I beg to move,

"That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendment in Clause 3, page 2, line 33, standing on the Order Paper in my name."

This procedure is necessary in order that I may be able to fulfil an undertaking that I gave on the Committee Stage of the Bill that I would make this particular Amendment in the Bill. I had hoped to be able to include another Amendment which was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), but I found on going into the matter that the complications that would be involved in endeavouring to meet the point he raised would have necessitated either a new Money Resolution or a very substantial number of consequential Amendments. I want to assure him that, while I cannot put the Amendment in, I stand by every word I said as to the intentions of the Government as to the length of time during which the first Clause of the Bill is to operate. On the last occasion the right hon. Gentleman said he was disappointed with me for the first answer I gave. I hope he will realise now that I am disappointed with myself at finding that the Rules of Procedure impose what I think is an almost insuperable barrier to carrying out what I earnestly desire to do.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, leave out:

"was twenty-one years of age of over when the declaration was made,"

and insert:

"has attained or will attain the age of twenty-one years before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-six."

This fulfils a pledge that I gave as a result of the discussion in Committee earlier in the week, that we would include in the supplementary register any Service man who made a declaration during the period between 30th June and 31st December, 1945, and who in fact attained the age of 21 before 1st January, 1946, if he made his declaration and sent it in during the appropriate period. There was a very strong feeling on both sides of the House that this arrangement ought to be made, and I have pleasure in moving the Amendment.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for putting this Amendment down in a satisfactory form. The original idea came from this side of the Committee and it does rather extend the scope of the supplementary register. We think it is a good Amendment, and it is certainly a good example of how a Bill can be improved by helpful suggestions during the Committee stage.

I also would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the feelings of our part on this proposition. I quite agree that there was a certain amount of pressure from all sides of the House, but a very good case was put to him by Members of the Opposition especially, and I hope he will have no trouble from his own benches in regard to this Amendment. As far as I can see, it does something to make it easier to get an additional number of young Servicemen on to the register. I welcome this Amendment and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having put it into the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, at end, insert:

"'member of the forces' and 'seaman' have the meanings respectively assigned to them by section twenty-two of -the Act of 1943:"

This is an Amendment which is designed to remove some doubts which were expressed during the Committee Stage. It was thought that it might possibly be that a man released under Class B or a man on indefinite release was not included in this Clause. I am advised that the position was quite reasonably clear, but these words make it quite certain that these particular people will be able to claim the same rights as the men who have been permanently discharged from the Forces.

Here again we should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for doing his best to meet the suggestion put forward from this side of the House. I am glad that it will be quite clear that the men released under Class B, and also men released on compassionate grounds, will be catered for in the supplementary register.

Again I would like to thank my right hon. Friend also. It is a matter of particular interest to the seamen of the country, whom I represent to a considerable extent, and who I believe are likely to elect members of my Party to represent them. I am glad that on this occasion, as on others our pleas have had some effect in moving a rather obdurate Department. I do congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this not very big concession but which is something which shows he is amenable to suggestions.

May I, with the leave of the House, thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks? The other evening he spoke for the Scilly Isles. I cannot help thinking that really he was the proper person to reply for them.

I should like to say I appreciate the difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary alluded, in moving the Motion for the recommittal of the Bill, in placing any time limit on Clause I of the Bill. Obviously, there are practical difficulties of a fairly formidable character, and there is also the difficulty that the Bill is being put through the House rather against time. Therefore, I want to say that I am perfectly satisfied with the assurances that have been given by the right hon. Gentleman that he intends the whole of this Bill to be of a purely temporary character and that, as soon as he gets the Report of the Committee set up to deal with electoral registration and cognate matters, he will proceed with legislation of a permanent character. This Bill is now an agreed Measure and will go to the other place as such.

I wish to express the gratitude of those of us from the Highlands of Scotland that an Amendment which was accepted by the Home Secretary on the Committee stage will enable quite a large number of the inhabitants of the Highlands of Scotland to register their votes in Parliamentary elections.

I want to re-echo the words of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum). I am exceedingly glad the Home Secretary saw his way to accept that Amendment which has put right an old standing grievance, which does not affect a very large number of people, but nevertheless affects a thousand or two people, who have never been able to record their votes at a general Election. I have always considered that a particular hardship, because it is my experience that the people who live in the most remote places are among the most highly intelligent people to be found anywhere in the country. They have not a great deal of time to spend on amusements, but they spend all that time in thinking. It has been very unfair to them that they should have had all these opportunities for thinking and yet never have had an opportunity to record by way of vote their opinions on current affairs. There is a fair number of men on very lonely lighthouse stations around the coast. We do not very often think about these men who watch the traffic lights of the sea highways and who lead an incredibly lonely life. They are people who think a great deal. The Amendment that was made will, at least, give all these people a sporting chance of being able to record their votes.

I am able to support the general principles of this Bill. I will not attempt in any way to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in the remarks he made about certain Islands, remarks which will be useful from the electoral point of view in future. It is rather a pity that such an obviously small point as that which he made should have been made by one whom I regarded as having the possibilities of being an outstanding person among rather indifferent comrades

As I formally moved the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill, I must ask the indulgence of the House to be allowed to reply. This morning I feel very much in the position of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who said, alter the 1906 General Election, that he had received support both from the Scilly Islands and the Islands that were far from silly. I thank hon. Members for what they have said, but I hope they will not repeat these compliments too often, or they may get me into trouble among my colleagues.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, leave out "twelve" and insert "fifteen."

The purpose of this Amendment is to carry out are undertaking given by the Minister on the Committee stage of the Bill that there should be are extension from £1,200 to a further figure with regard to the advances which local authorities could make; to people for the purchase of houses. In Committee we considered making a difference between the Metropolitan area and the remainder of the country, but we are of opinion that that would be an unnecessary difference to make. We desire to carry the figure to £1,500. because the restrictions which are now placed upon licences to build houses of £1,200 in the country and £1,300 in the Metropolitan area are of only a temporary character to meet the conditions that exist at present. Sooner or later, they will be removed, and, therefore, we think there should be facilities for the purchase of houses beyond those standards.

I have only very recently seen this Amendment, which, I think, only appeared on the Order Paper this morning, but I welcome it nevertheless. It was an Amendment moved by my hon. Friends and myself that put this idea into the mind of the Government. I welcome this Amendment from two points of view. In the first place, it widens the opportunities for people to buy houses, and as hon. Members know, we on this side of the House are very great believers in house ownership. I welcome it also from the point of view that I hope it indicates the beginning of a change of heart on the part of the Government, and the encouragement to private enterprise to build houses.

I welcome this Amendment because I feel it is an attempt to make use of the whole of the building industry. I am anxious that the people of this country should be fully aware of this Clause. The extension from £1,300 to £1,500 for private dwellings will enable the small builders of the country to be utilised to the full extent. It is by only using the whole of the builders of this country that we shall get the job done. I feel that a great deal of good can be done by this extension, and that it will help building progress to be made.

I beg to move, in page I line 17, after "of", insert "and at the request of."

My hon. Friends and I are moving this Amendment because, in the course of dis cussion in the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works indicated that he would reflect and consult upon an identical Amendment that we moved in the Committee and which was eventually withdrawn. The point we made was this. There is a severe risk that, if the words are left as they are, an arbitrary Minister of Works—I am not necessarily applying that adjective to the present holder of that Office—might say, "Here is a local authority which is falling down on its job; I propose to do its work for it, whether it wants that or not." The Minister of Works would then be doing work on its behalf in the performance of its function. I ventured to give a warning that a situation of that sort is one that should not be made possible or encouraged by an Act of Parliament. I gathered that the intention of the Government was that the Minister of Works, with his flying squads, should not intervene in that sort of spirit, but that the intervention of the Minister of Works to do housing work, which normally is not only the function but the actual operation of a local authority, should be done only with the consent of the local authority, and if it consented, of course, it would request. I hope that this question has been re-examined by the Government and that, if there is any vestige of doubt in the advice which they have received, they will accept this Amendment, which makes the matter clear beyond all possible doubt.

Having promised both to reflect and to consult, and having both consulted and reflected, I have discovered that, according to my information, in law the situation is as I outlined it, but that in fact it might be advantageous to include the words of the Amendment. This is Friday morning, and I am in a conciliatory mood. I realise that we promised to do this if it was found that it would be advantageous to all concerned and I accept the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, at the end, insert:

"(2) For the purposes of this section the cost of constructing a house shall include the cost of the building materials used in the construction thereof."

The reason for the Amendment is that as the words now read, there is, as a matter of legal phraseology, some doubt whether the cost of construction includes all the materials used in the construction. It certainly is the intention of the Government that the cost should include the cost of all the materials used. This matter formed the subject of discussion when the Bill was in Committee, and that doubt was voiced by hon. Members opposite. The object of the Amendment is to remove all possible doubt. This is really little more than a drafting Amendment and I conceive that there cannot be very much objection to it.

You, Mr. Speaker, called this Amendment, as I understand the position, on the basis that it covered the subject matter of another Amendment put down by hon. Friends and myself to line 8, where we had suggested the insertion of the words: ''including the cost of those materials." In Committee I suggested that, if one had such a phrase as "the cost of constructing 'A' from 'B'", it would not be likely that "B" would be included in that cost. If, as I understand, the Amendment put down by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General is exactly devised for that purpose, I am happy to see it included in the Bill as a result of our suggestion. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might, with the assistance of the learned Solicitor-General, relieve any doubt in my mind upon that point to the effect that it is a more accurate or more technical draft of the suggestion which we ourselves made.

I can give that assurance definitely; it is exactly the same.

The next Amendment that I shall call is that in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) —in Clause 7, in page 5, line 7, to insert a new proviso.

Mr. Speaker, are you not calling the Amendment in Clause 3, page 3, line 8, to leave out "substantially" —which deals with a different point from that with which we have already dealt?

The Amendment would not alter, but might possibly increase the charge; and I think it is covered by previous Amendments.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, at the end, insert:

"Provided that no offer or agreement to sell or let taking effect at or after the expiry of the period of four years beginning with the passing of this Act shall, if made within three months of the expiry of the said period, constitute an offence."

We would like to see this proviso included in the Bill. It is an attempt to draft accurately the substance of a suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) during the course of the discussion of Clause 7 in Committee. What was indicated at that time, and what I would suggest again to the House, is that, supposing there is a lease on one of these controlled houses for four years— which there might well be—or any tenancy, not necessarily for the whole of the four years, but a tenancy expiring at the end of the four years, it might be a lease for the fourth year, there having been a three-year lease, and then a lease for another year. The Bill, as it is drawn, would make the owner or the person negotiating for a lease for the fifth year a criminal if he made his offer a day before the expiry of the four years. That would seem to be a fantastic, farcical and extraordinarily cruel situation to bring about by an Act of Parliament. Accordingly, this Amendment suggests that there should be a period of grace at the end of the time of control during which such negotiations, or indeed, agreements, should be perfectly proper. In the course of the Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, whose absence from the Debate today I entirely understand, because he was good enough to intimate to me that he had an important engagement in connection with the housing campaign, made observations which suggested to me that he had not really appreciated this point, and the importance of it to houseowners and prospective tenants. The right hon. Gentleman said:

"On the strict interpretation, if he started negotiations "—

and that is the landlord—

"before the end of the four years, and the tenant offered a higher rent than the permitted one, he might be committing an offence, but he would not do so it he waited a few days until the lease expired. Would he suffer any hardship by waiting for a week or a fortnight?"—[Official Report, 4th December, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 2174.]

That is not a very satisfactory answer, unless there is some other one, to this idea. Here we have a lease running out and the actual two people who are concerned with the house—the owner and the tenant—wish to make an arrangement for it to run on beyond the period. It is all very well to say, "Why not wait a few days; why not have an interval and a period while the tenant would be accessible, and, if he goes out, must take care he does not open his mouth before he goes out and become a criminal? "Accordingly, we suggest that:

"No offer or agreement to sell or let taking effect at or after the expiry of the period of four years beginning with the passing of this Act shall, if made within three months of the expiry of the said period, constitute an offence."

I cannot accept the Amendment. It displays a great eagerness on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make it certain that people are going to jump in immediately to get what he anticipates to be an increase in rent or an increase in price. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents the people concerned from entering into a new lease which falls within the permitted price. Therefore it is possible for them to go on with the lease, which, is not more onerous than the one that has lapsed.

What the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires is that they should be able to jump in immediately and increase the price. We are saying that the Bill gives this protection for four years. We see no reason whatever why it should not run its full four years. Any tenant or landlord who desires to make a new lease after the one that lapses on that one specific date, might easily continue it for a period afterwards falling within the permitted price and then make sure that any lease after that is certified.

I am very disappointed with the answer of the Government. There was nothing whatever in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) —and I listened to it with great- care—which an ordinary thinking individual could interpret as being a to jump in and increase the rent. It was obvious that what my right hon. and learned Friend said was said with one intention only, and that was, to endeavour to secure that an innocent person, who might be unable to know the exact date of the expiry of the lease, did not get into trouble. After we have had to listen to all the sentimentality poured out by hon. and right hon Gentlemen opposite, they must not accuse everyone else of being as hard-hearted as they are. This Amendment is simple and will do no one any harm, and would not in any way cause an increase of rent. It is necessary in these days, when we have such an innumerable list of restrictions and obstructions running through everything in life, that we should try and guard innocent people. Hon. Gentlemen themselves might fall into the trap, and I would be very sorry if any of them did. I do not wish to see anyone get into trouble. This is an. occasion when the Government have made a great mistake in missing an opportunity to improve the Bill. For that reason, I again say how very much I regret that the Government seem to be obdurate on this point, which rather shows that they intend to use the big stick whenever they get the chance.

I, too, regret that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. There are two offences under this Clause: (1), either selling or letting the house beyond the permitted price or rent, and (2) offering for sale or to let. The offer itself will be an offence under this Clause. Even if the offer were not accepted, it would be illegal and would be a criminal offence. The limitation based upon the offer, or sale, or letting is a small limitation. In my opinion the Amendment should have gone further. Even with that small limitation, it limits the selling or letting, of the house, which clearly would be an offence, but the mere offer to let or to sell should not be made a criminal offence after the four years, if the sale or letting did not itself take place. To that extent it is a limitation upon the mere offer which is not accepted, and, therefore, the Government should reconsider the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, after the second "the," insert "financial."

Until persuaded to the contrary, we feel that there should be a clarification of the word "benefits." There is always a difficulty, as I gather the Government have felt, in considering the wider question of the control of the selling price of houses in keeping pace with the complication that may arise by reason of associated transactions. In this Bill, it is sought to provide that ingenious people do not evade the intended control, with which we all concur, on the new houses built under licence at a time of great shortage. An attempt has been made to see that, where the house is sold with something else 'in one transaction — that is dealt with in Subsection (3) —or where there has been some transaction associated with the sale though not in the same contract, the seller or the lessor docs not get away with something that the Bill did not intend him to have because what he is restrained from having on the swings he secures on the roundabouts.

I must ask the House to reject this Amendment. The word "benefit" is designedly chosen in order to use a term which is wide, because what it is intended to include by the word "benefit" in Subsection (5) which we are discussing are what are referred to as associated transactions. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has just said, these associated transactions may be associated contracts, but they may equally be transactions which are really in the nature of a gift. Therefore, it would, in the first place, be inappropriate to use the word "consideration," which was suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite during the discussions in Committee. That would exclude the type of transaction in the nature of a gift, so that the word "consideration" will not do. In the Amendment now proposed, the word "financial" is used, but, if I might reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that will not do, either, because that, again, is imposing a restriction which would defeat the; object of the Subsection—I do not say entirely, because the benefit may not be financial, but to some extent. The kind of associated transaction which the Subsection is designed to deal with would include those in which there is a gift which does not take a monetary form at all—a gift which it is difficult to assess in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.

One can well see that persons who desire to evade the provisions of the Act might arrange that, by an associated transaction, which is a word designedly loose and general in meaning, there might be some' advantage conferred on the lessor, not in terms of cash, but something in the nature of a gift. To use a random example, I will take a case of bottles of champagne. That would no doubt confer the benefit of happiness, but would also constitute the substantial and material benefit of a case of champagne. That, perhaps, is a rare case, but it is a possible case, and I simply adduce it to illustrate the kind of thing I have in mind—the case where we might get a benefit which did not take any financial form at all. If we introduce the word "financial," and qualify the word "benefit," by putting before it the word "financial," we would exclude that kind of gift which is not a financial gift. It is true that one could estimate and value it in money, but that does not make it a financial benefit. For that reason, I ask the House to reject the Amendment. Admittedly, "benefit" is a wide word, designedly so, and is intended to include; anything upon which, on a fair and common sense point of view, a value can be put. We put a value upon it and say that it is something of substance which the lessor was getting out of the transaction, and I therefore ask the House to say that the subsection, as it stands, is appropriate.

The Government's refusal to accept the Amendment is indicative of their doctrinaire approach to this matter and their utter and complete repudiation of human nature. How ridiculous will be the scene in the courts of the future, as conducted under this Act. Instead of producing before the assembled magistrates a document showing that the house has been exchanged for a certain and definite sum of money, they will now, after what the Solicitor-General has said, go into the most ridiculous considerations. Has a pound of butter been contributed by the tenant to the landlord from the local farm in the last five weeks? Who gave whom a case of cigars the week before last? Has there been any gift of petrol for the vendor's car by the house-purchaser in the last six months? The most fantastic kinds of cases will be brought before the courts. Here we have a quite simple Amendment which is designed by the Opposition to produce a serious set of circumstances in court in determining whether a house was to be sold or let for a certain sum or not, and, immediately we get the hatred of the profit-motive, which is so characteristic of the present Government, used in rejecting a simple Amendment of this kind and producing what will be a. wholly laughable situation in the courts of the "future.

I think that the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen who opened this Debate seemed rather tied up in their own words. Because the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite objects to the word "financial," he then proceeded to give an illustration which obviously sprang from an idea that would be naturally foremost in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite—the gift of a case of champagne. That would be valuable, though, in my own case it might possibly be a cup of tea. But does anyone suppose for an instant that what the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward would not be considered as something in the way of a financial advantage in any court at the present time? The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head and says "No," but, like most lawyers, he is subject to making many mistakes in the course of his life. I am not one, and I assume that the word "financial" has an ordinary meaning and, quite likely, most people would imagine that, if we inserted here, it would probably rather strengthen the Clause than otherwise. For practical purposes, it would mean any sort of advantage got by any other means, and I think it is very necessary in these days, with a black market going on, that we should be actually clear and definite, and I am quite sure that the Opposition Amendment is not only clearer and more definite, but is much more likely to be understood outside and avoid such legal misinterpretations as I am almost sure we have had from the Government Front Bench.

The Government are entirely right to resist this Amendment, not only for the reasons' which the Solicitor-General has given to the House, but also for some others, of which I will adduce two. The first is that the Amendment is not conducive to making the Clause clearer. The word "financial" is a word of many undefined and vague meanings, and might lead to endless disputes and trouble on what is the interpretation of the Clause. The second reason is that the Amendment, in any case, is entirely unnecessary to achieve the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned in moving it. The object of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that the benefit should be something capable of being assessed in monetary terms, and with that I think we all agree, but that must, of necessity, follow, be. cause of the way in which the Subsection is drafted. The concluding words are:

that consideration shall be deemed to be increased by such sum as fairly represents the excess.

One cannot increase a monetary consideration except by adding on to it another monetary consideration, and the use of the words "such sum" makes it perfectly clear that the benefit of the transaction has to be capable of assessment in terms of pounds, shillings and pence.

The Solicitor-General has stated that the benefits to which he refers are, in fact, assessable in terms of money, and that, therefore, the limiting word "financial" is not required. The point seems to me to be that the sort of matters to which my hon. Friends have referred as possible forms of benefit are precisely those which cannot be definitely evaluated because they have a different monetary value in accordance with the circumstances or the people concerned. The hon. Member who has just sat down says that the terms of the Clause show that we must be able to quantify the monetary value of the benefit. If I may take the example of the case of champagne, referred to by the Solicitor-General, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what is the monetary value of a case of champagne today? Surely, it depends very much on the circumstances? I am myself the fortunate possessor of some champagne, which I was able to bring back with me from the city of Rheims, where I was stationed for a short time.

May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is suggesting that the black market only started in July of this year, and what part the previous Government played in trying to stop it?

I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, at the end, insert:

"(7) Where proceedings are taken for an offence against this Section the court shall have the following powers, that is to say: —

(a)where any fine imposed by the court includes any such amount as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of this Section, the court may, if having regard to the circumstances the court thinks it is just so to do, direct that the whole or any part of that amount, when paid or recovered, shall be paid over to any person who I shown to the court to have given, or to be liable to give, a consideration in excess of the permitted price, or, as the case may be, in excess of the permitted rent, in respect of the house in question;

(b)where any person is convicted of the offence of letting a house at a rent in excess of the permitted rent, the court may, if the interest created by the letting has not expired at the time of the conviction, make such modifications of the terms and conditions of the letting as in the opinion of the court are necessary for the purposes of securing that the rent payable in respect of periods falling after the date of the conviction does not exceed the permitted rent; and

(c)where any person is convicted of the offence of selling a house at a price in excess of the permitted price, the court may, if any sums remain payable on account of the price at the time of the conviction, make such modifications of the terms and conditions of the sale as in the opinion of the court are necessary for the purpose of securing, so far as practicable, that the price does not exceed the permitted price."

During the discussions on the Committee stage of this Bill, the question was raised as to whether there should not be provision whereby a landlord who had charged too much, or a vendor who had exacted an excessive price, should not be compellable to repay either the whole or some part of the excess to the lessee or to the purchaser of the house. A further point that was raised, I think, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) was whether there should not be some power, in the event of a lessor or the vendor of a house being convicted under Clause 7, to readjust the terms of the lease or tenancy agreement, or of the conveyance of the house, so as to bring it in accord with the permitted rent or the permitted price, as the case might be. The object of this Amendment is to achieve both of those purposes.

Might I say in passing that it is designed, as I see it, to achieve precisely the same object as that embodied in the other Amendment which stands in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink). What does the Amendment which I propose effect? Hon. Members will remember that when a person is convicted under Clause 7 of the Bill, he can be ordered to pay a fine not exceeding £100, and also such amount of money as will, in the opinion of the court, secure that he derives no benefit from the offence—in other words, if he charges too much, either on a letting or a sale, he can be ordered by the court to pay over the amount of the excess, so that the result will be that he gets no benefit from the improper transaction which is the subject of the prosecution. That was the point made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that is the point which it is designed to deal with in both the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment and the one which I am now proposing.

The Amendment proposes to effect that in this way: it enables the court, before which the transgressor is convicted, to direct that so much as they think proper of the amount paid over by way of wrongful excess as the culprit is ordered to pay shall be paid over to the lessee or to the purchaser of the house, so as to ensure that he has not been overcharged. Now that, of course, can only relate to the excess that has been paid over by the man charged. As a corollary to that, it must be competent for the court to direct that the terms of the tenancy agreement, or the lease, for the remaining period of the interest created by the tenancy agreement or the lease, shall be adjusted so that it provides for payment of a rent not in excess of the permitted rent, so that you have that effected by paragraph (b) of the Amendment. If hon. Members look at paragraph (c), they will find a corresponding power in relation to sales of houses.

Hon. Members may ask why that is necessary in the case of the sale of a house because, in the case of sale, you have a price fixed, and it may be difficult to see exactly why the court should be entitled to adjust that price if the vendor of the house has already been ordered to pay over the excess. The answer to that is that that paragraph is designed to provide for the case where the price of the house is payable in instalments. If there were not that power, the remaining instalments would still be at the excessive amount, and therefore in paragraph (c) the court is given the same powers in relation to the sale of a house—in relation to the adjustment of the contract for sale —as it is under paragraph (b) in relation to the terms of the tenancy agreement. The Amendment achieves those three objects, each of which is necessary and complementary. They are the same ones as are designed to be effected by the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I ask the House to say that they are necessary and salutary and that this Amendment should be made.

We on this side of the House are grateful to the Solicitor-General for his lucid explanation of this Amendment and appreciate, though with perhaps slightly wry faces, the attitude of the Government with regard to it, because, when we suggested that the Bill as presented was grossly unjust to those who might have been tricked into paying more than the permitted price in ignorance, or more than the permitted rent in ignorance, we were told, "Why, everybody can go and look at the register." That was a very formal attitude, and the reception given to our proposals was very far from appreciative. I am glad, therefore, that second thoughts have been better. However, there are one or two points of slight obscurity on which I should be grateful for a little further assistance. The Amendment provides in a very convenient form for the court being able to deal with the situation, not only from the point of view of the Crown, and the penalty which is imposed upon the vendor, but also as between the vendor or purchaser, or lessor and lessee, as the case may be. But what is referred to in this Amendment is the position when there is a conviction of an offence of letting a house at a rent in excess of the permitted rent."

It has occurred to me—and I think it may occur to other hon. and right hon. Members—that there is some slight ob- scurity in the whole of this provision. I do not know whether clear directions have been given as to the conditions on which these licences are given by local authorities? It is, as I understand it, by the local authority that the licence is given. Are the Government intending to link up the conditions of the licence with the new offence that. is being created under this Bill? In other words, are licences able to be given by local authorities with a wholly indefinite extension in time? The building of a house is authorised for which a licence to build has been requested. It must cost not more than £1,200 and it must not be sold for more than £1,200. Are licences being given in those terms, and is there a kind of perpetuity apparently put upon that house? If so, as I understand the Bill, it is a curiously ineffective kind of restriction, because the offence only consists in selling or offering to sell the house at a greater price or at a greater rent during the period of four years from the passing of this Bill and it is the intention of all of us, I imagine, that if a licence has been given in those completely indefinite terms, it is something which the original owner or the original tenant can just defy. Is that not an unsatisfactory position, and should the Government not make sure that the licences that are given are at any rate in tune with the legislation which they are introducing? Otherwise I think a very unsatisfactory and vague and difficult situation will be bound to arise.

So far as the actual proposals are concerned for effecting what we consider justice as between the three parties concerned—the Crown, the offender, and the person who is to pay, or is bound under the contract to pay too much, I think the Amendment with its three headings is apt and suitable, and I am very glad that it has been introduced into the Bill.

May I ask the learned Solicitor-General who initiates the proceedings when an offence has been committed under this Bill? May I submit a hypothetical case—about which we heard so much yesterday? There may be an agreement between a vendor and purchaser that a higher price than is permitted by the Bill should be given. On whom is laid the responsibility of initiating proceedings in a case like that? I believe I am correct in saying that every sale of a house has to be registered with the District Valuer. Supposing no proceedings are taken by any other person, would the District Valuer be able to initiate proceedings on behalf of the Government? I am rather afraid that in some cases there may be this covert agreement made between the vendor and the purchaser, or between the vendor and the person who is to rent the house. I think we shall all agree that whatever steps can be taken to see that this is watertight shall be taken, and if possible, made very clear in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) raised a point which has brought to the minds of many of us a great deal of thought in connection with this Bill. I think I could answer his point, but I would not like to risk my reputation on that. His point shows clearly that there are many of us in this House who do not know precisely how this will work. I thank the Government for having gone a small way to helping us in this respect, not quite as far as they might have done, either in clarity or in any other way, but this Amendment—which is a very complicated one, for most of us at any rate—shows what a very bad thing it is that a Bill of this complication should pass through the House with so little discussion and that it should have been so terribly rushed by the Government.

With the permission of the House, I will answer the last two speakers and the right hon. Gentleman. Clause 8 (2) of the Bill says that local authorities are under a duty to take steps to secure the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. The Bill, as a whole, does not limit the right "to institute proceedings to any particular person or classes of persons. The institution of proceedings stands on exactly the same footing as the institution of other criminal proceedings. Normally, it is the police who, on information being put before them—and, no doubt, the local authority would do so—take the necessary proceedings. The last speaker said that we had gone a little way to meet his aspirations. That, I gather was not the view taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke first, and who, if I may say so, may possibly be in a slightly better position than the last speaker to express a view about that. This complaint of lack of clarity is made the occasion of a makeweight in so many arguments by people who have never attempted to make clear provisions themselves. They say that we have not met their desires and, therefore, we are being obscure. It is very difficult to be both.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way to me. It may be that I have not drafted very many Bills, but I have had to go through a great many Bills in detail, long before the hon. and learned Gentleman was ever heard of in this House, and shall be doing so probably long after him, and I submit he is not accurate.

Be that as it may, the best endeavours of those charged with these matters have been expended, I can assure the hon. Member, on making this as clear as it can be made. If there is any obscurity, I would endeavour to clear it up for him, but I do not think there are the obscurities of which he appears to be so much afraid.

This Bill, although short, covers a remarkably wide area. Indeed, although it has only 12 Clauses they are so varied in their content that after its passage through Committee it has been necessary to set them out, apart altogether from the supplementary collection of Clauses, under the three different chapters. It is a Bill, as we see it, of very varied quality. I am thankful to know that, as it stands, it has been definitely improved on four matters, entirely owing to the initial efforts of His Majesty's Opposition. The cohorts on the other side, with the exception of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), showed no disposition to improve the Bill as first presented. It has been made both clearer, and, with regard to acquisition, more generous and helpful, to those who desire to own their houses, and it has been made substantially more equitable.

From the beginning, this Bill, with all its parts properly applied, and with proper undertakings by His Majesty's Government with regard to the scope and purpose with which they intended to use it, could well have been a Bill entirely satisfactory to the whole House. There were matters included in it, particularly in the important first chapter, which contains Clauses 1 to 5, which we all appreciate were necessary; for instance, with regard to the Minister of Works' operations in connection with the purchase and arrangement for production of factory made houses. I am bound to say, on behalf of the Opposition, that apart from a helpful attitude on matters of drafting and detail, an attitude which emerged sometimes at a very late time, we have been disappointed on major matters, and, I think I may say, affronted by the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman who, unfortunately, is not here to-day, and to a minor extent by the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman who is here today.

I must indicate three or four points on which we believe that the silence and refusal of the Government to answer questions, indicate an approach to this question which will be grievously harmful to the progress we want to see in housing. Clause 1 is an example. We had no sort of indication from the Government of the extent to which they regarded it as necessary to go in for bulk purchase, either of building material or permanent equipment for building. Even more serious, as I thought, was the entire absence of an answer to the contentions that the existing production and distribution facilities in this country were ample, at any rate, for the first two years, to meet our needs on the basis of production agreements and agreements with the trade, without this duplication which, in the case of production, will leave existing factories short of men and orders and producing below capacity, and therefore, producing at unnecessarily high costs. So far as distribution is concerned, there was no attempt to explain or justify the setting up of alternative distributive arrangements. Finally, and most surprisng of all, there was the complete change in the character of the Bill which was made without any warning in the course of the Second Reading Debate, and seven days later, when we were rushed to take the Committee stage, as we have been rushed throughout the progress of this Bill.

There may be hon. Members here who do not realise that, whereas this House, when the Bill was last before it, was considering it on the basis of operations for two years—a period justified and explained by the Minister of Health—the Bill was extended, without the slightest warning or indication in that Debate and in the course of that week, to a period of five years, without any reasonable explanation as to why these competitive and distributive Governmental measures would be necessary in the latter part of that period. This was an extraordinary example of the heads of two Departments, well equipped with Parliamentary Secretaries, on a matter which had already been considered under two previous administrations, coming before the House to move the Second Reading of the Bill, with no careful thought in advance of what sort of Measure it was that they wanted. It was a shocking example, as we on this side of the House thought, of ill-prepared and undigested legislative proposals. I do not believe that they know today why they need this sudden extension of the Bill. I think that perhaps they may have been saying that, as they want two to five years for the Supply and Services Bill, the Building Materials and Housing Bill had better go from two to five years. This is one more curious example of the disturbance and anxiety which will undoubtedly be caused over the whole range of production and distribution of building materials and components by the proposals brought forward. No answer was given as to how it was going to be decided who was to do the work, which was done by those who have done the work for us in the past, if labour is to be detached for Ministry of Works flying squads when building labour is short in every town and village in the country. We have no answer to the statement that production will be slowed down, instead of speeded up, by the tooling and manning of at least 20 ordnance factories at a time when labour is short in the whole field of building component production. In consequence, we on this side of the House look forward to the operation of this Bill with anxiety and apprehension.

Looking forward in that way, which causes us distress, I must comment on another matter upon which the Govern- ment have been singularly unforthcoming. When are we going to know how the Government business in a big way, in these two ways, is faring? When are we going to know what burdens are to be placed on the taxpayer by the unlimited power of subsidy which the Minister of Works is getting under this Bill? We suggest that in matters of such novelty, and in view of such urgency, the Government should be anxious to take new measures for informing the House fully as to how things are going. They might well have said to themselves, "It will be very good for our Department to have to produce accounts earlier than was done before the war on matters comparable, or not strictly comparable." But that is not the answer we get. They say: "It has always been the custom of Government Departments for accounts of this kind to take eight months before submitting them to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The House has always been willing in the past to wait twelve months before seeing the reports on such matters, and we will rest on precedent. The House can whistle for such information except such as it can get by Parliamentary Question and answer."

The suggestion that we can get a true picture of the Government's distributive organisation and productive organisation for building components and houses of all kinds in that way is really quite fantastic. We were fobbed off and told that requests of this kind were impudent, and very abusive language was used. We were not given any indication of how we should be informed as to the extent which the Government were thinking right to subsidise the production and distribution to local authorities of factory made houses —

The right hon. Gentleman is referring to something which is rather outside the Bill. He cannot do that on Third Reading.

If I am wandering outside, I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House most profoundly. I shall endeavour to try to keep myself strictly within the limits of Clause 3, the arrangement of the subsidies which the Minister of Health is authorised to make. We feel that the arrangements and subsidies which are provided for in the Bill are lamentably wide as they stand, and we are gravely disappointed at the fact that the Govern- ment have insisted on this Clause remaining as it is. We cannot and do not wish to oppose a Measure of this kind in toto, because there are important elements in it which we regard as of value. But we have great apprehension as to the effect it will have very soon, because it is during the months immediately ahead that we desire to see every man and every piece of plant being used in the best possible way; and we believe that this Bill, in view of the explanations, such as they are, of the Government's intentions, is certain to result in wasted effort, wasted manpower, wasted plant and wasted material. So it is with sad hearts that we see a Bill so little improved passing into law.

:In the first place, I would like to say "Thanks" to the House for the way in which this Bill, admittedly difficult, and admittedly big, as the right hon. and learned Member suggested, has reached its Third Reading. I was a little surprised at being charged with having at least in some degree affronted the Committee in the Committee stage. I was waiting for some argument, some explanation or some attempt to show where the affront had taken place. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that the Bill covered a wide area. In spite of that he managed to get outside it. I hope I shall not. He suggested that it had not been improved. To the extent that it has been improved, I am glad. That is the purpose of the House of Commons and the Committee. It is the purpose of the Opposition to look at a Bill with a view to improving it. If there had been any question of affront, all I would say about the Committee stage is that I would have liked to think that all the Amendments had been put down with the object of improving the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that it has been made more equitable. To the extent that this is so I think we all agree, because that is the object and purpose of the House. Every attempt to make the Bill more equitable has been looked at, and where we thought it possible we have attempted to meet the case made.

When he came to the purposes of the Clauses, the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the Bill was so widely drawn that it had to be put into four chapters; and that the powers to be exercised by the respective Ministers under those four chapters were so great that we ought not to have attempted to bring them before Parliament until we had gone a lot further into the matter than he seemed to suggest we had done. I would remind him that if this was ill-though out legislation, if this was part of the ill-digested schemes of the Socialist Government, as he seemed to imply in his speech, the biggest portion of the Bill was drafted while he was still a Member of the Government and it should have been brought in during the period of office of the "Caretaker" Government. They could not, however, find time for it, inspite of the fact that it was very necessary, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows.

He suggests that the House was affronted because no definite mention was made of the extent to which bulk purchase was to take place, and the extent to which this was to be used other than production agreements. I put it to him, as an ex-Minister of Health, and as an individual who has been in an administrative job of this kind for a long time, that neither he nor anyone else could tell which section of that particular Department would be used, and which would not. If bulk purchase is required, it would obviously not be in a particular section of industry in which it was possible to make satisfactory production agreements. He must know sufficient about this business to realise that bulk purchase may be most satisfactory in one case, while guaranteed production of something else in another case may be the sensible thing to do. I hope he will give us credit for knowing sufficient not to indulge in one when we can get results from the other.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was full of apprehension as to the effects of this Measure, so full that if it happens to succeed I am afraid that he will be the most disappointed man in the House. I would ask hon. Members opposite to cheer up. The industry is not nearly so despondent about this Measure as is the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Before the Bill has become an Act of Parliment, when it has not passed its Third Reading, one of the largest associations in this country has been to see me, wanting to know how it could help to imple- ment it. That is the spirit we are asking for right through the building industry. That is the response we are getting. I am afraid that all these moaning Jeremiahs we have heard in the last few days will be disappointed when they find that the Government can go into business and carry it out, in spite of the fact that there happen to be some doctrinaires in the House. The discussions that have taken place on this Bill have convinced me that all the doctrinaires are not on one side of the House, and that there is some advantage in having a doctrine which is up-to-date.

I will not go over the arguments again. I believe this Bill is a good one. For the extent to which it has been improved both in Committee and this morning, I want to thank the House and I want to ask for their co-operation in making it effective when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. If the Opposition are half as concerned about seeking to implement the powers in the Hill in the interests of the country as they have been in seeking to implement the private interests of individuals who are affected, we shall get on very well with the job.

The Minister of Works says that the job of the Opposition is to improve this Measure. I am far from accepting that as the proper duty of the Opposition. We do not seek to make Socialism more efficient. It seems to me that our job is to oppose Socialism by every possible means in this House and throughout the country.

The hon. Member's remarks are completely outside the Bill.

The Minister says that industry is happier about this Bill than we are on this side of the House. I wonder whether the flying squads he is to organise will like the treatment to which he is to subject them—sending them all over the country to do jobs of work at his direction.

Will the hon. Member say when it was suggested that direction would be applied to flying squads, if and when they were required?

There is to be, as I understand it, an enormous new organisation with a capital of £100,000,000. Will it not embrace thousands of workers? Are they not to be subjected to some kind of direction and control by the right hon. Gentleman? He has talked about the building industry being delighted. We will wait and see what the workers say when he sends them flying round the country to work to which they do not want to go. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the result of this new Bill would be to create an organisation which would be competitive with industry. That is entirely true. The right hon. Gentleman is creating this great new organisation, backed by £100,000,000, which will compete with industry and compete unfairly because it is buttressed by a vast subsidy gathered from the taxpayers, and from what practically amounts today to enforced loans. Every supplier to the right hon. Gentleman's organisation will be paid more highly than 'he can be paid by private enterprise working on strict terms of profit and loss. It is in the Minister's interests, with a £100,000,000 revolving credit at his command to push up the prices of goods which he calls in from the rest of the country.

Likewise, every purchaser supplied by the right hon. Gentleman will be supplied more cheaply. Using this weapon of subsidy he can wreck the law of supply and demand in this country, he can ruin the normal operation of private enter prise, because he can pay highly on the one hand and sell cheaply on the other. How can industry, operating according to established practices, possibly stand up against that kind of organisation? As to the extent and nature of the subsidy, the Minister refuses us access to the facts and figures upon which we can determine whether the subsidy is being used for open or secret purposes. We asked for some quarterly statement to be made. It was refused. One of the things that amazed me most was the Minister's admission in Committee that he knew nothing about finance. He is to be the head of a great organisation —

I cannot see how what the right hon. Gentleman knows about figures is inside the Bill.

The implications of what the right hon. Gentleman said in the Committee stage will surely find their way through this Bill into the administration of this organisation. What great commercial chief at the head of a large enterprise in this country, a man who has risen from the lower ranks, and has great financial knowledge and experience, the head of any bank or industrial concern, would use words like this? The right hon. Gentleman had better study figures, and very quickly. But whether he educates himself or whether he does not, I believe this Measure will produce alarm and despondency throughout the country.

I wish to mention a rather important aspect of this Bill, which I would like my right hon. Friend to develop a little more fully, if he possibly can. The Bill provides him with wide and comprehensive powers to deal with our housing problem, which we all know is serious and urgent. The powers in the Bill are ample for him to deal with it. They are confined to the production, manufacture and development of roughly two categories of housing accommodation —prefabrication and the traditional house. It is admitted by all competent authorities that there is no better house than the traditional house. There has been nothing devised so far to supplant it in meeting our problem, but I am anxious to know from my right hon. Friend whether he accepts that view, that the main policy of the Government should be directed to developing and expanding and going ahead as quickly as possible with that kind of development which will provide our country with the maximum number of traditional dwellings, in the shortest possible space of time?

The Bill provides for the manufacture of prefabricated dwellings, but I believe that those who are competent to judge say that prefabrication can never be a substitute for the traditional house. The only justification for a policy of prefabrication is the emergency that exists and the great urgency for putting up some dwellings as quickly as possible. I am anxious to hear from my right hon. Friend that it is not the intention of the Government to allow prefabrication development to overshadow the development of the traditional house and the traditional housing scheme. I should like to know the place of prefabrication in the general housing policy of the Government. I would like my right hon. Friend to assure the House that it is accepted as an immediate emergency only and that it is the Government's intention to develop traditional housing schemes as a long-term policy for the solution of this great problem. We are all aware of what that problem is. Four million houses in our country are over 80 years of age, and 2,000.000 have been destroyed by enemy action. In 1939, according to the Barlow Report, 530,000 dwellings were needed for the relief of slums and overcrowding. In addition, there has been a vast accumulation of repair and maintenance.

It is a great problem, and I do not believe it will be solved to complete satisfaction this side of five years. We may solve the emergency and the urgency of the problem within that period, but I believe that we have to make our plans on the basis of a long-term contribution to the problem as a whole. Therefore, I would like to hear what the Government's policy is with regard to prefabrication on the one hand and the development of traditional housing on the other. It would not, taking a long view, be in the best interests of the country if the Government allowed prefabrication to overshadow the development of the traditional house. My local authority contains an almost built-up area, and if it is to do anything to solve the housing problem it has to build flats; the house is not an economic proposition. We were considering at the last meeting of our housing committee plans and designs submitted by the Minister of Health for multi-storey prefabricated dwellings. We were concerned because those plans were totally inadequate for such a built-up area, and we were warned by our technical officers that, apart from the inadequacy of the structure, there would be considerable maintenance costs within a short period. That is the weakness of prefabrication. We all know the cost of that process. The estimates of the temporary dwellings that are already in course of erection have had to be considerably increased, and it is doubtful whether the cost of a prefabricated house will be lower than that of a traditional house.

Therefore, we should see that the money we are about to spend is spent in the best way to create the most lasting results. I do not want it to be thought that I am condemning prefabrication lock, stock and barrel, because I realise that in some areas, particularly in the provinces where land is available, it may be equal to traditional building. There is, however, a problem in the built-up and semi-built-up areas where nothing but the traditional house will be effective and acceptable. I would, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to give some idea of the contemplated balance in the Government's policy as between pre-fabrication and traditional building. Is it the policy of the Government to rely mainly upon the traditional house and to use prefabrication as a supplementary aid, so that, as their plans develop and get organised, they will rely more upon the traditional house? Is it their intention that prefabrication shall gradually recede as traditional housing emerges as the main scheme for solving this problem on a long-term basis? If my right hon. Friend would throw some light on these aspects of his policy, it would be helpful to the local authorities.

I would remind the hon. Member that the Minister on Third Reading can deal only with what is in the Bill, and cannot reply on matters which are not in the Bill.

I rise because of words which were used by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works when he said that he had the impression that this side of the House, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) in particular, would be disappointed if this Bill were a success. That impression should not be allowed to go from the House uncontradicted. This side will be surprised if the Bill is a success, but it will certainly not be disappointed. It has been made clear, time and again, that we regard the question of housing as of infinitely more importance than party advantage. If this Bill is not the success that the right hon. Gentleman claims that it will be, we shall accept whatever party advantage flows to us from that fact; but we shall accept it as very poor consolation for the failure of the scheme. We genuinely hope that this Measure will be a success, and it was to that end that we endeavoured to improve it. It is regrettable that only one Amendment has been accepted on the important chapter contained in the first five Clauses.

I must, in all honesty, say that we will be surprised if the Bill is a success because we do not feel that its provisions are best designed to meet the emergency of the housing of the people. We believe that the provisions of Clause 1 will lead to uncertainty among existing agencies both of manufacture and of distribution. We believe that Clause 1 (1c) is cast too wide and will allow the intervention of the State into the field of the traditionally built house; and that any intervention of the State under the powers of that provision will not materially assist in the erection of traditional houses. We are concerned, too, at the provisions of Clause 3 because we believe that the words are calculated, if not designed, to cloak any increases in costs. Experience shows that an increase in cost means a decrease in efficiency. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that by spending money Under these Clauses he was likely to build more houses, we should be less satisfied than if he built houses cheaply; but, at least, we would see that the Bill was calculated to provide something that the people want. But we believe that the refusal to make provision for the disclosure of costs will lead neither to economy nor efficiency. We have therefore regrettably to place it on record that, though we genuinely Wish the Bill well, we cannot conscientiously disguise our opinion that it is not calculated to achieve those great objects which are claimed for it by the right hon. Gentleman.

I rise because I think that one of us might be allowed to say-something about what the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said when he asked that the Opposition should not be so gloomy about the Bill. I have never been in the least gloomy about it. I have realised from the beginning that there was a chance that some good might come out of the Bill, because I realise that, in the main, it was the work of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and that the right hon Gentleman had added little to it except to put some bad eggs into the basket. The only gloomy speech we have heard about the Bill was that of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). It was a speech of considerable ability, and I only wish that more people would make speeches of that kind. In dealing with a Bill of this sort, under which the Government will expend vast sums of money and under which there will be a considerable amount of interference, we must be sure beyond doubt that we shall ultimately get houses and stop profiteering and excessive prices. I believe that that is the aim of this Bill, at any rate.

I am not concerned whether the results are prefabricated or traditional houses, for any of us will support anything which will get on with solving the housing problem, because it is the most vital thing in the lives of our people. If the result of this enormous expenditure and this great increase of interference with the ordinary person is to get houses, I shall be very glad. I do not think that the Bill has been greatly improved in Committee. I feel it is regrettable in a House of this kind, composed of so many Members with great experience, that when it is dealing with a fundamental problem like the housing of the people, almost all the constructive talk comes from the Conservative Party and nothing, except in one interesting speech which we heard today, comes from the other side. I hope that the Bill will be a great success.

I should like in a few words to commend this Bill to the House. No-one who has seen sufferers from pneumoconiosis, with their shortness of breath and trying cough, can but agree that anything that can be done to relieve and succour these people, must have the blessing of all concerned. It is because I hope that this Bill will also help in explaining some of the difficult problems of the disease by teaching us something of its natural history which must be a first preliminary to the prevention of any disease, that I especially welcome this Bill today.

Silicosis, a chest disease affecting particularly the miners of South Wales, has been known for a long time. It is a curious disease which apparently affects almost exclusively the miners of South Wales, and particularly those engaged in the anthracite mines. In the anthracite mines every year between 1931 and 1937 there were just over five per thousand new cases suffering from the disease, whereas in the coalfields of the country generally, the proportion was only 06 per thousand of those working. There are other chest diseases, somewhat similar, which affect those who work in stone, asbestos and other industries in which they are subject to inhaling dust. Because of this, pneumoconiosis compensation schemes have been evolved by which those who are suffering from these diseases are excluded from the industries concerned, by which they are given benefit while incapacitated and by which compensation is also given to the dependants of those who die from the disease. But an essential factor in receiving any compensation, is that the sufferer from the disease must have shown evidence of it within five years of having been exposed to the dust which is the principal cause of the disease. At first, the time was three years, then it was extended to five, and now people who are concerned in the study of the disease are wondering whether it cannot develop after a much longer period than five years since the last exposure.

This Bill, by extending the period of observation which those who during the war period have been engaged in war services or war industry, will enable us to obtain information about the disease which we did not know before, and I submit that anything that helps us to know more about the incidence and what one might call the natural history of a' disease is the first step in the elucidation of its causes and therefore its prevention. There is one point more I would like to call attention to. In the Bill the words "war employment" occur. I do not know whether "war employment" is a statutory term, but if it is not, I think perhaps the Minister in charge ought to explain it to us.

May I reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings)? The Minister of National Insurance, with whom I have the honour to work in association, has had the tragedy of first-hand experience and knowledge of the conception and development of this terrible disease. In fact, I have heard him say on a number of occasions that in his village he is the only man of his generation now left without the disease, and the only reason he escaped was because he, to use his own words, "was fortunate enough to come out and serve the miners and mining industry in a capacity outside the mine itself."

It is a very dreadful disease, and at the moment the research to which the hon. Member for Barking has, referred, has been extended. It is not being developed to the extent to which my right hon. Friend would like, mainly because of the shortage of those experts who are so necessary to give particular and intensive thought, time and energy to inquiry into the origin and the extent of this disease. In so far as that research can be assisted by the opportunities with which this small Measure gives, we shall be only too pleased to use those opportunities. They will be interesting because we have men coming back into the industry by the extension of this period of observation, who have been in many varied types of activities since they left the industry itself. There is, perhaps, one interesting feature that might arise from the difference between those men who have been in the service of His Majesty's Forces—leading an open-air life with extensive physical training, and opportunity for physical development—and those who have been engaged in various types of war industry, which varied again between open-air arduous work, factory work which is arduous, and work which is what one might term light work. We hope we will be able to get a measure of experience from the observations that take place in regard to the cases which come before the Board as a result of the opportunities the Board will now have, and which they would not have had but for the provision this Bill makes for ignoring the war period for those who have been on any term of war service.

If I may refer to the question my hon. Friend asked in regard to Subsection (3) of Clause 1, as to the definition of war service; that is intended to cover the service which was undertaken by a man, and which he would not have undertaken but for the fact that the war occurred, and he was required by the Ministry of Labour or the War Office or one of the other branches of the Services, to leave his industry, or, where the industry itself closed down, and he was forced to get another means of livelihood. There are bound to be, and we recognise there are bound to be, cases in which men will claim that their absence from the industry was due to war service, and it may be doubtful whether, in the terms intended in the Bill—that is, that war service was service occasioned from circumstances arising from the war—will be contested. The tragedy is that many men who desire to come within the provisions of the Bill because of the necessity of getting workmen's compensation may attempt to come within the provisions of the Bill, although they have been specifically excluded, because they cannot really be brought within the term "war service." They may have been fortunate enough to get outside the mining industry, and for reasons which are not the subject of this Bill, there are very many who do try to get outside that industry. They may have got outside the industry in a voluntary capacity, and have taken up some other form of employment, or even non-employment, in a voluntary manner.

This Bill does not intend to cover those people. Whether it ought to or not, is not a matter we ought to discuss here today. The question was asked, and the answer is they are not included in this Bill. If there is a dispute as to whether or not it is a war service, that will have to be determined through the normal procedure. The procedure varies between the various schemes which have been established in a number of differing industries. In some, the case has to be determined by the county court, and in others there is a board set up in the industry itself. That board covers a fund which has been provided because and it is responsible for the monies which have to be disbursed. Because of the accidents covered by the fund, the board will be the body to determine whether the man concerned is covered by this Bill and eligible to be certified, and to have his disease recorded and, therefore, registered as an accident. I thank the hon. Member for Barking for his interest and his intervention in the Debate. I can assure him that the opportunities which this Bill gives for the development of reseach will be remembered and taken in hand.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when replying to a Debate on 24th August on the conditions in Poland at that time, stated:

"We are doing everything we physically can do at this time to restore normal life and usages in that country. we shall continue to assure all people interested of our intention to do what we can, and what we properly have the right to do, to restore democratic institutions and property in that country." — [Official Report, 24th August, 1945; Vol. 413, c. 1128.]

From information which I have received and which I believe to be absolutely reliable there can be no doubt that since that statement was made there has been very little improvement in the conditions existing in Poland. The goal of independence and freedom for the people of Poland is as far off as ever. The Provisional Government of Poland, composed as it is of the members of the Lublin Committee, with the addition of four other members not elected by the people of Poland, is entirely under the dictates and the control of Russia. That Government has not got the support of the vast majority of the people in Poland, who had no say in setting it up. In order that Poland may have a chance of obtaining her independence and freedom for self-expression for her people, in order that free elections may take the place in accordance with our democratic principles, we have given assurance after assurance to Poland that we stand for her independence, we stand for the freedom of elections in that country without interference from outside. Under the present conditions these things are impossible. In my humble opinion, in order that Poland may obtain her inde- pendence and freedom for self-expression it is essential that the control of Poland by Russia should be brought to an end, and that freedom should be given to all the Polish political parties, including the National party, which was dissolved by order of the Provisional Government in Poland. It was one of the main political parties in the underground movement, whose only crime was to fight against the Germans from first to last. Further, freedom for the individual, freedom for the Press and freedom of speech and for the wireless should be an assured fact. The three leaders, the main leaders, of the political parties of Poland, and General Okiliki, who formed part of the 15 Polish members, who were asked to go to Russian headquarters, were given a safe conduct by Russia and were then arrested, tried and condemned and now are in prison in Russia, should be set free.

If these changes could be brought about in that unhappy country, I am sure that the vast majority of Poles who are at present living outside Poland, and under existing conditions will not voluntarily return to their country, much as they desire to do so, would return, and then that country would have a chance of securing its independence and its freedom for elections. To bring this about the Russian forces, except those which are required for the safeguarding of their lines of communication, should be withdrawn. I think the Under-Secretary of State will agree when I say that Russia agreed to this. It has not been done. The Russian secret police, the N.K.V.D., should also be withdrawn from Poland. I am informed, and I believe it to be correct, that the Russian forces have not, in fact, been withdrawn from Poland. There may, of course, have been changes, some forces leaving Poland and others coming in from Russia to relieve them, but Russian forces in Poland have not been withdrawn. The N.K.V.D. are all over Poland. The land of Poland belongs to the Poles, not to Russia. Under the N.K.V.D. are the secret police, set up by the Polish Provisional Government. They act under them and with them.

At the request of the Polish Provisional Government the. Russian forces were regrouped, where they had been concentrated in some places, and were sent off to garrison many of the main provincial and some of the smaller towns in Poland under a Russian general who was in charge of the province. It may be argued or stated that that was done in order that law and order might be maintained. From two points of view it is significant that these Russian forces were sent to these towns. If it was the Poles, in the main, who were creating disturbances, engaging in banditry and so on, could not the Polish Army and the Polish police have dealt with the situation? Why send Russian forces and put a Russian general in charge of the province? It is a well-known fact that there have been many desertions from the Russian Army, and I ask why the Polish Army and the Polish police cannot maintain law and order in their own country. The step of spreading Russian forces over Poland must still further strengthen Russia's control over that country. The Polish Army is largely officered by Russians, especially in the higher ranks. The whole of the Air Force is Russian, and I believe also the Signal Corps and the armoured units. There is no Polish Air Force, and the personnel in the Polish Navy includes Russian officers. The Russians are in complete control of the ports of Stettin and Swineműnde, Polish ports which belong to Poland. I know that they took over control of those ports at the invitation, so called, of the Polish Provisional Government, but that does not make the matter any better. To me it is a further proof of how completely the Polish Provisional Government is under the domination of Russia. Surely the Government of Poland would not acquiesce, if they could have prevented it, in their two main ports being turned over to the control of a foreign country.

I have stated that Poland is under the complete control of Russia and the facts which I have given arc indisputable. I see that the Under-Secretary of Stale smiles. I should be glad if he would state where I am wrong in the facts I have given. The facts undoubtedly prove the truth of my statement that Poland is under the control of Russia. Apart from that, Poland is being strangled economically by systematic spoliation, especially Eastern Poland, Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia. In many cases factories have been stripped of their machinery, which has been exported to Russia. The coal produced in Silesia by the Poles has to be sold to Russia at far below the cost of its production, notwithstanding that Poland is terribly short of coal and that a few weeks ago no coal was to be had in Warsaw. Away it goes, exported in large quantities to Russia. Also, the great textile industry in Lodz is being exploited for the benefit of the Russian troops, and also exported to Russia notwithstanding that the people of Poland are in rags. It may be, and I believe it has been the case, that the price paid for the coal extracted from Poland was the subject of an agreement between the Polish Provisional Government and Russia. My only answer to that is that it shows the ineptitude of the Polish Provisional Government in looking after the national interests of their own people.

Large numbers of Polish cattle have been exported to Russia. It may be said that these cattle came from Germany, and many did, but many cattle have also been exported from Poland. Private houses, especially in the Western Provinces, have been looted on a considerable scale. Mass arrests and deportations to Russia or to special concentration camps in Poland are still going on. I am glad to know that those mass arrests are not so bad as they were, but they are still continuing, especially among members of the underground army, that gallant army of Poles whose only crime was that they fought the Germans from first to last. In addition to that—and I am sorry to say that it is undeniable— an enormous number of Polish women have been raped—a disgraceful state of affairs in any civilised country. I wish to draw the attention of the House to a description of these Russian concentration camps. They are small camps and exist by the dozen all over Poland. It is just a hole dug in the ground, six feet deep and 60 yards square, covered with barbed wire—nothing else. It is completely exposed to the weather. In those compounds are 50 men, with no sleeping accommodation, no sanitary arrangements, no medical attention, and food and water are taken to those wretched inmates twice daily. The only possible result is death and disease. Let any hon. Member imagine the conditions of the human beings in such compounds in the terrible weather conditions during the winter in Poland. They must freeze to death. Such camps should not be per- [Vice-Admiral Taylor.] mitted for one moment in any civilised country.

In Poland there is still no freedom of the Press, as was stated by the British Ambassador the other day, and no freedom of speech. There is no freedom of the individual; it just does not exist in Poland. I would say this, that Mr. Mikolajczyk was granted permission to edit a paper for the Polish Peasant Party and there were also allowed one or two Catholic papers. It sounds very well that Mr. Mikolajczyk should have the opportunity to express freely the opinions of the party which he represents, but, as a matter of fact, before, these papers can be published they are all censored by the Government. Therefore, it is obvious that it is impossible for those who edit the papers to express their real opinion if it is contrary to that of the Government. It is well known, of course, that the wireless is completely under the control of the Government. There is the usual technique, whereby loud speakers are arranged in the streets so that the people may listen to the Government sponsored broadcasts. I understand that wireless sets are allowed—a very good thing—but I am also informed that valves are unobtainable, so that they are not of much use. It is possible to obtain a wireless set on the black market, but those who do so find they have to explain how they got it, and it is not very pleasant for you when that inquiry takes place. There is a rule that public meetings can take place only when sponsored by the Government, and there is the usual technique whereby, a resolution is put up, there is no opposition and it is unanimously adopted.

Mr. Mikolajczyk was permitted to try to reconstitute the Polish Peasant Party, outside that party which was set up by the Provisional Government, but it is rather significant to know that about a month ago the Government wireless attacked Mr. Mikolaiczyk because he would not agree to remain in the Peasant Party set up by the regime, the line of attack being that he was breaking the unity of the Polish Peasant Party, and his followers were branded as Fascists and reactionaries. That is the usual technique when they want to get rid of anybody who does not agree with the Government. He has only quite lately been allowed to start reconstituting his own party under all the re- strictions imposed upon it. I am informed that some meetings of his party have taken place, but again, a significant fact is that some of his followers have subsequently been arrested. I ask the Minister, under conditions such as those in which one is arrested when one goes to a meeting, how is it possible for any party which is not in agreement with the existing Government in Poland ever to be constituted at all? Of course, it is quite impossible.

One could speak for a very long time about these things. They form a very distressing picture and, in my opinion, they are undoubtedly made worse by the iron screen which Russia has imposed on the whole of Poland and over every other area where she is in control. Can anything more effective be thought of to create greater suspicion and arouse more intense curiosity on the part of other nations, than to have round the country an impenetrable screen of secrecy? If you want to arouse real curiosity on the part of anybody, just hang in a room in your house an empty frame and draw a curtain across it. Every individual who goes into that room will, out of pure curiosity and desire to know what is behind that curtain, draw it on one side. Those are the conditions which have been brought about by the secrecy of Russia, and in my opinion there is not a shadow of doubt about it. Why is there this secrecy? What is there to hide? Surely to goodness it would be of enormous advantage to the world in general if that screen were lifted so that the world might know the real conditions in Poland. It would be very much to the advantage of everybody. There has been very little change for the better since the Provisional Government was set up. How can there be any change for the better under conditions of that kind, with a Communist government carrying out Communist principles? One may agree or disagree with Communist principles—that is not the point—but the people of Poland had no say in this Government, and the majority of them are entirely opposed to it. The Polish people are getting more and more desperate and embittered against it. Every hon. Member of this House will agree that it is essential there should be friendly relations between Soviet Russia and Poland. The hon. Gentleman smiles. Does he not agree with that statement? Does he not agree that it is a necessity?

My views on the matter are too well known, but I do not agree that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is helping that desired end by his speech.

I am not helping? I consider that if all the facts of what is going on in Poland are known it will help enormously. The people of Poland realise that the Provisional Government is nothing more nor less than a camouflaged Soviet Government. I am certain that the Foreign Secretary is as anxious as anybody that the Poles should go back to their country and that Poland should have her independence and freedom. We have assured it to them. We went to war for Poland—the best and the most faithful Ally we have had in the war from start to finish. We owe a great debt of gratitude to them. The hon. Gentleman smiles. Does he disagree?

Absolutely.

I am not surprised. That is not the common opinion of this country, nor of any other. It is well known what Poland has done, including the wonderful work of her underground army against Germany which thereby vastly assisted the destruction of the German forces by Russia. I am sure also that the Parliamentary Secretary is fully aware of the great danger to any Government which is set up as a Provisional Government, from remaining indefinitely as a Provisional Government. It is a very dangerous thing, especially, as in Poland, where the majority of the people are opposed to it. It only leads to trouble and increases bitterness. Therefore, the sooner Poland gets her independence and freedom for her people to take part in elections on democratic lines, which we have repeatedly affirmed is what we desire and shall ensure if we possibly can, the better. Under the present conditions, the vast majority of the Poles will not go back voluntarily to Poland. There is no chance of Polish independence, or for even those people who are in Poland to express their opinion as to the form of Government they require. There is no chance for Poland's independence, there is no chance for the free expression of the Polish people to choose their own Government—none. I am sure the Government are most desirous to bring about better conditions. I urge upon them to do everything they possibly can, to use all their influence with our ally, Russia and with the Polish Provisional Government to see that as soon as possible these necessary changes are brought about, without which there is no hope for Poland.

I ought to make it clear to the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken that I do not think any Member of this House does not deplore equally with him the conditions and happenings that he has been describing so vividly in his speech. All of us deplore those happenings in Europe. All of us must condemn concentration camps wherever they exist; but they do not exist only in Poland.

I apologise for intervening, because I was permitted to speak for a long time. I mentioned not only concentration camps in general, which we all deplore, but particular concentration camps, which are not fit for anyone.

The only difference I have with the hon. and gallant Member is that, not only are the particular concentration camps to which he referred not fit for anybody, but no concentration camp anywhere is fit for anybody. I deplore those conditions, but I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to try to put matters into their proper perspective. The problems being presented to the House are not specifically Polish. We find them in different parts of the world—camps, deportations and the horrible conditions with which we have become all too familiar, and which seem to me to indicate not particularly a Polish offence but a general lowering of the standards of political and social conduct throughout Europe, and indeed the whole of the civilised world. While deploring those conditions, we must try to understand why they have come about and in what context they must be considered. Unless we do so, we shall not arrive at any understanding of the processes by which they will eventually be cured.

It is of course true that all the reports indicate that there is no freedom in Poland at this moment, in the sense in which we find it in our own democratic country, here in Great Britain, but before we too hurriedly rush in to condemn everything from A to Z that exists in that unhappy country in Eastern Europe, let us remember that Poland is one of the devastated areas of the Continent, fought over by advancing and retreating armies on both sides. Since those armies have retreated, the country has seen not only a political revolution but an economic and social revolution. The hon. and gallant Member must be aware that history teaches us that, in conditions of that kind, to look for the freedoms that one normally asociates with settled conditions and long-established systems in countries like our own, is to look for something that is completely illusory and vain.

I am bound to say that, while I agree with' all the sentiments the hon. and gallant Member uttered about the undesirability of those conditions, I do not think that he was in the least helpful in the way in which he turned his own generous sentiments into what I can only describe as completely unhelpful criticism of our war Ally, the great Power associated with us now in the effective control of the world, the Soviet State and the Soviet people. I have no doubt that, if I chose, I could give the hon. and gallant Member a most effective brief for criticisms of Russia and Russian actions, because I myself am critical of many things that happen.

I have no doubt that the hon. Member will allow me to draw a distinction between what is going on in Russia which is Russian territory and is a matter for the Russians, and what is going on in that other country, which is a different matter altogether.

I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I ought no doubt to take up that point and proceed to examine it for a minute or two, in order to make clear what I meant when I said that I thought his speech this morning was distinctly unhelpful, probably even for the purposes that he has in mind. It is, of course, true that Russian influence is predominant in Poland, just as it is true that Russian influence is predominant along the whole of her Western frontiers, in all the States from the Baltic to the Black Sea and beyond. That predominant influence is something to which one may object and disagree, but it is something about which, in the very nature of things, neither the hon. and gallant Member nor any other hon. Member in this House can do anything whatever. We have to remember in this connection that the whole of the Chinese wall of buffer States that Russia has created now and helped to create, by taking advantage largely of the conditions resulting from the war, a system of which Poland is a central and pivotal part, is Russia's security system. So long as it is legitimate for countries to think in terms of security zones and of national and State preservation by the erection of these security zones around them, Russia is, by the commonly accepted standards of our contemporary civilisation, completely and finally justified in what she is doing now.

Against whom does Russia need security?

I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his question. It leads me to something which I did not intend to say, but which perhaps had better be said. I would remind the House in this connection of a statement that was made by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in a recent foreign affairs Debate. The hon. and gallant Member has brought it to my mind. In reference to this security system of Russia the right hon. Gentleman said that it was erected against— I think I remember his words correctly— a resurgence of German Nazism and armed might. In fact, of course, that is merely one of the glosses which we are all so accustomed to use and which completely confuse understanding. What, in fact, the security zone is erected against is not any possible resurgence of German armed might. No one knows better than the Russians how completely and finally that has been destroyed. That security zone and barrier are a physical expression of the deep suspicion of the Russian State as to the bonâ fides of the Western Powers and their intentions towards Russia.

I do not like saying this to the hon. Member, but I think it my duty to point out that he has fallen into the trap laid for him by the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox). The hon. and gallant Member has drawn across the trail of this Debate a red herring. It will be better if the hon. Member confines himself to answer- ing the torrent of abuse from the hon. and gallant Member for South Padding-ton (Vice-Admiral Taylor).

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his kindly intentions in telling me how to make my speech, but I prefer to make it in my own way. I was trying to put these matters into their proper context. The security zone of which Poland is a part arises from suspicion in Russia as to the intentions of the Western Powers. That is my reading of the situation. Can anyone who recollects, even in the most cursory fashion, the events of the last 25 years, dare to make the suggestion that the Soviet Union has not most ample grounds for that suspicion which now, in my view, is distorting her proper policies?

rose —

I am not going to give way again. Those suspicions have the most ample justification because of the recent history of Europe, It is in that setting therefore that we must examine the question of Poland. When the hon. and gallant Member makes such a very strong point of the existence of Russian troops in the territory of Poland, he forgets that all the criticisms that he levels at the Soviet Union in that respect are levelled by the Soviet Union in its turn against us, for our precisely similar actions in Greece. There, we are dealing with the British security zone in the Mediterranean, and while I do not want to make too much of the point nevertheless we have to try to get these matters into their proper relationship.

The same thing applies to the absence of coal in Warsaw. That is not due to any diversion of coal to Russia, but mainly to the fact that Poland is suffering in precisely the same way as Germany, France, and other countries in Europe are suffering, from dislocation of the normal means of transport and the complete deficiency of wagons and of all the normal ways by which goods are moved about within European communities. I do not want to go on for too long. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that the Provisional Government in Poland cannot possibly be an expression of the Polish people, he has given expression to an idea that has no relation whatever to the facts. I happen to know a great deal about the political system that existed in Poland before the war, and I think it is much more true to say that the Govern- ment of Colonel Beck, for instance, was much less representative of the Polish people than the present Provisional Government sitting in Warsaw.

Let the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington think of this for a moment. The Provisional Government of Poland which, whatever its mistakes may be, is in friendly relations with our own country, has at least to its credit some great acts of economic and social policy which obviously must result in bringing behind it in its support the masses of the common people of Poland. I believe, in fact, that that far more truly represents the actuality of the position to-day than the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. In conclusion, I agree with him that we do not want to make the position worse by the wrong line of approach. We want our Government to make proper and correct approaches to the existing Polish Government, and to Russia also, with a view to trying to get these horrible problems of which we are all aware speedily solved and these conditions rectified. I am in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member on that, but I do ask that, in the course of this discussion, we should remember that when we are uttering criticisms of Russia or the Provisional Government of Poland we may very easily, unless we are extremely careful and responsible in our use of words, worsen an already bad situation.

During the last Parliament we had many Debates upon Poland, and when the Yalta Agreement came up for consideration, Major Petherick, whose absence from the House we all regret, moved an Amendment protesting, on behalf of Poland, against the Yalta Agreement. When I was attacked in my constituency for having supported that Amendment, my reply was it was the vote in the House of which I was most proud. Surely, today, we see circumstances in Poland that completely justify the vote that was taken in the House that day. When I hear the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) talking about Poland as a security zone for Russia, I cannot help remembering that on 1st September, 1939, Poland nobly fulfilled her obligations to this country, whereas Russia had, behind the back of this country, made an agreement with Germany, and Molotov declared that Poland had been wiped from the map of Europe, and that Poland no longer existed.

What do we find today? With deep regret, I must say that the British Government recognised this glorified Lublin Committee and allowed it to be set up as the Provisional Government of Poland. I pointed out, in the Debate which took place before the Recess—and nobody has answered my argument yet— that of the 20 Members composing that Provisional Government, all but four can be fully and accurately described as Communists. This is the Government that His Majesty's Ministers have recognised, in spite of the Yalta Agreement, in spite of the Atlantic Charter, in spite of the most solemn promises and especially that secret protocol which Major Petherick discovered and revealed to the House of Commons, causing a sensation. What has been the reward that His Majesty's Government have received for recognising that Provisional Government? The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) has shown that the Press is completely under the domination of Russia. They were trying to curry favour with Russia by recognising that Provisional Government. What is the gratitude they have received? What does the Soviet controlled Press of Warsaw say at the present moment? "Dziennik Ludowy,' the organ of the Peasant Party, stated plainly on 31st October:

"Those who defend the Germans harm the Poles. Reactionary British circles prefer the Germans, and they would rather help them, than the Poles."

That is an organ sponsored and controlled by the Soviet régime at present in existence in Poland. On 19th November "Zycie Warszawy," another of these Soviet-owned organs, stated:

"Under the singular workings of British justice, not the slayer, but the slain, is guilty."

There are then remarks about British soldiers carrying the shopping baskets of Fräuleins while Fräuleins handle their guns. This is all reported at full length in the Polish Press. A Warsaw broadcast on 8th October said:

"The biggest and most paradoxical scandal of today, and one which carries lessons for the Slavs, is the position of Poles in the British Occupation zone, and the inscription which the Poles put over one camp near Hanover, 'The British Dachau' is surely significant."

That is the sort of propaganda which is being carried on against this country in Poland. This is the gratitude the Government are receiving for their untimely and disgraceful, recognition, contrary to all the Treaties, of this Polish Provisional Government Then, again, another Polish newspaper, the "Ilustrowany Kurier Polski," on 28th October, while describing at length the bad treatment of Poles in the British zone in Germany, points out the contribution made by the Poles in the Battle of Britain. Of course, the obvious deduction is the ingratitude that is shown to them. The Warsaw radio and the Warsaw Press describe frequently how the Poles who want to return home are ill-treated in Britain. There are constant false accusations in the Polish Press that the British authorities are preventing men of the Polish Forces from returning home. The "Kurier Polski," a journal published in London, in its issue of 28th November, accused Britain of detaining the Poles, and went on to suggest that they are kept as hostages by British merchants until the Warsaw Government agrees to pay Britain back the costs of maintaining the Poles during the war. These unfortunate Poles are continually being warned of the sinister aims for which the Western Powers intend to use them.

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to read his speech?

I am not reading my speech, as you can see if you will look. I have to read the extracts—the quotations from these papers.

I do not think there is any complaint on that score but I should be grateful if the hon. Member would remember when he uses the pronoun "You," that he is addressing the Chair.

Is it possible for anybody to remember Polish names without reading them?

I am surely entitled to read the quotations. I have never read a speech in this House; the last speech I made in this House was made without a single note. I cannot be expected to carry all these names in my head. On 25th November, "Zycie Warszawy," commenting on the French election, wrote:

"the British Labour Party's foreign policy is causing anxiety and dissatisfaction amoňg progressive European democracies. The position of the French Socialists is weakened by their support of the Western idea which is known to conceal"—

I would like the Labour Party to make a note of this charge against them—

"is known to conceal a plan for co-operation between Germany and the Western countries."

A very dangerous statement for world peace. The hon. and gallant Member for Paddington has given a very vivid and characteristic account of present conditions in Poland. He has described the existing Polish concentration camps in all parts of Poland where the Russians have placed those Poles whom they suspect of being likely to oppose them. I can confirm every word which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, because I myself have interrogated a Pole, a very high officer of the Polish Army, who arrived recently in this country from Poland. I am certain he was speaking the truth. We continued our interrogation of him up to midnight and nobody could have spoken with greater sincerity. Whenever there were restrictions or modifications to be made, he made them, and I am convinced he was speaking the truth when he gave us the appalling description, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given to the House, of those concentration camps which exist at the present time in Poland, maintained by the Soviets for those Poles who are in opposition to them.

I read with very great pleasure the admirable speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Ĺ'yme (Mr. Mack), made during the Debate on foreign affairs, describing his journey to Poland. I think we are under a debt of gratitude to him for undertaking that journey, and I am perfectly certain that he made his report with the utmost sincerity and the utmost truthfulness. He described what he saw, and we were very glad to have heard a first-hand report from somebody who had actualy been in Poland. Perhaps I might also be allowed to refer to another report. The American Congress sent a deputation to Poland, and here is the statement of Congressman T. S. Gordon, which is an account he gave in a speech at Detroit, Michigan, on 11th October, 1945, describing his visit to Poland:

"The Russian occupation army there is behaving very badly. We saw their arrogance and unfairness in the way they took advantage of the poor people of that city. We saw in the nearby highways, jammed with hundreds of head of cattle, horses and farming implements being taken out of Poland by the Russians, and going further East. The pillaging of the shops on the streets was going on most freely. The snatching of purses from Polish women is a daily occurrence. There also exists a wholesale raping of Polish women. When resistance is shown, the Russian soldier uses his weapons of war and kills. There is no freedom of the Press in Poland and the few publications are strictly under Russian censorship."

When this gentleman spoke to various Poles, as he thought them—to various soldiers in Polish uniform—the answer was "Oh no, Sir, the Polish Army is still in Italy and England. They have not come home yet." These Russians in Polish uniform roam the streets with tommy-guns on their backs and pistols in their holsters. The officers in the Army commanded by Marshal Rola-Zymirski are mostly Russians, but the worst factor of the situation seems to be the fact that numerous elements of the Soviet Russian army are now being demobilised in Poland, and individuals are automatically made Polish citizens. That has been confirmed by Poles who have returned to this country. No Pole is allowed, apparently, to occupy any post in his own Army above the rank of captain; all the senior posts in the Army are held by Russians, who completely dominate it. I would appeal to the Members of this House on behalf of a great country, a country which at one time was our only Ally, a people which has so nobly sacrificed itself, a people whose history appeals to us British.

I think of that most cruel partition of Poland in the eighteenth century, when Poland was completely absorbed by the neighbouring States, and the protests that were made over here in this country; I think of our poets, and specially Thomas Campbell, who appealed on behalf of Poland in such noble language. Thomas Campbell lies buried in Westminster Abbey, and. to his funeral the Poles brought earth from the grave of their great hero Kosciuszko in Krakow. Again in 1830 we protested. Tennyson wrote those most eloquent poems protesting against the brutality with which that most noble fight for independence was repressed. Again in 1863, if only Napoleon III had co-operated with Lord Palmerston, something might have been done to prevent once more that bloodstained repression of noble Poland. In the Treaty of Versailles, we recognised with gratitude, that that noble country was once more being brought to life. Of all the clauses in the Treaty of Versailles, the one which gave some of us the greatest pleasure was that which resuscitated noble and devoted Poland. If the war broke out because of Danzig, let us not forget that our then Prime Minister—I would not say anything ill about him, De mortuis nil nisi bonum—twice rejected the unanimous report of the Committee of Experts that Danzig should be given to Poland, that Danzig was essential to Poland, and that the mouth of the Vistula was for Poland a question of life or death. The Prime Minister twice rejected that report; he had it referred back to the Committee and the Committee unanimously adhered to it; and after the war broke out on the question of Danzig, this country and its Prime Minister had an overwhelming responsibility.

Gentlemen, I appeal to you. You may not be able to do much—Poland is already in the iron grip of Russia—but at least I ask you not to acquiesce in the infamies which are going on. You may be powerless—I admit it—to a large extent, but do not forfeit your honour by accepting a state of affairs, which is a stain on our whole European civilisation and a disgrace to the postwar conditions. Let us, at least, let our Foreign Secretary—and the Foreign Secretary knows how to stand up to Russia—supported by the Under-Secretary of State, who made an excellent speech on the last occasion when the subject of Poland was before the House, join in a definite protest against these conditions which are prevailing in Poland at the present moment. Let me repeat that we must take care that our honour is not being forfeited by acquiescing in conditions which are ignoble, which are disgraceful and injurious to the reputation of this country which has had a great responsibility in the past for the existing condition of Poland.

I am very proud to think that Members on this side of the House have listened with such patience, respect and courtesy to the two hon. Gentlemen who have addressed us from the opposite side. It is one of the finest traditions of this Parliament, and of British public life, that even most reprehensible views can be understood and listened to with appreciation, even if not with agreement. I hope and trust that that democratic principle will always be maintained.

In Poland?

I think that interruption is a little premature but if the hon. and gallant Member hopes that by doing that he will create a certain amount of heat, I would remind him that I will not pull my punch which will, if necessary, hit very hard above the belt. We appreciate that this is a very serious Debate. It is a Debate which involves not just a question of the relationship between Britain and Poland but the relationship between Britain and the U.S.S.R., the consequences of which might have the most tremendous effect upon the future of the world. Those Britons who love their country and want it to flourish, and to be a great country in every sense of the word, had better bear in mind that only a warm and enduring friendship with Russia on terms of equality, with sincere motives on both sides, can help to bring about that desired end. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I appreciate that support and I trust that it will be borne in mind. My hon. and gallant Friend, like a typical tough-knit sea dog, has spoken bluntly. Nobody minds that. I say this to him, not unkindly but firmly: I have never listened to a greater farrago of nonsense in one speech than that to which I have listened this afternoon. I am not denying for a moment that, equally with my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), he is speaking with sincerity. It is as well however in the circumstances that I happen to have been in Poland quite recently and can give my sincere impressions and a factual report of the observations I made without any inhibition. I did not undertake a conducted tour but I had an opportunity of travelling in those parts of Poland in which it was possible to travel. I travelled for 16 days in Poland and only claim to know the life of Poland to the extent the average observer could have done in such a comparatively short time. But I did not see any evidence—although I searched for it—of Russian brutality, of Russian iniquity or any desire by the Russian Army or civil authorities or any other Russian to break the spirit of Poland and commit the monstrous acts of tyranny which have been alleged by my hon. and gallant Friend.

The hon. Gentleman has accused me of speaking arrant nonsense. Will he give his reasons for that statement?

That is the purport of my remarks. I, equally with my hon. and gallant Friend and most Members of the House, honour and respect all those Poles who have fought in the great world war of liberation. We know their prowess, and we honour and respect them for that, but it would be wrong to deduce therefrom that the prewar Government of Poland was, in any sense of the term, a democratic Government. It was imbued with Nazi ideologies. It was a Government which repressed its minorities and which, which equal intent, persecuted the Jews and other minorities and democratic elements inside the country.

I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend, for example, that there was a very strained position arising out of Lithuania, and there was a similar situation in regard to Czechoslovakia and Teschen in 1938. The present Prime Minister complained in the House of Commons, in the last Parliament, that he had been receiving Christmas cards on which a vast map of Poland was produced showing its boundaries extending to the Black Sea. In a cafe in, I think, Oxford Street or nearby there is an enormous map of prewar Poland, the Poland of 150 or 200 years ago, designed to indicate that these vast territories constituted the true boundaries of Poland. In that same cafe, and in many parts of London, one can see men of the Polish Army carrying out anti-Russian propaganda calculated to exacerbate relations with that country, and bring about a war of greater intensity and suspicion. It is time that someone in this House had the courage to speak out, and, if I generate some heat, I am not ashamed of it.

Did not we go to war to protect Poland from invasion?

No one disputes that, but we had neither the military might nor capacity to do that in actual practice. That was left to Russia.

Whose fault was that?

rose—

I will not give way.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) is on his feet, and the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) should not intervene unless the hon. Member gives way.

I am willing to give way but I was in the 'middle of replying to the hon. and gallant Member. If he will wait, I will give way again. If I may say so, not unkindly, he is helping me in disposing of his case. I was saying to my hon. and gallant Friend that in practice it was the Russian Forces which liberated Poland. Nobody disputes the good intentions of this country when we went to war. One of the reasons for it was the ultimate liberation of Poland.

Russia had attacked, had she not?

Is it not a fact that Russia did attack Poland, and can any any hon. Member in this House deny that?

Absolute drivel. It is a most absurd contention, and I often wonder whether hon. Members can seriously believe that. The fact was that the Germans invaded Poland, a piece of wanton aggression. They were almost at the gates of Warsaw, and the Russians, in order, not only to protect their own existence, but in order to protect the people of Poland, the Government of which had run away, were obliged 10 advance into Polish territory.

rose—

I cannot give way any more. I often wonder that we are not more thankful to Providence that the Russians advanced 200 miles into Poland to meet the Germans, because it: probably, made the difference between winning and losing the war, particularly when the Germans advanced to the gates of Stalingrad. We ought to be very grateful for that, and, in any case, there was then no Polish Government in existence. They had fled, true to type. The Government of prewar Poland was not a democratic Government. It was not a Government with which this country could have been prepared to have democratic relations. It was a Government which, all along, had oppressed the people. There were only two classes in Poland—the landed proprietors and landowners, and, roughly speaking, a vast peasantry, impoverished and living on a low standard of life, and there was very little in between those classes. This was Poland before the war.

The hon. Member said that I have spoken arrant nonsense, and I ask that he should substantiate that statement. I never mentioned the Government of prewar Poland; I was dealing with conditions at the present time.

It is true that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not specifically mention the prewar Government of Poland. As a matter of fact, it was his colleague, the hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast, who made that point. But what I am trying to say is that, in attempting to understand the mentality of the Polish Army and those people purporting to represent the Poles in this country, one must try to understand the political and economic background of these same people. They were never democratic in the true sense of the word, and their presence in this country today constitutes a menace to the good relations of Britain and Russia as well as the good relations of Britain and Poland. I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite shows no disposition to ally himself to such undemocratic elements.

The opportunities of travelling which I had while in Poland enabled me to visit Warsaw—and here I speak with reserve because everybody will appreciate that one does not want to make statements that are not strictly in accordance with the truth—but I had the kindliest assistance and warm co-operation of the British Ambassador, Mr. Cavendish-Bentinck, a man of vision and understand- ing and an admirable person to be responsible for the interests of this country. So far as I could make out from him, and he spoke as naturally and diplomatically as he could, there had been no evidence of Russian aggression to anything like the extent mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There have been rumours that the Russians were about to attack the British Ambassador. That was arrant nonsense, and no one knew it better than the British Ambassador himself. Poland is a country of rumours, an amazing country, in which one sees ghostly and spectral figures wandering back to life through the streets, because they have no communications, no means of transport and very little food, in some parts of the country, and also because, economically, they are so backward.

Is not that understandable? Four to five million Poles are outside the country. at the present time, and perhaps nearly 2,000,000 of them are on the Russian side. West of the Curzon Line. Something- like another 2,000,000 are in the occupied zones of Germany, in Italy, in this country and elsewhere. The Polish Government are desperately anxious to bring back these Polish soldiers within their territories, and for many reasons. One is that they are males and are necessary in order to contribute to the future population, and they have technical skill and ability. Another is that they constitute the best age groups of the country and are the best physical specimens, and the Government are anxious about them, and about the labour they could bring to bear and which they are very anxious to obtain.

It has been said that the constitution of the Polish Government comprised 16 Communists out of 20. May I refute that? The Prime Minister, M. Osabku-Morawski, with whom I spent a considerable period of time, is not a Communist. He is what we would call a mild Labour man, who would probably make a very good Front Bench Minister. I went with him to Lodz on one occasion. One hon. Gentleman said that the 'President or Leader—presumably, he meant the President of the Republic, M. Bierut—was a Communist. He is the son of a Lublin peasant, who has never been in active political life before. A very mild man, he told a bunch of correspondents that he had no intention of carrying on politi- cal life after he had seen the country settled. I doubt if there are more than three or four Communists in the Government, and I do not believe that the Communists could win an election at the present time, because, probably, more people are anti-Communist in their politics than are pro-Communist. I am not one who says that everything the Russians do is perfect and that the things done by everybody else are not perfect, but, unless hon. Members are ready to give credit for good intentions to Russia, I am afraid we are in for a very difficult situation. I believe that, politically, scientifically and ideologically, the Russians are honest and sincerely desire to end war for all time, but I know they are apprehensive, and, on occasion, very suspicious.

I might mention one incident which happened to me. I met a Red Army soldier on the road one day, and not knowing as much as I ought to have known of the Russian mentality, I came along to him and said to him the Russian equivalent of "I am an Englishman, comrade," and extended my hand to him. He looked at me at first in a very stern and almost menacing manner; then caught hold of my hand, and when apparently satisfied that I was a normal man, embraced me and said something which cast a distinct reflection on my parentage. These words were the only English words he knew, but the friendly intention was quite obvious. They were friendly people and that was their way of showing it. I went into a cafe in Praga in which there were a large number of Russians and Polish soldiers. They had had one or two drinks, but not too many, and, very shortly, they were embracing each other in the most friendly way and trying to understand each other's language. This proves to me that the Little Slav and the Big Slav, when they get together, will find that the natural desire of both countries is to strive for peace.

The desire of the Polish Government is for peace, but it is recognised that this desire is linked up with friendship of Russia. Equally, it turns to the West and looks to Britain to give it inspiration, to give to the new Poland enlightenment, to trade with her and help her economically and in many other directions. When I went to Lodz and also when landing at Stettin a few hours after its occupation by the Polish authorities, I found President Zaremba, the Lord Mayor, in difficulties. What were his difficulties? He was a very frank man. He said to me "When I came here I found 60,000 Nazis in the town." The Polish opposition might have been round about 35,000. Stettin had a population of nearly 400,000 before the war. He found that there were difficulties with the Russian soldiers.

Let us be quite honest about it. There must be anything up to 100 nationalities in the Russian army. Nobody claims that they are all of equal standards, intellectual or otherwise, but let us be fair to these Russian soldiers. For four years they had endured the most terrible war in history. They had seen millions of their women and children destroyed. Thank Heaven we have never experienced that kind of thing in this country—

What about the Poles killed?

The majority of these were Jews, persecuted by some of the very Poles to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman has alluded. I know the type only too well. These Russian soldiers had seen the murder and the torture of their people, the sadistic cruelties meted out to their children. Was it not natural, when they came to Poland, a country politically hostile, where elements of the population were unfriendly, that there should be incidents? Of course it was natural, but, to the everlasting glory of Russia and to the credit of her commanders, let it be said that as soon as the Polish authorities brought evidence of those incidents, the Russian commanders took action at once, and today I am glad to say—and it can be confirmed by any fair-minded person—that incidents in Poland are relatively very few and far between.

One cannot eradicate hatred. In this House, I am sorry to say, I can see manifestations of hatred against Russia in certain quarters. I am not suggesting that there is hatred on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, though other people may not be as generous as I am. He has certainly laid himself open to the gravest suspicion because, if he had a little more imagination, he would understand that a great country of nearly 200,000,000 people—which is today possibly the greatest and most powerful country in the world from the point of view of natural resources, and certainly in 30 or 40 years would be able to dominate the world if so minded—does not want, and certainly the average Russian worker or peasant does not want, to dominate the world any more than the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to do it. No Russian wants it; no Russian has ever said that at all. I agree that they feel apprehensive sometimes when they hear speeches—and after all, the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have the glory and satisfaction if he likes of hearing his speech reported much farther afield than the confines of this Chamber—

I hope so.

I hope so, for his subsequent enlightenment. But the fact remains that there are people in other parts of the world who regard these speeches as representative of the Members of this House, and I would be unworthy of myself, of my party, and of this House if I were to allow those remarks to go unchallenged. I want to warn the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because he probably does not appreciate the fact, that remarks of that kind will undo the very things that most hon. Members want to happen. We have been speaking about the freedom of the Press; we have been speaking about the lack of freedom on the radio in Poland. M. Mikolajczyk, the Leader of the Peasant Party, went voluntarily to Poland. It was a very big gesture. I do not agree with the politics of that particular Polish gentleman, but I would say that he went there wholeheartedly, for the purpose of co-operating with the present Government, and the present Government badly want to have an election. They were not elected by the people of Poland; they admit it. They were put there as being as broadly and widely representative of Government as it was possible under the then existing awkward and difficult circumstances, and I want to say that they have discharged their function with very great credit. How they have been able to make any form of Government with even a semblance of organisation is a modern political miracle.

Who made it?

The Russians have certainly helped Poland, not only to start a Government—which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition warmly supported at Yalta after he had been in con- ference with Mr. Roosevelt and Generalissimo Stalin and learned the facts, and if we say to Russia that her motives are dishonourable, if we treat her as an atavistic monster, as a cynical barbarian wielding her power against every decent conception of humanity as we understand it, then why are we not honest enough to stand up in this House and say, "Let us break every pact with Russia ''? People cannot come here and talk about being friendly with Russia on the one hand and, on the other, impute every low and despicable motive to her. Of course they cannot.

I really must object. I have not said what the hon. Gentleman accuses me of saying. I have merely stated conditions existing in Poland. What the Russians do in Russia is not my affair. That is their affair. What everybody is concerned with is what they do in countries outside their own country. They have said they will not bring pressure to bear on countries outside Russia. They have stated that.

That is precisely what I am saying. The hon. and gallant Gentleman charges the Russians with perpetuating and fomenting conditions in Poland which are despicable and opposed to every conception of freedom as we understand it. That is exactly what I am saying, and I charge the hon. and gallant Gentleman with making a most mischievous statement which is not backed up by the facts, and which is most harmful.

I could have gone on. I do not intend to do so because I want to leave time for the Under-Secretary to reply. May I say to my hon. Friend how pleased I am with the very fair manner in which he tries to deal with a most difficult problem? That applies also to the Foreign Secretary. I appreciate that it is his job to do it, and he will learn more as he goes on, but the fact is that I am perfectly satisfied that he wants to bring all his endeavours to bear upon this subject with a view to healing any wounds and trying to resolve these differences. I believe we should give him, as long as he pursues that end, every possible support. Hon. Members opposite, who are very sporting in many respects, will forgive me if I have been a little more impetuous than I might have been, but it is a subject on which I feel strongly, as, indeed, do my hon. Friends. I hope they will understand that, because nothing would hurt me more than to feel that they should not have every opportunity of putting forward their views as I put forward mine.

Having said that, I would add that I believe there is something very much akin to the British make-up in the Russian make-up, strange though that may appear. The Russians are new in the sense of being a very great world Power. They have met many Britons for the first time. I believe that, fundamentally, the Russian character loves all that is best in the British character. I have heard that on many occasions and from the lips of eminent Russians. To give one illustration of the Russian mind, Marshal Zukhov, who was largely responsible for fixing the boundaries of Poland, showed the most generous desire to be warm and sympathetic to the Poles in doing that, and met every reasonable demand they made on their Western frontiers. That is typical and indicative of the Russian mentality. Therefore I say, if we will try to overcome these difficulties by a warm and sincere approach, speaking frankly and fully if necessary, we will do very much good in the future as far as the relationship between this country and Russia is concerned. To that extent, I believe that a Debate of this kind ventilates differences and helps towards the consummation of that end.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me that this is not a subject about which we should get hot under the collar. If I may put forward some simple ideas on this matter which, I think, hon. Members on both sides of the House must agree are absolutely sound and straightforward, I shall be very grateful. First of all, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) said, I think, "We went to war to protect Poland from invasion." He was interrupted and I said "Invasion from whom?" Are we really being asked to believe that Russia did not attack Poland, because that bears no relation to the facts? How anyone can believe that is past my comprehension. You have only to ask any Pole just exactly what it was like when Russia invaded them from the East, and stabbed them in the back when they were being invaded by Germany, to get the true answer. Memories are not so short. It is no more true to say that Russia did not attack Poland than to say Russia did not attack Finland.

If there was a fire in the house of the hon. Member and a fire brigade broke into the house to put it out, would he complain of having been attacked by the fire brigade?

I certainly would if the lire brigade knocked me on the head in addition to putting out the fire. We were told also by the hon. Gentleman that Russian action in Eastern Europe, and particularly in Poland, is aimed at achieving her own security; I would ask hon. Members opposite—we know the answer—"Security against whom?" Is anyone going to ask me to believe that the United States or ourselves, who are the only two countries with any force of arms, have aggressive aims against the Soviet? I do not believe that any one is going to be quite so dumb as to suggest that. I see the hon. Gentleman opposite nodding his head. I take it that he is agreeing with me. Then why all this talk about Russian security? Security against whom? What do they want to be secure against? I hope that he may be able to give me an answer to that and, if he cannot, that he will stop talking quite such rot. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme also said, "They fled, true to type." I think that he was referring to the Polish Government at the beginning of the war. He nods assent. I think that is a disgusting remark to make about the Government of a country which- has been one of our most gallant Allies during this war.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that if Germany had not attacked Poland, the Government of the old regime would have brought Poland into the war with Germany against us? That is to say, that Poland would have fought with Germany against us.

I am sure the House will agree that that is purely a hypothetical case, in support of which no one in this House can bring any evidence whatever. If it is true, I know nothing about it. I hold no particular brief for the regime in Poland before the war. The fact remains, however, that we went to war to save Poland from invasion, and they have been a very gallant Ally to whom we should all be extremely grateful. Neither of the hon. Members opposite who spoke challenged one single word of the speech made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Paddington, South (Vice-Admiral Taylor) ox the hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory). We have had a lot of hot air, particularly when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme got on his feet. I challenge any hon. Gentleman opposite to deny the truth of one single sentence spoken by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington or by the hon. Member for Queen's University. Every word they have said today is absolutely true. I challenge any hon. Member to deny the truth of any statement they have made. I will give way with pleasure.

Is the hon. and gallant Member waiting for a denial? Then I deny it.

That is very easy and I am sure the House will be interested to hear the reasons which the hon. Gentleman may have. There is plenty of time, and doubtless he will be able to put his case.

When the hon. and gallant Gentleman makes a challenge of that kind, it is merely a counter assault.

That may well be, but it is perfectly true. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) can of course put his view. He has made the statement, "Then I deny it." We shall be very interested to hear the factual reasons why he denies it. It is most important that we should have a full reply from the Minister. There is plenty of time, and I trust that he will put forward a few more facts.

In a Debate about three weeks ago we were told by the Foreign Secretary that there was going to be no compulsion put on any of the Polish Forces overseas to return to their own country. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am sure I am right in saying, welcomed that statement. During the course of the Debate —and there has been a further hint of it to-day—there were suggestions that there are certain political undercurrents at work in this country, Italy, and Germany that many officers and N.C.Os. of these Polish forces, who fought magnificently on our side, are Fascists and reactionaries— wholly unsubstantiated statements. I ask the Minister when he replies to make it clear that within his knowledge, at any rate, there is no compulsion on these men not to return to Poland. That, I think, is clearly important. I suggest that these stories about these officers and N.C.Os. being Fascists and reactionaries are tendentious and dangerous and are wholly groundless. If they are true, I hope that hon. Members opposite will bring forward facts to prove that they are true. If they are not true, I hope that we shall cease hearing this rubbish. I look upon it as narrow-minded and prejudiced to put forward such views without being able to substantiate them.

It is not anti-Russian to accept the fact that the Soviet interpretation of democracy and freedom is 100 per cent, different from our own. It is certainly not anti-Russian, but it is anti-British to accept the opposite view and pretend that their interpretation of democracy and freedom is the same as ours. I wish hon. Members opposite would remember that. We have got to search out the common ground. It is of vital importance for the future security of the world that we should do all we can to work with the Soviet, but that is no reason why we should not criticise each other. The Soviet never hesitates to criticise us, but if an hon. Member on this side of the House dares to get up and say one word of criticism about the Soviet, he is immediately branded as a reactionary, or as almost a "Fascist beast" by many hon. Members opposite.

I do not suppose that anyone would object to any constructive form of criticism against the Soviet Government. What we want to do is to draw a distinction between normal and right criticism and Fascist denunciation and imputation of the lowest motives to the Soviet Government such as we have heard this afternoon.

No, Sir. I think that imputations of any motives are perfectly fair provided that the facts actually bear out the statements. I would ask hon. Members opposite, if they are so ignorant as some of them appear to be, to get hold of any single officer or N.C.O. liberated from prisoner of war camps in Poland or Eastern Germany by the Russian Forces, and ask them how they were treated, what they saw and what they think of the Soviet. I suggest to the hon. Member for Mile End that he tells us of a certain talk given in Mile End by a certain friend of his who saw a good deal in Russia. I think he knows very well what I am talking about. I hold no particular brief for the form of government in Poland before the war, but one form of tyranny has been substituted for another, and the one they have now is a worse form of tyranny. I find no cause for congratulation in that. Their present regime may be no better and no worse than General Franco's regime in Spain. That is a fact. We are not discussing Spain, but the suggestion is often made—

What is a fact, if it is something which is no better and no worse?

I said that it may be no better and no worse. If the hon. Member cannot understand that I cannot help him. It seems to me a very simple statement.

This is a very important point, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will listen to it. There are, at the present moment, under Allied Command, 236,000 Polish men and women in their Armed Forces. Out of these up to 28th November, only 37,300, or roughly 15 per cent., had agreed to go back to Poland. That is a most significant fact. These men are longing to go home. They have not seen their families, their friends, and their relations for six years. They are longing to return home, just as much as are our men who are out in Burma and have been abroad for six years. It is useless to pretend that they are Fascist and reactionary. A very small proportion of them, I know full well, actually fought on the German side. So, for that matter, did large numbers of Russians. When I was in Italy, my Division was opposed by a German Division, over half of which consisted of Russians and Poles, a very anomalous situation. I have seen a number of statements taken down by our intelligence officers as to why many of those Poles fought on the German side. I have seen first-hand evidence in writing which proves conclusively that some of them got shot in the back of the neck by their German officers if they refused to fight.

Was that before they were interrogated, or after?

It would be difficult for it to be after.

Then how is the evidence first hand?

I give way on that point. I suppose it gives the hon. Member delight to trip me up on a small point. I should have said that it was reliably known.

Is it not clear that the point that has to be made is that although these men are not Fascists, and are not branded as Fascists merely because they are not going back now, their officers are Fascists and are branded as Fascists, and that they are the ones who are effectively preventing the men from going back?

The hon. Member is entitled to his views.

I am asking for the hon. and gallant Member's.

There is time for others to state their views.

I am answering the very point the hon. Member has put. I know these Poles well. I had the honour to fight alongside their Third Carpathian Division and their Fifth Division in Italy, and I had something to do with the training of some of them. I know how much they were looking forward to going home. In fact, it was as early as the days of Tobruk, one of the classic sieges of history, that a whole Polish company fought on the British side under the command of my own battalion. These people had endured hell to get there, many of them from Russian concentration camps, through Russia, Persia and down to the Middle East. One had only to ask them about that to find that what I am saying is perfectly true. Thousands of their relatives may well be still in those camps; who knows? They have had no news for many years, which shows exactly what the feelings of some of these Poles must be.

I have been talking during the last two months to a number of Poles in England, The most graphic description was given by a man who spoke very little English. He said, "Hitler kaput, Mussolini kaput, Stalin no kaput." That is a typical view of thousands of these Poles, and it is in the context of that view that we should see the situation. We should see it in the context of the Katyn massacres. That has done a great deal to turn the Poles against the Russians.

Does the hon. and gallant Member believe in the Katyn massacres? If so, will he say so?

Yes, I definitely do. I have the pleasure of knowing a large number of Poles. I lived for a month with a Polish division, and I have every belief that large numbers of their friends and relations did lose their lives in one way or another. I would not necessarily say that 10,000 is an accurate figure, but there was a massacre of some sort at Katyn, and I am not sure whether we are looking in the right quarter for the culprits.

Is the hon. and gallant Member really repeating the oft-refuted allegation that these 10,000 Poles were murdered by our Soviet Ally?

The hon. and learned Member had better try to listen to what I am saying. I gave no figure of 10,000. I said I was not giving any figure. I am not necessarily accusing the Soviet or Germany. I am simply saying that Poles whom I know, who speak excellent English, and with whom I have lived, have told me they have had letters and information from some of their friends concerning these murders, while from other friends they have had no information for four years.

It is not a question of numbers. Is the hon. And gallant Member accusing our Allies of murdering those people?

I accuse nobody. I simply ask the House whether we are looking in the right quarter for the culprits. That at any rate is what the Poles want to know. I am not making a direct accusation against anyone. In fact, I am only putting this forward be- cause we must know what the Poles themselves feel about it, if we are to understand this situation. One has only to speak to 99 out of 100 Poles in this country to know that their point of view is what I am saying. I am not necessarily putting it forward as my own view. As I say, I am making no accusation against the Soviet or Germany.

I take it that this is designed to improve international relations?

I have given the figures —236,000 under Allied command, only 37,300 of whom are willing to go back to their own country, in spite of not having seen their own families, friends and relations for six years.

The hon. and gallant Member said that their families were all killed.

I said nothing of the sort. Let us accept the fact that 85 per cent, of these Poles do not wish to return to their own country as indicative of the fact that the present Government in Poland is undemocratic, is intolerant and is wholly under the Soviet thumb. Let us look forward to the day when Poles of all political shades will be free to live out their own lives in Poland without the terror of the N.K.V.D., without the terror of their own secret police, and without the terror of all that secret police stand for.

The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) has thrown several challenges in my direction, and he actually asks me to tell the House on his behalf what an unnamed speaker in an unmentioned place, said on an unmentioned date. I do not know how he expects me to know. All I can say is—

Like many other hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, the hon. Member for Mile End was not listening. [Hon. Members: "Answer."].

The hon. and gallant Member mentioned a speaker but he has not given his name. Would he please do so?

I did not mention the name. But I did say in Mile End. If the hon. Gentleman will look in Hansard tomorrow, it is there, and he will be able to find out what I did say.

I have to look in Hansard tomorrow to see what a certain person said in Mile End. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, will be interested in that. The hon. and gallant Member has said that I should provide him with facts. Why I should do that when the Debate was opened by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), I really do not know. I have listened here throughout the whole of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington, waiting to hear one fact, and indeed I did the same throughout the speech of the hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory). I waited to hear one fact from him, and all he did was to read out a series of quotations from sources, partly unknown and some partly undesirable.

The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes in his last remarks referred to the Katyn massacres, and, after being challenged by several Members on these benches, he retreated from his position. I am pleased to see that the hon. and gallant Member, who has such a good record of service, knows when to retreat. He knew then that he had to retreat because he found he had got into a very difficult position. He was prepared to say which people did not commit the massacre, but he was not prepared to say who did. I suggest that if he knew which people did not commit the massacre, it is a matter of deduction as to who did it. The trouble is he was afraid to express what was in his mind when he was challenged on that point, and it is to that point I want to come. I was very interested in this Debate because I was curious to know whether the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington was sincere, as we are expected to believe he is, or whether he was insincere. I wondered what was the purpose behind his speech. Was the hon. and gallant Member out to help Poland—this Poland and not the Poland of Colonel Beck—or was he out to destroy Poland, this Poland?

Docs a country change, because its Government changes?

It seems to me that some hon. Members will never learn, and will never change. I believe that in so far as this Debate is concerned, the motive behind it was not a concern for Poland past or present. It has been raised to launch an attack on the Soviet Union. If I had had a stopwatch in my hand, and had noted the times the Soviet Union had been condemned, as against the time devoted to a true examination of the position of Poland, then I think I would have been able to prove quite easily that the hon. Members opposite were not concerned with the conditions in Poland, or with what could properly be done to help in the circumstances arising from that examination. Instead, what we have had is a distorted mass of statements regarding the Soviet Union, its attitude to Poland, and its intentions. We have had some descriptions of alleged conditions in Poland by the hon. and gallant Member for Paddington, but he has only given half the picture.

This House will recall a few weeks ago that the Foreign Secretary pointed out in one of his speeches what the state of affairs was now, not only in Poland but in Europe in general, and he asked the House whether, had we been in the unfortunate position of having gone through the six years of terror as these European countries have done, we could have provided a Government stable and able enough within a few months. I believe that hon. Members should have taken a little more care in studying the problems that have faced the Provisional Government of Poland. However, there is the fact that early in the New Year elections are to take place there. On this question of elections I might say that hon. Members on the opposite benches and throughout the House heaved a sigh of relief when they heard the announcement of the result of the Austrian elections the other day. Those elections were held to be, in the most Conservative circles, reliable and free elections in view of the fact that the majority elected was not a Socialist one. Had the majority gone the other way, then we should have heard speeches from the other benches regarding Austria, on exactly the same lines as we have heard today regarding Poland.

As regards the speech of the hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast, I was interested to note his concern about the splitting of Poland. I would like to have heard the hon. Member's opinions about the splitting of Ireland. I believe I am right in saying that he is in favour of that, and if he is in favour of the splitting of Ireland—and no one can doubt that that country is an entity—then there is all the more reason why we should be interested to hear further from him about the splitting of Poland.

I would remind the hon. Member opposite and the House that I have always insisted on a United Kingdom, a united British Isles. I have opposed the partition of the British Isles.

I am sure the House is extremely interested to hear the hon. Member's opinion, but I have not heard him display the same vociferousness about Ireland as he has done about Poland.

The question has been raised of the Russian attack in September, 1939, on Poland. No one here denies that it was the Russian army that marched into Poland on 17th September, 1939. I think that, in considering what happened then, hon. Members opposite should use a little bit of that disciplinary thought about which there was so much criticism in yesterday afternoon's Debate. I would remind hon. Members opposite that in 1939 it was the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), then a Minister in the Chamberlain Government, who said:

"What the Russians have now done will serve us in very good stead,"

and welcomed very much indeed the fact that the Red Armies had marched in and occupied part of Poland. Do they refute that? If so, they had better have another meeting upstairs to decide it.

I must say I do not entirely agree with the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton), who spoke immediately after the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington. In some respects he seemed to agree with the premises suggested, though he attempted to explain and excuse them. I cannot agree with those premises. I do not think they are valid. I do not think that the position in Poland arises from the Soviet Union's security or the question of buffer States. The Soviet Union have an agreement with France and I would remind the House that two weeks ago a certain most eminent person in France suggested that the strongest politi- cal party in France, the Communist Party, could not hold office in the Foreign Department because they are getting instructions from, and are dominated by, the Soviet Union. France is a long way from the Soviet Union. No one can say that it is on the wrong side of the iron curtain to which reference has been made. To us it appears to be on the right side of the iron curtain, yet in France when certain elements wanted to find an argument against the Communist Party they were able to use that one. We have heard that in Poland, at a certain time, of a Cabinet of 20, only four were not Communists.

That may be true, or it may not be true. But, I remember that, to our everlasting regret, in 1939 and the years before, the whole of the Cabinet in this country were members of the Conservative Party or their associates the Liberal-Nationals. It would have been very interesting in those days to make an examination to find how many Members of the Government of the Chamberlain era—a very unfortunate one—were capitalists, and what was their proportion to the people of the nation. Then let us hear whether Members opposite are going to raise an objection to the constitution of that kind of Government. But, here, when it is a matter of pin-pricking a foreign Government, which is doing its utmost to make up the leeway of six years of occupation, and a previous 20 years of near-Fascist rule, we find these Gentlemen most deeply affected by such matters.

I cannot deal with the point by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes with regard to the number of Polish soldiers stationed in this country, and what is to be done about them. I have confidence in the ability of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to handle that. But I repeat that the purpose of the Debate opened by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington was not to air conditions of Poland and get something done about them but to give himself and his colleagues, the hon. Members for Queen's University and Lewes, an opportunity to air their anti-Soviet views.

I am very grateful for the confidence expressed in me on both sides of the House but I am a little apprehensive lest that means that both sides expect me to up- hold their arguments. It would be nearer the case, if I might say so without impertinence, to say that they expect me to uphold their affirmations, because very little fact has been demonstrated in this Debate and I need hardly apologise for saying that I cannot add much in the way of facts, on the subject which has been raised.

I will attempt to address myself to various points that have been made. For example, both the hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast (Professor Savory) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice Admiral Taylor) made much of the presence of Soviet troops in Poland. I cannot, with out certainty, offer figures, and I am a little puzzled by the certainty with which they offered figures. The hon. and gallant Gentleman for Paddington, South, worked himself into a rage talking about the iron curtain dropped across Poland. He cannot have it both ways. If there is an iron curtain, then he cannot have those facts he claims he has, and which he has offered to the House. It was announced in October that Soviet troops were to be stationed in the various provincial centres in Poland, but I have to make it plain that these troops did come, apparently, at the invitation of the Polish Provincial Government, part of their duty being to round up Red Army deserters.

The hon. Member for Queen's University, Belfast, made great play with this, but I am quite certain that these people in the, provincial centres are not at all concerned with who is responsible for the disorder. I am quite sure that if they cannot rest safely in their beds at night, they arc not concerned with what particular political colour the marauder is; what they arc concerned with is to try to secure order and some kind of safety and it is beyond argument that these Red Army troops, used for that purpose, did come in at the invitation of the Polish Provisional Government. Moreover, M. Molotov recently informed our Ambassador at Moscow that, in accordance with Stalin's assurance at Potsdam, all Russian troops have now been withdrawn from Poland, except those needed to maintain the security of the lines of communication of the Soviet occupation forces in Germany.

The statement the Under-Secretary has made is important. May I ask whether His Majesty's Government are fully satisfied with that reply?

I am not quite sure what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means to infer. If he is asking me whether we accept that statement, and make no further survey, the answer is "No." If he is asking me if we view every statement by the Soviet Government with suspicion, the answer is still "No."

I never asked the Minister either question. He is putting words in my mouth. I asked whether His Majesty's Government were fully satisfied with that reply. Let him answer that question and not put questions into my mouth which I never asked at all.

The answer is that His Majesty's Government accept that statement from the Soviet Government, but that, of course, we will continue to conduct our normal observations in relation to the disposition of these troops. If the troops are necessary, if their numbers are designed to meet that need, of course we cannot and will not make any objection. If they are excessive, as the hon. and gallant Member affirmed, though without offering any evidence, we will make our remonstrations on the subject, but we will not unless we have evidence, and no evidence has been offered in this Debate which His Majesty's Government should be asked to examine.

Three speakers referred to the elections. As I think the House knows, no date has yet been fixed for these elections and His Majesty's Government have no wish unduly to hasten this matter, particularly because, as the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes pointed out, there still are large numbers of Poles abroad. I will deal with his figures in a minute. In addition, there are, as we have admitted, Red Army forces in Poland. Further, there are areas, particularly in Western Poland, where conditions are still very unstable, and where it would not be possible anywhere in the near future to hold regular and free elections. But we have assurances on that subject and the attitude of His Majesty's Government has been that whenever conditions necessary in order to hold free elections are obtained those elections should forthwith be held. Moreover, that is the pledge which the Polish Provisional Government have given.

They have pledged themselves to hold the elections on the basis of the democratic procedure laid down in the 1921 Constitution and the electoral law of 1922, and a recent resolution of the Praesidium of the National Council recognises six political parties as entitled to participate in the elections.

Once more we have had an appeal from the hon. and gallant Member on behalf of the National Party. I do not want to be too hard pressed on this subject, but it is beyond doubt that some sections at least of that party have not too good a reputation in their relations with the German occupying forces. We are satisfied that reasonable facilities are being extended to the major democratic parties, who are clearly anti-Fascist in character. Two of the most important parties are in opposition, Mr. Mikolajczyk's Peasant Party and Mr. Popiel's Centre Party. When we last debated this subject I said that we understood that Mr. Mikolajczyk was to be given facilities for printing a paper. They have been granted, the paper circulates, and he seems to have a fair degree of freedom of expression; at any rate he is permitted to criticise the existing Government. The freedom to organise which we were also promised appears, too, to be substantially implemented.

It would be convenient here if I talked a little about the Polish Press. It is quite untrue to say, and it is harmful to pretend, that there is an iron curtain at all, to try to convey the impression that normal reporting facilities are unobtainable. That is not so. I do not want to be drawn into making any exaggerated statement. There is some kind of general control, but we have no evidence of direct censorship, much less have we evidence that, as the hon. and gallant Member asserted, there is direct censorship by the Russians. It is verging on the irresponsible to make statements of that kind here without offering any evidence. Correspondents from several British papers have been there, and we have had no specific complaints from them about interference of that kind.

I have to add that they have had considerable technical difficulties. I do not mean anything mysterious by that, I mean, literally, technical difficulties; for example, great difficulty in getting about freely, not because they were hedged in or controlled in any way but because the means of transport are so very difficult, the roads and railways, of course, being in a gross state of disrepair; but generally they had reasonable facilities for reporting and they certainly had no direct hindrance from any Russian authorities there. I ask the House to believe that unless we are offered specific complaints on that subject we ought to be finished with that kind of allegation in connection with Poland once and for all.

The hon. and gallant Member raised the subject of the coal contribution made by Poland. I have not the advantage he had, I cannot speak with any certainty about the prices offered there, but I will say what I know about it. There is, I understand, an agreement which provided for the delivery of some 5,000,000 metric tons of coal and coke during the six months from July, 1945, to December, 1945. It is true that this constitutes, as far as we can calculate, about one-third of the total Polish production during that period. It is also true, I think, that the coal is paid for in Polish currency a: prices which certainly are considerably below the free market prices in Poland, and they may even be insufficient to meet the costs of production. That is as far as I can go. I cannot believe for a second, and at any rate no one offered any evidence here, that that agreement was forced upon the Polish Provisional Government. In addition, let us admit that Poland has received considerable help from the Soviet Union in her reconstruction. On the other side it is true that she has been economically hindered by Soviet troops living off the country, but there is this balancing factor- of what I call considerable help in reconstruction. I think, therefore, that in dealing with this coal contract we have to try to weigh these two things against each other. in addition, of course, to what Russia has supplied, large quantities of materials have been supplied, mainly by U.N.R.R.A., for rehabilitation; and I should say that if it were not for the transport situation, which is still the main bottleneck, there would be, as the result of these two main sources of contribution, a considerable improvement in the Polish position.

I think I ought to say this before I conclude. The hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast re- ferred to concentration camps. My information is that there are concentration camps but, that the prisoners are there mainly for political reasons. The hon. Gentleman also referred to misbehaviour by the Red Army. I am quite certain that there has been misbehaviour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) has said, but, while I accept that and I say that it is so, I cannot commit myself to the accepted certainty which the hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite have brought to this case. Let me say this to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes, who quoted figures relating to Poles who have opted to go home. My figures are not quite coincidental with his.

May we have those figures?

Yes, certainly. My figures are those which were given to the House by my right hon. Friend in the last Debate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite gave a total of, I think, 236,000. I have not that figure at all. My figure is 177,000, but I imagine that the hon. and gallant Gentleman got his figure probably by adding to the actual Armed Forces under our control nurses, women and other types of personnel.

With the permission of the House, I would like to say that my figures were given in reply to a Question which I put to the Secretary of State for War on 28th November, and therefore I take it they are accurate.

I am a fairly careful man. I did not say they were inaccurate. I said they did not coincide with my figures, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman must not rush in to take offence.

Really, I have taken no offence whatever. I appeal to hon. Members to agree with me. I raised the matter calmly, and I gave the figures that I had. If the Under-Secretary cares to say that I took offence, he is at liberty to say so.

It is exceedingly kind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to allow me to speak at all. My figures are that out of 67,000 in the Armed Forces in this country, 23,000 have opted to return, and that out of 110,000 in the Middle East and in Italy, 14,000 have opted to return.

Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the authority for his figures?

I also want to add some figures, which I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend did not overlook—he just did not know about them, although they had been given to the House already— that out of 500,000 displaced people in camps in Germany, 350,000 have opted to go back to Poland. If we are going to draw any inference from these figures, let us total them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will discover—although I am doing a mental calculation—that the proportion is considerably in excess of 50 per cent., and is nearer 60 per cent.

Of the Armed Forces? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that 50 per cent, of the Armed Forces have volunteered to return to Poland? I am dealing with the Armed Forces.

May I ask the Undersecretary what is the alternative for these 350,000 displaced persons in Germany returning to Poland? Can that be compared with the alternative for those who are now, for instance, in Scotland?

There are alternatives for both classes of people, and I am not at all certain that I know really what is the alternative for the Forces in Scotland. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know?

I can tell the House that there is a temporary alternative, at least, namely, that they can remain in Scotland, which cannot be compared with the case of those who are in camps in Germany.

But there is an alternative for both classes of people— —

May I ask the hon. Gentleman on that point—

I really think I have given way enough to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman asked for alternatives, and I want to deal with that point.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has confined himself to the Armed Forces, and I insist that we must try to look at the total picture. I must make another point. It is not necessarily to foe assumed that those troops who have not yet opted have, therefore and in consequence, decided to remain in this country. That is an unfair implication for which there is no warrant at all. These figures to which we refer —

Who made the implication?

If the hon. and gallant Gentlemen both get up and say. "This is the yardstick by which we must decide," and then quote the people who have opted, I hope I am wrong in assuming that their inference was that these other people do not want to return to Poland, but if that was not their inference I cannot understand what their argument was about. I was very glad of the opportunity to refer to these figures, because, as my right hon. Friend has previously said in the House, there is an urgent need for us to encourage under reasonable conditions the return of these people. I have pointed out that there are excesses; of course, there are. I have already pointed out that His Majesty's Government will continue to direct their attention to any irregularity, but His Majesty's Government will not do so in the frame of mind that everything wrong in Poland must necessarily be the fault of Russia and that it is done deliberately. My right hon. Friend has shown already that when there are reasons for criticising or arguing with Russia, he is prepared to do so, but he will not bring to this general problem a poisoned mind in relation to Russia, and this House will not advance the condition of this poor country, Poland, by bringing similar arguments.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's University, Belfast, at the height of his speech, said, "What reward have His Majesty's Government received for recognising the Polish Provisional Government?" That is an unfortunate frame of mind to bring to a Debate of this kind. This Government made that recognition, not looking for reward, not hoping to be paid off, but because they know, as every responsible Member of this House knows, that if we are going to help back to some kind of stability and security and bring food and order to these poor people of Poland, we must have a government which could co-operate with us and with their neighbours. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. The choice is: less food, more disorder and continued insecurity for Poland, or a government that will do some of these things, that will prepare for the elections and will move, not as speedily as every one of us would like, but still quite steadily towards reconstruction. That was the only reward for which the Government have looked, and the only reward in which they are still interested.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman before he sits down whether it is not equally essential that the Provisional Government should have the co-operation of the Polish nation, which it has not got?

The hon. and gallant Member comes here, makes assertions of that kind, and offers no proof. He even continues to say that the 16 men who were arrested are still in prison.

I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the three main leaders of the political parties, and General Okiliki, who were imprisoned, should be set free. That is what I said.

The hon. and gallant Member, at any rate, assumes, at every stage where he can raise this subject, that the Polish Provisional Government is not acceptable by the people of Poland. All I can say is that it is operating, that it is building an administration, that it is contributing towards reconstruction, that there has been no other Government of Poland which has done that job and that there is no other available Government at the moment.

After the discussion that has just taken place on a part of Europe, I want to bring the House to a discussion of the general situation in Europe, and particularly with regard to the people who are now suffering as a result of the world war which has just come to a conclusion. I am speaking particularly of giving voluntary aid from this country quite indiscriminately to whatever parts of Europe may be in dis- tress, the voluntary aid which so many hundreds of thousands of people in this country are so anxious to give, yet the Government are denying them the opportunity of expressing themselves in this manner. I do not want to indulge in repetition. I know the Rules of the House well enough not to endeavour to do that. I do not apologise in the least for raising this issue again, and I give full warning that I shall return to it again and again and again until we get some sort of satisfaction. I want to clear the minds of hon. Members on one point. What we have in mind is not a discriminatory aid to one particular section of Europe. We recognise that, as a con sequence of the war, millions of people, friend and foe alike, who had little to do with the advent of the war are, in con sequence", quite innocently suffering in tensely. Aid should be brought to them. I will refer in passing to only two sections. We have heard today, or a day or so ago, about the situation in Holland. The Dutch are our friends. They have had a simply dreadful time. I do not propose to detain the House by describing what has been described to me, but those who have been there know that the state of malnutrition, shortage of clothing and general conditions are such as to wring the pity and the heart of every right-thinking man and woman. Even as far South as what we might think was an area of security, the South of France, we find, in the Marseilles area, that starvation is rife and that malnutrition—

While I deplore the fact that on an issue of this kind, where the human interests of so many millions of people are concerned, there should have been an interruption of Business, I must express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) for having filled the House up a bit for me.

I wish to refer once more to what I was saying about Southern France so that people may realise that we are trying to stimulate an interest, which is already widespread, in favour of the importance of saving Europe by applying relief indiscriminately to all sections of the people, wherever suffering is taking place. As part of a survey taken in the Marseilles area, 50,000 children of 12 years of age were examined. It was found that the children were, on the average, some 6 kilos less in weight than they were before the war, and 3 inches or more less in height. It was generally expressed there that it would take at least two, if not three, generations to bring even that part of Southern France back to the normal conditions that prevailed prior to the war.

I do not try to avoid the fact, which everybody will know, that the worst conditions are in Central Europe. The worst conditions undoubtedly, because there they are so much more numerous and persistent, and prevail among those who were, for the most part, regarded during the war as our enemies. All of us realise the tremendous effort which is being made by U.N.R.R.A. and by the British Army in the occupied territory to deal with the situation. I regret to say that that situation is made much more complicated by the ever-increasing and continuous stream of expelled persons coming into the Occupied Territory from Central Europe—but that is another point. The British Army and U.N.R.R.A. are doing a grand job. The only thing I would say in regard to U.N.R.R.A. is that it might extend its activities not only to cover displaced persons, but all distressed persons, whatever their nationality or colour and whether they were our enemies or friends in the war.

In regard to food—and I am obliged to the Minister of Food for coming down to the House today—is there enough food and can it be distributed? Is there the wherewithal? Is there the money to pay for it? On all those points we have had answers, satisfactory in my view, from the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). He has told us in this House that there are food and transport. Clearly there is money. What really wants doing is that the whole matter should be treated as a war urgency, as almost a military measure, and with the same intensity. The surplus supplies of food which are available—I do not say only from this country because I appreciate that they have to come from elsewhere—should be removed from where they are and put into the kitchens and the mouths of the starving people.

We have joined issue with the Minister of Food on his disinclination to reveal what are the reserves in this country. He may have his reasons for not doing so, but we are entitled to know what the reasons are. They may be very good reasons. A short answer at Question Time, "No, Sir," used to sound very funny from the late Prime Minister, although we all got rather bored with it, but it really, does not come well from my right hon. Friend, who has the honour to belong to the party to which I still belong. We want an explanation, we want to know. We in our party know perfectly well —

We know perfectly well in our party that the moment we cease to be internationalists we become National Socialists. When I know, as I believe I do know, rightly, that there is a far greater store of food in this country at this moment than there was at the outbreak of war, when I know, as I do know, that millions of my brothers and sisters across the water are dying of starvation, I want to understand why it is that I am not taking the food out of my locker and giving it to them, to save them from dying of starvation. I am not satisfied, and I will not be satisfied, with a negative answer from the Minister of Food or anybody else. I am told by responsible American authorities that the stocks in this country, at or about 1st October, were no less than 4,000,000 tons in reserve, with another 960,000 tons of food coming in from across the Atlantic between that date and Christmas. That is what the Americans are saying, anyway. If it is not true, let the Minister stand up and say it is not true, and tell us what the truth is. I hope he will give us a categorical answer to that question.

There is another point on which I want to appeal "to my right hon. Friend, now that I have got him here, and that is the appeal which we are trying to make for voluntary denial in this country in order to aid the starving people. Hundreds of thousands of people are only too anxious to assist. That vast meeting in the Albert Hall the other day is only one example. Let me explain that we are not pressing for any alteration downwards of the existing rations, although some of us take the view—I am one—that it is a mistake to increase the rations at Christmas time. Certainly, if there is any question of increasing the rations after Christmas, until such time as this vital issue in Europe has been dealt with, I shall be on my feet protesting at the earliest possible moment.

What we are asking is that people who understand and know what the facts are, and who voluntarily wish to surrender some of their points, should be allowed to surrender them, and that the Government should allow them to cash not necessarily all the points—that could be arranged by discussion—but at least a proportion of them and buy food, with money that is available, "and ship that extra gift from the people of this country to the starving people of Europe. Surely, to the whole of this House, and in view of their natural generosity, to the people of this country, that would be a rightful gesture, and one which one would expect from any Christian community on this side of the Channel. I do not wish to delay the House by talking about various other possibilities. There was a possibility, and there still is, of helping by sending food from Denmark, but that is really not a matter for us; it is a matter for the Danes. If we are able to supply the Danes with money and help them, and if they have got the necessary permits from the Food Control Commission, it has nothing to do with anybody on this side of the Channel. No doubt many people would subscribe to such a fund and enable that food to be distributed.

Besides that, there is the question of clothes, which I know has nothing to do with my right hon Friend the Minister of Food, but as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is here, I will refer to it. There are already a large number of centres in England where clothing is being collected for the same people I have already described. Make no mistake about it—from the North of Norway to the South of France people are short of clothes, shoes, and blankets. They are wanted everywhere. I would like an assurance from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or from the Minister of Food if he can give it on his behalf that machinery will be set up whereby clothing can be collected and distributed through the British Red Cross. I appreciate that U.N.K.R.A. has not got the machinery; the easiest way in this country is to collect it through the Red Cross, and let U.N.R.R.A. ship it. Bare though people's wardrobes are, the large majority of them are in a state of luxury compared with the appalling state of millions in Europe.

I come to my conclusion; it is this. We in this war insisted on unconditional surrender by the German people. I will not discuss the merits of that case; the House knows what I felt about it—I made no bones about saying it at the time—and what we said to those people, in effect, was that we are a Christian people, and they could surrender unconditionally knowing that we would see to it that they would have a square deal. There is a moral responsibility on everybody in this country—not only on the Government, which only represent—or sometimes misrepresent— the people. I was thinking of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood-ford (Mr. Churchill), but he is not here, so I will not attack him, but Governments exist for the people, the people do not exist for Governments. It is our individual responsibility on this issue to see to it that the moral principles in which we believe are fulfilled as far as possible. Let us look at the human features of the situation—the hordes of people in a country with no government, no communications, nothing—everything broken down. We knew it would be like that, and it is up to us to do everything we possibly can to bring about a better state of affairs.

I will only say now that I think the facts ought to be published as to what the real situation is. The Government ought to do everything they can; they may not be able to do much, but they could let other people do it for them, and could encourage what is the greatest human gesture of all, the voluntary willingness to do without for the benefit of some other human creature. They ought to allow everything to be done that can be done in any way to help to put Europe on its feet again. While I do not wish to speak in a soppy manner on moral issues—let us leave that out, people do not like talking about love. I do not know why—we shall never get this thing right until we abolish hate from the face of the earth. The only way we can get the enemy peoples right again is to make them appreciate that we are all one race, and that love alone will cure the terrible evils that have existed before. A gesture from this country now might have a vital effect which would in due course change the history of the world.

I am not going to be either repetitive or lengthy. There are two points I want to put, one of them to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food and the other to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. My point for the Minister of Food is this: Does he realise that there is a strong feeling of irritation and indignation among the people of this country at the paterfamilias attitude he always adopts towards those who want to make voluntary sacrifices to save the people of Europe? He said to a deputation, and he said the other day in the House, that he was not going to encourage a campaign which would mean bringing pressure upon people to give away food to the detriment of their families and their children.

Who arc these people who have to be protected against their own weak minded ness and sentimentality? The "Save Europe Now" Committee has received between 60,000 and 70,000 letters and postcards, many thousands of them from housewives, others from headmasters and mistresses, from the clergy and ministers of religion. Do not these people know what they are talking about? Does he think that those thousands and thousands of housewives will give away food if they think it will injure the health of their own husbands and children? Really, we are not babies, we are grownup people; and we are not docile Germans, we are accustomed to thinking for ourselves. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that there is a very strong feeling of indignation at his attitude of "I know best, I am the great man, the Minister of Food, I can protect you from your weak selves."

My other remark is addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and it refers to a particular part of the com- munity in Germany and in other liberated countries, which are threatened with something like starvation, not the general public of Germany, of whom my hon. Friend, who introduced this question, has been speaking, but the people, who are, or have been, in the assembly camps, where the people from concentration camps are being settled. I am getting a stream of information through workers for U.N.R.R.A. and for various voluntary bodies allowed to work in these assembly camps, and among the people who have got out of assembly camps. Many of these people, unlike the general population of Germany, have been living in conditions of actual starvation in Belsen and Buchenwald and other awful Nazi concentration camps. Now that they are in the assembly camps they are not getting enough food to build up their constitutions.

If they are still in these camps, they are getting more than the ordinary German people, but it is neither of the quality nor of the kind that is going to build up their debilitated bodies. There is a great physical and also moral deterioration which is almost as serious. They are so hungry all the time that they are obsessed with the food question; many of them will steal or lie or do anything to get food. That is not good for the future. But the position is still worse for the people who were originally in concentration camps and have been allowed to leave the assembly camps. They were mostly Germans who had been sent to the concentration camps either as Jews or for political reasons. At any rate, they were anti-Nazis, so they were sent to the murder camps at Belsen and Buchenwald, where they escaped death and were found emaciated and wretched. They were sent home, some of them to where they had lived in Germany before, and now they find that, because they are not in the assembly camps, there is no machinery to prove that they are concentration camp victims. They only pet the same food as the German population, which is far below a decent subsistence level. I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy sympathises with these people. He is not like the Minister of Food, who I think does not care two buttons. The Chancellor does care, but I wonder if he does not feel that more steps ought to be taken in conjunction with the authorities to see that some machinery is arranged have been victims of concentration camps whereby people who can show that they can get a higher level of rations.

If there had ever existed an independent historian, which there never has, he would say of this British House of Commons that through many centuries mistakes of all kinds may have been made, but where there has been a clear appeal to humanity it has usually been answered. If one looks back to the days of Wilberforce, Gladstone or a dozen others, with whose names I will not weary the House, one finds there has been a sympathetic response to appeals to humanity. This today is also an appeal to humanity, and I want to make a very limited appeal on one practical issue. The major casualties of this war have not been those of death or wounds or physical distress of any kind, horrible though these have been. Among the major injuries caused is the decay of moral standards, not only the decay of truth and of common honesty. Witness the black market, which exists throughout Europe, and the increase in crimes of violence. But, beyond all these things— and this is the point—the increase of callousness in the human heart everywhere. We have got to the stage now when we can see millions die and starve-and nowhere is the mind of man shocked by it. I know that we are told, and perhaps with truth, that the physical powers of the British Empire and Commonwealth are not what they were, that we cannot again be the Great Power we used to be. That is as it may be, but this we can do—we can maintain moral standards, if we cannot maintain physical standards, and it may be that in this role this House can yet attain greatness.

On 26th November, Air Marshal Champion de Crespigny held a meeting in the Albert Hall, concerning which a circular has been sent to every hon. Member in this House. I refer to this matter because I believe it to be something practical that can be done. I do not want to put forward a woolly proposal: here is something which can be done now. The Air Marshal suggested that an aerodrome should be set aside on the Continent of Europe, and that the Royal Air Force should use it to transport 10,000 children under seven years of age. I do not want to enter into questions of responsibility for the war and whether it is general or individual. I would only say that no one can attribute blame in that matter to children under seven. We suggest that these children be transported to an aerodrome in this country, and, beside that aerodrome, there be established a hospital staffed by volunteers who have already come forward. This can be done without any call on resources needed for other purposes. There are also volunteers willing and waiting, who after these children have spent six weeks in hospital are ready to take them into their own homes for six months, feed and succour them. I know that hon. Members will say that air transport is needed for other purposes. There are indeed sailors, soldiers and airmen wanting to get back to their own families, for whom transport is required, but, if we say to one, "Would you be prepared to be demobilised one week later, and, thereby, save the life of a child?" is there any doubt what the answer would be?

Will hon. Members look a little ahead? The Royal Air Force has saved mankind. In the course of that achievement we know also that it has had to perform duties which it has not liked. Carry your minds forward to the young pilot of this war, in 30 years' time walking round the ruins of Hamburg, Berlin, or Stettin, or any bombed city, and discussing with his child, then a grown man, the events that brought these things about. We can hear him saying to a future generation, "This was a horrible thing I had to do. It was ray hand that released these bombs. It was my hand that helped to wreck a thousand years of European civilisation, because only by so doing could we save the world." He had to do it, he did it, and I add my tribute to the valour he showed. But, now the war is done, let him have something else to say. Let him be able to add this: "When it was all over, when V-E Day and V-J Day were past, when peace had again descended upon this troubled earth, I did something else. I saved the life of a child."

I do not want to intervene between the House and the Minister of Food for long, but, since particular mention has been made of my Department, I should like to reply to the comments of the hon. Lady. In regard to the reference to the concentration camp victims, I do not think I need assure the hon. Lady or the House that anything that can be done to assist the condition of these particularly unfortunate people would be done most willingly by myself and the Government, not because we wish to give any preferential treatment because of nationality or political opinions, but because of the stark human fact that they are in a desperate physical condition and must be given special attention.

I assure the hon. Lady that the information which she has paraphrased in her comments is not correct. In fact, everything possible is being done. They are not getting rather more than the German people, but considerably more, and they are very well cared for. Certain rumours and allegations were mentioned, particularly about Belsen Camp, but it is not, in fact, the Belsen Camp. The inmates living in that area at the moment are not living in Belsen Camp, but in adjoining quarters, and, in the conditions prevailing in Germany today, they are relatively comfortable and are specially provided with food, underclothing, heating and everything else. Special levies have been made on the German population in order to provide the necessary clothes.

I know there is difficulty about ex-concentration camp victims who decided not to remain in the camp but to take what facilities there were outside. I know that it is much more practicable to provide and organise supplies and facilities for people who are more or less concentrated in a community than it is if they are dispersed, but I can assure the hon. Lady that they are having special attention, and, from the information I have been able to get in the last few days, I am personally satisfied that, in regard to the position at one place which was particularly mentioned—the Belsen area —the conditions are highly satisfactory at the moment.

Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the other question of the clothing, of which I believe there are very large stocks in this country acquired for air-raid purposes, some of which came under Lend-Lease and may go back to America? Cannot all this clothing be diverted to Europe?

All I would say at the moment, as I have already indicated, is that so far as' the concentration camp victims are concerned, ample supplies of clothing have been obtained as a result of supplies sent from other countries, and particularly of the levy made on the German population, which actually realised some 80 per cent, of the target figure.

I take no exception to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) utilising every opportunity that he can find, consonant with the Rules of the House, to air a grievance from which he is suffering. One can talk as long as one likes about the South of France and about Holland, but the fact is that his plea is a specious plea for the people in Germany, so let us face it on that issue.

May I interrupt my right hon. Friend? If he makes that remark, he is accusing me of misrepresenting my beliefs to the House, and I absolutely repudiate that at once.

The hon. Member said, having quoted two cities in Holland and two cities in France, that his real effort was being made on behalf of the people in Northern Europe—

No, I did not say anything of the sort.

I wrote the words down.

The Minister is misrepresenting me. I said, "millions of people all over the world." I quoted two examples, and said, as I was bound to say, that the worst conditions were in the devastated areas.

As everybody knows.

I am glad my hon. Friend has cleared that point because he has thereby intensified the problem he has set me. If I have to look at the position of the British zone in Germany, where there is a population of approximately 24,000,000 people, that is one problem. If we are now, as an importing country —a country that imports approximately 40 per cent, of its foodstuffs—to be called upon not only to look at the British zones in Germany and Austria, but at the whole of the liberated countries in the world, and set right all the anomalies that exist arising out of the war, then we have been set an insuperable problem.

Really, my right hon. Friend is going on to misrepresent me. I have never said anything of the sort. I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would support the voluntary effort which the people of this country are prepared to make in surrendering their own points, of their own volition. It does not make any extra demand on my right hon. Friend at all, anywhere.

My hon. Friend went much further than that. The first question he asked was,"Is. there enough food? "The answer is," No."

I do not believe it.

The second was, "Is there enough money?" If my hon. Friend means dollars, the answer is, "No." There are not enough dollars to purchase the goods. "Is there enough transport?" Conceivably there could be made available sufficient transport, always assuming the dollars and the goods were there.

Then he asked, "What are the stocks of this country? Why cannot I have a revelation of what the stocks are that exist in this country?" My hon. Friend is a trader and he knows the difference between a buyers' and a sellers' market, and that were I to reveal these stocks in this House it would put me in a very difficult position as a buyer of food in the world market. It is for this reason that I have not revealed the stocks to this House, because I do not wish to put this country in the position of being mulct in much higher costs as a result of a shortage which I have revealed. He goes further and says that there is food in Denmark. Of course there is food in Denmark, and I am setting what I can. Every pound of food that I buy in Denmark has to be allocated to the countries as a whole by the Combined Food Board in Washington. Therefore, although I buy this food, it does not follow that I get it. All I get is a fair allocation of it. He says that it is possible to collect money. We will then take that money—the figure suggested is 250,000—into Denmark, where we can buy the food with which to give relief to whatever country he has in mind. What happens? If that money goes into Denmark and buys the goods there, that is just the measure of the loss I shall suffer in buying goods for this country.

I never said anything of the sort. I went over the Danish situation, and said that I would not ask him to do that at all.

It is quite within the recollection of the House that the question of collecting funds and sending them to Denmark was mentioned by the hon. Member. However, if he withdraws it, it still stands that whatever food is detracted from Denmark is a loss to this country and other countries in the allocations from the Combined Food Board.

How much of the Danish—

:Time is exceedingly short and the Minister must be allowed to reply.

The next matter he raised was the question of points. It seems an easy thing to say that if people will surrender their points, I will collect them and send the equivalent in food to any country that is suggested. If I do that that will break down the whole of the administration of my Department in the country.

Why?

I will tell the hon. Gentleman. My points are distributed over the whole of the country. There is only one way of achieving this, and that is for the people to get the goods by the surrender of their points, canalise them to a common centre, and ship them to Germany. Supposing 2,000,000 people each send me two tins of food to ship to Germany—that is, about 1,000 tons of food to feed a population of 24,000,000. I have set my face against a campaign which may involve knocking from door to door to ask people, with far too little food, to surrender food for the liberated countries. All I know is that our average calory value of food in this country is 2,800 per day. That is low enough. Our people for six years have stood the test of the rigours of war on a very miserable monotonous diet. I believe the time has come when I have to vary that diet, so far as I can vary it, and get food from whatever sources I can for that purpose. No thanks have been tendered to me. With all the abuse I have had, in the Albert Hall and here again today from the hon. Lady—I have not had a word of thanks for the 90,000 tons which I have found and sent to the German zone since this matter was debated in this House. I have done all I can do.

Furthermore, since the last Debate, I have been responsible with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for getting half a million tons of wheat. That wheat, I hope, will be on the way, but the fact is that there is a need in the British zone alone this year for 1,600,000 tons of wheat. That is physically impossible for this country or, I believe, the world to supply. There is a world shortage of wheat. Therefore, I resent being called a Fuehrer. I was appointed to feed the people of this country. That duty I have undertaken. If I can get any surplus, no one is more anxious than I am to see this surplus go to the relief of people who are starving. You may think that I am so contemptible that I would charge children of five to eight years of age with having anything to do with the filthy régime of Nazism. Obviously I would not. The fact remains that I have not the food, and I cannot do all the things which I am asked to do.