Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 420: debated on Monday 11 March 1946

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Monday,11th March, 1946

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

Prayers

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

India

Tea Ration (British Troops)

asked the Undersecretary of State for India what is the present tea ration issued to British troops in India; when was it reduced; and what was it before it was reduced.

The present tea ration is ½oz. per day. It was reduced on nth November, 1945; the previous ration being ⅝oz. per day.

Would my hon. and learned Friend consider restoring the cut in the tea ration as there is no shortage of tea in India at all, and the Viceroy specifically excluded tea from a list of goods that cannot be sent abroad?

I am advised that the reduction was made as part of a general cut in rations owing to the acute world shortage of food supplies and the necessity for an equitable distribution of supplies as between the defence services and the civil population. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of restoration.

Is there not something seriously wrong with the local supply authority that they cannot make this local vegetable available in sufficient quantity to the troops in India?

All I can say is that this decision has been taken after very careful consideration.

Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise that there is no shortage of tea in India, and that this is absolute nonsense?

I think the Government of India are better judges of that than we are.

Bombay Disturbances (Police Behaviour)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any statement to make about the conduct of the police in Bombay during the recent disturbances.

My Noble Friend has now received reports from the Viceroy and the Governor of Bombay to the effect that the Bombay City Police behaved with restraint, discipline and courage throughout the disturbances. They had difficult situations to deal with occurring in many parts of the city simultaneously, they had to spend very long periods without relief and were often cut off by large riotous mobs. They suffered 100 casualties, including three killed. The Viceroy has already congratulated them on their behaviour and the House will no doubt wish His Majesty's Government to associate itself with his commendation.

I thank the hon. and learned Member for that very satisfactory answer.

Burma (Minister Of Planning)

asked the Undersecretary of State for Burma if he is aware of the distress caused to loyal Burmese by the appointment as Minister of Planning in the Government of Burma of Thakin Thun Ok, whose arrest as an active agent of the Japanese was sought by General MaArthur and whose book, "My Struggle," published at Rangoon during the Japanese occupation, contains a photograph of an order issued by him for the murder of 11 British prisoners of war; and if he will cause this person to be removed from office.

I am not aware of any distress caused to loyal Burmese by the appointment as Minister of Planning in the Government of Burma of Thakin Thun Ok, a prominent young Burmese politician, who has recently returned to Burma from Singapore where he had been deported by the Japanese. It appears that the recent order by General MacArthur to the Japanese Government to surrender him was due to a misunderstanding, but enquiries are being made on this point. I am also drawing the attention of the Governor to the publication referred to in my hon. Friend's Question and I will communicate with my hon. Friend again.

Would my hon. and learned Friend draw the Governor's special attention to page 185 of that book, in which the Minister in question boasts of having had the heads of three British soldiers cut off and displayed on bamboo stakes and not buried for seven days?

I am sure the Governor will consider every material particular contained in the book.

I think we had better leave it to the Governor, who is on the spot, to deal with it in the best way.

Unrra (Supplies To Russia)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what supplies of foodstuffs are being sent to the U.S.S.R. by U.N.R.R.A.

U.N.R.R.A. supplies are being sent to the constituent Republics of the Ukraine and Byelo-Russia. The quantities of food included in the programmes have not been finally fixed, but are relatively small. I understand that dried milk and canned meat are the most important items. No wheal or flour is included.

Are we informed as to stocks of food existing in Russia at the present time?

If the hon. Gentleman would put that question on the Paper we will see what information we can get.

Poland

Praesidium (Peasant Party)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by whom the Polish Peasant Party, P.S.L., is now represented in the Polish Praesidium.

The vacancy caused by the death of M. Witos has not been filled and the Polish Peasant Party is therefore not represented in the Polish Praesidium.

Since M. Witos died several months ago, is not the failure of the Provisional Government to allow the Polish Peasant Party another member to replace him a direct and deliberate violation of the terms by which they were recognised? If this is the case, what protest have His Majesty's Government made?

His Majesty's Government consider that until free and unfettered elections are held the balance agreed upon at Moscow should be maintained in the Polish Government.

Was not the broadening of the basis of the Government one of the indispensable terms by which they were recognised?

Elections

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the campaign of abuse and threats now being carried on against M. Mikolajczyk by government spokesmen in Poland on account of his refusal to agree to a bloc at the forth coming elections and, in view of the many other disquieting signs of the lack of political tolerance in Poland, he will re consider his decision not to initiate arrangements for an International Commission or body of foreign observers to go to Poland to advise and assist the Provisional Government in the conduct of the forthcoming elections.

On the subject of an international commission I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. and gallant Member on 20th February. I would, however, take this opportunity of correcting what appears to be a slight inaccuracy in the hon. and gallant Member's Question. According to my information M. Mikolajczyk has not refused to agree unreservedly to the proposal for a single bloc. The recent discussions between the parties broke down on the question of the relative proportions in which the various political parties should participate in such a bloc.

Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to the threats against M. Mikolajczyk broadcast from the Warsaw radio? Will he ensure that M. Mikolajczyk be given an opportunity of replying.

Does the Minister consider that the bloc system of elections is one in accordance with democratic principle?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the Yalta Agreement whereby it was agreed to take steps to ensure that free and unfettered elections should be held in Poland, he will state the reason for the continuing delay in holding these elections; and whether he proposes to make any representations to the Soviet Government and the Polish authorities in this connection.

His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw has already been instructed to inquire whether the Polish Provisional Government are now in a position to fix the date of the elections. The Polish Provisional Government has been reminded that in his conversations with my right hon. Friend at Potsdam, M. Bierut stated that he hoped that it would be possible to hold the elections in the spring of this year.

:Can the hon. Gentleman give the date when this action was taken by His Majesty's Government?

:How is it proposed to hold free and unfettered elections in view of the statement by His Majesty's Ambassador that there is no freedom of the Press in Poland?

We have already made representations on the score of censorship in that country.

Officers' Trial, Warsaw

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received any official communication from the Polish Provisional Government on the subject of the trial of 23 Polish officers alleged to be in possession of British identity papers, which is now in progress in Warsaw; and how many witnesses for the defence have been allowed to proceed either from this country or from the Polish Army in Italy to give evidence.

No communication has been received from the Polish Provisional Government on this subject. No witnesses from the Polish armed forces under British command have been asked for and none have proceeded to Poland.

Is the House to understand that these officers under British command have neither their own counsel for defence nor have they been able to call witnesses for the defence? If this is the case, is not the whole trial a travesty of justice?

My hon. and gallant Friend asked if any communication had been received, and the answer is "No."

Spain

Diplomatic Relations

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make on our relations with the Spanish Government; if he will call for a report from our ambassador on the Spanish troop movements in the neighbourhood of the French frontier; and if he has had any communication with the French Government on this subject.

As regards the first part of the Question I have nothing to add to the recent replies on the subject given by my right hon. Friend. As regards the second part of the Question, The Military Attache in Madrid has reported that reinforcements have in fact recently been despatched to the Pyrenees frontier. No communication on this subject has been received from the French Government, but I am having inquiries made.

In view of the serious situation in Spain, can we have assurances that it will be kept under close review?

Has the Minister any information from our Ambassador in Spain on the reactions of the Spanish people to the representations which have been made to General Franco, and to the statement made by the Allied Powers? Does any of this information —if he has any—confirm that the demarche is in fact having the effect of consolidating support in favour of General Franco?

Political Prisoners

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the imminent danger of the execution of the Spanish Republican leaders Alvarez and Zapirain; and whether he will make representations in an endeavour to prevent this.

I am glad to be able to say that I have no reason to believe that these two men are in imminent danger of execution. They have not yet been tried. His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid, however, has been instructed to watch the matter closely and is keeping my right hon. Friend fully informed.

Might I ask what concern it is of ours? Is this not an internal matter for Spain?

His Majesty's Government is a signatory to the Charter of the United Nations where we promised that we will not allow matters of creed or politics to interfere in the treatment of citizens.

What about affairs in Poland and the interference of Russia in that country?

His Majesty's Government have at all times been quite outspoken in their attitude towards Poland in these matters.

Ex-Mufti Of Jerusalem

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government have requested the French authorities to detain or exercise any surveillance over Haj Amin el Husseini; and if he can make any further statement as to where the Haj is living and how he got into French hands.

The Mufti fell into the hands of the French on the collapse of Germany and he has since been living in France under surveillance.

Japan (British Merchants)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when British merchants previously in Japan will be given permission to return there.

All trade with Japan is at present being handled through Government channels, but His Majesty's Government are anxious that British businessmen should be able to enter Japan to inspect and recover their businesses there as soon as the food and housing situation permits.

Is not the Minister aware that many American businessmen are already there and that they are, therefore, in a favourable and advantageous position in relation to their British competitors?

I have made the closest inquiry, and I am certain that there is no discrimination. It may be true that American businessmen are already there as, indeed, are some British, but for operational reasons.

Trieste (Frontier Dispute)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give to the House regarding the concentration of Yugoslav troops in the region of Trieste.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the recent increase of Yugoslav divisions on the Morgan Line and what steps he proposes to take to calm the apprehension of the people of Trieste, who fear forcible action.

I understand that a considerable increase in the number of Yugoslav troops in the Yugoslav zone of Venezia Giulia took place during the first fortnight of February. My right hon. Friend instructed His Majesty's Ambassador to ask Marshal Tito for an explanation and was informed that these troop movements were of a routine character and were necessitated by the demobilisation of men in Units at present stationed in the territory. The coincidence of these troop movements with the arrival in Trieste of the Allied Commission, which isto examine the problem of the frontier between Italy and Yugoslavia, has undoubtedly aroused apprehension among the local inhabitants, and I am at present considering what measures can be taken to allay their misgivings. I should like to make it clear that the settlement of this frontier problem will be reached by the Allied Powers negotiating the Peace treaty with Italy after the recommendations of the experts have been examined and that local troop movements will not of course affect the principle on which the final decision will be made.

Will there be any British troop movements of a routine character in the neighbourhood?

Dodecanese Islands

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is nowin a position to make a statement as to the future of the Dodecanese Islands; and whether he can give an assurance that the inhabitants of the Dodecanese will be taken into full and representative consultation prior to any final decision being reached.

It was agreed in principle at Moscow that the Dodecanese should be transferred to Greece, but it was decided that the formal settlement should await the conclusion of peace with Italy. I am satisfied that the union of the islands with Greece would accord with the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants.

Greece (General Elections)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the Greek Government regarding the date of the general election in Greece.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that M. Tsouderos, Vice-Premier of Greece, and the Ministers of Information and Marine, resigned on 5th March, on the ground that present conditions in Greece would not allow fair elections to be held on 31st March and that these elections should be postponed; that all left and centre parties, including E.L.D., E.A.M., the Liberal Party of Sophiano-poulis and the Socialists supporting Professor Svolos, also urge postponement; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to continue their present policy of advising M. Sophoulis to hold an election on 31st March which would be boycotted by the left and centre and recognised only by the Populists.

It is apparently not true that M. Tsouderos or M. Peltekis have resigned and it is certainly not true that the Populists alone propose to take part in the elections if they are held on 31st March. Several parties, notably E.A.M., have however asserted that they will boycott the election on this date. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has advised the Greek Government that they should proceed to election because there is a joint supervising mission on hand, because the work of reconstruction is meantime being partially held up, because all the main parties agreed upon this date in November of last year and because it is highly desirable that as soon as possible Greece should have an elected and stable Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the advice given by the Foreign Secretary, the Greek Government are in a state of disintegration and that we are rapidly losing our friends, not only on the Left but also in the Centre, and will he reconsider the matter in order to save events in Greeece from developing towards a really tragic conclusion?

The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion which I cannot accept and which is helpful neither to Greece nor to any party concerned.

Can my hon. Friend name a single party, with the exception of the Populists, who have expressed their willingness to participate in these elections and, secondly, will he take note of the fact that, after six months' work by the British Police Mission, M. Sophoulis has had to inform us that he does not believe that his Security Services—so permeated are they by terrorists from the Right—are to be trusted?

If M. Sophoulis brings to the notice of my right hon. Friend any condition of disorder in which the help of His Majesty's Government or of their agents is needed, that help will be given. In regard to the first part of the question, I need hardly suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend, who knows Greece so well, that M. Sophoulis could not be called a Populist.

Could my hon. Friend say whether the Joint Supervisory Commission, to which he referred, has given any report to His Majesty's Government about the practicability, or otherwise, of holding elections now, and whether or not His Majesty's Government would consider asking for a report?

The Mission is on the spot and His Majesty's Government are, at all times, willing to listen to them. We have received no contrary advice from them.

Several Hon Members rose

Hon. Members should be aware that there is a Supplementary Estimate on which this matter can be raised. It should not be anticipated by question and answer.

Britain And The United States (Military Alliance)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose an Anglo-U.S. military alliance to the U.S. Government.

The question of an Anglo-United States military alliance has not arisen. The policy of His Majesty's Government was clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his speech of 21st February in this House. It is the aim of His Majesty's Government to try and make the United Nations organisation an effective and workable instrument in maintaining world peace and to prevent aggression.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, while we are grateful to him for his emphasis on the United Nations organisation as the main instrument for bringing peace, we equally regard. — [Hon. Members: "Speech."]

Does not the Government consider that such an alliance as this would not cut across the United Nations organisation — [Hon. Members: "Order."] I will put my question in this way: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that such an alliance would be the best security for world peace which the world has ever known?

Foreign Service (Sex Equality)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet able to state the policy of the Government regarding the establishment of equality of opportunity between men and women in the Diplomatic and Consular services.

The Committee which was appointed last summer by the then Secretary of State under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers recently submitted a report, which is at present under consideration by His Majesty's Government. I hope to be able to make a statement in the House in the near future.

Roads

Built-Up Areas (Safety Measures)

asked the Minister of War Transport what steps he is taking to enable elderly and infirm persons to cross the road in built-up areas with reasonable safety.

It should be the responsibility of all road users to take special care when elderly or infirm persons are crossing the road. In built-up areas they should, of course, use pedestrian crossing places wherever these are provided.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether that answer means that these people have a priority of crossing at pedestrian crossings?

Omnibus Services, Much Wenlock And Bridgnorth

asked the Minister of War Transport if considera tion has been given to complaints of in adequate omnibus services between Much Wenlock and Ironbridge and between Much Wenlock, Broseley and Bridgnorth and to requests made that such services shall be improved at an early date; and what steps he has taken to remedy these complaints.

I am informed that the omnibus operator concerned will shortly be submitting proposals for the improvement of these services to the Regional Transport Commissioner.

Motorways (Construction)

asked the Minister of War Transport if he is now in a position to state the policy of the Government with regard to the construction of a system of motorways in this country; and whether the proposal to construct experimental lengths of such motorways is likely to be carried out in the near future.

Pending the passage ot legislation, there is no power to construct motorways.

Requisitioned Motorcoaches

asked the Minister ot War Transport if he will consider making a statement indicating what prospects motorcoach proprietors, who had their vehicles requisitioned by his Department, have of getting their own or alternative vehicles provided for them.

Very few requisitioned motorcoaches are at present becoming available for sale and, generally speaking, persons desiring to buy motorcoaches must look to new production.

Surplus Service Vehicles (Sale)

asked the Minister of War Transport how many surplus Service vehicles have been offered for sale to the public since VJ-Day; and what is the procedure by which such vehicles may be acquired for commercial use.

Between VJ-Day and 11th February, 1946, when my Department's control over the sale of surplus Government goods vehicles came to an end, the manufacturers advised me of 1,553 such vehicles as available for sale to the public. From VJ-Day to date the number of surplus motor cars so notified was 688. Surplus goods vehicles may be purchased direct from the manufacturers' main agents; surplus motor cars can only be obtained against a certificate to purchase issued by my Department.

Will the right hon. Gentleman get in touch with the Service chiefs, because there are on these dumps a great many vehicles which could still be made available commercially?

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that Service vehicles from other Departments, which normally ought to be under his control, do, in fact, come under his control?

River Yare (Crossing)

asked the Minister of War Transport if he is aware of the need for a bridge over the River Yare between Norwich and Great Yarmouth; and if, pending the construction of a permanent bridge, he will encourage and assist the local authorities concerned to provide a crossing by means of a Bailey bridge.

No representations have hitherto been made to me concerning any crossing of the River Yare between Norwich and Great Yarmouth. The matter is primarily the concern of the local highway authority and I am prepared to consider any proposal which that authority may make.

Traffic Lights, Gunnersbury Station

asked the Minister of War Transport when he will reinstall traffic lights in Chiswick High Road at Gunnersbury Station.

As soon as negotiations at present in hand with the police and L.P.T.B. are completed, the signals will be reinstituted.

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him how long these negotiations will take, because there is great local pressure about these traffic lights, and that particular piece of road is very dangerous at the moment? I myself know it quite well.

Defence Permits, London Area

asked the Minister of War Transport how many Defence Permits A and B have been issued for the Metropolitan area since 1st April, 1945; and how many of them were in respect of ex-Servicemen who held licences prior to joining the Forces.

This information is not readily available but is being extracted and I will send it to the hon. Member as soon as it is ready.

Shipping

Clyde Estuary (Cooper Committee)

asked the Minister of War Transport whether the Government have yet accepted the unanimous recommendations of the Cooper Committee regarding the harbour and port authorities on the river Clyde; and when legislation may be expected in view of the urgency of the matter.

asked the Minister of War Transport when steps are to be taken to implement the major recommendations in the Report of the Committee on the Clyde Estuary, presided over by the Lord justice Clerk, especially in so far as these recommendations relate to the unification of the large number of authorities presently responsible for dock, harbour and pilotage control on the river Clyde.

I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Willis) on 11th February.

Refrigerator Ships

asked the Minister of War Transport if he is aware that the British refrigerator ship, ss. "Thorland," has now been repaired; and does he now intend to use her for the carriage of essential food which is urgently required.

When this ship is ready for service, her employment will be subject to the same form of control by licence as all other United Kingdom ships. My Department awaits information from the owners, whose duty it is to inform this Department when the ship will be ready for service with all relevant information as to the employment for which she is capable, in order that suitable employment may be arranged. My present information as to the state of readiness of the ship does not tally with the hon. Member's.

Will the Minister accept my assurance that I have had a cablegram within the last few days stating that this vessel is ready? Will he bear in mind that she has remained idle since liberation day, and does he consider that the food position warrants his Department waiting any longer?

We are very anxious to get every available ship into commission, and if the hon. Gentleman will send me further information I will have it examined.

asked the Minister of War Transport if he is now able to reveal the result of his inquiries with the War Shipping Administration as to the availability of C2 Reefer type U.S. refrigerator ships for essential British use.

A few United States refrigerated ships are being released from military service in the Pacific and the War Shipping Administration are endeavouring to arrange for certain of them to be available when released for loadings from New Zealand to the United Kingdom. All countries are suffering from a shortage of refrigerated tonnage, and the hon. Member would be wrong to assume that we can expect any substantial addition to the refrigerated space available to us from foreign sources.

Will the Minister accept my assurance that I have seen the head of the United States Shipping Administration in this country, who states that we can get the 10 ships which the Food Minister so urgently needs if a strong minute is sent out to that effect?

I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance, but I am always prepared to accept any suggestion he may submit to me

Ferry Service, Gravesend And Tilbury

asked the Minister of War Transport whether he has considered representations from the Graves-end Borough Council and the Northfleet Urban District Council, respecting the ferry service between Gravesend and Til-bury; and whether, in view of the unanimous request of all local authorities and representatives, he will arrange for a public inquirv to be held into the lack of facilities.

Yes, Sir, and for the reasons I gave to the two Councils in January, I see no need for a special inquiry. In any general investigation into the ferry services of this country which may be undertaken, the adequacy of this service will, of course be taken into account.

Is the Minister aware that, apart from the adequacy of the service, in this particular ferry service the question of public safety is, involved, and could we no have some public inquiry into it before there is a disaster?

I do not think the question -of public safety was directly raised before, but I will have that particular aspect examined in the correspondence from the local authorities Those points were fully dealt with in correspondence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman preparec to take any action of any kind at any time on any of the questions which he has been asked?

Railways

Railway Workers' Canteens

asked the Minister of War Transport whether he is aware of the demand for a railway workers' canteen at Coventry station; and whether he will sanction its erection.

During the war approval was given to the provision of a large number of railway staff canteens on Government account, and in July last the railway companies were informed that new schemes not already approved could not be regarded as wartime works, but must be considered as part of the permanent equipment of the railways and financed by them. I am making inquiries as to the position of the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers and will communicate with him.

Train Service, Aberdeen

asked the Minister of War Transport if he is aware that on Saturdays the last train going south leaves Aberdeen at 5.15 p.m. by L.N.E.R. and at 5.25 p.m. by L.M.S.; that this is prejudicial to the industrial, commercial, social and sporting interests of the city; and if he will arrange to restore at an early date the prewar trains leaving the city on Saturdays at 7.30 p.m. and 7.45 p.m., respectively.

I am making inquiries and will advise my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.

Seat Reservations

asked the Minister of War Transport when he expects it will be possible to reintroduce the facilities for booking seats for long distance rail journeys.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the number of people who will be travelling during the summer, and, if he cannot reintroduce the booking of seats, will he take steps to ensure some regulation of the passengers during the holiday months, so that it will be convenient for the passengers and they will not have to queue up at the stations overnight?

The problem of holiday traffic is already being considered. One has to take into consideration the fact that people must be taken to where they want to go, and procedure which might facilitate that must be carefully examined.

While it may be impossible to reintroduce the booking system in general, could not the right hon. Gentleman introduce some temporary measures to deal with such periods as Easter and Whitsun?

I will certainly take note of what has been said, and I will represent it to the railway companies, but this problem of getting the people to where they want to go is exceedingly difficult, and every restriction introduced tends to add to the problem rather than remove it.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the principle of getting all the holiday makers to where they want to go applies to all parts of the United Kingdom?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been in operation at Blackpool for many years a system whereby the people can ensure seats in trains by arrangement with the railway company, and will he consider what has happened there so that he can make suggestions on similar lines to the railway companies?

Production Campaign

asked the Prime Minister whether in view of his national appeal for increased production and in view of the fact that notices, '' No work, No bread," are posted in great numbers in Russian-occupied Germany, he will take similar action in Britain.

When will His Majesty's Government adopt a more realistic policy and realise that their present policy is only aggravating the situation?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider exhibiting in the Cabinet room notices in which the two phrases are reversed?

Armed Services (Vote A)

asked the Prime Minister whether Vote A for the services will include Dominion troops and foreign troops employed by the Crown.

Yes, Sir. I am advised that although the Dominions pay their own Forces, it is necessary for Vote A to cover such troops when they are actually in the United Kingdom, but not otherwise. I am also advised that it is necessary to include all foreign troops paid by the Crown, whether they be em- ployed in the United Kingdom or overseas. The same reasoning necessitates inclusion of Dominion troops wherever serving, in the exceptional case where they may be paid for out of United Kingdom funds. With permission of the House, as the constitutional position is somewhat complicated, I will circulate a more detailed explanation in the Official Report.

Following is the statement: The strict legal position under the Bill of Rights was that the "raising or keeping a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace unless it be with the consent of Parliament," was against the law. This provision of the law was however greatly modified by constitutional practice, and the doctrine applicable cannot be said to be limited to the terms of the Bill of Rights. It was not only an army actually within the Kingdom at a given time which was capable of increasing the power of the Crown against Parliament. An army, whether of foreign mercenaries or of Colonial or other troops substantially under the control of the Crown, embodied or maintained outside the Kingdom but capable of being brought within the country, also constituted a danger to the power of Parliament. Thus the authorisation which the Crown sought and which Parliament gave was in actual practice not restricted to troops already within the United Kingdom and in general, covered all forces in the service of the Crown, with the exception of troops actually serving in the Dominions or Colony in which they were raised.

Arising out of this historical background, the present constitutional practice may be summarised as follows:

Dominion Troops: The provisions of the Bill of Rights preclude the keeping of Dominion troops within the United Kingdom without the consent of Parliament and it is, therefore, necessary to include such troops in Vote A when they are actually in the United Kingdom. Dominion troops outside the United Kingdom, unless in some exceptional case they are paid from United Kingdom funds, are under the exclusive control of Ministers of the Crown who have no responsibility to the United Kingdom Parliament, but whose duty is to the Dominion Parliament which maintains the troops. Any claim of the lUnited Kingdom Parliament to authorise the number of such Dominion troops outside the United Kingdom would be incompatible with the position of the Dominions since the Statute of Westminster, 1931.

Colonial Troops: Parliament has in practice consented to forego its control over forces raised in a Crown Colony or a British Protectorate when within that Colony or Protectorate when the cost of these forces has not been a charge on British public funds. In the event of their serving outside the Colony or Protectorate concerned, however, the true constitutional doctrine requires Parliamentary sanction for their maintenance and such troops must therefore be . covered by Vote A.

At the same time, Parliament has always insisted that in relation to troops, the payment for which is charged upon the revenue of this country, their authorisation should be obtained. Parliamentary authorisation is accordingly necessary in the case ofColonial troops whose maintenance, etc., is provided out of United Kingdom funds, even if they are serving in the Colony or Protectorate in which they were raised. This authorisation is not required under the strict provisions of the Bill of Rights but upon the complementary ground that Parliament is the guardian of the public revenue.

Foreign Troops: For those maintained out of British public funds Parliamentary authorisation is necessary wherever they may be serving. Those whose maintenance is not so financed need be included in Vote A, wherever they are employed, only in so far as they are in the actual service of His Majesty, e.g., those who are made subject to the Army Act or Air Force Act by virtue of Section 3 of the Allied Forces Act, 1940.

Ex-Premier's Speech, United States

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the text of a recent speech by the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was distributed to British newspapers by the Ministry of Information, he will give an assurance that no similar action was or will be taken by the British Information Services in U.S.A.; and if he will instruct these services to make it clear in U.S.A. that the speech does not represent the policy of His Majesty's Government and was not approved beforehand by the British Ambassador in Washington.

In answer to an American official request a British press officer was attached to the Presidential party at Fulton, and this officer provided the Press with copies of the speech of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). The attachment of such an officer was therefore an ordinary act of international courtesy. Editors in this country had only received a summary of the speech by the right hon. Member for Woodford through news agencies and were anxious to obtain a full copy. It was at their request that the text of the speech was made available to them by the Ministry of Information who had received the full text at about noon on the day it was delivered. The copies were thus issued as a result of enquiries received and were accompanied by the following note—

" The accompanying text of Mr. Churchill's address at Fulton today has been received by the M.O.I. and in response to requests is issued for the convenience of Editors."
The British Information Services in the United States of America are well aware that the policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is to be found only in the statements of His Majesty's Minister, and the right hon. Member for Woodford stated very clearly that he spoke for himself only. Of course, His Majesty's Government had no previous knowledge of the contents of the speech. His Majesty's Ambassador was not called upon to approve or to disapprove the speech beforehand.

Could my right hon. Friend say—whether he approved or disapproved of the speech—did the Ambassador in fact read it beforehand, as was widely stated in America at the time?

The hon. Member cannot ask for a matter of opinion one way or the other. He can only ask for facts.

On a point of Order. I think, with great respect, you misheard my question, Mr. Speaker. 1 was not asking for a matter of opinion. I asked, whether His Majesty's Ambassador approved or disapproved, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in fact, he did read the speech before it was delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)?

I am not aware ot that. It may have been handed to him. He was not asked to approve or disapprove, or express any opinion whatever.

Might 1 ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his answer means that it is not the practice of His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington to inform His Majesty's Government of a speech that has been communicated to him beforehand?

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his answer means that it is not the practice of His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington to inform His Majesty's Government of the contents of any speech that has been issued to him beforehand?

I should have thought so. I do not expect he is in the habit of sending long excerpts from speeches.

Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that His Majesty's Government entirely disapprove of the tone and temper of the speech of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Wood-ford (Mr. Churchill)?

His Majesty's Government are not called upon to express any opinion of a speech delivered in another country by a private individual. The policy of His Majesty's Government has been laid down perfectly plainly in the House by the Foreign Secretary.

The Leader of His Majesty's Opposition surely has something more than the status of an ordinary private citizen? Will my right hon. Friend not explicitly repudiate the dangerous doctrine contained in the speech?

Derequisitioned Houses (Owners' Rights)

asked the Prime Minis ter if he will take steps to require that when Government Departments derequisi tion small houses the rightful owners are permitted to again use them instead of the present procedure of turning them over to local authorities.

I have been asked to reply. The present arrangements provide that any Government Department derequisitioning a small house transfers it to the Ministry of Health and this Ministry informs the appropriate local authority so that they can ensure that it is occupied for residential purposes. The authority are definitely instructed to give notice to the owner before putting in a tenant and if the owner wishes to use it for his own occupation or for occupation by any members of his family he is allowed to do so. I do not consider that these arrangements require modification.

Could the hon. Gentleman state what is the limit of what he calls a "small house" in the way those regulations are applied?

I should say anything from a six-roomed to an eight-roomed house would be involved.

1 stand subject to correction, but is it not the case that when one Government Department has finished a house it is offered to all the other Government Departments before it is turned over to local authorities?

That is not the case with regard to small houses, which come to the Ministry of Health before going to other Departments.

Minister's Speech, Durham (Mine Managers)

asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on 22nd February, in the County of Durham, regarding the propriety of a mine manager contesting a local election in a mining constituency, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is at the same time Minister of Fuel and Power and carrying through the House of Commons a Bill intending to put this industry under public ownership and control, although I am satisfied with the implied reprimand which the Prime Minister has given in his reply, could not the right hon. Gentleman, in addition, apply some private chastisement and admonishment?

Germany (Case For Inquiry)

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware that a judge was forcibly removed from his home in the British sector of Germany and has not been heard of since his removal; and if he will make a statement on the circumstances of this case and the action taken to punish those responsible.

The Allied Control Council recently instructed the Allied Kommandatura in Berlin to carry out an investigation into this and other incidents which have taken place in the area of Greater Berlin. The matter is, therefore, sub judice and it would not be proper for me to comment at this stage.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the best steps are being taken to protect people against incidents of this kind?

1 can only say the incidents that are alleged to have occurred are already being investigated by the four Powers. I do not think we can say much beyond that at this stage.

Can the hon. Gentleman say where he has been removed to and by whom?

Agriculture

Training Schemes (Ex-Servicemen)

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications have been received from ex-Servicemen for training in horticulture and agriculture; and how many have commenced such training in each of the counties in Wales.

As the reply contains many figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Are we to understand that the whole matter is now being dealt with? Is it comprehensive in scope?

The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether it was comprehensive.

Following is the answer: Applications for agricultural or horticultural training under the Government scheme received up to 28th February totalled 1,787, including 258 from women. The numbers now in training on farms in the Welsh counties, including Mon-mouth, are—Monmouth 12; Glamorgan 11; Caernarvon 6; Flint 5; Denbigh 3; Pembroke 2; Radnor 2; Brecon 1; Montgomery 1. In addition 40 W.L.A. members are taking an institutional course at the Plas Dinam Training Centre in Montgomery.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if, owing to the failure to obtain volunteers from demobilised Servicemen to take up either training in agriculture or actual farm work, he has further suggestions to make this occupation more attractive to future workers.

fhe rate at which applications are being received for agricultural training under the Government scheme is showing some improvement, and I am hopeful that as the younger men come to be released larger numbers of new recruits to the industry will be forthcoming. On the wider question, the Government are putting in hand measure for improving the conditions of rural life by the erection of houses and the provision of water supplies and other amenities, all of which are of great importance in attracting workers to agriculture.

Could the right hon. Gentleman explain how many of these houses have been started?

That question should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Requisitioned Hotel, Bideford

asked the Minister of Agriculture by what approximate date the Rivora Hotel. Bideford, at present under requisition by his Department, will be handed back to its rightful owner whose livelihood depends thereon

in the interests 01 food production it is essential that the members of the Women's Land Army at present living at this hostel should remain in the Bidetord district. Iam very anxious however to release these premises, and, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Works, every effort is being made to find alternative accommodation. The search has so far been unsuccessful, but is continuing I regret therefore that I am unable to give a date to: release.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continued retention of private hotels by Ministries for their office accommodation, and other accommodation, is having a very detrimental effect throughout the constituencies of North-West Devon?

1 appreciate the point submitted by the hon. and gallant Member, but I am sure he will be aware also of the importance of continuing to produce as much food as we can.

Dairy Cattle Diseases(Prevention)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the food crisis and the need for increased milk production, he will consider launching an active campaign against diseases amongst dairy cattle.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) on 28th January, of which I am sending him a copy. At the moment I am not in a position to add to that reply.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether anything really active is being done by the Government for agriculture? It is no good being hopeful; it is far better to be thoughtful.

Sheep And Pigs (Prices)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in the price fixing and adjustments the Government have now under consideration in connection with guaranteed prices, special consideration will be given to the need for increasing the low and uneconomic prices ruling for big sheep and pigs at the present time.

In fixing prices for sheep and pigs all relevant circumstances, including those mentioned by the hon. Member, are given full consideration.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past very low figures have often been given for these animals, when a great deal of time and food has been needed to get them up to standard?

Wire Netting

asked the Minister of Agriculture in what way wire netting may now be purchased by owners of private gardens and allotments for the protection of their produce, in view of the fact that they are debarred from doing so by licence, and that the 100 lineal yards per purchaser is not available, owing to the Small Quantities Exemption Scheme having ceased to function by the end of last June.

I am responsible for the issue, through county war agricultural executive committees, of permits to enable farmers to obtain their requirements of wire fencing material, but the release of fencing material for private gardens and allotments is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.

If that is the case, why did the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer, in accordance with what I have stated in my Question, that 100 lineal yards of wire netting was available for private owners of gardens and allotments on 8th February last?

I do not think that conflicts with the answer I have just given. I explained that I am responsible only for the farmers, whereas the Ministry of Works are responsible for gardeners and allotment holders.

Whichever way it is, the fact remains that there is no encouragement.

New Prices (Government List)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the annual review of agricultural prices has taken place; and with what result.

Yes, Sir. A review ofthe general financial position of agriculture has been conducted by officials of the Agricultural Departments in consultation with representatives of the Farmers' Unions of the United Kingdom. The review indicated a declining trend in far-mers' incomes combined with substantial increases in labour and other costs which have already taken place or are about to take place in pursuance of decisions recently taken. The Government have considered the results of this review and have assessed the national requirements of home-produced food of various kinds in the light of the present serious world shortages, particularly of grain. Account has also been taken of the disturbance to agricultural production caused by the need to return for a time to an increased output of cereals. In the light of these factors we have reached decisions on the prices to be guaranteed for the principal crops from the harvest of 1947 and for livestock and livestock products for the production year 1946-47. Minimum prices have also been fixed for milk, fat cattle and sheep for the production years 1948-49 and 1949-50, and for fat pigs and eggs for the four years ending on 30th June, 1950. I am circulating in the Official Report details of the various price changes and of the new minimum prices. The House may,

Crops of the 1947 Harvest.

Wheat and RyeAn increase ot is. 9d. per cwt. in the average market prices.The acreage payment of

£2 per acre will be continued.

Barley

A reduction in the minimum price of millable barley from 80s. per quarter (20s. per cwt.) to 75s. per quarter (18s. 9d. per cwt.).
Oats An increase of is. per cwt. in the over-all average price of oats, whether sold for milling or feeding.
Dredge Corn Adjustments will be made to conform to the changes in prices of wheat,barley and oats, details of which will be published later.
Sugar Beet An over-all average increase of 2s. per ton.
Potatoes (maincrop and second earlies).An over-all average increase of 5s. per ton.
In view of the serious world food position the maximum practicable acreage of cereals (including at least2 ½ million acres of wheat), potatoes and sugar beet will be required in the U.K. for the

however, wish to know that the price of wheat from the 1947 harvest will be increased by is. 9d. per cwt. and that compulsory directions will be reintroduced to secure the sowing of at least 2 ½ million acres of wheat for that harvest.

Do the new prices include any provision for possible increases of wages, and, if not, will it be possible for increased costs to be quickly covered by increased prices?

As I have already informed my hon. Friend on previous occasions, the Government cannot guarantee that an automatic increase in prices will follow an increase in wages. Therefore, as I understand it, no particular effort has been made to deal with anything more than the current need for prices to cover ordinary costs.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether his new prices take account merely of costs in 1944-45, or whether they take account of the recent increases in various sections of agricultural wages, or particularly the increase in pay recently granted to prisoners?

The prices, which will be circulated in the Official Report, take full account of the recent increases in wages made by the Central Wages Board, and it is in the light of those increases, plus other costs of production, that the prices for the future have been fixed.

Is there any change in the price of milk, as a great many small milk producers are finding it very hard now to make both ends meet?

If the hon. Member will wait until the new prices appear, he will see the new price for milk and for other commodities.

Following is the statement:

harvest of 1947. Compulsory directions will continue to be served to secure the necessary acreages of potatoes and sugar beet, and will be re-introduced to secure the necessary acreage of wheat. For their part the Government are making all possible arrangements to secure the necessary labour for the harvest.

Livestock Prices tot the 12 Months is; July, 1946, to 30th /une, 1947

Fat Cattle An adjustment of prices equivalent in a hill year to an over-all average increase of 3s. per live cwt. on steers, heifers and cow-heifers.
The detailed allocation of this increase will be the subject of a further discussion with the Farmers' Unions, in the course of which consideration will be given to adjustments in the prices of good quality cow-heifers and of other classes, if necessarv by some reduction in the proposed increase of 3s. per live cwt. for fat steers and heifers.
Fat Sheep and LambsAn over-all average increase of 1d. per 1b. dead weight, which takes accoun.. of the decision already announced that there will be no change in the prices to be paid for the 1946 wool clip
Fat Pigs (excluding sows, etc)An over-all average increase in a full year of 2s. 6d. per score dead weight.)
Eggs An increase of 2d. per dozen 0n eggs purchased by packing stations.
The price increases for pigs and eggs take account of the disturbance to production of these commodities that will be caused by the forthcoming reduction in rations of feeding stuffs

Milk Prices for the 12 Months from 1st April, 1946, to 31st March, 1947

Milk price will be adjusted so as to secure an over-all average increase 0f ⅞d per gallon in a full year.
The special conditions which led to the granting of the war-time production bonus still exist, and the bonus will accordingly continue for a further year.
While an increased production of milk in the winter is still needed, it is also necessary that production in the late summer should be fully maintained. In England and Wales some part of the increased price for milk will be utilised for improving the relative payment for milk sold in the period July to September. 1946
All the changes proposed are annual averages and any detailed adjustments of seasonal and grade prices will be discussed between Departments, the Farmers' Unions and the Milk Marketing Boards, as soon as possible. It is recognised by the Unions that any such adjustments must not raise the yearly average prices
Minimum Prices.
Under the procedure announced on 15th November, 1945, minimum prices have to be fixed for fat cattle, sheep and milk in the production years 1948-49 and 194950, and for pigs and eggs in the production years 1946-47 to 1949-50 Future minimum prices for these commodities will be:

Fat Cattle, Sheep and Milk.

Minimum prices in the production years 1948-49 and 1940-50 will be those ruling in the production year 1944-45. The production year means in the case of fat cattle and sheep, a year from 1st July to the following 30th June and for milk, from the 1st April to the following 31st March.

Fat Pigs and Eggs.

Year.

Fat Pigs per score

Eggs per doz.

1946–4724s. od.3s.od
1947–4824s. od.3s.od.
1948–4923s. od2s. 9d.
1949–5022s. od.2S. 5d
In the case 01 at cattle and fat pigs the guaranteed minima will apply to clean cattle and clean pigs only.
In pursuance of to policy ol promoting the better marketing ol agricultural produce the Government intend to examine, during thefour year period to which the above minimum prices apply, the practicability of introducing, after full consultation with representatives ol the farmers' organisations concerned, seasonal and quality grade prices for cattle, sheep, pigs and eggs, and in the case of milk, variations in prices on the basis of composition or keeping quality, on the understanding that the weighted average minimum prices of these commodities are not thereby reduced The minimum prices specified above may, therefore. be subject to modification on these lines

Women's Land Army (Recruiting Campaign)

asked the Minis-. ter of Agriculture whether he has yet arranged to launch an advertising campaign appealing for 30,000 new recruits for the W.L.A.; what will be the cost of this appeal; and whether he will give an assurance that the advertisements will

announce the removal of the disabilities which are resulting in large numbers of girls leaving that service.

As I indicated in my broadcast of 22nd February, it is planned to start a recruiting campaign for the W.L.A. in April. The cost of the measures so far arranged is in the neighbourhood of £30,000. As I pointed out in reply to a Question put by my hon. Friend on nth February, the members of the W.L.A. already enjoy certain advantages in comparison with other agricultural workers. [Hon. Members: "No."] The recent reduction in the strength of the W.L.A. is mainly due to members claiming release on fulfilment of the undertaking which they gave on enrolment to serve for the duration of the war.

While I thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the numbers of the Women's Land Army suffer under an overwhelming weight of disabilities compared with the other Services, and would he undertake in his advertising campaign to announce the removal of those disabilities?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that one of the best ways to encourage people to join and respond to the appeal would be to grant some of the claims they have put forward?

If the right hon. Gentleman would indicate which among the claims they are now making he unfortunately had to turn down, I will look into it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect to get recruits for the Women's Land Army in view of the shameful treatment that has been meted out to them by the Government both during and since the war, and is he not going to make any improvement in their conditions?

My hon. Friend is well aware that the Women's Land Army have certain advantages over other women who work in agriculture. [Hon. Members: "What are they? "] The Women's Land Army at least get their uniform and they also have other advantages which other women working on the land do not get. While I am not attempting to suggest that the wage of 50s. is a mighty sum, it is the rate for the job.

Surplus Motor Fishing Vessels

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give first preference in the allocation of redundant ex-Admiralty M.F.V.s to ex- Service fishermen whose fishing boats have been lost on war service.

Applications for ex-Admiralty M.F.V.s from ex-Servicemen who have lost fishing vessels during the war will receive sympathetic consideration and will be given a high priority. In the absence, however, of full information about the relative merits of individual cases, I cannot undertake that all such applications will necessarily take precedence over all others.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in fact, any of those vessels are now available tor fishermen, and, if so, how are they to be obtained?

All applications are sent to the Admiralty, and perhaps my, hon. Friend would get that information from the Admiralty

Has the right hon. Gentleman got the full co-operation of the Admiralty in this matter, because for nine months I have been trying to get one of these vessels from the Admiralty for an ex-Serviceman, and have failed?

I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that we have the full sympathy of the Admiralty. —

They have been, and are, doing all they can to help the inshore fishermen.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister informed me on Thursday that the Ministry of Agriculture is now responsible for seeing that these M.F.V.s reach the fishermen?

When any vessel is available for an inshore fisherman, the Ministry of Agriculture try to see that it goes to the right quarter, but we cannot say how many of these vessels there will be or when they will be made available.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that as soon as the position clarifies full details of these vessels are made available to every fishing port round the coast, as at present fishermen are unable to obtain any information about the boats or the procedure for bidding for them?

House Of Commons Refreshment Department (Bread)

asked the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, in view of the fact that the. banning of the provision of bread with main meals in catering establishments is under consideration, whether the will arrange not to serve bread in the House of Commons restaurant unless specially asked for.

The arrangement requested was put into effect prior to the instruction issued by the Ministry of Food on this subject. That arrangement is still being carried out.

I should like to ask the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, as a regular feeder in the House of Commons dining room, whether it would not be nice to make a symbolic gesture, even though a small one, to the hard worked housewife arid to the starving people abroad?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but really I cannot hear the supplementary question.

I should like to repeat my question for the benefit of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. Would it not be a very nice gesture on our. part—and I am a regular feeder in the House of Commons dining room—to make some renunciation of what we have in our dining room? Would it not have a good effect amongst housewives?

May I suggest that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick), if he wishes to discuss this question, should see me after Questions?

Would the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee consider the advisability of doing without the provision of bread altogether in the dining room? Surely, it would not be a great sacrifice for anybody to do without it?

That is a suggestion to be considered by the Ministry of Food. Our duty is to obey the regulations, and that we are doing.

Is not the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee aware that, in fact, his instructions are not being carried out in the House of Commons dining room? [Hon. Members: "No."] I was offered bread before I asked for it. I never ask for bread with my meals.

I am not aware of any such thing If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows of such a case and will bring it to my notice, it will be stopped.

Will the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, while considering the symbolic gestures, take into account the necessity of giving up not only what we have to eat in the dining room, but what we have to drink?

Closed Road (Northwood, Isle Of Wight)

asked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production when Three Gates Road, Northwood, Isle of Wight, closed during the war to extend Cowes airport, is to be re-opened; and what is the cause of the delay in doing so.

It has not yet been possible to re-open this road since the work for which the airfield was extended will not come to an end until the middle of the year at the earliest. The possibility of then dispensing with the extension, thereby enabling the road to be re-opened, is being examined.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this extension has never been used at-all and, in fact, is unserviceable? Is he also aware that this road was closed by the Government? Will he reconsider the question?

Bolton Football Ground Disaster (Inquiry)

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any statement to make about the disaster at the Bolton Wanderers' football ground on Saturday last?

Yes, Sir. I would like in the first instance to express the profound sympathy of His Majesty's Government with those who were injured in this catastrophe, and with the relatives of those who lost their lives. I propose to take immediate steps to set up an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining and reviewing all the relevant circumstances and considering whether any general measures ought to be taken to minimise the danger of similar tragedies occurring in the future. Meanwhile, I have received and am considering a report by the Chief Constable of Bolton, but it would clearly be inappropriate for me at this stage to attempt to go into details.

While 1 thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may we take it that the Assistance Board will be asked to give all possible help to relatives who have been Bèreaved by this disaster at an early date, as has been done on previous occasions?

I will see that any necessary steps by other Government Departments are taken in this matter.

Since the inquiry is bound to take some time before the report is issued, is the right hon. Gentleman considering any temporary police measures; for example, to prevent a possible repetition of such a disaster next Saturday or the following Saturday?

I am confident that on this occasion the police took all the steps that were open to them. I have made particular inquiries with regard to that, and I know nothing more that could have been done without legislation. I shall consider in the course of the next two or three days whether there is any advice I can offer that might be of assistance. It should be borne in mind, I think, that the ground was closed on the advice of the police. One would hope that spectators who find themselves, unfortunately, debarred from getting in, would exercise some sense of the sportsmanship they expect from the players on the field.

Can the right hon. Gentleman use power in the meantime, while awaiting the report, to see that there is adequate loud speaker apparatus inside and outside these grounds?

I have no powers with regard to such a matter at all. This is among the things that I shall consider when I come to have regard to what advice I can tender pending legislation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take all precautions possible to see that in future the police are able to marshal the spectators inside the ground?

Oh, no. I could not undertake; so to extend the powers of the police, nor do I think it would be very popular in many cases.

Industry (Working Parties)

I would like, with the permission of the House, to make a further statement about working parties. The task of setting up working parties for another ten industries (making in all fifteen with those announced last October) has now reached an advanced stage. I have been fortunate in the response that has been made to my invitations to serve on these working parties. The names of the Chairmen and the industries with which their working parties will be concerned are as follows:

General Sir Ronald Adam, Bt.:Linoleum.

The names of the members already appointed to serve with these Chairmen— there are over a hundred of them—will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The working party for Linoleum will start work in a few weeks' time when General Adam relinquishes his present appointment as Adjutant-General of the Forces. Similarly, the Clothing working party will not be in full operation until after the end of this month when Sir Cecil Weir is released from his present appointment as Director-General of Equipment and Stores. The Wool industry working party too will not start work until next month but the other working parties will begin immediately and, indeed, that for the Carpet Industry held its first meeting last week.

On the working party policy generally, there is nothing that I need add to the statement that I made on the 15th October last. The original working parties are making good progress and, from preliminary indications received from the Chairmen, I am confident that the reports, when they come forward shortly, will be found to contain valuable recommendations.

I should like to take this opportunity of saying that the establishment of working parties in the field of consumer goods industries does not carry with it any general implication of inefficiency in those industries. It is, however, in this field that the circumstances of war have arrested the normal processes of maintenance and development; and, in any case, our general economic position is such that nothing less than the highest possible degree of efficiency will suffice. I am confident that the ascertaining of fact, the pooling of ideas and the forming of conclusions that have been proceeding on the basis of a working partner between both sides of industry and independent persons of wide experience, will make a valuable contribution to that end.

It is not my intention to set up any further working parties for the present as those already started or about to start will absorb all the available personnel and it will be desirable to consider some of their reports before undertaking any further action.

Following ts the list referred to:

LIST OF CHAIRMEN AND MEMBERS OF WORKING PARTIES FOR INDUSTRY.

Representatives of 7

Industry.Chairmen and Secretaries.Employers.Trade Unions.Independent Members
CarpetsMr. Geoffrey Cunliffe (Secretary: Mr. R. Northam, Board of Trade, Neville House, Page Street, S.W.i.).Mr. John Anderson Mr. Cyril J. Johnson Mr. J. Robinson Mr. Herbert: Tomkinson, O.B.E., T.D.. D.L., J.P.Mr. E. Crowther Mr. David Crummy Mr. J. Keith Mr. Arthur Smith, J.PDr. N. B. L. Pevsner, Ph.D Miss B. N. Seear, B.A: Dr. R. E. Slade, M.C. F.R.I.C, M.I., Chem.E. Mr. H. V. Stammers, D.F.C
Domestic Glassware.Mr.Clough Williams-Ellis, M.C., J.P., F.R.I.B.A. (Secretary: Mr. J. J. Breslin, Board of Trade, Neville House, Page Street, S.W.i.).Mr. Howard Fletcher Mr. Sven Fogelberg Dr. William Maskill, B.Sc, A.R.C.S., Ph.D. Mr. F. H. StuartMr. W. K. F.van. Mr. H. Perry-Mr. C. D. Stanier Mr. J. T. WilsonMr. Geoffrey E. Dunn Mr. H. N. Hume, C.B.E.. M.C. Professor H.Moore, D.Sc, A.R.C.S., F.Inst.P., F.S.G.T. Mr. Jeremiah Twomey, O.B.E., M.Sc.
Jute Mr. S. j. L. Hardie, D.S.O., I.L.D. (Secretary: Miss E. Mark. Room S5A, Raw Materials Division, Ministry of Supply, Shell Mex House, Strand, W.C.2.).Mr. R. D. F. Caldwell Mr. James W. Laird Lt.-Col. J. Murray Pram, D.S.O., T.D., B.A. Lt.-Col. William G. N. Walker, T.D., B.A.Mr. T. R. Chrysta Mr. Robert Doyle Mr. T. M. Ferguson, J.P. Mr. R. MacbethMr. Edgar P. Brown, J.P. Mr. S. E. Houstoun, M.A., C.A. (Two more members to be appointed)
LinoleumGeneral Sir Ronald Adam, Bart., G.C.B., D.S.O., O.B.E., LL.D. (Secretary: Mr. D. P. Brearley, Board of Trade, Neville House, Page Street, S.W.I.).Mr. Charles Reginald Parsons Mr. Henry Campbell Scarlett Sir Robert Spencer Nairn Bt.. J.P., D.L., T.D. Mr. William Robertson WhitelawMr. Tom Howard Mr. J. W. Norris Mr. W. Quin, J.P. (Another member to be appointed).Miss Ruth Cohen Dr. L. T. M. Gray, B.Sc. Ph.D., A.R.I.C. Mr. W. A. McPhail Professor John Read, Ph.D.. M.A., Sc.D., F.R.S.
WoolSir Richard V. N. Hopkins, G.C.B., (Secretary: Mr. W. L B. Fairweather, Board of Trade, Horseferry House, S.W.I.).Mr. G. E. Birkenshaw Mr. Fred Haigh Mr. J. Thompson Mr. W. Ward Mr. H. J. WhiteMr. G. H. Bagnall Mr. W. H. Bannister Mr. Sydney Bedford Mr. B. W. Berry Mr. Percy EllisProfessor W. T. Astbury, M.A., Sc.D., F.Inst.P., F.R.S. Mr. George Dickson, O.B.E Mr. S. J. Pears, F.C.A. (Two more members to be appointed).
Jewellery and Silverware,Mr. C. R. Morris, M.A. (Secretary: Mr. W. D. Newsam, Board of Trade, Neville House, Page Street, S.W.I.).Mr. S. Dawson Collins Mr. J. B. Hassett Brigadier H. C. Howson, C.B.E., T.D. Mr. R. M. KleanMr. J. E. Cocker Mr. Wm. Kean, O.B.E.. J.P Mr. S. R. J. Battey Mr. John WestMrs. J. W. Field, J.P. Mr. R. G Gosling, J.P. Mr. G. R. Hughes, C.V.O. Professor J. G Smith. O.B.E., M.A., M. Com.

Industry.Chairmen and Secretaries.Employers.Trade Unions.Independent Members.
Cutlery Mr. J. L. Musgrave (Secretary: Miss O. Gilbert, Board of Trade, Neville House, Page Street, S.W.I.)Mr. F. B. Colver Mr. W. B. Ibberson Mr. 1). A. Palmer Mr. R. L. WalshCouncillor W. Cooke, J.P. Councillor H. Slack Mr. E. Wood, J.P. (A further appointment may be made later)Dr. F. C. Lea, M.Inst.C.E., M.I.Mech.E., M.I.Min.E., M.I.Struct.E. Miss P. Elton Mayo Mr. F. S. Towle (A further appointment will be
Heavy ClothingSir Cecil M. Weir, K.B.E., M.C., D.L. (Secretary: Mr. A. S. Allen, Board of Trade, Horseferry House, S.W.I)(Members to be appointed)Mr. A. Conley Mr. T. G. Jones Dame Anne Loughlin, D.B.E. Miss E. Maycock Mr. J. McCorkell Mr. J. E. NewtonMr. W. Dickson-Scott Mr. C. H. P. Gifford Mr. E. W. Goodale, C.B.E., M.C. Mr. G. D. A. McDougall Capt. J. Fox Williams, M.A., M.I.Ex., M.C. Miss L. F. Nettlefold, LL.B
LaceMiss L. S. Sutherland, M.A., F.R.Hist., S. (Secretary: Mrs. E. E. Potter, Board of Trade, Horseferry House, S.W.I)Mr. T. Aird Mr. A. Barber, M.C. Mr. A. P. Burgass Mr. J. G. McMeeking Mr. W. I. Taylor .Mr. William Auld Mr. H. A. Hind, J.P Mr. M. Parker Mr. J. T. Severn Mr. A. O. WallisMrs. Donald Bird Professor J. Masson Gulland, M.A., Ph.D., F.R.I.C, D.Sc. F.R.K. Mr. Harold Taylor Mr. G. D. N. Worswick (One further member to be
China ClayProfessor W. R. Jones, D.Sc., D.I.C., M.I.M.M. (Joint Secretaries: Mr. T. K. Rees, Board of Trade, Neville House, Page Street, S.W.I. Mr. W. C. C. Rose, Ministry of Fuel and Power, Cromwell House, 7, Millbank, S.W.i.)(Members to be appointed)Mr. J. H. Bennetts Mr. J. Parsons Mr. W. A. StoneDr. J. Sykes, Ph.D., M.A., M.Com. (Two further members to be appointed).

Has any working party yet produced a report, or even an interim report, and will these reports, when produced, be made available to the public?

Yes, Sir. I have stated before that the reports will be published immediately after they are received. No working party has yet produced a final report, or anything other than an interim recommendation.

In regard to the woollen industry working party, has the Lord President considered the special needs of Wales, and the need for reviving the woollen industry in Wales?

Yes, Sir, that has been specially considered and discussed with the people in the woollen industry.

That has already been specially discussed, and provision has been made for it.

If any of these working parties make observations about the efficiency of the Department of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, will he give them careful consideration?

In view of the fact that none of these working parties has produced a report, will thright hon. and . learned Gentleman consider introducing target dates, so that we shall know how long we have to wait for the reports?

I know that hon. Members are most anxious to have these valuable reports at the earliest possible moment, but I think that it would be unwise unduly to hurry the committees if that is likely to lead to less valuable reports.

As an example and an indication of the considerations which actuate the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, will he explain the special qualifications of the present Adjutant-General for the chairmanship of the Linoleum Working Party?

In view of the fact that for the last three years Sir Cecil Weir has had a similar job to the one which he is now being called upon to do, why cannot he dovetail his new duties with his present job and get on with the work right away, instead of waiting until next month?

If he has to wind up his present job—;and he is rather busy—it will be difficult for him to undertake these new duties before he winds up the others.

Does not the President of the Board of Trade consider that the setting up of these working parties is having the opposite effect to that which he intends?

Business Of The House

Motion made, and Question put,

" That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

Division No. 97.]

AYES.

[3.24 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)Pursey, Cmdr H.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)Ranger, J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Hardy, E. A.Reeves, J
Allighan, GarryHastings, Dr. SomervilleReid, T. (Swindon)
Alpass, J. H.Haworth, J.Rhodes, H.
Attewell, H. CHenderson, Joseph (Ardwick)Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.Holman, P.Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)
Austin, H. L.Horabin, T. L.Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Ayles, W. H.Hoy, J.Rogers, G. H. R.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)Royle, C.
Bacon, Miss A.Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Scott-Elliot, W.
Baird, Capt. JHutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S
Balfour, A.Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Barstow, P. G.Irving, W. J.Skinnard F. W.
Barton, CJeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Battley, J. R.Jones, A. C. (Shipley)Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Bechervaise, A. E.Jones, J. H. (Bolton)Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Bellenger, F. J.Keenan, W.Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.Kinley, J.Smith, T. (Normanton)
Bing, Capt. G. H. C.Kirby, B. V.Snow, Capt. J. W.
Blackburn, A. R.Lang, G.Solley, L. J.
Blenkinsop, Capt. A.Leonard, W.Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Blyton, W. R.Leslie, J. R.Sparks, J. A.
Boardman, H.Levy, B. W.Stamford, W.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)Steele, T.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)Lindgren, G. S.Stephen, C.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)Lipson, D. L.Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Brown, George (Belper)McAdam, W.Stokes, R. R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)McEntee, V. La TStrauss, G. R.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.McGhee, H. G.Stross, Dr. B.
Burden, T. W.McGovern, JSummerskill, Dr. Edith
Callaghan, JamesMack, J. D.Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.McKay, J. (Wallsend)Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Champion, A. J.Maclean, N. (Govan)Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.McLeavy, F.Thorneycroft, H.
Clitherow, Dr. R.McNeil, H.Thurtle, E.
Cluse, W. S.Mallalieu, J. P. WTitterington, M. F.
Cobb, F. A.Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)Tolley, L.
Cocks, F. S.Marquand, H. A.Usborne, Henry
Collick, P.Mathers, G.Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Collins, V. J.Mayhew, C. P.Walkden, E.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.Middleton, Mrs. L.Walker, G. H.
Cove, W. G.Mikardo, lanWallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Crawley, Flt.-Lieut A.Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir SMitchison, Maj. G. R.Warbey, W. N.
Daines, P.Moody, A, SWatkins, T. E.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)Morgan, Dr. H. B.Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)Morrison Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
de Freitas, GeoffreyMoyle, A.Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Dodds, N. N.Murray, J. D.Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Douglas, F. C. R.Neal, H. (Claycross)Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Driberg, T. E. N.Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)Wilkes, Maj. L.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)Wilkins, W. A.
Dye, S.Noel-Buxton, LadyWilley, F. T. (Sunderland)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.Orbach, MWilliams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Edelman, M.Paget, R. TWilliams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)Williams, W. R (Heston)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)Palmer, A. M. F.Willis, E.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)Pargiter, G. A.Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Follick, M.Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.Wilson, J. H
Foot, M. M.Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)Wise, Major F. J.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)Paton, J. (Norwich)Yates, V. F.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)Pearson, A.Zilliacus, K.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)Peart, Capt. T. F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.Perrins, W.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)Popplewell, E.Mr. R. J. Taylor and
Grey, C. F.Porter, G. (Leeds)Mr. Simmons.
Grierson EPritt, D. N.

NOES.

Amory, D. HeathcoatBoothby, R.Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Baldwin, A. E.Bossom, A. C.Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.Bower, N.Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Birch, Lt.-Col. NigelBoyd-Carpenter, J. A.Bullock, Capt. M.

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 84.

Butcher, H. W.Hudson, Rt. Han. R. S. (Southport)Robertson Sir D.(Streatham)
Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.Hurd, ARobinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. GJeffreys, General Sir GSavory, Prof. D. L.
Cooper-Key, E. M.Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.Low, Brig. A. R. W.Smithers, Sir W.
Cuthbert, W. N.Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
De la Bère, R.MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.McKie, J. H (Galloway)Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)Maclay, Hon. J. S.Studholme, H. G.
Drayson, Capt. G. B.MacLeod, Capt. J.Sutcliffe, H.
Eccles, D. M.Macmillan, Rt. Hon. HaroldTaylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)
Erroll, Col. F. J.Maitland Comdr. J. W.Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)Marsden, Capt. A.Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. DMedlicott, Brig. F.Touohe, G. C.
Gammans, Capt. L. D.Mellor, Sir J.Vane, Lieut-Col. W. M. T-
Gates, Maj. E. E.Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Grimston, R. V.Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)Walker-Smith, D
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.Ward, Hon. G. R.
Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)Nicholson, GWatt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir CNutting, AnthonyYoung, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Hinchingbrooke, ViscountPeto, Brig. C H. M.
Hogg, Hon. Q.Ponsonby, Col. C. E.TELLERS FOB THE NOES
Hope, Lord J.Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)Commander Agnew and
Mr. Drewe.

Orders Of The Day

Supply

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimate, 1945

Class II

Diplomatic And Consular Establishments, Etc

Motion made, and Question proposed,

" That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 100,000, 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 expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

3.35 p.m.

His Majesty's Government seek the authority of Parliament for a payment of £ 100,000 to be made to the Government of the Sudan before 31st March next as the first instalment of a grant in aid, to a total of £ 2,000,000 to be paid by His Majesty's Government over a period of four years towards the development of the Sudan, and for the balance of which further Estimates will be laid before the House from time to time. During the war, the Sudan made a notable contribution to the common victory. The Sudan Defence Force took an active part in the fighting, mainly in East Africa, and the Sudan Government rendered considerable economic assistance to this country by the sale, at specially low prices, of the cotton, meat and other supplies which it furnished to the Government.

Owing to the war and to the insufficient financial resources of the years preceding, the Sudan—although up to that time it had had a fine continuous record of social development—was unable to provide for the Sudanese the further improvement in the social services which the times and development of the Sudanese themselves demanded. In 1945, victory was seen to be approaching, and the Sudanese Government initiated a scheme for a five year plan for postwar development. This scheme envisaged an expenditure of some £ 11,500,000. A high place had necessarily to be given to revenue producing projects, but apart from the creation of wealth for the country by the development of its national resources such as agriculture, the expansion and improvement of the social services, especially health and education, were to be undertaken. The Governor-General intends, in fact, to devote the sum envisaged to the development of education, including the endowment of the Gordon College, which has recently been raised from the status of a school to that of a university college, health, agriculture, forest and veterinary services, irrigation, posts and telegraphs, aviation, public works and municipal and rural councils. The Sudan Government will, however, be unable out of its own resources to pay for all the measures required, and without financial help many of the schemes so greatly needed will have to be curtailed or postponed.

The United Kingdom is very interested in the welfare of the Sudan and Sudanese people. In the first place, it is laid down under the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of Alliance of 1936 that the primary aim of the administration of the Sudan must be the welfare of the Sudanese. In the second place, the raising of the general standard of living of the Sudanese, which is the main object of the five year plan, is calculated to be of direct benefit to this country. The resulting increase in the wealth of the people would be to the economic advantage of our people be cause it has always been the policy of the Sudan to buy as far as possible in the British market. The only other buying agency maintained by the Sudanese Government outside the country, is in London During the 20 years before the war, Great Britain headed the list of countries from which the Sudan imported foodstuffs, with an average figure of about 30 per cent. of the total Sudan imports.

There is a further reason why in the Government's view this country should make this small measure of financial assistance to: the Sudan at the present time. A fund of some £120,000,000 has been established for the development of the British Colonies, The Sudan being a Condominium is not eligible for financial assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, and it would be unfair if the Sudan, which like the British Colonies has made its war effort, and borne its wartime sacrifices, were by that fact to be debarred from receiving any comparable assistance, having regard to the close association of His Majesty's Government with its administration. The announcement of the decision of His Majesty's Government to seek Parliamentary authority for a grant in aid of£2,000,000 to the Sudan, which was made in the House by the Minister of State on 19th December last, has, I am informed, made an excellent impression in the Sudan and the Governor-General has heard expressions of gratitude of the Sudanese from all sides. It is noted that there is a general desire that the grant should be spent on health and education. We would propose to give effect to this desire so far as it is possible, and it is for that reason that we ask the Committee for this Vote.

I wish to make two points on what the Under Secretary of State has said. On the first, I speak with prejudice, in view of the fact that I served for some 10 years before the war in the Sudan. In general, I am sure everybody there, as does everyone in this Committee, welcomes the decision of the Government to give this grant in aid to the Sudan.

First I wish to ask: Is the grant adequate? If we look at the relative figures, we find that in the Colonial Empire there are 60,000,000 people and in the Sudan 6,000,000. Yet only £2,000,000 is set aside over a period of four years for the Sudan as against £120,000,000 for the Colonial Empire. We often felt in the Sudan that being a Condominium we were left out of such grants in aid by this country. It is needless to point out that the Sudan is a very large country, and this means that communications are difficult especially during the rains. I think a great deal might be done by public works to help to link this country more closely together and that this would be of considerable assistance to the country in the future. The Sudan, in 1885, it was alleged, contained a population of 12,000,000 people. They fell, largely because of the reconquest, to a figure of some 2,000,000 people. Now it has risen to some 6,000,000 people, and I think we may well see a population of 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 in the next 30 years. To my own personal knowledge there are areas which were formerly said to contain up to 2,000,000, which are now depopulated. There is a natural increase in the population, and also large immigration from West Africa. Any money spent in developing education, health services and so forth will pay a fruitful dividend in the future, for by increasing the populated areas of the country we shall increase the markets remaining inside the sterling bloc and purchasing from the sterling countries, particularly this country. In addition, such development can and will provide certain essential raw materials, in particular, cotton and oil seeds. So I wish to make the first point which is that £2,000,000 seems not to be an entirely adequate sum, and I suggest to His Majesty's Government that, as time goes on, they should consider whether this sum might not be increased.

The second point I wish to make concerns the item under the heading ." Health, Agricultural Developments and Public Works." I would ask His Majesty's Government if they have considered the report of the Nile Projects Commission. I think those of us who have had an opportunity of studying the Tennessee Valley Authority scheme believe that such "authorities" may play a very big and important part in the future, in the Danube, for instance, the Rhine and particularly the Nile. The Nile is also of interest to Egypt, Abyssinia and Uganda and a great deal might be done along those lines, not only for international transport purposes, but for interior purposes such as power and irrigation. The Under-Secretary, I hope, has read this report of the Nile Projects Commission, which did inquire into the possibility of developing the Nile on a long-term policy and cutting a great canal through the swamp areas in the Southern Sudan to the Upper Nile so as to provide for water for Egypt and the Sudan; drawing off the water from the swamp areas will make them more fertile and improve the health of the people who live therein. In addition there are the proposed Lake Tana dam and other dams on the upper waters of the White Nile.

I believe that all this development is going to pay a big dividend in the future, particularly in the generation of electrical power and the provision of more water for irrigation in the whole Valley of the Nile. I believe that this last proposal for development might appeal, in particular, to the Government, and I ask them to consider very seriously the setting up of a commission, whether British, Anglo-Egyptian or under the auspices of U.N.O., to consider this very important project. Such a proposal, as I have tried to point out, would lead not only to better health but to agricultural development in other countries as well as in the Sudan. Very large sums are involved, running into hundreds of millions, as the original Estimate shows, but I suggest that these sums are already in part available. We in this country owe large sums of money to Egypt, and this money can be spent, in part, in buying machinery and so forth in this country. I think the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) should be interested, as the firm with which he is connected has done a lot of extremely valuable work in the Nile Valley in the past. I would, therefore, put it to His Majesty's Government with very great respect that they should set up a commission or committee to inquire into the whole project ofdeveloping the Nile on a long-term policy, to the benefit of the countries I have mentioned and in particular of the Sudan.

345 P.m.

In regard to this Estimate I should like some further information because one or two of the items present rather disturbing features. The Under-Secretary said quite properly that the Sudan Government would not be able to meet the costs of all improvement schemes out of its own resources. We are entitled surely to ask whether any othercountryis goingto make a contribution in respect of the developments in the Sudan, or is the cost to be carried by the British taxpayer? I think we are entitled to look to Egypt for some assistance. Egypt is a near neighbour, which has nourished during the war very largely at the expense of the British taxpayer; and I think it only right that Egypt should make a contribution in this matter. I think, too, that we ought to be told what the agricultural development is. Is it in terms of large farms or smallholders? Surely the Committee should be informed on this, because if it is to be in terms of large farms, I should be glad to know whether that is in the best interests of the Sudanese peasants. If, on the other hand, it is in the terms of smallholders, I ask why should the taxpayer contribute to developing these smallholdings in the Sudan when the Government are without a policy for smallholders in this country? There is one other thing which I should like to mention. In the last paragraph of the Estimate, it is explained that expenditure out of this grant in aid will not be accounted for in detail, to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I am sure the answer I receive will be quite satisfactory, but I think we should receive an assurance from the Undersecretary that, as this money is being expended for the ordinary peasant in the Sudan none of it is likely to be lost through slippery fingers, as it passes from His Majesty's Government to the person for whom it is intended.

I should like to ask one question about agricultural development, especially cotton. I think it was about 25 years ago that the Sudan Plantations Company was formed. It was an excellently managed company and was the best example of co-operation between the Government, those who provide the money, and the management and the peasants who were producing the cotton. The question I want to ask is whether this £2,000,000 includes an amount which will be necessary to pay off the shareholders of this company, because I understand that in a very short time the Government of the Sudan are taking over the whole of this cotton proposition.

It appears to me that the £100,000 is not in strict ratio to the total sum involved, or to the time during which it will be spent. This is an initial payment, and as such it does not appear to be excessive, and I think it would be right for the Government, during next year, to step up this amount. I would like to know whether anything further is intended for the coming year. It is proposed that £2,000,000 be found before four years are up, and that £100,000 should be spent in the first year, which is not a very great advance towards the realisation of that. I would like to ask a question about the loan position of the Sudan. The Under-Secretary stated that the Sudan had provided goods and services to us during the war, and I would like to know whether they were concurrently paid for, or whether we are indebted to the Sudan for those goods and services. If we are indebted, is this grant in aid going against the cancellation of the debt? If so, it will not be possible to use the money to purchase goods and Services of a fresh nature, and thus benefit the inhabitants of the Sudan.

Finally, I would re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), about the Comptroller and Auditor-General. There seem to be two principles which apply to these Supplementary Estimates. In connection with the foreign section, the Comptroller and Auditor-General does not appear to come into the picture, and in connection with the Colonial section there is a substitute for the Comptroller and Auditor-General, namely, the Director of Colonial Audit. I want to be sure that these sums spent abroad are accounted for by an official connected with the Treasury who can, if necessary, report to the House of Commons.

I would ask the Under-Secretary for a little more information about the development of the Gordon College at Khartoum into a university college. In what direction will it develop? Will it develop particularly in the direction of literary studies, based on Shelley's, "Ode to a Skylark," or in the direction of science, agriculture and engineering? It is rather fundamental to know whether we are to have graduates from that college who will find few avenues and little reward for their studies in that country itself, or whether we are to satisfy the urgent need of the Sudan for graduates with scientific attainments, and special knowledge of agriculture and engineering.

I do not propose to detain the Committee long, but I would like to associate myself with my hon. Friends with the tribute which was paid by the Under-Secretary to the Sudan, for the services which that country rendered to the common cause during the war The hon. Gentleman opposite explained that this grant in aid arose, in the main, from two considerations. He said it was an effort to raise the standard of life of the Sudan which, as he pointed out correctly, would be very much in the economic interest of this country as well as of the Sudan. Here, I must say, in passing, that I am a little surprised that Members opposite, who are accustomed to talk so much about raising the standard of life of peoples who are not so forward as we are ourselves, have not been able to show a little more interest in this very important Estimate.

The Under-Secretary also pointed out that this grant in aid for the Sudan was intended to be the equivalent to the Colonial Development Fund, under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) suggested that perhaps the sum involved was not very adequate as a basis for comparison, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary what the proposals of the Government are in this respect. I understand from the Estimate that the total sum to be given to the Sudan for welfare development is£ 2 million, to be spread over four years. A quarter of that is £500,000, but all we are being asked to vote now is £100,000. When does the Under-Secretary expect to come to the House for further advances towards this welfare and development work? We should also be interested to know whether the Government have studied the Nile Projects Commission's Report, and whether they have formed any view on it. It would be interesting, too, to know what the programme of the Gordon College is to be, what kind of studiesthey are to promote, whether they are to be academical or practical. It would be interesting to have further details of the agricultural development which is proposed. 1 assume the Government have the details of these problems before them, and that they are not just making a grant in aid to the Sudan Government in the belief that eventually that Government will find means of spending the money. It would be of advantage to the Committee if we could have a clear idea of the practical details of how this grant in aid is to be spent.

Would the Under-Secretary tell us why this Vote has been removed from the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Why is not the authority of Parliament being exercised in regard to this Vote? We are accustomed to keep control of our public finance, and there seems no reason why this Estimate should be excluded from the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The function of the university which is to be established from the original college at Khartoum ought to be for the purpose of the economic development of the Sudan, and not to train a race of economists, on the. model of the London School of Economics, to present all kinds of impossibilities in dealing with the political future of the Sudan. This Vote may have far-reaching political consequences, in view of the present situation in Egypt. I am sure the Under-Secretary will treat these matters with consideration and care, and answer the questions put to him on the precise position of the Condominium. What financial responsibility attaches to Egypt in that case? I do not think we ought to pass Votes of this kind in a hurried fashion. We had a statement from the Under-Secretary which was read with great skill and eloquence, but I think we ought to know a little more about the social, political and economic consequences involved in this Estimate.

4.0 p.m.

I had not intended to speak on this Vote, but I have been goaded into doing so by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. R. Law), who apparently thinks that because we are following the example set by the Opposition when they were in power and not taking much interest in such Votes as these, we are necessarily taking no interest whatever in the subjects that arise. The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. Some of us sometimes kept quiet, even when the Opposition were in power, because there happened to be a war on. Some of us are trying to keep quiet now, as faras we can, even though our Government is in power. It is a little difficult to do so, and perhaps it is all to the good that hon. Members should goad us into speaking sometimes. I am, however, surprised at the considerable amount of interest which is being taken in these Votes. Take, for instance, the case of the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). Time and again, I have seen him sit in silence while Votes of this sort were being discussed and not make any remarks similar to his observations today.

There are one or two points on which I would like to have some information. I hope hon. Members will not listen to the suggestion that Egypt should take an interest in the Sudan from the point of view of giving finance to the Sudan. The situation at the present time is very difficult, and I hope we shall keep the Sudan under our own province, without asking for any money from Egypt. Let us regard the Sudan as our own responsibility and our own liability and on no account ask Egypt, in the present circumstances of the world, to make any contribution, because if Egypt made any financial contribution to the Sudan, she would immediately want some say in the administration or government of that province in return for the financial contribution. I do not think even the most hard-headed Tories would disagree with that view. They ought not to do so, because it is a reasonable view.

I would like to have some information about education, health, agricultural development and public works, which are mentioned in the Vote. I do not want to embarrass my colleagues -in the Government in any way, but I think they will agree that some further information on Votes of this kind should be given whenever such Votes come up. Some of us are rather keen about this. I would like to know something about the £100,000 grant for welfare and development in the Sudan. If it is to promote education, what are to be the schemes and methods of education? Are there to be any changes? With regard to health, this morning I read a document about certain Colonies, and although I am accustomed to read horrible things about these places, I was astounded by the information given in that document about the number of hospitals and the number of medical men per head of the population in many of these places. I would like also to have some information about agricultural development and public works. I hope that at some time, if not today, the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs will give us some information about the Sudan. The Sudan has great possibilities from our point of view. If a little time were spent in planning properly the economic development of the Sudan, ultimately we should reap rewards amply covering any trouble we had taken.

I was surprised by one of the statements of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). I would like to ask him whether it is the policy of the Labour Government to freeze out any other countries that wish to put money into the Sudan. If so, surely that is international power politics. I ask the Government whether what the hon. Member said represents their policy.

I am indebted to hon. Members opposite for the interest they have shown in this question. That interest has rather fallen into two divisions—the interest of such people as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby), who has had extensive experience in this service and to whom we are always grateful when he speaks upon it; and the interest of other hon. Gentlemen who are not so much interested in the Sudan. It would be quite improper for me to suggest that the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Harmon) is not properly activated by these consideration—

This is going a little bit too far. I hope that the Undersecretary, in replying to the Debate, does not intend to impute motives to hon. Members on this side.

I most carefully did not make any imputations. I made plain that I was sure the hon. Member was most generously activated and touched by the position of these people. I know similarly that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) was concerned only about the taxpayers, whom he so scrupulously represents, when he asked why these funds are not accounted. It would be impertinent for a junior Member such as I am to remind the two hon. Gentlemen that there are abundant precedents for this behaviour. It would be equally impertinent for a junior Member to ask such a senior Member as the hon. Member for Moseley whether he is asking the Government to go to the Sudan administration and dole out the halfpennies, attaching a condition to each one that we hand out. To do that would be ungenerous, impracticable, and a breach of the normal traditions of the House. A grant in aid is made to the Sudan Government, and that Government will be accountable to the Foreign Office, first, because it is a grant, and secondly, because this a Condominium. The money cannot fall within the normal accountancy methods of the House. I hope that is quite plain to hon. Members, and that the Government will be absolved from the charge of being reckless with £100,000.

May I put a question, based upon the analogy of the Colonial Welfare and Development Fund? Although it is true that in that case there is no meticulous scrutiny of the detailed expenditure after it is made, there is rigid insistence upon the scheme on which the money is to be spent being put up beforehand and being approved by the Government. Is not that the case in the Sudan?

Of course, the Sudanese administration is accountable to the Foreign Office, but the details are not accountable to the House, for the reasons I have already given. Several hon. Members expressed an interest in the development of Gordon College, and I know this was a healthy and sincere interest. Gordon College is not to be developed as any dilettante or obscurely cultural organisation. It is primarily an organisation to make available the technical education which is necessary for cotton, irrigation, engineering, and various agricultural developments. I hope I have not left myself open to the charge that I am not properly concerned with other cultural developments. What I am saying is that the Government have to give priority to the order in which there is educational development, and the Gordon College is primarily to provide technical education at this stage. 1 was also asked about the scope of this agricultural development. It would be mainly confined to irrigation. It would be impracticable at this stage to have extensive agricultural schemes, when we have not yet attended to the primary element—irrigation.

Several hon. Members—and here 1 am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) — were of course concerned with whether or not this sum is enough. I was asked whether it is just a book entry, or whether it will be an actual credit available. It is an actual credit available. Again I was asked whether we could not stretch it. It would be very easy to put down some imaginary sum, but we must, of course, relate the grant to the actual goods available. I hope that we may be able to meet a large Sudanese demand, but in the immediate future their demands, like all external demands, will have to be met from a very limited ration. That is the primary reason why the grant, at this stage is £100,000.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this money is to be spent entirely inside the sterling area or, even more narrowly, within this country? Can he undertake that it will not be spent anywhere outside the sterling area?

I know that the noble Lord is a great authority on finance and on national savings, and therefore I must be very careful in my reply. I imagine that the money will be spent in this country, but I should like to be rather more careful and say merely that it will be retained inside the sterling area. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), and other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in this Debate, asked if we could not give some kind of an undertaking that we would reconsider the gross amount. I would most certainly promise that the Government will reconsider it, not at this stage because that would be an empty promise since we do not for a minute pretend that our obligations to this important territory are discharged by this vote. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) knows, compared with the Colonial Development Fund it is not a disproportionate amount. I would not like to say for a second that that is our last word. I will most carefully consider what has been said about the various irrigation developments. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that I am not familiar with the Nile Development Report but I will try to amend that deficiency before I come to the Committee again on a similar matter. As the Committee knows my right hon. Friend entertains keen hopes about development in this area, particularly of an agricultural kind. I hope that the valuable Nile Development Report will not remain just a technical curio. It will be most carefully considered by His Majesty's Government and we hope that developments of that kind will be possible.

Hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be reassured by the remarks of the hon. Gentleman that the advent of the Labour Government means no great change in the policy of foreign affairs in relation to this Supplementary Estimate but that in this, as in so many others, the Government are following the prudent and right course, laid down by their predecessors in office.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved

" That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1946, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

United Nations

Motion made, and Question proposed,

" That a sum, not exceeding £340,000, begranted 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 a contribution towards the expenses of the United Nations and for other expenses in connection therewith."

4.15 p.m.

I will not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes. I am submitting an Estimate for £340,000 under two subheads. The first is £330,000 for the work of the Preparatory Commission, and the work of the United Nations and of the Executive Committee which began in August last, and of the Assembly for which the Executive Committee and the Preparatory Commission prepared. Under the arrangement made in San Francisco by the late Government we advance this money, but 85 per cent. of it, will be credited to us against our future contributions to the funds of the United Nations. Our actual contribution towards the £330,000 will be only 15 per cent. or a little less; the rest is an advance which we have made, and which we shall get back.

We are not responsible for the detailed control of this expenditure. It was expended under the authority of the Preparatory Commission and the Assembly of the United Nations, and it will, therefore, be controlled and audited by the financial administrations they are setting up.

The second subhead covers £10,000 for the expenses of our delegations to the United Nations meetings up to the end of March. I hope that we shall not exceed that sum. I will not weary the Committee with any further details, but I shall be very glad to answer, if I am able, any questions which hon. Members may care to put to me. Here I should like to pay a tribute, if I am in order in so doing, to the way in which all the budgetary and financial work of the Preparatory Commission and the Assembly was carried through by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and by his Treasury advisers.

1 do not propose to detain the Committee long but I would like to say a word on the second item of this Vote, namely, the expenses in connection with the United Kingdom representation. I wish to make an appeal, if I am in Order in doing so, to the Minister of State to see that this money is expended in treating the delegation, and above all, its junior personnel, generously. I speak from some experience of underpayment as a junior member of the Diplomatic Service, and it is undoubtedly true that a generous representation allowance has enormous bearing on the prestige of His Majesty's Government abroad. I remember that when I was in Madrid, during the war, one member of the Embassy, who was a great deal richer than the others, was able to give a very good cocktail party. Our fortunes in the war were at a very low ebb at the time but two or three Spaniards came along afterwards and said, "Now we really know that you are going to win the war.' It may seem silly that foreigners should take that line, but I know from experience that it is true. It is clear that any generous allowance made to our delegation is of importance from the prestige point of view.

I admit that the foreign allowance is and always has been better than the home allowance, but even so I think both could be stepped up a good deal. We must also remember that the United Nations Organisation is to have its permanent seat in America, and that standards there are extremely high. If we do not give members of our delegation sufficient allowances, and sufficient perquisites to represent this country well, our prestige on that United Nations organisation, and in America generally, will be the worse.

Lastly, I would ask that the money should be used to provide not only adequate pay and allowances for the delegation, but adequate staff. That is another problem which faces the Foreign Office at the moment, but I should not be in Order in saying very much about it in detail. In many of our legations and consulates there is far too little time, owing to shortage of staff, for members of the commissions to get about, to fraternise and to make contacts with the inhabitants, as well as to familiarise themselves with the habits of the countries to which they are accredited. I hope that the money will be used not only to give generous pay and allowances to members of the delegations but for the other purposes I have mentioned.

I hope that the Committee will not pay much attention to the plea just. made by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) that adequate provision should be made for cocktail parties and the like, in order that the prestige of this country might be heightened among the people with whom members of the Diplomatic Service come into contact. The money that has been spent in the past by the privileged caste who were usually appointed to our Diplomatic Service in living in the sort of way that the hon. Gentleman desires to have retained, has reacted very considerably against the general interests of this country. If we can persuade those who go abroad to observe a more prudent expenditure, especially now, at a time of great world shortage, we shall do more for the good name of our country than by the kind of expenditure for which the hon. Gentleman is pleading. I am very glad that the Government took the responsibility of providing adequate arrangements for the United Nations organisation while it was in London. Although its share is very considerably less than the amount that we are now being asked to vote, I am glad that the Government have taken responsibility. The Vote will receive almost unanimous support on this side of the Committee.

I support the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) for a generous allowance for our representatives at the United Nations organisation. I do not take quite the same view of U.N.O. as the Minister of State. I believe that it will have a good many obstacles to overcome and that we are in danger of overestimating its prospects in the same way as we overestimated the prospects of the League of Nations after the last war, and got into grave trouble as a result. The omens are not very much more auspicious today than they were in 1919, and in some respects they are much less auspicious; but we ought to give every possible chance to this organisation. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we do not give the best chance to our representatives abroad, especially if we do not allow them sufficient money to enable them to entertain in the most expensive country in the world, the United States of America. I can well believe the story he told of the cocktail party in Spain. It costs a good deal to get men of the right calibre to represent this country successfully overseas. I am, in some ways, sorry to have to say that, but I believe it to be a fact. It is certainly a fact well known to the U.S.S.R. I have had the great privilege and pleasure of being entertained on many occasions by the Soviet Union, both in this country and in Moscow.

This is a Vote relating to the expenses of our U.N.O. representatives. The hon. Gentleman's argument should proceed on those lines.

I quite agree, Major Milner. I was only drawing a comparison favourable to the U.S.S.R. against our niggardly procedure. Their expenditure is much more lavish in these matters, both in Russia and in this country. They have an advantage in that respect, and also in respect of vodka and caviare. I can only hope that the provision they make has eased the path of their diplomatic representatives. I do not say that we should achieve the same result with roast beef and Yorkshire pudding washed down with ale, but I still think that to keep a young man struggling with a lot of hard work, in penurious circumstances, in a country like the United States, is not fair either to him or to the United Nations organisation.

I support the plea that has been made We cannot expect the distinguished people who represent this country to get very far on this miserable sum of £10,000. Why cannot the Foreign Office come to the Committee again and ask to have these expenses supplemented by means of an additional Vote? When I was travelling the Continent year after year as a bagman for British industry, I found at every legation and embassy I visited people representing this country who were tied down to a miserable pittance, with only their own resources to fall back upon. I hope the Minister will not think this is a subject to be laughed at, but is one for serious consideration. People representing us abroad ought to have sufficient financial support by this country. It is a very poor sort of diplomacy, which expects private individuals to pay their own expenses, in order to maintain our prestige in a foreign country.

I support the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting). Younger members of our Embassies abroad should have reasonable remuneration, but not for the purpose of cocktail parties. The function of our Embassies is something very much greater than that.

I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that discussion of our representation abroad is limited on this Vote to the United Nations organisation.

In that connection, I think it is obvious that the United Nations representation must have ramifications in countries abroad. It is essential for us to make it possible for the new personnel which is coming into the Foreign Office to pay their way. We must make the Foreign Office more attractive. Many people go into commerce or industry because they have found the remuneration in the Foreign Office and the Civil Service not attractive. The United Nations organisation is growing up. We shall not get the personnel unless we make it attractive in that respect. We have been told that conditions in the Foreign Office have been altered since 1943, and that new personnel is coming in. Are we certain, having regard to the change in monetary values, that we shall get the right people? I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider raising the salaries and remuneration generally, in order that we may attract the most able personnel.

4.30 p.m.

I think it would be appropriate on this Vote to report our particular appreciation of the work of Mr. Gladwyn Jebb in getting the Preparatory Commission on its feet. I personally am rather inclined to agree with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), and it is somewhat unfortunate that almost the whole of our attention has been concentrated upon what might be described as political and ideological matters in connection with the United Nations. It seems to me that the policy outlined at Blackpool in relation to the United Nations, by the Foreign Secretary, particularly the insistence upon the economic and social aspects of it, is a policy to which it is of the greatest impor- tance for His Majesty's Government to give priority.

I would ask whether or not there; is any intention to extend the scientific side of the United Nations—I imagine that U.N.E.S.C.O. comes within the ambit of this particular Debate—and whether the greatest possible emphasis will be put upon the desire of scientists to have at the earliest moment a world scientific conference. It is the one section of the community which seems the most anxious to make the United Nations organisation work. As I am anxious that my remarks should not be ruled out of Order, I conclude by asking whether it would be possible at some stage, for a statement to be made by His Majesty s Government on the urgent need for a world scientific conference to enable the subject to which I have referred to be discussed.

This is extraordinary because, on the preceding Vote which was in charge of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, we voted £100,000 for; the Sudan Government about which the Comptroller and Auditor-General is to receive no account in detail. Now, we come to Subhead B of this Vote, where a sum which is only one-tenth of the Sudan Vote is involved. Section A will not be accounted for in detail and, by inference, I assume that Section B will be accounted for in detail. I think the Auditor- General's Department will have great fun going through the travelling and incidental expenses of the delegations to U.N.O. How far does this audit really go? Are we to understand that if some body wants extra comfort on the train or wishes to make a telephone call while in transit, he has to submit detailed vouchers to the Auditor-General? Surely, it cannot be that.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but we cannot discuss the question of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's duties. Any discussion of that sort must come on the Vote of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Thank you, Major Milner for pointing that out, but as these matters are subject to audit I have no doubt that full details will be in the possession of the Minister responsible. I would join with my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in urging that our delegates to U.N.O. and any staff we may send to U.N.O. or who may be engaged in America, should be properly remunerated. The representation of Britain overseas has suffered, I am sure, by the fact that in the main we have not been as generous to those who represent this country abroad as we should be. I hope that at U.N.O. we shall vary from our previous methods, approach this matter realistically, and realise that at U.N.O. and the Assembly of the United Nations we must offer the same facilities as does any other delegation. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen spoke of Russian hospitality. I do not wish to pursue that, except to say that our hospitality should be at least as good, although I realise that in luxury, in abundance, in wealth of service and, indeed, in extravagance, they are setting us a very high standard indeed. Nevertheless 1 am sure that the Minister of State will do what he can, and should he find it necessary to press the Treasury for more money for supporting our representation at the United Nations, I am sure he will find support, at least on this side.

The Minister of State pointed out, I think justly, that the sums involved under Subhead A were not within our control, but were rather under the control of the appropriate organ of the United Nations. That is as it should be, and certainly if the United Nations cannot control their own finances, then it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to perform those even more important tasks which I think we in this Committee, in spite of the somewhat sombre outlook, still hope that they will perform. The expenses under Subhead B are within our control, and I associate myself with the appeals made from this side of the Committee, and by one or two hon. Members opposite, to the effect that we should not be too niggardly. I do not want to go into the question of cocktail parties, which aroused the spleen of the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), though they have their part to play in these matters, but I would like to state my own belief. Sometimes, when a mission goes from this country to another country—particularly one like the United States of America, where standards are so much higher than they are here and where expenses are so much greater—the junior members of the mission, the third secretaries and, in par- ticular, the typists and the clerical workers, sometimes find themselves under a really serious disability. I do not think the Treasury is always aware of the violent change between this country, under present-day conditions, and a visit, say, to Washington or to New York as it would be in the first instance so far as the United Nations are concerned. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind always that the subordinate staff of these missions are apt to have a very difficult time, and I hope he will do what he can to see that they are treated generously.

May I express the hope that the Minister of State, out of his great experience of international conferences, will give us his view on the subject of entertainment? I agree very largely with what was said by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting), but at the same time I remember that during the recent meetings in London there were many complaints that there was a great deal too much entertaining and that it was interfering with the solid business of the Council Assembly. I remember also, in the old days of the League of Nations, that there was a dinner party nearly every evening, with the result that delegates were left with hardly anytime to think, much less to discuss amongst themselves problems to be dealt with the next day. It is one of those cases where it is necessary to strike a just mean, and I would like the ideas of the Secretary of State as to what that just mean is.

Most of the discussion has taken place on Subhead B, and my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) expressed the gratitude of the Committee to Mr. Gladwyn Jebb and his associates for their work in connection with the provisional secretariat. I have already expressed the gratitude of the Government, in the Debate we had a little time ago, but I am glad to take this opportunity of adding the Government's tribute to the work done by Mr. Jebb and his friends which has been expressed by my hon. Friend. Indeed, considering the circumstances in which Mr. Jebb's provisional secretariat was got together, considering the fact that a large number of the secretariat remained, up to the end, national civil servants in status, who were paid by, and only lent to the International Secretariat by their Governments, the spirit of devotion which they showed to the work they were doing was, I think, beyond all praise. It is in fact one of our major hopes for the success of the organisation, because it will depend on the spirit of the Internationa] Civil Service which is created.

I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) that the £10,000 in question has to last only until 31st March, and, as our delegations have mostly been in this country so far, I think the sum of £10,000 is likely to be sufficient. On the difficult question of cocktail parties, 1 would quote again, as I have quoted before, the President of the Assembly, Dr. Spaak, who made an official suggestion from the chair at the concluding meeting that, on another occasion, delegates might have a few less. I think that is certainly true. As for other entertaining, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. W. Harris), I do not think that it was true in Geneva, except at the first Assembly—of which I can tell many a tale—that there were many banquets, luncheons and dinners, and that delegates were unable to do their work as a result. That practice was deliberately stopped by an Assembly resolution. If the practice grew up again, I hope it would be stopped in the same way. It did not develop into an abuse, and many of the parties were quite small. As everyone knows, a small party may serve a useful purpose.

I come now to the specific question raised by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. A. Nutting) in his very interesting speech. I agree with him about adequate allowances for delegations. I can speak from a good deal of personal experience. I went on many British delegations to international conferences between the wars and never came back without having spent a good deal of my own money on keeping myself abroad in the public service. And if I wanted to do any entertaining of members of delegations that was, at all times, done by my own efforts. I wish I now had the money that I spent. I think it is right that we should show a much more generous spirit in the matter, as the Committee has generally agreed. I believe in the system of having small parties—parties of six or eight—of people interested in the same subject, and having them at all levels in the delegation. Let the junior members meet the junior members of other delegations. A great deal is to be got out of that, if it is only a gain in knowledge of other delegations, which in itself would be very well worth while.

The hon. Member for Melton said that he hoped we should not only give generous allowances to the staff we were using, but should make sure that the staff itself was adequate. I hope we shall be able to do far better in that matter than we have done in the past. I feel sure that when we come to build up the staff in Whitehall, in the Foreign Office, for United Nations work, the staff will have to be on a far larger scale than that which we had for the League of Nations in times gone by. The staff which is now planned, and for which this Estimate is presented, will consist, in the first instance, of the permanent member of the Security Council, Sir Alexander Cadogan, and the personnel he must take with him to the temporary seat of the United Nations. To it, I hope, will be added very soon, staff for the Economic and Social Council and, after a further delay, staff for the Trusteeship Council, which will be considered in a later Estimate. We must adopt the principle put forward by the hon. Member for Melton and make sure that we have not too few people doing one of the most important jobs of the present epoch.

That leads me to certain questions of policy arising out of the Debate which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton and others. I listened with great sympathy to the hon. Member for King's Norton when he spoke of U.N.E.S.C.O., the question of a scientific conference and the work of the Economic and Social Council. The Economic and Social Council was, of course, only elected by the Assembly and I do not think it began sittings until the beginning of February. I did not expect it to be able to deal with famine, currency and other problems now confronting the world before it separated at the end of that session. I only expected it to be able to do preliminary work for the setting up of commissions which will prepare the machinery by which these tasks will be carried out. That it did in a spirit of efficiency which, I confess, surprised me. I think the commissions it created were of great authority; they were businesslike bodies which were given well drafted mandates with a responsibility to the Economic and Social Council based on the right principles.

4.45 P.m. Of course I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) that the United Nations will have a great many obstacles to overcome. It has not been the friends of the United Nations who have pretended that those obstacles did not exist. I only hope that one of the obstacles will not be those who are too ready to say that it is failing, before it has had a chance to begin to succeed. There is a lot of glib talk about the blind faith in and blind enthusiasm for the League of Nations in 1919 and how we must now avoid that in our new adventure. I lived through the 1919 experience, and was at the Peace Conference in Paris and one of the Secretaries of the Commission who drew up the Covenant of the League of Nations. I do not remember the "blind enthusiasm and blind faith." I remember the almost universal hostility from the governments of the world. I remember that there was public interest but certainly not such great public interest as there is today by any test which can be made. I hope and believe that the major governments of the world are going to back up the United Nations. If any of them do not, it will make the gravest difficulty which we shall have to face and which can only be solved by the machinery of the United Nations. I have travelled a long way from the subject of this Vote. I hope at least the United Nations will survive until 31st March, after which we shall come forward and ask the Committee for more money.

The Minister has given some very comforting assurances about the remuneration and adequacy of staff, but I would like to carry him a little further on the question of adequacy of staff, almost down to sordid detail. A point of considerable importance is the question of secretarial assistance to be given to British representatives in the United Nations organisation. I have the most vivid memories of a certain embassy I knew during the war. I was not connected with it, but was working in the same town. The senior official responsible for running the chan- cellry was also very much occupied in negotiations with the appropriate department of the country where the embassy was. Those of us outside the embassy found it almost impossible to get in touch with him because he was so desperately overworked. When we telephoned him, often he was not there and there was no one to answer his telephone. This is only one small part of the secretarial problem, but such officials do need personal secretaries in order that they may function properly. This question arises out of the £10,000 and one would like to know that our delegations to U.N.O. will be well served in the matter of secretarial assistance. I would like to have covered the much wider field of Foreign Office organisation in this respect, but realise that this is not the occasion and that I would be out of Order.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is one which has been very much in the minds of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Foreign Office ever since we first went into that institution. Of course, during the war there was a great stringency of womanpower, and I hope that in the future it may be much easier to get the kind of people they need to do the work which the hon. Member has in mind. I agree it is grossly inefficient not to have enough people of that kind to help the responsible people.. I would add that I am greatly encouraged by the spirit which the Committee have shown this afternoon in this matter, and I know my right hon. Friend will take it into account in making necessary arrangements.

1 am sure that all Members on this side of the Committee, and at least two hon. Members on the other side, must have been delighted to hear the way in which the Minister responded in relation to Subhead B for £10,000 for incidental expenses. It is important that this Government, of which he is so distinguished a Member, should, without being lavish, not be niggardly in providing all that is necessary to enable the delegates connected with the United Nations to have no financial worries or cares. One hon. Member on the other side of the Committee did his best to impart political prejudice into this discussion, and I was delighted to hear the speech made more or less in reply to him, from the same side of the Committee, by an hon. Member supporting the Executive, who took a much more realistic view of this kind of thing, which was supported so admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby).

I was delighted to hear the Minister of State reply in the way he did. I thought he showed himself unduly annoyed with the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen spoke of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Estimate. My hon. Friend said he had spoken with rosy optimism, or words to that effect, that he must not build too high at this stage on what the United Nations might be able to accomplish. I think that what was at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind was that we on this side of the Committee were only too ready to expose the whole thing to an unnecessary fire of criticism. I feel perfectly sure that all Members on this side of the Committee wish the United Nations well. I should like to enter this caveat: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that there was no doubt that the interest being taken in the United Nations organisation was far greater than the interest that was taken by the general public in the League of Nations just over a quarter of a century ago. There is, of course, far greater interest, and rightly so, having regard to what we and the whole world have been through since then. But let not the right hon. Gentleman mistake it that the general public today—and there will be general agreement with what I am about to say—are disillusioned and sceptical. Because they are, the United Nations organisation may, in the final result, be the success which we all hope it will be. No one on the Government benches should brush aside the remarks that have been made, because the people of this country and the people of the world today realise the very dark valley through which we are passing. After saying that, I cordially associate myself with all that has been said on this side of the Committee in support of the right hon. Gentleman's gallantry on behalf of the United Nations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

" That a sum, not exceeding £340,000, 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 a contribution towards the expenses of the United Nations and for other expenses in connection therewith."

Financial Assistance To Greece

Motion made, and Question proposed,

" That a sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, 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 providing a credit to the Greek Government for the stabilisation of the Greek currency."

On a point of Order I wonder whether you, Mr. Beaumont, would give the Committee your guidance at this stage as to the possible scope of the Debate. I ask that because at Question time, when supplementary questions were descending on the head of the Under-Secretary, Mr. Speaker indicated that there was a Vote coming on in today's proceedings dealing with the matter. I want to ask whether this Vote, which is apparently confined to the economic recovery of Greece, would permit of any discussion on the advisability or otherwise of holding the elections on 31st March.

It is rather difficult to give a strict Ruling on this specific point. I trust that Members will keep as closely as possible to the purpose of this Vote. It may, or may not, be desirable to refer to the forthcoming election but it certainly will not be out of Order to do so. May I express the hope that Members of the Committee will, as far as possible, confine their remarks to the purposes of this loan, which is to assist in the economic recovery of Greece?

This £10 million credit, which I hope the Committee will authorise, is to provide for the stabilisation of the Greek currency. It forms part of the economic and financial agreement which was signed with the Greek Government on 24th January. The text of the agreement has been made available to the House, both in the Official Report and in Cmd. Paper 6733. The purpose of the agreement was explained by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Parliament on 25th January, and as it was welcomed at that time by both sides of the House I take it that there is not much reason why I should detain the Committee by a defence of it at this stage. As my right hon. Friend emphasised when he spoke, the agreement, and the assistance which we are giving to Greece under it, are in line with the policy we have pursued of concentrating on the economic recovery of the liberated countries. I should add that in view of our own difficulties the scale of our assistance, particularly this £10 million credit, must be reckoned as quite generous. It has proved to be of immediate value to the country, and, I hope, will prove of substantial value in getting Greek reconstruction under way.

The point on which we have placed some importance is the undertaking by the Greek Government that they would tackle in earnest the internal tasks which are their responsibility. As part of the agreement we agreed to provide the help of a mission in addition to this £10 million. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I gave some indication of what progress has been made there. The Greek Ministers who came to this country to conduct negotiations went back, and we sent immediately after them a British Economic Mission under Lieut.-General Clark. This Mission is now established in Athens. New wage rates have been fixed by the Greek Government in order to take account of the devaluation of the drachma, which, by agreement with them, was equated at 20.000 to the£. Prices have remained fairly stable since the agreement was signed and measures are in hand to prevent further inflation of the drachma For instance, a Committee has been formed to review the Greek Budget with a view to suggesting economies and means of increasing revenues, a not inconsiderable task

5.0 p.m. Steps are also being taken towards establishing a system of price fixing and economic control. The preliminary work is well in hand, but the magnitude of the task which faces both the Greek Government and their British advisers should not be underestimated. It is because of the complexity of the matter that it was essential that we should attempt to stabilise the currency. It is to contribute towards that purpose that this £10 million is proposed.

Could the Minister tell us whether Great Britain alone is providing a fund to stabilise the currency, or whether any contribution is being made from elsewhere?

I should make it quite clear that we alone are making this contribution for this specific purpose, but, of course, quite separately and on the initiative of the Greek Government, agreement has been reached with the Government of the United States of America. I should not like to commit myself off-hand to the sum. That was a separate transaction not related to this currency stability Vote.

I would like to say a word or two about this Greek loan because there is, as we all know, a good deal of trouble at the moment in that rather tragic country. As I see it, one of the questions we have to ask ourselves regarding this loan is "What are we investing this money in?" Is it a stable Government? Is it a Government that will pay back the loan, or is it a Government which will default? For that purpose, while I do not wish to incur your displeasure by getting out of Order, Captain Beaumont, I think we must address ourselves to the question of the elections. Before I go on to that, I would like to say that in my view the Foreign Secretary hits the nail right on the head when he plumps every time, in every speech which he makes on the subject of Greece, for putting economic factors before political. I would like to quote from his speech in the foreign affairs Debate in November last. There were two passages and in the first he said:

"… it was my hope that if the economic and financial reconstruction of Greece could be put in hand on a sound basis, this would remove many of he country's political difficulties."
He then went on to say:
" Through this long and difficult period my sole aim has been to bring about a state of affairs in Greece which would permit of the speedy reconstruction of the country."— [Official Report, 23rd November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 767 and 770.]
That is, to my mind, the only sane and sensible point of view. While we must undoubtedly ask ourselves about our own position and prospects under the Loan, we must at the same time remember that if we do not lend money to Greece we will not, as the right hon Gentleman himself said, contribute to a political solution in Greece. If we do not contribute to a political solution in Greece then the sort of situation which exist- today will be perpetuated indefinitely.

I must turn for a moment to the question of the elections. I was glad to hear at Question Time today that the Government were definitely of the opinion and had advised—I think I am quoting the hon. Gentleman correctly—the Greeks to go ahead and have their elections on 31st March. If they do not have their elections now, if they put them off again, If they are not--as the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said in the last foreign affairs Debate—consistent for once in their lives, these postponements will go on indefinitely, and so will the present aggravated political tension. I know there is a danger at the present moment of a swing towards the Right wing, a swing which, no doubt, causes nightmares on the benches opposite. But if we advise the Greek Government to put off their elections, if we suggest to them the moment is not ripe, and they should delay until perhaps the country is ripe and ready for a Left wing Government, what are we doing?

We are deliberately and unduly inter-ferring with the internal affairs of Greece. We are deliberately doing what we say in regard to the Russians they must not do in Rumania, Bulgaria and Poland. Moreover, while of course the risk of a Right wing swing is perhaps greater at the moment owing to the reported decision to abstain on the part of some of the Left wing parties, I am glad to learn that decision is not as widespread as was at once feared I would make this point. The Bulgarians and Yugoslavs held elections in their countries. They had elections and the whole of the opposition abstained from voting—

On a point of Order. What have the elections in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia got to do with the loan for the economic recovery of Greece?

I am waiting to see how the hon. Gentleman is going to develop his argument.

I do not wish to get out of Order on this. I submit with great respect one has got to look at the Balkan situation as a whole. One cannot look at one individual country without discussing and reviewing very briefly, if necessary— but reviewing nevertheless—developments in neighbouring countries. I would point out that in Rumania and Yugoslavia they held elections on a bloc system in a much more dictatorial fashion and with much less opportunity for the opposition than is at present proposed in Greece. It may be argued from the benches opposite that if an election takes place in Greece now it will not make for stability, because of this impending swing towards the Right which some hon. Gentlemen opposite fear—

The hon. Member has tried to maintain on three separate occasions that there is an impending swing to the Right. May I have the reason for that statement? Is there anybasis or foundation on which the hon. Member makes the statement?

One of the most obvious answers is the fact that certain of the Left Wing parties intend to abstain. After all, if the Labour Party in this country had abstained at the last Election, I think it can be taken there would have been a swing to the Right. It may be argued that a swing to the Right, which will probably be followed later by a swing back to the Left, will not make for stability, and it is stability we want in Greece. It is for that purpose we are lending our money. But that argument can work against those who put it forward because, surely, the present situation in Greece cannot be called stability. Surely, it is better to go ahead and have an election and see what happens then. They cannot be any worse off than they are now, if there is an election in Greece. There is not stability now in Greece. It is for that reason that I am all in favour of this loan.

In conclusion, I do hope that the Government will deal generously with countries who have supported us, as Greece supported us, throughout the war. I think it is part of our duty and, indeed, part of our interest to see that a country such as Greece, going through such frightful agonies and torments, politically and economically, as she is now, should have the utmost assistance in her recovery to ultimate prosperity.

I think hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will welcome this £10 million credit to Greece. I think equally that, despite the glorious service which Greece as a country rendered to us all, we are entitled to know what the destiny of that money is to be We do not want Greece to develop a remittance man's mentality. British taxpayers are entitled to the assurance that the money, once it is received in Greece, shall be properly administered and properly spent. I was in Greece during the summer, during a period when M. Varvaressos resigned from the Bank of Greece because he had been unable to stabilise the currency. The reason for that failure was very largely because of faults in the system of Greek administration. There were people who were neither trained, experienced, capable nor sufficiently honest to carry on a proper administration. In the various Government Departments, there was, as often happens, a great superfluity of civil servants, and, more than that, they worked in shifts, not because there was too much work for them, but rather because there was not enough. These civil servants were probably the worst off section of the whole community. They were not merely badly paid, but, owing to inflation, their salaries rapidy' became almost valueless. These people, together with the rentiers, pensioners and all other people living on fixed incomes, were suffering badly. The consequence was that, throughout the Greek administration, there was an indifference and an incapacity which resulted in the inefficiency of the Greek Government as a whole.

I need only refer as an example to the Ministry of Supply, which was responsible for the industry of Greece, and its material development; and which at the same time had a personnel which was incapable of administration. The result was a malaise throughout the whole Greek economy. In addition, during the German occupation, the Greeks had very properly been unwilling to pay their taxes; but, after the Germans had gone, that reluctance remained, and consequently, in his attempt to obtain some kind of economic and financial stability in Greece, M. Varvaressos was compelled to admit failure because those people, who normally should have paid their taxes and contributed to the economic and financial stability of the country, were unwilling to do so. Therefore, I ask the Undersecretary whether the Mission which has gone, or is likely to go, to Greece will be able to bring about significant reforms in the Greek administration. We know that today—or rather yesterday—there was a Greek Minister of Supply, M. Kartalis, an extremely capable person, who was pledged to a programme of economic reform. We owe it largely to his intervention that the Government is confident that it will be able to produce in Greece some kind of economic stability, parallel with financial reform. I would like to ask whether M. Kartalis has had the advice of British economists and of responsible members of the British administration in introducing the necessary reforms into the Greek Ministry of Supply, and if he can hope that Ministry is going to continue to function as a well-organised Ministry on the model of our own Ministries. If that is going to be the case, I would like the Under-Secretary to say so, so that we may have some assurance that this £10,000,000 is not merely going as a subsidy to be distributed among the Greeks, but that it is, in fact, an investment to be used properly in stabilising the currency and also in enabling Greece at last to stand on her own feet.

We know, and I feel sure that most hon. Members will agree, that the economic restoration of Greece is a matter of fundamental necessity for a return to normal political life in which the parties will be able to function as political parties and not with that murderous hostility which has characterised their relations in the past. Any person who has travelled through Greece knows how true that is. One has only to see the burnt out villages, the idle factory workers, the peasants who are unable to cultivate their properties because they lack the necessary fertilisers and seed, to realise how vital this question of economic stability is to Greece. It is not enough to say that we will let them have £10 million. We need to have some assurance that, having got that money, it is going to be properly applied; and I ask the Under-Secretary what assurance he has that the reforms which he contemplated last Autumn have taken place in the Greek Ministry of Supply and in the associated Ministries, and what assurance he has that Greece, in future, will use that £10 million for capital purposes and not merely for consumers' goods.

5.15 p.m. 1 now turn to the question of the election. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) that there is the certainty of a swing to the Right in Greece. I cannot agree that the Left wing, ranging from E.A.M. to independents like M. Kartalis or Socialists like Professor Svolos, have decided to abstain because they fear that they will be beaten if there is a fair election. Their whole contention is that an election carried out on the present conditions could not result in a fair expression of the people's will. The reasons they give are that, in the first place, the extreme Right wing organisation is still functioning in Greece. As proof of that, they point to the fighting at Kalamata recently; they claim that the electoral registers kept at the police stations were not properly drawn up, because the police, at the relevant time, namely, during the last six months, were closely associated with the "X" organisation. They maintain that members of E.A.M. were not allowed to become members of the police or gendarmerie, while members of the "X" organisation were allowed to do so. They say the registers are incomplete because of the fact that there are today very large numbers of persons in the Greek gaols whom they describe as political prisoners, although many of them are held on criminal charges. The fact that so many are held in the Greek prisons makes them feel that there is no opportunity of campaigning fairly, or that, at the end of that campaign, they could look forward to a free and fair election on 31st March.

I hope that the Under-Secretary, therefore, will again consider this matter, and ask himself whether it might not be wise and desirable to postpone the elections for a further two months until the summer, so that the electoral registers may be properly scrutinised by our own observers on the spot, so that the communications in the snow-bound mountains may become free, in order that the congestion of the prisons may be relieved by the Greek Government, and in order that the Greek people may at last express their will.

I cannot agree that if there is an abstention in the manner indicated—and I personally would regard such abstention as lamentable because of what it involves— that the elections can result in a proper representation of the Greek people. The consequence would be precisely what I think hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are inclined to deplore in elections in Eastern Europe—elections on a single list. If not only the Communists in E.A.M. abstain, but also the Independents, the Progressives—the people who range right up to the Liberal Party —Greece will be left with a single list. Therefore, I feel that we should consider, and His Majesty's Government should consider, the request submitted to us by the Greek Government that the elections should be postponed till such time as a full and proper expression of the Greek peoples' will can be obtained. If at those elections a suitable Government can be set up then there will be some indication and some hope—in fact a guarantee—that the £10 million which we propose to lend to Greece will not be merely dribbled away in the sands of consumption, but will be used to promote the interests of the State of Greece.

I desire to endorse what has been said by other hon. Members, that the loan we now propose to make may result in the economic stability in Greece which will, in its turn, lead to political stability. I am not going to run the risk of arousing the displeasure of hon. Members on the other side of the Committee by expressing an opinion as to how the Greek elections may go. I have been so wrong in my prognostications as to what would happen in our own country that Iam certainly not going to venture farthur afield.

I wish to ask the Under-Secretary a question arising out of the arrangements made for holding the elections. As he is aware, a British mission of observers is already in Greece. Its members are not only observers; they are also advisers of the technical kind, in that they consist, to some extent, of Parliamentary agents drawn from both of the great parties in this country. I presume that these gentlemen are there not only to observe, but to assist in such matters as the preparation of registers which has not taken place in Greece for a great number of years. I understand that these gentlemen are there on a voluntary basis and that all they are receiving in the way of remuneration is their subsistence and that no salaries are paid to them for the work they are doing. I wish to know whether, in the event of their death from misadventure while in transit either to or from Greece, their next of kin will be entitled to a grant in aid based on what would be paid in the case of civil servants drawing an equivalent salary.

I have a personal interest in this matter. I believe the observers consist of five from the Government Party and two from the Opposition Party. In February, I was asked whether I would lend my agent for this purpose. I thought it the right thing to do. He is an excellent agent, and he is out there now. If the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) prevail and the elections are postponed, I should like to ask how long it is intended to hold these observers out there. They were lent on the definite understanding that they would be back in this country early in April. As hon. Members know, such people cannot be spared for any length of time. I am anxious that my agent should get on with his work of confounding the knavish tricks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I would like some assurance that these gentlemen will be returned to us and will not be delayed there if the elections are postponed. I should also be glad if the Under-Secretary could tell us about the financial basis of their present service. At present they are being paid as if they were serving in their own constituencies. We do not complain of that, but it is a difficult thing to justify for an indefinite length of time. Will the Under-Secretary also give an assurance that in the event of misadventure the next of kin will be properly and generously treated?

I rise to ask for some information upon a matter which has been exercising my mind in connection with the Vote of Credit we are now considering. When the Foreign Secretary on 25th January made an announcement that this country was proposing to make a credit of£10 million for the rehabilitation and economic recovery of Greece, I wondered why this was not being done through the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations' Organisation. I must confess that, as a simple man, I am very ignorant of the functions of this new organisation, but it occurs to me that this process of one Power taking a special interest in the internal affairs of another country may have the unfortunate result of misrepresenting our intentions in other parts of the world. If it is said, in reply, that the new organisation has not yet found its feet and is not competent to deal with this matter, I hope that we may be assured that in subsequent transactions of this character we shall not have bilateral consideration of them. When the Foreign Secretary came to the House on 25th January he said that it had been done with the full knowledge of the United States and, I suppose, with the full knowledge of Greece. Therefore, to that extent, it can be considered tripartite. As an ordinary man, I have hopes of great things from the United Nations organisation, and it seems to me a wrong procedure that, while on the other side of the road we are seeking to set up a world organisation to rehabilitate the nations of the earth—as the Foreign Secretary is so forid of telling us, and we are proud that he takes that view—we, individually, should be putting our money into Greece.

There is a quotation which says:
" Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
I cannot help thinking that if every nation which has a special interest in the affairs of some outpost—it may be, incidentally, some strategical outpost—is going to proceed along the lines of persuading itself that it has a special responsibility to rehabilitate that part of the world, that this new world Security Council—which we on this ' side believe will do so much for the common man by providing him with economic means and the welfare so necessary to his existence— is not going to succeed. I hope that whoever is going to reply will give an assurance that, in the future, in matters of this kind this country, in common with the other nations who are members of the United Nations' organisation, will pool its resources so that there shall be no kind of bilateral, unilateral or tripartite agreement, but that everybody who is a member of the new organisation will know what is going to happen and that our transactions will not be the subject of misunderstanding and suspicion at some later date.

5.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary, when he moved this Estimate, said he did not feel he was expected to make any very elaborate defence of it. The course of the Debate so far has justified his optimism because, up to now, the only defence that he will be called upon to make will be against the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. E. Edward Davies). So far as we on this side of the Committee are concerned, our position was made clear some weeks ago at the time of the original announcement of the loan, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), though he recognised the seriousness of this additional burden which was being imposed upon us, welcomed the proposal on behalf of the Opposition.

As I understand it, it has always been a cardinal principle of the policy of the Foreign Secretary ever since he assumed his high office, that politics and economics are inextricably bound up together, and that we shall not get a solution of the political problems unless we tackle the economic problems which so often lie behind them. That applies certainly to every liberated country, and it applies in a special degree, I think, to this unhappy country, Greece. The economy of Greece has been utterly wrecked by the experiences through which the country has passed during the last few years, and, unless that economy can be stabilised and developed, it is very difficult to see, whatever we do, how we can get any real political stability. That, as I say, is the Foreign Secretary's view, but it was also the view of his predecessor, and, indeed, successive Governments which have had to deal with this extremely difficult and awkward Greek problem have always fully realised the part which economic recovery has had to play in the political stability of the country. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington first went to Greece, I think in September, 1944, it was recognised by the then Government that we must make every effort that we could to re-establish Greek economy, and, in particular, to prevent inflation, and various efforts have been made ever since then, not always with complete success, unfortunately.

I think there is no doubt that the Committee supports this loan, but it is necessary to point out, as has already been pointed out by the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman), that if the economic problems of Greece are to be solved it is not enough for the Greek Government simply to receive this loan; it is extremely important, as the hon. Member said, that the Greek Government and people should not cultivate what he described as the remittance man mentality. The Greek government have their part to play—a part a good deal more difficult and more onerous than simply receiving this loan which His Majesty's Government are making available. When he announced the loan in the House, the Foreign Secretary pointed out that in addition to the Mission on financial, economic and industrial matters which has been formed under Lieut.-General Clark, His Majesty's Government were also willing to appoint advisers to work in the Greek ministries if the Greek Government so desired. I think it would be useful if the Committee could be informed of the present position of that matter, and whether, in fact, these appointments have been made. The Foreign Secretary also said that during the visit of the Undersecretary to Athens last November, the basis of a reconstruction programme was laid and the Government pledged to undertake such a programme. Again, it would interesting if the Committee could be told to what extent these undertakings have, in fact, been carried out.

The hon. Member for West Coventry, in addition to his comments on the financial aspect of this agreement, referred to the political situation in Greece and the impending elections. I do not want to follow him in that, except to make these observations. There is clearly a difference of view among the party opposite, as between the Foreign Secretary on the one hand, and the hon. Member for West Coventry and those who think as he does on the other. It is hardly for us on this side to judge between them, but I think I would say that the judgment of the Foreign Secretary is probably at least as good as that of the hon. Member for West Coventry, and his sources of information are probably very much better.

On this particular issue, therefore, I myselfand I think we on this side of the Committee—would certainly support the Foreign Secretar against those on the benches opposite who take an opposite view, and who believe that these elections should be postponed. The attitude of parties of the Left towards elections is extraordinary. They talk a lot about elections, but when they come they never seem to like them very much. And that is the case not only in Greece. It is not only the case even on the Continent of Europe. I remember last Spring, when there was talk of a General Election in this country, great pressure was brought from hon. Members now sitting opposite, and who were then sitting on these benches, saying that the Election ought to be postponed until October. The result may have been bad for this unhappy country, but it was not too bad for the party on the Left on that occasion. Some of the fears which hon. Members opposite have expressed about the result of the elections in Greece may prove equally unfounded.

Apart from the question of the date of the Greek elections, the proceedings on the loan itself seem to have been very much of a happy family party. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies) made a very valuable point about the Greek loan, but I hope the Tightness or wrongness of this loan will not go through without comment. It may be true that both the Government and the Opposition are agreed that the loan is desirable. I am anxious not to strike a discordant note, but I think there are one or two questions which ought to be asked. The man in the street is puzzled by this proposal to lend £10 million to Greece at this moment. He says, "We are trying to borrow large sums of money from . America. We have just negotiated a loan from Canada. We are told by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government that our financial position is serious, and yet this is the time which is chosen to lend £10 million to another Government." It is unfortunate that this proposal comes forward just now when the advisability or otherwise of the American loan going through is being discussed in Congress, because opponents of the loan might easily pick upon this as a sign that we have some money to spare.

It is too easily assumed that a foreign loan by itself to a country will lead to that country's economic recovery and that its economic recovery will lead to its political stability. That was not necessarily our experience after the last war. After the last war a great many of the loans from this country went down the drain. They did not produce political stability. I seem to remember that loans were made to Austria, but they did not produce political stability in that country. [An Hon. Member: "And Germany."] Therefore, I think we have the right to ask for some kind of guarantee and some assurance that this money will be wisely spent; that not only will the Greek Government come to us for a loan, but that they will be prepared to do something for themselves. The economic recovery of Greece depends more upon the efforts of the Greek people themselves, than upon any foreign loan. Unfortunately, up to the present we can see no signs whatsoever that they are prepared to do what is necessary to bring about their country's economic recovery.

I do not want to go into the vexed question of Greek politics but the Greeks do seem to me to be spending too much of their time in political faction of one kind or another. I ask the Committee to consider whether, that being so, we really ought to lend £10 million to Greece. I know we are under a very great debt of obligation to Greece for what she did during the war However, I would also remind the Committee that we paid a very great price during the war for the assistance we gave to Greece. The campaign in North Africa was probably very greatly protracted as a result of the assistance we had to give to Greece. I would be prepared to give assistance to Greece if I were satisfied that that assistance was really going to be properly used. Up to the present 1 see no indication of that. I feel that probably the best help this country can give to Europe and to the world is to get our own financial position sound. Our financial strength and our stability will be the best help we can give to other countries, and it will be an example for them to follow.

Therefore, we ought to give the matter further consideration before we indulge in acts of generosity of this kind We call it a loan. That is a euphemism for a gift. It is quite obvious that if Greece goes on as she is doing, she will not be able to repay this loan. In any case it is not proposed that repayment shall begin before 1951, and it is between now and 1951 that our own financial position will be most difficult. I ask whoever is to reply whether there will be further loans. I feel very strongly that it should not be taken for granted that because hon. Members on both sides of the Committee think this loan is a good thing and welcome it, that therefore it should go through without criticism. The people of this country ought to have more explanation before a sum of money like this is lent to another country, and ought to be assured that the money will be wisely used.

It will have been noted that two subjects have been dealt with: firstly, the question of the credit; secondly£thanks to your wise Ruling, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy-Chairman£the question of the election, which impinges very largely on the welfare and the wellbeing of the Greek people in the future. It is interesting to note, too, the only divergent point of view was that put forward in regard to the provision of this loan. Being an Independent, the hon. Member who did so very rightly required more detail, and I hope that he will have some assurance from the Under-Secretary. Nobody otherwise cavils at the provision of this credit for the Greek people. I feel that the view put forward by the majority of hon. Members today reflects the gratitude of the people of this country for the tremendous service rendered during the war by a gallant Ally. The least we can do is to provide this small loan to the Greek people, with a view to putting them on their feet.

5.45 P.m. Let us assume we go ahead and provide the loan of £10 million, and let us assume alongside that that the elections are held on 31st March. We hope the . provision of the loan will stabilise the financial and monetary system of Greece, and also the social and political system of Greece. If the election is held on 31st March can we say with any certainty that there will be any stabilisation in Greece? In fact, we may be defeating our own object. We hope that after the election, as the Foreign Secretary said we might be able to bring our troops away and have some semblance of law and order in Greece. Will that be the case if the elections are held on 31st March? In my submission I do not think that is possible. Let us assume that in the General Election last year, which was touched on by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law), the parties of the Left and Centre refused to take part, then the election would have been a farce. Obviously such action is not inspired by providence, or some other factor unrelated to reality. It is inspired by the facts of reality. That is to say, there are certain other elements which affect the running of a free and fair election.

Let us examine the position of Greece today. Tremendous freedom has been granted to the Royalist Parties, with whom are very closely linked the police organisation. Democrats and many individual citizens in Greece, who have every right to be put on the electoral registers, dare not show their faces in the open street. That is one of the issues. Those are points we have to bear in mind. My only reason for intruding in this Debate was because of the repeated assertion of the hon. Member for Melton (Mr.. Nutting) to the effect that there has been a Right wing bias, or will be a Right wing swing in the Greek election. Obviously, as was pointed out when I interjected, if the parties of the Left and Centre are not running in the election there would be a Right wing swing, but can one say that is for the good of the country? Let us face this fact clearly. We are in different political parties; we have our own natural bias. I am certain that the Opposition, in all sincerity, want to see the establishment of a Right wing Government in Greece.

On this side of the Committee we have a bias in favour of a Left wing Government. Let us not blind ourselves to the issues. If we examine this as democrats, the issue should be: fair elections. Whatever Government may be the outcome the elections is incidental to the provision of the machinery for a fair election As conditions are today in Greece there is no such machinery available for the provision of fair elections, which would be the result of democratic and broader representation o' the people. I do not believe that the Foreign Secretary, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington seemed to think, is omniscient. I do not believe for a moment that he can be any more right than others who have the privilege of belonging to his party. 1 say that, out of gratitude to the Greek people, for the service they rendered during the war, the least this country can do is to ensure that there may be the facilities for a fair and democratic election, and to postpone the election at the request of the majority of the people in Greece. Those are the facts today. The people are requesting the postponement of the elections. I hope the Foreign Secretary will take cognisance of those facts and, before the end of the month, make some announcement to the effect that the 'elections are to be duly postponed.

I have one or two comments to make on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). Whatever the rights or wrongs of the election may be, and whatever the reason, it will be a very unworthy thing if we in this Committee try to compute our debt to Greece in any discussion about the rights or wrongs of the repayment. If we remember for a moment the time when we had nobody with us at all, when the great alliance was unborn, how Greece under the leadership of her gallant King George—now, for some reason which future historians may have trouble in explaining, a figure of contempt, especially among the party opposite, though not I hope on this side —resisted even the. threats of Germany. It would be a very unworthy thing if we were to examine this in any purely financial or commercial frame of mind. I do not think any of us are very happy about the coming election; I understood that a group 73 strong on the other side were going to demonstrate about it today. They may be rehearsing in Palace Yard, but we do not see them at the moment, perhaps because they do not wish to embarrass the Under-Secretary. It seems to me that the point is this. If the parties of the Left are asking for a postponement of the election, is it likely that such a postponement would not become another postponement, and then still another postponement, until the Left had got things into such a position that they thought they would have a better chance? We must insist on carrying through this election, although if conditions would be better with a two months' delay, I do not think there could be any objection to that. They must go through the democratic process of an election in Greece, even if one faction decides, for its own purposes, to stand aside.

If I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham still further, I would ask him to note that the £10 million is to be deposited in the account of the Bank of Greece at the Bank of England, and that the Greek Government themselves are depositing the equivalent of £15 million. I therefore presume that the Bank of England will have some sort of control over the use of the fund. I am not sure, perhaps the Under-Secretary could enlighten us, but I think the purpose is to stabilise the currency, and now that the Bank of England is owned by the State we shall know what is going on.

I sometimes think that, in spite of their many virtues, the Government are not very good at propaganda. I put this suggestion forward most seriously—Is not this the moment to make some proclamation to the Greek people, to the effect that we are doing this in the hope of restoring their currency and helping to put them on their feet? Is it not time that the Greek people got together, with a unity such as they had in 1940? The Under-Secretary and I have had experience of newspapers, and of the power of the printed word, and he is now of course experiencing the power of the spoken word. He knows, as I and many of us in this House know, that it is possible to speak in dynamic language to a whole nation. The evil empire of Hitler was built on the spoken word, and I imagine that the mighty empire of Russia is maintained largely by the spoken word. Why should we not speak with authority to Greece, and make an appeal in an attempt to rouse that sense of unity which cannot be wholly lost in spite of their dreadful and persistent differences? Even if it only did a little good, even if it only planted a small seed, this might be the time to regard this loan not merely as a financial transaction but as a means of raising it to the level of a broad political appeal to the Greek people.

I am grateful to the Committee for the interest they have displayed in the implication of this loan, as distinct from the other interests that they have dis- played on the date of the election. I should like to try to answer some of the points which have been made. First, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies) each wanted to know why we have made the loan at all. I suggest that it is not a good comparison to link our position in relation to Washington with the position of Athens in relation to us. There is the very substantial difference between £10 million on one side and £1,000 million on the other. There is also this other very great difference, that if sterling were all we needed, we should not be on the Washington doorstep, and it is sterling that we are talking about here.

The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) asked me whether we should be able to control it. Technically, we have no control and there is no limitation, but as a matter of practical operation it should be looked upon in this fashion: it is designed to promote currency stability, and therefore no part of this £10 million, or of the other £15 million, is released except so far as drachmae are offered in exchange, and we impose no legal control upon that, despite the powers that we have. Except in so far as there may be exchange regulations in either country, there is perfect freedom as to how this balance may be used, provided of course that drachmae have been placed against it. So far as we are concerned, it is substantially a sterling transaction, whereas on the other side it is completely a dollar transaction.

Does that mean that this money is convertible into drachmaeonly; it is not free sterling convertible into dollars?

I was very carefully trying to make the point that it was technically free, but that it would of course naturally be subjected to any controls operating in this country or in Greece, or which the Currency Committee might place upon it. But no limitations are placed upon the fund except in so far as it can only be released by drachmae. Perhaps I am not making it quite plain; it is not a loan without conditions. The £10 million, along with the £15 million deposited by the Greek Government become a fund providing for drachmae stabilisation. Therefore no part of the fund could be released except in so far as drachmae were offered.

6.0 p.m.

Most certainly, it is to be found out of the taxation of the people, but I repeat that I think the man in the street does realise the difference between our making £10 million available to Greece and our seeking to secure £1,000 million in dollars. There is a very great difference.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem asked why we had made it at all, and why should not the Economic and Social Council have made the loan. I am sure the Committee will appreciate that there was no great anxiety on the part of His Majesty's Government to rush round and say to the Greek Government, or to anyone else, "Will you not please accept an interest free loan of £10 million or so? "There was no other organisation that could do it, and the job had to be done quickly. It would not do to say, "Do not worry about you drachma. In six or 12 months something will be done about it." We had to devise some method calculated to stop the rapid drop in the drachma; and we were the only people there to do the job. It did mean sacrifice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham said. We could not wash our hands of the whole business and stand aside and watch a complete collapse. There was nothing sinister or unilateral or bilateral in this transaction. It was a job that had to be done. I hope most earnestly that all the liberated countries, including Greece, will go to the Reconstruction Bank for further loans for reconstruction purposes; but there was no hope of restarting the normal economy of Greece, unless stabilisation in some degree was achieved.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. R. Law) asked about advisers. We already have two advisers on finance —one on taxation and one on expenditure. As I indicated today, in reply to a question, there is a budget committee working on this most important task. We also have one adviser attached on road repairs, and we hope also, and have beeen requested, to provide one on railways repairs; we hope soon to appoint one. There are other sections of the mission; particularly, there is a section on textiles, and I hope that it will operate a great deal in this most important aspect of Greek economy. But they are not advisers to the Greek Government. The hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) asked an associated question—how far had the mission been successful, in achieving the programme it had set out to discharge? The answer is, of course, not nearly as successful as anyone would have liked. But they have done some important jobs. They have been able to control, within limits, the price of the drachma, with Government co-operation. They were able to get some stability into wages. They also achieved some degree of price control, which has been fairly successful; and, meantime, much work is going on in examining industries, and advising on production and distribution schemes, which has not yet given us any result. There is one fairly important reason why, no doubt, we shall not get substantial results just now, and to that reason I will turn in a minute.

My hon. Friend opposite asked me about the financial side of the electoral mission, the observers. I am sure that my reply would be completely out of order, because that is provided for in another Vote altogether; but I think it quite fair to ask about whether the supervising mission will remain. That, of course, we shall have to consider in consultation with the American and French sections of the supervising.missin, but, in my opinion, there would be considerable difficulties in retaining the supervisors there for any undated time. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green, if I may say so, in asking about a two-months' postponement, joined up with the "Boys' Brigade "—

I must protest. I am not the Member for Bethnal Green, nor for Woodford, but for Wood Green.

At any rate, the hon. Gentleman is rather with the "Boys' Brigade," because I am sure they are not asking for more than two months. Many hon. Members, in one way or another, tried to relate the loan to the question of the election. One hon. Member did this by asking whether the loan would be repaid, and what kind of security we had. Of course, we hope for repayment. But I cannot accept with certainty the suggestion that if only we had delay everything would be all right.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, with one Minister after another, resigning at the rate they are resigning today in Greece, all is not well in the Greek Government in regard to the holding of the election?

I know of only two resignations— [Interruption] — I repeat, I know of only two resignations. I have seen reports in the paper that MM. Tsouderos, Kaphandaris, Peltekis and Kartalis have all resigned. That is not true. Moreover, one must not assume that this is the first time that abstentions have been offered in Greek elections. Each country has different electoral practices. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington twitted us by asking whether we had asked for delay until October. Delay is a comparative matter. We said, "Wait until October," but my impression is that his party said, "Let us wait until a later time, undated." That is a better thing than just abstaining. But abstentions have been a feature of Greek elections; and this will not be the first one.

They were elections of a kind. I gather that the hon. Gentleman's complaint is that this election is taking place under some kind of dictatorship. There were abstentions before, nor do I think if we have delay we may be without further abstentions. If there were a delay of a month or of two months, we have no way of being sure that a party that finds itself in a prejudiced position at that time will not, in turn, ask for a postponement. Moreover—and this counts with me more than any other factor—there is this consideration. I said that there were conditions limiting the amount of economic recovery possible for Greece. As almost every hon. Member agrees, this piece of pump priming of £10 million will not do the job; although it may provide the means by which reconstruction can be attempted. Reconstruction in Greece can take place only when there is a government with sufficient authority to push through some highly unpalatable legislation. I feel that no government without an electoral mandate can attempt it, and it is doubtful whether any government without an electoral mandate should attempt it; I do not think, in present circumstances, that it could live.

Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that a Government composedof an extreme Right wing, which is all that can be put into power if the other parties abstain, could possibly be expected to undertake these unpalatable things, which he himself, I am sure, desires?

What I am suggesting is that every Greek patriot should take part in this election, so that we do not have a one-party Government.

Is it not a fact that these people dare not show their faces in the country? Is not the difficulty, that there is no possibility of these people getting on the electoral roll, because they dare not show their faces in case they get shot?

How can they get on the electoral roll when they are in gaol?

His Majesty's Government have made repeated representations on the subject, and a substantial proportion of the prison population has, I think, been released. I cannot speak with the authority of everyone in this House, who has read a Left Wing journal, that democrats cannot show their faces in the street. I do not think it is not so£it may be so, but I do not think it is.

It is perfectly true that democrats can show their faces in Greece, but it is a fact also that there are parts of Greece where democrats have taken to the mountains, because they are afraid of reprisals.

That is a statement with which I do not disagree. It is true, also, that in other parts of Greece some of the Right wing people have taken to the mountains for the same reason. Do not let us attempt to believe that there is only one terrorist organisation in Greece. I do not know which is the worst. 1 simply have not the facts, and I cannot make any judgment on the matter at all. If the Greek Government are unable, in any part of the country, to maintain public order, and if they come to His Majesty's Government for help to do that job, that help will not be refused. Under these conditions, I hope that the elections will take place, so that reconstruction may be spurted on, and this £10 million may be fully used.

6.15 p.m.

I apologise to the Committee for delaying it further after several hours' Debate, but there are one or two points which I think I should add. I feel a natural sympathy for the Undersecretary, who has had now even longer experience with Greek affairs than I, for my sins, had a year or two ago. It is not unnatural that the Debate should have ranged from the loan to Greece to the Greek elections, and back again from the elections to the loan We all agree that the economic and political problems of Greece are indissolubly intertwined; it is one of the underlying problems of the situation. On the subject of the loan, I do not think there has been any serious opposition. I think that the Under-Secretary made a very convincing argument. As I understand it, this loan to Greece is similar to other operations which we undertook to help the Greek economy from the time of the end of the German occupation. Its primary function is to support and stabilise the rate of the drachma. Reconstruction may follow, and there may be gifts and loans from U.N.R.R.A. for definite relief purposes, but this is a loan governed by the conditions laid down in the White Paper, which make it clear that it is of a financial character, to support and to try to maintain a stabilised rate as between the drachma and the pound.

Those of us who lived in Greece during the period of those fantastic fluctuations know how vital it is to any Greek recovery, whether the Government is Right, Centre or Left, to bring back confidence in Greek money. Unless that can be done, all our efforts will fail. Therefore, upon the loan itself, even if it is minor in character, I trust the Committee will give, not only its support, but its blessing, and let it go out to this unhappy country with the good wishes of our people. It is not a very large contribution. I think that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) took rather a mean view, considering the terrible sacrifices and splendid courage of the Greek people right through the period of the war. Let the loan, for what it is worth, go out with our good wishes and blessings, and let us hope the Mission will assist the Greek Government in making wise use of it.

The hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman), in an admirable speech, asked how we could be certain that our Commission would be able to secure proper use of the money. It is impossible, of course, to secure these things, as the Under-Secretary knows very well. The relations between the British Government and these recovering countries cannot be put into a precise form; you cannot lay down exact rules and precise regulations. We have to give advice, encouragement and assistance, but, if we try to lay down in the form of a Treaty exact rules, we shall injure the very purposes we have in mind. I have had a little experience with the first liberated French Government of North Africa, with Italy and with Greece, and I am sure, if you try to put up your assistance in formalised treaties, that you take away half its value. It must depend on the personalities how far they can obtain confidence, in the very difficult and narrow course of avoiding undue interference with the politics of the country we are trying to help. The most important thing is not to range yourself in support of, or against any particular Government or individual, but to ask for certain things to be done, not caring too much who does them, resisting the very easy . temptation of all diplomatists, whether professional or amateur, to meddle in the politics of other countries. What has to be done is to build up a sense of confidence in the honest purpose we have in mind, which is to serve these unhappy people in the first years of their recovery. I ask the House of Commons not to take away one of the greatest weapons our representatives can have, by continually destroying confidence in our representatives, and by trying to impute false motives to the Government, whether it is the late Government or the present Government. To do so is to destroy the only weapon which we have got, and I think that it is an ill service to the cause that hon. Members have in mind, if they take that line.

I am glad that this Debate, which I thought might have developed into a full scale battle, or, at any rate, a spirited action between the 73 signatories and the Government, has only been a little outpost skirmish and has not caused any trouble to the Government. Perhaps it shows that the discipline of the Government's Party, is better than I thought it to be. It was certainly not due to the Under-Secretary's speech, because he, very rightly, did not speak about the elections. I think that it shows the good common sense of most of the people, who are beginning to feel—;at least I hope so—;that it is difficult enough to be accurately informed about politics in one's own country; and that to claim to have that precise knowledge, by which some hon. Members seek to lay down the law, about the exact political situation in other countries, seems to be making demands on our credulity which we ought not to allow. We must not think that every twopenny halfpenny report is to be taken as absolute truth; and we must not fall too easily into the trap of trying to become tremendous experts about these complicated affairs. Let us apply ourselves honourably and straightforwardly, as I believe His Majesty's Government are doing, to these affairs.

We say that so far as the loan is concerned, "We lend this money, and we hope it will help to stabilise your currency. We are providing help for you at considerable expense to ourselves, and with difficulty in finding personnel, which includes a police mission, a finance mission, a commercial mission—all to try to help this small battered country to get on its feet again." So far as the elections are concerned, without some kind of legislative, or at least deliberative, assembly, no Government can base itself upon anything firm at all. That is why they are so continuously changed—they have no root in anything. It is necessary to bring about the elections as soon as that can possibly be done. I remember that it was stated that the elections could easily be arranged by March last year. Then they were postponed to the summer, then to the autumn and now again to March. I do not know what the results will be. I do not accept the view expressed by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) that those on one side of the Committee want to see a Right wing Government and those on the other side a Left wing Government. I do not accept that at all; I have not the slightest interest in what kind of Government is returned to Greece.

I was pointing out that The real issue is the election of a democratic Government.

Certainly the elections should be as free as it is possible to make them. I do not pose as a great expert on Greek history, but I do not think that there have been many elections in Greek history which have been anything like so well conducted as these are likely to be. There are great difficulties because there are great animosities, but compared with the elections held in some other European countries, which have the support of hon. Members belcw the Gangway, who read us reports to show that a single list is right in one part of Europe— [Interruption]. I have, I say, no interest in the results of the elections nor have any of my friends, except that Greece should try to get a stable Government. For my part, since the present Foreign Secretary and the members of his Government who were colleagues of ours worked hard and honourably with us for this very purpose and shared the dangers and attacks made upon us last year, I rerta inly wish them well in their undertaking. We shall support their view—no doub they have had information not at our disposal—and I am inclined to feel that they are more likely to be right than those opposing them, that the elections should now take place as soon as possible, and that further postponement will only lead to one delay after another, and may finally produce a complete collapse of any possibility of restoring anything approaching a free and democratic government in Greece. I would like on behalf of myself and my party generally to join in the appeal of the Under-Secretary to the Greek people to take this opportunity, and this hand of friendship so long held out, and all the help which the British people have given; and I hope that when the time comes they may decide to go forward together, to make these elections as successful as in the difficult circumstances they can be, and that they may lead to the beginning of a better period both economically and politically for the gallant Greek nation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

" That a sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, 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 providing a credit to the Greek Government for the stabilisation of the Greek currency."

Colonial And Middle Eastern Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,

" That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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 sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid."

6.30 p.m.

This Supplementary Estimate is primarily concerned with three items£one relating to Mauritius, the second to the Seamen's Hospital Society in London and the third to a grant in aid to Transjordan. The House is aware that Mauritius during 1944 and 1945 underwent very grave misfortune as a result of the visitation of a number of cyclones. This money is asked for to enable the sugar industry to tackle its misfortunes and to contribute in Mauritius to the world's needs. The sugar industry is already heavily in debt as the result of past misfortunes. These misfortunes were added to in 1944 and again in 1945 by the devastating cyclones which broke upon the island and inflicted incalculable damage. We have tried to assist the industry out of these misfortunes, and although the Estimate appears to us to be somewhat generous to the sugar growers in Mauritius and to the Mauritius Government itself, the grant perhaps is not as great as either the growers or the Government would have liked to see.

The real purpose of the grant is, in the first stage, to get back to the cultivation of sugar those islands which during the war period were employed on ordinary subsistence food production. That experiment was not successful, but Mauritius can contribute at last to the world's needs in sugar. Therefore, it is important that this island, on which normal food cannot readily be obtained, should now be used for the cultivation of sugar. Accordingly, the Government have suggested that in order to get these islands rehabilitated £5 an acre should be paid, the area of land required being somewhere in the neighbourhood of 33,000 acres. What is asked for in this Estimate is £110,000 now to be available, although in all £165,000 will be called for. Further, in order to assist the sugar industry itself to recover from its loss and make its contribution to the world's food economy, it is proposed that there should be made available, by way of loan to the sugar growers, a sum of £1,300,000.

It is proposed that the sugar growers should repay that loan in 20 annual instalments, the interest on the money being at 3 per cent. That £1,300,000 will be provided by His Majesty's Government. The first £500,000 of it will be a free gift to the Mauritius Government, and £800,000 of it will be by loan to the Mauritius Government and will be repaid over 20 years without interest. The whole sum of £1,300,000 will carry interest by the growers in respect of loans that they will receive, and this interest, together with the free grant to the Mauritius Government of £500,000, when it is paid back by the growers, will become an insurance fund for the purpose of meeting similar calamities in the days to come. The Government will, of course, carefully control the issue of these loans so that they are restricted to the purposes which I have described. At last we have in Mauritius the first attempt to create an insurance fund, which can be held against future calamities. That course I think was advocated in the House of Commons on both sides over a number of years past.

The second item is concerned with the Seamen's Hospital Society in London. This item represents the balance of the loan necessary to enable the Society to re-establish in London a hospital for tropical diseases. The need for accommodation for patients suffering from tropical diseases arises because, at the present time, there is hardly any accommodation available for such persons. There are two aspects— individual cure, and clinical and pathological teaching and research—and it is desirable that patients should be treated centrally, and near the specialist School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which is situate in Central London. There is now no accommodation in London for the specialist treatment of tropical disease. The tropical diseases hospital in Endsleigh Gardens, was requisitioned by the Ministry of Health in 1939, and is now declared by the Ministry unsuitable for use as a hospital. It is now proposed to go ahead with a new and improved tropical diseases hospital, but, unfortunately, at the moment that is only at the planning stage. As an interim measure, the Seamen's Society, who have been throughout responsible for the hospital treatment of tropical diseases in London, have acquired 23 Devonshire Street in the west district of London as a hospital which has accommodation to provide the maximum of 40 beds. The Treasury have agreed that a short loan of —60,000 should be made for this temporary purpose. The Society, unfortunately, have not got the necessary funds to meet this cost, and, therefore, we are asking that a second loan should be available, which we hope will be repaired in a comparatively short period.

I now turn to the third item which is concerned with Transjordan. Again we are asking that a sum of money should be made available by way of loan in order that Transjordan may acquire the installations of the town and port of Akabah. As is known to most people, Akabah is a small port largely built up, during the last war. It was a port of great strategic importance and it is a port which, in the development of Transjordan, will serve an important commercial and strategic advantage. The money which was spent in the war years was considerable, but the £50,000 we are now asking for, so that Transjordan may acquire this installation, does represent a somewhat greater value than the scrap value of the port to the War Office, who are at the moment in control of it. It was felt that the building up of Transjordan on its commercial side with this installation was likely to prove a source of some revenue to the territory, and, therefore, the Treasury were of the view that, in order that Transjordan should acquire this port, a loan should be made rather than a free grant. It is, accordingly, proposed to require that the Transjordan Government should repay the loan without interest as and when it is able to do so out of the revenue accruing from the operation of the port. Those are the three items that we are asking the Committee to endorse.

Is the hon. Gentleman going to say anything about the anticipated saving, which is the most important part of this?

If it is the desire of the Committee I will do so. As the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) will probably remember, the Estimates were framed on rather indefinite information available at the end of 1944 before the detailed figures had been received and examined in the Colonial Office. Since that time, much more reliable information has been received, which in some cases indicates that the basis of the estimated revenue was too conservative, or that the estimated amounts were not likely to be reached. That really explains the ample surplus referred to in the Estimates.

In connection with one of the anticipated savings I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question and to say a few words. This is in connection with the anticipated saving of £100,000 on the British Council. In my tramps abroad I have' seen the work of the British Council, and, no doubt, if the local branch were run by people of enthusiasm and devotion and with sympathy to the local inhabitants it did an enormous amount of good in showing the flag and making the people in that country realise what Great Britain is and what she is doing. What I want to ask in this case is, why is there a reduction of £100,000 and in what part of the world are the savings being made? It is very important that the work of the British Council, taking the long view, should continue and should be made valuable. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell me about it.

I feel that before the Committee passes this Vote of £710,000 to relieve the difficult position with which the sugar planters of Mauritius are faced, and to meet the damage that was caused by the recent cyclones, we should receive from the Under-Secretary a great deal more information about what the Government of Mauritius propose to do to repair some of the havoc that has been caused on the island. I cannot fully understand what is referred to in the following statement in the Vote:

" Free grant (£500,000) …to be relent to growers to meet expenses of rehabilitation following cyclones."
Nor do I understand what part of this tremendous rehabilitation problem with which the island is faced is to be entrusted to the sugar planters of Mauritius. As one who was on the island between the first cyclone in 1944 and the three disastrous cyclones which occurred during 1945, I think the greater part of rehabilitation should not really fall upon the sugar growers. The Government of Mauritius are faced with a tremendous task in repairing the havoc caused by the cyclone. On the whole question of rehabilitation, there is not only the cyclone damage, but the dreadful effects of the outbreak of poliomyelitis which followed in the wake of the cyclone. A similar outbreak occurred in Malta in 1942, and as a result of investigations carried out on the island, the outbreak was attributed to the war damage caused by enemy bombing on the island and the subsequent driving of civilian life down into the underground shelters. Mauritius was fortunately spared damage from enemy bombing, but the effects of three cyclones in 1945 were, if anything, more severe. As a result of the complete disorganisation which occurred in the native quarters, this outbreak of poliomyelitis was far more severe in its effects than the outbreak in Malta. The mortality was far heavier, and the treatment of these partial paralysis cases to the number of several hundreds imposed a great strain on the slender medical resources of the island. I feel strongly that the major work of rehabilitation following the cyclone damage must fall not upon the sugar planters of Mauritius, but upon the Government of Mauritius, in the direction of several constructive steps which I would like to suggest to the Under-Secretary.

6.45 p.m. One of the most urgent needs of the island is an attempt to break down the almost complete isolation from which it has suffered during the six years of war. It takes three or five days by air to reach the island. An enormous amount of good could be done by bringing over to Mauritius recognised experts in the various branches—experts on industry and economic affairs, experts on industrial organisation and trade union organisation, experts in medicine, hygiene and sanitation, experts particularly in anti-malarial and anti-cyclone work, experts on education and child welfare. They could all contribute their share towards establishing some measure of rehabilitation for this very sorely tried island. A handful of British officials, numbering, I believe, no more than about 33, are in charge of the administration of a tiny island no larger than Buckinghamshire, Berkshire or Oxfordshire, with a teeming population of close on half a million. The island is steeped in the traditions of a kind of French feudalism, and following a dictum attributed to Queen Victoria, whereby she is stated to have said on one occasion that the island of Mauritius would always remain predominantly French in character, the French language, French institutions and French traditions dominate over the island to this day. There are well established families of fine culture, who have large holdings of land and large interests in the sugar plantations. The greater part of the administration has for some generations remained largely in the hands of many of the old-established French families. I urge upon the Under-Secretary that what is badly needed in the island is a complete reorientation of the Government's policy. Instead of its remaining largely French in character, it is high time that the island became rather more bi-lingual. I feel that the British administration should go forward now on a policy very far removed from the semi-feudal, semi-early Victorian policy which now predominates.

I wish to bring to the notice of the Under-Secretary one or two suggestions. The great need today is to achieve a stabilised economy on the island. As a result of the disastrous effects of the cyclones, most of the new crops which were planted during the war years to provide an alternative food supply to the island suffered tremendous damage. I ask the Under-Secretary whether the policy of the Government still is to adhere to the recommendation of the Orde Browne Report of 1943 to encourage the planting of alternative food crops. Over 70 per cent. of the maize crop was totally destroyed during the cyclone. Sugar, on the other hand, grows on the island like a weed. Sugar is the easiest crop to grow, and for a few years, at any rate, there is likely to be a world shortage of sugar. It is an essential food, an essential source of energy, and if it could be provided now in parts of the world where it is badly needed, it might be instrumental in saving lives.

Did my hon. and gallant Friend say that sugar is a very easy crop to grow?

On the island of Mauritius it is grown without any difficulty. Certainly it is the. crop which most easily withstands the damage caused by cyclones. I feel most strongly that the main direction of rehabilitation on the island should be towards further building projects, whereby the native Indian villages of bamboo huts, covered with thatch and built on mud floors, which exist in the midst of dense tropical vegetation, and which suffered enormous damage during the cyclones, should be built on different sites, away from the sugar plantations. They should be built on much healthier sites, and along modern lines, preferably of concrete and stone and so that they can resist the future menace of cyclone damage. I believe we could embark on a policy of rehabilitation to encourage home industries and handicrafts, especially among the native populations living in the towns. I was shown some splints made by the inmates of the prisons in Port Louis during the time of the poliomyelitis epidemic. This work, which compared very favourably with the most skilled products of this country, was done out of a sense of urgency created by the ravages of the epidemic.

There is enormous Scope for a progressive educational policy. I feel this grant should go, not to recompense sugar planters for their losses, but to benefit Mauritian labourers, who work on the plantations at a very low rate of wages, and whose work is only guaranteed during the seasonable period when the crop is ripe for harvest, that is to say, about four months in the year. There is also scope for rehabilitation in matters connected with anti-malaria and anti-cyclone work.

On a point of Order. Is my hon. and gallant Friend in Order? I did not know that this was a general Colonial Debate. I thought it was a Debate on special financial items connected with rehabilitation and a free grant to growers to meet expenses of rehabilitation following the cyclones, presumably, with special reference to the destruction of the sugar crop.

The point 1 wished to make was that the grant to the sugar planter? of Mauritius is not so much in the nature of rehabilitation as compensation for losses they sustained during the cyclones, and that the rehabilitation grant should be for the benefit of the native population who were affected more than the sugar growers as a result of the cyclones. There is a great deal of work to be done in the Island in the matter of reforming the native diet—

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Estimate, which is to provide money for growers to meet the expenses of rehabilitation, presumably for the rehabilitation of various estates, and not in relation to one or two of the matters which the hon and gallant Gentleman is now raising.

As the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Squadron-Leader Segal) has been raising these points for some minutes, Major Milner, I presume it would be in Order for us to refer to some of them later in the Debate.

I am trying at the moment to determine the facts and find whether I am right in stating that the Estimate is limited to the rehabilitation of estates, or whether it goes further.

The Estimate is a grant to growers, and I submit that my hon. and gallant Friend would probably be in Order in asking whether any conditions were imposed, in respect of the grant, concerning the standard of life of the people employed on the estates.

I will willingly bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, but to my mind the interpretation of the word "rehabilitation,'' means the restoration of the economy of Mauritius to the conditions which existed before the damage wrought by the cyclones. However, may I sum up by saying that the greatest contribution the Government can make towards the rehabilitation of the Island is by embarking on a comprehensive and constructive programme to . eliminate the distressing poverty to be found there, and by solving some of the grave problems which affect the Island now as a result of what it suffered during the war and from the cyclones.

The last time I had the privilege of following the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Squadron-Leader Segal) I congratulated him upon his maiden speech. This time, I can take real pleasure in saying that I disagree with him in the general content of his remarks. He seems anxious to introduce a kind of English democracy into Mauritius, but if French feudalism suits the natives and inhabitants I am entirely content. So long as they are contented and prosperous, and grow sugar, that is all that matters to me, and I am glad to see that this Estimate gives them the additional help they require.

I would like to ask a question about the layout of these accounts. I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury sitting on the Front Bench, and I hope he will have a conference afterwards with the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. It seems that we are perpetuating the Treasury system which was in operation before the war, when this House was a little more niggardly than now in granting finance for overseas services. We get a fairly full explanation of the additional sum required, but when it comes to the savings that are effected they are put at the bottom on the Estimate, with no explanation, and the suggestion is that the Treasury are willing to return the moneys mentioned to the House with the knowledge that they will be well received. I suggest that in these days it may not be the case at all that benefit is done to a country, or to local inhabitants, if large savings are made. Let us look at Cyprus. Could we have a little more explanation as to why £500,000 has been saved on the Cyprus services? There has been some disturbance in Cyprus recently, and we want to be certain that the withdrawal of this sum from the Cyprus revenues will not in any way militate against a stable Government in that Island.

I join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Pon-sonby) in hoping that we shall get a further statement from the Government about the British Council. It is of the utmost importance that the work of that Council should be strengthened in all parts of the world. Now our troops— natural ambassadors, as they were—have been withdrawn from overseas theatres, it devolves on the civilian services to under- take such dissemination of news as is proper and appropriate. It is a little disquieting that, without mention of any particular place from which this sum has been remitted, so large an amount as£100,000 has been returned as unspent. I was hoping to see the expenditure of the British Council overseas continue on a fairly substantial scale for many years to come.

7.0 p.m.

One final question about the Aden Protectorate. Earlier on, the Minister spoke of a sum to enable Transjordan to acquire the installations of a port. Is it not rather a serious matter, considering the strategic importance of Aden at the present time, and with the international situation what it is, for even so small a sum as £4,000 to be withdrawn from the Aden Protectorate? There are many reasons, cultural possibly as well as strategic, why a fairly large sum could well be spent in Aden at this time, and I think we are entitled to some explanation of that item. Generally speaking, I support wholeheartedly the Estimates under this head.

While I cannot follow the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in his admiration for the French feudal system, on which he is no doubt a much greater expert than myself, I must admit some sympathy with him in the latter part of his speech. I would refer to the case of Jamaica, in which there is a saving of £63,000. The position with regard to Jamaica is that there is a great crisis looming in that particular island. I am in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to obtaining more money for Jamaica and I am very surprised to see from this statement that there is a saving of £63,000. In Jamaica, as in Mauritius, there has been a very bad hurricane, and, on top of that, a blight.

No, a blight. The result is that the production of bananas, which is the staple crop of the island, has gone down to something like a quarter of the prewar figure. The economy of the island depends on bananas, and unless the grower can be assured of a much better price than he is now getting he will not replant and the people of this country will not have that excellent fruit which they enjoyed before the war and which they do not seem to have much chance of enjoying now. The position is that owing to this blight, not drought —and this is the reason for my insistence that it is a blight and not a drought —the planter must go to the hills to replant; he can no longer plant on the lowlands. The price we are offering for bananas is not sufficient in persuade him to do so. Transport is more difficult for him, land is more difficult to cultivate, labour is more difficult to obtain, and so on. I have had some figures worked out and, as far as 1 can see, the grower gets £12 a ton —

We cannot debate the whole economy of the Colony of Jamaica. The only reference is to a saving of the sum of £63,000. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may very well question that.

With great respect, I think I am a little more in Order than my hon. Friend who spoke about Mauritius. He was talking about the education of the natives.

The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that that is a matter for me to decide.

1 bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, but I would just say that I have been trying to get this extra money for Jamaica in view of the very serious situation that has occurred there. Now, to my surprise and, indeed, dismay, I find that we are taking money back from Jamaica. The grower really gets only £12 a ton compared to £121 a ton obtained for bananas in this country. I suggest with great deference that this is a relevant fact for the Minister to consider. This is a matter upon which we wish to have from the Minister some further information than is contained in one line in this Paper, "A.9. — Jamaica £63,000."

I rise to refer to one only of the items of anticipated saving, that on the British Council whch has already been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) and the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). Like them, I was rather per turbed by the lack of particularity in regard to this saving, the more so as apparently the Under-Secretary of State had not intended even to refer to this item, until prompted to do so by my hon. Friends. It is a matter of common agreement that savings, in general, are as welcome as, in the present circumstances, they are unexpected, but the welcome which is extended to any saving must clearly depend upon the way in which that saving is achieved. There are various ways in which savings could be achieved on British Council expenditure, and some of them might meet with general approval in so far as they are merely savings in administrative economy. If, on the other hand, they represent a whittling away of the main purpose of the British Council, then I think they would clearly command a far less general approbation, and should be subjected to a great deal closer scrutiny, because the British Council at present represents our main official instrument for the propagation, in the Colonies and elsewhere, of British culture and of the interpretation of our British way of life.

I think we suffer from certain disabilities in regard to this. The word "culture '' has always provoked a certain embarrassment among British people. It is not quite with us, as with the Germans — I recall the words of one of their philosophers, so enthusiastically adopted by Marshal Goering, "When I hear the word ' culture ' I feel for the trigger of my revolver "—but we have been backward, nevertheless, in the propagation of our culture and it may be that this saving does represent a whittling down. That is the more so since the idea of the propagation of culture is, in certain circles, somewhat discredited because of the use to which it was put by our late enemies, the Germans, where the propagation of culture was secondary to its object, and minor poets were sent out who were, in reality, major strategists. We do not want that in this country, but we do want the British Council to be given a full opportunity of fulfilling its main and proper purpose. How far it is successful in that I am not able to decide, but I would like to know from the hon. Gentleman when he replies whether there has been any failing on the part of the British Council, and whether it is be- cause of that that this saving has been made.

I have here the report of the British Council for the year 1944-45, and though I have no expert knowledge in these matters, it seems to me that their activities have, at any rate, been varied and, to some extent, successful. In various places they have been very active in the provision of books, the giving of lectures, and so on, purposes which, I think, will commend themselves to this Committee. I note that, in Malta, regular courses of lectures were given, and that the audiences, although not especially large —they averaged from 50 to 100 —were appreciative; in fact, very like the audiences in the House of Commons except, of course, in regard to the matter of appreciation. It may be that the activities of the British Council have had to be cut down because it is impossible for us to export the classics, in which the culture of this country is mainly contained. Or it may have been because of difficulties with paper, binding and printing, with which we are familiar. I hope it is not. It may be that there is a difficulty in connection with British institutes, or in getting lecturers of the right calibre and quality to go there at all.

If there is a reason for these failings the Minister should come to the Committee and say so. If, on the other hand, it has been found possible to fulfil the main function of the British Council through a streamlined administration, and if that widespread concern has been able to make savings without impairing that main purpose, the Minister should come to the Despatch Box and explain matters, when he would be sure, not only of the approbation of this Committee but of its-warm congratulation. If this be the case, I urge him not to be bashful in the matter, but to claim the credit which is due to him. I do not for a moment necessarily equate the expenditure of money with the attainment of the objects which the British Council has in mind. It may be that more, or as much, has to be achieved with a less expenditure. If that is so, it is good. If, on the other hand, there is to be a departure from the purposes which the British Council has in mind, that departure should not be hidden away in this document, but should be debated, in order that judgment may be passed upon it by the House of Commons as a whole.

This Debate is not upon general Colonial affairs. I will try as hard as I can to keep within the limits of Order imposed by this Vote. There are three subjects on which I should like to touch. The first is the saving made in the grant in aid; the second is the question of the British Council; the third is the Seamen's Hospital Society.

On the first point, no doubt the Undersecretary of State will give us a little more information than we have so far had. In some of these Colonies something has gone wrong. Whatever the reason may be, obviously there has been a miscalculation in the estimate of cost of the objects for which the grants in aid were given. In the case of Colonies like Dominica, Montserrat and British Honduras it is a pity that any saving could not be made available for use in the Colony. I will not deal with the subject of Mauritius, except to say that that Colony ought to have every sympathy and help we can give her at the present time. The Colonial Office is doing a very good thing there. The Colony has been badly hit by a cyclone, and has had a very bad three years. If possible, help should be given to every type of sugar grower, large and small, to rehabilitate the staple industry of the island. I only wish, in regard to Mauritius, we would look at the economy of the neighbouring islands and try to gain experience from what has been done by the French.

In regard to the British Council, one hon. Member talked of its propaganda work. Presumably he referred to cultural education by means of books. In most tropical islands the first thing you have to do, even if you have been able to get a book, is to preserve it. In most of the Colonial possessions to which I have been in the tropics I have seldom seem a private library or seen a public library that had books which were not worn out and worm-eaten. The first thing the British Council ought to do is to try to preserve the libraries in the Colonies. Another point is that I have read report after report about the British Council, but am still left in the dark about the work of the British Council, how its members are appointed, how its delegations are appointed.

7.15 p.m.

The hon. Member is getting very wide of the mark. We are not having a general Debate on the subject of the British Council. The British Council as a whole comes upon another Vote, that of the Foreign Office.

I am always prepared to bow to your Ruling, Major Milner. I do not want to get out of Order by challenging the scope of the remarks made by other hon. Members. The point we are on here is the savings made by the British Council. I am trying to point out that, if the British Council had a membership constitution which was really democratic, and which had been appointed in a—

The hon. Member is now going too far. There has been a saving of £ 100,000in relation to the activities of the British Council, in connection with certain Colonial Services. The membership of the British Council has nothing to do with that subject. If the hon. Member has anything to say on the subject of the Vote, it is my duty to hear him, but he is not entitled to deal with the constitution of the British Council as a whole.

Does not the constitution of the British Council determine how it should spend its money, I submit that it depends—

The British Council, I imagine, spends most of its money, much exceeding the amount of this Vote, under another Vote, which would be the appropriate occasion to discuss that question.

Am I to understand from your Ruling, Major Milner, that I am not allowed to discuss whether the savings could have been better expended, having regard to the membership and the constitution of the British Council?

The hon. Member is certainly entitled to discuss the savings made under this Vote on the Colonial Services referred to. That is quite in Order.

The Colonial Services rendered by the British Council are distinct from its administrative services, when they are by way of cultural and educational activities. I want to show how the British Council could have saved money by a proper appointment of its local committees. Individuals knowing nothing whatever about the native outlook and psychology, and with very little experience of the Colonies, should have gone to the very few democratic institutions which exist in those possessions and should have asked the people there for advice how their activities should be organised. They would then have spent their money to better advantage, and would have saved money. In any case, Major Milner, I will take your advice and proceed upon another line of argument. I thought a good deal about the subject before I intervened, and I thought my remarks were quite within the scope of Order.

I know, Major Milner, you have not been admonishing me, but have been trying to bring me back when I was straying too far a field. I propose to leave that subject and to come now to my next point. I hope I shall be in Order in what I have to say about the Seamen's Hospital Society. A loan is being made to the Seamen's Hospital Society for the re-establishment of a hospital in London. There are already four institutions in London dealing with tropical diseases. There is the Seamen's Hospital in Greenwich, the Post Graduate Medical School, the Hospital which used to exist in Endsleigh Street, and the School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine.

Again, I want to return to the point that this is a temporary grant to enable an old hospital building to provide 43 beds or thereabouts when reconstituted. It is really a waste of money. It would have been far better to wait, using the beds at present in ordinary hospitals, instead of lending money to reconstruct an old house in Devonshire Street to be used as a modern hospital. Here in London, the centre of the British Empire, we should have the finest school of tropical medicine and disease in the world. We are doing nothing of the kind, but simply frittering away our money on an undemocratic society whose constitution ought to be reviewed. This is public money, spent by Parliament, granted to this Society. Am I in Order in asking if there is to be any Parliamentary repre- sentative on this Society during the expenditure of this amount? We ought not, in a democratic representative institution such as we are here, to be granting money for making a loan to a hospital in this country which has not a democratic constitution, on which there is no Parliamentary representation, and on which, so far as I know, there is no Governmental representation. ThoughI shall not oppose the Vote now, I ask that the subject of this grant and the whole question of tropical disease and tropical medicine from the point of view of hospital treatment, of research, of prevention, and of treatment not only of travellers who goout there, but of natives who work on board ship and come here, shall be reviewed. I also want to know if the Seamen's Union is represented on this Society. I think the whole Vote to the British Council and the Seamen's Hospital Society should be reviewedby the Colonial Office and I hope, the next time an Estimate of this kind comes up, that the Secretary of State will be able to give us a better account.

I have a certain number of questions to ask the hon. Gentleman on these Estimates. First,with regard to Mauritius, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Squadron-Leader Segal) made a most interesting speech and I gather that I shall be at liberty in following him up those interesting bypaths of Franco-Mauritian constitutionalism to which he referred. However, I will refrain from doing that and will mention only one point. He said and quite rightly, that in view of the terrible damage done by the hurricanes it seems strange that all the Committee is now being asked to considerare loans for the rehabilitation of sugar plantations The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but the explanation I think is this, that as soon as those hurricanes took place I telegraphed to Mauritius on behalf of His Majesty's Government offering to the Mauritius Government the same sort of help in rehabilitation that we had previously offered to Jamaica in a similar disaster Their answer was that they had accumulated considerable Government re-serves during the war and, with the exception, I think, of some minor assistance which they were prepared to accept, they paid the whole of the rehabilitation cost out of their reserves, aided, as they will be in the future, of course, by grants under the Colonial Welfare and Development Act.

With regard to the particular assistance which is now being given, there can, I think, be no criticism of the free grant of £ 110,000which is to be made to growers towards the cost of replanting that sugar land which had been converted to the growing of subsistence crops. That was a policy which was inaugurated, I think, when I was at the Colonial Office— ifnot shortly before soon after the beginning of the Japanese war, when there was obvious danger to the food supply of Mauritius. It certainly seemed at that time the sensible thing todo, to make them plough up a certair amount of the sugar land which it was difficult then to dispose of in order to plant it with foodstuffs for their own consumption. Quite frankly, however, it was a complete failure. The climatic conditions there were such that those subsistence crops almost entirely failed, and the only result was that the people of Mauritius had no more food and the world outside had less sugar. It has also been a very expensive policy for the planters who are now faced with that land being thrown back on their hands, having to be replanted with sugar which will not, of course come into full bearing for some years. I think, therefore, that this free grant is wholly justified.

With regard to the other part of the assistance which, as far as the Mauritius Government is concerned, is partly free grant and partly interest-free loan, but, as far as the planter is concerned, is wholly 3 per cent. loan, I am not sure that in fact the assistance here will be sufficient to do what the Government must want, namely, to rehabilitate the sugar industry of Mauritius after the quite exceptional blows of ill fortune which have fallen on it in the last few years. Unless you mean to do that properly, then surely it is much better not to do it at all and let the thing collapse. I am not at all sure from what I hear that this assistance will do it properly. It is not, so far as the grower himself is concerned, very generous assistance. It is a loan at3 per cent. — that is more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers a gilt-edged rate— repayable, it is true, after two years' interval, but only two years, by instalments over the not very long period of 20 years. I am doubtful whether in this the Government have really gone far enough to succeed in their objective.

There is one point I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State. The Government of Mauritius receive this money, part of it as a free grant, the rest of it as interest-free loan. It is then re-lent to the planters at 3 per cent. interest. I feel under the circumstances that the charging of 3 per cent.interest for the servicing of this loan is extremely high. I made the same point, I remember, on the loan to Jamaica. We were successful there in reducing these charges slightly below 3 per cent., but the argument used was that the servicing of that loan would be very expensive because it was going to a large number of people for the rebuilding of their houses, that it would be very difficult to follow them up to get repayment, that therefore 3 per cent. was a proper charge. Here, however, it is going not to many thousands of individuals to rebuild houses, but to a limited number of people for replanting and rehabilitating their sugar estates. I should have thought, under those circumstances, that the addition of this 3 per cent. charge between the Mauritius Government, who gets it interest free and the grower, was unnecessarily high.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he knows whether this amount is a first charge on the holding? Is it a charge at all on the holding— that would affect his argument— or is merely lent as a personal loan to the grower?

The Under-Secretary will have to answer that. I think, in the case of Jamaica, it was a personal loan and not a charge on the holdings. I expect it is probably the same here.

7.30 p. m I wish the Under-Secretary had been able to give us more information about the Seamen's Hospital Society and about what the new scheme is going to be. The explanation we have had has been very slight and I have no notion as to the Minister's view on the long term scheme. I am surprised that it is worth while making this loan in view of the fact that it has to repaid at the end of the year. I cannot understand the circumstances in which a society of that kind should receive £ 17,800 and repay at the end of this year. I would like the Under-Secretary to explain how this temporary accommodation is going to fit in with the long term project in regard to tropical diseases. When 1 was at the Colonial Office, a small committee was considering this matter and they had certain ideas in mind. To the best of my recollection, they were in search of sites, but there was no question of a reconditioned house in Devonshire Terrace. The idea was something, much bigger and better.

I am not completely clear about the arrangements attached to the loan in entirely upon the revenues from the port? saying that the repayment depends entirely upon the revenues from the port. It is not a charge on the general revenues of the State but will only be repaid if they make a profit. If so, we have no information whether all the profit is to be charged against it, orwhether a certain amount will be charged every year, or whether repayment stops if profits fall below a certain level. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could give a little more information on that point.

When I first saw the anticipated savings on the other side of the account, I must confess I was very unhappy. We have not yet received any explanation from the Under-Secretary which relieves that unhappiness. These after all are the normal grants in aid to enable a Colony to make up the balance between revenueand estimated expenditure. If these anticipated savings have occurred because revenue has been much higher than was expected, whilst the expenditure which was thought proper was carried out, I have no complaint to make. What I am afraid of is that it may be the other way round, and that in many cases some expenditure which was proposed to be made during the year has not been carried out. That is not a real saving. An economy is not effected if for some reason or other what was proposed at the beginning of the year was not carried out.In some of the Colonies these sums are very substantial. A short fall on desirable expenditure as in the case of British Honduras of more than £ 70,000 must be very high. In Cyprus, a short fall of over £ 500,000is a very large item. The hon. Gentleman ought to tell us by what method these savings have been arrived at.

I quite understand the difficulty. At the beginning of the year one can only set out what one hopes to do, and in these difficult times of shortage of labour and trained men, one's efforts may be defeated. But we ought to know. I remember that when I occupied the hon. Gentleman's place, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power made a speech in which he said that if I were really efficient I should be able to spend all the money allocated to the Colonies and if I excused any short fall on account of difficulties of labour and supply it was nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power was a great go-getter when he sat on these benches.

I hope that speech did not lead the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) to overestimate these items of expenditure.

Perhaps the Under-Secretary can give us the details of how this is arrived at. Of all the anticipated savings mentioned, I regard with least apprehension that in regard to the British Council. Good work as it may do elsewhere,the place of the British Council in the Colonial Empire is a difficult and limited one. So many of the activities which it carries on, no doubt excellently, elsewhere, are, in a British Colony, functions of the Colony itself. The Colony has its own education and information services and should be doing the work which is normally the work of the British Council in foreign lands.

Not culturally The British Council in most of our Colonies do not go in for cultural work, music, painting, sculpture, and things of that kind, although an elementary course might be taught in some of the best schools.

There are universities in the Colonies which must become the cultural centre of the particular district. I recognise that the work of the British Council in colonial affairs is difficult and restricted. In some places they have done goodwork; in others I am not so certain. I would like the Under-Secretary to tell us more about this short fall

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman makes a distinction between work of the British Council in the Colonies and in territories adminis- tered by the Colonial Office such as Palestine and Transjordan where the British Council are doing a certain amount of work, in my view, very effectively. Would the right hon. Gentleman draw a distinction between the two types?

I would not draw it simply on those lines, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Captain Noel-Baker) that the British Council are doing good work in some Colonies, and I agree with him that places where they are doing good work include Palestine and Transjordan. I was not very happy with the large expenditure undertaken in West Africa. It never seemed to me to be giving an adequate return for the work carried out. Is this the first time that the expenditure on the British Council's work in the Colonies has appeared on the Colonial Estimates? At one time, wherever the work was done, it appeared on the British Council Estimates taken by the Foreign Office. Whatever work they did in the colonies did not appear on the Colonial Office Votes.

Numerous questions have been asked, and I will do my best to answer them. The discussion has fallen into two parts, the first being concerned with the three items for which the Government are asking additional money, and the second with the savings which have been effected during the past 12 months. In regard to the second problem I tried to make it clear, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), that many of the Estimates which were submitted last year were not detailed estimates, but were arrived at on the information, both in regard to revenue and expenditure, at the disposal of the Colonial Office at that time. The balances which now appear on this Vote, are balances which arise through faulty estimating in the previous year, because of the inadequate information available when the money was asked for.

Does not the saving of £500,000 in the case of Cyprus mean either that therehas been an unexpected increase in the revenue, or that some expenditure which it was hoped to carry out was not, in fact, carried out?

In certain cases it was anticipated that a great deal of work could be pushed on with, a good deal faster than has proved to be the case. In other cases, it was faulty estimating in the sense that the Colonial Office had not reliable information at che time on which to build up the Estimates.

Yes. I turn now to the individual items. First, in regard to the British Council I share the view that it is able to do work of considerable importance in our Colonial Empire. I believe that some of the work has been extraordinarily well done, but considerable dissatisfaction was expressed in the House at one time as to the structure of the Council, the way in which policy was determined and the rather unbridled way in which its activities increased. As a result of that criticism investigation was made, and the Government have under consideration at present what shall be the structure, constitution and policy of the Council. It was obvious that there could not be unlimited expenditure unchecked by this House. Accordingly it was decided that some limit should be placed on the amount of money which was available, until these changes which the Government thought necessary had come about.

Therefore, the British Council, in preparing its figures, notified the Colonial Office that so far as Colonial services were concerned £ 100,000was not required. It was not specified by the British Council where they anticipated that these economies would occur, but it was clear that, because of a number of difficulties which they were experiencing, including difficulties of obtaining staffs, and in maintaining certain of their institutions under postwar conditions, this money would not be required. Thatreally is the situation in that case. It is not that the Government have determined that there should be particulareconomies in this or that direction; it is that the Council itself notified us that this money was no longer required by them. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, I would explain that the Colonial Office will now carry part of the Vote concerned with the British Council, and that will enable the Colonial Office and the House to exercise greater authority in regard to the administration of these services inside the Colonial Empire.

7.45 p.m.

Yes, this is the first time.

The economy, or the saving, of £63,000 in respect of Jamaica, again represents unexpended moneys which had been voted for certain reconstruction purposes, but it is very probable that in the coming Estimates, the House will be required to re-vote that sum or a part of it, again. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asked how this saving of £ 4,000in the Aden Protectorate was secured. It arises mainly, I gather, from the decision to make no further loan issues to the Sultan of Shihr and Makalla for the purpose of improving internal security and initiating schemes of development. Owing to the improvement in the financial position of this particular State, that expenditure was no longer necessary.I turn now to Cyprus, and the economy there of £500,000. That again was due to the making of a provisional Estimate. It was anticipated that a great deal more money would be required for the programme of the year, but that programme was not fulfilled.

I pass to the question raised in connection with the Seamen's Hospital. A big tropical diseases hospital is being planned. It is only in the planning stage, but meantime it is important that additional provision should be made for some hospital where tropical diseases can be dealt with. Accordingly, in the interim period it is proposed— this matter was before the House some months ago— that23, Devonshire Street should be acquired. It is a modern building, and this arrangement will give to the Seamen's Hospital Society, as an interim arrangement, a nursing home, which, while it had not been erected for that purpose, could be readily transformed into a hospital. It will provide 40 beds. A temporary building in Endsleigh Gardens, which was used during the war period, must be disposed of, and the sum which will be acquired by its disposal will be used for the purpose of the new premises in 23, Devonshire Street. The House has already made a temporary loan for that purpose. Owing to the fact that the Hospital Society, because it cannot acquire the money on the property it now wishes to get rid of, is short of funds, it is now proposed, with the concurrence of the Treasury, that this additional money to acquire the property in Devonshire Street should be forthcoming. Thisis a loan which it is hoped will be repaid when the money realised by selling the Endsleigh Gardens property becomes available. As to representation on the council of this society, I regret I am not in a position to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) whether the Colonial Office is directly represented on that body, or whether the Seamen's Union is also represented. I can assure him, however, that in all the council work the closest contact is maintained with the Colonial Office. Also, the Secretary of State's advisor attends many of the meetings.

I come now to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol in regard to the port of Aqaba in Transjordan. It is anticipated as a result of certain developments now proceeding in Transjordan that this port will prove of a great commercial value and will earn a sufficient revenue to meet any charges on the port. It is thought that if this loan is made—we think it should be made without interest—that within a comparatively short period the revenue accruing from the operation will be sufficient to meet the repayments of the loan to which the Committee is now asked to agree.

How is itsettled? There is nothing here to show how it is settled and at what rates repayment is to be made.

The loan is without interest and it will be paid as and when the revenues of the port are sufficient to meet these charges.

The Treasury have made an arrangement with the Transjordan Government, I think, that the Government will have the benefit of advisers experienced in the running of ports. I doubt whether there will foe very much difficulty in regard to this.

Suppose the worst happens, and this port does not earn any income at all. Is this to be charged on the revenues of Transjordan itself?

If the port does not produce the revenue, we hope in due time the Government itself may be able to meet the cost. For the moment, the charge is on the revenue of the port.

That is rather an important statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made. The phrase in this White Paper does not lead one to believe that for a moment. The phrase says:

"The loan will be repayable out of the revenue accruing to the Government of Transjordan by the operation of the installations."
That would certainly lead one to suppose that if there was no revenue derived from the operation of the installations there would be no obligation on the Tranjordan Government to make any repayments. Iunderstand now it is to be a charge on the revenues as a whole and not on this particular revenue.

But it is a liability which is admitted by the Transjordan Government. As I have said, it is hoped that the revenue from the port will permit of repayment. It may conceivably happen— though we doubt it very much; the prospect is certainly remote—but it could conceivably happen that such repayment from the port revenues may not be possible. In that event, it is possible that the loan may not be repaid, but the loan is to the Transjordan Government and it is on the charge of the port revenue.

I pass now to a number of points which have been raised in regard to Mauritius. The first question was put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Squadron-Leader Segal), who asked whether we were doing anything to help in the development of that territory by the exchange of experts. There has been during the last year a special adviser to report on education. There was a special investigation into the whole of the labour problem, and Major Orde Browne, adviser to the Secretary of State, visited the territory during the last year. There has been an adviser on housing and town planning and a great deal of contact in respect to health services. In regard to the second question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Preston with respect to political advance, that topic is receiving the closest attention of the Government. Weare conscious that the existing constitution is inadequate. During the past year definite steps have been taken for some improvement, or change, in the constitution. We hope an announcement will be made before very long. The hon. and gallant Member for Preston also asked, in regard to the policy outlined by Major Orde Browne in his report, whether the policy of encouraging subsistence crops and not building up the sugar crops was still being pursued. The answer is that the building up of subsistence crops has proved—as my right hon. Friend pointed out a moment ago—a failure, and that the concentration is on the production of sugar. A question was also asked in respect to the housing of the people of Mauritius. A great deal of new planning work has already been done. A town planning adviser has been there. Many schemes in regard to rehousing have been put forward. An architect is busy at this moment in the application of these plans,and steps have already been taken for getting the new housing schemes under way. There have been difficulties in regard to the shipping of the necessary materials. It is hoped, however, that some considerable housing schemes will be launched without delay.

Education policy was also raised. Again, I can say that that subject has been brought under careful review during the past year or so. New programmes of educational development have been submitted and moneys have been made available in order to enable the development to proceed. I would like to make it clear that none of the moneys asked for in respect of the rehabilitation of the sugar industry come from the Agricultural Development and Welfare Acts, nor will the grants under those Acts be diminished as a result of this contribution. The right hon. Member for West Bristol expressed the view that the Government were not generous enough in regard to the terms which were offered to the growers. This problem was carefully considered by the Treasury. In consultation with the Mauritius Government it was felt in all the circumstances an interest charge should be imposed on industry. It was thought in the long run that it would be no undue burden to the Colony, because these contributions would be something in the nature of an insurance fund and would add to the nucleus of £500,000 which the Government have made available against any future catastrophe of the kind which recently threatened Mauritius.

I have tried to answer most of the questions asked, and I would like to assure the Committee that, so far as Mauritius is concerned, we are vitally anxious about its social and economic progress. We appreciate that sugar is fundamental to the happiness and prosperity of that island, and the Government are pressing on, quite apart from this work in respect of sugar, with finding solutions to some of the social and economic problems of the masses of the people in trying to build up a better standard of living. I therefore ask the Committee to give us this Supplementary Estimate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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 sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective Services and grants in aid."

Class V

Old Age Pensions

Resolved:

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £250,000, 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 payment of Old Age Pensions and pensions to blind persons, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith."

Class Vii

Royal Palaces

Motion made, Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, 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 expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a grant in aid."

8.0 p.m.

We ought to have some explanation from the Ministry of Works before we pass this sum, and there ought to be some measure of protest against the very meagre information with which the Committee is supplied. I see that an explanation of maintenance and repairs is given as a sum required as further provision required to meet the cost of essential work, and of "labour consequent upon changes in occupation of residences."This Vote is for the Ministryof Works, the people who are responsible for the control and licensing of building, and repairs to buildings in this country, yet when they have their own property to deal with, for which they are responsible, they seem quite unable to estimate the rightamount, and, indeed, come to this Committee for sanction for a further £ 6,400. We are entitled to know what went wrong with the estimating some time ago, and whether, in fact, more labour and more materials have been made available for the Royal Palaces than for the humble homes for which the civilian can only secure a £10 licence from the local authority.

There is one further item on which 1 should like information. It is on the phrase "alterations consequent upon changes in occupation of residences."The housing position in this country is so acute, in the vast majority of cases, that nobody is able to make any alterations consequent upon change of residence, and I think we are entitled to some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary concerning how many cases there are in which these alterations have been consequent upon changes in occupation. What would be the largest sum, where would it be and on whose behalf was it made available? Where is this additional sum of £ 6,400to be expended? I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give a satisfactory answer, and will, in fact, welcome the opportunity of proving that his Ministry which has a responsibility of making sure that nobody else spendsa penny that is not necessary on repairs, has been economical, wise and prudent

I would support the hon. Member or Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) in his request for further information. I think we are all interested in Royal Palaces, and often look over the garden wall of Buckingham Palace from the top of an omnibus and wonder what is happening on the other side. Therefore, I must admit that, when I turned to the back page of these Votes and saw the heading "Royal Palaces," I had a feeling of anticipation that the veil would be lifted and that we should see something of what goes on behind it, but, to my surprise:I found a curt statement that a Supplementary Estimate was required for expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a grant in aid. Further on, there is a reference to maintenance and repairs and the additional sum required, as well as an appropriation in aid. I was pleased to see that some details were to be given, but, there again, on examination I find that it is merely a statement regarding the further provision required to meet the cost of essential work and "alterations consequent upon changes of occupation."

What Royal Palaces are there, and what changes in occupation have there been? There is the Tower of London which has not been occupied for many years, except by the caretakers and guards and sundry people whose occupation of it was ended suddenly and painfully. There is the Royal Palace of Hampton Court, but, there again, it has not been occupied by Royalty since the time of the early Georges and has been used since then by various elderly pensioners, especially ladies, as furnished lodgings. There cannot have been many changes of occupation there, and so with all the other Palaces— Kensington, Buckingham Palace and Windsor. There have been no changes in occupation of these various residences. Surely, the Government should give further and more precise information in the details of this Vote?

I am grateful to the last two speakers for giving me the chance to explain why this additional sum is required. Thesum we are asking the Committee to approve this evening is required during the present year for the cost of maintaining and repairing certain Royal Palaces and certain outlying properties. As compared with the original Estimate, we require — 6,400more, but, against this appropriation in aid is a sum of — 4,400 more than the original Estimate, leaving a net Supplementary Estimate of —2,000. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) asked why these Estimates have had to be reconsidered, and whether this was due to bad estimating on the part of the Ministry originally in the autumn of 1944, and, further, whether we are now pursuing a more generous policy in regard to repair and maintenance than was intended and is being granted in respect of dwellings generally throughout the country.

The original Estimate made in the autumn of 1944 assumed the continuance of war conditions. It was assumed that public functions would be very narrowly restricted, as they were in wartime. It was further assumed that the number of visitors to many Royal Palaces, which are not at present in occupation, would continue at the relatively low rate which obtained in wartime. The end of the war changed the basis of these Estimates. Therefore, we require increased expenditure for a number of reasons. It is required, in the first place, for the resumption of activities and public functions in London. It is not correct to say there have been no changes in occupation; there has been substantial movement from Windsor back to London during the past few months, and there certainly has been some resumption of public functions, including those connected with the United Nations organisation and other purposes, since the end of the war. Furthermore, part of the expenditure is required for an improved water supply for non-domestic purposes, not only at Hampton Court Palace, but in neighbouring royal parks.

Additional money is also required for further maintenance at Royal Palaces which are open to visitors, some of which are now being reopened. We are finding that visitors are attending them in far greater numbers than was considered probable at the time the Estimates were drawn up. Incidentally, it is the increase in the number of visitors to Hampton Court, Kew and Holyrood House which has accounted for the increase in the appropriation in aid. I think I should inform the Committee that, even with the Supplementary Estimate, the total amount for this purpose, namely, —38,430, is still very much below the prewar figure, and that the maintenance and repair of Royal Palaces, in common with maintenance and repair generally throughout the country, are necessarily being kept much below prewar standards.

The increase does not mean that the Government have in any way eased up on the general matter of licensing repairs for houses of any kind, royal or otherwise. My right hon. Friend has pursued a line on this which I am sure the Committee would approve, in that he is placing these palaces on exactly the same basis as private households in the matter of repairs and maintenance. The repairs and maintenance for which we are now asking this Committee to approve an additional sum relate, not to a better standard than hitherto thought necessary, but to the reopening of certain of the palaces for the general use of the public. Therefore, I hope the Committee will be with us in this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding 2,000, 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 expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a grant in aid."

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Patents And Designs Bill Lords

Order for Second Reading read.

8.14 p.m.

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

This Bill, which comes to the House from another place, where it met with general approval as regards its provisions, does not propose any far reaching changes relating to the law of patents. As hon. Members are probably aware, in April, 1944, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was President of the Board of Trade, appointed a Departmental Committee with rather wide terms of reference to consider and report what changes were desirable in the Patents and Designs Act. Any comprehensive legislation dealing with the recommendations of that committee must await the receipt of their final report. The commit- tee have just sent in a second interim report which is now being printed for presentation to Parliament. The present Bill, therefore, is limited in scope to deal solely with matters arising out of hostilities, including the question of communication of inventions and designs in accordance with arrangements made with other countries in order to facilitate war production. Perhaps the easiest way of dealing with the Bill, and the most rapid, would be for me to run shortly through the Clauses since all of them deal with separate subject matters. I can explain on each Clause the subject matter with which itdeals.

Clause 1 gives effect to the majority recommendation contained in paragraph 23 of the first interim report of the Departmental Committee I have mentioned. That report was Command Paper 6618. Its purpose is to simplify procedure and to reduce the expense of litigation, to extend the life of patents and to compensate those who held them for the losses which have resulted as the result of war conditions. As the House is aware, these applications can, according to the existing law, only be dealt with by the High Court, but the present Bill under Clause 1, gives the patentee the option of applying to the Comptroller instead of to the Court, with a right of appeal from the Comptroller's decision to the Patent Appeals Tribunal which is, of course, now one of the High Court judges. Most of these applications for extension are little more than formalities, and it is most undesirable, in our view, that patentees should be put to the trouble and expense of applying to the High Court for such an extension. This Clause gives them the option to adopt the much cheaper and speedier method of application to the Comptroller.

Clause 2 enlarges the protection which may be given under Section 3 of the Act of 1942 to inventions and designs communicated for war purposes pursuant to arrangements made by His Majesty's Government with other governments—the Patent Exchange Agreements with the United States of America. In many cases, as the House will appreciate, owing to the urgency of the war situation, such communication was made before any formal application for patents or for registration of designs could be filed by the inventor. The new Clause will enable the inventor not only to be protected against any prejudice arising from the communication of his invention before the date of his application for a patent, but will also give him priority over other applicants for the same invention filed after the date of his first communication. Clause 2 (3) makes it clear that these benefits are only to be given where reciprocal arrangements are made by the Governments of other countries; that is to say, where our patentees get advantages in other countries, we shall be prepared to give the patentees of those other countries similar advantages here. Probably the most important country concerned is the United States of America, and there is now a Bill pending before Congress which will, we hope, grant the necessary reciprocal rights to British inventors.

Clause 3 is designed to protect the real inventor who, owing to war circumstances, communicated to the Government an invention which was subsequently worked by or for the Government as a secret process. Normally, of course, a secret process gets no protection, because the process of patent protection is a full and public disclosure in the patent specification, though there is an exception to this provision where the secrecy is imposed by the Government and certain patents are kept secret for security reasons. But there is a real danger that persons who put their skill and inventiveness at the disposal of our war effort and who, owing to war circumstances, did not apply for a patent, might be unable themselves to carry out their own process if some ingenious person, hearing of that invention, were subsequently to take out a patent for that process. We must provide protection against that case, and Clause 3 does so by giving as a ground of revocation for such a patent if taken out that it had already been worked secretly by or for the Government during the war. This would not, of course, apply if the true inventor himself subsequently applied for a patent but only if someone else who had taken it from him so applied.

The next three Clauses deal mainly with the treatment in the United Kingdom of inventions and designs made by Germans or Japanese in enemy territory during the war, with the object of depriving these inventions and designs of any protection in the United Kingdom. The objective here is to make all such inventions and designs generally open to use by the public without any distinction or priority. It is felt that the fairest way of dealing with all these cases is to make such inventions and designs part of the general knowledge available for the entire industry of the country.

Clause 4 gives effect to the decisions of the Government announced last October, that inventions or designs made in Germany since 3rd September, 1938, shall not be protected in this country, and that decision has since been extended to cover inventions or designs made in Japan. The provisions of the Clause apply generally to inventions and designs made after that date and before 1st January, 1946, first of all in Germany as it existed before the occupation of Austria — that is, on 1st September, 1938— orin Japan, whatever the nationalityof the inventor may be, and secondly by German or Japanese nationals in territory which was enemy territory at the relevant date when the invention was made. The provisions, however, will not be applicable to such inventions and designs as were made by and had become the property of a non-German before 3rd September, 1939—that is, during the year 3rd September, 1938, to 3rd September, 1939—or of non-Japanese before 7th December, 1941, or inventions which were made independently and outside Germany and Japan by a non-German or a non-Japanese who filed an application in this country covering the invention or design before 1st February, 1946; that is to cover the case where a foreigner applied for an invention or design in Germany for which he might have applied earlier in this or other countries.

Thirdly, it will not apply to inventions made by a prisoner of war while in German or Japanese hands, unless the invention or design was disclosed to a German or Japanese national before 1st January, 1946. In these cases there will be a right of appeal from the Comptroller's decision to the Patents Appeal Tribunal. It is necessary to ante-date the power of rejection to 3rd September, 1938— that is, 12 months before the war — because under the existing international arrangement to which this country is a party, an invention covered by a patent application in any country to which the convention applies—and Germany and Japan were such countries—is entitled to protection in another convention country from the original date of the patent if the latter application is made within 12 months. That, of course, is the provision of Section 91 of the Patents Act. Clause 5 follows the decision of His Majesty's Government that patent or design rights abandoned during the war shall not be restored to enemy Germans or Japanese. It empowers the Comptroller to publish specifications, drawings, samples and so on, accompanying applications for patents or for the registration of designs made by or on behalf of German or Japanese nationals, which have become abandoned and would not under existing law, therefore, be open to inspection, because all such abandoned applications are not published according to our ordinary law, and by this publication of such abandoned inventions the information will be made freely available to industry in this country.

Clause 6 modifies the Comptroller's powers to extend time limits on account of war conditions, first of all to enable him to refuse extensions to German or Japanese nationals, and secondly to enable the Government to require reciprocity as a condition of the grant of extensions to nationals of other countries.

This Bill is an urgent one because there is considerable pressure for the legislation contained in Clause 1 to implement the recommendations of the Departmental Committee whose report was dated 12th March, 1945, and we are anxious to get the legislation through before the bulk of cases come forward for decision. Secondly, and perhaps more important, asI have said, it is anticipated that the United States legislation about the protection of inventions communicated to the United States Government for war purposes under agreement with the Government of this country may be passed. We hope it will be at a fairly early date; it has already passed the House of Representatives. Under that legislation, applications will have to be filed in the United States within 12 months of its passage; assurance will have to be given to the United States Government that similar benefits are given in this country to United States citizens in order that the benefits of that Act in the United States may be available to British subjects, and such assurances cannot be given until the present Bill becomes law. Therefore, we are most anxious that this Bill should obtain a speedy passage through the House. We believe that by its passage it will make more easy for our own inventors the present procedure, that it will lay open to the general use of British industry a volume of patent information from Germany and Japan, and will also enable us to deal with the reciprocal rights as regards the patent agreements and the interchange of scientific information with other countries which was so freely made during the war.

8.30 p.m.

I join with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in hoping that the House will not place any obstacle in the way of a Second Reading of this Bill. After all, the object of the Bill, as of patent law in general, is to secure to an inventor or designer a proper reward for his own enterprise and ingenuity. We on this side of the House think that is, on the whole, a very proper sentiment, and have no desire to cavil at its introduction or embodiment in legislation by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. If this Bill purported to deal with patent law in general, and the very complicated procedure which has grown up around that branch of the law, there might have been scope for honMembers to expatiate, in the public interest, on matters which are in the Bill. I think it is perfectly reasonable of the Government to bring before us at this stage a Bill which is, after all, really concerned with the impact of the war upon patent legislation, and to await the full report of the Committee to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred— which I think was presided over by Mr. Kenneth Swan— before proceeding to the difficult task of thoroughly overhauling and re-codifying patent law legislation. I myself, think the Government do right in introducing this limited Measure at this particular point of time.

It seems to me that its limited but very useful purpose is to make certain adjustments in the existing code to deal, first, with the passage of time during the late war; secondly, with certain events which happened during that time; and, thirdly, with certain consequences of the victorious outcome of the struggle. In the first place, it is right that the time consumed during the war should be disregarded as running against the inventor, and that he should be afforded a cheap and quick method of protecting his rights and extending his time. I think Clause 1, of which that is the principle, is therefore, right, and that we should adopt it. In the second place, it does seem to me to be right that persons who placed their inventions at the disposal of our own nation or of the Allies during the war should not be prevented, by that meritorious action, from reaping the due reward of their enterprise and ingenuity. That I understand to be the purpose, in brief, of Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill, and therefore I welcome that as a necessary and just provision. I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw attention to Clause 2 (3), which shows that the treatment and protection which is afforded to foreign nationals in our country under this Bill is conditional upon there being reciprocity in their own states towards our own citizens who have inventions there. That is only right and proper. I think the fullest and most speedy reciprocity will result between us in this very important matter. From time to time in the past there have been occasional complaints about a lack of equal treatment in the matter of patents. I hope the procedure which is initiated by Clause 2 to deal with this specific subject will expand so as to secure for all our friendly nations equal treatment as regards the rewards of invention and ingenuity.

The third purpose of this Bill will, 1 believe, commend itself to the House in general. It is, as I understand it, to throw open to industry in general, free of all obligation, inventions which are the result of action in the enemy countries of Germany and Japan. In this respect, I think that legal theories and common sense are at one,as they are more often than is I think generally suspected. After all, the grant of a patent is a prerogative grant of the monopoly to a subject. Monopolies, as we know, were abused in the past. The Monopolies Act of 1623, which is still the foundation of the law on this subject, limited the cases where monopolies could be granted. At the same time, that Statute said that it was right for the Crown to enrich, by monopolies, a subject who had enriched the community by inventing or introducing into the Realm some new process of manufacture. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, a patent is a grant from the Crown to the subject. It seems to me to be a transaction quite inappropriate as between the Crown and an enemy alien. Therefore, it is right that these inventions should be freely open to the benefit of industry in general. In conclusion, I venture to express the opinion that this is a good Bill. I think it can claim the respectable ancestry of the Coalition. I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.

8.36 p.m.

I realise that it is very dangerous for a poor layman like myself to intervene in the discussion of a Bill which is concerned entirely with the procedure and operation of the ordinary courses of law, particularly so when the subject of the Bill is that of patents, and when it is introduced to the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite whose reputation as an expert in these matters is of the highest. However, the Bill raises two points of constitutional importance to which I wish to draw attention. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made the case to the House completely, that a Bill of this kind is necessary to deal with the exceptional circumstances which have arisen out of the war. In particular, it is obvious that the war has led to a very heavy accumulation of applications for extension of patents in view of the time lost during the period of hostilities. It is clearly desirable that some simple and inexpensive procedure should be provided for dealing with those cases.

I admit I am not entirely happy with the solution which is proposed under Clause 1. It may be that it is the only possible solution. In my view, it does involve a very serious constitutional point. The Comptroller of Patents is an executive officer. His functions as I understand it, are clearly technical and administrative. He is concerned with the ascertainment and investigation of facts, and of making a determination on those facts in the light of established and well understood law and procedure Under this Clause he is being given, as I believe for the first time, a judicial function and judicial authority which he is to exercise concurrently with the High Court. I think that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are not a little concerned at the serious and ever more rapid widening of the field of officials who have already made considerable inroads on those matters, which in the past have been the function of the House. Here theBill is encroaching or rather is making the Comptroller encroach upon the field which is properly that of the High Court. I understand that in the Report of the Departmental Committee the reason given for this departure from customary practice, this rather serious precedent, is that on the whole these applications are likely to be quite without complication. I think the words actually used are, "clear cut and of simple character." I submit that that is not by any means always the case.

There are cases among applications which have been made in recent months which show that much more than straightforward, clear-cut factors are involved. For example, there are cases of foreign patents whose holders, by the law of their own land, may very well be unable to disclose the operation of their patents during the war years. How is that point to be dealt with, and what importance is to be attached to the value which has accrued during the years of war? There are foreign patentees the shares in whose companies are vested in the Custodian. What importance is to be attached to that? There are British patentees who have given licences to foreigners, possibly to enemy nationals, and who omitted to cancel those licences on the outbreak of war. In their case, the extension ofthe patent will be to the benefit of the foreign licensee. What weight is to be attached to that consideration? There are British patentees who, at the outbreak of war, had unfulfilled orders which may well materialise after the war. Is account to be taken of the profits which they will make from those?

In many cases the factors to be considered are not merely factual, such as fall within the ordinary purview of the Comptroller of Patents, but are, in fact, matters, if I do not use a legal term in the wrongsense, of equity, factors such as are normally considered by the High Court. I, therefore, submit that we should not lightly hand over to the Comptroller of Patents judicial functions which would be more properly exercised by the ordinary courts of justice. As this is, in almost his own words, an ad hoc Bill to deal with the special position which has arisen out of the war, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that it should be limited in some way in time so that, as soon as the accumulation of arrears has been dealt with, the whole matter may be reconsidered, and we may look again at some alternative method of cheapening the means of obtaining an extension of patents?

The second point to which I want to draw attention is the provision made in regard to appeals. Under this Clause the applicant for an extension of patent is given two alternatives. He may either apply to the High Court, in which case the decision is made by a High Court judge, specially selected to deal with matters of this kind, whose decision is final. If, however the applicant chooses the other alternative and makes his application to the Comptroller of Patents, he then has the right of appeal, but the appeal in that case is to another Chancery judge sitting as the Patent Appeals Tribunal. I submit that the purpose of any appeal procedure is to secure equality and similarity of treatment in all cases. Is there not a grave danger that, if an applicant on appeal from the Comptroller has his case considered by one High Court judge, whereas another applicant who takes his case direct to the High Court has it considered by another High Court judge, there may grow up variations in practice which strike at the very root of the whole purpose of the appeal procedure?

I would submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if there is, as there must be, appeal from the Comptroller when an applicant is dissatisfied with his decision, the appeal should be made to the High Court where it would be heard by the same judge— an assigned judge— aswould also deal with an application made direct to that Court. In that way, and in that way only, so far as I can see, is it possible to ensure complete equality and similarity of treatment. These are not legal points, but they are, I submit, of some substance on a purely constitutional view. This Clause creates a precedent which may very well be dangerous. It should not be done, and I am sure it is not being done, lightly; it should only be done to meet a serious emergency such as may well exist. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether this precedent should not be limited in time, and whether, if the precedent is to be created and this procedure is considered to be the only possible way of shortening and simplifying the matter, the appeal provision should not be so made as to secure similarity of treatment as between one applicant and another.

8.47 p.m.

Like other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, I join in welcoming this Bill. It isa Bill designed, obviously, to meet a very exceptional situation which we all hope will not occur again. I agree with those who say the Bill has had a very respectable ancestry. In fact, it is so respectable that it makes one perhaps a little suspicious. I am particularly interested in that part of the Bill dealing with the future of German and Japanese patents. There are those, particularly inventors, who say that the whole patent system needs completely overhauling, but that is a special subject, quite apart from this particular Bill. Patent policy has a very considerable bearing on the future of the engineering industry, both here and in other countries, and it seems to me that the policy should be, in consultation with our Allies, to free the maximum number of industrial processes from German control. 1 believe that to be important for the future peace of Europe, if the war which we have just fought has any meaning; it may help a little towards making it impossible for Germany, assisted by its heavy industry, again to wage war on the rest of Europe.

The acquisition of German patents, research knowledge, and design technique is valuable as a form of reparation which, probably differently from some other types of reparation payment, is likely to provide a stimulus to British technical development. An argument which is sound for Germany, should apply also to Japan, but for obvious political reasons it seems to me that we in this country are particularly concerned with the German position. I, therefore, welcome the provision in the Bill to publish the specifications accompanying German and Japanese patent applications filed in this country. I am glad it is proposed to throw open specifications to public inspection. I think that is excellent, and is preferable to allocating specifications to particular interests or firms. I cannot see that the Germans have any justification for complaint. No doubt, at some future stage they may complain. They were anxious to chain the whole industry of Europe to their war chariot, and it is a very mild consequence, indeed, if they lose their patent applications in the United Kingdom.

That brings me to another point, on which I should like a reply from my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade. What is to be the future of the German patents which have lapsed? From my reading of the Bill, I cannot see that that is covered at all. The majority of German home patents in the United Kingdom are now in this position because, due to the operation of the warsituation, no renewal fees have been paid. At the end of the last war, I believe, a moratorium was granted, and after a period of years, German patent holders had their rights restored to them. I feel that, in the light of experience, we should not make, in the future, gifts of this kind to German big business and German industrialists. Subject to the proper protection of non-enemy interests these patents should not be reinstated. I do appreciate that this is a very complex issue, and involves a great dealof international patent law, which I do not profess to understand. It obviously depends for solution upon a proper understanding between the victorious nations. I should also like to know from my right hon. and learned Friend if patents as such— Iam not talking about applications: I mean established patents— comeunder the definition of enemy assets, because, if they do, it seems to me the situation is much simpler. I should be glad to hear that the Government have this particular question well in mind.

8.53 p.m.

With the leave of the House, perhaps, I may say a word in reply. In regard to the last point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer), I did point out that Clauses 5 and 6 (1) deal with this particular problem. They will not be restored, and they will be published. Therefore, that makes the inventions contained in them available to the whole of British industry generally; and they will not be assets. They will have no value, because they will be public property. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) — the point that was raised by the two dissenting members of the Swan Committee that an applicant should not have the option of applying to the Comptroller— Imay remark that, as the Committee pointed out, this procedure was used since 1919, as regards trade marks, with very great success. Some 350 applications, I think, were made to the Comptroller and 33 to the High Court; which shows the preference of the ordinary person for the cheap way of getting the same result. There you had, similarly, an executive officer who was given power to carry out what hitherto had been a monopoly of the High Court; and that worked, I think, satisfactorily for every one. Moreover, the hon. Member will observe that in Clause 1 (8 b) it is stated:

"(b) if the comptroller considers that the application raises issues of a kind that would be more fittingly decided by the court, he may, if he thinks fit, refer the application for decision by the court."
So that the difficult cases, some of which he envisaged in his remarks, can, if necessary, be referred by the Comptroller to the court. As a matter of fact, of course, the Comptroller has a very large judicial duty. All the questions of grants, of the opposition proceedings, are all heard by the Comptroller, and in those cases he is deciding issues of some importance quite apart from those issues which have to be decided here. So far as the limitation of time is concerned, this is not a matter which one can limit by time, but it is, in fact, limited by the fact that it is only under Subsection (6) of Section 18 of the Act that this procedure can take place at all. As the hon. Gentleman remembers, that is qualified where, by reason of hostilities between His Majesty and a foreign State, the patentee, as such, has suffered loss; so this can only relate to such cases and it would not be fair that at the end of so many months or weeks you should cut off this right that you are giving now. Some of these people may still be in the Far East and may want to make application when they come back. In adopting the majority report, I think we have done the best for the patentee, that is what we aimed at doing; perhaps not the best for the lawyer or the patent maker; but we were more concerned with the patentee, and I am sure he will get great benefit from this by being able to get that extension which, I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, in the circumstances of the law, he deserves to get at the present time

Question put, and agreed to

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Bill

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." — [The Solicitor-General.]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish to speak on this Motion?

I hope I shall be able to keep in Order. With regard to the first of the Amendments—

The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot discuss that until the Amendments come before the House. This Motion is that the Amendments be taken into consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2. —( Reference to tribunal of contracts for furnished letting.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 39, at end, insert:

(" (4) Where on any reference of a contract, the rent whereunder includes payment for services, the tribunal are of opinion that it would be proper that the rent payable for the premises should include an amount in respect of increase since the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, in the cost of providing such services, and are also of opinion that in all the circumstances a rent higher than the rent payable under the contract might properly be chargeable for the premises in order to include an amount in respect of such increase, they may approve a rent higher by not more than such amount as they think reasonable in that respect.")

8058 p. m.

I beg to move, "Thatthis House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House will, no doubt, like a word of explanation of the purpose and effect of this Amendment. It is an Amendment of limited scope. Under the Bill as it stands, unamended, the tribunal to whom a contract may be referred has power to review the rent or to reduce the rent or to dismiss the application. It had not power to increase the rent in any circumstances unless fresh circumstances came to light. The object of the Amendment is the following: it is to give the tribunal an additional power, namely, the power to increase the rent in a particular set of circumstances, that set of circumstances being, where it can be shown that since the outbreak of the war the cost of the provision of services in relation to the tenancy has gone up. If that can be shown the tribunal, upon proof being produced, can, if the Amendment be accepted, increase the rent proportionately to the increase in the cost of the provision of the services, and can authorise the increased rent. 1 would not desire the House to think this Amendment goes further than, in fact, it does. One has to consider the position separately in relation to premises which are controlled by the provisions of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage (Interest Restrictions) Act.

Would the Solicitor-General be good enough to go a little further into this question, and say what he means by the word "services?" I should like to know whether this includes maintenance, for example, of common staircases and other costs which may have arisen.

I think that the answer to that question is to be found within the terms of the Bill itself. There is a definition of "Services" in Clause 12, which states:

"Services' includes attendance, the provision of heating or lighting, the supply of hot water and any other privilege or facility connected with the occupancy of a house or part of a house."
The last words are rather general in scope, and I should have thought they include such things as cleaning of staircases. That privilege is the sort which would come in the scope of the word.

I do not see how the question of increasing rates arises. The services in relationto which the charge can be increased are services which fall within the category of the definition. If it can be shown that the cost of the provision of these services, within that definition, has increased, then, and then only, under the terms of this new Amendment, has the tribunal the additional power of being able to increase the rent. The effect of the Amendment is to give the tribunal a new power. Previously the tribunal could only approve or reduce existing rents, but it can now increase rents in this particular set of circumstances.

I should not like the House to think that the Amendment goes further than it does. One has to consider the position of rent controlled premises within the scope of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, and the overriding limitations as to the increase of rent still apply. Even if the tribunal authorises higher rent than permitted by the Act, the cover over the permitted rent cannot be recovered. In the case of non-controlled premises, when the tribunal authorises an increase, the landlord can wait until the tenancy expires, and then, when he negotiates a fresh tenancy, either with the same tenant or with a new tenant, he can charge the increased rent approved by the tribunal. Therefore, he is in aconsiderably better position from that point of view. With regard to furnished lettings, as hon. Members may know, they are controlled in a sense under provisions of Section 9 of the 1920 Act. If hon. Members will look at Clause 7, they will see that that Section is excluded in relation to registered premises. If a tribunal fixes a higher rent than the rent which would have been authorised under the terms of Section 9 of the 1920 Act, the landlord, notwithstanding that limitation, can recover the increasedrent, or can recover increased rent when he can charge it, a new contract having been entered into.

The effect of the Amendment is not very wide in scope, but it does confer distinct advantages on the landlord, certainly in the case of non-controlled premises, and also in the case of controlled furnished lettings within the scope and meaning of Section 9 of the Act of 1920. The Amendment is moderate in scope and meets what is felt to be a need, in that it enables rent to be made commensurate in regard to the provision of services, subject to the overriding limitations of the Rent Restrictions Acts and in respect of non-controlled premises, the advantage to the landlord might be quite substantial. In those circumstances; I ask the House to approve the Amendment as affecting a limited but useful purpose in improving the Bill.

9.2 p.m.

There are some obscure factors in relation to this Amendment. Having been concerned with this Bill in its various stages in this House, I think that to make two points clear I must refer to the problem which arises, and with which this Amendment apparently purports to deal. It was felt by Members on this side of the House that these tribunals were peculiar, in that, however great the justice might be in a situation that the rent of certain of these properties should be increased or be capable of being increased by the tribunals when they were set up, the Bill as first introduced made no provision for that purpose to provide in the case of flats to let, that what are called services, which include only the use of a lift or the convenience of hot water, where the cost of providing the man who works the lift or the coke that makes the hot water had increased considerably since the outbreak of the war, that it should be possible for an increased rent to be charged.

That contention was resolutely opposed in a Committee of this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. We are now faced with a position in which I suggest that the Government are asking the House to accept an Amendment, which was accepted in another place, on a very real misunderstanding of its effect and which would leave this Bill as a Statute with the most lamentable obscurities, inevitably leading to dispute and litigation. May I explain what I mean on both of these points. Assurances of the clearest kind were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General in another place that this Amendment effected all that had been pressed for by a number of those who raised the same point as had been raised—

:On a point of Order. It is going to be extremely difficult for me to reply, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman bases any of his arguments upon what he alleges was promised in another place, because in order to avert his allegations, I would have to produce the text of what was said in another place, which I cannot do.

On that point of Order. I have always understood that on a Lords Amendment it was proper to refer to an assurance given on behalf of the Government in another place.

If an assurance were given by the Government in another place, an hon. Member may only give his own interpretation of it, but he must not quote from the Debate.

I can refer to the assurance without quotation and without saying what it was.

As far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Corydon (Mr. Willink) is concerned, he can give his own interpretation.

Having seen the assurance which was given I can give my own interpretation of what it was and it was quite clearly this—the question had been raised about the iniquity of not providing in the Bill for increased cost of services for such premises since 30th September, 1939, and it was said that the Bill with this Amendment wholly met that point. That was the assurance as I interpret it when this Amendment was accepted. When I come to look at the Bill as it will be with this Amendment it is abundantly clear that the assurances were not made good. The Solicitor-General has made it quite clear that in his view the Amendment which he is putting before the House leaves the Statute in a situation which seems to me astounding. It is that this Amendment increases the costs of service in flats so expensive that they are outside the Rent Restrictions Acts altogether. In other words, landlords of very large and expensive properties are going to benefit by it. On the other hand, the ordinary run of flats, say of rents between £ 100 and £ 150 per annum, in which the proportionate increase has just been as great, are not going to be affected by this Amendment at all, and that arises from the fact that Clause 7 of this Bill, as it would stand with this Amendment, provides that nothing so far as this point is concerned in the Rent Restriction Acts, shall be affected. To give effect to the assurances given in another place it would be absolutely necessary to include in this Amendment such words as "notwithstanding Clause 7 of this Bill." There is no doubt whatever— and I say it without any hesitation— that the Amendment was accepted as a mistake for the assurance that was given was not made good.

The second point with regard to this Amendment is that it leaves the people for whom Parliament is legislating in a position whereby they will not have the slightest idea where they are. A man is told by this Amendment that he may go to the tribunal for an increase in the rent to meet the costs of increased services arising from war conditions, but if he reads Clause 7 he will see he cannot get that increase because he is prohibited by the Rent Restrictions Acts Everyone knows there is the greatest difficulty in discovering under the Rent Restrictions Acts whether buildings which have certain services and facilities are controlled or not, and so this Bill which is supposed to be a commonsense, simple, emergency piece of legislation to deal with the situation of ordinary people in their flats in regard to services that are used, is left as legislation of the utmost obscurity, because it is possible that a party can make an application for an increase in rent to a tribunal, which will be granted and then they find that they cannot operate that increase because the Rent Restrictions Acts forbid it. It is clear that those who accepted this Amendment in another place did soon the express assurance that it gave effect to the whole of their contention—

On a point of Order. I am not questioning the Ruling you gave a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, but if, on matters of policy, it is right that Ministerial statements in another place, in the same Session, can be quoted in this House, does that apply to an assurance given on an Amendment to a Bill or not?

Curiously enough, that point has never risen before and, therefore, I am in some difficulty. But 1 must stick to what I said, namely, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to give his own interpretation of the assurance, and nothing more than that.

I hope the House will trust me sufficiently to realise that I should not give my interpretation of the assurance without having read, and reread, everything which was said about it. I say, without hesitation, that the present Lords Amendment was accepted by those who were interested in this point because of the assurance which was—

I do not think it is in Order to say that it was accepted by their Noble Lords.

Then 1 will say that it is clear that an assurance was given to the effect that the point raised was met by this Amendment. One can infer what was the reaction of those to whom that assurance was given. One can well anticipate what would be the reaction of those who had received it. In those circumstances— and I challenge the Minister to contradict in any way what I have said— I suggest that the Government, and the House as a whole, should see that this Amendment is considered again, and that consideration should be given to what happened in another place, when the Amendment was sent to us on a misunderstanding induced by those who speak for the Government.

9.18 p.m.

I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) should object to this Amendment. I should have thought that he would have been more than pleased to find that not only what he had asked for had been granted, but that, in view of a certain decision recently given in the courts, not only are the kind of houses he contemplated as covered are so covered, but that hundreds of thousands of houses, in respect of which people think they are prohibited by controls, will also be within the subject matter of this Amendment. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that it has been held recently in a court that if a refrigerator, a cabinet, some linoleum and other odd bits and pieces happen to be part of a tenancy, and if these are worth £ 30 per annum at present, as against a rental of £ 275, the house in which they are placed is considered to be a furnished house within the definition contained in the Rent Restrictions Acts. This will cause great hardship to hundreds of thousands of tenants, and I am sorry that this Amendment has been accepted by the Government.

I would like to deal with the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon. Sections 9 and 10 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage (Interest Restrictions) Act of 1920 are excluded by this Bill from being effective as against a registered furnished house. That being the case, an excessive charge forfurniture, in my opinion— I may be wrong—in respect of a house which is registered, does not come within the penal provisions of that Act. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be perfectly satisfied, because, of course, he would like to see no penalties attached to any excessive charge in respect of furniture or services, and, I assume, would like to see as large a rental as possible paid for furnished houses. The Amendment will do just the opposite of what we had intended to do in the Bill. We contended— I think correctly— that the intention of the Bill was to provide a Measure whereby people could not charge excessive amounts. It was not intended to provide a Measure whereby landlords should be entitled to keep on calling their tenants before the tribunals to ask them to pay higher rentals. The effect of the Amendment will be that landlords will be in a position to do that.

I am very sorry we have conceded this point. I am sorry because I feel that the Bill, as it was, would have been sufficient to meet all reasonable purposes. A landlord could have charged what he considered to be a reasonable rent, even under the Bill as it stood, and if the tenant took the landlord before a tribunal and the tribunal came to the conclusion that it was a reasonable or too low a charge, it would have been in a position to say that it would not register the house. In my view, that would be sufficient to safeguard a landlord, because it would put him in the position of raising his rent under such circumstances. He would be able to do so in a reasonable manner, and although he would be subject to being brought before a tribunal again nevertheless his proper rights would be covered.

Why does the hon. Gentleman say that a landlord letting a flat of the kind I have described for seven years is able to raise his rent during that time?

Surely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not suggest, either as a Member of the House or as a lawyer, that, if an agreement has been entered into for seven years, we should pass an Act whereby that agreement can be cancelled and the tenant be charged an increased rent. That would be introducing into the realm of our legislation something which was entirely fresh and something to which, I am certain, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would strongly object. I do not agree. There cannot at present be an increased rental, as my right hon. Friend knows, unless the contractual tenancy is finished by notice or by the ordinary termination of the tenancy, and a notice of increase of some kind is given. I appreciate that this Amendment is an attempt to get the Measure through quickly. For that reason, and that reason only, 1 would not go into the Lobby against it. I am extremely sorry this point has been concededand I hope that when we come to deal with the whole of the legislation relating to rent controls, the point contained in this Amendment will be modified, and we shall have something of a more reasonable nature. I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that this matter further shows clearly that it is high time we dealt with the whole question of the Rent Restrictions Acts and had a consolidated Act.

9.25 p.m.

I am afraid the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) has missed the whole point of this Amendment and of the Bill. He objected to the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) and said that he was proposing legislation which interfered with contract. That is exactly what this Bill does in any event. With regard to this Amendment, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been satisfied with what the learned Solicitor- General said, that it was only a small and limited Amendment which dealt with a certain class of house. As I understand it the issue here is whether the permitted increases shall apply to controlled and uncontrolled houses. The Amendment permits increases only in uncontrolled houses. It does not permit increases in controlled houses. No question of principle such as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman arises at all if the increases are permitted in uncontrolled houses. There is no reason why the same principle should not apply in controlled houses. One has often heard it said as a platitude that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor, but I am bound to say that I never expected to see this Government subscribe to such a principle

I want my hon. and learned Friend to realise that whilst I agree that the Rent Acts themselves, as a whole, allow the reduction of rents in respect of houses which are tenanted under contracts there is nothing in them which permits the increase of a rent under a contractual tenancy.

No, but when itis affected by this Amendment there will be, and that is the very point to which I am addressing myself. I referred to the platitude of one law for the rich and one for the poor. What would happen by reason of this Amendment, as drafted, would be that the wealthy landowners, the great property owners of big blocks of flats such as exist in London, for instance, will be able to increase rents.

The smaller property owner, with perhaps one house, or the landlady who has one house divided into two or three small flats and who comes within the Rent Restrictions Acts, will not be permitted to make an increase. I will avoid reference to what has occurred in another place simply by putting to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health the question what he intends by this Amendment. I feel sure that he is bound to agree that its effect will be that the owners of large properties, such as Dorchester House or Grosvenor House, will be able to increase rent in respect of services but that the small property owner, in the outskirts of London, for example, will be unable to do so. That is the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and I ask him to say—quite apart from what occurred in another place—that it does not honour the understanding which his own Government entered into with regard to this Amendment.

Having carefully studied the Debate in another place, I want to put on record my objection to this class legislation being introduced by the Minister of Health. His discrimination for the rich landlord against the poor is something which I think all sides of the House should regard with great suspicion.

9.30 p.m.

The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) has obviously spoken with as much sincerity as brevity. The issue before the House is clear. I will make no reference to what was said in another place. If Iattempted to defend myself I should be immediately out of Order. All I can address myself to is the meaning of the Amendment. There have been attempts—

Will not the right hon. Gentleman be in Order in giving his interpretation of the assurance given in another place?

What is in Order is not necessarily obligatory. What I am under an obligation to do is to put the House in possession of the arguments for and against the Amendment. Hon. Members, especially those who served on the Committee which dealt with the Bill, will recollect that attempt after attempt was made by hon. Members opposite to secure the withdrawal of the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts from certain forms of property. Those attempts we resisted on every occasion. Hon. Members opposite are now arguing that they have not succeeded in achieving in another place what was resisted here. I want to make it clear to them that I never intended to concede in another place what I refused to concede to them here, which was to withdraw the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts from those classes of tenants. In fact, from the very beginning, we have made it clear, as will be seen from the Debates on the Second Reading and in the Committee, that it was intended to provide a form of rent control for a class of property not protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts. In other words, we were struggling to extend the area of control and not to contract it. Hon. Members opposite are now pleading that we should withdraw from the Rent Restrictions Acts certain properties now controlled and bring them within this Measure.

It was alleged with some force that a reference to a tribunal might give rise to a lowering of a rent, but a dismissal of the reference would in no circumstances result in an increase in the rent; although it was obvious that if the tribunal dismissed the reference it would do so because it considered that the rent was not only reasonable but probably ought to be higher. So, in order to prevent an unnecessary further reference to the tribunal, it is now permitted to thetribunal to increase the rent where it considers the increase is reasonable. That is the issue, and it is not a wide one. It is not intended to be wide but it is intended to be consistent with the stand we have taken all the way through. It was suggested by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) that a recent decision of the courts had had a most unfortunate effect. Any misfortune of that decision will be mitigated by the Bill. It is true that certain properties will cease to have the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts if that decision holds good, but immediately that protection ceases, the property will have the protection of these tribunals.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him, but is it not a fact that the property will have the protection of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rent Restrictions Act 1020?

I am taking the hon. Member's own argument. In fact, he suggested that the Amendment created a new and greater difficulty because of the decision in the courts. The position until that decision was that certain classes of property, where the actual charges for furniture and services represent a substantial portion of the rent, were still controlled, and no increase was permissible. That decision, however, has withdrawn that property from the protection of the Rent Acts, but immediately it is withdrawn from the protection of those Acts, it falls under the protection of the tribunals because these tribunals are intended to deal with classes of property not controlled by the Rent Acts and, indeed, between the tribunals and the Rent Acts all forms of furnished property will be controlled.

Now it has been suggested that the consequence of the Amendment—quite improperly, because it is a consequence of the Bill—will be to bring these luxury flats in London under review and to enable increases to be made. I am not primarily concerned with defending the lessees of the Dorchester; I leave that to the enthusiastic advocacy of hon. Members opposite. I am concerned to resist at the moment an attempt on the part of hon. Members opposite to withdraw legal protection from the poor, and to enable the tribunals to increase the rents in the case of property now controlled under the Rent Restrictions Acts.

I dare say; I am quite sure you can find poor landlords, but they have never been poor in advocacy. At the moment the Government are adhering, in the later stages of this Bill, to the intention as set out, and I regret very much that the first winter after the war passes to its end before this legislation casts its protection over people who are now forced to pay high rent for furnished houses. Therefore, I beg the House to accept my statement that this is a concession— narrow, it could not be wider, because if it were it would have defeated our intentions — and to give us the Amendment.

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask whether he will not say one way or the other whether an assurance was not given that this Amendment will enable the tribunal to apply an increase in all cases where they thought it could be proper by reason of the increase in the cost of services?

I cannot at the moment give any of the text of such an assurance, but if there were any assurance given anywhere at all that it was the intention of the Government to withdraw the property from the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts, it was never my intention so to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 41, at end, insert:

"(5) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Section a tribunal shall not be required to entertain a reference made otherwise than by the local authority if they are satisfied, having regard to the length of time elapsing since a previous reference made by the same party or to other circumstances, that the reference is frivolous or vexation."

9.38 p.m.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The purpose of this Amendment is fairly narrow. It is in order that a tribunal may dismiss a reference by the applicant before it actually considers it, providing the tribunal considers it is vexatious.

I think it is essential that all genuine applications should be considered and that tribunals should be prepared to hear them. Therefore, I would like some closer interpretation than the right hon. Gentleman has given of the words "orto other circumstances." Those words are rather vague. 1 can understand that when a person is constantly applying to come before a tribunal the reference should be dismissed, but I would like to know what those words really mean.

"Other circumstances" would be such circumstances as the members of the tribunal would consider to be relevant. This point was made several times in Committee by hon. Members opposite. Indeed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) pointed out on several occasions that it would be vexatious if a person, in order to try to inflict injury upon the landlord, caused him to appear before the tribunal on a number of unnecessary occasions. It would be possible here for the tribunal to dismiss the referencewithout actually hearing the parties where it considered the reference to be frivolous.

Would the Minister explain why this does not apply to local authorities? No one would disagree that frivolous and vexatious applications should not be made, but I cannot understand why local authorities are exempted.

That is because obviously a responsible local authority would not make a frivolous application.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6.— ( Provisions as to local authorities.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, leave out lines 9 to 12.

9.41 p.m.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The language of the Bill would have made the London County Council the authority whereas it is the Metropolitan borough councils who have the local knowledge.

Question put, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 5, line 36, agreed to.

SCHEDULE — ( Provisions regarding constitution of tribunal.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 10, leave out "The Minister," and insert" A tribunal."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The purpose of this Amendment is to enable a tribunal directly to appoint its staff under the approval of the Ministerand not necessarily by the Minister in the first instance. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable piece of machinery.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Building Restrictions (War Time Contraventions) Bill

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

9.43 p.m.

I beg to move "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

May I be permitted to explain to the House in the first instant, that a considerable number of highly technical Amendments were put down by the Government in another place, as a direct consequence of the fact that the proceedings on the Bill in Committee upstairs had already started before representations were received from a number of very important local authorities? Discussions on those technical Amendments could not be concluded whilst the Bill was still passing through its various stages in this House. I must therefore ask the House now to consider a number of exceedingly technical Amendments which have been made in another place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.— ( Enforcement after. end of war period of building laws and planning control.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1 line 11, at end, insert:

"or to time elapsing after the end of that period during which, notwithstanding the provisions of the next following Subsection, the building law is unenforceable by reason of the subsistence in or over the land of any interest or right to possession held by or on behalf of the Crown."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The purpose of the first Amendment is to give a local authority the right to impose the ordinary building law against nonconforming works, constructed by the Crown during the war period, as defined in Subsection (1), if the Crown disposed of land on a long tenancy. Building law is, as a rule, enforced by summary proceedings, for which there are various time limits. These will, however, all haveexpired, if the Crown disposes of land more than 12 months after the passing of the Bill. It has been pointed out that in the Bill as it left the Commons no provision was made for the enforcement of the building law in such a contingency The Amendment fills that gap. The effect of Subsection (1) as proposed to be amended, will be that where the Crown disposes of land at any time after the Bill becomes law, the 12 months will not begin to run until they shall dispose of it. In other words, instead of the summary powers of the local authority having to be exercised or fall into desuetude, they can be exer- cised at any time for 12 months after the Crown proposes to dispose of the land.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2. —( Power to sanction war-time non-compliance with building laws or Planning Control.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 40, after "whether" insert "having regard to all relevant circumstances."

1 beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is for the purpose of further clarification. The Bill is already sufficiently clear, but it is believed that these words will make it clearer still.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 5, line 8, agreed to.

Clause 3. —( Supplementary provisions as to enforcement.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 16, at end, insert:

" (b) if such an application has been made which has not been finally determined, no such steps shall be taken until the final determination thereof:
Provided that no notice shall be required under paragraph (a) of this subsection if steps for enforcing a building law or planning control in the case of any works on land are begun within twenty eight days of the final determination of an application under the last foregoing section in relation to the land."

9.46 p.m.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is intended to modify the situation which may arise where a condition or determination by a local authority during the war would become a final determination unless notice were served within a very short period after the conclusion of the war. It would be extremely vexatious for the owner of a property if a local authority had to serve notice immediately, upon all those who had been guilty of a breach of the by-laws. In order that the local authority might be able to exercise its rights, the Amendment extends the period during which the local authority may exercise those rights.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 20, at end, insert:

"(3) Where a determination under subsection (3) of section two of this Act that works or a use of land shall be deemed to comply with a building law has been given subject to any condition as to time or otherwise, and the determination ceases to have effect by reason of the time expiring or the condition not being, or ceasing to be, complied with, any period of time limited for enforcing the law—
  • (a)where apart from this and the next following subsection it would run from the date on which the works were carried out or the use was begun, shall run from the 'late on which the determination ceased to have effect;
  • (b)where apart from this and the next following subsection it would run from the discovery that the works had been carried out or the use had been begun, shall run fromthe discovery that the determination has ceased to have effect.
  • (4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of section one of this Act and of the two last foregoing subsections, the time within which a notice of irregularity may be served under subsection (2) of section eighty-nine of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, in respect of works carried out during the war period shall be the expiration of twelve months from the end of that period or the time limited by the said subsection (2), whichever is the later."

    I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    This Amendment is intended to give effect to the same principle in the special circumstances indicated.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 32, at end, insert—

    "(7) For the purposes of this section an application shall be treated as having been finally determined notwithstanding that under the proviso to subsection (9) of the last foregoing section a subsequent application may be made under subsection (1) thereof."

    I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    On a point of Order. Has the proposed Subsection (4) to Clause 3 been taken?

    That particular Subsection is included in the Amendment which has just been agreed to.

    Question put, and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Statutory Instruments Bill

    Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

    Ordered: "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."

    Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

    Clause 4. — ( Statutory Instruments which are required to be laid before Parliament.)

    Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 30, after "Parliament" insert "after being made."

    9.49 p.m.

    I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    This is a drafting Amendment. It is designed to bring the Clause in which it appears into line with a later Clause in the Bill.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause 5. — ( Statutory Instruments which are subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.)

    Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 20, leave out "by" and insert" in pursuance of a."

    I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    This also is a drafting Amendment which is consequential on another Amendment in the Bill. Perhaps it would be more convenient if I dealt with the substance of it on a later Amendment, which is really the Amendment on which the whole proposal hangs.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment in line 21 agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 25, leave out from "that" to "without" in line 26, and insert:

    "an Address be presented to His Majesty praying that, the instrument be annulled, no further proceedings shall be taken thereunder after the date of the resolution, and His Majesty may by Order in Council revoke the instrument, so however, that any such resolution and revocation shall be."

    9.51 p.m.

    I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    This Amendment is one of rather more substance. It involves precisely the same principle which the House had to consider the other day in relation to the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Bill. It is designed to achieve the following object: Hitherto the Bill provided that in the case of a negative Resolution the simple Resolution of the House should be sufficient to annul, both regulations made by Ministers and also Orders in Council made by His Majesty. It had been represented that it would beconstitutionally more decorous that, in the case of Orders in Council, when His Majesty had made such an Order His Majesty should also revoke the Order, if it were the desire of the House that that should take place. A further argument was adduced in support of this view, that it would be more convenient if, in the volume of Statutory Rules and Orders, there did appear an Order in Council revoking the previous Order in Council so that people who were concerned to know what the actual state of the law was at any particular moment, need only refer to that volume where they would find a subsequent revoking Order. They would not have to search through the volumes of Hansard to see whether the House had passed a Resolution revoking the previous Order in Council.

    This Amendment goes a little further than the Amendment to the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Bill in that it provides—I hope the House will think this is Convenient too—that in Order in Council should revoke not merely previous Orders in Council but also regulations and Orders made by Ministers in pursuance of their powers to make delegated legislation. The advantage of that is the same in relation both to regulations and to revoked Orders in Council. The revocation will appear in the same volume, and it will be much more convenient to people who have to resort to the volume in order to ascertain what is the state of the law at any precise moment. With that explanation, I ask the House to accept this Amendment. It is the same in principle as the Amendment which the House has accepted already in relation to the other Bill which I mentioned. It goes a little further, but in principle it is identical. I venture to submit there is no arguable point of difference, which would distinguish the two Amendments.

    9.54 p.m.

    With great respect to what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has said, it seems to me that this Amendment goes much further than the Amendment which was under discussion on the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Bill. It is desirable that the House should appreciate exactly what they arc being asked to approve in this Lords Amendment. The Statutory Instruments Bill was very fully discussed in this House,on Second Reading, on the Report stage and, I think, on Third Reading, and is a Bill which changes and codifies, for future purposes, the whole law with regard to delegated legislation. Whatever may be the case with regard to the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act— it has received the Royal Assent— that Act will fall within the scope of this Bill because this Bill by Clause 5 (2) supersedes the provisions of any previous enactment conferring the power of delegated legislation.

    This Amendment, to put it quite shortly, concerns the form and degree of control which this House shall have over delegated legislation. The Bill, as it emerged from this House, provided, as the chief safeguard for the rights of the Legislature over the Executive, the power of either House to pass Resolutions, the effect of which would be that any statutory instrument, be it an Order in Council, an Order made by a Minister or a regulation made by a subordinate official, should thereupon, ipso facto, become null and void. It is suggested that the form of words contained in the Bill is a novel form, but in a form which, as the Solicitor-General pointed out in an earlier discussion either on this Bill or the other Measure, is a form of words which has been in use for a very long time— I think upwards of 25 years. There was some suggestion that it was a novel form, introduced for the purposes of the war, but, in fact, it is a form of words which has been adopted in a great many Acts of Parliament. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head, but I can refer to the example, not only of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act,1939, but the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and also to an Act of 1899. My answer to the point previously made is that, if there has been anything discourteous or indecorous in the form of words used, it is a form which has frequently been adopted by this House

    Where one is dealing with the annulment of Orders in Council, one can appreciate the argument that it may not be decorous for either House to annul an Order made by His Majesty in Council, but that argument cannot apply to any other form of subordinate legislation. Ishould not have thought there was anything indecorous or inelegant in preserving the rights of this House to control delegated legislation by passing a Resolution annuling a statutory instrument of which it did not approve, and I should have thought that that was the recognised and appropriate procedure most consistent with the dignity and prestige of the House for expressing such Parliamentary control of delegated legislation.

    The other ground on which this Amendment is supported is that the public should know what Resolutions are passed from time to time, and it is inconvenient to search through Hansard to find out. That is a legitimate criticism. But this objection can be met in a variety of ways, for example, by providing that any Resolution of this House shall be printed and published together with statutory instruments. The necessary regulations to ensurepublicity can be made under this Measure. With a view to preserving the constitutional importance of Parliamentary control over delegated legislation, I hope the Government will adhere to the views which they expressed when this matter was under discussion at an earlier stage, and will not agree to the Amendment moved in another place.

    10.0 p.m.

    I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) is moving the Amendment which appears on the OrderPaper in his name asking the House to disagree with this Lords Amendment and to accept another in lieu thereof or whether he is waiting to do so, because, if so, I am not seconding it.

    "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I started this hare and the hare has now so to speak come home to roost. [An Hon. Member: "A March hare."] I feel extremely grateful to their Lordships in another place, and to theLord Chancellor in particular, for listening to the wisdom spoken in this House. I also think that a happy compromise has been arrived at between the view held by the Government on the Second Reading of the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Bill, and that held by hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if a Resolution were passed, the effect, the value, the legality and the enforceability of the Order in Council concerned should immediately come to an end. I think the words embodied by the Lords Amendment last week, in the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Bill, were a very happy compromise. In regard to the mistake made by some of us as to how old the wording was to which we object, reference was made to the "gay nineties." The wording may have been used in the "gay nineties" and it was used again, I think, in 1911. That was a very tricky time in Parliamentary history, and the wording: "may be considered by Order in Council" was, perhaps, regarded as not strong enough. I hope that the Government, and, in particular, the Solicitor-General, will adhere to the new wording which I feel gives satisfaction on both sides of the House. Whether I should be out of Order or not in referring to new legislation, I do not know, but I do not propose to refer to any future legislation now. I will only say to the Government that they started well in the last Bill, they are very good in this one; may they go on with success.

    10.3 p.m.

    There is one question I would like to ask the Solicitor-General. The Amendment says that after an Address is presented:

    "no further proceedings shall be taken thereunder."
    Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether those words prevent a person taking proceedings, or whether, if he takes proceedings, he is doing something illegal? The Solicitor-General will recollect that one of the arguments used against the words originally in the Bill, was that if a Resolution were passed in the House of Commons annulling an Order, and afterwards a policeman arrested somebody, in pursuance of that Order, the policeman would be open to a charge of false imprisonment. I would like to ask the learned Solicitor-General whether, in his opinion, these words would absolve the policeman or not.

    10.5 p.m.

    If I may have the permission of the House to speak again on this Amendment, I would say in answer to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J.Foster), that the effect would clearly be, for all practical purposes, to bring the Order or regulation as the case might be to an end. I think one is bound to read it as having that effect. With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for EastIslington (Mr. E. Fletcher), I would say that his argument may be an adequate reply from one point of view, namely, on the question of the inconvenience of there being an Order in the volume of Statutory Rules and Orders and no revoking Order. But it doesnot deal with the other point that it would be extremely unfortunate if we accepted this form of words in one Act. such as the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, and then went back in the codifying Measure to another form of words. If we do that and go back to another set of words again, we shall not know where we are. The House, in my submission, should be disposed to- select one form of words or the other. The House did approve one form of words, which I am asking it to accept in the case of the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act—

    On that point, would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that if this Amendment were not accepted, no inconvenience would result from the previous Act, because by Clause5 (2) this Bill will govern any provision, in any earlier Act, with regard to what should take place if any Resolution is passed?

    I should have thought the answer is that there would be a most astonishing conflict in Parlia- ment. I ask the House, in the interests of clarity, to strive after some measure of consistency. There was nothing to prevent my hon. Friend, if he thought the words were inappropriate in the other Act, putting down an Amendment to that effect, but he did not do so. He was a consenting party to a decision of the House on that occasion, and I ask the House to say that that is the precedent which should be followed on this occasion. It is a precedent with regard to which there has been adduced no solid argumentto show that it is inappropriate or wrong. It is a question of choice. This wording as least, has the merit that it is, constitutionally, more decorous, as has been pointed out. The form of wording which my hon. Friend would ask the House to adopt has notthat merit. He makes the point that it is more appropriate in the case of regulations, as distinct from Orders in Council. It is a question of a choice of words, but there is no inconvenience, and nothing which derogates from the dignity or the rights ofthis House, in enabling His Majesty by an Order in Council to put an end to a regulation. I would remind the House that under this form of wording, once the House has directed an Address to His Majesty, nothing can be done affecting the Order in relation to which that Address is directed, so that the House is, automatically, putting an end to the existence of the regulation, or the Order in Council, but doing so in a proper and seemly manner. I ask the House, in those circumstances, to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment in page 3, line 27, agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: In line 33, leave out "not come into force or shall ".

    I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    This is an Amendment which makes the purport of the Subsection clearer. It is a drafting Amendment.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment in page 3, line 39, agreed to.

    Clause 7. — ( Supplementary provisions as to Sections 3,4 and 5.)

    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 37, at end, insert:

    " (3) The provisions of sections four and five of this Act shall not apply to any statutory instrument being an order which is subject to special Parliamentary procedure or to any other instrument which is required to be laid before Parliament, or before the House of Commons, for any period before it comes into operation.''

    I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    Clearly Clause 4 would be inappropriate to Orders and regulations to which the special procedure provided for by the Act of 1945, the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act is related. The object of this Amendment is to remove those Orders and regulations from the ambit of this Bill.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Statutory Rules And Orders

    10.14 p.m.

    I beg to move.

    "That the Select Committee have power to take evidence, written or oral, from His Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any Rule, Order, or Draft."
    The object of this Motion is to enable the Scrutinising Committee to carry out its functions more thoroughly.

    :I beg to second this Motion.

    May I point out that this can be got through tonight, if it is not opposed?

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Housing Associations

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

    10.15 P.m.

    I am very glad to have this opportunity of briefly calling attention to certain aspects of the work of housing associa- tions and housing societies, in which I have been interested, and with which for a number of years I was connected. These associations or societies stand in a class on their own; they are neither municipal nor are they private enterprise, in the ordinary sense, still less are they speculative. They form a class by themselves, and that is a point which is often overlooked or not understood. They have, of course, evolved from the old voluntary housing of many years ago, and it is of the greatest importance to point out that they are definitely non-political; they have no commercial objectives, and theirobject is solely the furtherance of the public good. In the war years they carried out a great deal of very valuable work, which was not always quantitative but was rather, on the whole, qualitative. They did pioneer work in a number of directions, and, in addition, assisted local authorities and, under subsidy agreements, rendered much useful service. I would add that their special nature has been recognised by Governments of various complexions for a number of years. Both their special position and the value of their work have been recognised in legislation, especially in the last 20 or 25 years, not only in regard to subsidies, which have been granted to them on pretty much the same level as subsidies to local authorities, but also in regard to special terms on Public Works Loans Board loans and special facilities regarding guarantees given to them by local authorities. Local authorities have been, and are still empowered, to make grants and loans to these societies and associations or, if necessary, to make subscriptions to their capital. These societies and associations are standing ready to continue their valuable work and again to assist in the solution—

    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present;

    House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

    I was just saying, before that interruption, that many of these societies have already acquired land and some thousands of them are now waiting approval for their schemes. In a number of cases they are already building and completing new houses. I was. extremely gratified by the sympathetic and helpful answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health gave to a Question put by me on this subject on 22nd November. That was in regard to the Government's policy on housing associations, and it was very gratifying to me and to the housing associations all over the country, that the right hon. Gentleman did give them his blessing on certain conditions which, I think, were legitimate. They must be engaged in producing the kindof houses that are needed, and their work must be in supplementation of the work of local authorities. I have no grumble about that. That is accepted by the housing associations, and theyare very happy to continue on those terms. I acknowledge the interest and helpfulness of my right hon. Friend the Minister in the matter. He said that not only would he be prepared to approve arrangements entered into by local authorities with housing associations for subsidy, but also that there would be the necessary allocations of labour and material. That, of course, would be very necessary. The picture was completed by his undertaking that those facilities would be granted. I have also had an intimation subsequently, that as far as Scotland is concerned the same attitude will be adopted and the same policy pursued. That, again, is very gratifying for the rather smaller number of housing associations operating in Scotland.

    There are one or two points I want to make. I raise the first because there has been and is a greatdeal of confusion, in the minds of those who are operating and organising housing associations in various parts of the country. Under the new Bill there is no mention of ordinary housing associations. A special type of housing association is referred to in Clause 18, but ordinary housing associations, carrying on their work and wishing to further their work, are not referred to, for the very simple reason that they are already provided for in the principal Act, that is, the Act of1936. The only difference now will be that they will qualify, if the present Bill becomes law, for the new and increased subsidy. I think it is important to make that point because there is some misunderstanding, and a certain amount of confusion in the minds of those responsible for housing associations up and down the country.

    The next point on which I should like to have a statement from the Minister of Health when he replies, is with regard to the maximum cost figure for the houses produced by housing associations. I think1 am right in saying that there is no maximum figure fixed. They would like local authorities to be expected to conform to the normal level; and it would be, of course, imperative for them to conform to that reasonable level, not only because it is necessary to keep down the cost of the houses produced, but also because it is necessary to conform to the rent requirements, which would be fixed not only by the local authorties but also by the Ministry of Health standing behind the local authorities. The particular point I should like to make, is in regard to rate subsidies. In agreements entered into under the 1936 Act, it is necessary for local authorities to pass on the whole of the Exchequer contribution, but it is optional whether or not they add to thata rate contribution. In my submission, it is desirable that they should pass on a rate subsidy. It is not obligatory, but my view— and I am glad to have the opportunity of expressing it— is that, if these housing associations undertake and carry out part of the necessary work in any locality, they relieve the local authority of a certain amount of its work; and I think it only appropriate that the local authority should pass on a rate subsidy. I personally am hopeful that they would do so, though it is optional.

    Another point I should like to make in connection with these housing associations is in the matter of Public Works Loans. I had occasion the other day to refer to this matter and I think it appropriate to suggest that housing associations should be able to call upon the help, assistance and financial backing of the Public Works Loans Board. In my experience this help has not been very forthcoming. The Board's attitude and policy in the past have been parsimonious. I feel, particularly inview of the new set-up which we are to have, that it is very desirable that they should take up a new and more helpful attitude towards housing associations, realising that the Public Works Commissioners are the servants of the public and should be readyand anxious to assist the work of these housing associations. We had evidence recently of their attitude in regard to loans where they were not prepared to take valuations on a basis of present costs. We are well aware that the public interest must bepreserved, and that it is the duty of the Public Works Loans Commissioners to see that there is no avoidable loss falling on the public purse. When we bear in mind the fact that housing associations normally go to a local authority to secure a guarantee— and the housing associations are unable to secure the necessary degree of finance unless they have the local authority guarantee— I do not think that the Public Works Loans Board should be unduly alarmed in regard to the possibility of default. I think they are adequately protected.

    The question was raised the other day of whether building societies should or could help in the present housing drive. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said it was a matter for themselves, and that it was their responsibility whether they made loans to assist in the present housing effort. It is not proper for them to make loans to local authorities, and the door in my estimation quite rightly is very largely closed in regard to private enterprise, or speculative building as it is often called. But, in connection with housing associations, there is an opportunity for them, if they wish to be helpful, to assist with finance. It would be helpful to these housing associations, and it would be economical to the State, and in the public interest, if the necessary finances were available, on sound and reasonable terms, from these building societies. It is necessary that the terms should be proper, economical and reasonable. I suggest that there is avery useful opportunity for building societies, with their very large available funds, to help in this matter of financing housing, if they are prepared to come in and back housing associations. In that connection, I would mention the lead which has been given by the building society of the Labour Party— the Co-operative Permanent Building Society—which has, I believe, offered to make available, certain limited amounts of money to housing associations, on terms identical with those of the Public Works Loans Board.

    It is closely identified with it. It has been, for many years, operating for the working man. It has been closely linked with the Co-operative Movement and thus with the Labour Party. Those were the particular points I wished to make. It is all to the good that, within proper limits, housing association work should increase. We have seen it working successfully and extensively on the Continent— in Denmark, Sweden, and other democratic countries. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they must work within their proper limits. That has been fully accepted, but as they are fulfilling a useful function, I appeal to the Minister to say the word and enable them to take their proper place in this great work which is so essential to the future of this country.

    10.31 p.m.

    1 rise to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) in drawing attention to the work of these housing associations. 1 think the hon Member will have done a great service to these associations and the cause which they serve, if he succeeds in drawing from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister ofHealth the blessing he seeks. These associations offer a solution of some of the problems of housing. There are the cases in which industrialists have desired to see housing estates grow up near their factories in areas to which perhaps the local authorities have not thought it necessary to devote their first energies. Now, of course the day of the tied cottages or rows of houses near the factory is over. Many industrialists see that this is so and in any case they are not inclined to put down much for housing these days. The housing, associations do give those who are interested the opportunity of getting built the sort of houses they want to have built and of seeing that the houses get into the hands of the member tenants themselves That is a great attraction, it seems to me, for the member tenant. There is one more point which is attractive, and that is that this system enables a member tenant to look forward to changing his house as his family increases or decreases, without the necessity that exists with a building society of entering on a fresh purchase every time. It is for this reason that I hope that the right hon Gentleman will encourage local authorities to permit these housing associations to cover a fairly wide range so that the average cost may be considered where houses are being built in blocks, and where it is sometimes convenient to have a four-bedroomed house or a three-bedroomed house, and perhaps add a couple of flatlets for the old or single folk. Perhaps on the question of average cost, the local authorities would feel encouraged, if the right hon. Gentleman says the word, to give that support to housing associations which I think they richly deserve.

    10.35 P.m.

    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not encourage local authorities to give out their housing programmes to these associations. These associations are a relic of the work done in the interwar years in relation to housing. I am surprised that hon. Members on this side of the House should be arguing what is, in my opinion, the exact opposite of a Socialist belief. A local authority that has to farm out its houses to a housing association has to get the land, has to pay for the land, has to acquire the site and has to pay for the conveyance. The housing association gets the subsidy that the local authority would get. These housing associations build the houses, and then get the rental values, after the ratepayers have paid all the charges in connection with the land. That was my experience on a local authority. I suggest to the Minister that he should encourage the local authorities to build the houses themselves, because the best investment for a local authority is its houses.

    May I intervene to point out to the hon. Member that his conception of "farming out," is entirely wrong? It is a matter of housing associations taking up a part of the work, and assisting the houses to be produced more expeditiously.

    I am not wrong because I have had a considerable experience with the North-East Housing Association, as a member of a local authority. So I know exactly what I am talking about in relation to this matter. The result is that after we have given the land, after we have acquired the sites, after we have paid for the conveyance, they have been building the homes and they are collecting the rents for years and years to come, and the local authority is getting nothing from it. I put it to the Minister that, if there are to be subsidies under the new Bill, our local authorities should enjoy them and should build the houses themselves so that after the initial capital they are spending now, they will reap the benefit and help their own exchequers in the years which lie ahead. I implore the Minister not to encourage these associations which are, as I say, a relic of the Acts passed between the two wars, but to encourage local authorities to build their own houses for the benefit of their people and in their own interests.

    10.38 p.m.

    I want to make my position with regard to housing associations completely clear, if it is not already sufficiently so. I have, I think, conveyed to the North-Eastern Housing Association that their special position comes to an end, but that if the local authorities in those areas wish to avail themselves of the services of the North-Eastern Housing Association, under the existing Acts, the local authorities are free to do so, and I am prepared to approve any schemes they may make in that connection. However, I do want to emphasise—indeed as I have impressed on a large number of conferences of local housing authorities throughout the country in the last six months—that I do not wish to encourage housing authorities to farm out their building. It is necessary they should undertake their responsibilities to the very full. In my opinion it would be an undermining of local government if local housing authorities took such a view of their housing powers that they did not seek to exercise them themselves, but sought to exercise them through a housing association.

    That, however, is not to say, as I have already made clear, that housing associations have not got a useful purpose to serve. There might be circumstances in which a local housing association could supplement, but not substitute the efforts of the local authority. There are some areas where the immediate and urgent housing needs may be in excess of the technical capacities of the local authority. In those circumstances, it sometimes happens that the local authority seeks to encourage the establishment of a housing association, and there, I think, it would be serving a very useful purpose indeed. Of course, we must bear in mind that our limitation on building at the moment is not financial, and therefore the extent to which housing associations and building societies can furnish local authorities with money, will not in any way ease the burdens of the local authorities. Our shortage at the moment—and it will be for some time to come—is a shortage of labour and materials, and not of cash However, the time will come maybe when a situation will arise in which a cash encouragement of the associations may be necessary in order to carry out fully the housing programme. In such circumstances housing associations have a very important function to perform. My attitude at the moment is passive. Local authorities may submit schemes, and if the circumstances are appropriate I may give approval when those schemes are passed to me. It is not possible for me to make any statement at all as to whether local authorities should make a rate contribution to the housing associations to the extent that it would be obligatory on the local authority to make that contribution. The effect would be to stop the housing associations because local autho- rities would say, "We will not support this—it is a permanent charge on the rates."

    May I intervene to say that I, personally, made no such suggestion; nor would I have wished it.

    There may be some misunderstanding but I thought my hon. Friend said it would be desirable for the local authorities to make a rate contribution. I think the local authorities in that case would be less enthusiastic in seeking to foster or form housing associations. I hope that propaganda for the associations will not be in competition with the obligations of the local authorities, but in so far as the associations do serve as a sort of light cavalry in the housing campaign, I support them.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Eleven o'clock.