the places where they were most required. In 1939, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Midlothian (Colonel Colville) obtained, under another Act, a further power, for the special Housing Association to build 35,000 houses in three years. This was regarded only as a preliminary hors d'œuvre in the building programme which was contemplated by my right hon. Friend.

Since the war began, the Secretary of State has been responsible to Parliament for the administration of a great number of the emergency powers which have been conferred upon the Government for the prosecution of the war, and he can do almost anything by Order in Council. Last year, Scotland was divorced, or at least partially separated, from the Ministry of Works and Buildings. When that decision was made, a great many English Members congratulated me on our deliverance. They asked me how it was that Scotland had managed to escape from the "octopus." I have forgotten which Minister of Works and Buildings was in office at that moment. I am sure the phrase had no personal significance. But the new powers which the present Secretary of State has been quietly and unostentatiously accumulating into his own hands are now very considerable. To advise him in the exercise of those powers he has set up the Scottish Council on Industry and, above that, a still more exalted authority, consisting of the Secretary of State for Air, the Minister of Health, and my right hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and North Midlothian (Colonel Colville) who are known as the Secretary of State's Council of ex-Secretaries of State. For the sake of brevity, I always call them the junta. Acting on the advice of those bodies, or after listening to the advice of those bodies, the Secretary of State is now the Minister primarily responsible in Parliament for the reconstruction of Scotland at the end of the war.

It is not always very popular to talk on this subject in these times. People are naturally inclined to point out that victory is all that matters, and that if we do not win we can never rebuild. While it is true that post-war action cannot be begun until our enemies have been destroyed, yet if we do not begin to think about it until then, the confusions and disappointments of peace may be so great that many people may wonder whether victory was worth while. That was what happened after the last war. The disillusionment which followed it resulted in that public mood of lethargy and pacifism which threw away all the fruits of victory within a single generation. When you are fighting for your life, it is easy to see how trivial other dangers are compared with that of German Conquest. It is not so easy to see it, when you have spent three or four years hunting for a job on the dole, while your wife and family are living in a single damp room. Many thousands of people in Scotland had to do that for most of the period between the two wars. The conduct of public affairs was continually strained by the persistence of social discontent. That is why it is worth while to make plans now for peace. The renewal of our economic life will be a singular failure, if it is not thoroughly prepared for before it is begun. The difficulties will not be met by a series of hastily improvised expedients, which have never been related to each other.

It is very easy to say to the Secretary of State: "You ought to do this or that," Some hon. Members may be particularly interested in shipping and others in the development of hydro-electric power in the Highlands, in the herring fleet or in the growth of rural industries which are subsidiary to agriculture. I do not want to overcrowd the canvas with details, but the broad outlines of the picture at the end of the war will not be very different from what they were at the beginning. A great part of our population will be dependent for its livelihood on those heavy industries, shipbuilding, coal, iron and steel and engineering, and it will be imperative to introduce a much greater diversity of occupation. Whether we like it or not, the selection and location of industry will be very largely determined by public policy. It is very unfortunate that, on the four industrial estates which we had at the beginning of the war, it was necessary to turn down most of the applications for the establishment of new industries, since most of the factory space has been used for storage. While we recognise the importance of storage, I think that, in view of the fact that so much war industry has been established South of the Border, it would have been right that these Scottish industrial estates should have been used for the purpose, or kept free for the purpose, for which they were originally promoted.

As to housing, when the war ends, a proportion—possibly one-fifth or perhaps one-fourth—of our people will have nowhere to live. If they wish to marry they will have to postpone doing so or, if they marry, they will have to live with relatives, who are probably overcrowded already. I estimate—and I must make it clear that this is only my own estimate, which is a little higher than the official estimate, but not a very great deal higher—that we shall require about 500,000 houses to put an end to slums and overcrowding, and to enable those who are in a position to get married to obtain a dwelling without having to wait all their lives before they get it. That does not mean that if we build those 500,000 houses we should then be able to stop. That number of houses represents the quantity which is necessary to get square and start level. After they are finished we can proceed with normal building in the ordinary way. If this work were to be done under a programme spread out over 10 years, so as to give a guarantee of long employment to the building trade, it would mean that large numbers of people with no opportunity of getting a decent house to live in would not get one for at least 10 years, and probably a great deal longer, because we all know from experience that these long-term programmes, once they are started, are always retarded by something or other. If, however, it is to be done in three or four-years, then obviously it would demand a prodigious and a perhaps temporary expansion of the building trade.

Therefore, I submit to the Committee that, when we are considering the industrial balance in Scotland at the end of the war, the building trade, the joinery and plastering trades, and every other industry connected with building are of major importance. One of the new industries which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Midlothian was most eager to establish before the war was the pre-fabrication of timber houses by a number of building firms which had undertaken to do it, and I think everybody will agree that we shall need great numbers of these to solve the housing problem at the end of the war. The building trade will therefore have to be organised in a way similar to the war industries which are now producing the tanks and aeroplanes required to win the war, and it will have to be done by a continued use of the Government's present powers over the disposition of property and labour, otherwise it will not be done within the time and upon the scale required. I would therefore suggest to the Committee that the housing question, the organisation of the building trade to meet our needs, and of the labour, materials and sites which are required together with the plans for these things, must come into the forefront of any policy put before us by the Government. In any plan for Government action at the end of the war these things must come first.

It is very easy to press the Government, but it is no use asking them to come forward with a comprehensive plan unless they have public opinion behind them, because methods will have to be used which will differ from the older methods to which we are accustomed. In a democratic country the Government cannot employ new methods unless they know that they have the support of public opinion, and I have submitted these considerations to the Committee in the hope that in principle at least they may be found acceptable to some other hon. Members. It is no use hoping that any plan produced will meet with universal agreement, or that it will escape criticism from a great many quarters, but I hope that we shall have at least sufficient agreement in principle to enable our plans to be worked without any major uncertainty in the public mind about the objectives which we shall aim at and the methods by which we shall try to reach them. I hope also that we shall not be unwilling to put aside any of the political or economic prejudices which we may have entertained in the past if we can see that it is necessary for the general good of our country.

On a point of Order. In view of the large number of hon. Members who still wish to speak—and I am not one of them—is there no means that we can take of forcing the Secretary of State for Scotland to extend the time of the Sitting? It is a scandal if the Debate is to be cut short before the many hon. Members who are anxious to speak get an opportunity of doing so, so little is the time provided for Scotland.

I will not detain the Committee long but there are one or two points in regard to which I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman when he replies. I cannot help confessing that much has been introduced into the Debate to-day which will pass outside the jurisdiction of any Secretary of State for Scotland. For intance, I was amused when the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) gave us the illustration of the new silk factory. I always wondered why Joe Chamberlain launched the great tariff campaign in St. Andrew's Hall. I know the answer now—to get the new silk industry for Dunfermline. If I may pursue that point, perhaps I could retort by saying that it was the cock-eyed economics of that school which compelled me, and thousands of other shipyard workers, to walk the streets for months when we otherwise might have been employed, because shipping cannot be conducted on a one-way basis. We have not, however, time to develop that to-day. The hon. Member who has just spoken told us that we had been freed from the octopus of the Ministry of Works and Buildings. I doubt it. It may be that, as far as the future planning of housing in Scotland is concerned, the Ministry of Works and Buildings will not enter into the matter, but I want an assurance, and I want it included in the records of this Committee, that the Ministry of Works and Buildings will have no power to interfere with the development of the building industry in Scotland after the war.

The reason I ask for that assurance is quite simple. At the moment the Ministry proposes to erect in Glasgow a cavity-wall-constructed rough-cast building with a life of 30 years. If this building is being put up for war purposes, the war must be going to last a long time. I have been assured that the building is being erected to house the staffs of Government Departments, but what is the use of town planning by any authority if a Government Department can come along and, in the very centre of an area which has already been planned and on which building has already been restricted, take advantage of the powers conferred upon them by the Government to erect a building with a life of 30 years? We do not want the Ministry of Food in Scotland for 30 years, and we do not want the Ministry of Works and Buildings even for one year, because I am satisfied that as regards the building industry it is the most incompetent institution the Government has set up since the war began. I want an assurance from the Minister—and I want it recorded that such an assurance was given—that the Ministry of Works and Buildings will play no part either in industrial development or the planning of housing after the war. Also, I want this assurance: that the Minister, so far as he is responsible for the location of industry after the war, will not be persuaded by long-haired Bohemians from Chelsea who would put factories into delectable surroundings on the plea that industry will follow the population, instead of the position being the other way round.

In our industrial areas at the moment we have derelict industrial sites. I am using the Clyde area as an example, but it can be applied to every industrial area. What was the sense of creating the Hillington Industrial Estate with public money when you had acres of derelict sites where the services were already there—electricity, gas, water, road, rail and steamboat transport? Glasgow or its neighbourhood is treated as a depressed area and a benevolent body comes along and hands out factories, not to new industries—Kelvin, Bottomley and Baird is not a new industry. Existing industries take advantage of the new factories and, incidentally, step out of the places where they are. I urge upon the Secretary of State that it is impossible to re-develop, for housing purposes, the derelict industrial sites on the Clydeside. I went after one as convener of the Glasgow Corporation Housing Committee. It was to cost £5 per square yard, or £20,000 per acre, and before a cart of bricks had been delivered on the site a house had already cost £500. I would much rather demolish the dwelling houses contiguous to that area to a depth of one or two miles on either side, and re-develop that area for industrial purposes and centralise your industries.

We have no right to say that the workers must have a dwelling house near their work. That fallacy has been exploded. I am satisfied that hon. Members do not stay beside their work. Very few of us do. I would like the Secretary of State, when dealing with the future planning of industry, to see, before any new industry is set up in any new area, that sites which have already been developed as industrial sites, and where, at considerable expense, services have been created, will be utilised to the full. I do not wish to touch on the housing problem, but I think I am voicing the opinion of the Scottish Members when I say that I personally will not be satisfied with a one day's Debate to deal with Scottish housing and health. The sooner the Scottish Members make up their minds to kick up a rumpus about it the better for everybody concerned. In Glasgow alone we are faced with the most appalling problem. I arranged a programme of 65,000 houses over a period of 10 years. Six years have gone and we now need 70,000 houses. The number of dual occupants, the number of couples staying with their parents, the overcrowding, is appalling, and yet it is proposed to devote only one day to debating housing and health—or one half-day I am told. I want to protest with all the vigour at my command. I think that the Scottish Members should get together and tell the Secretary of State that it is up to him to see we get facilities. I have seen the Rule suspended in order to discuss things that do not matter to anyone from here to Timbuctoo. Yet Scottish Members who travel every week from the North with unfailing regularity get about 10 hours in which to discuss the future welfare of Scotland. I do not think it is good enough. This is no I.L.P. revolt, no Communist revolt. It is a statement of, fact. I think I am speaking on behalf of Members of all parties in the House when I say that we think we are entitled to receive consideration from the Government on the problems we are called upon to discuss.

I should like to join in the tribute which has been paid to the Secretary of State, not only for his opening statement but for the real vigour and imagination with which he has tackled the problem before us. He has been able to infuse a certain team spirit into us—I speak now as a Member of his Advisory Council. I think that that team spirit has been shown in the Debate to-day and also the desire to contribute something practical towards the great problem of the industrial future of Scotland. I shall divide my observations under two heads. First, is Scotland to-day being given the fullest possible opportunity to produce what is necessary to win the war? Secondly, when the war is over what are the prospects of Scottish industry, and what can now be done in line with the general policy of the war effort to improve its prospects?

To take the first point, as to whether Scotland is being given the fullest opportunity to produce what is necessary to win the war, I think we must remind ourselves in this Debate that we are in the middle of a tremendous struggle and at a crucial stage in that struggle. If we do not win the war the industrial future of Scotland will be that of a slave state, producing the requirements of Germany under the heel of an army of occupation. It is well that industry in Scotland should bear that in mind, both employers who may be slow to adapt themselves to war's necessities, and workmen who are not working as hard as they might. We must ask ourselves: Is the productive capacity of Scotland fully harnessed just now? There is the depletion of man-power more particularly of woman-power caused by the weekly transfer of mobile workers to the Midlands and the South. I was glad to hear that these figures are becoming less. I would say that while some transfer is necessary owing to the existing allocation of plant, I do not know of any single domestic event in the past two years which has caused more dissatisfaction in Scotland than this compulsory transfer.

In the months preceding the war, and in the early months of the war, efforts were made to get a greater degree of aircraft production in Scotland, but the tendency has always been to build it up round the motor manufacturing industry, of which Scotland had little or none. Therefore that development did not come to Scotland in any great degree. Both from the point of view of dispersal and the availability of labour there would have been many real advantages in giving Scotland a larger share of aircraft production. The same tendency is seen also in many types of munitions. Even in a time of rapid expansion which war brings about, it is still with the greatest difficulty that those responsible for planning new factories can be made to look in Scotland for sites. This is a serious consideration which is, I realise, fully in the mind of the Secretary of State and he is doing his very best to meet it.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that more factories are coining to Scotland, but the fact remains that after two-and-a-half years of war most parts of England are crying out for more labour whereas very few parts of Scotland are in a similar condition. I also make the statement that there are, in the wide districts of the central industrial belt of Scotland, a very great number of women of the immobile type who would give their labour gladly if war work could be secured near their homes. In a total war it is wrong that willing hands should be deprived of the opportunity of doing essential work. I hope that the Secretary of State will keep that point prominently before those Ministers who are responsible for placing these factories. We want new factories; and I hope that the Secretary of State—than whom no one has done more to keep this view forward—will continue each day to press this point.

What else can be done? There is a great deal of contracting and sub-contracting going on in Scotland. I do not want to give the impression that no Government contracts are going to Scotland; it is a busy country, but not so busy as it might be. There is room for more war work to go to Scotland. To give an example, in the clothing, knitwear, and hosiery sections of supply more can be done by the Ministry of Supply in placing work in Scotland. Then there is another Ministry with which I hope the Secretary of State will keep in close touch. That is the Admiralty. The Admiralty has always been in close liaison with Scotland, because of Scotland's great shipbuilding industry; yet I and others hold the view that the Admiralty could, with advantage, place more orders for miscellaneous stores in Scotland. The Ministry of Aircraft Production, which has induced the building of factories about the country, in connection with motor plants almost entirely in England, could do more by ordering a variety of component parts in Scotland, and so could give an opportunity to the type of immobile labour to which I have referred. For lack of time, I will not develop that theme further, but I hope that the few points I have raised will be followed up.

Let me turn to post-war prospects. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), in a most interesting speech, referred to some of the difficulties connected with international trade which he foresees at the end of the war. That subject has worried me, too. I spent four years at the Department of Overseas Trade, during which period I took part in negotiations for trade agreements with 19 foreign countries, and I know the difficulty of reaching such accommodation as that of which the hon. Member was speaking. These difficulties will be greater after the war. Many countries, under the stimulus of war, will have increased their production potential, and will be scrambling in the world market. Our own industries in Scotland, which will have to meet some of this competition, must be maintained efficiently now, with a view to taking part in the effort to keep Scotland working after the war. It will require all those lines of thought and action on which the hon. Member touched to reach international understanding; and it will also require efficiently-run industry at home.

Recognising that Scotland has had a poor deal as regards new wartime factories, I urge the Board of Trade, when considering schemes of concentration in existing industries, to keep Scottish units in production, provided that the full output of Scottish concerns does not exceed national requirements. That will enable us to preserve our industries in active and going order As there is a surplus capacity in certain industries, such as textiles and woodworking, both in England and in Scotland, orders should be diverted to Scotland, thus using Scottish labour, which would otherwise have to be transferred to the South as mobile labour. The concentration problem, which always arises during a war, to provide labour for essential war industry, must be viewed with particular regard to the fact that Scotland has not had anything like the share of war factories as other parts of the country. Therefore we must have particular regard to the effect of concentration on existing industries. The storage position should be examined by the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Supply, to see how the premises taken over in Scotland for stores could be freed for productive purposes. Several Members have urged that. I know of cases, such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), where premises are being used for storage which might be used for production.

That is worse still. I do not know of any such cases as that, but I know of cases where production might be carried on. New building for production or storage purposes should be definitely related to a planned post-war policy for industrial development. Trading estates, if wisely conceived, are a good way of offering a prospect for spreading our industries.

To turn to a quite different subject, I wish to speak about the development of the Highlands. At the end of 1938, the Hillery Committee made its report, which caused much interest in Scotland. By that time the shadows were drawing in upon us, and the coming of the war made it impossible to do more than undertake part of the work suggested by the Hillery Committee. But it will be noted that one of the principal recommendations of the Committee was that a commissioner should be appointed to inquire into the development of certain basic Highland industries. Now the Secretary of State has set up five committees of investigation, one on sheep, one on hydro-electricity, one on land settlement, one on the herring industry, and one on hospitals. These five investigations are on subjects of vital interest to the Highlands. I, therefore, hold that the work done by the committees is directly in line with the most important recommendations of the Hillery Committee, and we must see that the reports when received are not pigeonholed, but are acted upon.

It was my lot to be responsible for affairs in the Scottish Office during the tense and difficult year before the war, when the great and growing social problems which were always before us were constantly being overshadowed, and our efforts to meet them defeated, by the tremendous pressure of international events. Then came the war, and the black-out of peaceful domestic endeavour. But even in that black-out, which can be lifted only by victory, we can plan ahead for the day that will come. All who remember the terrible slump after the last war and who have learned its lessons, are anxious and determined that it shall not be repeated. In every part of the world where our armies are fighting Scottish regiments are carrying their glorious traditions, and in all the seas our men in the Royal Navy and in the Merchant Navy carry their love of the traditions of their homeland. Those responsible for that homeland should see that they leave nothing undone to provide for a better and more prosperous future.

Do I understand, Colonel Clifton Brown, that we are not to be allowed to continue the Debate?

I called the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, who wants to reply, before the Debate closes, to observations of hon. Members.

Am I entitled to complain of the disproportionate number of speakers who have been called from the opposite side of the Committee in view of the small numbers who have been sitting there?

The hon. Member is not entitled to make complaints against the Chair. He can put down a Motion to that effect.

There was one comment made to-day by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) with which I thoroughly sympathise. It was to the effect that a half day, or, for that matter, a whole Parliamentary day, was insufficient time with which to deal with the vital questions of public health and education which are the subjects of the Scottish Estimates remaining to be discussed. If representations are made through the usual channels for further Parliamentary time, I, as an individual, will do my best to assist and further the objective that the hon. Gentleman has in view.

With regard to to-day's Debate, there have been two criticisms about which I want to say a word. They were criticisms of the method we have adopted of facing the disproportionate amount of employment in Scotland as compared with England—not, as I have already said, a disproportionate amount peculiar to the war or even to the immediately pre-war years, but a disproportionate amount of unemployment and depression existing since the boom period of 1919–20. My method of seeking to secure the co-operation of all leading political parties affiliated to the Government in an endeavour to speak for once with force, and secure a better distribution of Government orders, may be right or it may be wrong. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—I think he was indeed the only Member to-day—sought to criticise the basic idea upon which the Council of State and the Advisory Council are based. He criticised the idea of cooperation of all parties in the State. It is a legitimate point of view, but I take an opposite point of view. I have submitted what I believe to be conclusive evidence to-day, that unless we can get the co-operation of all the major political parties in Scotland and present the Government here with a united demand, we are not likely to get a fair share of Government orders. It is because of that that I have taken the view that voluntary co-operation is a better way than the way of isolation.

The Advisory Committee on Industry are struggling to do two things. The first is to get a fair share of Government orders. There is nothing whatever there about whether the execution of these Government orders, when they are secured, should be run as State industries or otherwise but simply that we shall, as a nation, get a fair share. Secondly, as I have already stated, we will take whatever steps are open to us to stop the drift away of our industries, to put heart and initiative into our designers, inventors and managers, and to ensure that we shall not sink placidly into the position of being a derelict impoverished country subsisting on doles. The view of myself and my colleagues in the Scottish Office is that the best way to secure these objects is to enlist the co-operation of all parties in the State, and while I recognise the point of view of the hon. Member for Bridgeton I submit that the Debate to-day has shown that the balance of argument is with me. The results we have already achieved have proved it. We have raised the production capacity in our Scottish factories.

No one will deny that in the exigencies of war we can agree that we should get a bigger share of Government orders in Scotland, but does my right hon. Friend remember the fate of the two hydro-electric Bills which came before the House and on which we split into about ten different groups?

I will deal with post-war questions in a moment. I am dealing now solely with the issue of securing for our native land a fair and proper share of whatever Government orders can be placed and I say that the most effective way in which that objective can be secured is by enlisting the aid and cooperation of other constituent members of this Government That is all the length to which I will go now. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), who was another critic to-day, said "You are not discussing post-war planning. You have discussed immediate issues, but you have not discussed post-war arrangements for planning. What do you intend to do?" [ Interruption .] I hope hon. Members will allow me to state my case.

I have no powers in that matter. As I was saying, the hon. Member for Greenock said I said nothing about the post-war planning of Scotland, particularly of the Scottish major and heavy industries. In my view it is no use whatever talking about planning for export trades until we know how the war will end up. It is no use talking about how the export trade of herrings to the Baltic will be arranged or about coal exports, until we see the form which the new Europe and the new world is to take. Therefore, I confined myself to arranging for postwar planning on such subjects and issues as might be called domestic—hydro-electricity, hill-sheep farming, hospitals, and so on. Those are domestic issues which do not depend upon foreign trade. We may be right, we may be wrong. We may have other subjects to add to our inquiries. I want to say a word in a moment about one of the subjects that we are adding to our inquiries. What I want to stress is that the gravamen of the criticism which the hon. Member for Greenock made against us cannot be met by, any Advisory Council, British or Scottish, at this moment. Therefore, I have confined myself to practical issues. I was very glad indeed to hear the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Colonel Colville) reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) about the Hilleary Committee. The essence of that Committee's report was that there should be a special Commissioner appointed whose first duty would be to make inquiries. We are making inquiries, and we are doing so in what I think is a more effective way. When these inquiries have been made and reports are ready, we shall bring them forthwith to the House and do what we can to secure that any necessary legislation is passed.

There is one other issue that has been touched upon by my hon. Friend. It is housing. Obviously, housing must play a most important part in the employment of our population after the war. Obviously, arrangements must be made before the end of the war. We must plan there, we must see to it that there will be adequate training, an adequate labour force and adequate materials, and we must do everything we possibly can to obliterate the scandal of the housing conditions over the major part of Scotland. In the last Census we had one town where 73 per cent. of all the houses were either two-roomed or one-roomed houses. That is the sort of thing that cannot be tolerated. When I tell the Committee that our average is over 46, I can assure them that the subject is not being lost sight of. I hope and believe we shall be able, through a Housing Advisory Committee which will not be a committee with specific terms of reference, but a committee which will sit almost in perpetual session, which will consider 20, 30 or 40 different subjects and make specific recommendations to us, to get the maximum amount of information and assistance to enable us, as a Government, to overcome the great and grievous housing shortage.

Obviously, that is not a question for me. I have no power to say what the Ministry of Works and Planning is going to do after the war. All I can say is that that question should be addressed to the responsible authorities.

No, I do not know. One other thing only I would say. Every suggestion which has been made to-day by hon. Members, in all parts of the House, will be carefully and sympthetically examined, and I trust action will be taken.

May I ask whether the Secretary of State will impress upon the Government the necessity, when the next Sitting Day is devoted to a discussion on Scottish affairs, of the Standing Order being suspended so that we may have unlimited time?

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House .

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed .

Armed Forces (Woollen Comforts)

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

The subject I desire to raise has been one of some considerable correspondence with the Board of Trade. It is because I have failed to get a measure of satisfaction that I am now occupying the time of the House. Some of my remarks will have reference more to the ex-President of the Board of Trade than to the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies that office. At the same time I feel obliged to make some observations with regard to the attitude of the Department itself. The refusal of the Department to accede to a reasonable request is, in my opinion, to its discredit, and some of the reasons given by the ex-President are, in my opinion, not only inadequate but are, to a considerable extent, puerile, especially as the matter concerns the welfare of the men who are achieving so much for the people of this country. The question I am raising concerns the arrangements for the supply of wool for the knitting of socks, helmets, gloves, scarves, etc., for members of His Majesty's Forces.

All the work, both in connection with the raising of the necessary money to purchase the wool and the knitting of the articles, is being done by voluntary labour. Hon. Members know that for some time after the war commenced, purchase of wool remained unchanged both with regard to sale and also the place of purchase. But to-day everything has altered. The amazing feature of the change is that those organisations responsible for providing these comforts for the troops are not permitted to distribute the articles to those whom they consider fit and proper recipients. Distribution must also be made in accordance with the decision of the Board of Trade, which means that the articles to which I have already referred, provided in one district or in one area, will be sent to members of the Forces from other districts where no such articles may, in fact, have been provided. In view of such an arrangement one may be pleased that the Board of Trade are not running this war, because people who are unable to arrange for the purchase of wool and the distribution of the articles made cannot be expected to win a war.

Let me illustrate the position by reference to the organisation in my own division. In part of my division there is what is known as a War Charities and Comforts Fund, established in 1940. It is controlled by a central committee and three area committees. We have 1,400 men and a number of women serving in all parts of the world in various capacities. Up to the present seven separate parcels of comforts have been sent to these people. The organisation has purchased no less than £490 worth of wool and approximately 3,000 garments have been forwarded to members of the Forces. In every one of the large number of letters that we get from them reference is made to what we are doing for them and there is never the slightest indication of what they are doing for us. The scheme has worked satisfactorily and in my submission it should be encouraged, as all the articles have been knitted by women, some over 85 years of age, without any payment whatever who consider it to be not only a necessary work but also work of a very noble character.

All this effort will come to an end unless the President of the Board of Trade changes the absurd attitude taken up by his predecessor, because organisations similar to this must continue their activities within the framework of the existing official scheme, which means that they must affiliate to one of four distinct organisations, and that must be done through an office with the high-sounding name and address of the Director of Voluntary Organisations, Hotel Victoria, Northumberland Avenue, W.C.2. On 17th February, I asked the late President of the Board of Trade if he would revert to the practice of allowing these bodies to obtain their wool from the firms they choose and distribute the articles made as they deem proper. I am prepared to admit that there may be some difficulty in the purchase of wool in accordance with arrangements that existed prior to the commencement of hostilities, but I am yet to be convinced that you need interfere with the distribution of the articles after the wool has been purchased. The reply of the President of the Board of Trade was that to obtain coupon-free wool and distribute the comforts at their discretion would involve unfair distribution and waste of wool. He also stated that, if we dispersed the wool and did not distribute it through these organisations, which arranged it carefully for us, we should have a lot of people accepting wool and perhaps using it for other purposes.

Few more resentful and impertinent observations have ever been made in the House. To insinuate that persons who have volunteered to knit 3,000 garments would, in the absence of the official scheme, be disposed to use the wool for their private purposes is not only mean but dishonest as well. On behalf of these people I resent so crude an imputation. The wool purchased and the articles produced are meticulously checked, and no such leakage could occur with the organisation that I have described. The worst feature of the present scheme is that the 3,000 garments made in the Abertillery portion of my division would be distributed to those for whom they were not provided. What is there under such an arrangement to encourage individuals in one area who need these articles if they are to be distributed in another area where no such articles are being produced? This scheme, had it been deliberately designed to do a disservice to our men in the Forces, could not have been surpassed, and I appeal to the Minister to secure a modification that will meet the points I have raised.

I want to stress the point I have made. We have two difficulties—one with regard to the purchase of wool and the other with regard to the distribution of the articles produced from the wool. I think that you could leave the pre-war arrangement or the arrangement which existed immediately after the commencement of the war unchanged even if you were compelled to make some arrangement with regard to the purchase of the wool itself. All I can say is that unless something is done you cannot expect people in my division to produce articles that will be distributed in another area or to people from another area who are not making any provision for the people who are doing so much for us.

I have naturally a great deal of sympathy for the attitude that my hon. Friend has adopted. Anybody prefers to work for the people of his own neighbourhood. We have all, although members of a great Empire, got rather parochial minds, and we would rather have the labours of our women folk going to the men of our village or of our town or of our workshop or school, than have them distributed throughout the country. That is agreed, but I should like to try to convince my hon. Friend that this is not a mere arbitrary decision; it is not mere officialdom gone mad. It is true that people who knit for the Forces are giving their labour free, but all the wool with which they are knitting has to be imported. It has to be manipulated and spun. I need not tell the House that the difficulties of shipping, labour and machinery are increasing week by week. We have, and I hope we always shall have, the best-clothed Army in the world. Our men do not lack the essentials of clothing. That it is very desirable that they should have the Balaclava helmets, the mittens and the extra socks is admitted, but that it is vitally necessary for their wellbeing will not be claimed in any quarter of the House.

If that is agreed, I will go on to deal with the particular case that my hon. Friend has mentioned. When we came to review the whole raw material position and decided on the coupon rationing, it became apparent that some limitation ought to be put on the amount of wool which could be knitted for the Services. It was at the request of the Services themselves, of the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry, that this arrangement was made. I should like to correct one statement my hon. Friend made. He said that the distribution was in accordance with the instructions of the Board of Trade. That obviously is not so, and I think he corrected himself later when he referred to the three Service organisations which do this distribution.

These comforts, when knitted, have to be sent either to the Depot for Knitted Garments for the Royal Navy at Eaton Square, or the Navy League, or the Director of Voluntary Associations at Victoria House, Northumberland Avenue, or the R.A.F. Comforts Fund, 20, Berkeley Square, S.W.I. But they have to be sent there not physically but only in theory, and what generally happens is that the societies write to these areas and say, "Will you kindly send the things round to your county clearing house?" and they are dealt with then through the clearing house. As far as possible these organisations will allocate the comforts to units. For example, if in my own county of Derbyshire we wanted to knit for our own men we should write and say, "Would you mind having our comforts from this particular district allocated as far as possible to, say, the Sixth Battalion, Sherwood Foresters?" and provided that there were not too many people who had already said they wanted to knit for that particular battalion that request would be granted.

Under the old system there was undoubtedly very great waste. Some units with strong local and regimental associations were almost inundated with comforts. One found men in the Forces cleaning their boots, cleaning their machines, cleaning their bicycles, so I am told, with the gloves and mittens which their best girls had knitted for them with such care and delight. Under the old system it might well happen that one man might have comforts knitted for him by his mother and his wife, by his church organisation, by his co-operative society, and by his workshop organisation. He might get comforts, and in fact did get comforts, from three or four or as many as six sources, whereas another man from a district not quite so public-spirited, if you like to put it that way, went without anything at all. I do not believe that my hon. Friend would advocate such a system.

What I have suggested is that the people in my area who knit these articles should be entitled, in view of the fact that the property belongs to them, to send them to the persons whom they decide should receive them. May I make one correction? The hon. and gallant Member says that members of the Forces are well clothed, but we are getting repeated applications for the articles which are being produced by these organisations.

I hope that my I hon. Friend will not misunderstand me. I know that these articles are very gratefully received and are most useful, and I hope that nothing I have said may be taken as disparaging the efforts of those who make them. What I am trying to argue is that it is better to get a more equitable distribution of the articles than we have had before, and I suggest that the present organisation, which is enabled to r take a view of all units by and large, and knows the units which are most in need of these comforts, is better able to judge than I the local people who are good enough to do the actual knitting.

That would be quite all I right if everyone was doing the knitting, but everyone is not doing the knitting. People are quite prepared to receive articles knitted by some one else.

But we are all knitting the socks for the same Army, we are all fighting Hitler, and whether my hon. Friend's ladies are knitting socks for the men from Abertillery or from other: Welsh places they are, by and large, making a direct contribution to the winning of this war. I think my hon. Friend rather overstates his case, because apart from this general scheme we have the personal knitters' scheme, and in that any I knitter—I was going to say any lady, but a man knitter can get it too—can get 24 ounces of wool free of coupons and knit them up into whatever he or she likes, take them round to one of the civil organisations which are set out, and have them sent to the specific person for whom they are intended. It is, therefore, well possible to keep some personal touch.

I hope that I have said enough to convince my hon. Friend that this is not an unreasonable suggestion. I know that it is not palatable, but I hope that, far from criticising it, he will do his best to convince the people in Abertillery that they are doing the best service by allowing these goods to be distributed in this way rather than taking the narrow view and wanting them to be distributed only to the men from their particular locality.

I will undertake to give that assurance upon one condition, and that is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman insists upon everyone doing the same amount of work as these people. That is the only way in which you can have any measure of equality. Unless something is done—and this is the whole point in raising the matter now—to vary the existing arrangements, a number will be short of 1,300 garments, because our people will not continue to knit those articles but will send money instead to the men in the Forces.

Surely it is I who, in this instance, am arguing for some measure of equality. My hon. Friend is arguing for a privileged class in Abertillery.

I do not agree. If you want equality in what is produced you must endeavour to seek equality in connection with those who ought to be producing. Otherwise you get a distorted view of equality.

I leave that to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

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