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

This Clause raises once again the length of time during which this Bill is to be effective. The Government have up to now stood firm on their proposal that it should become a permanent Measure on the Statute Book. We on this side of the House take exception to that because we do not feel disposed to give to Ministers, this Government or their successors these powers in perpetuity. We feel that there is a case made out by the Government for a short term policy for either dissolving a Department or transferring such functions as they think should be transferred during what has become known as the transitional period between war and peace, and we have conceded to them that it is reasonable to do that by an Order in Council under the present circumstances. On the Committee stage I suggested a two years' life for this Bill. The Government did not think that that was long enough, and so I come again on the Report stage with another proposal taken from one of their own Acts, the Supplies and Services Act, which this House recently considered, which makes the life of the Bill three years if that is so desired. That is to say, it should continue in force for two years, and if at any time it is in force there is an Address for an extension for a further year making a total of three, it will be possible for such an Order in Council to be made.

We really think that three years is sufficient time during which the Government can make up their minds as to the functions which they want transferred from one Department to another Department, which Departments they want to see perpetuated, and which should have its functions completely abolished. There is no point in arguing this matter at great length as far as I am concerned, though there may be other hon. Members who would wish to put further arguments before the House. It seems to me quite clear that this business of the functions of Ministers and the whole relationship between the Executive and this House is not a thing which for all time ought to be dealt with by Orders in Council. They should be made as hitherto the subject of full discussion in this House. I quite admit that if we have an affirmative Resolution there has to be a Debate, but let it never be forgotten by the younger Members of this House that Orders in Council are not amendable in the House. It is a question of refusing or accepting an Order in Council, or getting the Government, if one is fortunate enough to do so, to withdraw it and submit another. It is not within the ordinary rules of Debate and Amendment for a Clause or Sub-section of an Order in Council to be amended. It has to be fully accepted or rejected. Let that be constantly in the minds of hon. Members. When a Bill is going through this House there are various stages during which it is possible for the Government to reconsider their position or even promise to reconsider it, though they may not carry out their promise, so I hope that the Government will see the strength of feeling that there is on our side of the House. This is not purely a Government-Opposition dispute; it is really a House of Commons' dispute. It means that all Members should retain their control of the Executive in regard to the necessity for legislation. It is not a matter of whether we sit here or sit there; it is a matter of great concern to all Members irrespective of Party. Because we feel strongly on this matter we do urge the Government to consider this way out of the difficulty. There are further stages on this Bill in another place, and perhaps the Government will once again promise to look into it.

Might I associate myself with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who proposed this new Clause, that the principle on which it really rests has already been fully discussed? The Government quite realise that the question raised is one of importance on which hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly. It is only after they have fully considered it and weighed very carefully the arguments advanced during the course of the earlier Debates, which were very similar to those made today, that they feel that they cannot alter the position they have already adopted. I am sorry to disappoint hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is not a decision that was taken light-heartedly or without taking into account the various arguments that had been adduced.

The arguments we advanced in the course of the last two Debates were, first, that this is a machinery Bill which will not only be useful to the present Administration but will continue to be useful in the future no less than it is now; and, second, that if that view is mistaken and if it does turn out that the Bill as drafted at present leads to inconvenience or some other unfortunate tendency then Parliament sometime in the future can repeal it. On this point, much as I regret to be unforthcoming, the Government feel that the attitude they have taken up is the right one, and the only one in the circumstances. I ask hon. Members to agree that that is the correct attitude. I am sorry to say we must persist in it and ask the House to decide that this new Clause cannot be adopted.

I am very sorry to see the learned Solicitor-General adopt such an unco-operative and unhelpful attitude, the more so because this new Clause is so drafted as to be a compromise between the views expressed from this side of the House and those from the other side of the House on another occasion. When a constitutional point of this importance arises it is a little unhelpful for a Law Officer to come down here and say, "We have thought about the matter, but for reasons expressed on a previous occasion we are not going to do anything about it". That indicates to my mind a mental attitude which is only too consistent with the provisions of this Bill—a mental attitude that the House of Commons does not matter but all that does matter is—to use a phrase of the Lord President of the Council—the convenience of the Government. As my right hon. and gallant Friend said, the arguments on these points have been fully gone into and there is only one thing I want to say in answer to the learned Solicitor-General. He said if the House did not like the working of the Bill it could be repealed. Is that really an argument? The learned Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that so long as the Government are supported by the present large majority, such a repeal could not be carried against them. That is a matter of practical politics. I hope I am not being discourteous if I say that so weak an argument has rarely been heard from the Government Front Bench from a Law Officer of the Crown. If there is no better argument or more sincere argument than that, it would seem that this new Clause should be carried. No real and reasoned argument has been put forward against it.

Or for it.

11.15 a.m.

The remarkable thing about this Bill is that it was not on the Statute Book years ago. Can anyone really conceive that a person who sat down to draft a constitution would say to a Government that they might not apportion the powers granted to that Government as they thought fit among the members of that Government as they thought fit? It is only by a historical accident that this Bill has become necessary at all. It ought to have been on the Statute Book years ago. It is a most sensible Measure. The view advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) was the most absurd non sequitur I have ever heard. If it can be said that it is insincere to say that if this Bill does not work properly Parliament may repeal it, because a Labour Government with a large majority will not want to repeal it, then, surely, the same argument applies with precisely equal force the other way. A Parliament which ex-hypothesi has a Labour majority, which wants this Bill, will continue it.

But the difference is that the matter would have to be reconsidered in the House of Commons, and that is a fundamental difference.

If the complaint is that it cannot be repealed against the will of the Government, it can equally be continued if the Government so will. What difference in the world does it make? The hon. and gallant Member's argument is one of the most absurd I have ever heard.

I have constantly protested from this Box and in the old House against the actions of Governments in bringing in, and unnecessarily relying upon, Orders in Council. I do not want to enlarge on the subject now, because it has been most adequately dealt with by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Capt. Crookshank), both on the Committee stage and today. But in view of the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) I cannot help saying a word or two about the attitude which the party opposite adopts towards these Orders in Council and about their authoritarian method of doing business. I challenge anyone on the other side of the House to deny that whereas Orders in Council in great abundance are necessary and, indeed, desirable in wartime the fewer there are in peacetime, and the more this House handles its business with Ministers direct, the better. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because the ordinary process of Ministerial responsibility is best carried out by the ordinary process of legislation in this House.

Orders in Council are necessary in wartime, but they are not necessary in peacetime, except in certain circumstances. These Orders have about them at least a tinge of authoritarianism. The speech of the hon. Member for Northampton showed that he, at any rate, is not merely half way, but is well on the road towards an authoritarian conception of the functions of Government. He made an astonishing statement when he asked what did it matter if the House had to consider legislation and there was a Labour Government in power, whose followers would vote for that Government?

I was dealing with the argument which was put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter), who said it was insincere to say that this House might repeal this Bill because the Labour majority would not consent to a repeal.

I was concerned with what the hon. Member himself said. I understood him to say that the fact that there would be a Labour majority in power in two years' time would mean that the House would get a proper review. I am certainly no friend of the Socialist Party; indeed, I have protested against all of their actions with all my force, but it seems that few supporters of the Government have sufficient courage to stand up against their own party. That is why I want to see the House of Commons given an opportunity to review this matter in two years' time. By then, I hope that a few members of the Labour Party, having a more independent approach than the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitcheson) would be prepared to speak up—

On a point of Order. Up to now the hon. Member for Kettering has preserved complete silence.

I cannot sufficiently apologise to the hon. Member for confusing him with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I cannot imagine a more discourteous thing to have done, and I thoroughly apolgise.

The Government's handling of this Bill has been entirely disingenuous, and that is why this new Clause has been moved from this side of the House. It is quite clear why the Government have brought in this Bill. It is obvious that they look forward, or, at any rate, look, during the next two years, while they are in power, to a period of scarcity and a lack of vital food supplies which will last as long as they are in power They wish to have ultimate power, by Orders in Council, to deal rapidly with a threatening situation which might arise in the country. It is obvious why the Government wish to have this power in their hands. We do not believe that it is desirable they should have this power, at any rate, for more than two years. We want to challenge, in the fullest possible way, the actions which could arise over this Bill, and the shortest and easiest way to do that is by Debates in this House. For that reason, we much regret that the Government have rejected this Clause although we are glad from a purely party point of view, and not from a national point of view, that they have decided to do so. Nothing will make them more unpopular in the country than their love of doing things by Orders in Council, and thus avoiding having to go through the process of ordinary legislation by being in a position to conceal as much as they can of the essential badness of their Administration.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE I.—(Power by Order in Council to transfer functions of Ministers.)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at end, insert:

"(4) Where by any Order made under this section provision is made for the transfer of functions in respect of which any Minister may sue or be sued by virtue of any enactment, the Order shall make any provision which may be required for enabling the Minister to whom those functions are transferred to sue or be sued in like manner."

During the Debate in Committee anxiety was expressed by two hon. Members whether a transfer of functions as between one Minister and another might result in a citizen being deprived of the right to bring an, action in respect of an injury which he had received as a result of anything which had been done by the Minister from whom the function had been transferred. During that Debate, I expressed the view that in point of fact a citizen would not be prejudiced by the transfer, that is to say, he would not be put in a worse position than he would have been if there had been no such transfer. The Government have looked at the matter again more closely, and they feel it right that the question should be put beyond doubt, and, accordingly, they asked me to move this new Subsection. It will be observed that it provides specifically and in terms that in the event of a transfer there shall be the same right against the Minister to whom the function is transferred as there was against the Minister from whom the function has been taken, in respect of any tortious or other actionable proceeding. The new Subsection now makes the matter abundantly clear, and I ask that it should be embodied in the text of the Bill for the purpose I have intimated, namely, to make it perfectly clear, once and for all, that the citizen cannot be prejudiced by the transfer.

As a Member who raised this point in Committee I should like to thank the Minister for acceeding to it, because I think it does preserve a valuable right to the subjects of this country. It may or may not be necessary, as the Solicitor-General has said, from a strictly legal point of view—personally I think that it is necessary—but in any case it is the sort of Subsection any reasonable man and any reasonable Government would insert. In my view, it is much better to clear it up here, and in the Bill, than to leave the matter to some unfortunate citizen to fight out at his own expense in the courts. It does show that this Government is particularly sensitive to opinions in this House, and to the views expressed by back benchers. In spite of what the noble Lord has said this morning, it also shows that back benchers on this side of the House are not always frightened to put up points in criticism of their own Government or even to move Amendments to their Bills. I congratulate the Government in bringing in this new Subsection, which is an excellent one. In these circumstances the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) and I do not intend to move the Amendment standing in our names on the Order Paper—in page 2, line 30, at end, insert:

"Provided that nothing in this Act shall prejudice any rights at present exerciseable by the subject against the Crown."

11.30 a.m.

There is one point which is the converse to the case raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Croydon (Lieut.-Colonel Rees-Williams), namely, that where a function is transferred from a Minister who may be sued to another who may not be sued. I think the law always has provided that such a transfer is a transfer subject to liability, so that the Minister to whom it may be transferred may be sued if the original grantee of the power could be sued; but there is a converse to that proposition, where a power is transferred from a Minister who may not be sued to a Minister who may be sued. This point arose in the litigation after the last war between Mackenzie-Kennedy and the Air Council. The Air Council could be sued but the actions which were brought by Mackenzie-Kennedy were in respect of powers which had been transferred to the Air Council from the Ministries who could not be sued. In those circumstances it was held, if my memory serves me right. That the Air Council could not be sued because the cause of action in respect of the exercise by the Air Council of powers transferred to them from a Minister who could not be sued. I am not clear in my mind what the position is under this Bill, and the Orders under this Bill as to that sort of situation. I would ask the learned Solicitor-General to bear in mind that where powers are transferred from a Ministry which cannot be sued to one which can he should consider whether he wishes the situation to be that the Minister can be sued in respect of new powers or not.

May I ask leave of the House to speak twice on this Subsection in order to answer a question that has just been put? The Sub-section is not designed to deal with that type of situation. In the circumstances instanced, the result would depend upon the terms of the Statute which makes the transferee Minister liable to be sued. I should have thought the position would have been this. If a cause of action had arisen before the transfer, the subject in which the cause of action was vested would re- tain the right against the Minister from whom the function had been transferred. If a tortious act was committed by a Minister to whom a function had been transferred after the transfer, the question of whether he would be liable to be sued would depend on the Statute which set him up and it would be a matter of interpretation whether the Minister to whom the function had been transferred could or could not be sued. It is a different set of circumstances from those contemplated in this Sub-section which is designed for the limited purpose of ensuring that the subject is in no worse situation by reason of the transfer than he would have been had there been no transfer.

I agree with the learned Solicitor-General. As a result of this the subject is in no worse position. On the other hand, most complicated questions may arise as to whether he is in a better position because of the transfer. I am dealing with torts that arise after a transfer. For instance the Treasury cannot be sued. If a function of theirs was transferred to the Ministry of Supply what would the position be?

The hon. Gentleman has made one speech, and he cannot make another speech on the Report stage without the leave of the House.

I am extremely sorry. I was pointing out that a complicated question arose.

If I may reply to the intervention, without again having to apply for the leave of the House to speak, I would say that the position really is that the subject could not be in a worse position, but he may, in the situation envisaged by my hon Friend, be in a very much better position as the result of a transfer.

I have very vivid le-collections of the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. Cannot the learned Solicitor-General go-a little further and look into the matter between now and the time when this Bill goes to another place, to see whether he cannot deal with the type of case which the hon. Member fears may occur again, and which, I recollect, did occur after the last war?

I do not really think it necessary, if I may say so in answer to the Noble Lord. Supposing a function is transferred from a non-sueable to a sueable Minister and this transferee Minister, in the exercise of that function, commits a tort against a citizen. Subject to any exception in the terms of the Statute setting up the sueable Minister the citizen could sue him in respect of that tort. I do not think that any further consideration of the question is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary provisions as to Orders.)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, leave out from "Council," to "shall," in line 42.

I am completely astonished at having had to put down this Amendment and I have to apologise because this was done only yesterday, but the explanation is quite clear. We debated this Bill in Committee of the whole House on Monday, and during that Debate I moved an Amendment, which received support, the effect of which was—indeed it is the same Amendment—that Orders in Council under this Measure should be subject to affirmative Resolution procedure. We had a considerable Debate, and the only reason I did not press the matter was that the Lord Privy Seal, who was in charge of the Bill at that time, said: really shakes the Government's position, gives an assurance of sympathetic reconsideration by the time it reaches the Report stage, that is tantamount to saying "We accept your proposal, not necessarily in the form of this Amendment, but the fundamental proposition you are putting up will be accepted by the Government." I am certain that within the recollection of any Member who has been here any length of time that is the ordinary Parliamentary convention. Yet when I came to look at the Order Paper yesterday to see what Amendments had been put down, I saw that although the right hon. Gentleman had put down the one with which we have just dealt and the one to which we will come next, there was not a word on this subject. Therefore I had to put it down, and that is why it appears on the Order Paper with an asterisk. I am very hurt that the right hon. Gentleman should have been forced into this position. I know him so well that I am certain that what he said to me in this House was said in perfectly good faith, and I suppose this is one of the first fruits of the transfer of functions of Ministers, though it may be an unofficial transfer. On this occasion, the Minister in charge of the Bill having given an assurance, by some transfer of powers in the background, the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister, or whoever it may be, has repudiated that assurance.

I do not want to make the same speech again or go over the whole of the ground we have already discussed. The Bill will not go on the Statute Book this morning since it has to have its other stages in another place, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will—though I do not want him to say he will, and then be placed in the awkward position of having his assurances turned down by his colleagues—say that the matter will again be considered before it goes to another place. I maintain that quotations from speeches which have been made by Ministers show that their own view, as expressed in this House, is that the affirmative Resolution is for matters of greater importance than the negative Resolution. May I remind the House that what is at issue is that the Orders in Council dissolving departments shall come before the House by affirmative Resolution, whereas Orders in Council to deal with transfers of functions and changes of title will not come before the House on the initiative of the Government but will lie on the Table and be subject to the negative procedure? That is to say, the initiative of other Members will be necessary if there is to be a Debate at all. That is what is proposed in the Bill. When dealing with this point the. Lord President, introducing the Bill on 25th January, said:

Later on the right hon. Gentleman said he would hate to have it felt that there are cases where negative Resolutions would be inappropriate on important issues, but that is a rather separate point. I put it to the House that both the Lord President and the Lord Privy Seal, who are the two Ministers concerned with this matter—the Lord President because his name is on the back of the Bill, the Lord Privy Seal because owing to this transfer of function already existing in the Government he has been invited to take charge of it this morning and on Monday—both express themselves quite definitely that there is a difference between the affirmative and negative Resolution, and that the affirmative one is suitable for more serious matters.

11.45 a.m.

Having established that point, out of their own mouths, it only remains for me to say that we consider that the transfer of functions is quite as important as the dissolution of a Department. The more I have thought upon this matter since the Bill first came before the House, which was on 25th January, the more convinced I have become of the Tightness of that view. The changes which may well be effected are not merely minor changes such as were instanced by the Solicitor-General the other day. We would all accept, as not very important, certain minor changes with regard, for instance, to the responsibility for administration of the Factory Acts. It was transferred during the war from the Home Office, where it had so long resided, to the Ministry of Labour. It may very well be that some of the powers may be transferred back. They were not all transferred. The Home Office retained one or two minor powers with regard to the oversight of dangerous practices, and others. We would all admit that that type of transfer is not of any terrific consequence. It may be that the general organisation of a big Department like the Ministry of Labour with its increasing responsibilities in labour questions might be the right place for those functions.

That is not the only sort of question which is in issue and which, I am convinced, will have to be considered by the Government throughout the existence of this Measure, and comparatively soon. There are great questions concerning the Civil Departments bound up with the whole of our Defence policy. There is the great question of whether the Ministry of Supply is to continue in its present form or its functions are to be integrated into those of the War Office. There is the question of whether the Admiralty which, all through the war has retained its own powers of supply, should have those powers dissociated from itself. I am not saying that I want to see all those things done. The House must not misunderstand me. Those are matters of fundamental importance to the safety of the State. Not perhaps in quite the same sphere is the whole question of the functions of the Ministries of Aircraft Production and Civil Aviation. It is difficult to say what the position will be if—and I use a colloquialism—the new set-up is adopted by Parliament in regard to civil aviation. It is difficult to say, with the new corporations and the nationalisation of civil aviation, whether there is place for a separate Department at all. It is really half a Department, because one Minister is mentioned for it and another one for Supply. That is a very difficult question.

Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean the Ministry of Civil Aviation?

I am so sorry if I am not clear. The question is whether it will be necessary to have a Minister of Civil Aviation and a Ministry of Civil Aviation at all. That matter must come under discussion in connection with the Ministry of Aircraft Production. To say that transfer of functions, envisaged or decided upon on that sort of scale, is to be discussed in this House merely upon a negative Resolution, is playing with the House of Commons. I am certain that these matters must come up for discussion. Decisions may already have been come to in them, for all I know. They are bound to come up. They are mixed up with the highest matters of Defence policy and Defence arrangements. To say that because these are a transference of functions they are not matters to be discussed in this House upon the initiative of the Government by affirmative Resolution is not dealing with this House fairly in matters of this kind.

We protest very much, and we ask the right hon. Gentleman again to consider the matter. I can only assume that the Government have seriously considered the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave me as recently as Monday of this week. I wonder whether they have fully appreciated all the possibilities that are opened. It is not just minor functions with which we are concerned. I would concede that there is a whole heap of minor functions with which this House would not want to be bothered if there was a proposal to transfer them. As the Bill is drafted, there is no distinction between the transfer of minor and the transfer of major functions. It is a point upon which we feel very strongly. I am certain I can acquit the right hon. Gentleman of any discourtesy and that in view of what he said he will have done his best to meet my point. It is very unfortunate that he was unable to put the argument on our behalf sufficiently strongly before his colleagues to carry conviction. It may be, as I have warned the Committee, that there is a totalitarian tendency springing up already in the bosom of the Government and that there are elements who are prepared to throw over a Minister who is in charge of a Bill when he gives a Parliamentary pledge of a kind which, up to now, has always been carried out. Even at this late stage I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can accept the Amendment. If he cannot, I ask him once again to take it back to his colleagues and see whether they are ready to make changes in the Bill when it goes through its further stages in another place.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is at present suffering from a sense of grievance. I did on the Committee stage promise sympathetic reconsideration of this point, and we have really reconsidered the question, not in the light of any arguments that I put forward, but on the basis of the speeches that were made on Monday from that side of the House. We did, I assure him, give the matter very full reconsideration on Tuesday. But for a mischance the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have known about it on Wednesday. I sent a somewhat long letter to him, which, unfortunately, miscarried. I am not blaming him for bringing the matter forward again today.

The whole purpose of the Amendment is to provide for procedure by affirmative Resolution on all Orders in Council under the Bill, but, for reasons I shall try to explain, we cannot accept it. We have agreed, however, to some concession, and there is an amendment in my name coming up a little later, to deal with the question of Orders in Council made under Clause 2. In the Bill, as drafted, there is no provision for them to be brought before Parliament at all. We have agreed that Orders in Council under Clause 2 should be dealt with by the negative Resolution procedure. That, I am afraid, is as far as we can go. I see little point in offering to reconsider the matter again, because I cannot believe that at this stage the Government will change their mind. Since the Debate we have looked at this question in its wider setting, and I am satisfied that there is little chance of our attitude changing. Let me try to put the case again. When we were devising this Bill in the first stages, we considered whether it would not be best to make all Orders under Clause 1 subject to negative Resolution. If we had done that, we might have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. There would then have been a straight issue whether to put all affirmative or all negative Resolutions. But we did not do that; we provided affirmative Resolutions for Orders dissolving Government Departments.

My right hon. and gallant Friend has again raised the argument which he used the other day regarding the importance of the subject. I do not think he is quite correct on the spirit of the statement made by the Lord President of the Council. I think that if he will look at that speech, he will see that it did not use the words "importance," or "of no importance," and so on; I think that he is importing into my right hon. Friend's statement something which he did not really mean. We do not disagree that some Orders in Council will raise issues of importance, though some will be trivial. But it does not follow that the important ones must necessarily have affirmative Resolutions.

We put down affirmative Resolutions for Orders dissolving Government Departments, not on grounds merely of their importance—they may or may not be important—but because an Order in Council of that kind dissolving a Government Department is something which vitally affects this House as a legislative Chamber. If a Department goes out of business, it affects this House in many ways; there are no more Parliamentary Estimates or chances of Debate about it, and no Parliamentary Questions. The House has had, so to speak, part of its field for exerting its authority taken away from it, and in these circumstances there is an intimate character in an Order in Council of this kind affecting the House's activities. It is right that the Government should take the responsibility and initiative in bringing forward such an Order in Council. It may be that the House ought to be sufficiently jealous of its rights to have left the matter to the initiative of the House itself by way of negative Resolution procedure. But we did not take that view, and we thought that in providing for an affirmative Resolution for Orders dissolving Government Departments we should have been handed out praise, instead of the criticism which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has handed out on Second Reading and now on the Committee and Report stages.

There is a wider aspect of this problem which came to my mind more clearly after I had re-read the speeches made on the Committee stage from that side of the House. This is not going to be the only Bill which will authorize subordinate legislation, and I very much suspect that that is what is in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind. If we allowed ourselves to have this procedure of affirmative Resolutions shackled upon us for all Bills requiring subordinate legislation, I can conceive that right Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have a fine time. I am now more suspicious than ever, particularly in view of the intervention of the Noble Lord this morning, whose knowledge of the constitution we all appreciate, and of his look of indignation at this moment. He does not like this kind of legislation because he does not like us. I do not blame him for that.

12 noon.

The right hon. Gentleman must not do me an injustice. I do not like the idea of Parliament not having the right to discuss matters. The right hon. Gentleman likes it for the same reason—because he wants to avoid as much as possible having matters discussed in Parliament.

That charge is unfounded. I have been in as many rough houses as most men. This procedure is necessitated because of the inevitable complexities of modern legislation. I have some experience of that because I was one of the villains in the dock before the Donoughmore Committee which arose out of two speeches about bureaucracy made by the late Lord Chief Justice He wart. I was then at the Ministry of Health, which made more regulations than any other Department in this country, and I came out of the argument with a clean bill of health. It was established that we had not broken the law. This fear of subordinate legislation, I assure the House, is really unfounded. We must put it into legislation today—indeed, past practice proved it necessary even when things were much simpler than they are now. We have to have reserve powers to make regulations to meet cases which could not possibly be foreseen when the Bill was before the House. That is why we are asking for these powers, and I suggest to the House that if we are compelled to bring forward affirmative Resolutions on all cases of subordinate legislation, that would hamper the will of Parliament. It would hamper the operation of an Act on the Statute Book passed by both Houses, and it is well that on many occasions the initiative should be left with the House of Commons itself. There is also that body known as the scrutinizing committee, the watchdog of the House, which will keep an eye on these things. I have sympathy with it in the heavy responsibilities which are cast upon its shoulders, but I do submit that we have gone a considerable way in providing for affirmative Resolutions at all in this Bill. It would have been far easier for us, as I said earlier, if, as was the original intention, we had provided for all the Resolutions to be negative Resolutions, and had not had any Resolutions on Clause 2 Orders at all. Having accepted negative Resolution on Clause 2 Orders, affirmative Resolution on Clause 1 (2) Orders, and negative Resolution on Clause 1 (1) Orders, I think we have done justice to the situation. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

No one can help but feel sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in the position in which he has been placed. Indeed, I find it rather hard to stand on these Benches and attack him, apart from the fact that he is a most popular Member of the House, because it is as obvious as it could be in any circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman has had to defend the Cabinet conclusion with which he was not originally in agreement. That well-meaning and strongly pressed effort to act up to the intention expressed in the Debate earlier in the week, that he would give favourable consideration to this Amendment, has not been accepted by his Cabinet colleagues. Consequently the right hon. Gentleman had to engage, in a manner which is very; foreign to his nature, in a long and' tortuous argument, the effect of which, as far as I can make out, was designed to show that the less this House had directly to do with matters of highest legislative and administrative importance, the better it would be for the country and, above all, for the Socialist Government. That is so foreign to the nature of the right hon. Gentleman that I am convinced—and I need hardly say I do not speak from any inside knowledge, otherwise I would be guilty of a breach of trust—that the right hon. Gentleman made every effort to get this matter reconsidered by the Government.

We on this side of the House do not want to pursue this particular matter of affirmative Resolution at any great length on this occasion, especially as my right hon. and gallant Friend who sits on the Bench beside me, has explained the views of our Party very clearly but, as I see the Patronage Secretary sitting on the bench, I must warn the Government that we shall fight throughout this Parliament for the rights of Parliament as I fought throughout the last Parliament, to have affirmative Resolutions. It makes nonsense of the commonsense of the English language to suggest that a negative Resolution is more desirable than an affirmative Resolution. I know something about political controversy and I am convinced that no Member of the Socialist Party would get up on a platform and say, "We favour a method by which Parliament can only express a negative opinion, and you, cannot vote on an affirmative Resolution." No one would dare to do that in the country at the present time.

In conclusion, I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, myself and others, that we do not charge him with a breach of faith. If we did, we should feel it necessary to go to a Division, but we do say that when a Minister says that he is giving sympathetic consideration to a case, it usually connotes; a willingness to effect the alteration desired. I want to make it clear, therefore, on behalf of the whole Opposition, especially my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that it will not facilitate the ordinary relationship between Government and Opposition if, when a statement of this kind is made in the House—I do not use the word "pledge"—but is subsequently not put into operation, it does not facilitate that ordinary working between Government and Opposition which, even in the days of the greatest political turmoil, is desirable, so I hope there will be no other instance of it.

I cannot desist from making this final observation. If this Amendment has achieved nothing else, it has at least got all the Ministers of the Crown assembled in this House, including the Foreign Secretary, who has been hastily summoned from U.N.O. Perhaps the Government, having an uneasy conscience in the matter and thinking they would be charged, as they have not been charged, with a gross breach of pledge, have hastily sent him a telephone message saying, "You must come here. The Soviet Ambassador may be very important, but he is not more important than the House of Commons."

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, leave out from "Act," to "not," in line 2.

I have already explained this Amendment, which is designed to subject the Orders in Council made under Clause 2 to the procedure of the negative Resolution, and I hope it will meet with the approval of the House.

I suppose we ought to be grateful for this, though I am not quite sure that there is very much of interest in the matter except the general principle which, apparently, the Government had either previously overlooked or our debates have brought for the first time to their consideration—the principle that Orders in Council should come before the House. If there is any virtue in that principle, then it is right that the Minister should have it inserted here. Whether, in point of fact, the House will ever, at any time, get very excited because one Minister changes his name, style or title, I do not know. The Lord Privy Seal has not told us whether any new names are in view, but I should imagine that when such names are produced there will probably be public announcements long before there is an Order in Council, and they will be subject either to the general approval of the country as a whole, or there will be so many outside comments at the absurdity of the new title that it will be dropped, quite irrespective of whether there is a power of negative resolution or not. However, in so far as it brings the matter before the House in this indirect manner I, for my part, have no objection to the insertion of these words.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after "copies," insert "of the draft."

I must apologise to the House for speaking so often this morning, but I hope the Government will accept this Amendment, at any rate, because its paternity is quite above suspicion. It was the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowies) who raised this point the other day and, having looked at the Order Paper yesterday and seeing no Amendment in his name, I thought it was only courteous, in view of the attention he had given to the problem, that the House as a whole should be made aware of it. However, it is not only a matter of courtesy, it is also a matter of considerable substance on the constitutional point. I see that the hon. Gentleman in question is well armed with material for discussing the matter and I do not want to take anything away from the speech which he proposes to make.

The papers I have in my hand are Orders in Council and Regulations, all of which, according to the speech which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made a few minutes ago, would require positive Resolutions. They are not notes of my speech.

I see, they are just exhibit A, and I was trying to press Button B. However, the point which was made, and with which I entirely agree, can be shortly put. I admit straight away that this is not the first instance but, as far as I remember, it is the first time it has been specifically brought before the House. It has slipped through, as so many other things slipped through during the war, which we are beginning to find now are not perhaps quite in accordance with the ordinary Rules of Procedure of the House and should be clutched back. This form of Order states that:

12.15 p.m.

It is not for the London County Council or the Trades Union Congress, however much they might like to do it, to repeal legislation. The King in Council passes an Order and, if it is not desired to continue the Order, it is for the same authority to annul the Order. That was the old procedure, and that is why a negative procedure is called a Prayer. It was a Prayer that the draft be not submitted. Perhaps the Solicitor-General can say why and in what circumstances the change was made. It might have been something to do with anticipated difficulties of communications in wartime. I am not quite certain, because a number of Orders and regulations and changes were made at that time when we thought—as it turned out wrongly—that this country would find it very difficult to have any of the normal communications in operation owing to what was feared in the way of disruption from German bombing. I frankly admit that I do not know why this change was made, but I do submit that it is wrong for us to interfere with the rights and functions of other people.

From now on we should go back to the old procedure. It does not affect the House; it is merely a form of words in an Act of Parliament dealing with the power of praying or resolving against an Order on a negative Resolution. The system will exist just the same, whether we have the words of the Amendment, or the words in the Bill. But it does affect the form of an Act of Parliament, and the words in the Amendment do not do what this does, make it necessary for Parliament to resolve that an Order in Council—an Order made by the Council—should be annulled. All this Parliament can do is to resolve that, if a draft has been put before it, that draft should not be submitted and it should never become effective; but, of course, with the saving words, "without prejudice to laying a new draft." I hope that as it was the hon. Member for Nuneaton who raised this interesting point, the Government have looked at it and considered it sympathetically, and seen what is at issue. I repeat, it does not affect the power of the House to pray against a Resolution. That is inherent whichever form is used, but it does seem the more correct constitutional way of putting it, and we do not want our Bills to have language which is not completely defensible. It is not a very great matter, but the Solicitor-General could concede this to the hon. Member for Nuneaton—I am only his mouthpiece—who raised the matter but did not have the courage, or the desire, to put down an Amendment. I have stepped into his shoes, and any kindness on the part of the Solicitor-General will be equally welcomed by myself as by the hon. Gentleman.

I think a certain amount of subrogation in the House is not to be deplored. I am very grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) for putting down the Amendment on my instruction, and that is to be commended.

I hope the hon. Member will explain what he means by "instruction." Does he mean it in the way of having taught me, rather than in the way of having ordered me?

I have not quite completed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's education because I think he made a mistake when he said that we pray against a draft Order in Council. That is not so; we pray against an Order in Council, praying His Majesty to annul the Order which he made in Council. We do not pray the House of Commons not to pass a draft Order in Council. Otherwise I have not very much complaint of the speech he has made. I support the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in this, and I hope the Solicitor-General will accept it. Here we have a new form of words in legislation, and I do not think it arose first in the Defence Act of 1939. I believe there were occasions as far back as 1937 when it was used. That disposes of the idea that it might have been because of enemy activity, which might hold up a meeting of the Privy Council. Now the war is over, I think we should go back to the words used in the old days when this House and another place did not resolve that an Order in Council should be annulled. It seems to me to be constitutionally discourteous for this House to order the annulment, the instantaneous annulment, of an Order made by His Majesty in Council. I am a little old-fashioned in this, but I think the old form of praying His Majesty to annul an Order is more courteous.

Another argument, which should weigh with the Solicitor-General, is the convenience in looking up what the law is amending. Unless the book of Statutory Rules and Orders is complete, the case arises, as it did just before Christmas, when there was an Order in Council giving constables certain large powers of entry and, I think, of arrest. Just before the Christmas Recess the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) was successful in getting the House to agree to a Resolution praying His Majesty to revoke or annul that Regulation. Two days afterwards my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Captain Snow) walked along the Floor of the Chamber in his most dignified style and informed the House that His Majesty had taken notice of the Prayer that had been sent to him two days before and had been pleased to "conform with the wishes of the faithful Commons," or whatever the phrase is that is used. Then he walked backwards without falling over, much to his surprise and to ours.

The important thing is that in the series of Orders in Council one has the original Order and then the annulment of the Order I am sure that any practising solicitor or barrister would be glad to have the whole making and revocation of an Order easily found, rather than having to look through "Hansard" to find whether, late one night, the House had passed a Resolution resolving that an Order should become void. From the point of view of practical value, apart from constitutional courtesy, it is important and any lawyer would be glad if we could get back to the old form of wording so that the annulment of an Order, say, in three or four weeks, could more easily be found. I hope that the Solicitor-General will see his way to revert to the time-honoured, courteous, and most convenient form of wording.

This Amendment proposes that a negative Resolution should become operative on an Order in Council that is in draft and not an Order in Council which has already become effective. Besides the advantage which the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has mentioned, that if an Order in Council has been annulled by Resolution one cannot tell from the list of a number of Orders in Council that it has been annulled, there is another advantage, that a person acting on an Order which has been annulled is in a position to know whether that has happened or not. Let us assume that a policeman in the country has been ordered to do something by the Ministry whose functions have been transferred. The House of Commons annuls the Resolution in the afternoon, and he may arrest somebody in the evening, or take some action, and later find that he has acted on an Order in Council which has been annulled. In fact, it would not be safe for anybody to act on any Order in Council which is liable to be annulled, without looking through the list of Resolutions of either House of Parliament, and where he is to find those I really do not know. It would be, I submit, a reversal to the proper practice if Orders in Council which are liable to be annulled should only be submitted to either House of Parliament in the form of a draft, and for that reason I support the Amendment. I am glad to say that, as the noble Lord said previously, it has brought a large number of Ministers down here, but it is noteworthy that the Ministers who have been brought down to the House are not those responsible for the Bill.

I am sorry again to be disobliging, as I have already been called on a number of occasions this morning. I am not in a position to accept the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is mistaken in thinking that this form of wording was only introduced in 1937. In point of fact, it goes back a good 25 years. As to the constitutional courtesy position, I express no view. I see the point that is put forward, but if constitutional propriety does require that a Resolution should be upon a draft Order, the fact, nevertheless, remains that that courtesy has been waived on a number of occasions, and this certainly is a common form of words. I do not say that necessarily the best form in modern legislation is that of the words as they stand in the text of the Bill which is at present before the House.

I would point out that there is one noticeable distinction between the words as proposed in the Amendment and the words as they stand. As they stand when the Order has been made and proceedings have been taken under it, the proceedings remain valid in their present form notwithstanding that there may be subsequently a negative Resolution which voids the Order. In the suggested Amendment that position would not attain; the draft Order would be prayed against and for 40 days nothing could be done under that draft Order. The result would be that, by the wording as it stands at present, action could be taken as soon as the Order was made but that by the suggested Amendment it would be necessary for 40 days to elapse and nothing could be done during that 40 days.

A right hon. Gentleman opposite says, "That is why we wanted the first form of wording." It may equally be said, perhaps, that that is why they want the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is a matter perhaps not immediately involved in what we are discussing but the fact is that the Amendment does involve an unnecessary delay of 40 days. If it were an entire innovation, and if we were now perpetrating a discourtesy which had not been accepted in the past, there might be something to be said in favour of the Amendment. In fact, however, it is a common form in modern legislation. The House of Commons can clearly pass the Resolution. There is nothing to stop it. This argument is based on the grounds of propriety and courtesy and not on the ground of competence. In those circumstances, I would ask the House to negative this Amendment on the ground, if for no other, that it involves an unnecessary waste of time.

12.30 p.m.

What about the practical point?

The practical point has been made that it involves inconvenience. It involves no inconvenience, if one looks at it more closely. It is suggested that when an Order in Council is made and is subsequently annulled as a result of a negative Resolution there is no way of knowing, or of bringing to notice, that there has been an annulment, whereas if it is a Prayer which is annulled you subsequently find in Statutory Rules and Orders a record of the fact that that draft Order has been annulled. Really, that is a point with little substance. It is perfectly easy. It is just as easy to make a note of the fact that there has been a negative Resolution annulling an Order in Council as it is to make a note, or to create a record, of the fact that a draft Order has been annulled by a Prayer. The position is precisely the same in both circumstances and there is no inconvenience at all.

Really, to conceive of the situation as if Orders were made in the afternoon, acted upon 10 minutes later, and annulled the same evening, with the result that-complications might arise through people not knowing that they have been annulled, is a complete travesty of the situation. An Order is made and it remains in force for a considerable time. It is acted upon in countless thousands of cases. Months later, possibly, it may be altered, but the alteration and the annulment of Orders is a published fact which comes to the notice of those persons who may be concerned. The distressing picture of the embarrassed police officer really is very far from the truth, very far from the facts as they actually take place in the outside world.

For the reasons that I have given, while quite accepting the comment as to constitutional propriety, and saying about that, advisedly, no more than I have said, namely, that it is a practice that has been accepted for the last 25 years, and limiting myself to say no more on the matter than that, I do ask the House, for the other reasons I have given, to say that the Government are right in taking up this attitude.

Perhaps the wording is not satisfactory, but would my hon. and learned Friend perhaps tell the House that the matter will receive consideration in future legislation?

I say frankly that the point raised by my hon. Friend and by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is an interesting one which certainly will be taken into account, but for the purpose of this Bill I am sorry I cannot accept it.

I would like to reinforce what the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has just said to which there has been, on the whole, a satisfactory answer by the learned Solicitor-General. I would also remind him that it would be grossly out of Order to do more than ask the House to take note of the fact that there is a Committee on Procedure sitting at the present time who will doubt less take into account the modern form of procedure. I think, although it is the modern form of procedure, it has become a common form in recent years.

I rise mainly, and I do so without any hidden sarcasm, to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Nuneaton for putting the case, which he and I put in the last Parliament constantly, and which I shall always put, in favour of the smallest possible use being made of these extraordinary powers, as I would like to call them. I must say that as long as the Government of the day, be they Tory or Socialist, realise that not merely the Opposition, but a number of Members of independent mind in other parts of the House, will press such a matter as was put by the hon. Member for Nuneaton, so much the better it will be for Parliamentary procedure and the prestige of Parliament in the country. Governments will then realise that it is not merely a party matter or a question of the views of the Opposition, but that there is an underlying feeling in the House that the less the method is adopted by the Government the better.

May I, by leave the House, point out an error in the learned Solicitor-General's reply? He was trying to make out that the reason which had animated us in moving the Amendment was that there would have to be a 40 days' delay. I have not said anything of the kind; neither did the hon. and learned Gentleman when he spoke the other day, as far as I know. I think I have entirely rebutted any argument that my hon. Friends and I had any wish to see this Bill made the subject of delay. The whole of the argument has been that we wanted these Orders in Council to be under the affirmative procedure; the affirmative procedure is that it rests entirely with the Government when they put down their Order for approval in this House, and they can do it on the very day when it is made.

I would not have made that observation had I not been provoked into so doing by an observation which I thought I caught. I think I am right in saying that I heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that it was simply because we wanted to cut out the 40 days' delay that we were resisting the Amendment. If he did not say so, I entirely withdraw what I said, but I thought I heard him say that sotto voce when I was addressing the House.

I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I did not say it, and I would add that I do not use the sotto voce very often.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

12.37 p.m.

I will say very little indeed, because this is a short Bill which has been very carefully and fully discussed in the Debates on Second Reading, the Committee, and Report stages. I do not think I can usefully add anything to what has been said It has been discussed very fully from all aspects, and I think it has been generally treated as a non-party Measure. All hon. Members, have had an opportunity of putting their points of view, and these have been carefully considered.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

I do not see the Parliamentary Secretary present.

12.40 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

I would not do this but for the fact that this is not the first time the Minister has not been present throughout the sitting of the House, and it is incumbent upon the Opposition to point out that it is usual for Ministers to be in their places to move the Supply. This sum of £1,500,000 is a very large sum. No doubt, the Government regard it as a meaningless symbol and amounting to nothing at all. I would like to tell the Committee that the Opposition intends to concentrate upon every sum of money that is brought forward. It is an exceedingly bad sign if the Government cannot attend to their business by having the suitable Ministers here in order to move the Supply and to ask for Estimates of this character.

A further reason why I move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again is that I think the issues raised in this matter are constitutional ones. I consider that had the Opposition not taken this course the position would have been that this Vote could not have been moved, for there would have been nobody to move it from the opposite side of the Committee. Therefore, we are not doing this for the purpose of obstruction alone. We are doing it in order to indicate that there should be a Minister present, on occasions when big sums like this are involved, to proceed with Government business. If we desired to obstruct Government business the matter would have lapsed, and that would have meant that the matter could not have been raised today, further time of the Committee would have been taken, and we should have had to sit another day to consider this matter. Therefore, it cannot be said that anything we on this side of the Committee are saying is obstructive in any degree.

I must revert to my original point, because on this issue of moving to report Progress, I am not discussing the issue itself in connection with the sums wanted for education services; I am considering the constitutional issue and the inability of the Government to transact their business properly. It is typical of a great deal of what the Government have done in the past, and I think the country will want to know why, when it is so important that the Minister should be here, she was not here to move the Vote. I accordingly beg to move to report Progress and I trust, Mr. Bowles, that you will accept that Motion and that we shall have a Debate on this matter.

12.43 p.m.

Might I offer my apologies? I have been in the House for some three-quarters of an hour waiting for this to come forward, and the moment a telephone message came through from the Whips I hastened along, but I think my room is about as far from this Chamber as it is possible for a Minister's room to be, as the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor knows. Only roller skates or a scooter could have got me here at the time, and those, unfortunately, are not provided. I hope under the circumstances that this explanation will be accepted, and that my Parliamentary Secretary may be allowed to move the Estimate.

Where was he?

I think this explanation is a human one, and one to which we should pay attention, but I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Lady to the fact that, not being provided with the facilities of a room or anything else, I have been obliged to sit the whole morning listening to the erudite words of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General on a Bill in which I did not take much interest. I have been obliged to sit in the far corner of the Chamber waiting for the long wished for arrival of the right hon. Lady and her Parliamentary Secretary. In fact, during the course of my long sitting in the House, I have seen that the Parliamentary Secretary has made an attendance, and so there is no great moral delinquency involved, but I think it is necessary for Ministers to realise that if the Opposition have not the facilities of those comfortable rooms which are provided for Ministers in which they can sit back and bask in the effulgence of their own glory, it is right that Ministers also should be on the Bench and should submit to the rigours of waiting for an indefinite period in order to move Parliamentary business. I trust this will prove a salutary lesson to the Government, and that so early in their careers they will not resort to these fleshpots and luxuries which are provided, but will do their duty and attend to their Government business when it comes.

12.45 p.m.

I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that far from basking in luxury or the flesh pots—if one can bask in flesh pots—I was engaged in consultation with my highest officials in order that he should have the fullest information, to which he is entitled, in answer to a long list of very erudite questions submitted by him to my Department. I hope, therefore, that my Parliamentary Secretary may proceed.

All this is very interesting, and I am quite sure we are prepared to accept these explanations. I merely ask the Committee to note that the last business we were discussing was carried out by none of the responsible Ministers at all. Perhaps, in future the right hon. Lady will consider whether a little transferring of functions might suitably take place on busy mornings when she is having her conferences with officials, and that we might have the advantage of speeches from the right hon. Gentlemen whose voices are seldom heard—like the Financial Secretary—who might tackle the question for the time being. It seems incredible that not one Minister was able to speak at large on the subject of education until his colleagues arrived, and that it had to be left to my right hon. Friend to use the time-honoured device to move to report Progress in order that words could go on being spoken in this House until the responsible Minister arrived. I think the Government will feel very ashamed of themselves that they have not a competent speaker on the Front Bench who can talk for three minutes while the Minister comes to the Chamber from her room.

12.47 p.m.

I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) will ask leave to withdraw his Motion. I would like to say to the right hon. Lady that, in my opinion, her second reason is far less happy than her first. The difficulty of reaching this Chamber from her room is one we appreciate, but her duty to the House is more important than her duty to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden. Although it is important to answer hon. Members' questions, her duty is to be in the House at a time when the business of her Department is being considered

We have had an interesting Debate which illustrates quite clearly that the Government are not competent to conduct their own business and have to rely on the Opposition to make time while they come from the rooms so generously provided for them. I hope note will be taken of this fact, and that, in due course, the country will realise that the proper people to govern them are those always present on the country's job. In these circumstances, and having made such a satisfactory case, the Opposition feel that I should not press this Motion, which I beg to ask leave to withdraw

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orignal Question again proposed.

12.49 p.m.

May I, first of all, apologise for not being here? I was here most of the morning, but went away, temporarily, to consult with the heads of the Department.

I do not want to spend much time introducing the Supplementary Estimates and I will go through the items point by point, and briefly explain them. The gross amount asked for is £2,489,000, but because of anticipated savings in other parts of the Ministry Vote for the year, the net figure is brought down to £1,500,000. The bulk of the additional Supply covered by this Supplementary Estimate is required for grants to local education authorities under subhead C.1 of the Vote. Naturally, it is asked why there should be this requirement. Thirteen months ago, the Ministry based its Estimates on local education authorities' forecasts made in November, 1944, for the financial year 1945–46. November, 1944, was well before hostilities ceased. The second reason is that the Ministry based its Estimates on the assumption that the European war would end in May or June, 1945, but that the Japanese war would go on for, perhaps, another one-and-a-half years—at any rate, throughout the whole of the financial year. Happily, this prognostication was falsified by events and, although at the Ministry of Education we may be informed, we cannot confess to having any Old Moores in the Department.

The local education authority Estimates were reasonable a year ago, but last November they submitted their revised Estimates, showing a substantial rise due, no doubt, to the cessation of hostilities and the speeding up of demobilisation during the autumn. This increase in local education authority estimates is spread fairly generally over the various heads of their expenditure. I do not propose to go into details at this point. No doubt the main factor has been an anticipation of the employment of more teachers. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of this Committee will agree that that is a very necessary thing for, the implementation of the Act of 1944. it was not possible to include, in the Supplementary Estimate submitted last October, the extra provision required, because, at that date, the revised Estimates of local education authorities had not been received, and my experience of getting Estimates together for local education authorities convinces me that it takes a considerable time.

The supplementary Estimate for last October, as far as local education autho- rities concerned, dealt only with the extra provision required as the result of the Government's decision to approve the Burnham Report and to step up the rate of grant to local education authorities. I think that is a reasonable explanation of the first sum.

If we turn to sub-head D. 1, we come to grants to non-local education authorities. In this sum we have grants to voluntary training colleges and to voluntary adult education bodies. Usually, these are paid by single payments after the end of the year, but the Minister has decided to pay by instalments. As one who has had considerable experience of attempting to administer adult education, in particular, I welcome the Minister's decision in this matter. It is an excellent decision, and will strengthen the position of the colleges and adult education bodies concerned, especially in these days when they are confronted with a current increase in costs, particularly for staffing. Regarding the secondary schools, extra provision is required to correct the slight under-estimate in the amount payable to direct grant grammar schools. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. P. A. Butler) will approve of anything to facilitate education in the direct grant schools. In sub-head L.2 are figures concerning pensions to teachers. This additional provision is required purely on technical grounds.

Finally, there is £20,000 for the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. This sum is in the Estimate to cover the expenses of the Preparatory Commission set up last November. It is an expenditure which will be offset against His Majesty's Government's general contribution to U.N.E.S.C.O. when the new organisation is set up as a result of the Preparatory Commission's work. I am orepared—and I am sure it is welcomed by all hon. Members on both sides of the House—to do anything to give U.N.E.S.C.O. its chance, because the educational opportunities will be tremendous when it can get going.

I think that in presenting this Supplementary Estimate in this form I have covered the chief points that arise out of the various sums mentioned.

12.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary, I think, has put clearly the main heads to which he asks the approval of the Committee in order to give him the necessary money involved, but I want first of all to make one observation—that I think the manner in which these Supplementary Estimates are presented to hon. Members is naked and bare in the extreme. It is far too little information to give to hon. Members who have no close knowledge of the subject, to offer the simple explanation that further provision is required, because the latest returns received from local education authorities show an increase in expenditure over the expenditure that is allowed in the existing provisions. That bald explanation is all that was received by hon. Members, and I regard it as an insult to our intelligence. If there is an extra sum of £2,064,000, surely it is natural to assume that it is an increase, and if it is marked as an increase it is an increase. We do not desire to be told that, because of that increase, an extra sum is wanted; it would be far better to say nothing. I would make a plea to the Government, when presenting Estimates, not to take a common form put up by some authority in Whitehall, but make some explanation of what the sum is wanted for. I do not think this will cause the Debate to be of any more length, and hon. Members would be less suspicious of the Government in asking for a Supplementary Estimate. Indeed, it is generally believed it may lead to a shortening of the Debate. This plea is not confined to this Estimate but applies to all others.

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Estimate must realise that it is embarrassing to a Government to have to move a Supplementary Estimate at all, because it can lead to a great deal of discussion occupying a great deal of time. This time such criticism is not levelled by this side of the House, because if any one was responsible for the casting of the Estimate it was myself. There is no desire on this side of the House, then, to do more than to examine this extra money desired by the Government. The hon. Gentleman referred to the reasons why the grants to local education authorities have increased, and I realise that the main reason is that the Japanese war fortunately came to an end rather more quickly than we expected. I also accept his statement that the employment of more teachers and the payment of those teachers at the revised Burnham scale rates have resulted in increases of a substantial amount. The Burnham rates, however, have not been operating for a long time in this period, and I should like if I could to get this total broken down into more detail by the Minister when she replies, because I cannot believe that this immense sum is attributable either to the employment of extra teachers or to the Burnham rates unless I am misinformed. We know we are very short of teachers, and the great flood which we think will shortly come from the training colleges has not unfortunately reached the schools. I want to ask two specific questions not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and the first is on the repair of buildings.

There has been a great deal in the Press lately with regard to priorities granted by local authorities under whose harrow we have to exist as well as that of the Government. There has been a great deal said about the priority given to buildings other than schools. I should like to know whether blitzed schools are being repaired where possible by local authorities, particularly in the London area. There is no doubt that if priority is given to other matters it will be bad not only for the children but also the country as a whole, and I hope there is some priority in Government circles whereby schools will be repaired before other public buildings. The situation in London, of course, has been particularly difficult, owing to the way London suffered in the course of the blitz, and I trust now that schools, which have been inhabited by the defence services and by the fire service, are now restored to their proper duty of looking after the children, and that these gentlemen are being removed. I also hope that the draughts which so many of us associate with our school-days are receiving attention, and are being mitigated for the rising generation. I hope that some attempt is being made to give priority to these matters, and in view of the popular interest fanned on these questions I should like to know the extent of the progress that has been made.

Secondly, I should like to ask, is there any provision in this sum for an increase of meals and milk for school children? I asked this question in the Debate on the National Insurance Bill, and I understand it may be possible that an answer will be given on Monday as to the development of these services. I simply put it in here as a reminder that if we are to achieve a proper balance as between young and old in the new provisions we are making, the contribution which the education services can give in the way of meals and milk for children is absolutely vital, and, in view of the food situation, assumes an even greater importance than at any period since the scheme was initiated by Lord Woolton and myself during the war. I agree that there was a proportion of school meals before the war, but it was not until Lord Woolton introduced a priority for meat for school that we were able to stride forward. Milk has always been the children's safeguard, and I trust it will always be administered through the schools. I hope that the extra additional expenditure included in this Supplementary Estimate has some relation to the rise in the provision of milk and meals. If the Government cannot give an answer on this today, I hope they will give an answer on Monday.

The next sub-head deals with grants to voluntary bodies. I am extremely interested in the sum of £142,000 granted for the training of teachers. I remember that we started in the last Government the policy of paying grants to voluntary training colleges. It is an extremely important development, and I hope we may get some further information as to the extent to which voluntary training colleges are contributing to the training of teachers. It is a remarkable fact that in the development of education in England voluntary colleges out-number very considerably the local authority colleges, while the number of schools as between the voluntary and the local authority is in a proportion of about half and half, so that in the case of colleges there is a predominance and preponderance of numbers under voluntary auspices. This policy of devoting some of the money to help the voluntary training colleges is in our view extremely sensible, and I should like to hear what sort of a ratio these colleges will contribute to the solution of the shortage of teachers, and whether that ratio will be in relation to their size and numbers. I am naturally fascinated by the reasons advanced by the hon. Gentleman for further grants to secondary schools. Not only have the Government listened to the view of the Opposition about the direct grant schools, but they have translated that intention into concrete fact and the direct grant schools are being properly looked after in the Supple- mentary Estimate, which shows how much the Opposition must be relied upon to see that the good things of life are more widely shared. I shall be very interested in further details of this new advance which shows the very salutary interest of the right hon. Lady in these schools, which have a definite contribution to make.

There is a sum of £65,000 for university tutorial classes and other forms of adult education. This question of adult education is one which causes great interest throughout the land, and I have no doubt the Minister has heard it as she goes about the country. I have tried to continue my own practice of visiting schools, and I, find that I am always asked questions about adult education. I think it is valuable that the university tutorial side of education should be extended. As I understand the position, this adult education is shared between the various agencies who can provide it. I would like to have some idea of the proportion in which this extra sum has been allocated as between university extra-mural departments and the W.E.A., and whether any local authorities have shown any initiative in the matter of adult education? University adult education has been almost the monopoly of the W.E.A aided, to a certain extent, by the extra-mural departments of the universities. Local authorities have not entered the field to any great extent, and I would like to know whether they have been able to get together on a regional basis yet to make provision for adult education? I believe they have in East Anglia. It is fortunate indeed that the Parliamentary Secretary has not only interested himself very much in the extramural side of the universities, but also in the general provisions in that area, and I should be interested to hear to what extent that example has been copied in other areas.

I do not think proper adult provision can be made by each authority. In the case of Essex or Yorkshire they are large areas with large resources, but other local education authorities will find it difficult, by themselves, to take the lead in this matter. I hope, therefore, that the regional plans we had in mind for adult education will be taken in hand by agreement between contiguous authorities, so that in that way new forces will come into the field of adult education. I have been particularly glad to see the Carnegie endowment for this purpose, and if we manage to keep adult education as education the country will get an immense amount of inspiration from it. I trust we shall avoid the introduction of any politics into it, that we shall not concentrate solely on economic and social questions, but that we shall try to encourage what the late Lord Temple always said was his desire—to see that the real interests of a class or group are studied first and to see that they are, so to speak, inoculated with the ideas which they wish to receive. I used to discuss it with the late Archbishop, and I am sure that is the way to conduct adult classes. It is surprising how we find that subjects such as music or art, or other questions dealing with English literature or matters apart from social questions, provide a common meeting ground for all sections of the adult population. I am sorry to have said so much about this, but it is a matter of great interest in the country.

The last sub-head of this Estimate deals with advances for the administrative expenses of the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and' the contribution by the Government towards the establishment of the final Organisation. I would like to know what the final grant of the Government will be to this body, and whether the Government have any idea what the total budget of the Organisation will be. If it is too early to ask that question I shall fully understand. What progress is being made with the establishment of an international secretariat? When I was responsible for these matters we were faithfully served by a secretariat drawn from this country, and it was the desire of that secretariat, just as it was the desire of everybody concerned with it, that eventually the secretariat should become an international one, as has happened with the United Nations. I would also like to know what progress is being made with the establishment of a site, and whether a little less discussion is taking place in regard to the site from this Organisation than is taking place about the site for the United Nations. I understand that it is to be in Paris, and we on this side are very satisfied that that city should be chosen.

I want to ask another important question: Is this Organisation, through its Preparatory Commissions, taking steps to amalgamate the inter-war Organisation, the Corporation Intellectuelle, to join with this body, because, as we know, the site of that Organisation was in Paris and there was a misunderstanding between it and the Intellectual and Cultural Organisation of the League of Nations. I believe it has been accepted that there should be amalgamation between these two bodies, and I trust that a happy marriage may be effected in Paris and that it may last for many years. So far as our limited information goes, we understand that the Government have been very successful, through their delegates, in negotiating this matter, and I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the success attending her efforts in this field. It was always an aspiration of many of us that as a result of the major war we have just gone through an organisation would grow which would deal with the international problems of culture and education. As I once stated before in this House, the introduction of the Charter uses these excellent words:

I want to refer to some of the savings, to which the Parliamentary Secretary did not make any reference. I bee that in the Estimate there is an estimated saving of £15,000 on inspection and examination, salaries, etc. At first sight, and with the limited information available, it would look as though the Government are saving money on one aspect of the conduct of educational administration which is vital, namely, the inspection service. I have always thought it essential, if we are to get back to the proper content for education, to get the teaching right, that inspectors should be properly paid and that this service should be almost double its present size. It is not, so far, encouraging to see a saving of £15,000 under this head. I trust that negotiations have proceeded with a view to improving the situation of inspectors, whose salaries compare extremely badly with the directors of education with whom they have to transact business. It is something about which the Government machine in general has been very backward in the past. It has always been my desire to see the present situation of these inspectors greatly improved. Therefore, I trust that next year instead of seeing something in the savings table we shall see something on the other side for the sake of the inspectors.

On the maintenance allowances granted by the Minister in respect of scholarships there is a saving of £37,000. I trust that does not represent the ultimate desire or policy of the Minister, because there are, under the new Act, many facilities provided for the giving of scholarships. I can go so far as to say that the Act provides fox such opportunities for the giving of scholarships, that I consider that in future this burden should fall much more on the State and upon authorities than it does upon private persons. That is according to the habit and tradition of the day. Much as we valued private charity in the past, people now simply have not got the money, once the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done with them, to make grants towards scholarships or exhibitions. There is no doubt that our major universities are gradually obtaining a higher and higher proportion of those receiving grants and, therefore, I trust that in the next table there will not be a saving under this head but an increase.

I want also to refer to the twin museums for which the right hon. Lady is responsible—the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum. Is it proposed to re-open the Science Museum now that the war is over? I trust that that is the policy and, if so, it will be high time, because its services have been rendered nugatory nationally for the whole war period. Lastly, I trust that the new and able administration of the Victoria and Albert Museum is proceeding satisfactorily. I only wish that the Government would introduce fewer Bills, because I could then go to the exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum to which I have been invited, and which the Government do not allow me time to attend.

1.17 p.m.

I would like to follow on the lines of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). The Committee would like to know what are the components inside the figure of something more than £2 million under Class C under which

I should also like to receive the assurance that this expanse of expenditure indicates, in some way, that the shortage of books is ended. Has there been more and better provision for the supply of books, because education in this country has been enormously handicapped by the difficulties which publishers have had to provide schools and scholastic establishments with the books which they need? I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to assure us that her persuasive powers have had effect with the Ministers responsible for the supply of paper and labour, and that some books are coming forward, and that this is a contributory factor to the increased grant.

I now turn to the heading D.I on items of further education. I note that there is provision for £65,000 for university tutorial classes and other forms of adult education. I think that it is desirable that this should be. I would like the right hon. Lady to inform me how much of that is going to reach the rural areas, because it is in the rural areas, where the organisation of recreative facilities is, on me whole, difficult for private organisations, that the most fruitful field for work by local education authorities exist. Under the heading of savings, I am rather concerned to see that on grants for physical training, there is to be a saving of £90,000. I do not know whether this is related to the muddle which the Government has made in the food position and that they regard children as being unable to profit on the present and the newly reduced rations by physical training. I cannot think that it has reached that point yet, but it is rather worrying to think that we can make a saving of £90,000 on physical training at the present time. I hope that the right hon. Lady will give us some further details about that. Finally, I would refer to the savings on the two museums. I hope that it is only a very temporary factor because, during the years of war, the maintenance of these institutions has dropped very much into arrears, and it is time that we brought these great institutions well up to the forefront, so that they can compare with similar institutions in any other part of the world. I believe that the right hon. Lady appreciates that, and I hope she will accept the assurance from me that many other people in this House are of the same mind, and that when she comes to argue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who may be wild and extravagant in all sorts of other ways, she will have the House behind her in the desire to get the scientific institutions of this country up to date. In fact, she has the mandate of the people.

1.23 p.m.

I would like to join with other hon. Members in urging that on the next occasion we should have a much more comprehensive statement of the accounts. I was a little surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech was so curtailed. I had expected some rather broader review of the general changes which are taking place in education. After all, the Supplementary Estimates present a very happy opportunity to the House for reviewing matters in Departments from time to time. Perhaps we shall hear more from the right hon. Lady when she comes to reply especially after the searching questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler).

There are two points which I wish to raise. The first is with regard to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. I notice, in particular, that in another Estimate there is an item dealing with the Secretariat of U.N.O., but I cannot refer to that. I want to ask whether any other countries have contributed sums to this cultural organisation. We had an unfortunate experience after the last war with the League of Nations. I think that the expenses of the League of Nations were borne almost wholly by this country. I do not think that we should be backward in putting public money into this organisation, but I want to be sure that other countries are contributing their share.

The other point to which I wish to refer is infant schools. The right hon. Lady was good enough to give me a reply the other day to the effect that the local education authorities could apply for the provision of temporary buildings for infant schools on a priority equal to that of other schools. The phrasing of her reply made me think that the question had taken the Ministry of Education a little by surprise. We are to have considerable programmes in this country very shortly, and I am happy to see the Minister of Works sitting only a few yards away from the right hon. Lady. He has now turned himself into the biggest building chief in the whole country, over-topping all the other great monopolists existing in that trade before the war. With his little finger he can do more for her than has ever been done before in the history of this country, and here is a matter of some considerable importance. Houses will go up, the families will move into them, and there will be the young children on the spot, but unless temporary buildings are provided for schools with a very high priority we shall find a great aggregation of young children in these new areas who will be unable to go to school because there is no room. I do want the right hon. Lady to assure the House that this is a matter which is receiving the closest attention of her Ministry in order that none of these children shall suffer as the result of moving into new built up areas because of the lack of buildings.

1.27 p.m.

I must thank the Committee for raising so many pertinent points to which I am very glad to reply. With the Committee's permission I will take them in order. First let me deal with the questions raised by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I agree with him that, as of course is obvious, in this question of the repair of buildings, London is the chief trouble. It is in London, the centre of the target area, that conditions are peculiarly difficult, bit I should like to say that no Minister could have had more help and more co-operation from a colleague than the Minister of Education has had from the Minister of Works. I am particularly happy because his reputation as an ardent advocate of education is well known and he has helped us wherever and as much as he possibly could, bearing in mind always that there are certain other priorities and that people have somehow to get a waterproof roof over their heads. Steady progress has been made, however, and I am glad to say that the Ministry of Works' special repair service is now undertaking 12 big repair jobs at a cost of £45,000, and that this specially intensive work will be followed by more jobs when it is finished.

With regard to derequisitioning no overall figures are available. Of the 70 grant-aided and other schools in the priority list drawn up last year, all except about a dozen have been released, and we are pressing for the others. I come now to that special bugbear for which, I am afraid, I was responsible in my previous Ministry, the erection of blast walls and other A.R.P. protection in schools, work so well done that their removal is expensive and difficult although it is essential to let in light and air. I am glad to say that the Treasury has now given us permission to make a 100 per cent. grant for the work.

With regard to the Estimate of teachers' salaries, various Members of the Committee have urged that we should give more information with regard to these. I can only say that the estimates are given in the form in which all other estimates are given. We have not been particularly secretive in the Ministry of Education. I think it is always understood that while the estimates are given in the briefest, although not the briefest possible form, the Ministers concerned are always available to answer questions from hon. Members on any particular point. I am afraid we cannot break down the increased estimates of the local education authorities so as to make it clear how much is attributable to teachers' salaries, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The estimates are not submitted in a form which enables that to be done, so we have to give the overall figure.

Concerning meals and milk, I am very willing to give the Committee the particulars. It was obvious that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance could not deal with every one of the large number of questions thrown out to him. I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government consider the whole policy relating to milk and meals as one of the greatest possible importance, and we see this now in the health of our children during all the difficult war years. The health of school children now, despite all the difficulties, is better than that shown by any figures previously. We are moving, as the Minister of Food has pointed out, towards a period of food stringency which will certainly last until the next complete harvest is ready, but that is something that not even this much abused Government should be regarded as responsible for. I confess I feel it a little hard that nature should make things still more difficult for a war torn world, but clearly the whole process of com- munal feeding in schools must be pressed forward as rapidly as possible.

It is a great pity that the military operations of 1944–45, during my right hon. predecessor's administration, imposed a check on the development of school meals. Further difficulties were experienced on account of the V-weapon attacks, which of course have necessitated the concentration of much building labour on bomb repairs, which means a definite slowing down in the building of dining halls and kitchens in other parts of the country. I deeply regret this, as I am sure my predecessor does, but it is just part of the problem of the war. We are now trying desperately hard to make up for all this and in view of the difficulties of building vis-a-vis the housing situation, we are trying to do it by a large extension of temporary hutting By last October, the Committee may be interested to know, no fewer than 1,850,000 school children, which is practically 40 per cent. of the total, were receiving meals every day. This is a remarkable figure, upon which I think the whole Committee can congratulate itself. Well over two-thirds of the primary and secondary schools in England and Wales are now served by school canteens, and the number of schools so served has increased by well over a 1,000 in the last year. I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman is still visiting schools, as he did when he was at the Ministry, and I shall always be very glad to hear from him on any points to which he feels further attention should be given. We realise that those arrangements are unsatisfactory. The schoolteachers who have had so much to do with supervising this work find also that the arrangements are unsatisfactory.

I want to pay tribute to the work that those teachers do when they have volunteered to do the job after a hard morning's teaching. We are now arranging a working party with the National Union of Teachers and local education authorities to see to what extent we can overcome the difficulties which they are experiencing. There is the problem of getting dining places outside the schools so that we shall not have the meals served in the classrooms. It is important that we should not regard this service merely as a matter of feeding. It can be a valuable social training, a communal meal, taken together with their teachers. That can be done satisfactorily only if the surroundings are bright, clean and cheerful and if the children can take their meals in a proper way. That is why we regard new buildings for the dining arrangements as important. I hate to use the word "priority" too often, because one gets to a stage where things are in a priority queue, but we are really anxious to go on with this matter because, otherwise, conditions would become intolerable.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the voluntary training colleges and he asked what proportion of our teachers was supplied by the training colleges and what proportion supplied by the local education authorities. We are leaving out the emergency training colleges for which the Ministry have a special responsibility. The proportions are pretty much the same as they were under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not very anxious to have a situation where a large proportion of the training of teachers is in the hands of voluntary associations. I do not in any way want to disparage the excellent work that many of them, though not all of them, have been doing in the past, but I think the time has come when local education authorities should be encouraged to provide more of the training of the larger number of teachers that we shall need in the future. Let me tell the Committee that we are making Regulations so that the burden of expenditure by local education authorities on the training of teachers will be equitably shared between authorities. I may add that we do not want colleges to draw their students from their own neighbourhood only. It would be intolerable if local authorities were merely turning over their own pupils from their own schools and sending them back as teachers.

With regard to the question of the direct grant, what the right hon. Gentleman has said merely underlines what I have always said, which is that a storm in a teacup was raised which had no connection with the facts, but merely provided an opportunity to the Opposition such as Oppositions must have in order to criticise His Majesty's Government. The position of the authorities, as I have outlined it previously, remains exactly as I outlined it. We always said that we should do our duty to those schools who remained on the direct grant list. The Estimate is the carrying out of that promise.

The right hon. Gentleman put a question also' about the reasons for the estimated saving of £15,000 under sub-head D (1). I can assure him that that saving is not at the expense of salaries of inspectors, which have been considerably improved in recent months. It is not possible in the position in which we are all placed during this period either to recruit always the kind of inspector we want or to secure the return to our service of the full number of inspectors who have either been lent to other departments or who are in the Services. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I would not like in any way that we should reduce our establishment. At present we have only 357 out of the 372 inspectors who were budgeted for. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that position will be corrected as soon as it is possible to do so.

With regard to adult education, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have raised the matter that we are anxious to encourage the local education authorities to get on with adult education, as provided for in the 1944 Act, but I must remind my predecessor that it was his decision to postpone plans for adult education until he had received the development plans from local education authorities. I say that, although I always think it is not quite fair to point out the mistakes of one's predecessor. I can assure him we are very anxious to get on as fast as we can and to induce the local authorities, despite their burdens, to help us. Regional conferences are going on among local authorities, universities and various voluntary bodies who are interested in the work, of which the W.E.A. is one.

The right hon. Gentleman was afraid we were concentrating in our education too much upon economic and social questions. I can quite understand that people with his philosophy are afraid when young people begin to ask why there should be inequality, why there should be vast fortunes side by side with insecurity, why people are kept poor and ill-educated, and why we should remain content with a system which provided the horrors of unemployment between the two wars and finally landed us in another war. It is awfully awkward with young people, who just cannot help asking questions about matters in which they are interested. I can also assure the right hon. Gentleman, now that social security has become the touchstone of His Majesty's Government, that there is a renaissance of interest in other subjects. For instance, we find that music and musical appreciation, and art, are subjects for which classes are being asked. I would like to pay a tribute here to the B.B.C., who do not often get tributes. There is no doubt that the whole musical standard of this country has been raised by the work of the B.B C, not only in providing the very finest music for its listeners but in providing excellent and interesting talks on musical appreciation. Probably when we get television the B.B.C. will do the same in pictorial art.

Now I would like to turn to the subject of museums.

Will the right hon. Lady forgive me for one moment? Before she leaves the question of adult education, which comes under sub-heading B (1), would it incorporate youth services, a subject in which I am particularly interested? I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would outline in some detail the expenditure of £65,000.

It is not connected with youth services. It is adult education in the sense of dealing with various kinds of class-work.

Turning now for a moment to museums, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to get the Science Museum open, and work is already being done on rearrangement of exhibits, making the buildings waterproof after bombing, and by various other means. The previous Director of the Museum resigned under the age limit, and we have now promoted his right-hand man, Dr. Shaw, an excellent man. We are now looking forward to getting the Science Museum open, and getting back not only to the time when we had a million visitors a week but increasing that number. There are all sorts of exhilarating plans for the winter. The Committee will not wish me to go into detail. I am very glad to hear the words of appreciation of the vigorous work which is being done by Mr Leigh Ashton at the Victoria and Albert Museum. I think it says much for this House, that we have not heard one word of complaint that we showed Picasso and Matisse. It was very nice to think that when I paid a recent visit to see the pictures it was impossible to get anywhere near, so dense was the crowd. But apart from those highly successful exhibits, I think that Members who saw those wonderful exhibits of the effigies from Westminster Abbey shown properly—and I would remind them of the Renaissance portrait busts—will see that the Museum is now entering upon a most colourful and interesting period of its life.

I will now deal with some of the points which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman who spoke second, with regard to public transport. I do not think that this awful picture of five miles need worry him, because the local education authority has a duty to provide public transport for children over eight, if the walking distance is more than three miles, and for children of five to eight, if the walking distance is two miles or over. I do not like the idea of children of five walking two miles there and two miles back to school, but that is the position in the Act which I have inherited.

I am grateful for that clarification. Will the right hon. Lady elucidate the point of country children who have gained a scholarship to the secondary school in the town? What was the statutory requirement for transport in the case of those children?

The same thing applies—the statutory distance for which transport must be provided is over three miles.

On the subject of books, we appreciate the difficulty—of course everybody must—but the difficulty here is not mainly paper. We have made provision for that as far as possible; the difficulty is actually labour for printing and binding, particularly binding, but as the weeks go by, and the men return from the Forces, the situation becomes easier. Even now it is easier than it was some months ago, and will, I hope, rapidly progress. Concerning rural areas, I assure the hon. Member that on the Adult Education Estimate we are very anxious to be of additional assistance to rural areas, but I would remind him that those universities, particularly Oxford and Cambridge which are in the centre of great agricultural districts, are doing a great deal to pro- mote adult education. Turning now to the subject of physical training. The saving of £90,000 in this provision is simply due to the fact that the schemes submitted, and in many cases accepted by us, have not accrued for actual payment as quickly as was expected. When they do, we shall charge them against the Estimates for 1946–47 which will be put forward in a few weeks' time. It is not that we are cutting down on physical training, the difficulty is that of overestimating the speed at which we could get the schemes put forward for payment.

With regard to U.N.E.S.C.O., as the Minister of Education and chairman of the International Preparatory Commission, this is very near to my heart, and I am so glad that my predecessor spoke of the work in such warm words, because the work which he did in getting together the Council of Allied Ministers of Education during the war not only paved the way for U.N.E.S.C.O. but made it possible for us to get this specialised agency of the United Nations so quickly that we were the first in the field. I do pay tribute to the work which he did in that respect. It was agreed that Paris should be the site, and discussions of the friendliest nature are now in progress to get a suitable building. I think it is likely to be announced fairly soon, but I assure the Committee that we are getting the fullest possible help from the French Government, which is, of course, very anxious that U.N.E.S.C.O. should be properly housed there. With regard, to our relations with the Institute for Intellectual Co-operation and with the Council of Allied Ministers who have done a great deal of work at one time and another, we are now in the process of handing over, and that is being carried on in the friendliest spirit, so that the assets of these bodies shall be duly placed at the disposal of U.N.E.S.C.O. I must, however, point out that one of the difficulties which the Institute for Intellectual Cooperation had to face, was the fact that education was very much cut down, in fact almost left out of the work of intellectual co-operation. I am glad to say that that is now altered, and we have placed education in the forefront of U.N.E.S.C.O's work.

The position as regards U.N.R.R.A. remains as it was in the time of my predecessor, but I am glad to say that as regards rehabilitation we are getting on with the severely practical tasks of helping the liberated areas. The £20,000 which is put down here does not represent the total contribution of His Majesty's Government, it is an instalment of the total. I am also glad to say that other nations have come forward, some of whom have themselves suffered pretty badly, to add to that amount. While I will not go into details of the work we are doing, I can assure hon. Gentlemen that the work of the Technical Commission of U.N.E.S.C.O.—that is a special Commission of, so to speak, the helping countries and the countries that need help which we have set up—is working on the ways in which the money available can be sent, not only for providing books and charts and maps, but also for providing visual aid films of one kind and another. Curiously enough, one of the most useful little practical things being done is to provide large charts on which outline maps are printed, the space within the outline being covered with material to act as a blackboard, so that the teachers in the immediate future will be able to draw within those outline maps of Europe and the world whatever frontiers the final peace negotiations may leave to the various countries of Europe. I think that is a piece of foresight.

With regard to infants' schools, we are naturally regarding infants' schools, particularly in the new housing estates, as one of the really important priorities, and I have made an arrangement with my colleague the Minister of Health that, wherever a new housing estate is planned, a site for a school should be included in the plans, so that we shall not have the position of the vast estate with schools tucked away in the corners. On those sites the infant or junior schools will have to be of hutted or light construction, but I do not think that matters very much because they are warm, light, and weatherproof and they prevent the little ones having to go so far away from their homes. With that explanation, I hope the Committee will feel able to give us the Estimate.

There is one point I am not quite clear about in the right hon. Lady's interesting summary. She referred to a decision about adult education taken in my time. Do I understand that that decision has been overturned, and that priority is now given definitely to adult education before the raising of the school age and the framing of the development plans? I should have thought the best thing to do would be to proceed with the facilities as far as possible and at the same time to carry into effect the main part of the Act, in view of the intense importance of obtaining facilities, buildings, and so forth to raise the school-leaving age. The right hon. Lady also said there might be some hesitation among people of a younger age in taking part in a discussion of social and economic problems, but I was not entering upon a discussion of that sort; I was giving the views which I had discussed with the late Dr. Temple, who, I think, probably did more for the workers' educational movement than anybody else, and was interested in the very problems, sometimes from the angle of the right hon. Lady, as she knows. I was only considering it from his point of view. I would like to say about education generally, and about adult education, that I feel this is the one branch of our activities in which we can thank God for escaping from politics. Therefore, let us preserve this oasis in our lives in which we can get together and get inspiration. Do not let us bring in political arguments, because they weaken the fibre of our thought. Let us also be thankful for the little recreation which is so important to all of us from time to time.

I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about keeping party conflicts out of the field of education, which both the late Minister of Education and the late Parliamentary Secretary succeeded in doing so brilliantly. I only wish to say that the right hon. Gentleman did cast that fly, and perhaps I rose to it, but I really did not introduce it and I tried to be a model of sweet reasonableness which is not, I think, my usual forte. With regard to adult education, clearly the main job must wait on progress with the development plans.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, grants in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare."

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

The subject which I am glad to have an opportunity of raising this afternoon is the need for the speedy derequisitioning of all housing premises which are in present requisition by the Government as offices, hostels, accommodation for troops and other purposes. I would like to emphasise first that I shall not refer to peacetime office accommodation that is requisitioned and, of course, in no way do I refer to those houses that are requisitioned by local authorities to help provide homes for those who have nowhere to live.

In view of the publicity which this subject has had recently in the Press, I feel that the Government may welcome an opportunity of making a statement, and I much appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works is here himself this afternoon. I would like to apologise for the fact that the Adjournment has occurred at such an inconvenient time.

I speak mainly as a London Member but, from the figures which I will give in a moment to illustrate the magnitude of this problem, I think it will be agreed that it is one which will appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House and from all parts of the country. The figures which I take the opportunity of quoting, with the permission of the House, are found in the OFFICIAL REPORT this morning and were given as a written reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom). If my arithmetic is correct, they may be summarised as follows: There are in the United Kingdom a total of 20,741 requisitioned housing 'premises, of which 4,210 are flats, and of that total there are 6,460 in London, of which 3,475 are flats.

May I repeat that in London at this moment there are requisitioned for offices, or other accommodation, 3,475 flats, and it is about flats and small houses in particular that I would like to say a word or two. In each flat not only is living accommodation being wasted because it is being used as an office, but there is lying idle a bathroom and a kitchen—though knowing Government servants as I do, no doubt the kitchen has been used to brew many a pot of tea on many an occasion. There are these 3,475 requisitioned flats; what would their speedy release mean to the local authorities with very long waiting lists of people requiring accommodation? In many cases I do not think any conversion would be required; it should be possible for the family to walk in directly the official walks out. I ask the Minister to give the derequisitioning of these flats highest priority. Perhaps he and the Minister of Health might take as their immediate target, and as their slogan, "4,000 flats, 4,000 homes." I fully appreciate the fact that some requisitioned property must be used as offices, but that which is required in addition to normal peacetime offices should be, by agreement with the local authorities, the housing accommodation that is most unsuitable for the housing programme. That is not the case at the moment.

Has not the moment come to stop requisitioning for this sort of purpose? I understand—my informant may be wrong—that a large block of flats, called Chiltern Court, over Baker Street Station, has just been taken over. If my information is correct, I do not understand how this ties up with the recent Order of the Minister of Health that no housing premises should be taken over, or converted into offices. When a building is derequisitioned—which seems to me a rather infrequent occurrence—by a Department such as the War Office, it should remain derequisitioned and should not, unless most unsuitable for housing, be offered by the Minister of Works, acting as the agent, to other Ministries.

There is a rather personal matter on which I have had a certain amount of correspondence with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Works. In my constituency some 20 houses are at this moment being converted into offices and, in my opinion, valuable housing labour is being wasted, especially in view of the number of workmen employed on housing in London. I am informed that this is being done to enable some flats to be derequisitioned. That is a most noble sentiment, and fully in accordance with the point I am trying to make, but it does not seem logical that at this stage labour should be employed in such work. If these houses have to be used as offices, they should be used without any conversion except, perhaps, for a few telephones and the usual office furniture being put in. It should not be necessary to make communicating doors and put up partitions.

Owners of requisitioned property should be given every facility to return to their property, especially those coming from the Forces. No matter how large or small the house is, the fact that the man who is the owner is to live in it, would release accommodation where he has been living and make some contribution, though a small one, to the housing programme. As an example, I know of a flight lieutenant, who has had to keep his wife and family in the country while he was away on Service duties. He has now been demobilised, and returned to his London job, and wants to live in his own house. I wrote to the Secretary of State for War and was told that the house was occupied by A.T.S. personnel, and that if will be so used for some months.

It is an accepted philosophy that "Necessity is the mother of invention." I think it is time official circles realised that the necessity which conceived requisitioning is now over, and that the new necessity is to find homes. I ask the Min- ister of Works and the Minister of Health to consider this matter very seriously and to consult with local authorities to make sure that those properties used for Government offices are most suitable for that purpose and most unsuitable for housing. May I present again the immediate target and slogan which I have offered: "4,000 flats, 4,000 homes"?

2.12 p.m.

I would like to add a few words to what the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) said on this subject, and particularly on one point, that where a Government Department like the War Office has requisitioned property and it has been derequisitioned, the owners should be able to go into the premises. I have had cases of this nature. Property is derequisitioned and, instead of the owner being allowed to return, some other Department takes it. In one case a man with a family wished to go back to his home which the War Office had derequisitioned, but, instead of allowing him to do so, the property was canvassed round the Government Departments and some other Department got it. In the case of large houses, of which there are many in my constituency, it is not always easy to convert them for use by more than one family owing to lack of labour and materials. But the owner himself might be quite able to occupy it with his family and take his part in the ordinary life of the community. Instead of that, he is told that he must remain out for an indefinite period and the house is taken over by another Department.

I suggest to the Minister that on derequisitioning of property when one Government Department has finished with it, instead of other Departments being invited to apply for it, the owner should be consulted and the merits of the case, sometimes a very serious case, should be given due consideration.

2.14 p.m.

We were reminded yesterday by an answer to a Question that many houses are unoccupied in Paddington and Marylebone. I think that when an issue is raised so admirably and reasonably as that which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), the occasion should be taken as an opportunity for the Minister to provide the answer, and also to give added information as to the likely use of the properties referred to yesterday. It was astounding information. I am certain that even the hon. Member who asked the Question hardly expected to be told of all these thousands of unoccupied houses.

I heartily support the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea, but I suggest that it is not sufficient to vacate flats or offices or derequisition them—there should be some declaration as to how the flats are to be adapted, because many of them, whatever the hon. and gallant Member says, are entirely unsuitable for immediate occupation. We should think in terms of families and homesteads being immediately available. There is one other suggestion I would like to make to the Minister. I know he may disclaim responsibility on this point, but there is a kind of co-operation, I believe, between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works. It is in relation to many good-sized houses which are being used for the storage of furniture. I know within at least half a mile of my own home in Surrey there are at least five different properties which have been filled with furniture for the last four, five or even six years. That should not be allowed to continue. I believe the local authorities, if they have not the power, should be told this kind of thing must stop. Homesteads of that type should be made available, and whoever has not got the power should be given it to see that the furniture is cleared away to somewhere else rather than that it should occupy quite useful habitable homesteads.

I would make a plea to the Minister on that point that a further survey should take place. I believe what is happening in the town where I live must be happening in many London suburbs. There must be at least another 1,000 houses around London which are simply used sometimes as repositories, sometimes possibly by the local authority, but definitely used by one body or group of persons of one form or another, for storing furniture. The respective Ministries should cooperate with the local government authoriites, and the latter should be told that this sort of thing has to come to an end. The furniture must be removed elsewhere, so that homesteads are made available out of these places of storage, which, though they may have been useful and necessary at one time, are no longer necessary when the question of the housing of the people is such an urgent one. I suggest that the Minister gives a reply on those questions.

2.19 p.m.

The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) has, of course, opened two new questions closely related to the one which has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on which, no doubt, the Minister will have something to say. In regard to the matter of the use of houses for storage of furniture, I think everyone would agree that any premises which can be made available for use as housing accommodation by reasonably simple conversion should be so made available and should not be used for storage. Some steps should be taken to provide otherwise for that need. The question has also been raised of conversion of large houses to accommodate families who at the present moment are living under quite impossible and intolerable conditions. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend recognises that there is a limit to what can be done in the way of conversion.

A great many houses which are lying empty in the West End of London today cannot be converted for use by small families without tremendous and quite undue expenditure of labour and material. In many cases they cannot be converted at all. They have large, very lofty, rooms which require a tremendous amount of heating, and which cannot be sub-divided because, almost invariably, there is only one fireplace and frequently only one window. There is a limit to what the public authority can do by way of conversion of these houses, and I think in London the local authorities have in fact carried that process almost as far as is possible. I am satisfied that in Westminster the City Council have in fact requisitioned, and proceeded to convert, every property which was suitable and for which they had the labour and material available.

The real charge is not against my right hon. Friend the Minister, because we all realise that he is as much a victim in this matter as anyone else. He is the requisitioning authority on behalf of the Departments who require to use premises. I am certain that he is as anxious as any Member, or right hon. Member, of this House to get these places back into use for the purposes for which they ought to be used. The real point which I would like to stress is that it is fantastic and, indeed, almost criminal that Government Departments should be using small flats in big blocks for office purposes. That is the most inefficient, uneconomical accommodation that can possibly be found for carrying on clerical and administrative work.

These modern flats, fully equipped with cooking appliances, hot water, bathrooms and everything, are being used in that way, all those facilities being completely wasted. They are using those flats and leaving standing empty, or occupied by Departments of foreign Governments who, I submit, should now be called upon to go back home, large houses which are not suitable for conversion. We may have differences of opinion as to whether these Government Departments should have been reduced in number and their staffs reduced far more than is the case, but, so long as we must have requisitioned accommodation, surely, it is not asking too much that the Government should see to it that these people work in the accommodation which, as a matter of fact, is much more suitable to their work, though perhaps a little less comfortable than the accommodation which they now occupy.

There is one case amongst many that have been brought to my notice which I would like to mention. I have had hundreds of letters from all over London since I was rash enough to write a letter to the Press on the subject. There is one case, in London alone, where seven or eight small modern houses with five or six bedrooms have been occupied for many years by the A.T.S., while beside them there have been, for the same period, large empty houses. Surely, that is a scandal. One can go round Westminster and see flats which could be occupied by quite small families. I am told sometimes, "If you get a Government Department out of this place you are freeing luxury flats." I am not at all ashamed to suggest that the man who can afford to live in a luxury flat needs housing accommodation just as much as anybody else, and it is better that he should have that than continue to occupy, as he does, smaller accommodation else- where which might be suitable for someone else.

I urge that this problem should be attacked systematically, and thoroughly, and that the Minister should insist that the Government Departments get out of this housing accommodation and go into the empty and unusable accommodation which cannot be converted and which cannot be used for housing purposes. They should be told to make the best they can of those surroundings. I have a belief that a little discomfort would go a long way towards demobilising Government Departments. The view one forms of the importance of one's job if one has a comfortable office in Shell Mex House, and one lives in a nice comfortable flat in a house in or near London is that one's job is very important indeed, but if those officers were sent down to Bridgend to work in the empty office accommodation there, and they lived in the excellent hostel accommodation in Bridgend, I feel many of them would urge upon the heads of the Government Departments that their work might well be wound up. I do not like to suggest freezing out the Government Departments, although before we finish we may have to do so, but I do suggest to the Minister that there is an overwhelming case for reviewing the whole of the potential housing accommodation occupied by Government Departments in London, clearing out the Government Departments and finding them something not so good but adequate, and restoring this much needed accommodation for the use of the people who need it.

I have a habit, which I know other hon. Members have, of meeting as many of my constituents as wish to see me, every week at a regular time, and the stories I hear from those people are pathetic. I heard only a few days ago of a case of a flat containing a sitting room and two bedrooms. In the sitting room lived a returned Army man, his wife and a child of 15. They slept there under the table. In one of the bedrooms there was the man's father and two grown up brothers, and in the other bedroom the man's mother and three grown up sisters. When I hear stories like that and have to tell the people who bring them to me that I can do nothing whatever to help them, it makes me furious to remember that there are in Westminster today 1,500 flats occupied by civil servants working under the most hopelessly inefficient conditions, pushing papers round from one to another and using the kitchens in which to make tea.

Were those flats occupied before they were requisitioned? The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that many people were evacuated from Mayfair, Westminster, Marylebone and Chelsea when (the bombing started.

The hon. Gentleman is probably right. Many of them had been vacated before they were requisitioned, but that does not in the least alter the fact that the Government ought to come out of them now, and see that they are properly occupied. It is not true of a great many blocks of flats like those in Dolphin Square, every one of which was occupied. A number of them have been freed, thanks to the efforts of the Minister. He cleared the Government Departments out of a lot of those. But there are still many flats of that kind—hundreds of them in Westminster alone, and still more elsewhere in London—1,500, the figure for Westminster, is not half the figure for the whole of London—which are immediately available and which require nothing but just cleaning to make them usable by families such as I have described, who are now living in conditions of which everyone of us ought to be, and I know is, thoroughly ashamed. It is time a really strong stand was made by the Minister against these requisitioning Departments. They should be told that so long as their job continues they must do it in conditions which are not as happy as they would like but which are adequate, and that they must make room for the still greater need of the people of London.

2.30 p.m.

I would not have intervened in this Debate but for the fact that reference was made to a Question which I addressed to the Minister of Health concerning the number of unoccupied houses and flats in certain London boroughs. I have intimate knowledge of some of these areas, and I do not accept the view that a large proportion of those unoccupied premises are too large and unsuitable for conversion for use by homeless families. Quite a considerable number of these unoccupied premises, though rather on the large side, are not what one might call large mansion flats at all. I can remember the time when they were occupied. I do not refer to the whole lot because I am not conversant with the whole lot, but I can remember the time when practically all the houses in the areas with which I am intimately associated were occupied, not necessarily by one family but by several families. When the blitz occurred there was a general exodus, and I am now referring more particularly to Paddington because I know Paddington very well. From the day those people vacated those dwellings, particularly in Gloucester Terrace, Paddington, practically all the houses in the whole Terrace, ranging from three to four storeys, have been unoccupied. I do not accept the view that all those unoccupied houses and flats are too large for the average family, nor do I accept the view that the cost of conversion and adaptation for use by the average family is too high for the purpose.

What I believe is lacking is the will to requisition these premises and to make the maximum use of them. There are some of the worst housing conditions in the whole of London, including greater London, to be found particularly in Paddington and in Kensington, and I know that a large number of these unoccupied houses and flats could be adapted for the use of the average family. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) mentioned 1,500 flats occupied by civil servants in, I presume, the Westminster area. I would like to know precisely what kind of flats these are. If they are the mansion type of flat where the rent is very high, it is obvious that even if they were derequisitioned and vacated by the Ministry of Works, they would not be suitable for the average family. Therefore, I feel in some circumstances my right hon. Friend may be justified in requisitioning large houses with exceptionally large rooms and vacating small accommodation. I believe there is a case for an investigation into the circumstances of all this property which, in the early stages of the emergency, was requisitioned when very little time could be spared for investigation and sorting out the proper places to requisition. I feel that something should be done at this juncture to review the whole of our requisitioning programme, and we should as far as we possibly can, remove furniture from dwelling houses and store it in other premises in order that we may release that accommodation for people who are in need of it.

I hope next Thursday to put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health a question asking him how many of those unoccupied houses and flats have actually been requisitioned by the local authorities concerned, and I shall await with interest—and I feel the House will do so, too—the reply to that question to see to what extent local authorities themselves are seriously tackling this problem. I hope that as a result of the publicity which has been given to the situation we shall use our maximum efforts to release the maximum amount of accommodation, whether it be by derequisitioning or by local authorities requisitioning existing unoccupied premises, and that we shall do all we can to provide the maximum accommodation for the large number of families who are urgently in need of it at the present time.

2.34 p.m.

I should like, in the first place, to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) for the notice he gave me and for the way in which he raised this question in the House. I should like to thank also other hon. Members for the spirit in which it has been ventilated. Some of the questions that have been asked and some of the policies advocated are not the responsibility of my Department, and I came today to deal with this problem of derequisitioning.

When we see houses standing empty, we make inquiries about them, and want to know why. As one who is looking for a house or a flat, I am not surprised, when I ask questions about them, to find that some of them are empty, and probably will be for a long time. What needs doing to them to make them habitable is not always apparent from the outside, and we ought not to jump to conclusions straight away that somebody is neglecting his duty just because there appears to be an empty house there.

I will first of all deal with two or three questions raised by hon. Members and then give the House a résumé of what we have been doing in order that it might see the whole picture. We are just as anxious as any hon. Member in this House to see this question resolved at the earliest possible moment, if only from the standpoint of the Minister of Works having a reasonably comfortable time. It would be a great advantage if all the requisitioned premises could be derequisitioned and we could straighten things out tomorrow. Chiltern Court has not been taken over by the Ministry of Works and, up to now, I do not know anything about whatever has happened there. I should be very surprised if, at this stage, there was any requisitioning of that kind. The question of storage of furniture in large houses is obviously a local authority one. It may be that the local authority has found it the most useful way, in the circumstances, in which large houses on be used. I know quite a number of places in which the storage of furniture is taking place at the moment and where, even from the standpoint of housing, it is better to store furniture. Such houses cannot adequately be turned into dwelling houses for people who could afford to live in them. In addition industrial undertakings are being held back owing to lack of storage space. The Ministry of Works is not responsible to any extent for these matters, which only concern us when premises have been requisitioned, and when the question of their derequisition, and what is to happen to them arises. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) talked about the necessity of making Government Departments uncomfortable in order to get this matter straightened out. I can assure him that some Government Departments are working under anything but comfortable conditions. One cannot always judge from outside appearances. Two things clash here. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced this subject said that Government servants used the kitchen parts of the flats they occupied. I was sorry he did not know Government Departments better, and that he did not think the bathrooms might be used, too.

I only said they used the kitchen in which to brew cups of tea.

But it was obviously the utilisation of facilities there, and it would appear as though that were being regarded in some quarters as one of the reasons for retaining these premises. It is nothing of the sort. I do not think we could send civil servants to Bridgend to work in offices there in order that they might be frozen out. I am not suggesting that we could not transfer to that locality individuals who, hitherto, have been working in London. In order to take the pressure off London a great deal of work is being done away from it.

My point in mentioning Bridgend is that there—I have seen it—and I am quite sure elsewhere, the Government have, in fact, not only substantial unoccupied modern and up-to-date office space, but also hostel accommodation for the staff working there.

If my attempts at persuading individuals that work could be done equally well at a long distance away from the centre of things were as successful, and if my persuasive powers were as great as those of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Abbey division, maybe I could succeed in convincing some people to vacate places in London, and we could house them in Bridgend. The slogan suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for the Minister of Health and myself, "4,000 flats, 4,000 homes," is one which I am ready to adopt. I believe that we should do all we can at the earliest possible moment to see that every flat becomes a home. We have been working on that principle and seeking to carry it out. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is interested in his constituency of Chelsea. He needs to be since it is his constituency. It becomes not a part of the whole, but an independent part. At the moment, in order to release other flats, we are converting into offices large houses which cannot reasonably be converted into flats, with the sanction and co-operation of the Ministry of Health. It is not my fault that the houses are in Chelsea and the flats are in another borough, although it would fit in with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's theory if they were. It is not difficult for me to defend the turning of those large houses into offices in order to release small flats, and that is what is taking place at the moment.

In March, 1945, the Coalition Government approved an order of priority for the release of requisitioned premises, in order to put this matter on a proper basis. I would like to give the House the groups under which places which have been derequisitioned are classified. Group I comprises small dwelling houses, flats, except luxury flats, and educational establishments. Those are the three top priorities. Group 2 comprises hotels, holiday camps and the remaining flats and offices. We put luxury flats after the small houses and the smaller flats. Group 3 covers shops, departmental stores, institutions and premises belonging to welfare and social service organisations. In Group 4 are the large dwelling houses, and Group 5 deals with the remaining premises.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the term "luxury flat" is defined anywhere, and, if so, what the definition is?

I could not answer that, but I imagine it is defined by the rental figure I have not got it with me, but I am sure that in my Department "luxury flat" is defined by a given rental.

That is on the 1939 rental and not the inflated rental of today?

That may be true, but I do not wish to get into a discussion as to what constitutes a luxury flat. What is in the lower category comes first, for what, I think, will be accepted by the House as good and sufficient reasons.

When the question of derequisitioning larger houses arises, can the Minister state whether the number in a family, which would live in that house, is taken into consideration here? I am thinking particularly of one hon. Member of this House who has nine children. He would require to have a large house.

That certainly would be taken into consideration A man with nine children would be regarded as requiring the equal of three small flats. I am not putting that forward as something which I would lay down as a rule, but it is reasonable to suggest that, if the average family is one of three, and if a man has got nine children, he is entitled to three times the accommodation. The general policy, which is vigorously pursued by all the parties, is to give priority to relieving the housing shortage, and constantly this is impressed upon the Departments concerned. I should like to give the hon. Member, who raised this question and who quoted some figures that were given in answer to a Question yesterday, some information which deals with the whole problem throughout the country.

I have had that information put into five groups. In Group 1, which is mainly made up of small houses and inexpensive flats, the number we had requisitioned at the beginning of 1945 was 39,952 The extent of this problem is scarcely realised by anyone. Each hon. Member knows it in his own particular area, and he, quite naturally, seems to think it must be much worse there than anywhere else. The number held on requisition at the end of 1945 was 11,202, so that the number of small houses and inexpensive flats which had been derequisitioned at the end of 1945 was 28,750. From this it can be gathered that somebody has been busy. Sometimes I have been in this House and have answered questions on the matter, and I have wondered whether we were derequisitioning any property at all.

I do not mind telling the House that when I received the report from which these details are taken I was surprised myself at the extent of the work done. In Group 2, expensive flats, hotels, holiday camps, and offices, the number under requisition at the beginning of 1945 was 9,511, while the number on requisition at the end of 1945 was 6,434, so that we released 3,077. In Group 3, which is shops, departmental stores, institutions and social services premises, 11,230 were held at the beginning of 1945, while the number at the end was 5,527, the number released being 5,703, In Group 4 there were 14,236 premises under requisition at the beginning of 1945 and 9,030 at the end, so that the number released was 5,206. In Group 5, which covers all remaining premises, such as warehouses, 21,823 were under requisition at the beginning of 1945 and 9,634 at the end, which represents a release of 12,189. That gives a total of 96,752 premises held on requisition at the beginning of 1945 and 41,827 held on requisition at the end of 1945, so that the number of releases totals 54,925. Hon. Members will agree that that is not a bad 12 months' work in difficult circumstances. It will be seen that of the smaller houses and inexpensive flats held on requisition by all Departments at the beginning of 1945, 72 per cent. have already been released. VJ-Day was last August, and it can reasonably be claimed that satisfactory progress has been made.

I am advised that only about 5,000 premises in Group 1, small houses and inexpensive flats, will remain on requisition at the end of April next, and that a substantial proportion of these will be surrendered quickly after that date. It must be remembered that in areas in which there is little or no office accommodation, it has always been the practice to use residential accommodation for office purposes. Until offices can be provided this practice will necessarily continue. I am quite certain that every Member of the House knows in his locality, whether inside or outside London, large residential premises which have been used for office accommodation, In the case of hotels, about which many Members have asked questions, about 4,100 were held on requisition at the beginning of 1945, of which approximately 2,000 had been released by the end of the year, so that about 50 per cent. have been released and the whole process is continuing. By the end of April the number still held on requisition by all Departments throughout the country will have been reduced to about 1,000. The need for releasing holiday accommodation is fully recognised and releases of hotels will continue. It is inevitable that a number of those remaining under requisition at the end of April, 1946, will continue to be required for some time. For instance, about 40,000 headquarters staffs are in the provinces, a number of whom are accommodated in hotels. We hear about them from time to time and they are not in those hotels because they want to be but because in the circumstances they must be. Accommodation is not available for these staffs in London and certain hotels will have to be retained until staff as a whole can be reduced, or alternative accommodation can be provided.

As I announced in November last, 66 of the 87 requisitioned holiday camps belonging to the members of the Federation of Permanent Holiday Camps will have been released by this month. I do not want to weary the House, but I should like to say that this is a question which has been brought forward often, and I am not complaining. It must be brought forward constantly because of the pressure which comes from people who are needing accommodation. It is one of the biggest headaches that I have got in my Department and the example that was given this morning could be multiplied a thousandfold. We are all anxious to get away from the present state of things as soon as we can, but at the same time we have to recognise the lack of office accommodation in London for people who are anxious to come back, and whole offices are being held and must continue to be held for quite a time if the Government work is to go on. These things are always before us, and we are anxious to do what we can not only to release the flats and small houses which have been asked for, which we believe should come first, but also other buildings which are needed for purposes other than those for which they are now being used.

The question of accommodation held by foreign and Dominion Governments is under, review and shortly substantial areas will be released. I ask the House to believe that we are just, as anxious as hon. Members opposite that we should return to normality—if it can be called "normality"—and see that property is derequisitioned so that people can use it to live in or for office purposes. If it sometimes appears that what we have done seems perverse, I can assure the House that it has been done only after the whole question has been looked at from all angles. I hope the Member who raised this question is satisfied that the Ministry of Works are conscious of the need, and are attempting to meet it.

I wish to call the attention of the House to a totally different subject—to the British Information Services in New York. First I would like to say how grateful I am to see here the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who, I know, is doing a lot of work in connection with the United Nations. Last year, the British Information Services in New York spent £350,000, and for the current year it is proposed to spend £300,000. It is against that economy, that reduction of £50,000, that I want to make a protest. I think it is a dangerous case of being "penny wise, pound foolish," for the £350,000 we spent in America has to be divided between books, pamphlets, the radio and newspapers, which are not national, as they are in this country, but regional, and which require to the fed all the time. If that Service is to do its work in America it must put out, all the time, a mass of information. In the evil years between 1921–39 successive Governments spent a miserable £10,000 a year in America. We maintained there the British Library of Information in New York, and for the task with which it was confronted theirs was a pitiable and useless effort. We had comparatively few British Consulates, strung out mostly on the East coast, although that has been improved slightly during the war and, I hope, will be maintained.

To give the House a comparison, may I remind Members that the British Council last year received a grant of £3.500.000? The British Information Service received exactly one-tenth of that sum. I am not saying that the British Council has not done good work in various parts of the world, but I do not believe their work is ten times more important than the presentation of our case in America. If we have to cut our coat I would much rather take another slice from the British Council, good as it is, and put it into North America. I hope that we are not going back to that silly pre-1939 standard. During the war the British Information Services have been the responsibility of the Ministry of Information, which, we understand, will be disbanded in March. Who is then to take responsibility for the British Information Services? Will it be the Foreign Office, and, if so, will it be their North American Division? I hope the Minister will do all he can to help in that important and difficult task. The war has taught us many lessons, and I believe the most important is this: that if we are to have peace and security if we are to know the peace we all want, the British and American peoples must learn to work together. I do not ask for anything more than that.

I read in an American paper only this week that Lady Astor, who used to be a Member of this House, and who has just returned to her native country, was asked for her comments. She said she was not so foolish as to expect the British and Americans to like one another, let alone love one another, but she did expect them to have enough sense to work together. That is what I am pleading for today. During the war we had a marvellous example in General Eisenhower's staff work, which was done by men of both nations who worked and planned together. So far as it is possible we should have a close a liaison in future with the Americans in the industrial, financial and political field. I realise that as a result of the war we have tended to drift apart. In this country we had an Election, and by the will of the people we have gone Left. But that is our business. No one can cavil at that. That is the decision of the majority of the people. Unfortunately, in America, since the death of President Roosevelt, there has been a tendency to drift in the other direction. That is their business; we have no right to comment on that. But relations between the two countries are worse today than they have been for a long time, and in support of that I would like to read a short extract from an American Press summary, which was issued by the Ministry of Information on 4th February. It states: something good to put in our shop window. We do not need to go to the Americans on our hands and knees as a defeated nation. We have something to be proud of, but they will not know about it unless we tell them.

I would like the Minister to pass on to his chief, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the suggestion that the best thing he can do is to go to America for a holiday and business trip. He would do this country a power of good, because he represents, in his own person, all the best which Americans think of an Englishman. He is big, forceful, forthright, not frightened, and has a touch of the Elizabethan about him which I am sure they will admire. Recently, another Minister went to Canada and America, and my friends tell me that his visit did a lot of good in both countries.

I believe that the Minister himself learnt quite a bit and was a better man for his visit. On the other hand, I say to the Government that I think they might do well to keep some of their wandering minstrels from the London School of Economics at home. My information is that the tendency to go over there and teach the Americans how to run their own country is doing more harm than good. We all hope and pray that U.N.O. from which, unfortunately, I have had to drag the Under-Secretary, will succeed. But it may not. There is nothing in European history to justify some of the high hopes that have been held out for it. There have been dozens of conferences like this before and, unhappily, every one has failed. I say that U.N.O. cannot succeed unless the real corner stone of Anglo-American understanding is firmly laid. I say, as one who fought in one war and who does not want his children to fight in another, that if U.N.O. should fail, which I hope it will not, I want Anglo-American English speaking solidarity to be the second bow to my string. I think that it is the best guarantee for world peace and world prosperity. Oliver Cromwell, whom I was brought up to admire, taught his men to bloc against anyone else, that is the job B.I.S. has to do. During the war, the cleverest little propagandist in the world, Dr. Goebbels, used to speak to England with one voice and to America with another. He used to say, "Look out you English. Your Prime Minister has sold you to the Yankees, and you will wake up to find your country only the 49th State in the Union." At the same time, he got another man to speak to America, saying, "Your President has sold you. The good work of 1776 will soon be undone and you will be back in the British Empire." He did his best to divide us and he failed, partly because of the good work done by B.I.S. to explain our position to the American people. I do not want all that work undone. I think that it is vital that it should not be cut down but increased. During the Recess, this House has wisely sent parties to various parts of the world on missions of fact finding, good will, or sheer pleasure. We sent them to Austria, Poland, Greece, Germany, and so far as India. Nothing, in my opinion, is more important than to send a party to America. However important these other peoples may be, they cannot affect our lives to the extent which the Americans can. I think that it is a great mistake that we do not take this obvious opportunity. During the few months that this Parliament has been sitting, we have had the pleasure of seeing and entertaining many members of Congress and the Senate. Far too few Members of this House have gone the other way. I would plead with the Government when they are making their future arrangements not to forget the U.S.A.

My final word is this. In the City Notes of "The Times" of yesterday was this statement, which is very à propos: contribution, than the Americans if their heart is once touched, and if the facts are put before them. That is the job of the B.I.S. If the loan, which is going to be so vital to us, if the food which we so badly require, is to come to us it has to come to us by the goodwill and the concurrence of the American public. Those things will come to us all the more readily if our facts are stated to them and stated without apologies. Therefore I say this. The British Intelligence Service in New York has an enormous job, a vital job to do. The most important thing in front of us, because if we and the Americans cannot hold together there is no hope for unity between any other nations. Our hope, our children's hope, lies in our mutual understanding and our willingness to work together. If we will only set out our case to the Americans I am sure we shall in every instance get a good response from them. Therefore, I beg of the Minister to reconsider this miserable allocation of £300,000, and to send the best men that we have to North America—not only in the top jobs but right throughout the Consulate—and to see that this all-important job is done to the best of our ability.

3.13 p.m.

I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). With most of it I agreed, although I thought he took a rather unnecessary risk in bringing in Oliver Cromwell, having regard to the presence on the benches opposite of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). After all, some of these deep-seated family prejudices are best left alone and not stirred up. I would like to give general support to the case put forward by my hon. Friend, and I would like to make it clear to the Minister that there are many of us in this House who would not like this excellent organisation in New York to be used for the specific purpose of bolstering up the case in favour of this country getting the loan which I understand is shortly to be considered by Congress. Apart from that, I do think the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway made an excellent case. I would like to indicate to the Minister the great need there is for seeing that the right type of British case is put forward in the United States of America, and in particular I should like to underline the point made by the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway that the sort of case we want to make in America is not what he called the London School of Economics case. What we want is hon. Members from this House like the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir William Darling) or the one from South Nottingham. They are the sort of ambassadors we need.

3.15 p.m.

I should like to speak in general support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has said. Of all countries, except the U.S.S.R., America is obviously the one in which we should spend most money, time and energy in expounding our case and our point of view. I would underline what my hon. Friend said about the very dangerous wave of isolationism in America today. There is isolationism tending not only towards anti-British feeling but, as several Members indicated when my hon. Frie I was speaking, towards anti-Russian feeling. That is likely, if allowed to go unchecked, to be one of the gravest threats to United Nations' co-operation. During the early part of the war and in the years preceding the war, I remember one of the great questions of the day was, "Will America come in, and if so, when?" During all that time there was a good deal of activity by isolationist bodies, such, as the "Save America First" organisation, to the effect that America must preserve her neutral status. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth. If more money and time had been spent by the British propaganda services, which in those days hardly existed, in the United States of America, these isolationist organisations would not have had half the chance they did have in the earlier part of the wax to sabotage the efforts of President Roosevelt and other supporters of the Allied cause.

It may be repugnant to the British to, so to speak, crack themselves up and to do propaganda abroad or anywhere else, to show what fine fellows we are, but I believe that if we do not do everything in our power to combat the very considerable Isolationism which is sweeping America at the moment, we shall render a great disservice to the world and to the interests of world peace and security. I do not at all share the fears of my hon. Friend as regards the United Nations Organisation. If I may digress for a moment I would like to pay very high tribute to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to those associated with him, in his recent achievements. U.N.O. has weathered a very difficult storm and has come through very well. If it is able to stand up to such an arduous test there is very good hope that it will stand up to the still more arduous tests with which it will be faced in the future.

I think that U.N.O. will work. Anglo-American co-operation must be considered not so much as a second string to our bow, but as part and parcel of the work of the United Nations Organisation, which has not a hope of succeeding if there is not co-operation and agreement at the top, among the three Great Powers. That is where all the plans, the agreements and the working of the organisation have to start. If there is not agreement among the three, or the five, great Powers, there is no hope for agreement among the 52 Powers, let alone the many more nations who will ultimately be members of the organisation.

I entirely agree with what the Prime Minister said at the opening of the Conference. We must subordinate our policy to the interests of the United Nations Organisation. That is the basis from which we must start in our foreign policy. Anglo-American understanding can play an enormous part in this. Agreement in the United Nations Organisation depends upon agreement among the three Great Powers, and that depends upon Anglo-American-Russian understanding. Here we have the case why, in the interests of United Nations' co-operation, an increase in money, time and energy should be spent upon the British Information Services in America.

3.18 p.m.

The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has rendered great service by raising this subject today, but I cannot help feeling that he has a little underrated the delicacy and difficulty of the handling of the problem of propaganda. For instance, if it should be reported in American papers that we want to put our case over in the United States, that fact would tend to increase the suspicion with which all propaganda is viewed in that country. The hon. Member did not indicate by what method our case would be put over and through what channels. One service we could render in America is always to have hard, incontrovertible facts available for any American newspaper which wants to get at the real truth. I am bound to say that in that respect British Information Services did a great deal of invaluable service, upon a very small subvention, before the war.

It is true, of course, that there are many critics of this country in the United States, but I do not for one moment incline to the opinion that fundamental relations between our two countries are worse today than they have been for many years. America is a great country, and we have very many good and close friends there. I am perfectly convinced that if we want to fight Isolationism in America we must do it through our friends in America, and not by an attempt to put out propaganda through official agencies in New York or anywhere else. We had better rely in this case, as so often in our affairs, on the usual channels, these being the newspapers of America, and to a lesser extent the newspapers of this country. America is well served by her great newspapers, and they are extremely well served by their correspondents in London. I believe that we should pay a tribute to American correspondents, many of whom I could name, for the contribution which they have made towards the right understanding of this country in the United States. There is another point, when there is only a limited amount of money to use. The war has brought the United States and ourselves very close together, and despite superficial criticisms we are holding very closely together today. The co-operation between our delegates and the American delegates at the meetings of U.N.O. was one of the great sources of strength in the debates of that organisation.

When we come to our own Continent in which, after all, we are very deeply interested, we surely see there are many countries which we need to understand better, and which need to understand us better. We have been cut off from them during the war; all communication has been curtailed, and the newspapers of different countries have not circulated. We are just re-establishing contact with Holland and Belgium, to a large extent with France, and to a great extent with Russia. I would submit to the hon. Member who will reply for the Foreign Office that the need for mutual understanding with France, and certainly with Soviet Russia, with Poland, and with Egypt, is even greater than the need for mutual understanding between us and the United States, for I believe that in that case the understanding to a large extent already exists.

However the work of the British Council, the broadcastings of the B.B.C. and whatever other agencies, such as Press Attaches at our various Embassies and so on may develop, I hope that we shall not forget the supreme importance of carrying on as delicately, effectively and as wisely as we can propaganda—if the word must be used—in the various countries in Europe with which we need to stand in much closer relations than we do today.

3.23 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has approached this subject in a somewhat unscientific manner. I quite agree with him that if it were possible for us to leave it to our friends in the United States of America, to put over our case, it would obviously be the most satisfactory way of dealing with this very vital matter. The first question which we must ask ourselves is: Who are our friends, and with what effective voices can they be heard? It is but a few months since I returned from the United States, and I take a much more serious view of this matter than do some hon. Members who have spoken. I feel that we must look upon this matter as requiring a very scientific approach if we are to put over our case in the best possible way.

The hon. Gentleman who raised this matter referred to the spirit of isolationism, and there is little doubt at all, and we must be prepared to face up to the fact, that there is a tremendous amount of anti-British and anti-Russian feeling in the United States of America. Indeed, the majority of the more important newspapers are anti-British, and I remember when I was over there, when, quite obviously pursuant to an arrangement between the American and the British Government, it was found necessary to withdraw the "Queen Elizabeth" which had previously been used for transporting troops from this country to America, the newspaper headlines read "Queen Elizabeth withdrawn—G.I.'s hit." Throughout the whole trend of American opinion, as publicised in their newspapers, there is an anti-British sentiment. The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) was very anxious that our Information Office should not be used for the purpose of putting over a case which would influence Congress either granting us or not granting us the loan. I quite agree that that is not its function, but I would stress this point: it might well be that if they were to put over the case for a loan to be granted, as at present constituted, the result might be directly the opposite to what they intended. It is not a question of spending £300,000 or £350,000; it is what we are getting for our money, and we can only judge the efficiency of our British Information Services by the results we get, and I am not sure in this connection that we are getting value for our money.

I had an opportunity of going over the British Information Office. I found very well equipped offices in large and commodious premises, and it was a very interesting tour. However, I would like to tell the House of just one point which is uppermost in my mind when I consider the question of whether or not we have an efficient form of service in the U.S.A. I asked where I could see a photograph of the Prime Minister, and I was told that there were no good photographs of the Prime Minister—although there were good photographs exhibited of President Truman, President Roosevelt, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I asked if they would be good enough to take me to the photographic department, and there the young man assured me there were plenty of very good photographs of the Prime Minister. The man who was conducting me round the premises then said, "You know, we have to be very careful; we must not enter into politics." I pointed out quite clearly that this was no question of politics but a question of having a likeness of the right hon. Gentleman who is the Prime Minister of this country.

That, in itself, although only an isolated instance, is indicative of the fact that we have some of the wrong kind of people responsible for our propaganda in the United States of America. And do not let us underestimate the value of propaganda. The Americans do not understand this delicate approach to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. They like blunt talking and they like straight talking. They like to hear us put over our own case, but they like the case put over in their own way. The conclusion at which I arrived after I had left the United States of America was that it was vital that England's case should be put over, but that it should be put over by a high-pressure American salesman, so that they would understand how we stand very much better than they do at the moment.

The British Information Office publications do not get to the right places. You never see them where they ought to be seen, and I am satisfied that there must be some radical alteration in the type of people who are running these places who seem to lack completely a business acumen so essential; they must be made to realise that the Information Office cannot be treated merely as a library but must be used to ensure that the British case is put over effectively because make no mistake, whereas our propaganda was used as a weapon of attack against ignorance before America came into the war, we must now use that instrument in the United States of America as a weapon of defence. I think we shall be blinding ourselves if we are not prepared to accept that it is absolutely essential in the interests of this country to show the Americans that not only can we stand on our own feet, if it becomes necessary, but that we can anticipate we shall receive support, if so required, from the Empire and from other parts of the world should a failure on their part to appreciate our circumstances make this necessary.

These are all very vital issues, and I feel that if we merely consider whether we are to spend £300,000 or £350,000 without going to the root of the problem—which lies in the nature of the, propaganda we have to put over—then I say we are failing in this very important matter. I therefore ask that my hon. Friend should examine every proposal, and investigate every avenue, to ensure that we are making our voice heard in a way which the Americans understand.

There is a profound ignorance of British institutions in the United States of America and of the way in which this House is run. The fact that 99 out of every 100 people whom I met were not aware that our Ministers answer questions every day and are liable to be shot at by hon. Members of the House is a small indication of this position. They were very interested in this sort of thing, which makes them realise the form of democracy we have in this country and our mode of life. While that is not the most important matter in which ignorance is manifest, hon. Members must not imagine that Americans understand what is going on here; they do not. The matter should be approached, not from the point of view of the amount of money we are going to spend, but from that of what we are going to get for that money. If we do that, there will be closer relations between this country and America, not merely because we have improved methods of propaganda, but because, for the first time, Americans will begin to understand our point of view in this country.

3.32 p.m.

The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) for raising this important matter, but I must differ from the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) about the importance of propaganda. I do not feel that an intelligent people like those of the United States, who speak the English language, or what they call the English language, are likely to be susceptible to the high pressure salesmanship which is being advocated. I believe that relations between nations cannot be built soundly by such methods. If large sums of money are to be spent, I would ask the Foreign Secretary to consider a mutual education policy. I would put down half a million of our scarce British pounds if the United States of America would put down an equal amount. It is to the interests of the United States that they should understand us, as it is in our interest that we should understand them. So that if a substantial sum of money is to be spent, I would not have it spent in the form of deliberate propaganda but, frankly and openly, on mutual education. If we could approach the United States in that way we would be on sounder grounds than those which have been put before the House.

How is it that we have such a record in the United States? It is because we share a similar history and language. I come from a country—not too frequently mentioned in this House—which has always had a very real affection for the United States. We have not sold Scotch whisky in the United States because of propaganda, but because of the merit of that unique commodity. We have not sold Scots textiles and tweeds because of propaganda and advertising, which is of a most meagre character even in the national newspapers, but because we sell and can still sell greater and greater quantities. Scots woollens, books, and stationery are largely sold in the United States on the solid basis that the people of the United States like the Scots and like their work. Does the hon. Member for Bolton know the number of Burns Societies in that great continent? It runs not to the hundred, but to the hundred thousand.

Has the hon. Member any idea as to the extent in which Scotch whisky and Scottish textiles are advertised in America and does he not consider that to be high pressure salesmanship?

I am as familiar with the "Saturday Evening Post" and "Life" or "Time" as the hon. Member is. My visits to the United States have probably been inspired by a less intelligent mind, but they certainly have been no less frequent than those of the hon. Member. This business of propaganda, as the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) very pertinently said, is a business of persons. What we want to do with the United States is to get hold of the individual persons, and we have had during the last four years an infinitely valuable opportunity of establishing those relations which, in the words of Burke, are "light as air yet strong as iron." These bind people together as no high pressure propaganda ever can. I have on my own mailing list some 150 United States citizens who write to me. If every other hon. Gentleman had on his mailing list—and could write as good letters as I can write—150 names and could write, and receive across the Atlantic in return, 150 such letters, there would be established a network of sentiment and goodwill which would be much more valuable than the £300,000 which my right hon. Friend intends to spend through the Ministry of Information.

Let there be a letter exchange, let there be a paper exchange. Send your weekly "Scotsman" and your weekly "Times"—I would not say so much for the daily "Times"—and the "Glasgow Herald," those very great instruments of public opinion, exchange them with your neighbours. There is yet another possibility which, I think should well be explored. It is odd that the hon. Member for Louth did not mention it. He has very near to his own constituency, I believe actually in his constituency, the ancient borough of Boston. [ Interruption .] Well, close to his constituency he has the ancient borough of Boston. Is there not there an opportunity for establishing and strengthening those bonds of affection and sentimental regard? The Boston on this side of the Atlantic united to the Boston on the other side. They should have a mutual exchange of fraternal greeting. The York on this side with that lesser or greater or newer York on the other side.

There are in the United States 17 Edinburghs. I sent them a cable not very long ago, and we had a mutual exchange of fraternal greetings. Now Cables and Wireless belong to us, how much more frequently can we not use this very interesting method? The tragic devotion of H.M. Government to material matters is, I think, one of the most disappointing things in a Socialist administration. I have far more confidence in fraternity, comradeship, and human nature than I have in the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I deplore this accentuation of a highly commercial character of relationship between great nations. The Americans like us, and we like the Americans, and those who say it will require high pressure salesmanship to get Anglo-American friendship are mistaken. Events will show they are mistaken, and, if they are not mistaken, Heaven help this world of ours.

3.39 p.m.

I should like to join with other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on raising this subject, and also to apologise to him because. I propose to introduce a slightly different aspect of this matter. I am going to be the cuckoo in his nest, and I hope my little egg will eventually hatch out together with his. The way in which this Debate has developed, I think, gives some point to the remarks I want to make. They are on the general question of whether our diplomatic representation in foreign capitals is really providing us at home with the service that we require at this moment. I ought to say in fairness to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that I informed him I was going, to raise this matter only some 20 minutes, ago and I shall, therefore, for obvious reasons, not press him to give a detailed reply. I think it is fair that the House should realise that. We have had a good deal of talk on this subject lately and some of my hon. Friends are anxious about it. In Question time the other day the Under-Secretary was good enough to answer, at any rate, a certain number of questions in what I would regard as a not entirely satisfactory manner.

We require of our ambassadors abroad two things. First of all, they should keep up a tiptop service between their own embassies and the Foreign Secretary; and secondly, which is directly related to the subject of this Debate, they should be men who are capable of selling Great Britain, if I may use the phrase, in the public opinion of the world. This is a delicate subject, and I would like hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House to realise that I raise it in no personal spirit of malice whatever. I propose, if possible, to avoid referring by name or by direct reference to any capital city or to any of His Majesty's present ambassadors. But I am bound to say that I and some of my hon. Friends are not entirely happy that the second of those two objects is at present being achieved in every part of the world. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has succeeded in inspiring in his own Service the same enthusiasm and devotion which he has succeeded in inspiring in everything else that he has touched all through his career, but I am still not satisfied that as the people of foreign countries look at our diplomatic representation they are receiving a fair picture of life in this country as it exists at the moment.

As an ex-member of the Service about which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking, I must make this one point. The two matters which, from my brief experience of that Service, are wrong are not its personnel—it has a very good personnel indeed—but its pay and its numbers. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would go to any one of the embassies and legations abroad, he would find that the reason why it is impossible for the personnel of the Diplomatic and Consular Services to put across the British case is that they have no time to go about in the countries to which they are accredited. They sit in their offices all day long because there is not a sufficient number of them. The second point is the pay—

The hon. Gentleman is now making a speech. He had better wait until he is called.

With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have been called, and I just want to make this point. As regards pay, they have not the money, very largely, to entertain foreigners and to keep up the representation that they should. That is what is wrong with the Foreign Service.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I dare say my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is too, because he has clearly done some of his work for him. I am coming to this point, which I assure the House I do appreciate. We have at the present moment, to take the ambassadors alone, two different types. We have the ambassador who has reached the head of the Diplomatic Service, who has attained the summit of his career and is now His Majesty's representative in a foreign capital. We also have in a number of foreign capitals ambassadors who have been appointed, not as the result of a career in the Diplomatic Service, but for some special reason, either because they were considered at some time to be particularly suitable to represent His Majesty's Government in a foreign country, or conceivably because they were considered particularly unsuitable to represent His Majesty's Government in this House. But be that as it may, we have got these two kinds of appointments, and I would suggest to my hon. Friend—and here I believe I disagree with some of my hon. Friends who surround me—that it is high time these special appointments were done away with. The reason why I suggest that—and this is where I deal with the intervention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting)—is this. If we are ever to democratise our Diplomatic Service and make it really representative of the people of this country, it is essential that it must be broadened out as regards the opportunities of entry, and at the same time it must provide the fruits of a good career at the top of it. If we are going to encourage the people of this country to enter the Diplomatic Service on a broader basis than they have been able to do in the past, it will be fatal if at the same time we remove the fruits of a long and successful career at the other end of it. I am prepared to accept the view, with which I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree, that it is possible so to organise our Diplomatic Service that our diplomats shall in the future be faithful servants of the public, as I believe, generally speaking, they have been in the past.

I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman, if he will give it to me, that he and his right hon. Friend have got in mind the undesirability of robbing the Diplomatic Service of the fruits of its service at the top of the tree. But, at the same time, I hope, he will also give an assurance that the broadening of the basis of entry into the Diplomatic Service, to which we have heard a certain amount of lip service paid in recent years, is really going to happen, and that we can look in future to a Diplomatic Service recruited from the best people, everywhere, regardless of their social position or financial capacity to lead any particular sort of life.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that the profit motive is a proper one, and should be retained?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am quite pleased for it to go on record in this House that I regard profit motive as a pretty substantial motive. All I ask of hon. Gentlemen, opposite is that it should not be allowed to be abused to the disservice of the public rather than to its advantage. In certain capitals of the world there are at the moment representatives of His Majesty's Government who may be admirable public servants from the point of view of the Foreign Secretary, but who are associated in the minds of the people of those countries with a different political ideal than that which exists in this country at the moment. There may be a country somewhere where His Majesty's Government have changed the policy of the late Government and it would be a great pity if the effects of that change were obstructed by any feeling on the part of the inhabitants or the Government of that country, however unjust, that His Majesty's Ambassador was in any way a stumbling block. I hope the hon. Gentleman will think that over, and realise that I am not making any suggestion against the efficiency of any ambassador in carrying out instructions given to him by the Foreign Office. Any hon. Members who have travelled in foreign capitals will realise that members of the British Diplomatic Service are living, in their leisure time, in a restricted circle of people who are not always the best friends of this country in its present mood.

I would ask my hon. Friend for one further assurance. In recent years, considerable additions have been made to our diplomatic representation in the way of labour officers, economic officers, industrial officers, and so on, in our offices abroad. I am convinced that it is essential we should have more than social contact with foreign capitals. This diplomatic contact must be brought on to a technical, industrial and social level, all combined, and I. hope the Under-Secretary will be good enough to give an assurance that that policy is being proceeded with and, possibly, if he has the information, that he will give some idea in how many capitals we have at present this wider representation

In conclusion, I should like to tell the House one story which, fortunately, is some years old now, but which well illustrates what I mean. Shortly before the war, and just before that great European, Leon Blum, first became Prime Minister of France—ten days before—a man who, whatever hon. Members may feel about sharing, or otherwise, his political views, will be conceded by everybody present to be a great public figure and a man of world importance—he had occasion to visit the British Embassy in Paris to discuss some matter of business. It was found that nobody in the Embassy, higher than the Third Secretary, had ever met him at all. That was ten days before he first became Prime Minister of France. I hope that sort of thing could not happen now, and that the Under-Secretary will give us an assurance to that effect. If we in this House are really concerned with the improvement of our relations—not only those of His Majesty's Government with foreign Governments, but those of the people of this country in their homes with the people of other countries in their homes—then I hope the hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that neither in Egypt, Spain, Greece, France, or anywhere else, could that situation arise today.

3.52 p.m.

I support the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) in the matter he has brought before the House today, because I feel that this country at this moment can least of all afford to throw away American understanding. I had the privilege of being in the United States for some two months last year, and I found everywhere a tremendous keenness to understand us and a tremendous natural friendship, but everywhere I met the request "For goodness' sake, let us know about it. Let us spread the gospel of Great Britain in America after the war." I happened to land just a few weeks after America's great loss in the death of President Roosevelt, and when consoling with American friends I found everywhere a sense of personal participation in the then Prime Minister. I feel sure, without in any way embarrassing the present Government, that it is unwise at this moment not to spend the maximum in making Great Britain's point of view known in the United States, because there has been some slight setback in American interest in Great Britain. I would ask the House to consider that we have to catch up great arrears in aviation, and I ask the House to picture the day when, instead of the Government being obliged, on their admission of inferiority, to purchase £875,000 worth of American aircraft—in which I support them—to compete across the Atlantic, we may see—pray God that day may soon come—this country selling British aircraft to the United States. How then can we afford not to let America know our point of view? When considering that figure of £875,000, may I suggest that the reduction of the expenditure previously laid out from £350,000 to £300,000 should be reviewed?

3.54 p.m.

It is interesting to note that the last speaker began by talking about the necessity for an understanding between the peoples of this country and the peoples of America, and, as I naturally expected, knowing his keen interest in competition and in civil aviation, he went on to throw the whole of his argument over to the side of frank, unadulterated commercialism. I do not want to follow him in that argument, but I would suggest if we are competing with America in civil aviation we should do it openly and not by means of national propaganda, purporting to put our case, whatever our case may be, to the people of America. The question involved in this discussion—and the discussion during the Estimates for the Ministry of Information last year which was more wide on the subject than it could possibly be now—is the question of propaganda of Britain, not the propaganda for civil aviation. This subject is much more important and much more delicate than the hon. Member realised, and I must confess I was simply lost at the speech made by the hon. Member who sat above the Gangway when he talked about high pressure salesmanship. That is dealing with civil aviation from the point of commercialism, but we are talking about Britain. We are not talking about a jar of pickles or a tube of tooth paste. We are talking about that great spiritual factor the British Empire, and I say it is indecent to talk about high pressure salesmanship in that connection. I do not want to sell the British Empire and I do not want the British Empire to be sold.

I should like to make it clear to the hon. Member that I was referring to the comparison of the amounts of money involved in these two questions. We have just purchased five Constellations for £875,000 and I was trying to stress that grudging £350,000 to put the general case of Great Britain in America was parsimonious.

That does not deal with my poïnt in the slightest degree. The hon. Gentleman has simply thrown over the discussion from its proper level to something in which he is naturally very keenly interested and he has lost his sense of pro- portion. I am suggesting in this matter that we are not talking about commercial interests and commercial competition, and when the hon. Member talks about an understanding between nations he should distinguish between understanding which is one thing and competition which is another. I am not sure that competition or civil aviation is going to lead to a better understanding between the nations, but that is by the way.

The whole idea of propaganda in connection with this country and the value of the spirit behind this country is something that I think we should look upon with a certain amount of revulsion. I cannot accept the idea that we should protest to other nations by means of high propaganda about our good qualities and all the rest of it. We want understanding, we want information, and when the hon. Member sitting above the Gangway talks about the interest of the American people as to the way in which this Parliament is conducted, questions addressed to Ministers and so forth, I say that is not a question of propaganda but simply of information. I must remind hon. Members that there is an organisation which is not a high pressure salesmanship organisation, but something very much better, having to do with cultural relationships between this country and other countries. I refer to the British Council, which has a fine record. Let us get on that level and stop talking about selling the British Empire to America or any other country by high pressure salesmanship, for that is something which ought not to cross the minds of hon. Members in this House. It reminds me of the attempt made some years ago by the advertising fraternity, because they saw profit in it, to advertise religion. There was a campaign got up by an advertising agency and space bought in a newspaper with the object of advertising religion—a Gospel message by high powered salesmanship in the newspapers of this country.

I was in the advertising profession myself at the time, and I knew the people responsible for it. They were not particularly spiritual or religious, but they were high-pressure salesmen; and the result was appalling. It was like the idea of Jesus Christ walking through Palestine preceded by a jazz band. We do not want that kind of level. We want something more spiritual.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put .

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain Michael Stewart .]

We surely want a sense of dignity about our country and about our manpower. I am a Socialist. I do not believe in imperialism at all, but I believe that my country and the British Commonwealth of Nations have something to be proud of. That pride does not express itself in the idea of advertising, publicity, and commercial high-pressure salesmanship.

I said, in my speech, that I was against propaganda. The Americans do not like it, I do not want it. The high-pressure salesmanship idea has come from the other side of the House.

It is not a party question. I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I have said so; and I am opposing this idea, which has been expressed in the discussion this afternoon, from whatever side of the House it comes. We ought to put our case upon the right level and state it in the right way; but if we are really going to carry out, by means of publicity organisations, high-pressure salesmanship in order to preach our own virtues abroad, do not forget that every other nation in the world can do the same thing in this country. I can imagine the kind of turmoil which would be the result. Let us have a little better and higher sense of dignity than that.

4.1 p.m.

I do not propose to detain the House for more than three minutes, but having spent five months in the United States last year, I want to tell the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that I sustained the impression over there that we were not getting any-think like value for money for our information services on the other side. Unlike some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I think we are spending too much money, to no good purpose. We have these information centres everywhere in all the great towns, and they are stacked with statistical information, the like of which we have never seen before. If any hon. Member wants full statistical data for a detailed speech in Committee upon any subject under the Sun, I recommend him to go to any of our information centres in the United States. He will get far better information there than he will either from the central Conservative Office, or from Transport House. It is phenomenal the detail they keep. They have the figures and the amounts and the prices of practically any commodity we have ever grown in the Empire for the last quarter of a century. They can be turned up at a moment's notice; but they are not of great interest to the readers of the Chicago "Tribune," and they do not easily get into the columns of any great newspaper.

I agree that it is important not to put over cheap propaganda, but to explain to the Americans something about this Empire of ours, and what we are trying to do. Two burning questions over there, upon which there is a mass of misinformation, are India and our Colonial policy. I think that these two things do matter, from a propaganda point of view, and they should be put over adequately, by an exposition of our policy, and a real attempt made on the part of responsible people to explain to the Americans precisely what we are trying to do.

No one has explained how this exposition will be made.

I think that there are two ways of doing it. One is by lectures, for which the Americans have an insatiable passion. Instead of discouraging people from going over to America and delivering lectures—I had one of the fights of my life with the Foreign Office to get there, but I got there—they ought to encourage responsible people to go over and give lectures.

I come now to my last point but one. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State what we are going to do about Harold Laski, because he really is an international problem at the present time. He is a great personal friend of mine, and I have great admiration for him, but the influence he has in the American Press is absolutely fantastic. His lightest word, his bedtime musings, are headline news for every paper in the United States from coast to coast. He is regarded there not only as representing 100 per cent. of the Labour Government, but also about 80 per cent. of this country as a whole. What is his secret? I ask the Under-Secretary to approach Mr. Laski and inquire how some other people might obtain even 50 per cent. of the publicity he commands in the United States. My hon. Friend must know, if he studies the American Press, that it is quite remarkable; and while I think Mr. Laski expresses a point of view which should be known in the United States and elsewhere, it is, nevertheless, a pity that he should be regarded as in any sense representative of a majority opinion in this country. He is not. He has an individual and extreme point of view, always interesting to read, always worthy of deep and careful consideration; but it should not be taken, as it is in the United States, as a representative view, expressing the policy of the British Government. They regarded him as expressing the Government point of view even when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood-ford (Mr. Churchill) was Prime Minister. Now, of course, they think he is expressing, 100 per cent., the views of His Majesty's Government; whereas I do not believe that is the case. This curious secret he has of getting into the great mass of the American newspapers is one of the most remarkable phenomena of our time. I beg the hon. Gentleman to go into this matter. Perhaps Mr. Laski, if approached, in confidence, could give him a great deal of valuable information; and a tip or two on how to get British propaganda, not necessarily his own particular propaganda, put over.

I do not want to lower the tone of this Debate, but my last point is that we have a great bond with the United States. As the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State well knows, it is a bond which exists between the country from which he and I come, and the United States. It is bonded whisky. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) that it is no use trying to make the Americans buy things they are not interested in. Scottish whisky has a great appeal through the length and breadth of the United States. It is the greatest dollar revenue producer we possess, and what we have to do is to send to America goods the Americans want to buy, not goods we want them to buy. Scottish whisky is one thing, and good Scottish tweed another. We in Scotland can do a lot to forge the bonds of Anglo-American friendship by giving them both whisky and tweeds; but His Majesty's Government have done, and continue to do, everything possible to prevent us fulfilling these demands. If the Government had given us more encouragement in the past, there would be less trouble about dried egg today.

4.8 p.m.

I confess that it has been a most interesting Debate. My one regret is that I have to reply to it at all because even if I were a very senior Minister in this distinguished Government, where I am actually a junior one, I would have to carry several portfolios to attempt at all adequately to meet the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has come back to what is dear to his heart and to the hearts of his constituents, and we are once more considering the export of Scottish whisky. If we had had two minutes more he would have been on to herrings. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has raised the subject of Scottish printing and Scottish textiles. In fact, with a little organisation, we could have made this Adjournment into what Scotland so badly needs, an extra Supply day for Scotland in this House. Mr.' Harold Laski was another of the divers subjects raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne).

There are two points here. Professor Laski is still a member of the profession to which I am always proud to belong, journalism, and to which the hon. Member has been a contributor. He should not be at all puzzled why Professor Laski does well in America. It is because he is controversial and because he brings controversy from the realm from which one would least expect it. We can imagine a controversial politician or a controversial feminist, but not a controversial professor. I am all for my friend Professor Harold Laski. I disagree with him, and frequently disagree violently, and thereby get a little publicity. If we are to be asked, as the hon. Gentleman asks us, that we should live up to the dreadful thing which the Tory Party has said about this Government, and that we should run a Gestapo, and if we are seriously being asked to consider it—the hon Member shakes his head, but he did ask us—and to keep Harold Laski out of the United States, I say bluntly, flatly and without qualification, that we will no more keep Laski out of the United States than we would keep out the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. They have something to say. Let them say it. That is the tradition of this Government and this country, and, of course, of the service which we have been discussing this afternoon.

One other subject was the Consular Service, but that does not come inside the figure referred to. Another matter raised was the British Council, but that does not come into it either. I do not disagree with the substance of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), but the British Council does not function in the United States. That is one of the reasons for this service.

I had a recommendation, which I was asked to convey to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that he should proceed to the United States. He must be the hardest worked man in the Government. I do not say that merely as his junior. He talks the blunt, controversial language that America loves and which it will always pay to hear. I agree with the hon. Member for South Edinburgh that we should write to those people in America, but I hope that the hon. Member will typewrite his letters to his friends in America. I have had the extreme pleasure for a number of years of sub-editing the hon. Member's contributions to a British newspaper.

I am left in the curious position that I have had Member after Member from the Opposition, including I think four Scotsmen, asking that we should spend more of the taxpayers' money. When we come to the next Election I hope that the same four hon. Gentlemen will complain that this dreadful Socialist Government did not spend enough money in the fashion that the hon. Members wanted it spent.

I must interrupt the hon. Member. He must acquit me of that charge. I asked him to spend less.

I am in the same category.

I do not wish to pursue this, but I think it would be very difficult to argue with the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh at any rate, and certainly the mover of this Motion, said, "Let us have more money spent" and he even under-estimated the amount of money we were saving this year, because the figure is not £50,000 but £100,000. I should also say, of course, that I am grateful for the many tributes which were paid to the B.I.S. today by every speaker except the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, who was probably professionally a little jealous. Nowadays the need for the service will, of course, not be so great.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) said that the majority of United States newspapers were against us. Of course, as so many Members of this House know, that does not bear the faintest resemblance to the truth. Throughout the war we have been greatly indebted to the responsible American newspapers, and I sometimes think that better than in most countries, better even than in our own, the big American newspapers score in the amount of foreign news they carry in ordinary times. I do not want any cheap jibes about the amount of newsprint; I refer to ordinary times, and their papers have been distinctly kind. We very much hope that as we approach normality, the ordinary methods and ordinary flow of news, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) said, will replace this need for provision of news which B.I.S. offered.

There is a second reason, which seems a fairly serious one. I am of the opinion that during the next few years every person of distinctive ability will be needed at home, and, therefore, I feel that we can hardly spare to our friends in America the services of distinguished Members on this side for the B.I.S. There is, of course, the third reason, that people may be scarce, but dollars, as far as I am concerned, are even scarcer. It is not that the Foreign Office is responsible for a cut of £100,000; it is that the Foreign Office takes credit for making a cut of some 450,000 dollars in the coming year.

One other source to which I would like to refer, apart from the flow of news, is the flow of people, which I hope will quite soon resume between our own country and the United States. As I said previously, I think the B.I.S. did an excellent job. I am not impressed by the story that there was not a picture of the Prime Minister in one of our Branch Offices. If I am being asked to supply information to American newspapers who do not even carry a picture of the British Prime Minister in their library, then I am being asked to cater for something which is not worth considering. The B.I.S. is an excellent service but it can never accomplish the service which was established in any one year between our country and the United States by the exchange of people. At first sight it is rather attractive to argue that the best method we can have of bringing Britain to the United States is to send people there, particularly Scotsmen, but in point of fact it is not true. The best method is to encourage Americans to come here, and to display not only normal courtesy, but sympathetic consideration for what they want to see and what they want to learn, and that, I hope, we will do.

However, in saying that, I do not want to infer for a minute that the Foreign Office at any time will overlook the necessity to present Britain attractively abroad. My hon. Friend asked me if he could be told whether the Foreign Office was to be responsible for this service or not. I think it would be a trifle soon to speak upon that. I think we had better wait for a Government statement, because there is a committee considering the subject at the present time. However, whatever may have been said in the past—with what truth I do not know—the Foreign Office is zealously concerned with this business, not of pushing out propaganda, not of ramming stuff down people's throats, but of answering questions. That was the secret of B.I.S. I disagree with my hon. Friend. I think B.I.S. did an excellent job during the war, and that was the essence of its success. It said loudly enough and plainly enough "We are here," but it invited questions, it did not offer answers.

That will be the basis of the Foreign Office attitude on this matter. There is no propaganda that succeeds the day after, unless it is based on fact. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean that Dr. Goebbels was the most successful propagandist. He was a huge and lamentable failure, because he achieved results in 1939 which contributed substantially to bringing his country down in 1945. We have never competed in that kind of business, we never will as a country, and this country and this Office which I am serving most certainly will not in the future.

I want to say one other word to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Watford (Major Freeman). It is usual in this House to be polite, and I hope I always shall be, but I want to say that I and the House were indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for the restrained and courteous way in which he presented a highly controversial case. Perhaps because of that restraint I was a little surprised when he said, most courteously, that I had answered unsatisfactorily on Monday because, unless I misunderstood my colleagues behind me on Monday, they were asking me, Was the Labour Party going to institute Tammany Hall? Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but they were asking me, it seemed to me, if we were going to make appointments on a political basis, and that I will never agree to do.

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I do not want it to go on record as having implied what he has suggested. I said that he answered these questions inadequately in that the subject had not been thoroughly ventilated by his answers on Monday, and that, therefore, we should return to it today.

I quite agree to that and I never refuse to come back for a further ventilation. I repeat, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman approached this great subject with great caution and sobriety. He asked me four questions. He said there were two types of ambassadors, career ambassadors as our American friends call them, and special ambassadors for political appointments. He asked for an assurance that, if there were more of these political appointments, they would be of people representative of the frame of mind which has put this Government into power. Of course, I will give it. I will say more than that. There are only two political appointments just now, and one of them is being attended to. I would much rather follow the line that he suggested, and see that we do not throttle or discourage a highly effective branch of the Civil Service by re- moving the plums of office at which these people have arrived by making special appointments. The only excuse for special appointments is that sometimes we make a short-term appointment in an emergency and push in a man, not because of special qualifications but because of the particular geographical situation. But that, to my mind, is an emergency method which should be discouraged. The selection should come from the body of the Service.

The hon. and gallant Member said, secondly, a most reasonable thing, that sometimes an ambassador, because of his appearance or opinions, seemed to be a stumbling block to the presentation of Britain's case. If my hon. and gallant Friend, whom I have found most helpful on other occasions, thinks sincerely that he has some information, he will always be listened to at my office, because that particular matter would constitute professional inefficiency to a marked degree.

The third point we have not time to discuss, but it interests me greatly. It was the question of entry into the Service, and here he was dealing with something important which this House cannot assume has been finished. We have not decided that the methods of entrance into the Foreign Service are exhausted, but will continue to apply ourselves to this subject, and I hope reasonably soon we shall be able to say something about it.

The fourth point was one which concerns us greatly—the narrow circle in which an ambassador or Minister sometimes finds himself, and we have to attend to that. I was asked in how many offices we had labour attachés, men in contact with the trade unions and the working class. I am sorry I cannot go into that offhand, but turning the matter over in my mind, I believe there are at least seven important missions in which there are qualified career men able to do the job. I hope it will be extended as we address ourselves to the method of training these men, because the day when diplomacy had anything to do with knowing who was calling on whom, and having a cocktail with whom, or social habits perhaps slightly less open to discussion, has gone. We have got to know what is happening to the people upon whom Governments rest and I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that my right hon. Friend has consistently addressed himself to that problem, and we will go still further along these lines.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Four o'Clock.