As the House is probably aware, the Army is holding in a hostel near Chorley over 200 Spaniards. They were overrun by Allied troops at the time of our advance across France. They were either wearing German uniforms or were in German organisations. At the time of the German invasion of France they were refugees from Franco Spain. In the conditions as they were during the fighting in France in the summer of 1944, the Army had no option but to treat these men as prisoners of war, and they were brought to this country. To allow them to stay in this country would be to give them an advantage over the very many thousands of other aliens who are anxious to settle here. An approach was, therefore, made to the French Government to allow them to return to France. I am glad to say that the French Government have agreed. They will return in small parties. These men have hitherto been treated by the Army in the same way as Italian co-operators, except in one respect. Until quite recently they have not been given the pay of co-operators, but they have for the past week, and this will continue while they remain in this contury. They will now return to France as free men and I hope that they, and hon. Members who have interested themselves in their case, will consider this solution satisfactory.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement on this very vexed question, which I am sure will give great satisfaction, I would like his definite assurance that these men are returning to France as free men, and not as prisoners of war.

Yes. I am glad to give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is perfectly understood in the agreement that has been made between France and ourselves, that they are returning to that country as free men.

Could my right hon. Friend say whether it is the case, as has been reported, that one of these men was a member of the Spanish Republican Cortes? If so, would this man be able to join.his colleagues in Mexico? Would my right hon. Friend look into that?

I cannot say. I have no information to that effect.

On Business, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal whether he intends to move the Motion which appears on the Order Paper to suspend the Rule today, and, if so, on what grounds? It is very unusual to do so on a Friday, and we have had no notice of it.

After we have finished with the Bretton Woods Bill, it is proposed that we should take the Committee stage of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill. The suspension of the Rule is a purely precautionary measure, to ensure that we get the Committee stage of the Bill.

We must take exception to this. We have had no notice of any extension. It is most un-

On a point of Order. I understand that the Amendments to this Clause, appearing on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, are not to be called. I ask your guidance on this, Major Milner. These Amendments call attention to the fact that, if we oppose this Bill, there is no guarantee that America will give a loan at all, and that is a very serious fact.

I advise the hon. Member to await events.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, at end, insert:

" Provided that no payment shall be made to compensate the Fund for a depreciation of the gold value of its holdings of sterling if such depreciation is a result of a devaluation or depreciation of sterling that has taken place without authorisation on the part of the Fund."

The purpose of this Amendment is to safeguard the interests of this country in case the Fund should abuse its power by refusing a devaluation of the £, even though it is justified by the existence of a fundamental disequilibrium. One of the great difficulties in this whole business is that there is no indication either in this Bill, or in the Final Act of Bretton Woods, of what does in fact constitute a fundamental disequilibrium. A disequilibrium may arise from a long-term wage trend which disturbs the relationship between the internal and external price level, or from a permanent change: in the conditions of trade, or from a disbalance of trade due to cyclical causes over which we have no control whatsoever. Before withdrawing this Amendment I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give us any guidance at all as to what principle or theory of value is to be applied, either in fixing parities under the Agreement to which we are now committed, or as to what constitutes a fundamental disequilibrium, upon which the Fund's acceptance or rejection will be predicated. There is no indication of whether wage differentiations, for example, are to be taken into consideration; or whether the far more accurate meter of national incomes, is to be taken into account. Assuming that the latter are to be taken into account, it is quite obvious that national incomes will have to be restored before calculations can be made with any accuracy. Is our import surplus, or the rate of decline of our exports to be a consideration? It would give us some guidance, for we are told absolutely nothing about this "fundamental disequilibrium," and we have no right of appeal from the Fund. Under Clause 2 (1, b) of this Bill, we shall be under an obligation to pay over to the Fund, an additional amount of sterling, in order to make up for the depreciation of sterling in terms of gold or dollars; and since, in case of the withdrawal of this country from the Fund, it would be largely because of the scarcity of our holdings of gold or gold convertible currencies, I think we would be in a very difficult position indeed. I, therefore, suggest, in this Amendment, that in that event we should not be penalised; and the reason I move it is simply for the purpose of safeguarding His Majesty's Government in the event of a difference of opinion between us and the Fund as to what represents a fundamental disequilibrium.

This question of fundamental disequilibrium was touched upon in the course of the Debate. I made some reference to it and I will, as the hon. Gentleman has asked me, say a word about it. But before I do that, perhaps I might say that the terms of the Amendment he has put down, would modify an obligation which we must undertake if we sign the Agreement. It is not an Amendment which could be accepted. As I understand it, the purpose of the Amendment would be to enable us to avoid paying anything to the Fund, if an application to depreciate sterling under Article V were rejected, and that it would obviously undermine the authority of the Fund and make nonsense of the accounting that is prescribed on the withdrawal of a Member. We have the right to withdraw. I dealt with this yesterday, and it was not anywhere challenged in the discussion. We have a right to withdraw if the scheme goes thoroughly ill, and it is pointed out that, if we withdraw, we are entitled to get back our subscriptions, and, if this Amendment is put in, it would be difficult to carry out the meaning of the provision. Therefore, I could not accept the Amendment in any event.

The hon. Member has said he has some doubts as to what "fundamental disequilibrium" may mean. So may many people have doubts, and it was for that reason that I indicated in the speech I made when commending the Resolution to the House, that, in order to make this abundantly clear it was the intention of His Majesty's Government on entering the Fund, to seek what we call an interpretative declaration from the Fund in terms which I quoted to the House and which are recorded in cols. 436 and 437 of Hansard for the day before yesterday.

The essence of this thing, is the essence of the interpretative declaration which we shall seek from the Fund immediately on the governing body being constituted. As will be seen by reference to the exact words—which I quoted in order to get them on record—the substances of it is that if there is pressure on our balance of payments, arising from other people not being able to buy our goods, to enable us to balance the payments, as we have to do, in imports from abroad, and if unemployment of a chronic character results, that, in our view, is fundamental disequilibrium.

This thing will have to be hammered out in discussion and in practice. It is impossible to lay down exact and rigid rules, which will cover every possible situation, but the intention of His Majesty's Government being to seek a reasonable mode of decision from the Fund—I repeat—and it is very important to emphasise this—it is not an attitude which we alone would hold in the world. A large number of other countries in the world, including, in particular, our own Dominions, would take the same view that this fundamental disequilibrium is to be interpreted by the Fund. If they do not interpret it, there are successive stages. If we did not get the thing interpreted, there would, eventually, be a state of tension under very definite circumstances, namely that we would walk out. I rate the moral and politicial influences of the British Empire far higher than my hon. Friend does, but this has to be worked out in all · its implications. His Majesty's Government will try to speed up the working-out of the problem by seeking, at an early stage, an interpretation of the declaration I have quoted.

I would like to be quite clear about who is going to do the interpreting. Is it to be the case that after the Fund has been set up, His Majesty's Government will go before it, and say "We do not quite get the essence of these words and will you —the Fund, all of you—make the interpretation?" Or is it intended that someone should be consulted beforehand?

No, Sir, the intention is that the Fund, by which I mean the governing body of the Fund, should be set up and, as I mentioned to the House in the speech to which I have already referred, the United States Government have indicated their intention, as soon as the Fund is set up, themselves to seek an interpretative declaration from the governing body of the Fund. This will become, I think, a fairly common form of proceeding. The interpretative declaration which the United States Government will seek, is not on this point at all, and I do not think I need trouble the Committee with it. It is not a matter of great concern. But first the United States Government, and then the United Kingdom Government, will put forward their views, as to how their particular terms should be interpreted. It will be for the governing body of the Fund to say, I hope, "Yes, we agree that this declaration does express our views." That is the procedure, and we have confirence that it will work.

Without re-opening one of the main lines of yesterday's Debate, I must say that I think this Amendment, and the reply to which we have just listened from the Chancellor, underline and emphasise the great disadvantage under which hon. Members are working owing to the rushing of this legislation. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that these matters will be hammered out in due course by negotiation. I submit that he would be in a very much stronger position, and so would His Majesty's Government, if these matters of vital importance to the standard of living had been hammered out here in the House of Commons in good time before these arrangements were made. I am not alone in that view. I could submit to the Committee, the evidence of a robust and reliable witness.

I do not think this arises on the Amendment.

With great respect, I was endeavouring to address myself to the views put by the Chancellor on the effects this might have on the question of fundamental disequilibrium, one of which concerns the standard of employment. I was about to submit the evidence of a robust and reliable witness who does not quite share the Chancellor's confidence, namely the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who, recently as 4th June this year declared himself in these resounding words on this matter:

"One last word about Bretton Woods. I have never been finally convinced about Bretton Woods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1945; Vol. 411, c. 581.]

I am sorry, but we are not here to discuss the merits or demerits of Bretton Woods. We are discussing the machinery set out in the Bill, and I must ask hon. Members to confine themselves to the particular Amendment before the Committee.

This paragraph in the Official Report does, in fact, deal with that matter. Of course, if it is out of Order, I will not continue with that argument, but I shall have to confine myself —

On a point of Order. In view of the Ruling that you have just given, Major Milner, might I ask for your Ruling on whether the Amendment itself is in Order? [An Hon. Member: "It has been called."] I know it has been called, but it does not prevent me from raising a point of Order about it. I understand your Ruling to be that the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not relevant, and is out of Order. If the argument is out of Order, I wonder whether the Amendment which the argument was intended to support is in Order. It appears to me that if the Committee accepted this Amendment, we would be modifying, in an important and material particular, the Agreement which we accepted yesterday. Are we entitled to do that?

Let me say frankly that this matter is not free from difficulty. I have thought it right to select this Amendment and to give the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and any other hon. Member an opportunity to state the case. The hon. and gallant Member was making a general argument, and not a particular one. Having called the Amendment, I must ask hon. Members to confine themselves strictly to it.

As I read this Amendment, it amounts to this, that if the Committee accept it, it is a material modification to the Agreement. Arc we entitled to modify the Agreement which we accepted yesterday?

On that point of Order. May I submit with great force, or as much force as I am able to command, that the Final Act of Bretton Woods is not an international agreement? It is only a plan, which was discussed by experts and initialled by experts who had no authority to bind their Governments. His Majesty's Government—and certainly the Government of the day—have repeatedly stated in this House.that they were not to be held bound by the Final Act of Bretton Woods, and that our representatives at Bretton Woods were not authorised to act on their behalf. I, Therefore, submit to you that the Bretton Woods Agreement is not an international agreement of a binding character.

That question does not arise on the Amendment. There is, however, very considerable force in what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) says, but I have, in the exercise of my discretion, thought it right to call the Amendment. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will address himself to it.

I have no desire to plunge you into a deluge of points of Order, Major Milner, and I have far too much respect for your Rulings to question them. I would only ask the Chancellor carefully to study the report of 4th June, 1945, and to take note of the observations of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who did say that he was not satisfied that the machinery of this plan provided sufficient safeguards for the standard of living of the people of this country. As I am debarred from quoting it in full, I shall have to reserve what I may describe as quite a good speech for out of doors, when my audience will have, in the greatest detail, the contradiction of views expressed by the Government Front Bench.

I do not think the Committee ought to leave, without comment, the disquieting news that not only is the whole Agreement a pig in a poke, but that almost every section of it represents another pig in a poke. It is indeed a very fertile pig in a poke. Everything is subject to re-interpretation again and again. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find himself able, if not on this Amendment, at any rate before the Bill has passed from us, to tell us a little more about this machinery of interpretation. I quite see the difficulties. I can see that you cannot have every "t" crossed and "i" dotted before you go into an Agreement of this sort, but there are so many loopholes through which ill-feeling and misunderstanding may seep, that I wish to register my profound uneasiness and anxiety. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would try to clear up this point, and give us some solace in our worry.

I must say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on this question of fundamental disequilibrium, he has met me very fairly; and, in view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On a point of Order. Do 1 understand that the Amendment in my name—in page 3, line 13, add:

"(5) No payment shall be made and no other action shall be taken under this section until the Anglo-American Financial Agreement has been adopted and ratified by the Congress and Senate of the United States of America."

—and the new Clause (Provisional duration of Act) are not to be called?

I do not propose, as I have indicated, to call the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to Clause 2. He can, of course, speak on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The only point I wanted to make was this. If this is passed, there is nothing which binds the United States, in fact, to make the loan.

That does not seem to me to arise on this Clause. It appears to be a general observation. I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to confine himself to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

On a point of Order. May I say that it was not possible to debate this very important fact on the Motion which was before the House yesterday?

I dealt with the whole matter when I moved the Resolution.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I do not think anybody can possibly deny that on any conceivable rule of Order, the Clause we are now discussing does authorise His Majesty's Government to pay out of the Treasury what may be very substantial sums of money for a very long time to come. I know we cannot criticise the principles of the Bretton Woods Agreement; but there are one or two specific questions that I want to ask the Chancellor with regard to our obligations, and how he proposes to discharge them. What worries me about this proposed expenditure of money in Clause 2 is that it might be all right in normal times, because the Final Act of Bretton Woods is really a kind of thermostat to iron out fluctuations of normal pressure, but it was never intended to function in a chaotic world like that which exists today. What worries a good many of us is that, whereas we had a transitional period of five years in the original Bretton Woods scheme, under the Loan Agreement this has been cut to one year; so that the whole force of the obligation which the House is being asked to assume will come into operation in 12 months' time. I do not believe that the machinery available, or the amount of money now being asked for, can possibly control world fluctuations of the character and type which are likely to take place over the next five years. It is like fixing a thermometer at a certain point, and then putting it in the water and expecting to change the temperature. That just will not happen. There is not enough money either in the Fund, or in what the Chancellor is now asking us to give him, to achieve the object we have in mind.

There are two specific questions I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman relating to our obligations in respect of this money. I am particularly disturbed about the position which may arise —and I think it may very likely happen—if and when we are obliged to withdraw from the Fund. We then have to make substantial payments. If we do exercise our right to withdraw, we have to make these payments either in gold or dollars; and it is quite obvious, I think to every hon. Member, that if we are obliged to withdraw from the Fund it will be because we have practically no gold or dollars left. That is why I am so concerned; and why the I put down the other Amendment, in order to give us a longer period to repay; because we are accepting in this Clause an obligation to repay this money to the Fund, not in sterling but in convertible currency.

The two questions which I wish to put to the Chancellor are these: First, are we bound to maintain our currency at the agreed par value with dollars and, therefore, with gold? If we are—and I think we are—then, of course, it is not very easy to say this is not a gold standard. Under Article IV (4) (b), a member whose monetary authorities, for the settlement of international transactions, in fact buy and sell gold within the limits prescribed by the Fund, shall be "deemed to be fulfilling" the undertaking to outlaw dealings except at par rates in other members' currencies. That may sound, and is, a little complicated; but what it means is this. The monetary authorities in New York will in fact, buy and sell gold within the limits prescribed by the Fund. Therefore, if this Bill is carried on, there will be at least one important market—New York—in which currencies will be able to be freely dealt in at rates which will be illegal in London. It means that there will be a colossal black market in currencies in New York, at rates which will not be allowed to prevail in other financial centres in the world, simply because New York does deal freely in gold. I asked this question specifically of Lord Keynes some months ago, and was never able to get a satisfactory answer. The question must be given some answer some time, because if New York does become an international black market for currencies the whole scheme will break down.

11.45 a.m.

The second question I want to ask the Chancellor relates specifically to our obligations. Article VIII (4) requires each member country to buy balances of its currency held by another member country— presumably at par—if these balances have arisen through current transactions, but not if they have arisen through capital transactions. A sharp distinction is drawn between the two, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Article VI permits, but does not enjoin, control of capital movements; and definitely prohibits the use of the Fund's resources to meet a capital outflow. Supposing this country—and it is a situation which is quite likely to arise —is faced simultaneously with a capital outflow and a deficit on current account. As I read the Agreement, we have no right to use the Fund to check the former; but we are obliged to use it right up to the limit of our quota to prevent any depreciation of sterling caused by the deficit on income account, although under Article V (8) we can be subjected to penal charges for doing so.

Where in the Bill is Article V (8)? I am afraid the hon. Member is out of Order in this matter.

I was merely relating that Article to our general obligations under the Bill, which are causing me anxiety. I have made my point, which was simply to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what our obligations are, in this situation. I have asked two questions, which I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman will find it easy to answer.

I rise only for the purpose of putting on record the astonishing and melancholy fact that this Bill, which commits this country to one of the most formidable obligations ever undertaken in its history for an interminable period to come, should have been passed through this House without any discussion of the principles underlying the Bretton Woods Agreement as such. I repeat what I said yesterday, that it constitutes a flagrant breach on the part of the Government of undertakings repeatedly given to this House.

I want to ask, finally, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give an assurance to this House that no action will be taken until this loan is ratified by the State?

On a point of Order. Is it in Order to take the Committee stage and the Third Reading of the Bill on the same day?

It is perfectly in Order. Question put, and agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, at end, add:

" (4) The Interim Supplementary Exchequer Contribution for any particular year shall not be payable to any county or county borough whose rate poundage did not exceed twelve shillings in that year and the total of the sums so withheld from such authorities in respect of that year shall be apportioned amongst those county or county boroughs whose rate poundage exceeded twelve shillings in that year on the basis prescribed in this section."

I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by reiterating the point I made and the arguments advanced on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill. There are two observations I would like to make in supporting this Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up the Debate on the Second Reading, commented on the criticisms passed on the Bill and said that they amounted to this—that the Bill would not do what it never set out to do. My criticism, and it is a criticism which I invite the Committee to support, is that this Bill does not do, or at least does only in a feeble and half-hearted way, what it purports to do and what the Minister said it should do. This Amendment is put down with the object of bringing the letter of this Pill more into conformity with the spirit and substance of the Minister's argument.

We were told by the Minister that this Bill was to provide for interim payments over a period of three years to local authorities, and principally to the poorer authorities, to enable them to meet their obligations while the financial position of local authorities in relation to the central government, were under review. We were told that the object of the Bill, and I do not expect that it is for one moment in dispute, was to see that the burden of maintaining social services in this country was more equitably distributed, and also to enable local authorities, and in particular the poorer ones, to have an appropriate minimum level of expenditure on social amenities, without incurring an intolerable burden of taxation. I suggest that this Bill as it stands, does not achieve either of those objects, and if this is not done, even in a small measure, then the bias in favour of the poorer authorities must be substantially increased. I suggest that the Amendment is a practical way of increasing the necessary bias.

The authorities I have particularly in mind are the sparsely populated rural agricultural areas. The arguments which I wished to bring forward were set forth in admirable fashion in the Minister's speech on the Second Reading. I should like to quote his words:

" What we must take into account is here … the necessity of seeing to it that the payment which is made, actually goes to those authorities really in need of it."

He went on to say:

" There are some local authorities who obviously do not require much additional Exchequer assistance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1945, Vol. 416, c. 1797–8.]

I suggest that the terms of this Bill, as they stand, are contrary to those expressions of policy. The terms of this Bill actually provide funds for every local authority in this country. If that is so, and I think my interpretation is correct, then it must be contrary to the policy which the Minister expressed. The precise object of this Amendment is to draw a line between those local authorities which are really in need of financial assistance of a temporary character, and those who are not in need, and to see to it that the latter do not receive moneys under this Bill. The Bill at present only means that the Exchequer is being extravagant at the expense of the poorer local authorities.

12 noon.

As hon. Members will note, the specific figure mentioned in the Amendment is 12s. I am not suggesting that there is any particular magic in that figure, although I do suggest that, in regard to the rich local authorities, it is a generous figure and might well have been placed higher. If this Amendment is accepted it will eliminate from the benefits of the Bill many authorities which do not deserve to benefit. The money thus withheld from the rich authorities would, when distributed amongst the poorer authorities, be of very considerable assistance to them. If this. Amendment is accepted it will produce a greater bias in favour of the poorer authorities, and will give a greater degree of equity as amongst the poorer authorities.

I do not wish to develop here all the arguments raised on the Second Reading that a bias, a very distinct bias in favour of the poor local authorities, should exist in relation to these financial provisions. The greater burden falls upon those authorities least able to bear it, and there can be no doubt that the expenditure of the poor local authorities is not determined by choice but by necessity. Local authorities of the type which I represent nave no prospect of increasing their rate income. Contrary to the position throughout the country generally, while their rates have increased during the war they have not been in a position to increase their rate income. If this Bill is to meet the commitments to fulfil the objects expressed in relation to it, an Amendment in these terms should be accepted.

May I ask the Committee to consider for a moment what it means in terms of social services and amenities to the peoples of the local authorities involved? The withholding of these grants from the rich authorities will not, in any way, reduce the standard of amenities enjoyed by the people of those areas. There would be no diminution in the health or other social services as a result of the retention of the money provided by this Bill as it now stands. On the other hand, if the money withheld from the rich authorities were made available to the poor authorities, it would prove a great boon. Take the position in my own county, with a rate at present of 21s. 8d. That rate poundage exists merely to maintain a minimum standard of social amenities, and if the local authority is to be put in a position to undertake any form of reconstruction and improvement of their social services, a greater bias than this Bill provides at the moment must be created. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer, but there is one expression the right hon. Gentleman the Minister used in the course of his speech on the Second Reading which, I respectfully suggest, sums up the whole situation. He said:

" I hate making the fat fatter in order to make the lean just a little less lean."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1945, Vol. 416, c. 1798.]

That, I suggest, is precisely what this Bill does at the moment. It is providing funds for the rich authorities at the expense of the poor authorities. If the Minister does not wish to make the fat fatter, why provide any money for those authorities whose rates are below 12s., when by doing so it follows inevitably that he is able to make less provision for the lean and poor authorities? I ask the Committee to consider this Amendment sympathetically, bearing in mind what it means in terms of social welfare. It will give an opportunity for the poor local authorities to carry out a greater measure of social welfare in their districts, whereas it does not inflict any degree of hardship on the richer authorities.

I should like to reinforce the very forceful claim that has been made by my hon. Friend in support of this Amendment. The Government themselves have recognised the force of the case put by him. They have redrafted the block formula and they have, no doubt, weighted it to a certain extent in favour of those areas most heavily burdened by rates, but they have not gone far enough. We think they have not gone nearly far enough, and the purpose of this Amendment, as my hon. Friend has said, is to equalise the burden to a greater extent than the right hon. Gentleman contemplates at the moment under the Bill. What will happen under the Bill if it goes through as it is now? In the Financial Memorandum are set out some examples of what will happen. Take, for instance, Merthyr Tydfil, which is one of the worst instances and has a rate of 29s. Under this Bill it will receive an amount equal to a rate of 2s. 9d. That is, there is no doubt, a relief, but it will still leave Merthyr Tydfil with a crippling rate. Take again West Ham, because this is definitely not exclusively a Welsh problem, although it does bear most heavily on certain areas in Wales. West Ham has a rate of 21s. 6d., and under this Bill will receive the equivalent of is. 9d.

At the other end of the scale we come to Bournemouth which, with a rate of 9s., will get, it is perfectly true, a very small relief, but still a relief of ½d. Surrey, with an average rate for the whole county of 11s. 2d., will receive 3d. benefit under this Bill. Why? Why should these places receive relief? Here is a case where a means test should be applied. The Minister may say, "We are applying a means test in this Bill," but it is not nearly ruthless or drastic enough. I believe that under the Bill as it stands some of the areas which have been quoted by my hon. Friend—and many other instances could be quoted by other hon. Members—will find it extremely difficult to undertake their responsibilities in the years to come if the rates remain as high as they will even after the relief under this Bill has been granted. Not only will they find it difficult to maintain their services, but they will find it difficult to develop their social services under the various Acts which have been passed by this House and those which, we hope, will be passed very shortly. The plain blunt answer is that they cannot undertake this development without burdening themselves with an absolutely crippling rate.

It is those very poor boroughs that are in the greatest need of social services. They are the backward areas. They have the greatest need for good housing, for improving their schools, and for carrying out developments of all sorts. This is a vicious circle, and this Bill will not make it possible for them to break out of that vicious circle. Bournemouth has no unemployed to speak of, and no slum areas. If there are one or two old-fashioned schools, they are paragons and models compared to the schools in some of the rural areas in my country. And in some of the urban areas as well, for this is by no means an entirely rural problem. Yet Bournemouth will receive the equivalent of a ½d. rate. That will not make very much difference to Bournemouth, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. It will not enable Bournemouth to carry out any great developments. But if we were to withdraw that relief from Bournemouth, and from other places in the country whose rate is comparable, and distribute that amount to the poorer local authorities, it would make a great deal of difference to their future.

Let me give one or two instances of what is happening at this moment in Wales, because the problem there is really glaring. The 1d. rate per thousand acres in England and Wales works out at £16 per thousand population, while in the six rural counties of North Wales it comes to just over £1. The product of a 1d. rate in my constituency is under £700, and the housing situation is appalling. There is no water supply. We hope to get it in the near future, but it will be a very great burden to carry. We shall have to have a sewerage scheme, and that will be a very great burden. How can we do these things with a penny rate producing under £700, and our rates standing at something like 17s.? It is not possible. It is a handicap, and a stumbling block to progress in those areas. In one county in North Wales the education rate alone is 9s. 3d.—as much as the total rate in Bournemouth, yet Bournemouth will receive relief under this Bill. While these totally disproportionate rates obtain, it is no good talking about giving equality of education to the children of the rich and the poor. There will be no equality of opportunity as between the child in the poor area and the child in the rich area. Take again the highway charge—9s. 6d. in the constituency of my hon. Friend, 10s. 6d. in another of the counties in North Wales. That is almost as high as the total rate in the County of Surrey, and yet Surrey will receive a 3d. relief under this Bill. The public assistance rate is 4s. 8d. in one of the North Wales counties.

The right hon. Gentleman says, "Yes, but this is only an interim Bill, it is only going to cover three years." But these will be three very critical years. They will be the years when we hope to begin the work of social reconstruction. Why should those counties be left out? Why should they be crippled, and unable to have the same chance of taking advantage of all these things as the richer areas? I and my hon. Friend are not bound to the particular figure of 12s. if the Parliamentary Secretary can meet us on another figure, but I urge and beg him to equalise this tremendous burden and see that the poorer areas get a fairer and squarer deal.

I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) and the Noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George). As one who has spent well over a quarter of a century in the service of one of the poorest local authorities in the country, and who, if I may say so, organised a very effective rates strike some 20 or 25 years ago, 1 think it can be held that I have real sympathy with the case that has been put forward. We must, however, look to the purpose of the Bill and see whether we are carrying out that purpose. This Bill arises from the fact that since 1942 there has been mounting, as far as the local authorities are concerned, a debt from national funds because of the failure to deal with the block grant under the Local Government Act, 1929. Under the block grant, all local authorities in the country have been suffering a loss of income. What this Bill sets out to do is to try and distribute amongst those local authorities during the next three years a sum of money which will be some form of compensation for the money they have not so far received. In the intervening period before 1948, we hope to be able to go into the whole question of the formula that governs the distribution of the block grant, and perhaps get a better distribution of it.

What we are now dealing with is the distribution of this interim money. All local authorities would be due to receive something out of the £10,000,000 in the first year, but we did take the opportunity, in the way in which we distributed it, not of following slavishly the 1929 formula, but of introducing a new formula for its distribution in order that out of the £10,000,000 the poorer authorities should get more than they would under the block grant formula and the richer authorities should get less than they would under the block grant formula. This leads to a greater equalisation, as far as rates are concerned, than would have been the case if the money had been distributed under the block grant. That equalisation will be carried further step by step in each of the succeeding years. When we come to distribute the £11,000,000, greater equalisation will result, and when in 1947–48 we distribute the £12,000,000, there will be even greater equalisation.

What would be the result of accepting this Amendment? Its effect would be that 15 counties and 19 county boroughs would receive none of this £10,000,000, and therefore, there would be a sum of money that might possibly be distributed amongst the other authorities. If it were distributed in that way, the result would be that on the average the increase that would be given would be the equivalent of a rate of less than 1½d. to the receiving authorities. The Amendment provides that no money should go to a county authority where the rate is less than 12s., but how is that rate of 12s. for a county authority arrived at? The county authorities are not rating authorities. They do not levy rates. If one decides upon a rate of 12s. in a county, it means that one must take all the rating authorities in the county area, total their rates and divide the amount by the total rating value of the county, and get the 12s. What might be involved? It might be that if there were a very poor industrial area with a rate of 21s. in the £ and a rural area with a rate of 8s. in the £, the result would be that the county rate would be 12s., and therefore, the urban area would be robbed of the amount that would have come to it out of the grant of £10,000,000. Surely, that would not be dealing justly and fairly with the poorer areas. What we have to see is that the poorer areas get the amount that would come to them.

I know it will be said that under that Bill, where a county authority receives no proportion of the new grant, there must, however, be provided a fund for the distribution of the per capita grant to the individual local authorities. This means that in the case of the 15 counties I have talked about, there is no money coming out of the £10,000,000, but they have got to levy a rate in their county area to provide a sum of money for distribution among themselves. That does not seem to be a very real way of giving them extra money, because all it means is that each of them puts something into the pool to pull something out, and there is no great gain that will come to any of them as a result of that. Let me tell hon. Members that this formula has been definitely weighted in favour of the poorer authorities, with the result that out of the £10,000,000 to be distributed 88 per cent. of the money will go to the poorer authorities—those authorities which have a rate poundage higher than 12s. If we distributed the money in the way suggested in the Amendment, what would be the result? Middlesex and London would get grants because their rates happen to be above 12s. Northumber- land and Westmorland would get nothing. Does anybody say that that is a means of distributing £10,000,000 according to the relative poverty of the area concerned? Take, again, the county boroughs. Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool and Manchester would receive grants under the Amendment, but Newcastle, Plymouth, Darlington and Southampton would receive nothing. Take, again, the ordinary boroughs; Bath and York would be in, Exeter and Canterbury would be out. Is that held to be a fairer distribution of the £10,000,000 than is provided under the Bill?

Surely the basis of the distribution under the Bill is on the rates poundage of the authorities?

It is not. The distribution of the money under the Bill is on the basis of the expenditure of the local authorities upon the total services provided The greater their expenditure on their services, the greater the amount they get. In addition, I may add that the greater their need because of what has happened in the last five years, the greater the amount they will get. What is being taken as the basis of the distribution is not merely the expenditure that arises out of what is got from the rates, together with what is got from the block grant of 1929, but to that expenditure is added the extra expenditure which has been met by the extra grants of £15,000,000 that have been given to the specially distressed areas during the war. There is, therefore, added on to their ordinary expenditure that extra contribution as a weighting to give them something more out of the £10,000,000. I am convinced that any attempt, whether one takes 12s., 13s., or 10s., to carry out the distribution of the £10,000,000 in the way suggested in the Amendment would introduce far greater inequalities and far greater wrongs to the poorer local authorities than would be involved in the present method of distribution. Therefore, not merely can we not accept this Amendment, but we should be violating the very thing we want to do if we attempted to do anything on the lines suggested in it.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has given a very generous interpretation of this Amendment. A county rate is the amount of the rate precepted on the local authority by the county and does not include the amount raised by the local authority for its own purposes. I know of very many areas where there is a local rate approaching 12s., but a county rate of about 6s. or less. In that case, the county rate being 6s., on a strict interpretation of the Amendment, nothing would go to that county, in spite of the fact that it was levying a rate of perhaps more than 12s., or a rate very nearly approaching 12s., and there would be no relief for that area. In considering the Amendment, we must bear in mind that a county rate poundage is only the amount levied by the county on the county districts.

The hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment have used the argument of rates and have carefully avoided any reference to the amount paid in rates per head of the population. I know that in some areas which are called poor areas, after allowing for the amount paid in rent and rates, it is estimated that many of those areas have actually a greater free balance left than many industrial areas where the rates and rents are high. Surely the qualification as to whether an area is rich or poor must be the ability of the individual ratepayers to pay. One cannot say that essentially rural areas are necessarily very much poorer than areas which are considered to be well-to-do. 1 do not include, of course, places like Bournemouth, but I include a very large number of industrial areas where I am satisfied they are very hard hit. Although their rate poundage may be lower, the amount they are paying per head in rates is double the amount that is being paid in many areas which are classified as poor. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider. on the Report stage, reducing the 8d. which is being used for weighting to not more than 4d.

12.30 p.m.

The avowed function of the block grant formula, as originally devised, was to even-out the differences between the richer and poorer areas. If it has done that job at all effectively, then, obviously, there is no cause for any further awarding of this additional grant, which ought to be dished out fairly and squarely over the whole of the authorities. The cases which my hon. Friend opposite put are cases which will not be met under the existing system of rating. We have to get away from this if we are going to do anything with regard to the amenities of the countryside. I have every sympathy with them. I believe it has to come. We shall not be satisfied with a mere revision of the block grant formula, or even with an additional dole from the Government Department. We shall need a complete overhaul and revision, so that there may be a fair distribution of the burden of service over the whole of the community and that it shall not be spread over part of the community as at the present time. What does it do? In effect, you could have a rich person living in a service flat, and paying little in rates or contributions as far as social services are concerned, and another person, with a large family, living in a large house and being hard put to it in having to pay the rates in respect of those larger premises. There is no equality about that.

This is still going back to 1601, when the basis at that time was that each village had to be responsible for its poor, and its method of assessment was the amount of its holding of land. When everybody was holding land and could afford to pay for holding land, there was very little to pay in tax. That system was entirely altered. We shall have to alter this system, but we cannot alter it merely by playing about with this particular Bill; there is no possible hope of doing that.

The Government should accept an alteration by the substitution of 8d. for 4d., which is precisely the opposite, a movement in the other direction. I will give an instance with regard to the question of poor areas. What are poor areas? I have instanced Middlesex, with a loan of indebtedness, at a high rate per head, of £20,000,000. There were urgent services to be provided, and we have had to borrow the money and do the job. This is a permanent debt around the neck of the ratepayers of Middlesex. I would contrast that with Cumberland. Middlesex, under a distribution of 8d. would get about 5½d. in the first year. I will take one of the areas which is always considered to be one of the very poor areas: Cumberland will get a rate, in proportion to the amount distributed on capital grant to county districts. They will get a rate of 14.4d. for a very long time. Cumberland has been able to allocate a 2S. rate for debt redemption and now has no capital debt at all£that is, 14.4d. against Middlesex, 5.5d. Is there any equality in that? There is no equality at all so far as the present system is concerned. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, while, obviously, the Amendment, as drafted, would be utterly impossible and unworkable, to consider very carefully whether he would include the figure of 4d. in Class 2 instead of 8d., as is included?

With the penultimate part of the hon. Member's speech, I am in entire agreement. There is no equality, and there cannot be any equality until we either do away with the rating system altogether, or get a proper system of organisation. I am very glad to hear that what we were saying in the last Parliament is now being repeated on the Government Benches opposite. I hope hon. Members opposite will join with us in demanding that the time has come to bring our system into relationship with modern needs, and not follow a system which was devised in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Time and time again, I have had to point out the difficulties that arise because of this system. I am terribly disappointed with the speech that I have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary refusing to accept this Amendment. It is the sort of speech that we were accustomed to hear during the last Parliament, and although the country has changed, and although the faces on that side of the House have changed, it seems to me that the sentiments of the last House still continue and that they arc ready to bring into effect the high hopes that we had created in the minds of the people. After the poll had been declared, though my own party has been reduced to the small numbers that we are, I did tell my own people that I had a new hope that the social services they so long needed would now be brought into effect, that the bad conditions from which we have so long suffered would now be remedied. How can we possibly end bad conditions when we are suffering, first of all, from a very low income, and, consequently, from a crippling burden on rates. I am glad to see my right hon: Friend the Home Secretary. He and I have so often discussed the effect of these rates, especially with regard to education; they are imprinted as strongly and effectively upon his mind as they are upon mine. How is this Bill going to help us to give, in my county, or the county of the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), or my neighbouring county of Cardigan, that system of education which ought to be national, when we are burdened with schools over 100 years old and a system which ought to have come to an end ages ago?

Wherein lies the fairness of this? The hon. Gentleman talked about some form of compensation. Compensation, as a general rule, is an attempt to try and fight the inequalities from which a man suffers to bring him up to equality. Does he regard this as some form of compensation? Then, it is a misuse of compensation. I will give a few figures. The hon. Lady has given what is the position in her county. A penny rate in the county of Angle sey produces under £700. The schools there are a disgrace to civilisation. I have described the houses in a report —one of them I have described, using the words used in the locality, as a "death house." That is the system that we want to see ended. How can you end it when you are offering merely this. It is a system about which I and my colleagues have protested throughout these years, and it ought to have been ended years ago. They have been lacking in proper drinking water for all these years, and there are in Anglesey most attractive' places which are regarded as health resorts, and yet they cannot give them proper water. The hon. Lady in the last. Parliament had to support the bringing in of a Bill, at long last, to give Anglesey water. The cost of that scheme is going to be over £500,000, and that will only bring water. It will not deal with the other side of it, namely, carrying away the waste water and the sewage. That will cost another £500,000—a million pounds' burden upon a county, where a penny rate is producing less than £700.

We have been talking about the reallocation of industry, and a proper distribution of the populace. How is a fleabite of a Bill of this kind going to help such a situation? How can you expect people to remain in our rural districts with a burden of this kind? No wonder that from the rural areas, as I have so often had to point out, we have had one form of export, that is, our young men and our young women who would not stay under the conditions, and which we cannot correct under this form of giving the social services assistance. I would point out wherein these tremendous difficulties exist. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for a long time has been a prominent leader of the Surrey County Council, and has done very wonderful work. A penny rate in that one county produces over £54,000, or did prior to the war. I can only remember the figures prior to the war. A penny rate in the whole of seventeen counties in Wales, including the county boroughs, produced before the war only £45,000, and a portion of the whole geographical county of Surrey, as part is included in London, produces far more than the whole of the seventeen counties.

Compare the penny rate, for example, of any one of the county boroughs, which are really what I might call residential places. I forget now whether Bournemouth is a county borough, I think it is. Compare that with the county borough of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) which has provided more towards the wealth of this county than any other single county borough or place, and a place that was, in its hour of distress, forgotten by this country. How these people kept up their spirits throughout those terrible times is just a miracle. How much are we going to help the county borough of Merthyr?

The hon. Gentleman has just said: "If I distribute this in the way we have been working, I shall deprive 12 counties and a certain number of county boroughs of any assistance at all under this scheme. But these are the very counties that do not need assistance, and if I distribute among those of you who need assistance, it will mean a penny farthing rate." We are grateful for a crumb, under the difficulties from which we suffer. I do not know how we can possibly face up to the new situation. From our rural areas, just in the same way as from the industrial areas, young men and young women have gone away and have fought for this country for six years. They can come back to our industrial areas and there will be work for them. When they come back to our lovely counties we shall have to tell them to go away. We shall have to say, "We have nothing for you." We cannot induce industries to come into our rural areas when people are asking (1) "What are your amenities? What kind of houses have you for our working people?" We have to say, "Rotten" or "non-existent." Then they ask, "What is the cost of electricity? "

These are the problems which the Government ought to be facing. This Amendment might not bring us much, but it would be at any rate on the right lines. It would show that the Government are genuinely interested in the conditions of the people as they really are. If they accepted the Amendment, it would be a preliminary to much bigger things in which we are interested—a real equalisation all round, a real national standard so that all local authorities would have an equal chance. I again express my deep disappointment that there is not a more radical spirit on the Government Front Bench prepared to deal with these matters. Call it "Socialist" if you like, but I would leave out the "ist" and call it a better "social" spirit. I am sure that it is there and that what is needed is the courage to carry out the measures that are really necessary.

I do not like the Amendment and I think that it has many faults, but I am going to associate myself with my hon. Friends below the Gangway on the other side, as a protest in the first place against the fact that there are much larger sums of money owing to the local authorities than are now being given back to them under this Bill. There is a lot of leeway to make up for money that has not been spent during the war, and the Minister could have been much more generous than he is prepared to be in this Bill. I am very anxious that no attention should be paid to the reactionary suggestions made by my hon. Friend who sits below me. My main reason for associating myself with my hon. Friends opposite is that we have to put into operation in the near future schemes which local authorities are now preparing and which will be before the Minister of Education shortly. Those schemes of education will place on local authorities an almost intolerable burden if they are in anyway to implement the new Education Act. The people who will suffer most because the local authorities cannot put the Act fully into operation are the rural areas. We had from the Front Bench a little over a fortnight ago a first-class plan for agriculture. Are we to expect the people who are to put agriculture on to its feet to go on living in the sordid and mean agricultural areas unless more money is spent on their social services and amenities? I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has any knowledge of rural schools and housing. He may know a great deal about a poor town area, but I doubt whether there are many people on the Front Bench who know the rural areas as hon. Members opposite and as I, who live in a rural area, know them. We know schools which have no lighting, water or sanitation—

The hon. Lady is getting extremely wide of the Amendment.

I am sorry, but one gets carried away by the necessities of our rural areas so far as housing and general amenities are concerned. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept the Amendment, can we have some hope that something more will be done for the rural areas, which cannot help the rating situation. One of the reasons why I do not like the line being drawn at 12s. is that many authorities have low rates because they are reactionary and do not provide the social services that ought to be provided. There should be some encouragement and help to those areas whose rateable values are so low that they find impossible to do anything with the great schemes of education, agriculture, housing and other matters which the Government are proposing. If some help could be offered to them my hon. Friends who put the Amendment before the Committee would be grateful. It is as a protest against what these poor areas have to suffer that I associate myself with the Amendment, with which, from some points of view, I do not agree.

I have great sympathy with the Amendment although I think that it is badly drawn. I made my maiden speech in the House in opposing the restoration of the 50 per cent. grant to Bournemouth. I do not think that Bournemouth has any case for it, nor can we argue on the lines on which my hon. Friends have been arguing. There is no reason why we should ask Bournemouth ratepayers to subsidise the ratepayers of other places. There is the ques- tion of uniformity of assessment. I have had considerable experience of this subject, and I find that rich areas complain bitterly that many of the poorer areas deliberately under-assess in order that their rates may be high, while many rich areas deliberately over-assess so that their rates may be low and the area be attractive. Surely the issue is far bigger than this. The Government are left with a legacy of piecemeal legislation which has been going on for years. The time has come when we should decide which are national and which are local services. We cannot go on with those quasi-national services which must be met in some way by local contributions. I do not see how we can reach a formula to meet the distressed areas so long as we allow some burdens to be national and some local.

We must decide which services should be outside local rates altogether. I hope we may not have to decide that education should be outside the local rates. It would not be easy to do it because the local authorities would object. They like to have some say in the administration of their areas, and they cannot have any say unless they bear some part of the cost. Finance and administration cannot be divorced. The difficulty always has been to decide who shall finance a service and who shall administer it. I spent some years trying to find a formula which I thought would be helpful in meeting this problem, but the biggest stumbling block was that the local authorities might want too much power. In a county like Durham, where there are a number of past free authorities, some do not like being absorbed in the county area and losing some of their powers. This problem is not so simple as hon. Members who proposed the Amendment suggest. The method proposed in the Amendment is not the way to tackle the problem; it must be tackled on much bigger lines.

What else can you do? We have an alternative under this Bill.

I want a fundamental change. My objection is the same as that which I took in regard to social security. Rather than play about with the question of pensions, I held that we should get down to a completely new scheme. We have played about with these things for years and have been too satisfied with accepting crumbs which did not get us anywhere. Somebody became keen on school meals and we had a try at it. Then somebody became keen about physical training, and we had a try at that.

The hon. Member is following the rather bad example set by the previous speaker and is being led away from the Amendment.

So long as we go on in this piecemeal way we shall get nothing but crumbs. We must finally tackle the question which of the various services shall be borne by the State and which by the localities.

I have listened with great interest to the discussion on the Amendment, and I find myself in sympathy with a great deal of what has been said. I hope that my right hon. Friend will note what has been said because I believe it will help to convince him of the urgency of this problem. In fairness to him, he made the position clear on Second reading and said he had a great deal of sympathy with the point of view that has been expressed this morning, but that this was not a comprehensive measure to effect a real solution of the fundamental problem. It was, he said, an interim measure to provide some additional relief to local authorities in consequence of the stabilisation of the block grant. It is, therefore, to some extent unfair to be unduly critical when we know that this Bill is but an interim measure and not a solution of the main problem.

The Amendment is impracticable. It specifies that a rate of 12s. shall be the determining factor whether an authority shall derive benefit from the Bill. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, counties are not rating authorities, and I am interested to know how we are to arrive at a county rate of 12s. A rate of 12s. in one part of the country may be totally different in its demands per head of the population than in another part. It may well be that if a person is paying a rate of 13s. in one county, he pays much less than a person in another county who pays 10s. This matter is bound up with the question of assessments, which now vary from one part of the country to another. Therefore, to lay down a hard and fast limit of 12s. is not the best method of effecting a fair distribution of this grant. Reference has been made to some authorities where the product of a 1d. rate is considered to be very high. In the constituency I represent a 1d. rate produces about £3,450.

That may seem a considerable sum of money where a penny rate produces only £700. But we have very considerable expenditure to meet. Our population is nearly 60,000. We are an industrial borough. We are losing, from the operation of the derating legislation, a rate of 3s. 2d., and our rate is 13s. 8d. in the £, but 3s. 2d. of that our ratepayers are having to make good through losses from derating.

1.0 p.m.

One hon. Member has spoken about Middlesex. We have some complaint to make about Middlesex, because, of that £3,450, the product of a penny rate, the county council take nearly two-thirds of it. We very often wonder what they do with it, but we do know that, in Middlesex, in recent years, there has been very considerable extension and development, and the county council has been called upon to incur great expense on the development of roads, education and all kinds of services. It seems to me, how over, that we cannot, at the moment, justly deal with this problem of local taxation, because the whole position is in a state of flux. I understand that steps are being taken to transfer quite a number of functions from the local authorities to county authorities. Education is one. I come from an area which was a Part III authority, which had control of our elementary education system, of which we were very proud.

The hon. Member is wandering afar. Education is not under discussion; therefore will the hon Member keep to the Amendment?

I will go back to the Amendment, Mr. Beaumont. In conclusion, I would like to say that I hope it will not be thought that, because, in some areas, where a penny rate produces what appears to be a considerable amount, therefore, our boroughs can afford to receive no benefits from this Bill. I think the Bill will give us, approximately, the advantage of a 2d. rate. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to convey to the Minister of Health what has been said in a general way on this Amendment, and the feeling of the Committee that the time has come when comprehensive steps should be taken to put local taxation on a more satisfactory and sound basis than it is at the present time.

I take this opportunity of making my maiden speech. I have attempted to grasp chances which have offered themselves on previous occasions—spotlight occasions—but up to the present, I have failed. Perhaps it is no loss, either to myself or to the Committee, to take this opportunity of making my maiden speech on the somewhat mundane matter of local affairs, because, on such a subject, we come down to the "brass tacks" of the daily lives of the people. In passing, I might confess that, in regard to the wording of this Amendment, I am not seeking either to praise it or condemn it. The Bill, in my opinion, is merely another patch on the patchwork quilt of local government finance. It is inevitable, in discussing provisions of such a temporary Measure, that the whole field of local government finance and administration must come under review, because we cannot discuss a Bill of this kind without raising the whole issue of local government finance, and I challenge the Minister to give us anything in the way of a review, analysis or description of this Bill without involving a review of the whole field of local government finance.

I represent part of the county of Shropshire, being the representative of the Wrekin Division of that county. Recently, I have had consultations with local government officers, both in regard to the county council and the local urban district councils, and if there is one thing that stands out in my mind as a result of those conversations, it is that the time has come for the whole field of local government finance to be recast and remoulded. It is hopeless to expect that this Bill is going to be anything more than a temporary further delay, in facing that fundamental problem. I see that, in the county of Shropshire, they are dealing, as in every other county at present, with the question of education. In that county, out of all the educational establishments, 80 per cent. will have to be, not rebuilt or repaired, but totally eliminated and new structures built— practically a new scheme of educational establishments. Incidentally, in that connection, I might mention this fact, which has a bearing on the Bill. I am informed by the chief education officer of Salop, that the extra grant from the Ministry of Education received under the recent Education Act has been swallowed up in meeting the costs of the new Burnham Scale salaries for teachers. Therefore, it is inevitable that the additional cost involved in the rebuilding or building of a new educational system, will largely fall upon the county rates.

I am going to make one positive, practical suggestion arising from the presentation of this Bill at this moment. Unless we are to have more than a mere repetition of such Measures, the Government will have to face the whole question of local government. There is, just starting its labours, a Commission dealing with local government boundaries. In my opinion, the results of that Boundary Commission will prove futile unless the whole field of local government finance and services is also reviewed and dealt with, alongside that Commission of Inquiry, and I suggest that the Government now or very soon, will have to tackle the fundamental problem of local government administration and finance, covering the whole field of social services, which local government has any part in administering.

I suggest that the Government should seriously consider the setting up of a Royal Commission to examine the whole functioning of our local government administrative machine, not only from the point of view of boundaries, but from that of responsibility for finance and actual administration of such services as education, water, gas and nearly the whole gamut. I think that, as a result of the contributions made in the Committee this morning, the Government will take their courage in both hands and determine that a new start with a new scheme, shall be made in tackling this urgent question of local government services. I am convinced that, if they are going to be satisfied with this Bill, it merely means another little patch on the big patchwork quilt. It will only increase the area of that big patchwork quilt; it will get no nearer the fundamental problem, but will merely be playing about with it.

May I give my hearty congratulations to my hon. Friend who has just spoken for a very informative, and, if I may say so, a very well delivered speech? I am certain that, "in the future, when local government problems are before us, his contributions will be very valuable to us in their consideration. I should like also to give him this little piece of advice—not to allow himself to be led away by the very expert people who have spoken before him into making a Second Reading speech on the Committee stage of a Bill, because by far the majority of the speeches made this morning were not dealing at all with the substance of the Amendment which is really under consideration. We said, in the Second Reading Debate, that we were going to use this intervening period for a careful analysis of the block grant formula and scheme of distribution. We admitted that there was a great need for looking at the whole problem of local government finance, but said that it was no use trying to do that at this particular moment, when local government services and everything else are in the melting pot, and we did not know exactly what we had to make provision for.

I want to go back to the point that we are dealing with here, not with the whole problem of local government finance, but with an attempt to make good to the local authorities the losses they have suffered from the failure to deal with the distribution formula under the block grant, and I want to protest against the statement made by the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) that, even after what we have done here, there is a great deal of leeway to make up so far as local authorities and their grants are concerned. I claimed on Second Reading, and I claim here now, that we are giving more in this way, together with the —15,000,000 that had been given before, than the deficits that are still there. I also want to say that, so far as the problem with regard to schools and services in rural areas are concerned, I guarantee that, in the 15 county areas which would be robbed of any income from the block grant under this Amendment, the schools are the worst rural schools that one could find anywhere in the country. I do not see that it will help to improve the services if those counties cannot get contributions from this national grant on the ground that their rates are below 12s. in the £ and that therefore they are not to get anything at all.

I have one other thing to say about this Amendment which shows how absolutely impossible it is for us to accept it. Take two local areas, one with a rate of 12s. 1d. and the other a rate of 11s. 11d. The one with the rate of 12s. 1d. could be given out of this fund the equivalent of an 8d. rate, and as a result its rates will fall to us. 5d. The other area, with a rate of 11s.11d., will get nothing at all. How can it be claimed that that is a sane and sensible way of distributing money amongst areas according to their need or their ability to meet the charges they have in front of them? The Amendment would be no help at all in the distribution of this money, and I hope the Committee will not entertain it.

To the many shortages which have been reported to this House recently I beg to add yet another, the shortage of solicitors. I propose to show how that shortage has come about, to prove that it is likely to become even greater in the future, and to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour a way in which this difficulty can be overcome. In accordance with the practice of this House I must declare my interest. I was, before I had the honour of being elected to this House, and I still am, a tutor in the Law Society's School of Law. It is not a financial interest, because happily the Law Society does not pay its tutors on quantity; it makes no difference to the tutors whether there are two students, or 20 or 200. My interest accords with the interest of the Council of the Law Society, that is to say, we desire that a regular supply of competent solicitors shall be produced year by year, in the service of the public. It may be of interest to the House to know that as a tutor I have to explain to the students the legislation which, as a legislator, I assist in passing in this House, and it is not always easy to do so.

I should like to say a word about the importance of solicitors to the community, because some persons have a rather naive view of the functions of solicitors. They are engaged in many Government Departments, particularly in the Inland Revenue. They play their part in the work of local authorities as clerks and town clerks, and as solicitors in town clerks' departments. They act as magistrates' clerks and as clerks to a variety of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. The main business of the solicitor is the family solicitor's business, which is carried on in every town and city of this Kingdom. Litigation plays a small part in the work of the average solicitor's office, and, in fact, the normal family solicitor tries to discourage it as much as he possibly can, a procedure which, quite candidly, I cannot in any way criticise. So that from the cradle to the grave, as one might say, a large number of citizens of this country find the services of a solicitor of great importance to them in one way or another. It is our desire—and when I say "our" I mean the Law Society's desire and particularly the tutors' desire—to see that the public shall always be served by competent solicitors who are well versed in the theory and practice of the law.

The number of solicitors in this country before the war was approximately 20,000. I am not able to give exact figures, because they are not known, but the House can take that as being the approximate figure, and the exact figure is not likely to vary very much either above or below that estimate. More than 6,000 solicitors are serving or have served in the Forces in the war. Of the age groups of solicitors who were eligible to serve this is, as the House can imagine, an enormous proportion. I estimate that about 90 per cent. of those who were eligible to serve in the Forces were in fact serving, and I do not think any profession, trade or industry can show an equal figure. It so happens that before the war a very high percentage of solicitors were in the Territorial Army. In the brigade of which I was a member, there was one light infantry battalion in which no less than one-third of the officers were members of the solicitor's profession. So it is true to say of Army life before the war that solicitors took to it like ducks to water, and played a great part in the life of the Territorial Army. A large number have been decorated for service during the war, and, unfortunately, many gallant members of the profession have laid down their lives for their country.

The fact that so large a number of solicitors went into the Forces of necessity flung a great burden on those gentlemen who remained behind. Naturally they were elderly men who, in the normal course of events, would have been inclined to take things easily and to allow the burden and heat of the day to fall upon their younger brethren. They were not able to do so, and the Law Society has a large number of cases, which I am only too anxious to show to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, which are pitiable cases of elderly solicitors who have felt the great strain imposed upon them. This state of affairs has had a great effect on the work, because many firms are unable to take on any new clients. Only last week a constituent of mine asked my help in finding him a firm, as he had been unable to find one himself, and I had some difficulty in doing so. He was a man in the Forces and he had undoubtedly been victimised by a crook in this country who had taken from him his furniture to store and then had sold it. I am happy to say that matter is now in process of being cleared up; but it shows the difficulty which is felt by many people in obtaining the assistance of solicitors.

I come to the particular part of the subject I am discussing: that is, law students, the training of them and the position at the moment. The training of law students is of a twofold character. It thus differs from that of the ordinary university student, who merely undergoes one type of training. In the solicitor's profession the student has practical tuition in the office of his principal, getting to know the routine work of his profession, and on top of that he has the theoretical, the academic, tuition such as we give him at the Law Society's school or in the universities. So he has, in fact, a much harder time, and has a much harder type of examination to pass, than has the ordinary university student. We feel in the school that cramming should be discouraged. Cramming, we feel, merely stuffs facts into a student as you stuff feeding stuffs into a turkey before Christmas. When the examination comes enough of those facts are spilled out to pass the examination, and then the rest evaporates during the holiday which the student takes immediately after he has passed the examination. We are most anxious that all who are qualifying as solicitors should be fully competent in every way to advise their clients and that they should have a good foundation of the principles of law upon which our English system is based.

During the war slightly over 3,500 of these students were called up for the Army. Not one was reserved, because theirs was not regarded as a reserved occupation, and those 3,500 have served their country very gallantly during the war. None, or very few, of those students have come out of the Army. There has been no relaxation of the standard or the examination proposed for them; they will have to pass the final examination in all its rigour. I think that is a wise decision, because our chief concern is with the public service and not with the private individual, so we have not in any way relaxed the standard and the public can be assured that the solicitors of the future will be equally competent with the solicitors of the past. But we have relaxed to some extent the period which they will have to serve in training for their profession before taking their final examination. The Society have said that if a man has already, before he was called up. served in his principal's office for two years or more they will allow him to take the final examination without further service.

That is the only relaxation, and it will mean that he will, in fact, have to take a course of six months to prepare himself for the final. He would be a bold man who would be prepared to come back from the Army, after being away all those years, and go straight in to take his final examination without a course. The Law Society have had this position very closely in mind and have spent a long time over it. They have bought premises in London for a school and they propose that that school should be used by the students. Unfortunately after it was purchased it was damaged by enemy action, and recently a licence has been obtained to rebuild those portions which were damaged. It is hoped that it will be available in January. In addition they have collected a large number of tutors—or a large number in proportion to the size of the school—and they are ready to go right ahead with this legal tuition. They have spent a lot of money. The Law Society have shown great initiative in this matter. They have spent a lot of money and a lot of time and energy.

It so happens that after all this energy and time and money has been spent, the final course which has just ended to produce solicitors for this country had seven students, of whom one was a woman. That is totally inadequate to supply the needs of the profession. The average deaths of solicitors over the past 10 years is 500 a year. There are, in addition, retirements and solicitors going into other businesses—going to the Bar and so on—which must equal another 100 to the year at least. Those admitted as solicitors dropped from 932 in 1938 to 104 in 1942, 117 in 1944 and 180 in 1945, so that there has been an enormous drop in solicitors who have been admitted to the profession as opposed to the natural wastage, from one cause or another, and, of course, those people who have been admitted will still in the ordinary way have to do their military service in the Forces. They are not excused from that. Those articled—that is, the new entries coming into the profession—dropped from 964 in 1934 to 179 in 1944 and again, even those 179 in most cases will have to serve in the Forces. They are not excused either.

What I am asking for today is that a certain proportion—I am not asking for the whole lot—of the 3,500 to 4,000 of our students who are in the Forces should be released under Class B. On 9th October in this House the Minister of Labour indicated that university art students of scholarship standard, certain special categories of science students, certain categories of students in medicine, dentistry and veterinary surgery, and certain theological students were to be released under Class B, and I maintain that if theological students—I do not deny for a moment their importance— are to be released, if dental students, art students and the others are to be released, we have an equally good case for the release of the solicitor-students who are now retained in the Army.

I will take the position of a boy aged 18 who had just entered into his Articles in 1939 and was a member of, or immediately joined, the Territorial Army. He would now be in group 28. He would be out, we assume—we are not quite certain when group 28 is coming out—in July. I take it that is about the date, that is, if he is a private soldier or another rank. That boy will still have to do two and a half years after his release before he can qualify as a solicitor, so the public will not get his services for two and a half years after he has been released. That is the very earliest, even though he passes all his examinations.

Have they any opportunity whilst in the Army for continuing their training?

The Army does have a scheme but it is of a general character. I do not think for one moment that it would really assist him in passing his academic examination, and, in any case, it would not be accepted by the Law Society as qualifying him for the two-year period that I have mentioned. Supposing he is an older man and has done his two years and comes out after January, it so happens, owing to the academic year and so on, that even if he comes out after 1st January, he is unlikely to be able to sit his examination until November, which means that he will not be admitted to the profession until probably the following January, because passing the examination does not mean that he is entitled to practise as a solicitor. After he has passed the examination he then has to go to the Noble Lord the Master of the Rolls and ask him to admit him. In my case, I qualified years ago at the June examination. The then Noble Lord the Master of the Rolls went on a visit to Canada and did not come back until October, so I had to wait until the Noble Lord returned before I could be admitted. If a man comes out of the Forces, therefore, the very earliest he can be admitted, I believe, is in a year's time, that is, when the new term starts in the new year of 1947. Of course, this means that he has got quickly off the mark. It may be that many of these men, though they have done their time under the articles, will not qualify until the summer or autumn of 1947.

The position of the public is likely to be embarrassed by the fact that we are not supplying either the law school or the public with solicitors in the proportion in which they are being wasted. The Law Society's position is one of extreme difficulty. They have gone to a large amount of trouble in this matter, and they do not feel they are having the support that they are entitled to expect. I would ask the Minister also to consider that most of the young men are practically all in the same age groups, between 26 and 28. Many of them are officers; between 80 and 90 per cent. have obtained commissions from the ranks. That is a most creditable performance. As it stands, we will get an enormous rush of these young men all coming out together because they are all in the same age gropus, and we will not be able to handle them in the Law Society's school in the numbers in which they are coming out. That will mean further delay to the public in the supply of solicitors. I have always found that the Minister and the Under-Secretary are most sympathetic. If you put up a good case they look at it from the public point of view and, if they are pleased with it, they will help you in every possible way. I suggest that the case I have put up is a good one, and I feel certain that it is one which the Minister and the Undersecretary will consider most sympathetically.

As a practising solicitor and one who has seen the difficulties that have been experienced in the course of the war in respect of practice and the service necessary to be given to the community by the profession, I think the House will perhaps bear with me for a moment or two. I was very impressed, and I am sure the House must have been, with the presentation of this matter by the hon. and gallant Member for South Croydon (Lieut.-Colonel Rees-Williams). He knows the position very well because daily he is in contact with the matter in the course of his tutorial duties. There are a number of matters, however, that he has not touched upon, and.I hope that the Minister will realise how serious this position is. Of course, one knows that the public from time to time is apt to make certain remarks about the profession in a somewhat light vein, but the fact of the matter is that there is practically nobody in the whole of the community who does not, at one time or another, seek legal advice, or, what is much more important, who ought not at some time or another to seek legal advice and so prevent himself from getting into difficulties which otherwise he might have to face.

I think everybody here will appreciate that, in view of the tremendous amount of Orders and the vast quantity of legislation passed in recent years, it will be an extremely difficult matter for the public to be properly assisted unless men who are trained in the law—particularly on the solicitors' side—are in a position to understand as nearly as they possibly can what those Regulations mean, so that they can advise the man in the street or the man in business or the unfortunate person who finds himself in difficulties as to what is his legal position. We are to have more legislation. It is hard for people to imagine that the average man will understand exactly what this legislation means. There are many Members of this House, after having heard the arguments adduced in respect of. the various items which later appear in Acts, who will still find themselves in difficulties when they come to try to interpret what the Acts actually mean. The solicitor is trained to be able to do so— I do not say on all occasions he is able to find his way through the mass of legislation—but his training is such that he is able to do much better, putting it at its very lowest, than the layman can do in respect of these matters, and he can accordingly give advice.

The House has heard of the shortage that exists. What are we going to do about this position unless we can get men released, first in order to undergo the training to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred, and then to advise? There will be a hiatus which it will be difficult to remedy unless something is done immediately. The profession has been over-burdened, and I hope the House will agree with me that it was literally impossible for those men who remained to wade through the mass of Regulations that appeared on the Statute Book. Many of us tried to get our opinions from our friends the barristers, and of course, they were in an almost similar position to ourselves because, in many cases, a barrister would refuse to give a definite opinion on Regulations or Acts, because he had not the time to study them sufficiently closely.

My hon. and gallant Friend has just referred to the profession as it deals with the family side. I quite agree with him that most solicitors have a fair amount of trials and tribulations, but on the litigious side it is even worse than on the conveyancing and probate side. The solicitor has not only to advise but he has to prepare the case, and the judges are not, if I may say so with respect, very favourably inclined towards the solicitor whose case is not quite in apple-pie order. They make comments, which in some cases are unjustified, because one's staff has been unable to prepare the papers in the way in which they were prepared before the war. The difficulties created by the war are in many cases not regarded as sufficient explanation by the courts. Of course, there are not sufficient solicitors in the offices to work up every detail, so that a case can be presented in a full and correct manner on all occasions to the courts. A solicitor is an officer of the court, and even in this honourable House there are certain matters on which he is entitled to plead his duties as an officer of the court. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think a solicitor or barrister can be compelled to serve on any Standing Committee. In any case it has been the practice not to compel a solicitor or barrister to do so. He has a tremendous responsibility. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, it is the only profession in which deferment was not granted automatically to members, no matter what kind of case might be put forward. There were, of course, temporary deferments, but on the ground of the national necessity of the profession itself, there was no deferment. No com- plaint was or is made about that, and those who remained did their best to cope with the difficulties which presented themselves. Now that the war is over, the Minister ought to realise that there has not been continuous experience, either through training in solicitors' offices by articled clerks or by men who will be coming into the profession later, or, indeed, by many of those who were already in the profession when they joined H.M. Forces. It is essential that this profession should be regarded as an important asset to the community, as it is, and that releases should be granted accordingly.

There is another point. The solicitors' profession does a considerable amount of free work under the Poor Persons Rules— much more than the average layman realises. In many instances the cases that come under the Poor Persons Rules are very much heavier than those which come in the ordinary way. In consequence there has been a large amount of work which cannot be coped with because there have not been sufficient solicitors available, and in many offices those anxious to help the litigant who was not able to stand legal expenses have had to tell the Poor Persons Department that they could only take a portion of the work which they dealt with before. It is very important indeed that professional men should be available so that they may deal with the situation and further help the litigant who is not in a position to pay, and who has to apply for poor persons' relief. In those circumstances, I would ask my hon. Friend: Why not release them? There is no urgent need to retain this small number of men in the Forces. Among the officers whose releases have been deferred there are a number of men who are in the legal profession or training for the legal profession. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite right. They cannot come straight back into an office because, if they do, the already overburdened solicitor in the office has to control and supervise their work. They have to take some kind of refresher course first, so as to make themselves adequately available for general use in the profession. By deferring their release for months it means deferring the possibility of the work being coped with for the same period.

I could offer suggestions as to how this position could be met in the Army, if I might be allowed to do so. For example, I do not see any reason why men in the ranks and non-commissioned officers should not be given a greater opportunity of training for officer rank so as to be able to release men already of officer rank. That is a matter which ought easily to be dealt with by those who know the methods much better than I do because of their inside information. There are plenty of capable men in the ranks who should be given an opportunity of rising. My hon. and gallant Friend has already said that of the young people who went into the Services from this profession a very large percentage rose not only to officer rank but to eminent rank as my hon. and gallant Friend and others have done. It is not such a serious difficulty. I hope that the Minister will not feel that the public is against him on this matter. The idea that legal people make the laws in order to help themselves, if I may say so with respect, is absolute nonsense. This House makes the laws. Does it take so much notice of the legal profession in doing so? Ministers get up and give their views and hon. Members who are members of the legal profession often have to unravel many of the difficulties created because insufficient notice has been taken of them. He should tell the public that the profession is an important profession, as it is, and as he knows it is, and if there is any public feeling on the matter he could by dropping a proper word in the proper ear get all the publicity he requires. It is essential that the profession should be supplied with as many men as it can possibly get at the present stage so that matters will not get worse. Offices are full up with work which awaits attention. The courts are bound to be delayed in consequence. That could be got over if young people were allowed to come back to do their job and I hope that my hon. Friend will do all he possibly can to enable this to be done.

The House, I think, will agree that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who initiated this Debate has raised a subject of very real importance. I feel also that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway for his expert views on the subject of the difficulties obtaining at the moment in the solicitors' branch of the legal profession. I should like to thank him also for his heartening observations on behalf of the legal profession of one of the branches of which I happen to be a member, although that branch was rather harshly referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite as "wastage." The subject of this Debate, as I understand it, is the retention of officers due for release. My hon. and gallant Friend has put forward an appeal on behalf of one section, and one alone, of such officers. I would desire to deal with the matter rather more broadly, although I agree entirely with the appeal that has been made. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the whole position with great care of all the professions, members of which are so badly needed in this country at the moment, and in the cases, for example, of lawyers, accountants, medical men and so on, see whether the extent of Class B releases could not be greatly widened and increased. Here, may I say a special word for the student? A young man, with a university, or articles, in prospect, who may have volunteered at the age of 18, is now in a very real difficulty in starting his career. I hope that the Government will consider that point.

On the wider subject of the retention of officers due for release, I would say a word or two. I think most hon. Members must have had representations on this subject from officers, who anticipated that the Bevin plan would go through strictly and equally in accordance with age and length of service group, and who have been disappointed, often in circumstances of great hardship when they have made their plans and these plans have been cancelled at the last moment. We are told that it is necessary to retain these officers. It is to meet that objection that I wish to direct these remarks. Whether the hon. Gentleman can answer these questions is very doubtful. It may well be a matter for the War Office, and as one is sure that there is proper coordination between the Departments, my observations may eventually find their way to the proper quarter.

The two suggestions which I have to make are these: One has been raised by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. I believe, after some service in the Army, that there is a vast field among other ranks and non-commissioned officers from which many could well be appointed to commissioned rank and take the place of those in or about to enter the professions and in other spheres who are due for release. We have all had representations in this regard made to us. In particular, I know myself of one case of a Regular soldier who has been a senior non-commissioned officer for the whole of the war in a position of authority and responsibility. Those in this House, and there are many, who have served in the Forces, know why he has not been granted a commission; it is because he is too valuable in his own job. That is a great hardship which we know obtains in the Services. There is a man who served overseas, always in a position of trust and responsibility, who has merited a commission. I hope that those who deal with these things will look carefully at such cases in order to relieve officers due for release and substitute for them men commissioned from the ranks.

My second suggestion is this. It is nearly three years now since, upon my return from the Middle East, I raised in the House the point that we should call for volunteers to undertake the policing and occupying of territories overseas necessary after the war. One has had cases of men who, not of their own volition very often, but who have perforce remained in civilian occupations, and who have desired after the war to take the place of those who have served and are due to come back. I hope that someone will tell us one day whether such volunteers are being called for, and, if so, how they are responding, because if the conditions and terms of service are proper and adequate, I feel that there is a fruitful supply of officers who will take the place of those, many of whom have been overseas much too long, and who are entitled to release. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for raising this matter, and I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the more general aspect which I have endeavoured to put with his usual sympathy.

The House owes its warmest thanks to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing this matter of students to the notice of the House. It is one which causes me much disturbance. My correspondence is very disturbing in regard to these men—arts students, medi- cal students, theological students, science students and all the others. I fear that if the Minister does not face up to this issue quite a number of these men will be getting on to mid-life before they are privileged to enter upon a profession. That is a very serious matter. For these young men every day that is passing since the moment the war was over is a day lost, and I hope that the Minister will face up to that, whether on his own account or in conjunction with the War Office, the Air Ministry and the Admiralty, and see to it that these men who have given their services so graciously and so valiantly in time of crisis, are released now that the war is over.

No man entering upon his career when he is going on towards mid-life can be expected to do his best, and we want these men to do their best. I hope that the Minister will go into this question anew. I have been in correspondence over this matter again and again. There is a hard and fast rule which I feel must be broken, because it is in the interests of the country that these young men should be set free and that in law, theology, arts, science, medicine, etc., they should be preparing for their work. The years are passing, they are growing older. If a man reaches mid-life he is not able to tackle work in the way that a man of youthful years is, and I make the strongest possible appeal to the Minister to go anew into this matter, and consider the feelings and aspirations of these brave men who have faced all they have faced for the good of the country, and who did not draw back in the day of battle. I hope that this will be counted to them for righteousness, and that they will receive from the Minister very favourable consideration, and that no man who has a long course before him in arts, theology, law, science, medicine, or any other branch of learning will be held back, that the Minister will say, "The war is over, we desire to help you because we know it is in the interests of the country. God bless you. Get to your work." I hope that will be the answer.

One thing that worries me is the position of solicitors who gave their sons readily to the country, sons who were in partnership with them in some cases, and who in other cases were carrying on the work. I have had a serious case in Northern Ireland brought to my notice more than once. Again and again I have brought it to the notice of those in authority, but still that aged man is compelled to carry a burden which he is unable to carry, and his son is still in the Forces. There are cases of men having built up a practice after long and laborious work, who see them today beginning to disappear because they are no longer able to carry them on as they formerly did. I hope that the Minister will take this into account and consider these brave men who are aged today, and who were no less heroes than their sons who volunteered. These men sacrificed their leisure and health and practically all so that their sons might serve their King and country. I make a strong appeal for those aged men that their sons should come back to them again and that their practices should not suffer further because of the absence of their sons. I make this appeal with confidence for our students and for our solicitors who are no longer young, whose sons have been in the Forces, where they have done their duty faithfully, and are required to take up duty now that the war is over. I hope the Minister will face up to the issue and consider it to be not only in the interests of the young men and those who are aged who require the services of their sons, but that it is in the interests of the country that these young men should again be engaged as soon as possible in their life work.

I wish to make only one short point, that is, that the lack of staff in solicitors' offices today is operating in a number of instances as a denial of justice. A number of people who have complicated claims have for months been taking those claims from office to office without being able to get one solicitor to take them on. In the liquidation of the war contracts situation there are a number of cases in which the claims are of a complicated nature. They are often the claims of sub-contractors in cases where contracts have suddenly been broken off. In this type of case the big people are all right. They have solicitors who are actually on their staffs or to whom they are such important clients that they get special consideration. It is the sort of middle contractor with a complicated claim who simply cannot get his work done. It is said that it is essen- tial to the working of any civilised system that people should have access to the courts, but it is the case that today that access is being denied, because a number of people with good, just and well-founded claims are being refused the opportunity of bringing them before the courts, simply because no solicitor can take on the job. If justice is considered important in this country, and if free access to the courts is considered as being a priority in this country, then the opportunity of that access should be provided and some relief should be given to solicitors' staffs.

I rise to say a very few words directed to two classes of men about one of which I would like to make a few observations and about the other to ask one question. What fills me with a great deal of disquiet is the revelation that a number of men, about whose release there is no dispute, are, in fact, not released. On 25th July the Minister of Labour took the decision to release some 3,000 students of various universities, but over three months later less than a third of that number had been released. I know from inquiry at Cambridge, and no doubt it is true of Oxford and of other universities, that tutors who have applied for releases of their men have had a very unsatisfactory proportion of those applied for coming back. I have been considerably disturbed about the prospects of men whose release has been acceded to but who have not been released. There is the case, for example, of a man whose release was ordered by the War Office on 30th July; yet when, at the end of October, I began to make inquiries, I found he was still being traced from record office to record office, and his whereabouts had not been discovered. There was a discharge granted on 30th July in England, I believe, and the man had not been discovered at the end of October. Fortunately, he was given a fortnight's embarkation leave before going to India, and after being due to sail on 5th November, was released in the nick of time on 3rd November. There was a man about whom there was no dispute, and, if it had not happened that a Member of Parliament had intervened, he would have been sent to India for an indefinite period although his release had been ordered four months earlier.

In the case of another man—I hold the War Office letter in my hand—I find that actual instructions for the release were given on 3rd September. Something went wrong, and instructions did not reach the unit. I was told of the case and made inquiries at the War Office, with the result that at the beginning of December he was released. And so it goes on. A man away in the Middle East, applied for on 22nd September, heard nothing more until a Member of Parliament intervened, late in November, whereupon he was immediately released by the War Office. It is not justice that men like these should depend on the chance intervention of a Member of Parliament and, failing that, be left where they are until the end of the emergency period, or whatever period might be involved. I would like to have some reassurance from the War Office, or from the Ministry of Labour, that this capacity for losing men completely will in some way be corrected.

The one question I want to ask is in regard to the position of a certain class of teachers. No one can doubt the importance of getting teachers out of the Forces as soon as possible, in view of the shortage there is in every branch of the teaching profession. What I am not clear about is the position of the teacher who is not coming back to a definite post. I have in mind a case concerning a man serving in the Far East. By his length of service and the nature of his employment, he is entitled to be released under Class B, but he wants to apply for a post at another school, and, obviously, he cannot do that in the depths of the Middle East. I would like to be told whether there is any machinery, and if so what the machinery is, by which a man of that kind can make his case known and have it considered by the appropriate Department, and ultimately by the War Office. If the Parliamentary Secretary could answer that point, I would be extremely grateful, because it affects a number of men whose cases are rather urgent, and who are needed here much more than in the positions they are holding at present in the Forces.

The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), who I am sorry to see is not in his place at the moment, has just done a brilliant piece of advertising for a profession which has far too few opportunities of advertising its great work to the community. He made an eloquent plea for more solicitors, in view of the spate of legislation which now confronts the citizens of this country. I must confess that I have every sympathy with what he said. There are so many rules and regulations and delegated legislation about that I myself find it increasingly difficult to remain out of jail, and that is what is happening to so many people in this country. At this moment there are more people in jail than at any time for the past 25 years. I thought that was possibly due to the postwar crime wave, but, having listened to the hon. Member for West Leicester, I think it is partly due to the shortage of solicitors. Therefore, everyone will have sympathy with the eloquent plea he has made today. I would like to deal with this question a little more generally, and to make a plea for all officers who are being kept back far longer than they expected. I suppose every hon. Member receives hundreds of letters from men all over the world who expected to be demobilised with their age group, but who are now being kept on beyond that time. It is all the more galling to many of these men, because they do not appear, to their minds, to be doing anything useful where they are stationed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some facts and figures as to what is to happen to many of these men. The real trouble is quite simple. It is that the Government have not yet made up their mind as to the size of the postwar Army, Navy and Air Force. Until they do so, these men, presumably, must remain in the Services. The hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) said quite rightly that there are many officers who would be prepared to remain on in a voluntary capacity if they had the faintest idea of the sort of conditions which would face them in the Services. Some of them would stay for short term commissions, and some would stay on permanently, but I do not think there is any solution to this problem until the Government can come out and say exactly what is to be the size of the post-war Army.

Is it in Order to discuss general questions of release of officers from the Forces upon the Motion which is before the House? I understood that the Motion was concerned with the release of law students.

:It is perfectly competent to discuss general questions of release, although I think the original notice to the Minister of Labour was restricted to law students, and it will be appreciated that no representatives of the Services are present.

On that point of Order. I think the Motion for the Adjournment is for the retention of officers when due for release. I hope that, as a result of this Debate, we may succeed in prising out of the Parliamentary Secretary some indication of the Government's plans with regard to the postwar Army and also its conditions, because it is the point which is most relevant to what we are discussing today. Only last week I had a case of an officer who wanted to stay on. I thought it was difficult to get a man out of the Army, but I discovered it is even more difficult to get him back—that is, if he wants to go back. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there are many thousands of officers who would be prepared to stay on if only they knew the conditions.

I think this Debate goes even deeper than discussing the actual date of release or the conditions of release. What is worrying many of these young men in the Forces today is, what is going to happen to them when they come out. Are they going to have facilities for training and for starting a profession? We have to remember that many of these young men went into the Forces practically from school. They will come out at the age of 23 or 24, with no profession whatsoever behind them. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, if not today, at any rate in the near future, will give some indication of what are the courses available for them. I know he has a very nice little blue book with him which is supposed to offer these facilities to officers, but my experience is that very much more than what is. contained in the Ministry of Labour pamphlet would be required to deal with the large numbers of men who are entirely untrained for civilian occupation. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate has brought forward this subject. I know he is particularly interested in law students. I am not a lawyer and, therefore, I am prepared to accept all that he has said, but I hope the effect of this Debate will be that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give the House more assurance than has hitherto been forthcoming.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for. Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) for contributing to this Debate and enabling us to direct our minds to the more general question of releases from the Forces, instead of centralising the Debate on lawyers. I think there was one intervention from the hon. Member for Down (Dr. Little) who dealt with the question of the release of students at large. There was also a previous complaint that students of law had not been granted parity with other students in their release, and there is a very good reason for that. I think the hon. and gallant Member for South Croydon (Lieut.-Colonel Rees-Williams) listed a number of students who had had priority in release over students of law. Who were they? They were students of medicine who are very necessary in the life of our people. Then dentists are very necessary, because curing a toothache is more important than the headache which the lawyers are likely to give us. A veterinary surgeon is most important. A student of architecture is most important; accordingly—and quite rightly—the Ministry of Labour give precedence to those students over students of law who are not productive at all.

Would my hon. Friend say that an arts student was more important than a legal student?

With my great appreciation of the aesthetic side of life, I would certainly say that an art student is more important to the life of the community than a legal student, who only involves us in more longwinded difficulties. I think my hon. Friend probably has in mind other students of a different complexion. Art students contribute more to the gaiety, beauty and joyousness of life than these sombre advocates of the law who make a nuisance of our lives in the manner which we know so well. Great play has been made in the Debate of the fact that there was almost no deferment for members of the legal profession, and quite rightly, too. They have been of no productive use to the community in peacetime.

What does the hon. Gentleman think he is doing here if he has those views on lawyers? What is the point of making laws if you are not going to allow them to be interpreted?

I welcome the interjection.??? hold the conviction that in previous Parliaments there were two elements which were predominant and which could very well be lessened. The first—and I say it without bias—was the trade union leader element, and the second was the lawyer element. We have, to a degree, dissipated the trade union leader element, and now I hope we shall deal with the lawyer element, because I feel we need in the House representatives from the man in the street who can put a plain and straightforward point of view with regard to simple law, moral and ethics.

Would the hon. Gentleman perhaps start on the President of the Board of Trade?

I have a great admiration for the President of the Board of Trade, and I am not castigating the whole of the legal profession.

On a point of Order. Is this within the terms of the Motion?

I am addressing myself completely to the Motion. I am speaking from the point of view of the right of other members of the Forces to release, not only in parity with the members of the legal profession but to take precedence over members of the legal profession in regard to release. Some weeks ago I put down a Question as to whether the Minister of Labour would consider the release from the Forces of those who had served five years, and I maintain, with all due respect, that members of the Forces, whether they be dustmen, engineers, agricultural workers or miners, all have a greater right of precedence to release from the Forces, particularly if they have served live years, than members of the legal profession.

Does the hon. Gentleman not know that, in fact, preference has already been granted, and in common sense these men will not be able to deal with their various difficulties from the legal standpoint unless they have someone to help them?

I grant the point made by the hon Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) to a degree, but the fact is that lawyers have been found necessary in the past because in the social structure there are certain inherent weaknesses, and we shall do our best to avoid those weaknesses in the future. It is a fact that the legal profession functions only on the basis of people's difficulties, whether it be between one person on another or between one business and another, and, accordingly, litigation is called for.

If we are to talk at all about the question of the release of members of the Forces, I think we ought to bear in mind the Debate that took place yesterday. We should bear in mind that of greater value to the economy of this country would be the release of any person who would be useful in our export trade. He should take precedence over any member of the legal profession, or of any other non-productive profession which has had no real constructive or useful place in the function of our society. Would hon. Members submit for one moment that a law student should take precedence in release over a miner or an agricultural worker, or any other member of the community who is concerned with productive work? I ask hon. Members who belong to the legal profession to bear this point in mind. The economy of this country needs, above all, productive workers, and the incidental fact that certain difficulties in the private lives of those productive workers may be alleviated by the intervention of members of the legal profession is a secondary consideration. I cannot see why priority of any kind should be granted to members of the legal profession in their release from the Forces. I ask the Minister of Labour to harden his heart against this plea, and to switch his activity to the further release of all those who can be of real service, particularly in industry, to the community.

The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) has no doubt eased his feelings a good deal by his observations, feelings as to whose origin and cause one may perhaps speculate, but his argument, based upon what he believes or does not believe to be productive work, is a very dangerous one. It is only too easy to take the view that people who do work other than one's own are not producers, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that the argument is a most dangerous one, and that it can easily be applied far more widely than he may think. I do not intend to be led up that diverting bypath which the hon. Member so gaily and lightheartedly walked.

This Debate gives an opportunity for discussing matters somewhat more serious than even the prejudices of the hon. Member opposite. It enables the House to give vent to feelings, widespread and by no means confined to any one section of the House, affecting the lives and existence of a considerable number of our fellow countrymen. It is to that matter that I respectfully invite the attention of the House. I do not think it is necessary to add to the advocacy which has been lavised upon students of the solicitors' profession, save to comment that the argument of one of my hon. Friends that everybody sooner or later has to come to a solicitor might be applied with equal force to the undertaking profession. The case of students of the solicitors' profession has been so well put that it is not necessary for it to be reinforced. The case I desire to urge upon the Minister is that of students generally. The meagre and inadequate concessions that have been made by his Department and the Service Departments to the needs of students call for consideration and an expression of opinion. The very small concessions which have been wrung from the Minister touch a very small number of students, and now that we have the Minister here, I wish to put one or two considerations to him. My plea is for a much broader and more generous attitude towards students generally.

I wish to put the case on two grounds; first, the point of view of the individual himself, and secondly, that of the community. As to the individual, not only in the legal profession 'but in architecture, accountancy and many other professions, prolonged and difficult training is required before a man is fit to earn his living. The student, in any of these and many other professions, who returns from the Forces cannot, as most other people can, immediately start to earn his living. He has to spend years fitting himself to earn his living. That fact alone should give to the case of the student some degree of special consideration. Let me take, for example, the case, with which hon. Members will be only too familiar, of the student of 19 years who joined the Army in 1939 and who is now a married man of 25 with two or three children. That man is faced with several years in which he cannot earn if he is to go on with his profession. Those years will only begin to run from the date of his release from the Army and it is more than possible that he will pass 30 before he has earned a penny. I think the ordinary sense of justice of the Services and the country would regard it as right to expedite the release of such a man from his own point of view.

There is, then, the interests of the community. It is vital to the functioning of our society, and particularly vital in view of the legislation and intended legislation of hon. Members opposite, that the maximum quantity of skilled, professional technique should be available in the coming years. The man whom I gave as an example, the student of 19 in 1939 and now the married man of 25, will be very much tempted, when he is released, to abandon his profession and take up some job in which he can earn something at once. Surely, it is very much in the interests of the community that he should be encouraged in every way to continue with his profession, not for his own sake necessarily, but in order to secure that there is a sufficient reservoir of technical skill available. We know only too well that the casualties of war have very much diminished that reservoir. Surely, in the broad interests of the community—I do not make this plea for any particular profession or section of the community —it is most important that the fullest possible encouragement should be given to men to qualify themselves in the more difficult and more skilful trades or professions.

Time is passing, and the plea for the student has received so far only a meagre response. If more time passes it will be too late to do anything constructive. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to give us some encouragement in the matter, and to give also some encouragement to the very large number of students involved. If some new steps are not taken in the next few weeks, it will probably be too late to take them effectively. I appeal to the Minister to put out of his mind any prejudices that there may be on the subject or any prejudices which the hon. Member for Stretford may have attempted to raise in the Minister's mind, for some reason or other. I ask the Minister to say that, on consideration of the matter, it is right, in the interests of the community and in fairness to individuals, to widen to an enormous extent the early release of students who are prepared to continue with their studies to fit themselves for responsible and difficult positions in the State.

We have had an extremely interesting Debate, and probably for the first time in my experience in the House we have had a unanimous legal opinion. Not one of my hon. and learned Friends who have spoken has differed from any other, and even hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite have agreed with them. That so many members of the legal profession should talk to the same brief without disagreeing is indeed a remarkable achievement, I was asked to come to the House to answer the narrow point put, very ably, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Croydon (Lieut.-Colonel Rees-Williams). During the course of the Debate, however, a number of other suggestions and claims have been made. I had never suspected that I looked like the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War until I heard some of the Debate, and I am sure it will be appreciated that the matters which have been raised affecting his Department ought not to be dealt with by myself, even if I could deal with them. All I can do is to undertake to draw his attention to those contributions to the Debate which affect his Department.

I am rather alarmed at the impression this Debate will create outside. I think, if my legal friends will permit me to advise them on this—gratis—there ought not to be created outside an impression that any section of our community can come to this House and make a preferential plea for their own profession. I am afraid that that is what they have succeeded in doing. I do not charge my hon. and gallant Friend who opened the Debate with that, but during the course of the Debate that was the impression created in my mind—that here was a piece of special pleading for a special section of the com- munity, and to that I could not acquiesce at all. To all sections of the community we must give the same measure of equity, we must try and treat them all alike, and wherever there is any divergence from that principle it must be on the basis of national and not individual interest. It was that line to which my hon. and gallant Friend applied his mind in his opening statement on this matter.

In the first place let us consider it from his point of view, that there must be avail able within our society an ample and continuous flow of members of the legal profession. That is extremely necessary in the highly complicated society in which we live. Legal aid should be readily available, and from that point of view I entirely agree with his contention. He went on to say that there were some 20,000 practising solicitors in this country prior, to the war. I think he would agree that that figure is a slight exaggeration. The number was probably some thousands less, but it does not really matter and dots not affect either his argument or mine. The figure I quote is supplied by the Law Society itself —

I think I know the figure which my hon. Friend is going to quote; it is probably 17,000 or thereabouts. Those are the people who took out practising certificates. In addition to them, however, there were a number of others, employed by local authorities, who did not take out practising certificates, and I can assure him that 20,000 is a fairly accurate figure for the whole number of solicitors engaged in legal work, though not necessarily practising.

I am not in conflict with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I appreciate that the figure of 20,000 includes legal gentlemen in administrative posts—clerks to local authorities, and posts of that sort. Of the number who are practising, some 6,000 have joined the Services, and I think it is true to say that they have made a remarkable contribution to the staffing of our Armed Forces, and one for which I am sure the country will show proper gratitude. My hon. and gallant Friend then went on to describe the sufferings of certain family solicitors whose sons have gone to the Forces. Those family solicitors have now become aged and overworked, and are in urgent need of the return of their sons. They are in urgent need of assistance. That is a story which could be duplicated in all walks of life in Britain It is not limited to the legal profession, and we must not give a greater measure of relief to the legal profession than we give to any other section of the community.

There is provision for that. There are class C releases—compassionate releases, and on that matter we accept the advice of the best and the most expert body in the country, the Law Society, which can make its representations through the Lord Chancellor's Office and, if the Lord Chancellor is satisfied in an individual case that it is a proper one for compassionate release, I do not know of a single case in which his advice has been turned down. Then there is another method, the nomination of individual specialists, to deal with our local administration. Both the Ministry of Health and the Lord Chancellor can make representations in such cases, and so far as my information goes, those representations have never once been rejected. On compassionate grounds, therefore, there is no special case to be made out for the legal profession which cannot be made out for every other section of the community, and we are treating them on a par with the other professions.

I was interested in another figure quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend. He said that 3.500 students had been called up. the vast majority of them, if I recollect correctly, were in groups 26 to 28. 3,500 is a very large number for the training capacity of this country, and we shall be faced in the spring of next year with the return of the majority of those men, for whom facilities will not be available. I want to make it quite clear that I am certain our Department will not be a party to putting in now civilian students who will exclude the men who are to return from the Forces. That is the difficulty we are up against, not only in this profession but in many other professions. Our training capacity may be entirely inadequate to meet the demands of the men returning from the Forces. I am sure this House would not stand for an increase in the intake of civilian students at the expense of keeping out men discharged from the Forces. We think that those groups, 26 to 28, will be out in the spring of next year, probably all of them by the end of May.

Even the officers?

I am advised, even the officers—and if that is the case, the Law Society has a big job of work in front of it to prepare for the reception of all those returning students. In those circumstances I do not think any special claim ought to be made for a larger intake of students direct from civil life.

Now I come to the next point. What is the picture from the national point of view? Is there really a shortage of solicitors? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] There are 60 now registered with the Appointments Section of the Ministry of Labour, with an average increase of four or five every day. That is the position. There are 60 unemployed solicitors, and that number is being increased by four or five every day. We say that those men must be absorbed. If there is such a gross shortage in this profession as is alleged, why is it that by the end of this month we shall probably have a hundred unemployed solicitors, some of them ex-Servicemen?

I think my hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that many of those men have not had an opportunity of retraining themselves for their profession. They have to take courses before they can be employed.

Then we come to training. They could certainly go into solicitors' offices. I think I am right, but I speak subject to correction in saying that a discharged soldier, or anyone discharged from the Armed Forces, who had trained himself completely before going in is entitled on coming out to a refresher course, in order to resettle himself.

That is why they are at present unemployed.

But even then, if the student is fully trained and has passed his examination, he is available to take up employment. Surely, if solicitors' offices are so overwhelmed with work, a man of that sort would not be unhelpful or unuseful to them? I should have thought he would be of the greatest help.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that a six-year gap in the life of any solicitor is a most serious matter? Will he not also agree that the vast majority of solicitors who have been serving during this war have served in a non-legal capacity, and have not been able to keep up their legal knowledge?.

That may be so, but they are under no greater handicap than members of any other profession. Take for example doctors. Lots of doctors have been doing medical work in the Forces and lots of solicitors have been doing legal and administrative work. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On the advice that has been given to me, I believe that many of them have been doing substantial administrative work, in which the law was involved.

We are anxious, in the first place, to do nothing unjust towards the legal profession and we do not want to place students in an unfair position. The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) raised a very important consideration about students generally, and I felt a great deal of sympathy with his point of view. We had a meeting with the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities and we are due to have a meeting with the headmasters, to consider this new field. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member would appreciate that the matter cannot be considered in isolation. It must be considered in relation to the intake that we have to find for our Forces.

I might not have made my submission quite clear. It had nothing to do with the intake to the Forces. It related solely to accelerated release.

If it refers entirely to release, then we are up against an entirely new consideration. In release, one has to consider more particularly the sense of equity. We are up against a much more inflammable situation than we might be at the other end. We do not want to create the impression that some men, because they have soft hands, shall come out more quickly than other men who have hard hands. We do not want to create a division in the Forces between the professional and the manual. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member does not want to create such an impression.

The principle of the release of students has already been conceded by the Department. My plea was in regard to the practical application of it.

The Department has conceded that principle not in the interests of students but in the national interest. We are anxious to tune up the universities and the colleges to such a degree as to enable those institutions to make immediately available places for the men discharged from the Armed Forces under Class A. We shall not get such a flow of students under Class B as to make it impossible for the universities and colleges to take men who are discharged from the Armed Forces under Class A. The hon. and gallant Member says that we are a long way from that. I am sure that we are not. I should like to speak from this Box with complete confidence that we have a training vacancy for every man who will come out under Class A. One of the matters that we discussed with the Vice-Chancellors was this important question. We must make room in our universities and colleges for the men discharged from the Forces under Class A. We have given an undertaking to these men when we were in dire danger, and we must redeem those undertakings now.

I believe I have covered most of the points that were raised. I am sorry that I could not be more helpful. I want to assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Croydon that we shall look at the report of this Debate closely. If there is anything we can do to relieve special pressures on any profession in this country, in the national interest, and to raise the general standard of technical equipment and knowledge, we shall do it. It is from that point of view that we shall look at it. In that sense I am very grateful to the hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate, so that we can get a general, broad picture of the ideas that are influencing the minds of Members.

Before the Minister sits down may I ask him a question about solicitors being able to appeal to the Lord Chancellor? I want to know whether that can be done by solicitors in Northern Ireland when a solicitor requires his son home. Would he please answer the question as I should very much like to know?

I am afraid I shall have to ask for notice of the question, as it particularly refers to Northern Ireland. I will undertake to let the hon. Gentleman have the correct answer to his question.

Can my hon. Friend say a little more about the point raised by the Junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), the delay in the release of teachers in the Forces, in India and elsewhere, who seem to be already overdue for Class B release? Although I know his Ministry is only on the threshold of Service Departments, so to speak, is his general interest in the working of Class B releases not such that he can say to the Service Departments: '' Please let us know what you are doing about these people inside your Service?"

With regard to teachers, that is a matter for the Minister of Education and the Service Departments direct. All we do is to make certain allocations. I am afraid the question should be addressed to the right. Hon. Lady concerned with that Department.

But it is a blot on your system.

I think the Minister was not in the House when I made my few remarks. In regard to block release, I recall that the Minister of Labour stated that the release of 3,000 art students was decided on on 25th July. Yet four months later, fewer than a third have actually been released. What is the Ministry doing to get the remainder of those people out? Can the Minister tell me how many have now been released?

Notification has been sent in regard to every one of those asked for by the Minister of Education. They have been sent to the members of the Services by the Service Departments. We are assured of that, but it does appear that it is taking a very long time to reach some of them in the distant places and theatres of operation. We have looked at this matter and we are pressing the Departments. The allocations have been made and it is the business of the Service Departments to see to it that they take up the whole of their allocation. Otherwise, the whole of our figures are upset. More than press them I am afraid we cannot do.

Kick them hard.

Does the Ministry do anything to check the releases in order to see that the War Office have, in fact, released people whom it was agreed should be released?

We check only numbers. We do not check persons. The hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the figure which we had obtained from the Service Departments. I agree that the result is not satisfactory.

I should like to put a further point to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not sure how far the hope he expressed in the last part of his statement is illusory. Can he tell me whether the Law Society may have a trickle of students now, straight away, so that a large body coming out at more or less the same time can be avoided? Otherwise, there will be great congestion in the training of the students, and it will mean that the public will be deprived of their services because they will not be able to get trained in these circumstances.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary make an inquiry of the Law Society to ascertain whether the large flow of cases is being adequately dealt with in the national interest?

I am very conscious of the shortcomings of the operations of the Act, especially in South Wales, where, I am sorry, provision is not made for more. With regard to the trickle, here is the difficulty we are in, and hon. Members must face it. If one pushes one man out before his turn, he will be keeping someone else back. If it can be done without keeping someone else back, we will look at it sympathetically, and if we can meet the point of my hon. and gallant Friend, we shall certainly meet it.

I would point out that, if the hon. and gallant Member wants to make a speech he can get no reply. This House should not be considered a common forum for making speeches. It is a House of debate in which speeches are answered. In my view it is contrary to the spirit of Parliamentary custom merely to use it as a platform for speech making.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, although I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend is going to talk about, and 1 may not agree with him when he says it, may I ask you to confirm that there is nothing which limits the rights of any Back Bencher or Front Bencher to say anything on the Adjournment—

1 merely pointed that out, and there I am finished, provided the speech is in Order.

1 am a little embarrassed by what you have said, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps before speaking I may explain the reason why I am taking this somewhat unusual course. The Private Member is in the somewhat embarrassing position that he is unlikely to have an opportunity to express the views of his constituents upon broad matters of policy which affect the country in a general Debate, because there are so many people who want to speak in that general Debate. He has the right on the Adjournment to raise specific items provided they do not affect legislation, but in this Parliament, people are so keen that Members of Parliament find it very difficult indeed to get the Adjournment. It happens that I wish to say a word in the course of my speech about a very large factory in my constituency named the Austin Aero Factory. That factory has had vital decisions taken in respect of it operating between now and 31st December. I have balloted for the Adjournment, and been unsuccessful, for the purpose of raising the matter, and it is my duty to my constituents, as I see it, to raise it.

I hope that I do not incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, in continuing, but I feel that, in the interests of democracy, an opportunity should be given to a Member of Parliament, which he would not get otherwise, to express his views. Otherwise, we would get involved in a situation in which, when the Government finally decided on an issue of policy, we only had the opportunity to vote for or against, and did not get a chance to air in public such views as we possess, or might consider our constituents possess.

In my view, everyone in this country has been gravely impressed by the recent Debates in the House of Commons, and by the consequences of those Debates. I am accepting these Agreements and I am not in any way trying to go back over the ground that we have all been discussing, but I am desirous of our facing the situation with which we are now confronted, and that situation as I see it is this. We have returned, or under these Agreements we shall return, to a world of free international enterprise. I would like to adopt in my argument this sentence from the leading article in '' The Times '' today:

" Whatever the fate and final shape of the Washington draft agreements, the standard of life and world influence of this country will be decided by the output a manhour in factories working for export and for essential home needs."

We are now faced with a situation in the world that we have got to be able at least to hold our own, and preferably compete successfully with other countries such as the United States, in the markets of the world. Reciprocal bulk purchases will now be excluded, and we shall, therefore, have lost the benefit of the bargaining factor that we are the greatest importing country in the world. Now in view of that, I would like, with great respect, to make, so that it will be reported in Hansard, for the consideration of the Government, the following general remarks and in so far as the Government are already in agreement with them, I apologise for raising them. America possesses two very great advantages over us in the trade international position. First, that she has not suffered during the war like we have suffered. Her factories have not been bombed and she has not had to make a colossal war effort on quite the scale that we have. Secondly, she is able to go in for mass production on a scale upon which we are not able to go in for it, because her home market is so much bigger and partly for other reasons. She is, therefore, able on the whole to have great ad- vantages in competing with this country. What is the approach which we can follow in this country in relation to our trade policy, and our general national policy so that we can hold our own with America in the cut-throat competition that is bound to result from what we have agreed to this week. I suggest that the recent General Election was fought upon the general principle that we must accept a planned economy which will combine economic and political democracy. The doubts that some of us have had yesterday have arisen over our interpretation of the question which the Prime Minister himself put at Blackpool in these terms:

" We want to co-operate, but in co-operating we must see that we do not surrender the power to plan here at home."

The Foreign Secretary also said:

" We must stand for bulk purchase."

While I do not suggest that either of these policies has been rendered impossible of attainment by the agreements, I do think that they are made very difficult to fulfil, and we must face the fact that it will be a very difficult thing indeed to plan our foreign trade. We must also recognise, and I am here referring to the darker side of the picture, not only that as a result of this, capitalist America has ensured that Socialist Britain will compete with capitalist America under an international system which is on the whole favourable to capitalism, but also that enterprise in this country is bound under this Government to be not so enterprising as it would have been if there had been an administration of hon. Members opposite. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that I have received the solitary support of one Member opposite in this speech, but I merely suggest that we have to accept that as a fact, and I do not know whether the hon. Member would like the policy that I am proposing for the Government, namely, that we must compensate for that by public enterprise and mixed enterprise, on a far greater scale than has so far been announced by the Government.

I would like, in outlining four general principles, to remind hon. Members of the most important speech made by the President of the Board of Trade at Blackpool. I do not hesitate to continue to produce this document, because it seems to me to be of such importance to the movement to which I am proud to belong. On this occasion he said, as regards this question of national planning, which is the subject upon which I am speaking:

"Those of us who have been concerned with the planning of war industries… realise that when we come to the far broader national plan that will be required, with its degrees of nationalisation and control in different industries, we shall be faced with a very difficult technical task, a task made the more difficult because no due preparations have been made for its accomplishment. We must not lead the people to believe that this is some easy Utopia into which we are inviting them to step. We have got to engender in the people the same spirit of determination to see this programme through that they have displayed in winning the victory in the war. Unless we do that, we shall, I am afraid, find that when we get back into power we are met by difficulties which it will be almost impossible to overcome."

The Government have, without the slightest doubt, got the confidence of the people of this country, but they have not yet got the enthusiasm of the people of this country, and it is my respectful submission that it is vitally important that we should, in the words of the President of the Board of Trade, capture that spirit of determination to which I have referred. To do that I suggest that the following four principles, to which I will not refer in any detail, should be announced to the House and to the country. As a preliminary, of course, I should say that the announcement of the conditions upon which the National Investment or Development Board will be established is a matter of vital importance to all the four principles, but to save time I will not refer to this inter-relationship. First, as to the integration of scientists and science in the broad national plan, if we are to improve our production one of the best ways is that we should make a better use of our scientists than any other country in the world. Second, in order to achieve this enthusiasm to which I have referred, I suggest that the Government adopt a really imaginative line of propaganda to the people of this country, that they announce a national plan to the people so that we can understand exactly where we are. I am saying this in no pessimistic sense at all, but in view of what "The Times" described as an "economic Dunkirk" it is appropriate that we should raise the spirit of the people of this country in the same way as it was raised in 1940. This must be done if we are to play that part in the affairs of the world that is so necessary for our future. The third—and I can hardly overestimate this because I feel most strongly about it—is that the Government should extend the joint production committees throughout the whole of industry. It is an integral part of Socialism that you should raise the necessary spirit of enthusiasm among the workers by associating them with the processes of production.

I have often heard people say, "Well of course, all that the workers are interested in, is their food or their drink or their women." It is a perfectly fair answer to that to say that, even if it be true, and I do not accept that it is true, the reason is, that you do not give them a chance to be anything else, because you do not allow them to have a say in the running of the factories in which they are working, and because of that you cannot make industrial democracy a reality. The Government have a golden chance now to make Socialism real to the workers by arranging for joint production committees in all the factories in this country. It was done in 1942 in the engineering industry by an agreement initiated by the Amalgamated Engineering Union. That agreement was due to come to an end when the war finished.

Here I would like to raise one special case which arises in my own constituency, in no critical manner, because it would be hardly fair for me to be critical when the President of the Board of Trade is not here. I must, however, state the facts. There is, in my constituency, a factory known as the Austin Aero. It is capable of producing 50,000 cars a year. It is one of the most efficient factories in Britain, and it has about a quarter of a mile of total coverage under which you could arrange assembly lines that would be almost invaluable for industrial purposes today. That factory is, under the existing proposals, to be withdrawn from making aircraft and aero-engines and turned into an Admiralty gun store, with the result that a factory which at one time employed 10,000 men is now going to employ 2,000. The point I desire to make is that in this factory the shop stewards concerned are very active politically, although they are not of my political persuasion. I am raising this question not because it does me any personal good but because it happens to be in my constituency. The convener is a member of the Communist Party. [An Hon. Member: "That is always the case."] It will therefore be seen that I have no political axe to grind. But these shop stewards made a request to the Regional Board as long as nine months ago in order to find out what was to happen to their factory. They were told by the Regional Board that they could not consider it because the agreement between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the engineering industry did not cover the transfer from war to peace. Therefore, the workers in this factory, thousands of them, did not know in advance what was likely to happen to them and, therefore, they had no opportunity at all of playing a part in an essential decision on which the whole of their industrial lives might depend.

I am not in any way saying this with the intention of casting reflections upon the Government. It happened as a result of Coalition policy, but it illustrates my point that in the future we must establish the closest possible contacts and the best possible machinery by which the workers in industry can have a say in the control of the industry, and should be able to help in the taking of decisions as to what the future of an industry will be in which they are expected to work. That is the root and kernel of our Socialist faith, and it will be unfortunate if the proposals for socialisation, or for a National Investment Board, finally only involve the sort of consultations and relationships in industry that will take place at the top between the kind of people that are at the top. It must be understood that the workers must have a share in the plans that are made for production in their own industries. They will not be fobbed off with any other sort of plan, and it will be difficult to make them believe that anything which takes place in this House, if it does not achieve this, could be something which is called full democracy. Political democracy must be accompanied by economic democracy, and if that process is to reach fruition then I suggest to the Government that they should take every possible step to encourage the establishment of joint production machinery throughout the whole of industry.

Next, and last of the four principles, I am very anxious that the Government should get rid of a great deal of the hangover from wartime secrecy of which every Member of Parliament must be conscious. Again, I am in no way making remarks intended to be critical, but I do feel that in almost every subject debated in this House on which I have tried to exercise a conscientious judgment, I have found myself, as regards the last 10 per cent. upon which that judgment depended, groping as it were, in the dark because I was not aware of the essential facts. It is true of the decision about the factory to which I have referred, because, without knowing the whole national position, which I am not allowed to know, I cannot decide whether it is absolutely essential for the factory to be turned into an Admiralty gun store or not. It is also true of the Debate we have been having, because we could not put forward a constructive alternative to what was proposed unless we have far greater knowledge than we have of the economic position of the country as a whole.

May I finish with these general comments, and by saying that I believe profoundly that the British people is capable of rising to the greatest possible heights if it is given the chance? If we take the British people fully into our confidence— and I am again quoting from the President of the Board of Trade—

" these difficulties may be overcome and, as always with the British people, the greater the demand made upon them, the better they will fight."

This is not the time, in my view, despite what has been said, for pessimism, but the time for optimism, and the time for us to grasp the great opportunities which confront us. We must not, I think, in the Socialist movement, concentrate too much upon a bread-and-butter policy. We must recapture the original spirit of Socialism as expressed by men like William Morris and Keir Hardie and make that a flame that burns in the hearts of ordinary people. I would like to conclude by quoting four lines from a poem written 700 years ago by Sir Henry Wotton, because I am very conscious that they might apply to me personally, and because I feel that they are lines which the people of this land might well ponder at this time:

" This man if free from servile bonds, Of hope to rise or fear to fall; Lord of himself, the' not of lands And, having nothing, yet hath all."

I feel that I am, to some extent, qualified to have a word or two in this discussion by the fact that, at the Ministry of Air Transport in 1941, I was responsible, to a degree, for initiating a good deal of the kind of machinery referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for King's Norton (Captain Blackburn); that is to say, working parties and consultations with workpeople by the employers in the production of munitions. It worked well on the whole, although there were some points of administration about which one might be inclined to be critical. I agree, in general, that there is scope for what the hon. and gallant Member calls "industrial democracy," but it has its dangers and I think those dangers have been exemplified in Europe during the last half decade. The danger consists of making your industrial democracy, or in the temptation to make it, more a political indirect democracy than an industrial one. I think we must watch this danger, because there is a tendency growing up today under the name of industrial democracy towards the substitution of factory politics for Parliamentary politics, and that is precisely the way in which Germany went after the fall of the Weimar Government, with disastrous consequences involving the future of Europe.

There is the danger of the workers imagining that, because they are" engaged in industry, they are therefore outside, or parallel with, the Parliamentary democracy to which we have been used in this country and which has grown up by the peculiar nature of the British people's political development. May I give the hon. and gallant Member and the House an illustration or two of the kind of danger to which I have referred? I have, in my constituency and upon the borders of it, a number of factories, one a very large one. All are, to some degree, and the large one particularly—which is a factory employing 4,000 to 5,000 people— political as much as industrial institutions. I do not know how they find the time, nor to what degree the industry suffers in consequence, but I gather, from the politically organised works committees, shop stewards and so on, with the usual Communist background—I am not grumbling about that for the moment, but it is a fact—that they pass resolutions on all sorts of subjects, home and foreign, which come to me regularly. If some thing happens tomorrow morning in Ruritania or some place that nobody had ever heard of before—or in one of those places referred to by Mr. Lloyd George after the last war—

:Teschen.

Yes, Teschen. It does not matter where it happens, the result is that there is a deputation to this House of young girls and boys, wild with indignation, who storm into the Lobbies and send for me and other hon. Members in order to tell us what they think about what is happening in Ruritania. That is all very fine, of course, and, perhaps, does not do very much harm, and I am not grumbling too much about it. But there is the danger of that kind of interference with political machinery that is implied in such actions. They pass resolutions and send them on to me, and other people pass political resolutions at their trade union meetings and they are sent on to me. They meet in the Communist Party or the Labour Party and get someone to put forward the same resolution, and that is sent on to me, and very often a committee is set up to deal with the question in general, and more people pass more resolutions and send them on to Members of Parliament. All of this is building up an agitation which is really a fraud, in the political sense, because it does not really represent democracy or the opinions of the people, in any democratic sense or numerical fashion.

Has not the process which the hon. Member has just been describing been the means, however unfortunate, on which the party he represents has been built up?

No, I know a good deal about the way in which the party to which I belong has been built up, and it has not been built up by those methods entirely, but by methods which will be understood by the hon. and gallant Member who opened this Debate and who mentioned the names of William Morris and Keir Hardie. They were the people associated with the construction and building up of the Labour Party. This is quite a new thing in British politics, and, although it may indicate a great amount of enthusiasm and attention to political affairs in this country on the part of young people —and they are mainly young people who are doing this kind of thing—I want to stress the danger, when these people who intervene in things of that kind, have got their legitimate machinery, which is being undermined. We have seen it in the unofficial strikes—it is all part of the same thing. The trade union machinery and the political machinery is already there, and why duplicate it with machinery for factory politics under the name of works committees, shop stewards and the rest? Though these may be very good from the standpoint of creating good feeling in industry, if they are to be used for this purpose, we shall get into a situation where the prestige and value and power of this House of Commons will be undermined. It is the first step in the direction of Fascism, and we must be very careful about it.

At the same time, I agree that there is work to be done in improving the opportunities for consultation with workers inside the factories. Let me give an illustration of the kind of thing that has to be corrected. I remember that a complaint was sent to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, during the height of the blitz upon London, from an aircraft factory which had been installed in an old mansion in the North. The complaint was that the workers had not any work to do. The reason for that was a certain changeover in design, which could not be helped, but they had no work to do, although they were, of course, paid for their hours of duty. They were instructed to build a bathing pool, if you please, for the bosses—that it how it was put in the letter which was sent to M.A.P.—a glorious bathing pool in the gardens of this glorious house which had been turned into an aircraft factory. I asked the Minister of Food, who was then at M.A.P. assisting in the work there upon a voluntary basis, to go to the factory and find out what had happened. What had happened was that they were concerned about the blitzing of London and were building a tank for static water in order to protect the mansion against fire as a result of possible enemy attacks. The moral of that is that that works committee sent that letter to London with insufficient knowledge, and the people really responsible for that mistake were those who were running the factory. There ought to have been means by which the workers and the organisers could have got together to deal with and understand each other and the work they were doing. From that standpoint I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member, but I thought it was desirable that I should express the danger there is in substituting factory politics for the proper democratic machinery that exists in this country, which can be used and ought to be used by an intelligent democracy.

I want to add a few words to say that we on this side of the House—[Hon. Members: "We? "]—well, there are two of us now, are concerned about industrial democracy. There is no question that our national life can be improved and our industrial production improved by democracy finding its way to a greater extent into industry than before, but I suggest that a very objective approach is necessary. There are two dangers inherent in production committees and factory committees. One is that the committees will infringe the rights of managers. That is a very definite and a very real difficulty. The second danger is that they will pursue political objectives rather than industrial. Both those dangers have shown themselves during wartime and both have to be got out of the way if industrial democracy is to proceed. This political tendency in industry today is a very dangerous feature, although it is, to my mind, precisely the means by which hon. Members opposite have raised themselves to such power and prestige in this country. It is a real danger in that there is at the present time far too little production in industry. The level of production per man in industry today is far too low, and instead of pro- duction committees being concerned with raising that level they are, in the main, concerned merely with obtaining their political objectives. The very life, the standard of life, of our people depends entirely upon the output per man per week and that problem is not obtaining sufficient attention.

Would the hon. and gallant Member not agree with me that there is not the slightest doubt that the extension of the joint production system throughout the engineering industry has had a quite remarkable effect upon engineering production?

The increase in engineering output was due to the urgency of the emergency rather than to the effect which those committees had, and I would say that at the present time their activities are probably directed towards restricting output rather than increasing it. I am not discussing what happened in the war, I am concerned with our industrial future, and I say the standard of life of every man, woman and child depends upon the output per man in our factories. Today, instead of getting on with the job, far too many people are arguing about what happens in Batavia, and that outlook has to be eliminated. We have to get down to the real job of work, and I suggest there is scope for doing what was done in the Army, that is, putting the workman far more in the picture than he has been before; but that can only be done on the basis of a purely industrial objective and a desire to improve the general standard of living in the country.