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

May I turn the attention of the House from the broad and fascinating vision of Colonial development to a small Measure whose only purpose is to remedy an oversight in the drafting of the India Act, 1935, more particularly in reference to the repartition of taxation as between the central Government and the Provinces. Last year, in introducing his Budget, Sir Jeremy Raisman, the Financial Member of the Government of India, in dealing with the various measures which he was taking, and taking with no little success, in order to cope with the grave danger of inflation, announced his intention of introducing this year an Estate Duty. That would have a further effect besides the negative effect of dealing with inflation, because it would provide the Provinces with funds for reconstruction.

I ought to explain that duties of this character, even though levied at the centre, are, under the financial schemes of the Indian federal structure, actually allocated to the Provinces, and of course the work of reconstruction in India will mainly fall upon the Provincial Governments. It was subsequently suggested that such an Estate Duty might not be within the competence of the Government of India or of Provincial Governments, because the list of taxes as between the centre and the Provinces in the Act of 1935 referred only to Succession Duties. It was suggested that a Succession Duty levied on that part of an estate which passed to a particular beneficiary would not cover a duty on the estate as a whole. The Government of India submitted the matter to the Supreme Federal Court for an opinion and that Court, by a majority of its judges, decided that the doubt cast upon the power of the Government of India and of the Provincial Governments was well founded, and that Estate Duty could not be introduced or passed on agricultural estates in the Provinces or at the centre upon estates other than agricultural.

In these circumstances, the only recourse is to Parliament, to remedy what was, obviously, an unintentional oversight. If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will see that, in Clause 1 (1), it proposes to insert a reference to Estate Duty in the Federal Legislative List. Similarly, it proposes to insert a corresponding reference in the Provincial Legislative List, and, in Subsection (2) it proposes to introduce a reference to Estate Duty in Section 137 of the Act, which provides for the distribution to the Provinces of certain taxes. Finally, Subsection (3) seeks to include a definition of what is meant by Estate Duty. Clause 2, of course, simply deals with the Title, and with instructions to printers.

The only other thing I need say, is that this Measure is purely permissive. It gets rid of a bar to the freedom of the Central and Provincial Governments in dealing with their financial problems. It does not prescribe, still less prescribe in detail, whether such duties should be imposed, or what shape they should take. It is intended simply to get rid of an unsuspected and unforeseen obstacle to necessary legislation in India. I may add that the Bill is of some urgency, because the Finance Member will be introducing his Budget next month, and will naturally want to know whether he is free to introduce the Measure which is in contemplation. If there are any other points which hon. Members wish to raise, perhaps, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, I could reply to them.

I think the right hon. Gentleman has explained the Bill. It is merely to tidy up what was left a little uncertain in the main Bill, and, so far as I am concerned, I hope it will be given a Second Reading and speedily become law.

May I ask a question about this Bill? It would be interesting to know whether there have already been enacted or levied, either centrally or in any of the Provinces, Estate Duties the legal validity of which is doubted or rejected by the Federal Supreme Court of India. If that is so, I would ask whether the effect of this Bill, if we pass it, will be in any way retrospective, so as to legalise any duties already imposed which were illegal when they were imposed.

No such measures have been introduced. This was the first time that any such measure was contemplated, and, in view of the doubts expressed, advantage was taken of the facility to appeal to the Supreme Federal Court, for an authoritative opinion on the subject.

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

The chief purpose of this Bill is to give full trustee status to Northern Ireland Government securities and securities guaranteed by that Government and make further provision for the eligibility of such securities as investments for funds of savings banks. These are objects which can only be effected by legislation in this Parliament, and I do not think that anyone will question their desirability. The Bill contains a number of other provisions on matters upon which the Parliament of Northern Ireland is not competent to legislate. All these are of an uncontroversial nature, and are, indeed, concerned with the clearing away of technical difficulties, and I need hardly say, of course, that the Bill has been prepared in consultation and in full agreement with the Northern Ireland authorities.

Because the Bill is of a miscellaneous nature, it is not possible to give a general description of it, and I think it would be best, therefore, if I referred very briefly to each of its Clauses. With regard to Clause 1, criminal law of Northern Ireland is generally a matter for the Parliament of Northern Ireland. That Parliament is debarred, by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, from legislating with regard to excepted or reserved matters. It follows, therefore, that any amendment of the criminal law by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, cannot apply to offences in connection with excepted or reserved matters. The Parliament of Northern Ireland desires to make certain amendments of that criminal law, in matters of procedure by bringing it up-to-date and also by bringing it more closely into line with the criminal law of England. Hon. Members will see, therefore, that it would be very inconvenient, if the old and out-of-date provisions had to be kept in force, merely for the purpose of dealing with offences in regard to excepted or reserved matters, which, of course, cover a very small field of criminal law.

If the House would like an example, the Parliament of Northern Ireland desires to legislate on the lines of our Indictments Act and thus modernise their law. This Act, which was passed in this Parliament in 1915, simplifies the forms of indictment, and that, of course, applies to all indictable offences in England, including coinage offences. It would be very inconvenient if the corresponding Northern Ireland Act did not apply to such offences. The Clause, therefore, enables the Parliament of Northern Ireland, to make amendments to the criminal law of Northern Ireland applicable to all criminal offences, but the Clause is subject to the provision that the punishment for any offences relating to any excepted or reserved matters, shall not be affected, except in order to bring it into conformity with the punishment provided for such offences in England and by English law. So much for Clause 1.

Clause 2 deals with functions, with respect to matters within the legislative competence of Northern Ireland which are, from time to time, transferred by Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, from one Department of the Government of Northern Ireland to another. For example, functions relating to health and local government have recently been transferred from the Ministry of Home Affairs, to the newly constituted Ministry of Health and Local Government for Northern Ireland. There exist functions in connection with reserved matters, which have been placed, by Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, upon the Ministry of Home Affairs, as being at that time the appropriate Department, in view of its health and local government functions. For example, under the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1935, therapeutic substances may not be imported into Northern Ireland, unless the Ministry of Home Affairs is satisfied that they conform to the required standard. Under the existing law, such functions cannot be transferred to the Ministry of Health and Local Government except by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. The object of the Clause is to enable, in such circumstances, the Governor, by Order in Council—made, of course, with the consent of the Secretary of State—to transfer, from one Department to another of the Northern Ireland Government, the functions placed upon the first Department by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom.

On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the right hon. Lady is reading this speech?

I am extremely sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I think the House will realise that this is a highly technical Bill, and that it is dealing with matters of which it is quite impossible to speak at large.

As that point of Order has been raised, and the question has been raised before, I think it is due to the House that a Ruling should be given.

The Rule is that use may be made of notes, but that speeches may not be read. I can see nothing from here, because there is a Box in the way, but the right hon. Lady is reading something, and I expect they are notes.

I am very grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think that, if the position of our seats were reversed, your Ruling would be different.

Has it not always been understood that a Minister, dealing with highly technical matters, should be allowed to make use of notes?

Will my hon. Friend opposite accept my assurance that the right hon. Lady was looking at us, more than at her notes?

Statements sometimes have to be made by Ministers on difficult and technical matters, and, in those circumstances, it is usual that the use of notes is allowed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will now deal with Clause 3, which is, perhaps, not so technical, and on which I can expand a little for the benefit of the hon. Member. It makes provision, on suitable occasions, for the use of an embossed seal instead of the Great Seal of Northern Ireland. On such occasions, it will be possible for documents to be sealed by affixing to the document a single-sided impression of the Great Seal. The authority given by this Clause will be particularly useful where a considerable number of documents have to be passed under the Great Seal and have to be issued at the same time. For example, in the case of election Writs, the elaborate procedure provided for the attachment of a double-sided wax impression of the Great Seal is hardly justified. I would like to point out the exact amount of labour involved. I think there are some 50 constituencies for the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Will the right hon. Lady please address Mr. Speaker?

It is necessary for each of these Writs to have affixed an impression of the Great Seal, on which the Clerk of the Crown would have to spend a large amount of public time. I believe that, on occasions, he has even had to bring his wife into the matter, and spend many hours making sets of wax impressions of the Great Seal, to produce for each document, a double-sided impression of the Seal. I am sure hon. Members will realise that that is a considerable waste of public time, to say nothing of the time of the good-natured lady concerned. Therefore, instead of going to that amount of trouble, we are proposing that these impressions shall be made so as to give a single-sided impression of the Great Seal. I can assure hon. Members that there has been a provision in English law for the use of a substitute of that kind for the Great Seal of the Realm since 1877. So much for Clause 3.

Now we come to Clauses 4 to 7. These are to give effect to what I have described as the main purpose of the Bill. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 will result in trustee status being given in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to securities issued by the Government of Northern Ireland and to the securities which are guaranteed by that Government. Clause 7 will remove certain restrictions which at present apply to the investment of funds of savings banks in these securities. Clause 8, as the hon. Member who intervened, will be pleased to know, provides for the winding-up of the Lunacy Fund, which was established for the defraying of the expenses of the Lunacy Office in Ireland and it is made up of percentages charged on lunatics' estates and certain other fees. In England the expenses in connection with lunacy administration are borne by the Exchequer, and this Clause provides for the same practice to be followed in Northern Ireland.

Clause 9 deals with a very technical matter, and I must be forgiven if I read exactly what I have in my notes and I am sure when hon. Members hear what I am going to say, I shall be forgiven. The effect of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) is to enable the owner of a charge, when exercising the power of sale, conferred on him by the local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, to apply to the court in a summary manner, for possession of the land or any part thereof. Paragraph (b) of that sub-section enacts what has always been assumed to be the law in Northern Ireland and what has in practice been acted on namely, that on a sale of land by the registered owner of a charge, the charge and all burdens inferior to the charge are discharged. Clause 10 makes the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland the legal depository of duplicates of conveyances and other instruments relating to Crown lands in Northern Ireland. It has, in fact, been the depository for some time, since the burning of documents in Dublin in 1922. Finally, Clause 11 corrects a drafting omission in the Northern Ireland section of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. References in this Act to the Lord Chancellor and to the High Court should, in Northern Ireland, be references to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and to the High Court of Northern Ireland.

I should like to thank the right hon. Lady for her very lucid exposition of this extremely complicated Bill. I have every sympathy with what she says with regard to the question of seals, because I am informed that, at present, in order to use the Great Seal for the 52 Writs of the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland, it requires for each Seal half a pound of wax. I may perhaps relate my own experience in this connection. I was returned for the constituency which I now represent on 2nd November, 1940, and as I was its a hurry to take my seat, I asked to be entrusted with the Writ but I was very much afraid, as it was such a huge great seal, that it might get broken before I could get it to the House of Lords and deposit it in the hands of the Clerk of the Crown. However, I discovered, that so far from the Seal being wax, it was made of guttapercha and it had served on all sorts of occasions for many documents.

To come to more serious matters. Clauses 2 and 3 refer to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. That Act is the Act which established our Constitution, and it is proposed to alter that Act and to extend it in various ways as shown in these two important Clauses 1 and 2. It must be remembered that the Government of Ireland Act set up the only sample that we have of a federal system inside the United Kingdom. You have a Parliament sitting in Northern Ireland composed of two Chambers, the House of Commons and the Senate, yet at the same time sending representatives here to the Imperial Parliament. Obviously, the Government of Ireland Act tried to lay down as far as possible what are the prerogatives of the Government of Northern Ireland and what functions are "reserved" or "excepted" for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. You have in Clause 2 a very interesting example which refers to criminal legislation. Criminal legislation is not a reserved service. It is within the competence of the two Houses of Parliament for Northern Ireland, but criminal legislation may refer to certain matters which are reserved services, and therefore any Bill introduced into the House of Commons of Northern Ireland could not refer to these matters, and the object of Clause 2 is to widen the powers in that respect of the Government of Northern Ireland.

As this question is brought up here today it may be pointed out that there are certain other matters on which this bears. There is a very important Subsection in Section 4 of the Government of Ireland Act to which I would like to call attention. The Parliament of Northern Ireland cannot deal with relations with other parts of His Majesty's Dominions. What is the result of that? It is impossible for us, within our own powers, to interfere, in any way, with the penetration into the country of certain undesirable elements. All that we can do is, when they have entered the country, to instruct our police to take such measures as they can for the defence of the country. This is exceedingly unsatisfactory because we cannot stop anyone crossing the border, nor can we prevent goods from being brought across the border. The result is that we had, as hon. Members may have read in the papers only the other day, a very glaring example of a huge dump of arms which was discovered in the Falls Road district of Belfast. Would it not have been far more satisfactory if the officials of the Government of Northern Ireland had been allowed to prevent these arms from being brought in there instead of waiting until they had been dumped into the country?

I think the hon. Gentleman is going far too wide in discussing disputes between Southern and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member is distinctly out of Order in this matter.

With respect, I would suggest that I do not want to be misunderstood. That was not really my intention. I am confining myself to the Bill, and I did not refer to Southern Ireland at all. I desire only to try to get some further slight amendment of this Bill, so as to give us the powers which are really essential for our own defence.

If people came across the border then they must have come from Southern Ireland.

I am only dealing with the people actually in Northern Ireland.

That is the whole point. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the border, and there is no other way to cross the border except into Southern Ireland. He must, as I have asked him, stick to the purposes of the Bill.

With the utmost respect I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that when the Defence Regulations expire, as they will expire after the war, then the various measures which have been taken, for instance that relating to residence permits, will disappear, and the Government of Northern Ireland will have no power to deal with the matter. I really do feel that as the Government of Ireland Act is now being called in question in this Bill, I am entitled to point out—and I am not referring to Southern Ireland at all—that there are some slight difficulties as between the Imperial Government and the Government of Northern Ireland as to how far the powers of the one or the other extend. I have brought up a number of questions in this House, put them to the Home Secretary, and he has replied to me "This is a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland." I have said "No," and asked him if he is not aware of Section 5 in the Government of Ireland Act with reference to reserved services and that he himself is the only person who could deal with these matters.

The Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament are very concerned about this, because there is scarcely any matter that can be brought before the House of Commons and the Senate of Northern Ireland which, in wartime, does not come under the Defence Regulations, and therefore is a reserved service. The result is that there is a growing feeling among the Members of frustration, and they really feel that there is very little for them to do at Stormont. Practically the only important subject which comes within their jurisdiction is the subject of education and even here there are certain restrictions. Therefore, I do feel that, as we seldom get an opportunity of discussing these matters, and as the Government of Northern Ireland Act is being called in question in this Bill, I ought to be allowed this opportunity of pointing out the difficulties that have arisen. I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not in any way in favour of Dominion Home Rule, of making Northern Ireland into a Dominion—

The hon. Gentleman is, as I have already told him, going far too wide. He is discussing all sorts of things on a Bill which merely deals, as it clearly states, with miscellaneous provisions, and on which one cannot discuss Home Rule relations and questions of that sort. I must ask him to bring himself to Order.

I am bound to bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to point out in conclusion that in spite of anything that I have said, my one object is to improve as far as is possible the relations existing between the Government of Northern Ireland and that of the United Kingdom, and to bring them closer together, because we ourselves are proud to form part of the United Kingdom.

As I raised a point of Order, I find it very difficult not to intervene. The right hon. Lady in charge of the Bill referred to me and therefore I feel that it would be both discourteous and ungenerous of me if I did not congratulate her on having brought this Bill before the House. It is, to her, the crown of a political career. Here she is bringing in a Bill dealing with substitutes for the Great Seal, giving full trustee status to securities, making alterations in the winding up of Lunacy Funds and making further provisions for the Public Record Office. I should not wish this great day in her political life to pass without adding my word of appreciation from these benches.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, leave out "his former office," and insert:

"the office to which he would have been entitled had he not proceeded on war service."

The effect of the Amendment will be to rewrite

"he was not re-employed in his former office"

so as to read,

"he was not re-employed in the office to which he would have been entitled had he not proceeded on war service."

The purposes of the Bill are very clearly explained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which says:

"The main object of this Bill is to put employees of local authorities who are on war service … in the same position … as employees of the local authority who remained in local government employment."

It is the custom for employees of local authorities, especially those in very junior ranks, to receive increases of pay and promotion in respect of the period of time in which they have been employed, and I submit that Clause 2 does not place those employees who have been on war service in the same position as those who have continued in employment with local authorities. They come back on exactly the same terms and with exactly the same remuneration as when they left years before, and that is causing them a very grave hardship indeed. Recently I had a visit from one of my shipmates who has been discharged from the Service on account of health. He has been sent back to his former employment on exactly the same terms as obtained when he left nearly five years ago. That young officer correctly stated, in my view, that he had a very serious grievance, and it is that grievance which my Amendment seeks to remove. It may well be that the Minister will say that this point is covered by Clause 8, Sub-section (2), which says:

"References in this Act to the reemployment of any person with reduced emoluments shall be construed as referring to re-employment with emoluments less than those which he would have received in respect of employment … immediately before the date on which he ceased to be engaged in war Service if he had continued to be so employed until that date."

If such be the case my Amendment is redundant and should be withdrawn, but if that is not the case I consider that a very grave hardship indeed is being inflicted on employees who have proceeded on war service. The Minister may point out to me that he cannot go beyond the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act of 1944. Section 1 (a) very clearly lays down how this position is dealt with in the case of those in civil employment, and I submit that the local authorities' employees are in a completely different category. They are skilled in local authority work, they have pension and other rights, and if they are to give up all that to look for employment in other spheres of life they will be suffering a very grave hardship indeed. The hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden), during the Second Reading Debate, pointed out how the railway companies were dealing with this matter in that those who were in their employment were given temporary appointments. I believe that the same state of affairs takes place in the Civil Service, but here employees of local authorities, returning after many years of arduous work in the service of their country, are put in exactly the same position in regard to compensation as when they left—a very grave injustice indeed.

I would like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. I have put no Amendment on the Order Paper because I was under the impression—I am so innocent—from their sympathetic and friendly attitude, when the Bill was read a Second time, that the officers of the Department would themselves find nice words which would meet our point. Unfortunately, they have not done so, and I have just received a letter from the Minister explaining that he could not quite see his way to do it. I ask him to be kind enough to have another look at this matter. I think it could be done. In all these services—and there is a great variety of them—there is a regular promotion system. It is subject, of course, to alteration if there is any misconduct or fault on the part of the person concerned, but normally officers go from stage to stage in the customary manner. If they have been away for some years serving their country and then come back and find that their customary progress has been annihilated and they have to stand where they were when they left and wait many years before they get another chance, it is a source of bitterness and real hardship to the good men concerned.

I am a little uncertain whether the words of the Amendment are quite adequate, but I feel that if the Minister looks at this question again with his usual sympathy—and I am sure there is sympathy in the Department for this point—he may find even better words than those tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend. Perhaps the inclusion of the words "by customary practice" after the word "which" in the second line of the Amendment would help the position. We do not want any man who comes back from the war to say, "If I had not gone away to fight I would have been general manager by now." That would b preposterous. A general manager is not appointed by seniority or customary practice. This only refers to the ordinary men in this fixed service who get their pay increases and promotion according to customary practice, and really that customary practice ought to be protected. They ought not to come back and find that their position as employees has been damnified in any way whatever. Therefore, I beg of the Minister to undertake to have another look at this and see what he can do for us on the Report stage.

I feel, as I think the Committee will feel, a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I can see that the Minister might feel that there is some difficulty in putting a returning officer into the post which he would have held or which he might have reasonably expected to hold had he not proceeded on war service. I can see that from the standpoint of the authorities the break in experience might be an obstacle to reinstatement on those lines. The real point of the Amendment is that the returning officer ought to be sure that his remuneration when he returns to the service will not be less than it would have been if he had continued throughout in the service. I would invite my right hon. and learned Friend, if he does not feel himself able to accept the Amendment, to give us an assurance that he will look into the matter again from that standpoint, and at a later stage of this Bill make some provision that would secure that the employee who has proceeded upon active service and who, when he returns, finds that he is not entitled to, or will not receive, the remuneration which he might otherwise reasonably expect to have been his if he had remained continuously in the service of the authority, shall not at any rate be placed in any unreasonable position by reason of his active service.

With the spirit of this Amendment, every Member of the Committee would agree, but I would submit that in its present form—and I am speaking with some experience of local government—it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to apply. Who is to determine the office to which a man would have been entitled had he not proceeded on war service? Is it the man? Is it the council? Who is it? Many of these young people who have gone away are obviously on salary scales. We all agree that while a man is away his increments should follow year by year, but who could say that a person on a maximum scale would necessarily have achieved a position higher or in another department? I think the terms are so wide that it would really be impossible to apply it, but if the Minister would look at it in that spirit of sympathy with which he has approached the problem of trying to see that no person on war service is in any way in a worse position than those who remained at home, then probably he will see whether anything can be done to meet the point.

I am very glad that we should have bad an opportunity of discussing this Amendment, and I am grateful to the hon. Members who have spoken on it. However, I am afraid I cannot accept it, for reasons which have really already been indicated. I have looked at this question since the Second Reading Debate and, of course, one has to remember right through that whatever we do, however sympathetic we are, war with its years of interruption causes difficulties which are inevitable. What we are trying to do in this Bill is, so far as practicable, to put local government officers on war service in the same position as officers who have remained at home, and it will not have escaped the notice of the Committee that we have dealt in the Bill and in the Schedule with men on an incremental scale. After most careful consideration, however, I feel it would be impossible to put upon anybody, local authorities or anybody else, a liability to pay compensation for a loss so problematical as to its existence and, apart from that, so difficult to value as to amount, as would be necessitated by some provision for loss of an "office to which he would have been entitled." After all, the intention of my hon. and gallant Friend's amendment is not really limited to income which the officer would have had, it is office to which he would have been entitled, and promotion really does not and should not always go by seniority. Consequently, though I should like to do everything possible, and I believe we are in fact doing everything possible in this matter, I cannot accept this Amendment.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson) suggested something that would really go outside the Bill altogether, if I understood him aright. He was dealing with a question of remuneration, and not a question of compensation at all. He wished to provide for men obtaining the same remuneration that they would have obtained, but this is a Bill for compensation of displaced officers and that is the limit of its scope. I should welcome the opportunity of looking into it again if I had not looked into it thoroughly already, and I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

I am grateful, and I think the Committee is, to my hon. and gallant Friend the member for Aston (Commander Prior) for having raised this matter. There are only two possible classes of officers who may be affected. I see very well that it would be extremely difficult in the case of a man who went into the Army in, say, 1939 to expect when he came back not only to be reinstated in his previous job—which, shall we say, was that of an assistant surveyor—but to be appointed surveyor because he might, by the death of a previous surveyor, have felt he was entitled to that job, It would be extremely difficult to lay upon all the authorities concerned the onus of accepting such obligations as that.

On that point, I am afraid I am not in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend, but there is another point which has been raised, and on that I am not quite satisfied with the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend. That is the case, to give an example, of a man who in 1939 joins the Army and then comes back and who, in the course of his ordinary service, would be entitled to annual increments. I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend that he would not be entitled to those increments but would go back on his old salary. He has explained the reason for it, and has said this cannot be covered by the Bill. I wonder if that is absolutely the case. It seems to me that a man in that position would suffer consequential loss—one might almost say, direct consequential loss, and that instead of having a salary of £500, as he would if he had stayed in the service of the local authority in the ordinary way, he would now, on coining back after 5 years' absence, only be entitled to £400 a year. That seems to me to indicate that such a man would be suffering consequential loss, due to the fact that he went into the Army. Am I quite wrong in thinking that this cannot be covered by the Bill? I should have thought that the long Title of the Bill would, in fact, cover that, and I would, therefore, direct my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to that particular point in view of the further suggestion that I have made to him, and would ask him if he could not possibly see his way at a later stage to introduce an Amendment which would cover that particular class of person which I have mentioned.

I think the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), though interesting, is quite clearly outside the scope of this Bill. The point he is dealing with is one which relates to the general question of reinstatement in employment. The scope of this Bill is limited to making provision for due compensation for officers who because they are on war service, are not within the usual provisions for compensation when pecuniary loss has arisen by reason of a change in the functions of the local authority in whose service they were. Now my hon. Friend's observations were applicable to any officer of any local authority to which he returned after war service, whether or not there has been any change in its functions, and it would be right outside the scope of this Bill to provide new terms with regard to reinstatement of officers returning from war service and to ensure that they should immediately obtain from the local authority the increment which they would have had but for their war service. That, I am afraid, is a conclusive objection to dealing with that matter in this Bill—it would be right outside its scope.

The point which is now being discussed seems to be so outside the scope that I am afraid I ought to have stopped it quite a long while ago.

On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. I apologise to the Committee if I failed to make my remarks clear a moment ago, but is it not the case that under this Sub-section the compensation to which the officer would be entitled is necessarily based upon the remuneration in receipt of which he was at the time when he proceeded on war service, or upon the remuneration which he might reasonably be anticipating that he would be receiving when his war service ended?

I think that as far as the Amendment is concerned, the Amendment is in Order, and I have always considered it was, but as far as a certain argument is concerned which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), which the Minister himself said he thought was entirely beyond the scope of the Bill, as regards that certain point of remuneration, that seems to me to be getting beyond the scope of the Bill. I allowed it to be put because I thought there was a doubt, but I do not think we ought to follow it, especially as the Minister himself says he cannot get it into the Bill.

On a further point of Order. I do not want to press it too far, but is it not the case that in order to determine the compensation to which the officer would be entitled under this Clause it is necessary first to have regard to his remuneration, because the compensation must necessarily, under this Clause, depend upon the loss of the remuneration which the officer will sustain by reason of his loss of office or emoluments?

I do not know whether this will make the matter clearer; it is quite correct, as my hon. and learned Friend says, that in certain cases it is necessary, when considering compensation, to consider what remuneration the man would have obtained. What I was suggesting, and continue to suggest, is outside the scope of the Bill, is to put forward additions to the Bill to provide for remuneration and terms of remuneration when no question of compensation and no question of change of functions has arisen.

I think probably that is the real point at issue.

I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said, and I agree with him that one can only have regard to the officer's remuneration, or anticipated remuneration, in the limited sense in which that remuneration will form a basis of the compensation to which he will be entitled under this Bill. I would like to invite my right hon. and learned Friend to consider this matter again and see whether, in that limited sense, it is not possible to provide for the compensation to be based on the higher rate of remuneration which the officer might have anticipated if he had remained in the service of the local authority.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, leave out "on," and insert "in."

This is a mere drafting Amendment, required in a number of places in the Bill. By inadvertence the word "on" appeared in the place of "in," and in a number of places we desire to have the word "in" in order to have consistency throughout the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, at end, add:

"(2) Every Order in Council made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be before Parliament, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such Order is laid before it, praying that the Order be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order and it shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder in the meantime or to the making of a new Order.

In reckoning the said period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

(3) Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to any Order in Council made under this section.

(4) Any Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order made in like manner."

This Clause provides for Orders in Council in cases where provision for compensation is in respect of the servants of public authorities or public utility undertakers. The Bill, as drawn, makes no provision for consideration by Parliament of such Orders in Council and I think it would be appropriate that there should be provision for laying such Orders and for an opportunity for Praying against them. The additional Sub-sections, as drafted, are, I think, in regular and. ordinary form, and are in line with the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), which follows on the Order Paper. I think, however, that the Amendment I am moving is more technically accurate. It adds what is obviously desirable, power to revoke or amend an Order.

Does the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson) desire to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) in page 5, line 18?

The Amendment which the Minister has moved, and which has been accepted, has entirely met the point of our Amendment, Mr. Williams, and I do not, therefore, desire to move it and discuss it.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend mind explaining to the Committee Sub-section (2) of this Clause, with regard to compensation?

Sub-section (2) of this Clause, which is, of course, the Interpretation Clause, is one which throws light on, and defines what is meant by, the re-employment of any person with reduced emoluments. Its object is to define what is meant by reduction. It states that reduction is not to be taken as an actual arithmetical reduction, but is to be the amount by which the new emoluments are less than those which the officer would have received in respect of employment in his former office. It will be noted that the reference is to his former office. No question arises as to some other office to which he may have been entitled. What it refers to is the position of the officer on an incremental scale, and the reduction will be measured not in relation to what he was receiving in 1939, or when he went to the war, but to what he would have been receiving on that incremental scale at the material date.

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

I hope the Minister will not think it ungracious of me, in view of what he is doing in this Bill, if I press this Clause on his attention, but it deals with one aspect of the problem which we think has not yet been covered. May I recall that the Education Act, Section 6, Sub-section (4) provides that transferred officers shall be employed on the same terms and conditions as they were immediately before the transfer. It can easily be appreciated, I think, that among the transferred officers there may be varying sick pay conditions, and other similar conditions, but under the Section I have just mentioned the authority to whom these officers have been transferred cannot vary the conditions. As I read this Bill as it is at present, an officer in the Forces, coming back, has no similar protection so far as his conditions of service are concerned. I admit, of course, that he has protection for 12 months under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, but after that period, I understand, he has no protection of any kind, and the authority to whom he has been transferred may vary his conditions of service in any way they may think fit.

It may be argued that it is not usual to provide for contingencies of that kind, but, as the Committee is always sympathetic to precedents, may I recall that in the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, Section 73, Sub-section (3), there is adequate protection for all service conditions for the persons transferred under -that Act. My hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) who, no doubt, had a part to play while that Act was being passed, will recall with me what a mixed lot of people from all sorts of undertakings were brought within the scope of that Act. As I see it, the long Title of the Bill gives scope for what I am asking, because it covers deterioration in the conditions of employment, etc., of these officers and I suggest that I am in Order in asking the Minister, within the terms of the Title of the Bill, to give consideration to the point I am making. I am sure that from the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has approached this problem, and the way in which this Bill is drafted, he has no desire, if it can possibly be avoided, that any officer serving in the Forces should be in a worse position than one who, fortunately or unfortunately, has not been called to the Forces. I agree that there must always be an element of risk in this matter, but so far as we can do justice I believe it is the desire of the Minister that we should do justice, and I ask him to give sympathetic consideration to this Clause, even if the words on the Order Paper do not quite meet the position I have outlined.

:This is a technical matter and I hope I shall be able to explain it with sufficient lucidity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), who understands so much about these matters, for having raised this question, and I think I had better review the position and see what really comes out of an examination of it. In the Education Act there is a requirement, under Section 6, Sub-section (4), that officers employed by a county district council immediately before 1st April, 1945, in an educational capacity, are to be transferred to the county council on the same terms and conditions. It is quite true that those who were in the service of the county district, and who are on war service on 1st April, will not be covered by the Section. They will, however, come within the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act and, surprising as it sounds, the definition in that Act has this result: that the county council is their former employer for the purposes of the Act. So the county council will have to take these officers into their service on terms and conditions not less favourable than those previously enjoyed or, if that is not reasonable and practicable, in the most favourable occupation and on the most favourable terms which are reasonable and practicable.

In the Bill as it stands, in so far as any of these officers suffer a direct pecuniary loss, they will be entitled to compensation in respect of that loss, and my real trouble about this new Clause is that it is quite expressly directed to losses which are not direct pecuniary losses at all. I think I am right in saying that these provisions for compensation of local government officers, on a change in functions, have always been in terms of direct pecuniary loss. We should be going outside the shape of the main provisions of the 1933 Act and its Fourth Schedule, and we should be entering a field of very great obscurity. I am not sure what compensation a local authority would feel it was being asked to make in respect, for instance, of a diminution of the period of annual leave, or a lower scale of sick pay or something of that kind. One can get a formula for compensation for loss of office or reduction of emoluments, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, I think the method of calculating compensation is left, in his Clause, entirely in the air and inevitably so, because it is really impossible to define. If the county council does not do what it should, in this curious capacity in which it is described as the former employer, the officer has legal rights against the council. But this particular form of compensation which the Clause suggests is a form of compensation which would be special for the case of an officer of a county district who had been on war service, and one to which the officer who had remained at home all the time would not be entitled, and therefore it would go outside the main purpose and scope of the Bill whose object is to put officers on war service as far as practicable in the same position as those who are not.

1.45 P.m.

That is really the objection to it, because for the law to be in a logical condition after to-day one would really have not only to accept this. Clause but to amend other Acts, possibly the Education Act and the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, in order to provide, not for the reinstatement at present provided for but for the employment on identical terms and conditions of both classes of officers, those who have gone on war service and those who have not. If that is a true analysis of what is really asked for, I think it can be seen that both in principle and in the shaping of the Bill one would be going outside the scope of what is intended in the Bill and, though I am sympathetic to the suggestion, I am afraid I cannot accept the Clause.

This is certainly a technical and very involved matter and I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the explanation which he has given, but he has not entirely convinced me that the reasons which have prompted him to reject the Clause are really well-founded. He has said, quite rightly, that the purpose of the Bill is to place those officers on war service in the same position as those who have not gone on war service. The Clause was intended for exactly that purpose. The difficulty that the officer on war service finds himself in is that, by reason of the fact that he is on war service, he does not enjoy the special advantage enjoyed by those still in the service of a county district authority at the time of the transfer to the county authority, with the special obligation on the latter to employ the transferred officer on the same terms as those on which he was employed by the county district authority. That is an advantage which the officer who remains in the service of the authority enjoys under the Education Act, and it is an advantage which the officer on war service does not enjoy. Because he is not actually transferred at the time of the transfer, the only right that he has to be employed on the same conditions as those on which he was employed before he proceeded on war service arises under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. That is only temporary, and the point of the Clause is to meet the position which arises when that temporary obligation is exhausted. It is at that stage that the officer on war service at the time when the transfer takes place may be at a disadvantage. In those circumstances I would like the Minister to look at it again and see if it is not possible to hold out some hope that he can meet this rather exceptional situation. I am sure he would not be setting any undesirable precedent if he attempted to deal with an exceptional position by an exceptional method.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he has given attention to the matter, but I would again plead with him to see whether he can meet us in some way or other. There may be two men employed by the same authority. One is transferred and the other is away on war service. The transferred man is entitled to sick pay for six months. That cannot be altered under the terms of the Education Act, but the new county authority's sick pay arrangements may be for three months only. When the man who has been on war service comes back, he goes to the county authority and is protected for 12 months. He retains his original right. After that the county authority would put him on three months' sick pay. That is a typical instance, and it may apply to all concerned in other conditions of service. There is a precedent in the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933. I will not press the right hon. and learned Gentleman further to-day but I would ask him to look at it again before Report.

My hon. Friends have put their case very persuasively but I hope I have satisfied the Committee of what I believe myself, that this is really not a question of setting an undesirable precedent or anything of that kind but of implanting into the Bill something that amounts to an amendment of the Education Act and the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. It is really extending in principle the obligation for the re-employment of officers of Part III authorities. I think many difficulties would arise. For those men who have been on war service there is no right to exactly the same employment on their return. The obligation on the county council will not be to take them into something exactly comparable with their former employment, and this is the general law. The obligation is to take them into their service on terms and conditions not less favourable than those on which they were previously employed or, if this is not reasonable and practicable, in the most favourable occupation and on the most favourable terms that are reasonable and practicable. The hon. Member has spoken of something which might occur after 12 months. But a change might occur within 12 months and yet the county council has complied with its statutory obligation. I see the greatest difficulty in going beyond what is the general scope of compensation provisions, both generally and in this Bill, in going beyond direct pecuniary loss, which is what has always been covered so far, in providing for the special and really rather exceptional circumstances which my hon. Friends envisage and for a type of loss which, not being directly pecuniary loss, is very difficult to assess. Having considered it carefully I am afraid that I must stand firm and say that I see no hope of getting this additional provision in the Bill.

Having pressed my right hon. and learned Friend on the Committee stage of the Bill, perhaps unduly, I desire to say to him at this stage that my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) and myself, and those in whose interests this Bill has been promoted, are grateful to him not only for the way in which he has met us, but for the prompt manner in which this Bill has been introduced and carried through.

I also would like to thank the Minister for this Bill, not only on our own behalf, but on behalf of those whose interests it is designed to meet who are now on war service, I want to thank him for the kindly and sympathetic way in which he has dealt with the points we have put to him and for the care and attention which have been shown in the preparation of the Bill. So far as I know, the point which has just been raised in Committee is the only one of substance which has emerged in the detailed consideration of the Measure.

I join with my two hon. Friends in expressing appreciation to the Minister for the helpful way he has assisted us in the proceedings on this Bill. I would also like to ask him whether he would take advantage of the Third Reading, to clear up a point that I raised with him on Second Reading. He has been good enough to do it by letter, which I find entirely satisfactory, but I shall be grateful if he will confirm that the position now is that any youngster who went into the Army, Navy or Air Force after the opening of hostilities is entitled to compensation under this Bill.

I wish to add my appreciation to that which has been expressed, to thank the Minister for this Bill, and to congratulate him on the happy and expeditious way he has got it through. I hope that we may be just as happy and expeditious next week on the much larger Measure that will then be introduced.

I would not like to strike a discordant note, but I think it is necessary to sound a note of warning. There have been so many bouquets thrown at the Minister that they might have the effect of making him feel that he can steer everything through, in the placid way which he has enjoyed on this Bill. I am sure that that will not be the case. This was a needed Bill. It was necessary in the interests of justice. We are glad that the Bill is going through. If it had not been passed there would have been a grave omission. Many tasks will be lightened by its passage, because at this juncture no graver disservice could be done than by creating grievances and dissatisfactions among local government staffs. We shall shortly be calling upon those staffs for strenuous service. Nothing is more important than that they should be efficient and satisfied, and to the extent that this Bill makes a contribution in that direction, we are grateful. It is necessary, however, to warn the Minister that the life that lies ahead for him will not be composed of such easy paths, unless, of course, he completely adopts the philosophy which I hold, that is, Socialism.

On Third Reading, we cannot discuss philosophy, but only what is in the Bill.

That is true, and I would say that to the extent that this Bill is a Measure of social justice, it is a contribution to the philosophy of Socialism.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends for what they have said and for having helped us to get this necessary legislation through the House with so little delay. Only yesterday we were discussing the immense importance of our local government service in the years immediately ahead. This Bill is a small contribution to fair terms and justice for local government officers who have been on war service of whatever kind. I am glad my hon. Friends the Members for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) and for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) asked me to make clear the position on a point which was raised on Second Reading. The question was whether any difficulty would be caused for a local government officer who had run off on war service, without getting the approval, or even against the advice and instructions, of his local authority. The point is quite clear, and can be stated in a way entirely satisfactory to the hon. Members who raised it and to those who are affected.

So far as this Bill and these officers are concerned, the position is covered by paragraph (7) (2) of the Schedule, which provides that any period during which an officer has been engaged in war service within the meaning of the 1939 Act shall be reckoned as a period of service in his office. That is to say, the criterion is whether or not he was on war service, and not the circumstances in which he embarked on that service. Any officer of a local authority who ceased to serve his authority in order to undertake service during the period of the present emergency would be on war service as so defined, and he can reckon that service, whether he joined the Forces voluntarily or compulsorily, with or without the permission of his authority. I am speaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as for myself when I express my gratification and gratitude to those who have helped us to get this Bill through.

I am glad of this opportunity to try to persuade my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food to revoke the Poultry (Maximum Prices) Order. There is a good deal of feeling on this subject on both sides of the House, and, in addition, the present situation is resented throughout the country for adequate and cogent reasons which I will lay before the House. Whereas I can think of at least half-adozen sound reasons for revoking the Order, I search my wits and fail to find one in favour of its retention.

The first reason for the withdrawal of the Order is that I believe it to be unenforceable, and it thus provides considerable opportunities for black marketeers. The growth of black market influence under this Order has been very notable and pronounced. My next reason, which follows from the first, is that it brings the law into contempt. The third is that maldistribution has deprived legitimate traders of the opportunity of securing the limited supplies that are available. The public, too, has been denied the chance of buying their fair share of table poultry and rabbits through normal channels. Again, it is fair to state that table poultry is not raised in reasonable quantities under this Order become, at prices fixed by the Ministry, they do not show a fair return and profit to the producer. Lastly, and this is as weighty a reason as any, all trade interests —that is, producers, wholesalers and retailers—are as one in supporting my case for the revocation of the Order.

On several occasions this subject has been raised in the House. I would remind my right hon. and gallant Friend of the occasion when the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) drew his attention to the fact that grave black market offences were being committed in the sale and distribution of turkeys for the Christmas trade. I refer not to foreign turkeys, but to English birds. In reply, my right hon. and gallant Friend said that the Ministry were instituting prosecutions wherever they could get the necessary evidence. As a result of that reply I put a Question to the Minister on 17th January, and he informed me that there had been 22 prosecutions of those guilty of disposing of turkeys above the controlled price. This figure is, I submit, wholly negligible in view of the fact that practically the whole output of English turkeys in East Anglia was sold in the black market, as my right hon. and gallant Friend is well aware. The efforts of my right hon. and gallant Friend's Department, through his enforcing officers, were no doubt, highly commendable in their way, but about as effective as trying to stop a leak in a battleship with a pocket handkerchief. In reply to a further question, my right hon. and gallant Friend said that the number of black market offences had been greatly exaggerated. I submit that the facts all point to the contrary, and I am able to produce overwhelming evidence in the opposite direction.

In my view, the simple truth is that the Poultry (Maximum Prices) Order cannot be made to work, as my right hon. and gallant Friend once admitted, unless there are enforcement officers available for practically every farm in the country. At the recent annual conference of the National Federation of Meat Traders Associations, held in London on 16th January, representing no fewer than 45,000 butchers in Great Britain, a motion was adopted urging the Minister to revoke the Order on the ground that it failed to control not less than 95 per cent. of table poultry. I should like also to point out that the said motion has the approval of and was endorsed by the Poultry Association of Great Britain and the National Association of Wholesale and Retail Poultry Dealers. I am also able to cite the case of one retailer who got into touch with me and pointed out that he had no less than 35 shops where, before the Order was made, he used to dispose of English table poultry and rabbits, but since the Order he had not sold a single head of one or the other.

Where are the limited supplies of poultry going? My contention is that they are supplied mostly to hotels and restaurants by subterranean channels, and the black market. In the meantime, the unfortunate and long-suffering British public have to go without. In addition to the reasons which I have already given, the trade is opposed to the Order because the prices fixed by the Ministry are unremunerative to the producer. I shall be very grateful if the Minister in his reply would state whether the basic reason for the making of the Order was not originally to discourage the production of table poultry and rabbits. I understand that there was a great scarcity of feeding stuffs at the time when the Order was made, but the position is now easier.

I hope it is not too optimistic for me to assume that my right hon. and gallant Friend may consider revoking this Order. Let us consider what the immediate results would be. The first would be to kill the black market, stone dead so far as the poultry industry is concerned. That would be a very useful step. Secondly, producers would be encouraged to increase supplies at an economic level. I am prepared to agree that if prices are to be remunerative they must move in an upward direction to some extent. Lastly, the revocation of the Order would give the public an opportunity to obtain a fair share of poultry and rabbits on a larger scale than hitherto, through increased production. To sum up briefly the case for the withdrawal of the Order, let me say that both on moral and economic grounds, I consider it to be overwhelming. I therefore appeal to my right hon. and gallant Friend to take the necessary steps forthwith.

I should like to support my hon. Friend in the case that he has put forward. It was a very strong case for the annulment of the Order. I do not wish to follow him in all the arguments that he has advanced and thus weary the House, but we have heard it stated by the Minister, speaking of course with perfectly good faith, that the black market is not as extensive as some people seem to think. I think there is very little doubt, although the matter is difficult to prove, that there has been a very large black market, particularly over Christmastime, in turkeys and poultry.

In the critical, but I trust benign, remarks I am going to address to the Minister I hope it will not be thought that there is any lack of appreciation of the Food Ministry's work or its conduct by the Minister or his predecessor. The Department has, on the whole, done very admirable work from the moment the war broke out. In relation to basic foodstuffs such as meat, bread, bacon, tea, sugar and other commodities the whole of the Ministry's administration leaves very little to be desired. Considering the immense difficulties of shipping and distribution the Ministry have managed to ensure a fair distribution of food to the whole population, and the result has been that the people of this country have been very well fed during the war. Some exaggerated claims are occasionally put forward to the effect that we have never been so well fed before, but I take them, I must say, with a grain of unrationed salt. None the less, we have been very fairly and properly looked after.

It is when we come to the less important foods and materials that the Ministry has been less successful. I do not think that is due to lack of good intention or to lack of good faith, but to the fact that when dealing with things in short supply, in some cases almost luxuries and at any rate non-necessities, we run into a great deal of difficulty. The moment the Government step in they are very apt to drive foodstuffs such as eggs and poultry off the market. I remember that after the Government intervened in regard to eggs, the ordinary housewife saw very few eggs, and felt herself very lucky when she got an egg allocation. We have had experience of Government control in the case of the Food Ministry not to mention many other Departments, and I hope—perhaps that is the wrong phrase, and I should say "I hope not"—the people of this country have enjoyed it. I am certain they have not. The queue mind will very rapidly disappear after the war, and people will ask for a little more liberty.

In addition to the question of poultry—and I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will accede to the request that was made in that respect—I want to raise another matter connected with the administration of the Ministry of Food. We have seen a large number of advertisements and heard talks on the B.B.C. in connection with food matters directed to the ordinary housewife. I called the attention of the Minister the other day to an advertisement in "The Times" which cost His Majesty's Government £78. A more futile advertisement and a more flagrant waste of the nation's money I find it difficult to imagine. A great many similar advertisements, I feel, are an absolute waste of money. It is true that when food is in relatively short supply it is important to try to persuade the housewife to understand the importance of calories and proteins in order that she can make the best use of the food available. None the less, I think my right hon. and gallant Friend goes rather too far in endeavouring to make such information available.

What is really needed is a number of booklets such as there are in the schools. They are good little pamphlets which teach how to cook and in some cases teach the relative values of foods. I do not believe that all this weight of propaganda by the B.B.C. and in the newspapers is worth a great deal. I know we shall be told that housewives immensely appreciate it, but would it not be better to put this information up in pamphlet form and not waste such an awful lot of the taxpayers' money in advertisements and talks on the B.B.C.? We heard a lot of "Fuel Flashes"—I do not think there is much in them at all—now we have a large number of "Food Flashes" coming across on the wireless. I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to reconsider the whole of our policy in this connection and to ask himself whether it is really worth while continuing these extremely expensive and not really effective forms of propaganda.

I should like to hold up the hands of the Minister of Food, although I do not think he really wants very much assistance. There is no Ministry more popular in the country or more appreciated, and I only wish the same could be said of other Ministries. However, it was a useful idea of the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Stourton) to raise the question of poultry, especially on Friday afternoon, when the Minister can have the opportunity of explaining the exact position to the country. I am one of those who pay their tribute to the whole rationing system. The reason the country is so content and so patient under short commons is that there is a general feeling of share-and-share-alike and that the well-to-do are no better off than the person of moderate means. We all have to submit to great inconvenience with queuing, ration books and the difficulty of deciding each week how many of those small bits of paper should go to the various things we want. We put up with those things because we recognise that during the last five years there has been a brave attempt on the part of the Ministry to dispense evenhanded justice.

It is just as well that the housewife should understand the reasons. It is clear that where there is not enough of a commodity to go round, it is important to organise a rationing system. The only alternative is to have a maximum price. The hon. Member who raised this Debate put up an effective case about the operation of the maximum price system. What is the alternative? It is to allow an open market in which the men or women with the longest purses can—with the approval of the State, mark you—always get what they want on the unrationed market.

That is exactly what is happening now. If the right hon. Baronet had listened to what I said, he would have heard that the trade organisations say that not less than 95 per cent. of poultry goes through the black market.

I quite recognise the difficulty, and I am going to deal with it. My hon. Friend proposes that the Minister of Food should throw up the sponge, give up the struggle, because of the dishonesty not only of sellers but of buyers, and should say to the public that for the sake of a few privileged people they will have to put up with short commons because the person in the large house and with the long purse can go into the market and get extra food. That would be disastrous, that would have a bad effect, that would cause discontent—

That is what is happening now.

The duty that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has to perform is to hold the balance between all sections of the community. I am all for him trying to improve his organisation, but I would not ask him to abandon the struggle. On the contrary, he ought to do the right thing by the whole community and, as I say, we ought to support him in his struggle.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) had something to say against the propaganda section of the Ministry. I am one of those who think it is a most helpful thing. One of the criticisms of visitors to this country from time immemorial has been about its bad cooking. It has been suggested that in normal times we waste enough to feed the whole of the French people, with their economy and knowledge of the culinary art. The Department has educated people not only on food values, which is important, but on how to make palatable, and make the best use of, the commodities that are available.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that also applies to the Kitchen Committee of the House of Commons?

Perhaps if the Committee would only listen in at 8 a.m. better use would be made of the foods available in the kitchen of the House of Commons. I am all for that excellent work which is being done by the Ministry. Their exhibitions, their instructional classes, their teaching of cookery, are not to be discouraged. My hon. Friend is no doubt fortunate in having a good cook or in being a good cook himself.

I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I was expressing myself, not against these cookery classes, but against the newspaper advertisements and the rather silly talks on the B.B.C.

I do not think that the talks on the B.B.C. are silly. They are very entertaining. When I get up early enough, I listen to them myself. There are humble folk, anxious to learn, who do listen in to these talks. They are one of the most useful things the Ministry have done and I hope they will go on with them. I even go so far as to hope that this work continues after the war, not necessarily as the work of a separate Department. The education of the British people in cookery will do more good far the British nation than all the doctors and chemists' shops in the country put together. To go back to the poultry issue, I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will hesitate to listen to the advice which has been given to him to abandon the Maximum Prices Order in relation to commodities too small in quantity for rationing.

When the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Stourton) asked me whether I would join him this afternoon in this discussion on the distribution of poultry I thought, and believed, that he intended to offer the House not only criticism of the way poultry has been distributed, or maldistributed, so far as the public are concerned; I thought he intended to support control, or the canalisation of distribution, so that there should be a greater equity in this matter of poultry and rabbits for those who are not getting a share, and who have had difficulty in getting a share, of these "tasty bits," which help to augment the rations. I was inclined to the view that he would suggest some system whereby the public could benefit. His only suggestion is that we should first get rid of price control. Of all the crazy ideas that have ever been submitted to the House, that idea of the hon. Member for South Salford has certainly reached the limit. It indicates that the logic behind his argument is—I am quoting East Anglia as he did—that because racketeers have brought the law into contempt, we must get rid of the law and make an open market. I do not know that the House will be impressed by such an argument, but that is what he means. His next suggestion is that there should be a step-up of foodstuffs to make an open market possible for the producers of table birds. I believe that the Minister of Food would say that he has been trying to do that for a long time, but that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food jointly find difficulty in supplying the necessary food with which to feed the birds which would make that open market.

The major concern is: Why has this scheme of control failed? It has failed because so far as the consumer is concerned scarcity has determined that there are not sufficient birds to go round. If the Minister of Food would tell the House there is a deeper cause of maldistribution. I believe it is the Minister of Agriculture who is "the ghost in the cupboard." I believe he is the bogy. I believe the Minister's predecessor, Lord Woolton, had a scheme to canalise table birds, poultry and rabbits, in the same way as eggs were canalised. I disagree with the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), when he says that for two years we got no eggs at all. While the system was in its infancy, it was difficult to canalise the supply of eggs, but in the main, every family in the land did get, after the organisation got into proper working order, their adequate supply, or their rationed supply, of eggs, through their retailer. It may be that they had to wait a while. The fact was that there was no machinery by which eggs could be collected. Ultimately, the Ministry got the eggs collected and distributed them through the retailers, and everybody got their ration. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth, who lives in a mainly agricultural area, might say that there was a big black market. Of course there was in the countryside, but the town dwellers would not have got an egg at all had it not been for the setting up of this organisation.

For about two years some of us tried to get the Minister of Food's predecessor to adopt this canalisation system in regard to poultry. It must not be forgotten that canalisation of poultry does take place for two months out of the 12, in regard to North of Ireland turkeys and poultry, and it means that the Minister himself handles the commodity, purchases on Ministry of Food account and consequently the birds reach the consumer. But when we have price control and no canalisation in the other to months of the year, there is a black market. In fact, the Ministry itself is incapable of enforcing its own Order. I agree with the hon. Member for South Salford in that. It is because the price control Order is insufficient.

A secondary reason is that there is an enormous loop-hole which can be seen at every market. If you were to go to Diss market to-day—that is in the area which the hon. Member was quoting—the trick could be seen. It is easy to observe; the Ministry's inspectors know what hap- pens. It has been going on for four years. Those who carry it out are difficult to catch, but it is a very simple trick indeed. All that happens is that the farmer comes to the market with live birds. Along come persons who are sup, posed to be stock breeders, and when the auctions take place there is a sort of password or keyword—"Signing." When that term is used it means that these birds are for sale subject to the person who purchases signing a statement that it is intended, in buying those stock birds, that the stockbreeder will take them home and utilise them for stock purposes. Of those who buy 99 per cent. have no such intention, and the birds reach the West End of London, they reach the hotels and restaurants throughout the country, and they do so by that trick. It is a trick that is known in every market in this country and it has been going on. I, and other Members, have pointed it out. There is no attempt whatever made to provide a solution.

The hon. Member for South Salford says that we should get rid of price control, because of these racketeers, who have brought the whole business into contempt. I submit that a solution of this problem is long overdue. I believe that we should bang together the heads of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food until they get down to this problem. They nearly reached a solution two years ago, just before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman assumed his present office. There was a disposition on the part of his predecessor to be vigorous and challenging, and to stand up to the Minister of Agriculture. But the organisation that have fastened themselves on to or within the Ministry of Agriculture have resisted canalisation. I do not wish to name them. The Minister of Food knows them and I think the other Minister knows them too. There is a kind of resistance movement, surrounding, and working within, and with, the Ministry of Agriculture.

To say that canalisation is impossible is mere stuff and nonsense. If we can canalise these millions of eggs, which are brought from the countryside into the packing stations, and distributed through the wholesale market into the hands of the retailers, and eventually to the consumer, the Ministry of Food can canalise the chickens which are fed in this country. So far as the distribution of turkeys was concerned at Christmas, in regard to the Northern Ireland turkeys which were bought by the Minister, there was very little, if any, racketeering. There was a black market in connection with the turkeys that were fed at home. I am convinced that when the Minister tried to explain the situation to the House, and to his food conferences, just before Christmas, he knew, and his officials knew, that a black market was an inevitable sequel to that Order and scheme which he promoted, so far as home-produced birds were concerned.

I do not really want to censure the Minister of Food, but I want to say that he has been badly advised, and that many of his advisers have set out to deceive him, and have succeeded in doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe that. They have known that there was another kind of advice that they could have given him, but for reasons best known to themselves, they would not venture on the drastic course which certainly was advised by the organisation to which the hon. Member referred just now. They made a suggestion, in the presence of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth some months ago. It was a most elaborate scheme, but it would have been simple in its application. It would have meant much to the consumer, but the Minister of Food, while favourable, found that the real block to the acceptance of this scheme was The Minister of Agriculture.

The Minister can do something in response to the appeals which have been made, but I hope that he will not accept the suggestions of the hon. Member for South Salford or the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) takes the view which others on this side of the House take, that scarcity is the cause of the trouble, and that the scarcity will go on for at least two years after the war. The Minister of Food has a duty to get down to this problem now. It may be said that it is rather late in the war to do it, but, recognising that this augmenting of the rations is dependent upon the supplies we have been discussing, there can be no doubt that the general public will welcome some kind of organisation such as has been recommended, and that the black market can be eliminated in the main by that kind of organisation. I do not believe that it will mean an enormous number of inspectors. Will the Minister reconsider the recommendations that have been made by one or two associations, taking into account all the circumstances which are known to him as a result of his experience when, in December and January last, he successfully prohibited everything that caused the black market? Will he prohibit it all the year round, or get the Minister of Agriculture to co-operate with him in a scheme for dealing with the supply of poultry?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friends for raising this matter, because I think it is one which needs putting in its right perspective. With regard to these poultry supplies, there are three main sources—our home-produced birds, the birds we get from Southern Ireland, and those we get from Northern Ireland. This price control order applies to all three. It is completely effective in regard to imported birds, which come through our own channels of distribution. In regard to those from Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, it is completely effective. In regard to turkeys, that runs up to somewhere near three-quarters of the whole supply to this country. It is a much smaller figure in regard to poultry. If I took off the price control for birds from one source I should have to take it off for the lot.

Let us see why this price control was ever put on. These poultry did not become scarce because of the Order; the Order was put on because poultry were becoming scarce. People often seem to change the thing round, and take cause for effect. It was put on, as far back as 1940, because the prices of poultry were running up very high, to 2s. 6d. or 3s. a pound. The Order brought them down—of course there are different types—to about 1s. 11d. a pound for poultry. I have taken the best advice that I could as to what would be the price to which poultry would be likely to go were I to take off this Order. The advice I have been given is that it would be likely to run up to about 5s. a pound. I do not think we should allow that. So long as poultry and other meat products are as short as they are, I think it will be necessary to maintain this Maximum Prices Order—whether the price is quite right, or needs adjustment, is a matter that we look at every year.

But I would take this opportunity of warning the House that the whole world meat supply situation is a very difficult one at this time. We are for this year in an extremely difficult shipping situation. It is true that immense numbers of ships have been built, but our Allies in the United States and ourselves are carrying on very extensive military operations on four different fronts—in North West Europe, in Italy, in Burma, and in the Far East. That uses up an immense amount of shipping, and it is not possible to get in as much feeding stuffs as we should want for our meat and our poultry. I do not want to see a large part of the feeding stuffs that we give to farmers being used for poultry. Milk is much more important; it is more important too to keep up our meat herds. If one were to allow the price of poultry to rise without any control, the tendency would be to devote the feeding stuffs to poultry rather than to our more important milk and meat supply.

Is not that what happens now? My right hon. and gallant Friend is assuming that poultry is being sold at controlled prices, whereas, as I have said, 95 per cent. of it is going to the black market.

I will deal with that point in a moment. But if I were to take off the Order I should be assenting to the position which my hon. Friend is, at any rate, right in deploring, if it is happening. I do not see my way to do that. The second thing which would be more likely to happen is that some of the poultry would be killed off to get these higher prices. I am leaving out of the picture at the moment those that are now getting the higher prices. The owners of the birds would be killing off some of the poultry which I want kept alive to keep up the egg supply. We should be inclined to lose our poultry just when the Minister of Agriculture and I are trying to give a little extra feeding stuffs to breeders of stock poultry so that they may once again build up our poultry stocks, and so allow people to have more fresh eggs than they have been able to enjoy during these years of war. This alleged black market is not as big as my hon. Friends would make out. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is very serious."] Will my hon. Friends give me some facts, upon Which I can bring prosecutions, and not just make vague accusations that there is a huge black market? Anyone who wants to get rid of a price control Order will make those wild accusations. But I can assure the House that if hon. Members will give me any facts, I will see that the appropriate action is taken against people who are guilty of doing these things.

Surely the Minister knows that there is a considerable measure of truth in the specific statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) about the method of this black market. I am sure that he will agree with that at any rate, whatever he says about the degree.

I know that the method which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden) described, of selling the birds for stock breeding is a way round the Maximum Prices Order. It was for that very reason that suddenly, on 1st November last year, we clamped clown for two months on any sales of birds for stock breeding, so as to control the turkey market and the poultry market at Christmas, when people like turkeys and poultry more than at any other time. But I cannot prevent these sales for the whole year. We must let poultry breed for some part of the year; otherwise, we shall not get any eggs at all. With regard to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Stourton) I am afraid that we cannot at this stage take off this Maximum Prices Order. If anybody in the House or in the country who knows of those transactions will give me information, he will be doing his duty as a citizen of this country, and appropriate measures will be taken. I am as keen to stop the black market as any other Member of this House—I can asure hon. Members of that. On the other hand, I cannot canalise all this poultry as we can do with our meat and tea and various things, for the simple reason that, as the right hon. Baronet said, there is not enough. If you look at the home supplies of poultry that we have for the whole country, they provide less than one chicken, and a little more than one rabbit per person per year. There is not enough to run a rationing system on supplies so inadequate for the purpose as that.

Then why control them?

Nevertheless, it is right, as I say, that we should not, in order to get rid of a black market, make everybody pay the prices that are nowadays paid in the black market itself.

I pass on to a few of the other remarks of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick). I believe that that side of the Ministry's activities which gives food advice has done a remarkably good job of work in this war. Too great praise cannot be given to those women who run the Food Advice Centres up and down the country, and who go to Women's Institutes and into thickly-populated centres, into towns and little villages right up to the north of Scotland and elsewhere. They are doing a grand job of work. But that is only part of it. For myself, I think that what we put out, or what is put out on our behalf, on the radio, is extremely good. I like the "Food flashes" that are put on, and put on freely for us, by the cinema proprietors in their programmes. They always seem to me to be short and to the point, and they are appreciated by those who see them. But my hon. Friend mainly referred to the "Food Facts" in the papers. It is extraordinary how many people collect these and bind them up in a book, which becomes their recipe book, and it is surprising how many letters we get asking questions on these "Food Facts," or asking for different recipes to be put in or for other advice to be given, week by week and month by month, as these things go on.

Especially dried eggs.

That shows us at the Ministry that the efforts we are making to give people advice on how to deal with the different foodstuffs they can get now, is much appreciated. However, I will go as far with my hon. Friend as to say that I did see the advertisement, which was a kind of puzzle, put out in what I suppose was the Christmas spirit, and appearing in the papers just about Christmas time. I came very much to the same conclusion on that as my hon. Friend. I remember that the only thing that pleased me about it was the question "Can you name two food dishes that begin with Q?" I named quince and quails, and they were the only ones which the author of the competition had thought of either. Apart from that, I do not think it was much good, and my hon. Friend may be glad to know that I had taken it up with the Department even before he put a Question down for me in the House, and I do not think we shall see quite that type of advertisement next Christmas.

I am very much obliged to my hon. Friends for allowing me this opportunity of giving these explanations to the House, and I only hope that they will think I have dealt adequately with the points they have raised.

Would the Minister tell us now, specifically, why he cannot canalise poultry from the countryside as he canalises eggs, using the same machinery?

Yes, Sir. It is always known in food supply matters that it is quite easy to canalise what comes in at the ports. It is very much more difficult to canalise what you have to collect from a large number of individual farms, or individual tiny holdings or back gardens, where chickens are kept. We get the eggs, and we may as well be quite frank about it, by offering a higher price if they are sold to a packing station, than if they are sold to the general public. That is how we put in the Government subsidy, and the producer of the eggs gets more for his eggs if he sends them to the packing station than he would if he sold them on the ordinary market without going through the packing station. That is a very effective way of getting the eggs that I want for our distribution system.