With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement which, I trust, will clear up a misapprehension that I believe has arisen in unfortunate circumstances. As you are well aware, I endeavoured to take part in the Foreign Affairs Debate, but, despite the fact that I rarely left the Chamber, I was not fortunate enough to catch your eye. I left the Chamber when the winding up of the Debate commenced. As I was leaving, I passed the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as he was entering the Chamber. I greeted him and I proceeded to the Library, to endeavour to make up for time lost as a result of sitting in this Chamber. It was with a certain amount of surprise that yesterday my attention was drawn to the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had spent quite a considerable time in making reference to me. Evidence of that is to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT columns 2122–3–5. I would like my colleagues in the Labour Party to know that I did not speak in that Debate and that I had no notice whatever that my name was to be introduced into the Debate. Had that courtesy been extended to me I should most certainly have been in the Chamber and, believing that many of the statements were untrue, I should have endeavoured to challenge them. That is my statement, that I did not speak in the Debate and I was not informed that my name would be introduced. Finally, I would like your guidance. I have a desire, knowing that many of the statements are untrue, to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I should like to know whether, I am in Order in making an application to do so.

The hon. Member is certainly in Order in wishing to raise the matter on the Adjournment. When the occasion will occur I cannot say. I will make a note of it.

The first thing I want to say is that I was not aware till now that Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith is at present a sick man. I am sure it would be the wish of all Members of this House that I should express our sympathy with him in having been overtaken by illness at this juncture in his extraordinarily difficult task.

A number of Questions appeared upon the Order Paper last Monday, indicating the alarm felt by hon. Members at the state of affairs in Burma. During the supplementary questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) quoted an official report which showed that in Rangoon, in the month of March alone, there had been 246 murders, 558 robberies with attempted murder, 785 robberies and 347 cases of cattle theft. The victims of the outrages were for the most part peaceful peasants and their families. It seems that large bands of dacoits, Burmese and Karen, are roaming the countryside murdering and looting, and not even hesitating to beat up women and children. It is very difficult for us to realise the reign of terror that prevails there and the fear under which the Burmese villagers are living at the present time. These unfortunate people need many things just now, material things like clothing, mosquito netting and tools, but above all they need security against internal disorder, and unless they get it they cannot be expected to go about their daily work. To make matters worse it seems that in some areas the Government have withdrawn the village defence guns, leaving the villagers wide open to attack, with the inevitable result that sooner or later they are attacked. In the West Bank area not long ago villagers fell victims to a gang of murderers and robbers. Very shortly afterwards, the Deputy Commissioner for the Lewe District was given an order for the withdrawal of the defence guns in the district. The villagers generally know where these dacoits are hiding and they know the local " bad hats " who have co-operated with them, but they will not act because they are not convinced that the Government are strong enough to deal with the dacoits or able to protect them from reprisals if they do give information.

Curiously little information about conditions in Burma seems to have reached this country or if it has reached this country it has not been published. That silence certainly needs explaining. Surely it cannot be due to the Government having for some obscure reason, political or otherwise, given orders to the Press to " lay off " news from Burma? Even the Minister himself seems to have been kept somewhat in the dark, because earlier this week he had to telescope the answers to six Questions and admit that he had no specific information regarding a series of outrages involving the murders of several Indian soldiers and Burmese policemen, and armed attacks on railway trains and river craft. I should have thought that, with the situation in Burma being what the Minister admitted, he would have taken the most particular care to keep himself very fully informed about those happenings and about the measures the Government were taking to put a stop to them.

In Burma itself, beyond question the news of these dacoities has been suppressed. News is circulating principally by letter and report and by word of mouth, mostly from men near the spot where dacoities have occurred. Suppression of news is a very dangerous thing. Rumour invariably takes its place and spreads like wildfire, especially among a people like the Burmese who are notoriously excitable and, indeed, inflammable. It is of the utmost importance that the people should be told what is happening. That applies to Britons, Indians, and Chinese, as well as to the Burmese themselves. They ought to be told what the Government are going to do to suppress these dacoities, and news of any successful action that may be taken against them ought to be disseminated. That would at least help to restore the confidence of the people which seems to have been so badly shaken. Propaganda by the Government is conspicuous by its absence. On the other hand, anti-British propaganda is rife, and anti-British feeling is spreading rapidly in certain areas, fanned by tub-thumping seditionists mounted on upturned petrol drums which are the Burmese equivalent of our soapboxes. The story has been going round there that the British and the Americans. are fighting the Russians and that we are losing. Perhaps I should not call that propaganda. It is too like a simple statement of fact. The Burmese, of course, do not lack a sense of humour.

The Government announced more than six weeks ago that the peak wave of dacoity had passed. Every one in Burma knew that to be complete nonsense. The situation was in fact growing steadily worse. A pronouncement which amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking win solve nothing in Burma and deceive no one, least of all the Burmese peasants who were victims of the outrages. According to information I have been able to get, the situation was well in hand when the Army were in control. Every one on the spot agrees that they did a splendid job of work when the reoccupation was over and before othe civil government took over. But a deterioration set in very shortly after the civil government took over in October, 1945. It was not however until about four months ago that the real rot began. If the Minister wants confirmation of what I have been saying, let him call for a report on the PyinmanaToungoo area. Admittedly, that is a bad spot. It was the centre of the Thakin rebellion in 1931. Men who have been in that area told me that four months ago the inhabitants were quite friendly towards us, and now they have become extremely hostile.

Soon after the reoccupation the Government announced that the restoration of Burma's economic life was to have No. r priority and that politics were not to be allowed to interfere with rehabilitation. I must leave it to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), who is just back from Rangoon, to say whether or not politics are being allowed to interfere with rehabilitation. I am concerned with the effect of lawlessness and disorder on the reconstruction of the country and the extent to which that is being held up by the present situation. Burma's economy depends principally on the cultivation of rice, to which I will refer presently. It also depends to a very large extent on certain other industries like timber, oil, minerals and rubber. These industries used to give a great deal of employment in Burma and brought the country great wealth, nearly half its revenue from exports, in fact. It is of the utmost importance for the welfare of the country that these industries should be revived at the earliest possible moment. To achieve this it is essential that the men engaged in them should be able to move about the country freely and carry with them the money necessary to pay labour, without being in constant fear of being robbed and even murdered. But many roads, rivers and railways are unsafe, and there are parts of the country into which no one can penetrate today without an armed escort of 20 men. Even the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company had to suspend their delta sailings during April until their vessels could be protected with steel plates and sandbags and be provided with an armed guard.

These conditions spell economic paralysis. In normal times the police in Burma are quite capable of maintaining law and order, but they are absolutely unable to cope with the situation which exists today. I do not think the Minister will deny that. The country is stiff with hidden arms and ammunition. The dacoits are more numerous than the police and in many cases armed with more dangerous weapons. They do not hesitate to attack police posts, as happened some weeks ago near Shweygin in the Toungoo District, where they captured the township officer, murdered all the police, and seized their arms, and went off with thousands of rupees from the Treasury.

The police complain that they are not supported by the magistrates who are afraid to act for tear of reprisals. The police feel they are underpaid, considering the very dangerous and hazardous nature of the work they are doing. Is it surprising that they are frightened and discontented? It is incomprehensible to me that matters should have been allowed to drift until they reached their present pass. It was not until 14th May that the Government announced that the Army and the Navy were to be called in to support the police. By far the most urgent problem is the confiscation of the hidden arms and ammunition, yet seven precious months have been allowed to elapse without, so far as I have been able to ascertain, any determined effort being made to tackle this problem consistently and thoroughly. I do not minimise the difficulty of the task. It took four years to disarm Burma after the third Burma War in 1883, and the quantity of arms and ammunition hidden in the country now is infinitely greater than it was then, and much of it is much more dangerous. Nevertheless this job has to be tackled. Complete disarmament is essential for the restoration of law and order.

I referred earlier to the cultivation of rice, a subject which is very apropos at the present time. The cultivation of rice is the backbone of Burmese economy. Burma before the war was the biggest rice exporter in the world. The annual crop before the war was rather over 6,000,000 tons, and rather more than half of that was exported, mainly to India and Malaya. Last year 6,000,000 of Burma's 12,000,000 acres of ricefields lay fallow. That means there will be no rice to be exported out of the crop that has recently been harvested. I do not criticise that, considering the appalling state Burma was left in at the time we took over. It would have been nothing more than a miracle if there had been any surplus rice, but clearly it is of the utmost importance, not only to Burma, but also to India and Malaya, that as much as possible of these 6,000,000 fallow acres should be brought into cultivation this year. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman would disagree with that.

With the approach of the present growing season, as far as I can make out, the Government suddenly woke up to the fact that the cultivators were not inclined to grow any more rice and that there was very little hope of the area under cultivation being increased. They offered a grant of 12 rupees an acre, and loans on easy terms, hoping this would tempt the peasants to cultivate an additional 2,000,000 acres. I am afraid the Government are doomed to disappointment. Heavy rains, heralding the approach of the monsoon, fell in the middle of May, and the peasants should have been in their fields by now but nothing, I think, except the suppression of dacoity will induce them to cultivate any fields except those in the immediate vicinity of their villages. That means that Burma is not likely to produce more rice than the country itself will require. What they want is security, not subsidies. I have no doubt an effort will be made to restore law and order, hut it will be infinitely more difficult in the rains, that have now started, than if this problem had been tackled in the dry season. Further there is very little hope of any substantial surplus of rice for export in 1947, because that is the year we are dealing with now. In the present circumstances this is a great tragedy, all the greater because it could have been avoided, at least in part. by vigorous action against the dacoity. The peasants have to be convinced of two things: first, that the Government mean to rid them of this plague; secondly, that they have the strength to do it.

If I have seemed harsh in my criticisms, I can assure hon. Members that they have not been made for the purpose of embarrassing the administration of Burma, but rather with the object of throwing light on the extremely grave situation there and the very great difficulty of putting it right. My purpose really has been to mobilise public opinion in this House and in the country behind the administration in any measures they may have to take—and they will probably be firm measures—before law and order can be restored in Burma.

I am glad to join with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) in deploring the present situation in Burma. He is perfectly right when he says that the situation is serious and that there is widespread dacoity, and particularly in drawing attention to the grave impending famine and the position in the rice cultivating areas. I do not, however, agree with some of his analysis of the situation, and, in particular, I thought he failed to offer any constructive solution. He merely drew attention, which it was perfectly right to do. to the serious situation, but did not really suggest what could be done. No doubt it is for my lion. and learned Friend to answer the hon. Gentleman, but I would like briefly to make one or two suggestions which I hope may be constructive.

In the first place I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is widespread anti-British feeling, as such, in Burma. There is, of course, this intense nationalist feeling which has grown up in all the countries of the Far East and South East Asia, and has been tremendously inflamed by what has happened in the latter stages of the war and the aftermath of war; there is intense nationalist feeling and there is, therefore, an impatience with the continuance of British rule, and with what appears to the Burmese nationalist leaders to be the reinstitution on a big scale of the prewar capitalist enterprises which have for so many years—to use a word which I know my hon. Friend thinks old-fashioned —exploited the people of Burma. This feeling is not anti-British as such. and I am sure that the moment our rule in Burma is ended—as our rule is about to end in India—and the more openhandedly we hand over their own government to the people of Burma. the more gladly will they afterwards co-operate with us in any federal or regional economic arrangements that may be worked out.

The first essential, of course, is that we should make it clear that we are giving Burma her freedom at the earliest opportunity. One hopeful step in that direction was contained in an answer which my hon. and learned Friend gave me yesterday, in which he anticipates that if all goes well it is hoped that a Legislature will have been elected and a Ministry formed before June of next year. Meanwhile, however, there is the coming year and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the situation is extremely grave. He was right to question the power of the present administration in Burma to cope with that situation.

What is to be done? I ventured last Monday, when this matter was raised at Question time, to put a supplementary question in which I suggested that

"The best way of restoring good order is by securing the enthusiastic cooperation of the Burmese Nationalist leaders, instead of maintaining the stuffy, old fashioned, Imperialist attitude still maintained by Government House, Rangoon.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 1610.]

In passing, it is perhaps worth remarking that an hon. Member on this side of the House thought he heard an hon. Member opposite cry "Traitor " at that point. If he was right in thinking that, I can only say that it is an extraordinary reflection on the mentality of any hon. Gentleman who could have said that, and a precise illustration of the last few words in my supplementary question. I think that, whether hon. Members agree with it or not, it is at least an arguable proposition that a useful way to try to restore order in a country where there is disorder, is to get people in various nationalist movements to cooperate, acting as a kind of Home Guard and so on.

In his reply to the supplementary question, my hon. and learned Friend said, quite properly, that the policy carried out from Government House was not an Imperialist policy, and that the Governor was carrying out the policy of His Majesty's Government, which is to move as quickly as possible towards full self-government for the people of Burma. It was not, however, the policy that I had referred to in my supplementary, but something rather less precisely definable—the attitude maintained by Government House. I am not, of course, making any criticism of the Governor himself. I share the sympathy the hon. Member opposite expressed for him in his present painful illness. I am not making any criticism of the Governor himself, although I do not think that he is among the list of potentates who are protected by Erskine May. I think he is a well-meaning man; but I believe that some of the advisers who surround him, although they also no doubt mean well, are congenitally incap able, by their background and training, of understanding the new forces rising up all over South East Asia. That is what I mean by saying that the attitude still maintained at Government House was " stuffy, old fashioned, and Imperialist."

I entirely agree with the hon. Member who raised this matter, that the situation has deteriorated very badly indeed since the restoration of civil government, and that, I think, adds some point to what I am saying; for the leader of the popular Nationalist forces to which I have referred, Aung San—of whom we have often heard in this House before and whom I have described on previous occasions as "The Tito of Burma "—with a full understanding of all the implications of that description—was received last year and offered the hand of friendship by our military representatives, by the Supreme Commander, Admiral Mountbatten, and by General Sir William Slim. I attended the conference at Kandy at which they discussed the future defence of Burma, and there was the greatest cordiality between Major-General Aung San, and the British representatives. They saw a good deal of each other, and I subsequently also saw a good deal of Aung San. I came to value his undoubted gifts, and his qualities of leadership; no one can deny them who has spent any considerable time with him in Burma and watched him talking to people in Burmese towns and villages, and who understands something of the political situation there—for it is, whatever the hon. Member has said, inextricably involved with the economic situation. Politics cannot be separated from economics, and it is a fatal fallacy to think that they can be.

My constructive suggestion to my hon. and learned Friend is that he should urge the acting Governor and his executive council to contact Aung San and the other people who are organising what is known as the People's Volunteer Organisation, the P.V.O., a kind of mainly unarmed Home Guard, and enlist their cooperation. Thousands of young Burmese who fought in the resistance movement against the Japanese, are swarming into this organisation. That is the best way of protecting outlying farms and villages from dacoits—to cooperate in a friendly way, as we cooperated last year with Aung San, and to forget the difficulties and breaches which have occurred since Fortunately, they have not actually led to any open war, or civil war, or bloodshed, but the situation is undoubtedly dangerous. We should forget all that, and make a new start, talk to these nationalist leaders in a friendly way as equals, not patronisingly, and see if we cannot get the P.V.O. working all over Burma in the protection of the farms and villages and paddy-fields. Otherwise, I cannot see how the present administration is in fact going to stop this dacoity and these outrages which are undoubtedly occurring on a very big scale. Incidentally, one of the causes of the formation of the P.V.O., I am sorry to learn from Burma, is an allegation by Aung San that the Kandy Agreement has not been fully carried out on our side. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend can tell us anything about that.

One other suggestion has been put forward by the nationalist leaders, the politicians organised in the A.F.P.F.L. These people do undoubtedly—whether Members here like them or not, personally and politically—represent the majority of the existing political parties in Burma, and their influence is presumably strengthened by the recent withdrawal from the Executive Council of the representatives of the Myochit Party. One suggestion they have made is that there should be an interim National Government, following the pattern which has been followed in various countries in Europe, pending the holding of elections. My hon. and learned Friend told me yesterday that he hopes elections will have been held and a Legislature formed by June of next year. But there is this difficult year first, and the anti-Fascist People's Freedom League agrees with the hon. Member who has raised this matter, that the present administration is not strong enough to cope with the situation. I suggest that the best, most constructive, most specific, way of strengthening it, is to secure the co-operation of the popular organisations, whether or not we like their ideological background and their rather brash nationalism.

I want to conclude by reading a few sentences from what I thought a very wise leading article in "The Times"This week—based, no doubt, on a careful study of many despatches from "The Times" own correspondents, and others, in Burma:

"The condition of the country is such".

says "The Times" editorial,

"That only the utmost endeavours of the most energetic and patriotic elements of the population will suffice to make ordered progress possible. It is precisely these elements which are now alienated from the administration, partly through impatience, and partly through a sense of frustration. The leaders of Burmese opinion, regardless of party, have now a long list of grievances, many of them reasonable, against the existing regime. They complain that the present members of the Executive Council are not representative of the political temper of the country; that they have no real authority; and—"

This, I think, is most important, looking forward to next year, and the years of self-government for Burma which are to follow,

"—and that they are receiving no training in the responsibility which they, or their successors, must shortly exercise in the spheres of defence, foreign relations, and economic reconstruction."

I believe that these are wise and true words; and they help to underline what the hon. Member has said about the seriousness of the present situation in Burma. I hope that what I have said may at least suggest one constructive line of thought to those who are trying to meet this very difficult situation.

I was at Rangoon at this time last week with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams), and I would like to give the House details of the impressions which I formed. It is true it was a short visit but we had the opportunity of meeting members of the administration as well as the leaders of the two chief political parties. What struck me first of all was that the situation in that part of the world was far worse than I had been able to gather from anything which I have read. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) that far too little information is coming out of Burma, or if it does come out of Burma we do not seem to be able to read about it. I think the facts of the situation are undeniable. Trains are being looted. They leave Rangoon to go to Mandalay and their cargoes just do not get there. Lorries disappear with their drivers and their contents, murders occur daily, and in large parts of the country the Government have no control at all. Parts of the country are in fact under the control of the dacoits.

What are the causes? The first thing I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman—and I hope he will tell' us something about it—is: Has the Governor adequate powers which he himself can exercise on the spot without referring to Whitehall? Is he being supplied with all the men he requires? What is the condition of the police force? With regard to that question, may I ask what are the police force being paid? Are they merely being paid 15 rupees a month, as they were before the war? One cannot have an efficient police force with the pay at 15 rupees a month and certainly one cannot get an honest one.

Hear, hear.

I would also like to raise the question of the recruitment of a gendarmerie. There is a, very large military force in the country today who are not suited to chasing dacoits or to the day to day work of maintaining order. Might it not be necessary for the next few years to recruit a special force under the control of the Governor which would be responsible for the maintenance of law and order? I would also refer to the appointment of the acting Governor which, I believe, has raised a large amount of criticism in Burma already if for no other reason than that he has come from India and is a member of the Indian Civil Service. I do not say anything against him as a civil servant or as an individual. He is a man who has had a very distinguished career; but was it really wise to appoint an acting Governor from India when everybody knows that half the trouble in Burma today is due to the feeling which exists between the Burmese and the Indians?

I think the second cause seems to be the general economic uncertainty. That is causing unrest all over Burma. I do not think that many people in this country realise that Burma is the most devastated area in Asia. The country has been fought over during three campaigns and the devastation is comparable to what one finds in the Ruhr or, at any rate, in parts of the Ukraine. We ourselves went in for a policy of scorched earth before we left Burma. There does not seem to be a town or a village which has escaped either complete destruction or very severe damage. Rangoon is a mere shell and I am told that Mandalay is worse. Nobody seems to know how much it will cost to put all this right but the figure will run into some hundreds of millions of pounds. I think the Government should come to a decision as quickly as possible as to who is to pay for it. There seems to be an idea locally that this vast sum of money is to come from Great Britain which means that it is to come out of the pockets of the British taxpayer. Is that true?. Can we ask the people of this country, who suffered so much in the war, to pay for the rehabilitation of Burma? We have lent over —85 million, a lot of which we may not get back, but that is for immediate use, to buy goods and so on. Who is to pay for the physical damage in Burma? Who will put the railway right, rebuild Mandalay and Rangoon, restore the waterworks, electricity works and so on? That, I think, is one of the great outstanding questions.

Is India going to put up any of the money? Is India, with its much swollen. sterling balances, going to make any contribution at all to Burma? It was the sacrifice of Burma which saved the rich cities of India. There is a strong moral claim for India being asked to bear some share of the cost. Is Burma to get any reparations in kind? We gather that Russia, who was only eight days in the war against Japan, has not done too badly out of the looting of Manchuria. Is Burma to get anything from Japan itself? They have a far greater moral claim than almost any other country in the whole of Asia except possibly China.

I think the third cause of this unrest arises out of the confused political situation. To my mind, the political situation in Burma today is so fantastic that it would easily form the basis of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. First of all, one of the leading characters today who has just resigned from the Governor's Council is USaw—

He has never been on the Council.

Has he not just resigned?

He was not on the Council.

Well, he is one of the leading political figures in Burma today and I gather that he hopes to become an even more leading figure. His record is something of which we in this country should take no particular pride. He was a man who allied himself with the Japanese before Pearl Harbour and who was interned during a large part of the war. Then there is Aung San, to whom reference has been made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), who described him as the Tito of Burma. I was not going to insult him by using those words but, to.put it mildly, he is certainly a colourful character. Whilst he is not a member of the Governor's Council, members of his party, I think, have from time to time become members.

I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. Member has got his facts quite wrong. U Saw was never a member of the Executive Council, nor was Aung San, nor any member of his party—or rather. league of parties.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his correction. Aung San was a man who had allied himself to the Japanese long before the war started and he was, I believe, trained by them in the island of Hainan. He helped to lead the Japanese army in Burma and he fought on their side until 1944 when he had the good sense to " bale out " and come over to our side, calling himself a major general. This is the man with whom we made what I think was a most unfortunate agreement or pact. Treason is treason wherever one may be. On top of that, the man has a charge of murder hanging over his head. The man is alleged to have murdered a Burmese with his own hands. To accept such a man in wartime is bad enough but to have any truck with him in peacetime to my mind means the destruction of the basis of all honest Governments.

May I interrupt again? The hon. Member has made a very strong attack on a man whom I have defended in this House May I ask him to bear in mind that the title of major-general—by which, he said, Aung San called himself—was bestowed upon him by the Supreme Allied Commander at a time last year when the Supreme Commander and General Sir William Slim were publicly thanking Aung San for his services to the Allied cause?

I said it was most unfortunate that we had accepted this man in wartime; to accept him in peacetime, to my mind is quite indefensible. Why is this man allowed to keep what is virtually a private army at the present time? He admitted to me that he had about 9,000 men, who accept orders blindly from him. He called them, rather delightfully, I thought, an ex-Service association. One can call it that if one wishes, but I think its proper description is a private army. Today, every Government servant wonders what is going to. happen next year when the elections take place, and whether Aung San will get back, as I think he will. Today, no Government servant, unless he is a man of very strong character, likes to take a strong line against Aung San's followers, who, I am informed, are going round terrorising the countryside and breaking up political meetings. Is there any wonder that there is lawlessness in Burma when we tolerate a man like this going round with his private army? What hope is there of moderate, decent-minded Burmese taking part in public affairs when they see what is going on?

What is going to happen next year when we have the elections? What chance is there of holding proper elections in the country until law and order have been restored? To my mind, the great danger is that Aung San's organisation will go round terrorising the voters and that he will be returned to power, and the first result of a free Burma, to which we are all committed, will be what is virtually a Fascist regime with Brownshirts supporting it, as they did in other parts of the world. In other words the situation will be indistinguishable from Franco Spain or other parts of the world where similar things have happened. It is a pretty commentary on the idealism with which everyone was looking forward to a democratic Burma. This terrorism and uncertainty in regard to the future of Burma is, I think, doing far more than anything else to hold up the economic rehabilitation of the country. What Burma needs today is not only its own capital invested in the country, but outside capital as well. Those people who invested money in Burma in the past are wondering whether it is the slightest use attempting to put it back. If Burma is to be handed over to what is virtually Fascism, and severs her connection with the British Empire, does anybody in his right senses think that any money will be invested in the country from now on?

That is the situation as I see it. I believe that what the Government have to do is not what the hon Member for Maldon said, that is, get in people with appalling records like this man, but to carry out the first function of government, which is to govern, establish law and order in the country and enforce the law. To my mind, murder is the same thing all over the world, whether carried out by a peasant or a politician. I see not the slightest hope for the economic recovery of Burma, or for its political advancement on sound lines, unless, first of all, law and order are restored, criminals are brought to justice and confidence is restored in honesty and fair dealing.

I have not the same advantage as the hon. Members who have spoken and who have recently spent some time in Burma, but my interest in the Burmese people comes from the knowledge I gained of those Burmese who came to the university town of Cambridge and among whom I had many friends. Although I know that the condition of the people today is such as has been described, some of the accounts which we have had of the Burmese are hardly reconcilable for me, with my recollection of them as a charming gentle people, which they are in their ordinary lives. Indeed a more charming people it would be very difficult to find. All of us who are interested in the Far East and in Burma particularly are anxious to see the present situation ended, and their rights restored to the people.

I am interested, however, not so much in what has been said by the previous speakers as in what has been left unsaid, We are all agreed on the restoration of law and order and of the economy of the country. But a great deal of money is required, and the people are wondering where the money is to come from. It is obvious that in the view of certain people there is only one way of doing that, and that is by the continued exploitation of the people by private enterprise. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) hinted at it, and even went so far as to ask if it was possible that we could expect people who already had interests in that country, in view of what is happening there, to continue their interest if there was a Fascist regime in the country. That is a very loosely-applied term. Does the hon. Member regard the present regime in Czechoslovakia or the present regime in Yugoslavia as Fascist regimes, or does he mean that Fascist regimes and regimes of that kind are interchangeable terms? I think what the hon. Member means is that any country in which the people come into control is a country of which we must beware.

I have followed closely all that has been written recently about Burma, because of my interest in that country and also because of the fact that I had a nephew fighting in Burma, who was helped by many Burmese and would, probably, without that help, have died in the jungle. Because of these things, I have taken a great interest in this country, and I want to see those who fought in the resistance movement, in particular, learning how to control and govern their own country. I think that, in the strictures we have heard about the leader of the resistance movement, the real criticism was directed against a man whom we all honour, on both sides of the House, because it was he who saw the value of that movement and gave valuable help in bringing it out of its difficulties. I hope that the suggestions which have been made by the hon. Member for Malden (Mr. Driberg) about help in bringing back the country to its former position will be included in the solution to be applied to this problem.

I listened with very great interest to the case made out by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. NevenSpence) and to the different views expressed about Major-General Aung San by the hon. Members for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). As I see it, and in accordance with all the information I have received, this man would undoubtedly describe himself as a patriot, in the sense that he aims at the independence of his country, for that is his one and only guiding idea. In that idea, he was prepared to ally himself with Japan against us and, when he thought there was more chance of getting independence for his country through an alliance with this country, he was prepared to do that. The question, which I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply to consider very carefully, is whether in view of the support he enjoys in Burma, Major-General Aung San's services could not and should not be enlisted by us in order to help in the recovery of the country.

I could not help feeling that the political question is not the dominating issue in this case, since political agitation is largely confined to the towns. But the writ of the Government hardly seems to run these days outside the towns. The towns, I am told, contain less than 20 per cent. of the total population of Burma. It is in the So per cent. in the country districts where people are less politically conscious that this dacoity is going on at the present time. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland made it very clear how communications are completely disrupted; how every bus, every convoy, every lorry, train and river boat has to have a police escort. One of the reasons why the rice cultivation is so retarded at the present time is that the villagers are unwilling to build their huts more than half a mile away from the villages themselves. The reason for dacoity and for disturbances of this kind is almost invariably poverty. As I have seen in Madagascar and other countries, unless the producers of rice crops have something to buy with their money they will not exert themselves; unless they have clothes to put on, they will not go out into the fields in the monsoons.

When General Lyautey was participating in the conquest of Indo-China, again in Madagascar and again in Morocco, he made it a cardinal point of his campaign to set up markets everywhere, and to see that they were well stocked. It is eight months since the civil Government came back to Burma. Undoubtedly they were welcomed back, and the Burmans looked forward to a rapid improvement in their situation, to more goods and to security. The goods have not arrived with great rapidity. I would ask the Minister if it is not possible, first of all, to ensure a more rapid arrival of clothes, of tools, of implements and of the various things that they require for their every day life, and secondly, to organise markets when those goods arrive, and to see that the present situation is not maintained whereby goods bought in the towns can be sold for to times their value outside. The bare fact is, dacoity has increased by something like 12 times since before the war. I would join with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey in asking the Minister: What are the conditions offered to the police force at the present time? Are they adequately paid? Has there been any attempt to enlist the People's Voluntary Organisation? Could he say something more about that? If they are to be enlisted, and if their assistance is to be obtained, it must not be by means of an alliance with them, but they must be definitely taken on as servants of the British Crown. They might be used in the same way as the Black Watch, who were Highlanders, were used for the maintenance of law and order in the Highlands. I have no doubt my own ancestors had great experience of dacoity when times were bad. The Minister might do well to consider the means that were taken in the Highlands to make the Highlands an area of peace and contentment, if not prosperity.

To what extent are the military being used now? There is a strong feeling that the military are not being adequately used. It may indeed be that they are not entirely suitable to deal with dacoits. On the other hand, it is, to say the least, astonishing to villagers when military are in the area and cannot be used. That is the information I have, that in many cases, owing to the absence of the magistrate or something of the kind, the military cannot act rapidly in the pursuit of dacoits. It is necessary that we should utilise every possible section of the community in the pacification of the country. I most earnestly urge the Minister to concentrate on obtaining supplies for the country, because if clothing and implements are brought in in adequate quantities the people will start to work, the interest of the people in their work will increase, and they will be more eager to organise themselves for defence against the dacoits. In a report which I have read it is said that a man who was in charge of 12 villages, the village headman, had only 12 weapons with which lo defend those villages. Can the Minister tell us this afternoon what provision is made for the organisation of, say, supplementary local police, recruited from the villagers themselves, what arms they are given and what Government support they receive? While it is obviously most undesirable that we should arm the whole of Burma to deal with dacoits—we must be very careful to maintain the proper channels of authority—it is obviously necessary to obtain the cooperation and good will of all peace loving citizens in the defence of order in Burma.

While appreciating the kindly sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) when recalling those delightful and charming friends at Cambridge—and I have known many Burmese myself who were very charming people—the lion. Lady should bear in mind that the relations of those charming people in Burma are the very people who are being beaten up by the dacoits. We must keep our feet on the ground in this matter. Equally, the threadbare clichès of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) about Imperialism, and all that sort of. thing, do not bear examination. The main fact on which we have to insist—and I hope the Government in replying will emphasise it—is the maintenance of law and order. That is the basis of all civilisation, so far as government is concerned. An impression of weakness is just as bad as a real weakness, particularly in oriental countries. I have lived and worked in the East for a great many years, and I know perfectly well that bazaar rumour is just as powerful as fact —in fact, sometimes more so. It is essential that the Government must not only be firm themselves, but must let everybody know that they are and that they intend to be firm.

If the hon. Member for Maldon found the peasants beating up the dacoits, I wonder whether he would not regard that as some form of Fascist organisation beating up democrats, because that usually seems to be his attitude when such things happen elsewhere. What we want to get out of this Debate today—and we are all after the same thing—is an assurance that Burma is to be put in order once more. We have a great responsibility. If we clear out of Burma it is pretty certain that somebody else will go in. That is what happens to weak countries which are disorganised. When the Government come to reply I hope they will emphasise that, whatever happens, law and order will be maintained on behalf of the people of that country, and that after that has been done, but not before, the question of rehabilitation and restoration will be gone ahead with as quickly as possible.

The Government have had to face a most formidable indictment of the present policy and position in Burma. I trust that a serious and comprehensive answer will be given to all the points that have been put forward from this side of the House. I am sure we are obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) for raising this matter, and to other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in the Debate. Burma is very much in the news at the moment. I believe we are to discuss it again on the next Friday on which we sit. Therefore, I shall make only a short contribution to back up what has been said on this side of the House, and to support some of the contentions of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) who has just returned from that country. In passing, may I say with what satisfaction we have seen certain political developments that have been taking place in India. We on this side of the House and, I am sure, all hon. Members, are standing by our undertakings about the political future in Burma; and, therefore, I shall not devote much time to that today.

We stand by the White Paper. We welcome the programme of political development which lies before the country, and we look forward to the establishment of the Legislature and Ministry by June of next year. But what is at stake is this: Dacoity, lawlessness, economic disorder and tragedy are facing the present temporary administration in Burma, and will certainly overwhelm any new administration that takes over next year unless something is done about it quickly. The hon. and learned Gentleman in replying will have to face that situation, and I hope that the Government will make an announcement today which will give some satisfaction. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) was rather inclined, I thought, to think that the mere establishment of a new Legislature and a new Ministry a year hence will, of itself, right all this. But what I think he will accept, as indeed the hon. and learned Gentleman himself must accept, is that, if these conditions go on, no Government will stand a chance, and that they are not going to give the Burmese any desire for self-government and a real opportunity, which they should have, to rule their country in the right way.

I turn to the examination of one or two ways of putting this situation right. It seems to me that the civil administration has to do a great deal better than it has done hitherto, if it is to earn applause or, indeed, to earn the satisfaction of this House. The police position seems to me to be very serious indeed. As I understand it, there are some 13,690 civil police in the country; some 6,796 armed police; and the usual force of ordinary constabulary. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman regard this police as sufficient to keep law and order at the present time? I understand that the proposal has been made to add some 6o further officers to the police force. But are they to get on with the job? I understand that these officers are being asked to return first to the United Kingdom for examination into their suitability. Frankly, if that is the sort of way the problem of the increase of the police force is being dealt with at present it is not good enough.

What is wanted, in my view, is some organisation of an armed police force, from whatever quarter it comes, which will, in the immediate future, restore the ordinary decencies of government to the country. It is really quite undesirable that what limited transport there is—and transport is one of the main problems in Burma—cannot move about owing to the interruption by dacoity and terrorism; and until that situation is removed I see no hope whatever of establishing proper self government or good government in Burma. Therefore, can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us the assurance that steps will be taken, in consultation, if necessary, with the military, for the establishment of an armed police force which will restore law and order in the country and enable things to start working properly? My hon. Friend the Mem- ber for Hornsey asked whether the Governor has sufficient powers, and trust that in this interim period he has the necessary powers, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us satisfaction on that point.

There has been a great deal of talk about this question of exploitation, and some loose reference was made by the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs Manning) to the evils of private enterprise. If there were a little more of the elasticity of private enterprise in Burma at the present time there might be more hope for the country. What is happening is that a series of undertakings described as " projects " have been initiated by the Governor. As far as I can see, a " project "Is a contribution to the sort of science of economics which is peculiarly Burman. It causes great dissatisfaction to what hon. Members opposite would call the " ex-Imperial " enterprises who did so much to make Burma one of the richest and happiest countries in the world before the war. If the hon. Lady would look, for example, at the report of the annual meeting of Steel Brothers and Company she would find grave dissatisfaction with the Government at the present time. In fact, the chairman, Mr. Michie, who probably knows as much about Burma as anybody else in this country, or even there, voiced the wholly laudable feeling of exasperation with the British Government and the Government of Burma in these words:

"Instead of settling the legitimate claims of commerce and industry, thus enabling business in Burma to get going again, the bureaucrats prefer to finance Burma's recovery by making large drafts on the British Treasury, and so the economic reconstruction of the country is held up the colourful "

as he describes it —

" and painfully Byzantine notion that by forms and files and memoranda alone the life of the country can be rebuilt."

It does not look as though private enterprise were being unduly spoiled by the Government. I shall, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give us. some further satisfaction, not only about the police, but as to whether this " project " scheme in its operation is working satisfactorily. I asked him a question only a day or two ago about the provision of consumer goods in the rural districts, and about the index figure of prices and costs. If he could give us some information to show that consumer goods are going back into the country districts and that the project system is working, so that what is to a large extent the expenditure of public money is proving worth while, it would be helpful to us.

I do not think I need to delay the House any longer. The one point I wanted to make I made at the beginning of my remarks, and that is that no Government, whether Burman or otherwise, will give itself a chance unless it restores law and order. That is the primary interest at the present time. In my opinion, the whole future of Burma is at the moment at stake. I do not share in the criticisms of the Acting Governor who has been appointed. What is wanted at the present time is a first-class administrator. What is best administered is best. After that, we can proceed forward with the political programme. As far as I understand it, the Acting Governor is a man of rare administrative ability, and I should not like it to go out from this House that there is any criticism of him. But I should like him to know that he has behind him the support of His Majesty's Government and that he has sufficient powers. I trust that when the administrative problem has been solved and law and order restored the Burmans will proceed with their programme—and that, we trust, because of the present alarming reports, will not be long delayed.

I think the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. NevenSpence) for raising this issue on the Adjournment Motion today. It does, at any rate, indicate the interest that is taken in the House itself in the affairs of Burma. There can be no gainsaying the importance of the people of Burma realising that Parliament here I continually and actively concerned with Burma's affairs and with her restoration to normal conditions. The hon. Gentleman and, I think, one or two other speakers, have complained about the lack of information, and that it is not possible to read about what is taking place in Burma. That, I am afraid, is a matter over which I have no control. Hon. Members will remember that on Monday a large number of Questions were put to me about con- ditions in Burma, and I think that one or two of the replies, at any rate, must have been of considerable importance to those who are interested in Burma; and yet, as far as I know, no single newspaper in the country published any reports of my replies.

Because there is not enough paper.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong there. There is plenty of room for the matters which are considered of interest. That is something over which I certainly cannot exercise any control.

Before replying to the Debate as a whole, I should like briefly to review and restate the policy of His Majesty's Government. The House is aware, of course, of the intentions of the White Paper, to which reference has been made. The first suggestion which the White Paper provided, namely, rule by the Governor, without an elected Legislature and without a Ministry, will shortly draw to a close. It is of the utmost importance, in the view of His Majesty's Government, that the election should be held at the earliest possible date, and that Burma should he provided with a democratically elected Legislature, from which a Ministry on a democratic basis can be drawn. As I told the House in April, and the right hon. Gentleman has made reference to the fact, it was my hope that a Ministry would be in power by June of next year. The physical and other difficulties in connection with the preparation of an electoral roll and the holding of an election in Burma are great, but every effort is being made to advance the date of the election as much as possible, and I am not without hope that it may yet be possible to hold the election as early as April of next year, and to have a Ministry by that date.

I am sure the hon. and learned -Gentleman would give an assurance, in that case, that he would be satisfied that the election would be a free and fair one, and not be spoilt by the lawlessness of the present type of dacoity that is going on.

I hope that by then the Government of Burma will have the situation, so far as dacoity is concerned, well under control. Obviously, if conditions of insecurity are so widespread as to make it impossible to hold the election then, a different situation will arise. I am assuming that the conditions will permit the election to be held in April. We may fail in our efforts to have it in April, but that will not be through want of trying. Once the election has been held, and there is a democratically elected legislature, it will be essential, and it is the firm intention of His Majesty's Government, to press on, without delay, with the remaining stages of the White Paper; with working out the arrangements by which Burma is to signify her wishes in the constitutional field, and with the framing, by the Burmese themselves, of a final constitution for a self-governing Burma. I can say nothing today about the precise machinery that is to be adopted. That is a matter that needs further consideration in the light of the views which we hope to receive, in due course, from representative Burmans. I would like to reiterate our anxiety that there should be no loss of time, and that progress should be made with the minimum of delay.

So much for the present position, and for the intentions of His Majesty's Government. I would like to pass from the general issue to the references and suggestions that have been made in, and, indeed, outside this House, as to the importance of a really broad-based Executive Council in the interim period, and to say a word or two on that subject. The House will know that, under the present law, responsibility during this period is vested exclusively in the Governor, but in actual practice it has been the policy of the Governor to give the utmost freedom to the prominent Burmese public men who form his Executive Council. While technical and constitutional responsibility obviously rests with the Governor, in practice these Executive Councillors have full responsibility inside their departments. They are in the full confidence of the Governor; they have a decisive voice in policy over the whole field that lay within the scope of the ministerial Government which existed in Burma before the Japanese invasion. There has been no suggestion, so far as I am aware, by any member of the Executive Council that it is not being fully trusted and taken fully into confidence.

I would like to take this opportunity to say how much His Majesty's Government regret that the Executive Council still does not contain representatives of a most important Burmese political party, to which reference has been made—the A.F.P.F.L. There has been reference today to this organisation, and I am quite prepared to accept the view that this is a party with strong support and very great possibilities. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), I think, stated that he believed that it would win the next election. I would like to say that "The door remains open " for their entry to the Executive Council, and I hope sincerely that they will reconsider their position of last October and be willing, in the few remaining months before the election takes place, when they and other parties can then test the feeling of the country at the polls, to take part in the work of Government and to realise, by political experience, how great are the responsibilities that fall on the present Executive Council and contribute their share to the rehabilitation and the reconstruction of their country.

Do I understand from that, that it is not the intention of the Government to proceed with any charge of murder which is hanging over the head of Aung San, and does he propose to do anything to disband Aung Sari's army before the election next year?

With regard to the last point, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait a little while until I come to the question of law and order. As regards the question of the charge against Aung San, that is not relevant to what I have just said. What I have said indicated that His Majesty's Government would welcome the full cooperation of the party known as A.F.P.F.L. in the work of the Executive Council. The question of whether Aung San committed a murder or not is, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, a matter for the process of law in the country.

May I say a few words with regard to the large number of points which have been made today on the law and order position in the country? I want to be quite frank and to say, as I said the other day, that there can be no gainsaying the fact that the position in Burma is still serious. The reasons are not far to seek. Some of them have been given by hon. Members today. Burma has been twice fought over, and the restoration of normal conditions must inevitably be gradual. The police and other services have to be reassembled and retrained. Economically, the country has suffered from the years of Japanese occupation, and normal conditions can be only gradually restored. There is, indeed, another very important point. The months following the harvest—that is roughly the months from February up to the breaking of the rains in May—are, at the best of times, I am informed, a restless season. The ground is dry, and there is no work to be done in the fields. It has normally, in the history of Burma in the past, been a period in which there has been temporarily a sharp increase in crime. I think that should be borne in mind in considering the actual number of incidents that have recently come to the notice of hon. Members. Moreover, the aftermath of resistance, coupled with the arms with which the country is flooded as the result of the two campaigns through which it has passed, make dacoity a more formidable matter than would normally be the case. Gangs carrying mortars and automatic rifles and trained in guerrilla tactics are a serious proposition to handle even at the best of times, but headway is being made in getting the situation under control by the civil police in cooporation with the military. I cannot tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Major Macpherson) to what extent the military are being used; I think he rather shifted his ground a little from suggesting that the military were not being used to suggesting that there was some delay in securing their services.

I was trying to point out that according to the information I have received they were not in my opinion being used to the fullest extent or in the most expeditious manner possible.

I think I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the military are being used and I have a report which refers to the fact that something in the nature of combined operations has been put into execution during recent months with some degree of success. I can assure the hon. Gentleman also that the military are being made use of to a very considerable extent. There is another side to this question—the shortage of experienced pace officers. The Burma services endured severe losses during the war, although I am glad to say that the gaps in their ranks are being filled. With the help of Lord Louis Mountbatten arrangements have been completed in the last few days for the recruitment of a number of officers of the younger age groups on short term contracts

In this connection I want to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), that he understood that 6o police officers had been recruited and were being brought over to this country to be sorted out and for a decision to be taken as to whether they were suitable or not, while in the meantime, no doubt, the dacoity was continuing. I think there is a misunderstanding there. For the purpose of dealing with dacoity and gangs armed with modern weapons something in the nature of a force officered by men with military experience is obviously required, and what the Government of Burma have sought to do, and have in fact done, is to secure volunteers from the military services to act for the time being as police officers in charge of detachments whose main task is to deal with these bands of dacoity. They are not going to be brought home for any inspection or for any purpose of selection or decision as to whether they are suitable. They will be, and are being, drafted into Burma and put in charge of these detachments in order to deal with this problem of dacoity, and I think that is where the misunderstanding has arisen. The bulk of these volunteers will go to the police and a few to the general administration. Once they are available I think they should be of real value in lightening the burden which the administration is at present carrying

Extensive touring by the police and the Civil Service is of the very greatest importance in this connection. We have done all we can to help them over transport and I know that the Governor fully realises how great a difference it will make to the reestablishment of normal law and order conditions that -the representatives of the Government should be able to tour extensively through their districts. Reference has been made to the question of village defence. I can say that village defence schemes have been or are being organised and that firearms have been made available in connection with these schemes to the greatest possible extent. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), however, made the suggestion that the volunteer force which is under the control of the A.F.P.F.L. organisation should be utilised as the nucleus of a kind of army or force for dealing with dacoity. I want to be quite frank and say that so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned we will not tolerate anything in the nature of a private army. We know from our experience in other countries the dangers there, and we would not be prepared to allow any private or political organisation to establish anything in the nature of a private army. That would not prevent the members of the army playing their part in dealing with these various schemes to which I have referred. In addition steps are being taken to secure additional subordinate police over and above the prewar cadres. A new reserve for the training of the sub-inspector grade has been instituted and a force of armed police for river duties has recently been authorised. As regards the police, in addition to the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, which are continually under review, sanction has just been given for the resuscitation of the special police reserve totalling 4,200 men. As regards weapons, the police force is now armed with sufficient suitable modern weapons to enable it to deal, we hope effectively, with the gangs of dacoits.

I want to deal now with a point raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey with regard to police pay. The position is that they are still getting the same basic pay, 18 rupees a month, plus a considerable allowance to meet the increased cost of living and an additional ration allowance, but it is a fact that at the moment the basic rate of pay remains the same.

About a shilling a day.

Yes, about a shilling a day, and that has been the case for many years past. With the assistance of the Admiralty an important step has been taken with regard to security on the rivers. The gunboat " Scarab " has been taken over as the parent ship for a flotilla of armed landing craft and is now in the Rangoon river. I have no doubt that these arrangements will be of real value in policing the extensive river areas which are so characteristic of Burma.

It is so important to get this information that crime will not be tolerated across to the people. What steps are being taken to this end?

What I can say to that is that, as I indicated in a reply the other day, a general warning has been issued on behalf of the Government of Burma that they will not tolerate any unlawful means such as the making of seditious speeches for the purpose of carrying out the policy of any political party in the country. The hon. Member for Hornsey and the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden asked whether the powers of the Governor were adequate for the purpose of enabling him to maintain law and order from that aspect. I can say that the powers of the Governor are adequate and that there can be no question of the situation getting out of hand because of any weakness on the part of the law or the powers of the Governor to deal with that particular problem

But is the Governor allowed to exercise those powers on the spot, or has he to refer to Whitehall first?

He does not have to refer to Whitehall for any matter which is covered by the phrase, "The maintenance of law and order." He has the same powers as any other Governor, broadly speaking, and it would only be in an exceptional case that it would be necessary for him to refer home.

I am sure the House would wish to pay a tribute to the contribution which Burma has made towards meeting the world's food problems. It is a fact that in spite of the present position, where, as an hon. Member has indicated, only 6,500,00o acres are being cultivated as against 12 million acres before the war, they have none the less been able to export or promise to export 377,000 tons to scarcity areas, principally India and the Malay States, and they are speeding up efforts with a view to having the maximum possible area of land under cultivation for the forthcoming harvest. I gave the figures recently in reply to a question. They hope to increase the acreage under cultivation from 6,500,000 acres to 8,500,000, in time for the next harvest. I believe that more could be done were it not for the shortage of ploughs and plough cattle, other consequences of the war, and the extent to which large areas have gone out of cultivation during the occupation, with the result that they have now to be cleared of jungle—a slow and difficult process.

I would like to make a reference to the transport position. Obviously, the restoration of normal communications is of vital importance. The railways were completely put out of action during the war, rolling stock was destroyed, bridges and lines were blown up. The replacement of rolling stock has made great advances. Over r,000 wagons and over 60 locomotives have already arrived and a further 3,000 wagons and coaches, and 140 locomotives are on order. With regard to consumer goods, there is inevitably a shortage, again, due to the aftermath of war, which reflects itself lo no small extent in the general world situation. I can assure Members that no thought has been spared by the Government of Burma to ease the situation, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that there is a definite improvement. The best indication of the extent of this improvement is this fact. As a result of the arrival of consumer goods, particularly textiles, there has been a fall in the cost of living from 679 in November, 1945, to 384 in April, 1946. It is most important that consumer goods should not be held up in urban areas, and the House will be interested to know that the Government of Burma have a scheme for the issue of consumer goods to cultivators as advances in kind, as grants under their acreage subsidy scheme. I informed the right hon. Gentleman opposite recently that for May, June, and July the distribution to urban areas has been stopped, and that all imported cloth will go into rural areas for that period.

On the question of the Kandy Agreement, my information is that, broadly speaking, it has been fully implemented by His Majesty's Government. The question of the Acting Governor was raised, and I would content myself by associating my views with those expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden. There is no secret that in the normal course of events the senior Counsellor, Sir John Wise, would have been considered for the temporary appointment had it not been for the state of his health. In the circumstances, His Majesty's Government decided to make the appointment they have made.

In conclusion, may I express the hope that the House will feel that great work has been done under very difficult conditions? The military have made a tremendous contribution, and I think we should be profoundly grateful to them. It would be the greatest mistake to underestimate the achievements of the civil Government, in spite of the picture which has been painted here today. They have been undermanned, overworked, and have worked in conditions of extreme difficulty during the eight months they have been back in Burma. The Governor, whose ill-health we all deplore, has shown a constant and active interest in the progress of the country in every respect. His Executive Council and all his officers have taken a most active and prominent part in the long and troublesome business of rehabilitation. Much remains to be done, but the amount that has been done has not always been appreciated, and I feel that this is an opportunity to pay a tribute to the Government there. I have tried to give the House a faithful picture of the position in Burma, and of its more important aspects. It is difficult to deal with so vast a subject in the short time at our disposal today, but I hope that what I have said may be of help to the House in appreciating the position and its difficulties, and what is being done by the Government of Burma to grapple with the problem.

As I have already said, much remains to be done, but until we get the elections and a representative Legislature, based on a wide democratic franchise, there will not be that full mandate from the people of Burma that we are anxious to secure. It is, and will be, as I have said, our policy to press on to the utmost practicable extent to give effect to the settled policy of His Majesty's Government and the House as a whole. I would reiterate that it is the firm intention of His Majesty's Government to enable the people of Burma to achieve full self-government as soon as practicable. We wish to see Burma take her place in the British Commonwealth of Nations, a Commonwealth which, as the Prime Minister said recently, is a free association of free nations.

Would my hon and learned Friend bear in mind that Aung San, in a speech on 16th May, made it quite clear that the P.V.O. would be quite willing to join the regular Burmese army, but that he pointed out that the physical arrangements for doing so did not yet exist?

Indicated assent

The hon. Member whom I had intended to call to raise the next subject, relating to industry in North Staffordshire, is not present and so I propose to advance the arranged programme by half an hour. Perhaps the Whips will inform the Members concerned. of this arrangement.

I hope the House will show the same interest in the problems of Scotland which it has always manifested in the problems of Burma and many other far flung parts of the Empire and the world. I would like, first of all, to assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that all his colleagues on this side of the House have the warmest feeling for him, and the greatest admiration for the way he has begun his great task as Secretary of State Nothing I wish to say today should be taken in any way as a personal criticism of him, or even of his administration. I want to refer to the need for an overall plan for Scotland. The Clyde Valley and South-Eastern Planning Committees have, I think, done an excellent job. The report of Sir Patrick Abercrombie and the report prepared by Sir Frederick Mears are great contributions to the future of South-West and South-East Scotland. As there is a South-Eastern Planning Committee and a South-Western Planning Committee I want to ask why there should not be also a Regional Planning Committee for the Highlands of Scotland? This seems an imperative necessity if the regional planning pattern of Scotland is to be made complete.

At the moment the Highlands of Scotland are being planned ineffectively by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I was not able to take part in the Debate on the most recent scheme of the Board, a scheme which in many ways was excellent, but which, in many other ways, was thoroughly bad. It was a scheme which destroyed a great deal of the amenities, a good deal of the salmon fishing and the possibilities of the very best tourist part of Scotland. For these reasons, it is clear that, however excellent the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is as an organisation for bringing hydro-electric power to the Highlands, it is not a body that is either charged with the duty, or capable of discharging the duty, of taking an overall view of the planning of the Highlands of Scotland.

Therefore, I urge upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the desirability of completing the Scottish regional planning structure and of creating a planning board or committee for the Highlands that will take an overall view of the Highland picture and will fit one aspect of planning into another. It is no use starting from the point of view of hydro-electricity, or the tourist industry, or persuading, inducing or bribing a few light industries to go to the Highlands that might very well settle elsewhere of their own accord. If we are to provide a future for the Highlands of Scotland we must base that future on the natural activities of these regions. The natural activities of the Highlands are agriculture and fisheries. There never can be a solution to Highland planning until we start with a general, broad, planning picture which in itself is based on the needs of agriculture and the fishing industry. When, as I hope, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to set up a planning committee, and that committee has been brought into being, we shall have made one great step forward. We shall have completed the regional planning pattern. But there will still remain the absolute necessity for establishing an overall plan for Scotland, so that the regional plans dovetail into one another, and the plan for Scotland dovetails into the plans for the United Kingdom as a whole.

We in Lanarkshire are vastly troubled by the growing figures of unemployment. We have far too bitter memories of unemployment between the wars to take even a figure of 50,000 unemployed lightly or casually. I know that the Secretary of States does not regard this figure in any casual way, but, nevertheless, we have yet to receive from the Government any really constructive, broad plans that will solve the problem of Lanarkshire and the problem of the West of Scotland. I have the greatest admiration for the vigour and energy with which the President of the Board of Trade is tackling this problem. He is doing his best. He has persuaded industries to go to Lanarkshire and the West of Scotland. He is providing work for at least 10,000 people, which is no mean achievement. But again, no policy of special area or distressed area planning can solve the problem of the West of Scotland.

We have to get down to the basic bedrock of the West of Scotland, and that bedrock is, literally, coal. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is not responsible for all this, but the processing of coal, the low temperature carbonisation of coal, the distillation of coal, the securing of the byproducts from coal, will provide the only possible lona-term solution for the industrial West of Scotland. By such a method, and such a policy we can build up many new light industries, ranging from the plastics industry to the manufacture of fine chemicals. From coal it is a natural step to iron and steel. So much was said in the recent Debate on iron and steel that there is no need for me to enlarge on that subject today, except to say that in the West of Scotland we are prepared to accept any scheme which the Government, after full consideration, care to put forward, providing they see that the temporary dislocation is kept to the absolute minimum, and that unemployment is merely in the smallest pockets and, at the worst, entirely transitional.

I want to see the Secretary of State for Scotland establish a committee which will look into the whole broad general picture of the future of Scotland. A few months ago, thanks to the initiative of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser), the regional controllers in Scotland met together in one room. I thought that was an excellent thing. I was very astonished to learn that that was the first time all the regional controllers of the Government Departments in Scotland had ever met together in one room. I want my right hon. Friend to establish a council or a committee that will be responsible for the overall planning of Scotland, in an advisory capacity to him, but representative of all the regional controllers of the Gov- ernment Departments, representative of the administrative heads of Government Departments, and representative, too, of every phase of industrial and social life in Scotland. Such a set-up would be of infinite value to my right hon. Friend and to the people of Scotland. It has not been the fashion in this Parliament to quote the Scots national poet, Robert Burns. The former Member for Coatbridge, the Reverend James Barr, made a habit—a very good habit—of quoting Burns, and I am encouraged by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to risk at least one quotation.

My hon. Friend has no need to apologise for quoting Burns.

I was not apologising for quoting Burns; I was merely indicating that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs is so much more entitled to quote Burns than I am, and by way of courtesy, I was apologising to him for taking over one of his customary duties. Burns, in some of his most passionate lines, in which he expressed his warm heart's desire, said:

E'en now, a wish, I mind its power.

A wish that to my latest hour

Will strongly heave my breast.

That I, for puir auld Scotland's sake

Some richtfu' plan or bulk could make

Or sing a sang at least."

I direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the order in which Burns placed his aspirations. He wanted to make some " richtfu' plan or buik " for Scotland, or " sing a sang "; but the " richtfu' plan " came first. That is where all planning should come—first. If we do not plan in the comprehensive way for which I have asked today, we shall be in for a grim time in Scotland, but if we plan boldly and wisely now, the grim times will be entirely behind us.

I know there is a timetable, and I shall try to keep to it. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) who has raised this very important question. It gives me, although in a limited time, an opportunity of outlining just the plans that are working in Scotland. It is well known to the House that I am the planning Minister for Scotland. As that Minister I have central responsibility for such major functions as housing, agriculture, education and hydro-electricity. I am not prepared to admit one of the points made by my hon. Friend—that the work of the Hydro-Electricity Board has in any way or in any direction destroyed the real amenities of the Highlands. believe it is possible for it to do its work without interfering with those amenities

After all, we are all proud of Scotland's scenery, but we also want to see Scotland's great natural water resources used for industrial purposes, such as can be possibly only through the successful work of the Hydro-Electricity Board. I am responsible for housing, agriculture, education and hydro-electricity. I am, therefore, better placed than any other Minister in this House to secure the effective coordination of those services. All my Departments are in day to day contact with one another, both on general policy and on specific development projects. They are housed together in one building, St. Andrew's House. The Department of Health, as the Department responsible for Town and Country Planning, is in the closest touch with Scottish representatives of the United Kingdom Department. The machinery of consultation with all those Departments, I can assure my hon. Friend, the House and the people of Scotland, is working smoothly and efficiently.

Let me take one example. All proposals for the development at land for housing by local authorities are scrutinised at a very early stage by the Department of Health. The coordinated observations of all my Departments and of all other Government Departments concerned, are assembled with the minimum or delay so that a proper planning appreciation in relation to our problems can take place very quickly. The same machinery of coordination is applied in relation to the selection of industrial sites and of sites for other types of publicly sponsored development.

The regional planning officers of the Department of Health are in day to day contact with the local planning authorities, about the planning and development within their areas In addition to advising the authorities on general planning work, their advice is at all times available to the local authorities in connection with the selection of housing and industrial sites and they have been doing most valuable work. We do not see, and cannot see, the immediate results, which take time to work out, but I am positive that we shall get very tangible results in Scotland. Not only are the Department taking cognisance of the selection of housing and industrial sites, out they are planning roads and other improvements generally, for the purpose of securing properly balanced development in each local authority area.

In the field of industry we are doing exactly the thing suggested by my hon. Friend. The Regional Board for Industry and the Regional Distribution of Industry Panel meet, as he suggested, regularly. I admit it was not done before, but it is being done now. They meet regularly in Glasgow for the purpose of inter-departmental exchanges of view and to consider specific proposals for industrial development in Scotland The main functions of the Regional Board, which comprises representatives of employers and trade unions, and of all Departments interested in industrial development, is to advise Ministers and their Departments. I am responsible for the many departments. I have already enumerated, but I am not responsible for all the Departments. This Regional Board advises Ministers and Departments upon industrial conditions in Scotland, and they keep in close touch with all the other Government Departments who are operating in Scotland, so far as their work deals with industrial questions or impinges on industrial interests. One of the functions of the Board is to keep local communities advised on Government policy in relation . industry. That means that we can get what is absolutely necessary, the cooperation and the help of the local authorities themselves.

The functions of the Regional Distribution of Industry Panel, which is, as I have already pointed out, an inter-departmental committee of officials, sitting under the chairmanship of the Regional Controller of the Board of Trade, includes representatives of. all my Departments. It meets to consider specific proposals for industrial development and to deal with the allocation of Government surplus factories, and generally to make recommendations on questions affecting the distribution of industry in Scotland. For some time past I have felt that, in addition to the arrangements which already exist for securing the coordination of specific proposals for the carrying out of development in Scotland, there is need for inter-departmental machinery to deal with the whole range of questions involved—this is the very point raised by my hon. Friend—in physical planning in the real sense. I propose, therefore, to make arrangements to this end with representatives of all the Departments concerned with land use in Scotland, namely, the Department of Health, the Scottish Home Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Scottish Education Department, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power. They will keep under review, as a matter of long term policy, the fundamental problems of Scotland as they affect the use of land and the settlement of the population, and they will make recommendations to me, the Secretary of State, from time to time. I am sure that that meets the requirement which was suggested by my hon. Friend.

Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point will he explain to the House why the Scottish Office have definitely decided against the nationalisation of land?

The Scottish Office have not definitely decided against the nationalisation of the land. The Government of which I am a Member determined that they would not have the time in this Parliament to nationalise the land. That is a Government decision and not a decision of the Scottish Office.

The Under-Secretary of State intimated it at that Box only last week.

I do not recall what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary actually said, but I am positive he said we should not have time to nationalise the land, so far as this Parliament was concerned. That decision does not cut across the policy of the party to which we belong. As I have said, I am setting up the machinery to which I have referred, with a view to a long-term policy of fundamental planning in Scotland, affecting the use of land and the settlement of the population. The bodies concerned will make their recommendations to me, the Secretary of State, from time to time. In addition, they would deal with particular development proposals of major importance which affect the interests of different Government Departments. The setting up of this machinery will largely meet the point which has been raised.

In addition to the foregoing arrangements, which secure the fullest possible coordination at the official level of the work of all the Departments concerned, I am looking forward to the benefit of valuable advice on the lines of that which I have previously had from the Scottish Council of Industry. I have been successful in bringing about, with good will, the amalgamation of two bodies. I prefer to see one fine, coordinated body and have been aiming at that, and I have brought about the amalgamation of the Scottish Development Council and the Scottish Council of Industry. That marriage took place last Monday, and, both as Minister and best man, I was at the ceremony. That body represents practically all Scottish interests, including trade unions, the cooperative movement and the local authorities, and is one of the finest representative bodies ever set up in Scotland. I am looking forward to the advice they will be able to give me because they will be able to look at Scotland as a whole. That is its purpose, and that is the idea I had when I endeavoured to bring about this amalgamation. In the past the Council have produced a number of detailed and most valuable reports on various aspects of Scottish economic life, and these are being closely examined by my Department at the present time. I am positive that as a result of the amalgamation I will get even better results in the future than I have had in the past. It is a non-statutory body—it is voluntary—and independent of Whitehall, a fact which will please Scotland. We shall collect our money from Scotland for our own purposes. This body will be able to give me the independent advice that I am so anxious to get, although I have warned them that I am not always going to accept their advice, because I do not know at the moment what their advice is going to be. I have, however, said that I am prepared to give the fullest consideration to their advice.

My hon. Friend suggested an overall planning committee for Scotland. He pointed out that f have three advisory bodies in Scotland and asked, why not have one for the Highlands? The problem of the Highlands and Islands is different from the problem of the lowlands, and the problems associated with our industrial districts. At present there are three regional advisory planning committees in Scotland—one for the Clyde valley area, one for central and south-east Scotland and one for east central Scotland. Their functions are to advise the constituent authorities and myself on the major planning factors affecting the region and to prepare outline plans for the regions into which the plans of the individual authorities will dovetail. I am sure the hon. Member agrees that that is the right policy. The primary reason for the appointment of these committees was that the planning problems in the respective regions are so closely related and so intermixed and have such important repercussions on one another that it was essential that they should be considered on a comprehensive basis. The problem of the Highlands and Islands is different, and I am not sure that exactly the same type of committee will be required and I am considering that problem at the moment. It might be possible to have a sub-committee of the new industrial council which has been set up. The old council had a sub-committee which was collecting facts and evidence and was prepared to give me advice. On the other hand, it may be more advisable—I have not determined it yet—to have a statutory committee set up for the Highlands and Islands because of their peculiar and difficult problems, which sooner or later we shall have to solve, because if the Highlands are not prosperous, Scotland cannot be prosperous. They are part of Scotland. If the islands are not being properly attended to, then Scotland is not being properly attended to. I hope that as a result of our scheming and planning we can bring prosperity to the Islands and Highlands and repopulate the places that have been depopulated. They were not depopulated by my administration. I have got a bad heritage. I have to try to improve things. That is the task before me so far as the Highlands and Islands are concerned. I am considering what will be best. I have only been in office for nine months and I am quite proud of my record. I have no apologies to make whatever. During the term of office of one of my predecessors—Mr. Tom Johnston—we were able to do more for Scotland than any other two have ever done. I claim that I will set up a good record, and I will leave it to the people of Scotland to determine whether or not I have been successful when I leave office.

The planning problems of the Highlands will receive special study from me and by the various coordinating bodies to which I have referred. It is not competent for me today to deal with what was suggested in connection with the utilisation of coal, as that is a problem for the Ministry of Fuel and Power, although the hon. Member, the House and Scotland, can rest assured that, as Scotland's planning Minister, I want to see the fullest utilisation made of the wonderful natural resources Scotland has in its coal supplies. I am positive that under the powers given us by the new scheme of nationalisation we shall be able more wisely to use those wonderful resources than in the past. With that explanation of the things we are doing, I trust the hon. Member will be satisfied.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have proved to me the truth of Einstein's Theory of Relativity because, by calling on me today, you have put me back to last Friday afternoon when, owing to a regrettable clerical error, you decapitated me as I was in the act of rising to address the House; and you have added to my obligations by restoring me to life by your magic touch. I wish to raise the question of the valuation of our national assets; and when I use the term " national assets, I expressly wish to exclude any privately owned assets which would normally come under the heading of national capital. Not very long ago I attended a party of moderately intelligent persons when the following question was propounded in the course of conversation: " Given £1,000 a year and 80 years of good health, in which period of British history would you have chosen to live?" One lady, a distinguished civil servant, chose the Elizabethan age because she said she was convinced that women had more power and influence in that age than in any other before or since. For myself, I chose the period from 1750 to 1830 because I thought it would have been fascinating to have been a contemporary of Dr. Johnson, Gibbon, the two great Burkes—Edmund and William—and also of Shelley and Byron, with the exciting background of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, to say nothing of the enchanting costumes.

All the others, however, including two economists who are not associated with me politically, chose the period 1830 to 1910. When asked why, their unanimous answer was, " because it was the era of the increasing value of the £ sterling "I thought that was a very striking answer; and it is undoubtedly true that all of us since 1910 have been living in the era of the declining value of the sterling. As a boy in 1900, I can very well remember what a penny would buy. Food at the moment is " hot " news, so I will take a few food examples. A penny would then buy four bloaters; it would buy three eggs; it would buy two cutlets or one chop. Yet, since then, while the has been engaged upon its long descent, the nation has been acquiring, in one way or another, more and more property, more and more tangible assets, and is now planning to acquire still more, under the various schemes of nationalisation.

There are four kinds of publicly owned assets which I have in mind. The first are the definitely State-owned assets; the second are municipally owned assets; the third are assets vested in public or quasi-public corporations, such as the National Trust; the fourth are endowments and charities. Yet we are as far as ever from having presented to us a national capital account. Quite recently, I thought I would test the Chancellor of the Exchequer's knowledge by asking him a question. I was in a very kind mood; I did not ask him a difficult question, such as today's value of the fleet or anything like that; I asked him a simple, easy, almost a kindergarten question: what was the value of the contents of our National Art Collections? The answer amazed me. He said he had absolutely no idea of their value, but that he was convinced they were priceless. The Chancellor is evidently a believer in the dictum of Oscar Wilde:

"Ignorance is a delicate, exotic fruit. Touch it, and the bloom is gone."

I maintain that everything material must have a value and, therefore, a price, unless indeed it is priceless in the sense of being valueless. I hope to show to the House—or what is left of it—that this matter of the valuation of our national assets which goes far beyond the consideration of any mere question of art collections, is one which cries out for immediate action and the fullest possible inquiry.

I do not think anybody can be very happy with the superficial information doled out to us by the Treasury as to our financial situation. If we take the year 1944 to 1945, the latest year for which figures are published, we find that we have an internal debt of approximately £21,250 million. We have an external national debt of approximately £1,270 million as against a combined total of approximately £6,000 million in 1939. That is part of the price, and the least part of the price, that we have had to pay for saving the world. In addition to that, we have many sterling balances abroad; and we have recently solicited a gigantic dollar loan at what, in my judgment, is the fantastically high and arbitrary rate of exchange of $4·3 cents to the £

I do not wish to enlarge upon that, but I would ask my hon. Friend one very simple question. What are those three cents doing? Are they the accidental pips in the bottle of chemical lemonade, that "Touch of corroborative detail designed to give verisimilitude to a bald and otherwise unconvincing narrative "? I am informed that in the Middle East today, in the case of transactions between individuals, the £ and the dollar are regarded as being of equal value. Now, Sir, at home our production of goods that is to say, our replacement of real wealth, is not wholly satisfactory. That is partly due, I know, to our military commitments; it is partly due to the fact that our workers are suffering from seven years of overstrain; it is partly due, in my judgment, though I know the Minister of Food will not agree with me, to chronic under feeding; and it is also partly due to the lack of the main incentive to earn, namely, the existence of anything to buy,- wanted or worth while buying.

I was amazed during the Debate on 29th May, when we increased our salaries at the public expense—always a distasteful if sometimes adventurous thing to do —to hear reference after reference from all quarters of the House to the dread word "Inflation."I think that was probably due to an earlier announcement on the same day by the Minister of Transport of a substantial increase in railway rates. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) said last week that the Government were inviting inflation by their nationalisation of the iron and steel industries. I wish to express no opinion today on that point beyond saying that I think it is commonly agreed that the value of the — has approximately halved itself since 1939 and has reduced itself to about one third of its 1910 value. I believe we have to make the most strenuous efforts to prevent it going lower. Personally I remember too vividly the human misery caused by the flight of the mark in Germany after the last war to wish to see a repetition of such a situation here, on however relatively mild- a scale.

The main cause of inflation is undoubtedly factual; but there is a secondary cause of the greatest importance, and that is psychological. One of the duties of the Government is to restore our confidence in ourselves, and to restore other people's confidence in us. That. I confess, is not an easy task for the Government as it gropes its way with a song of one kind or another in its heart, into the grisly wilderness of nationalisation. It has been suggested to me by a distinguished economist that our publicly owned assets, as indicated by my four headings, do not exceed £ 7,000 million in value, and that the relation of that figure to the increase of our internal national debt reflects with some exactitude the relation of today's £ sterling to its 1910 value. I cannot help feeling that that explanation is more ingenious than true. I cannot help feeling that that figure of £7,000 million is much too low in the light of the present depreciation of the £I believe that a national capital survey would very quickly prove its falsity; and it is for a national capital survey I am pleading this afternoon. As things are, we are groping in a Cimmerian darkness; but not, I hope, for long, because soon the financial Secretary to the Treasury will be replying to this short Debate, and then, as Walt Whitman has it:

' The splendid sun with all his beams full dazzling "

will put my miniature doubts and fears to flight.

I would like to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to an interesting passage in Professor Campion's work on " Public and Private Property in Great Britain," with which, I am sure, he is extremely familiar. Professor Campion, an acknowledged authority on the subject, speaking of public property says:

"The property of the State, local authorities and charities is never the possession specifically of particular individuals never becomes liable to Estate Duty at the death of any individual, and is therefore, never valued for Estate Duty purposes. The Estate method cannot he used for public properties. Part of the income, however, accruing from public. property such as income from houses, Government securities and municipal trading undertakings, is assessed for Income Tax and can be capitalized in the same way as private property under the Income method. But in the case of other kinds of public property, such as libraries and schools, it is difficult to decide how they should be valued. All that can be done is to place a minimum value on public property."

Then he goes on to discuss the difficulties attendant upon valuing roads and armaments and nationally owned assets of that kind. We are promised in the future a series of unbalanced Budgets. We are told that is part of the Keynes policy. But I contend that, with or without Lord Keynes, it was a thing which was bound to happen. It is not so much a part of his policy as it is the ineluctable dictate of economic facts. What is a Budget? It is, quite frankly, a national profit and loss account. What I am asking for is the presentation, at the same time, of a national balance sheet, that is to say, a national, capital account based upon a national capital survey. I know that this argument has been pressed -upon many occasions in this House and it has always been refused.

Before the hon. Member leaves that point, will he be good enough to explain exactly how the Budget becomes a profit and loss account?

Because the Budget does not take into consideration any of the nationally-owned assets to which I am specifically referring. I prophesy that before very long the dictatorship of economic facts which has prescribed a series of what I call national profit and loss accounts, each showing a huge loss, will compel the eventual production of a national capital account. Our credit in the world today does not stand very high. One has only to read the Debates in the Senate and Congress of the United States of America on the dollar loan, to realise that many people abroad regard us as an insolvent debtor. I maintain that our credit—I may be wrong, and I am open to correction—would stand very much higher if the Government prepared in a comprehensive and comprehensible form, as a result of a national capital survey, a statement setting out our assets as against our liabilities. I think the Government in this matter have been altogether too modest. Of course, I acquit the Chancellor of the Exchequer personally of any share in that fault. As it is, many people in this country and abroad review our Budgets, and accept us at the Chancellor's dismal annual valuation. I am well aware that the Government provide masses of statistics from which the economically erudite can cull much information, though by no means all. But these statistics are not presented in a form readily understood by the man in the street here, or the man in the street abroad, or, what is sometimes even more important, by the man in power abroad. I am sure that an appraisement in tabulated form of our national capital, would help to that end.

Hon. Members on all sides of the House will remember that charming play entitled " Dear Octopus "In which Dame Marie Tempest made one of her last appearances. Well, nationalisation is the " Dear Octopus " of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am sure we on this side of the House would agree with the noun though we should violently disagree with the adjective, except, of course, in its narrower financial sense. That octopus may grow or, please God, it may wither and die; but I would remind the House that the octopus is a tough and nasty beast. It exhibits remarkable resilience and flexibility, and, when engaged in the act of navigation, is surprisingly streamlined.

It is just within the bounds of possibility—I put it no higher than that—that that octopus may throw out more ugly tentacles and grasp still more industries. Therefore, it becomes a question of major importance that we should have an annual precis of our national assets in the form of a national capital account. It has been found a convenient technique in commerce for about 250 years; and now that the State is going in for commerce on a gigantic scale, it must adopt a similar practice. How else can the public, and we, who are the representatives of the public, assess the results, in terms of capital, of the huge system of State industrialism of which we are now witnessing the inauguration?

We should finish this part of our proceedings in six minutes and it will be very difficult for me, I am afraid, to reply to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) in that time.

I am sorry, I thought we had been given a little longer than half an hour.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will take a little longer than the time allotted but I will be as brief as I can be. The hon. Member covered a very wide field. His title for this Adjournment Debate was to be "The National Balance Sheet " but he has strayed a little wider afield.

It was "The Valuation of National Assets."

The valuation of national assets with particular reference to a national balance sheet. The hon. Gentleman started with the age of Johnson before he dealt with the subject set down for Debate. He put questions to me about the odd three cents in the rate of exchange laid down for the loan from America, if we get it; then he was very knowledgeable and learned on the subject of inflation, he brought in Walt Whitman with a most apt illustration from his poems and also quoted from Mr. Campion's book. It is impossible for me to go over the whole of the ground covered by my hon. Friend, much as I would like to do so. As I understand the point he has in mind, it is that he would like to see the national accounts divided into two. He would like what is termed in the commercial world a profit and loss account or an income and expenditure account, and secondly, he would like also to have a national balance sheet. Such a change, as he very rightly said, has often been mooted in this House and to many people it has great attractions. However, it would be very difficult to accomplish and the disadvantages, even if it were easily possible, would greatly outweigh the advantages that might accrue. The system which is common and proper in a commercial concern is quite inappropriate in connection with State finances. The object of a profit and loss account is to show for any given period the net profit available for distribution after taking account of things like charges incurred in earning the revenue and the making of provision for maintaining the value of the capital assets of the concern in question.

The object of an income and expenditure account, as I think my hon. Friend will agree, is very much the same. If it is compiled properly it shows all the income and expenditure arising in respect of any given period whether that income has actually been received or the expenditure has actually been paid out. Our Exchequer accounts, on the other hand, are cash accounts. All that is included in the Exchequer accounts is the income actually received and the expenditure which has in fact been made. The Exchequer accounts presented to this House do not include, for example, taxes which are due —and which undoubtedly will be received or, at any rate, most of them. That is an asset but it is not included because it has not been received within the period. I take it that the hon. Gentleman, if he wants us to do the job properly, would like to see all moneys to which the Treasury is entitled included in the year's National Account of expenditure and income. If we had to do that, quite definitely it would hold up the presentation of the accounts. At the moment, as hon. Members know, with the year closing at the end of March it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to present a Budget towards the end of April—sometimes fairly early in April. This year I think he presented his Budget about the middle of that month, a week or two after the national accounts were closed. When one considers the amazing complexity of the national accounts and the enormous amount of book-keeping which has gone to their compilation, I think hon. Members will agree that that is rather a wonderful achievement. It could not be done if, as a commercial house would have to do, we had to compile a profit and loss account—

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the disadvantage in delay would be more than compensated for by the accuracy of the final result? Would he not agree that the existing receipts and payments account—it is nothing more—is not entirely satisfactory?

If I had time I intended to touch on that, but I will deal with it now. It is our view that, taking the thing by and large, the result now is just as good as if we were more accurate and did in fact produce a profit and loss account in the ordinary, accepted, commercial use of that term. Curiously enough, perhaps, the amount of arrears which come in later, which are applicable to a given year and which are received, say, the year after, vary very little. If it were possible with ease and certainty to make up a profit and loss account, as a commercial house does, the nation would find that the outturn was very little different than at present though, by the way, it would take much longer to do that. We include, of course, in a given year the arrears received from previous years, but do not take account of the arrears which are outstanding. The curious thing, however, is that year by year arrears approximate roughly to much the same amount. So that the result in any given year approximates to the actual position.

I am sorry to interrupt again. This is rather important I should have thought, during the years following a war in which there is a large amount of terminal expenditure and indeed sale of war assets, that would hardly count. I should have thought, at the commencement of a new economic era which is heralded by this Government, it would have been far better to have adopted a more comprehensive and accurate method of accounting.

I do not know how many wars there are going to be. I hope that we have seen the last of them. If we are to adjust our accounts in normal times to the expectation that presently there will be a war with later abnormal income coming in due to the sale of war stores and surplus material of one kind and another—well—that is an argument, I must admit that does not appeal to me. We have gone into this with a good deal of care, and in normal times—we must budget for the normal, I think—if we did produce an income and expenditure account and took account in it of items outstanding on both sides, that the difference between that form of accounting and the one we now adopt would be very little so far as actual figures were concerned.

My hon. Friend said that he would like to see balance sheets compiled year by year showing all forms of national assets as such. He also mentioned municipal assets. I will not go into that now save to point out that there would be difficulties there. Municipalities themselves compile their own accounts and where they are dealing with a trading concern and the question of income tax arises, they do now, very largely, adopt commercial methods. They might feel anyway that the matter was their concern and not the concern of this House. In addition, I gather the hon. Member wants a national balance sheet compiled annually to show what properties and other assets were in the possession of bodies like the National Trust. All that would be most interesting, but would it be any use? Really, the conception of the ordinary commercial balance sheet is totally inapplicable when one comes to matters of this kind. In any case, even with a commercial firm when they take a valuation, say at 31st December, what does it amount to? It is somebody's guess that at that given date an estimated value can be placed on certain assets. It is nothing more—

It is an informed guess.

As the hon. Gentleman said in the course of his speech, money values years ago were very different from now because the value of the pound has changed—

I think the hon. Gentleman is introducing a theme into the argument which is hardly relevant. If we are going into methods of compilation I would point out that all measurements are actually guesses. There is no such thing as precise measurement. I think it will be agreed that the methods of compilation employed by reputable firms are above reproach, at least, in this respect.

I hope nothing I have said gives a contrary view. I am simply saying, and it is common sense, that when a commercial firm makes up its balance sheet year by year certain valuations are placed by somebody, I hope, with knowledge, on the assets owned by the company or firm. Although it may well be the value then, that is not to say that it will be the value in 12 months' time. If this were so they might as well take that value and never revalue again at all, but simply carry forward the figures in their books. All I am saying is that that is, in essence, what a valuation of that kind amounts to. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to do that with a commercial firm, because they have shareholders and debenture holders, and they desire that information before they can pay out dividends or interest. In addition, if they know their job and want to carry on the company reasonably efficiently, they have to have the information in order to make provision for reserves and for various other items, which should, and must, under the Companies Acts, come into a balance sheet issued by companies of that kind.

Suppose we agreed with the hon. Gentleman and produced a national balance sheet, how could we make it up? It would involve the valuation of all the existing assets at home and abroad, and who is to put a value on some of these? The hon. Gentleman himself mentioned roads and quoted Mr. Campion, who appreciated the difficulty in the quotation he read out, namely, that it is almost impossible to put a valuation on many of these things. How can we, for example, put a value on the Houses of Parliament? To what other use could they be put than their present one? How could we put a true value on military installations in various parts of this country and abroad? It is futile, and I say this deliberately, to try to translate into terms of business accounting the intangible values of many State activities, military and civil. The hon. Gentleman himself gave me what I think is my best point when he said that he had put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him if he could give the present value of the pictures now owned by the State. The Chancellor replied that he could not do it, except to say that they were priceless.

But if he bad the pictures valued by some expert, he would get a valuation.

Why should we attempt to value them? We are not going to sell them. What good would be done by going to the expense, year by year, of attempting to assess the value of the pictures which the nation fortunately owns? The fact is that the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do something which is not only difficult, but perhaps impossible, to do, and, when we had done it, it would not help us very much. Therefore, for the purposes of national finance, we think our present method has much to commend it, because we do, in fact, in the accounts referred to, divide income and expenditure into various categories. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the ordinary income and expenditure appears in the Exchequer accounts, and if we borrow money, as we very properly do from time to time for capital expenditure, this is shown separately in the accounts. I would like to say to the hon. Gentleman that the situation is not as bad as he tries to make out. In so far as it is desirable for the nation to know year by year how it stands, the accounts do show that with very great clarity. I agree that the uninitiated might find them difficult to follow, but, to any accountant or to any one reasonably versed in the study of figures, there is no difficulty in seeing just how we do stand. What is obviously clear is the fact that, by the introduction of the Budget year by year and by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Committee of Ways and Means the nation is given a real picture of what the situation is. In our view, and it is now I think the general view, that the mere taking of a year and drawing a line and striking a balance has nothing more to commend it than that it is an expedient, though, perhaps, an interesting expedient. So long as we have a balanced economy we know now that it is not essential that we should balance the Budget year by year. It seems to me therefore, that though we have had an interesting Debate, the proposals of hon. Gentlemen would not only be difficult but also very costly to accomplish, and, when done, would be largely useless as a guide.

I want to raise the question of the redevelopment of derelict land in the Black Country. Anyone who has travelled by train from Birmingham to Wolverhampton must be well aware of this problem, for, on both sides of the railway line, stretching away for acre upon acre, we have the dismal sight of this derelict land with very little vegetation upon it. There is, in my opinion, no more deplorable or depressing sight in any part of the country than this derelict land in the Black Country. For the benefit of those hon. Members who do not know the history of this land, may I sketch it briefly? Some 15o years ago, both coal and ironstone were discovered in that area which we now call the Black Country. The coal and ironstone were found very near the surface, and unlike other coal areas such as Yorkshire and Lanarkshire, there were no large pits, but, instead, a very large nurnber of small pits scattered all over the countryside. Indeed, up to 5o years ago, we had something like 15o coal mines and about roo iron furnaces in this small area. As a result of that, we did not have that typical coal mining atmosphere characterised by the large pits, but instead, small refuse tips scattered over the whole area of the district. As a result, today, we have acres and acres of land which is slightly undulating but on which very little vegetation will grow.

In my opinion, there is no more fitting monument to the waste and selfishness of the capitalist system than the waste and of the Black Country. The coal and ironstone of this district were worked out 30 to 5o years ago, and there are no longer any coal mines or ironstone mines there though the monument to their wastefulness still remains. It is greatly to the credit of the people of this district that, while their basic industry disappeared 30 to 50 years ago, new industries have arisen and this is still a prosperous area. I would say to the Minister that these industrious people deserve better of the nation than the condition of the area in which they are living at present.

There is no reason today why the Black Country of England should remain black. These derelict areas, these receptacles for old tin cans and bricks, could become real open spaces, lungs for the people of the district. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning and his Ministry are well aware of our problem. Some months ago the Ministry published a very admirable report, the Beaver Report, dealing with this problem. I know the Ministry has commenced a campaign, and is carrying out a series of exhibitions in connection with the possibilities of the Black Country throughout the region itself. f he Beaver Report shows that there are some 9,300 acres of derelict land in the Black Country. Of that 9,300 acres, some 3,200 acres are scheduled for building and for development; indeed, some development has already commenced. Even when that is taken away, there remains a hard core of some 6,100 acres of derelict land, which is useless at the present time and is a liability to the nation.

The point I wish to raise this afternoon is: What are we going to do with this hard core of 6,100 acres of derelict land? I have said that the Minister already knows the problem. I say further, the local authorities in the districts also know of the problem. We have the problem and we have the, solution on paper. The question I am asking this afternoon is: What is going to be done to implement that Report, and what is to be done to make the Black Country green? There are two main reasons for the delay in implementing the Ministry's own report. The first reason is the cost. This land has to be levelled. In the town of Wolverhampton we are carrying out building on one housing estate on derelict land, the Willenhall Road Estate. On that estate the cost of roads and sewers per house amounts to £153. In another area in the same district, with the same problem, the cost of levelling is £200 per acre. The reason for the high cost of the derelict land is because the derelict land is in small patches, and interspersed with this land there is built-up land. To get the derelict land levelled we have to buy the built-up land and lump it in with the derelict land. The cost of the land is £300 per acre, and the cost of levelling is £200 per acre, which brings the total cost up to.£500 per acre before we can get the land fit for building.

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I direct your attention to the presence of a strange hon. Member on the opposite benches? Would it be in Order—

That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member can sit where he pleases.

Might I say how pleasant it is to see someone on the opposite benches? I quite appreciate that there is only one Conservative Member left in Staffordshire, and there are none in the Black Country. Perhaps that is why they are not here, although they are responsible for the problem. But I am glad one of my hon. Friends is there so that I can look at him.

In my opinion, the local authorities in the Black Country cannot afford the cost of reclaiming this derelict land. We have already carried out some reclamation in Wolverhampton, but when the houses have been built we have found we could not let them at rents comparable with other working class rents in the district; therefore, we have had to subsidise them out of our housing fund. Thus, it is not a problem for the local authorities. That brings me to the second reason for the delay, namely, the need for unification and regional planning in this area. At the present time, in the area we know as the Black Country there are something like 18 different local authorities; there are county boroughs, non-county boroughs and urban district councils. Some of the local authorities are rich, some are poor; some might be able to carry out reconversion of this land, some certainly cannot afford to reclaim the land. Therefore, we must have unification and coordination under the leadership, in my opinion, of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I know the Ministry has set up about four sub-regional committees. Cooperation and coordination are necessary at a much higher level. If we are to tackle this problem—and it is a major problem in a very industrious area of the country—there must also be consultation between the various Ministries concerned. I hope we will get that in the very near future.

There is need for much research in the utilisation of this derelict land. Even when we have levelled it and built houses on it, we find that nothing will grow in the front and back gardens. In this area we have been forced to cart soil from other areas and dump it in the gardens at thicknesses of one inch to four inches. By a system of green manuring I think it is possible to make this land quite fertile within a period of three years. By advising the local authorities on this subject of green manuring and other problems, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning could do a good job. By levelling and carrying out a process of green manuring we might considerably cut the cost of making use of this-land. I would therefore ask the Minister first to approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to see if something could be done to get financial support for the plans which he is drawing up for the utilisation of this land. Secondly, I would ask him to call a conference of the local authorities at the earliest possible moment, to get their cooperation and coordination in facing up to this problem. Thirdly, will the Minister also give us the benefits of research, with a view to making the land more fertile.

It has been argued by the Ministry of Agriculture that, if the Ministry of Town and Country Planning could utilise this derelict land it would save other agricultural land which is at present being used for housing, because we could build houses on the present derelict land. I agree that much of this derelict land can be utilised for housing. At the same time, it is essential, if the Black Country is no longer to remain black, that much of this derelict land, when it is developed, should be used as open spaces. The people of the area must be given open air lungs in which to breathe. At the present time, in that area which stretches through Birmingham, Walsall, Wolverhampton and all the other Black Country towns, towns which have poured out so much wealth throughout the world, and done so much to lay the basis of the industrial prosperity of this country, it is black and morbid because of the derelict land. It is essential that now we should seize the opportunity to use this derelict land in such a way as to build houses, and see to it that a considerable area is retained, not as slag heaps and waste land, but as green open spaces to give open air lungs to these very deseving people.

My hon. and gallant Friend has quite accurately set out the problem of derelict land in the Black Country. There is no dispute about the facts. My own Ministry has taken a considerable interest in this problem and, as he pointed out, has actually been responsible for a survey of the area, with very valuable results. It has issued a report prepared by Mr. Beaver on the whole problem of derelict land in the Black Country. The problem is not really so acute as my hon. Friend made out. A good deal has already been done. We started off with a gross number of 9,000 acres of derelict land. Some 3,000 can be excluded because plans are already in existence for dealing with them by levelling up to provide sites for houses or for open spaces. Some very remarkable work has been done in the saving of land of this kind. I think one has to recognise that about 2,500 acres in the Black Country are quite irreclaimable. They consist of such features as marl pits, which may be as much as 50 feet deep, with precipitous sides, and full of water; and they could be dealt with only at prohibitive cost. And so we are left with a hard core, not of 6,000 but of 3,500 acres. I think that that is the extent of the problem. I would not accept the position that it is beyond the means of the local authorities to deal with it. A good many of them have already dealt with a considerable part of their areas of derelict land, and I think that they can deal with the rest.

May I point out that some local authorities have built houses on derelict land but have found out afterwards that they could not rent the houses at reasonable rents because of the costs? I quote Wolverhampton, for example, which has quite recently entered into negotiations with the Ministry of Health about getting a subsidy, because the houses built have had to be subsidised out of their housing revenue account.

I do not know what the land costs are in Wolverhampton, but in the particular instance my hon. Friend gave, of land costing £500 an acre, after taking into account the cost of reclamation, the cost does not seem to me to be a very formidable figure. Indeed, we are advised in this report that the cost of reclamation ranges between £200 and £350 an acre. I should have thought that if the derelict land had been compulsorily acquired, the amount would have taken into account the cost involved in reclaiming it, and that the ultimate cost of the land to the local authority would have been no higher than if they had bought ordinary land for housing or open space purposes. If I am right—and that is certainly borne out by the Beaver report—then really I can see no substantial case for financial assistance for the local authorities. That is borne out by the fact that a good number of local authorities, possibly more than half of the 18 my hon. Friend talked about, have already done something in the direction of reclaiming their land. I hope that the result of my hon. Friend's raising this matter in the House this afternoon will be that the remaining half of the authorities will be inspired to do the same.

So far as my Ministry is concerned, we are doing everything we can, by education and by personal contacts through our regional officers, to encourage local authorities to deal with their derelict land. At the moment that is all that we can do. We have no powers either to make a contribution or to act in default

I am very conscious of the whole position of the Black Country, of the large number of authorities, and of the fact that--perhaps, less than in other parts of the country—there is lack of coordination. I have had under consideration the whole problem of the Midland conurbation of which the Black Country is a part. My own view is that one must look at this area as a whole; that it cannot be taken in parts; that the problem of the Black Country is only part of the problem of the Birmingham area. I hope in the very near future to do what my hon. Friend suggests, and to have a conference of all the local authorities in the area to see whether we cannot do what has already been done in the Greater London area—look at the picture as a whole, make a complete survey, prepare a plan and endeavour to deal with the Midland conurbation as one unit. I agree very much with my hon. Friend, also, about the question of research into fertility. I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to the evident desire and need for doing something, particularly in areas such as those of which my hon. Friend has spoken. I do agree with him that that is particularly the case where something should be done. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be only too delighted to be of such help as he can.

In conclusion, I would say that on the request for financial assistance the answer is, first, that there is no power and, secondly, that I think that there is really no case: I think that the local authorities ought to do the job themselves. On the need for unification and coordination, I hope in the near future to consult the local authorities in the area with a view to finding agreement upon the preparation of a plan for the whole of the area. Thirdly, as regards fertility, I will certainly draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the observations of my hon. Friend. I think I have dealt with all the points he made.

There is one other point. Will the right hon. Gentleman give some guidance to the local authorities on the point that although some of this derelict land should be used for housing, a considerable portion of it should be retained for open spaces, because there are few open spaces in the area?

I certainly agree. As a matter of fact the amount of open space in the area is very substantially less than what most people agree is necessary. Some of the land that has been reclaimed has been, in fact, used for open spaces and not for housing. Wherever possible and appropriate—sometimes it is not appropriate to use a particular piece of land for open space because it is more appropriate for housing—but wherever it is appropriate, the influence of my regional planning officers will always be directed to making up that shortage. I will draw their attention once more to the point made by my hon. Friend, to see that the claims of open spaces are not lost sight of.

Before I begin to talk about U.N.R.R.A. may I say how delighted I am to see that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has " seen the light ", and changed his views? His presence on the benches on this side of the House is a refreshing change.

I am very grateful for this opportunity to talk about U.N.R.R.A. I should apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs because, unfortunately, I did not let him know until late last night the points which I was going to raise, and I hope that he will forgive me. The subject of U.N.R.R.A. was brought up in November, 1945, by the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir Arthur Salter), who was supported by the hon, Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). Such an unusual combination makes me quite certain that U.N.R.R.A. is not a party issue. I do not intend, this afternoon, to speak on party lines, because I do not think that it is a party problem—it is an international problem. Obviously, it is unlike such subjects as nationalisation, where then:: are two schools of thought, because we, on this side of the House, do not believe in nationalisation and the great centralisation of power in the same way as hon. Gentlemen opposite do. I shall be grateful, therefore, if my remarks are not interpreted in a party spirit. Now my knowledge of the subject is not comparable to that of the Senior Burgess for Oxford University, and the only reason I am raising it is because of personal experiences which I had in Italy in May of this year. When I went to Italy, I found that there was certain unrationed goods. It may be within the recollection of the House that I put down a Question on 1st May, asking the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the appeal of U.N.R.R.A. for heavier importations of wheat into Italy, if he had any information as to, what foods were rationed that country. The reply was, "Yes, Sir," and various details were given, including the fact that the ration of edible fats per month was six ounces. I had, however, purchased butter and cheese in unlimited quantities in Italy at reasonable prices, and not on the black market. The Minister of State promised to look into the matter again. I then received a letter from the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs which. perhaps, I may quote. He said:

"Meat, cheese and butter are not at present rationed in Italy, and can, as you state, be easily bought in the shops. Meat costs about 450 lire, cheese 400 lire and butter 700 lire per kilo. These prices, of course, are beyond the reach of the poorer consumers."

Then he went on to give an explanation of why they could not be rationed. My point was that if cheese could be rationed in this country, it should be rationed in Italy, and that aroused my interest in U.N.R.R.A. to see if I could find out why it was not rationed in Italy.

Before I give to the House the results of some of my investigations into U.N.R.R.A"I would like to start with the fact that I consider that their administrative problems have been very great indeed. U.N.R.R.A. really started its life in September, 1941, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) summoned tile Allied Governments to St. James's, and they passed various Resolutions, one of which was that their common aim was to secure that supplies of food, materials, and articles of primary necessity should be made available to the post-war communities of countries liberated from Nazi oppression. In the spring of 1943, a report was produced, and in November, 1943, an agreement was signed. In December, 1943, the first meeting took place at Atlantic City Although U.N.R.R.A. was set up in September, 1941, they had had difficulties because of the civil affairs staff who did not transfer some of their duties to U.N.R.R.A. until April, 1945. Any criticism of U.N.R.R.A. roust surely take into account the fact that their policy is a good one, and that it had taken from September, 1941, to April, 1945, before they had a chance of operating it. Their policy, I think, has the complete sympathy of the House in all quarters. I want to make some constructive criticism, not a violent attack on U.N.R.R.A. because that would be the last thing I would want to do because of my own experience. They may be practicable or they may not and perhaps the Under-Secretary will give his reasons for not adopting them if he thinks that they are not practicable.

Firstly, I think that there should be a better control of rationing both in the countries that receive food and the countries that produce food. If cheese and butter are unrationed in Italy and obtainable at reasonable prices and in unlimited quantities then all is not well with the administration. I find from a pamphlet which U.N.R.R.A. has prepared on Italy that in the summer of 1944 they sent an Observers' Mission; in September, 1944, they promised limited help and medical supplies only: in March, 1945, they extended their help to displaced persons and in August, 1945, they promised full scale relief to start on the 1st January, 1946. Full scale relief according to this pamphlet was not quite as much as it should have been as far as some commodities are concerned. But so far as dairy produce is concerned U.N.R.R.A. shipped to Italy 18,000 tons during December, 1945. How can that be reconciled with the fact that certain dairy produce is being sold unrationed in the Italian shops—and I can assure the Under-Secretary that the ordinary working class and peasant class are buying them? I have seen them in the shops myself and I also purchased a little myself. I want the Under-Secretary to realise that this is not secondhand information because I actually saw the thing happen. At the same time, the Minister of Food reduced our cheese ration from three ounces to two ounces. I think that illustrates that somewhere and somehow price control and rationing should be tightened in the administration either by U.N.R.R.A. or the Italian Government. I am supported in that contention by Mr. Lehman, who was then Director-General of U.N.R.R.A., who, when speaking at Atlantic City, in March, 1946, said:

" Basically these recommendations called for still greater conservation of food in every country, a strengthening of controls, fair distribution of available food, and improved ad. ministrative machinery."

Surely, therefore, there can be no doubt that controls could and should be tightened a little. So far as producing countries are concerned' the devastation that has been caused in the receiving countries is not realised. A person thousands of miles away from the site of the battle cannot realise what has happened to the communications and how difficult it is for the Governments of the receiving countries to get control over their citizens and over rationing. Greater efforts should be made particularly regarding publicity in the producing countries covering the difficulties of the receiving countries. I think that the sympathy of the public in the producing countries could be obtained if publicity on the right lines were introduced. At the present time publicity seems to be more concerned with the black market on the Continent and that is not the desirable type of publicity which is required if the producing countries are to make greater efforts. U.N.R.R.A. has undoubtedly made mistakes as indeed we all have but I think that, broadly speaking, they have done a jolly good job of work on the Continent for which they ought to be given full credit. The point is this: They are not being given full credit at the moment because there is not sufficient publicity in this country or in America. So much for the producing countries.

To turn to the receiving countries, the chief snag there in countries such as Italy and Yugoslavia is the fact that a reborn Government has a great desire to assert itself. This is true of Governments in all countries once they are elected or appointed and there is a great natural desire to impose their will on the citizens and to organise their own country, I think they have to realise that if they ask for food they must see that there are going to be fair shares for all and that during the present food crisis they will have to accept a tighter control by some sort of international body. In Italy, for example, U.N.R.R.A. provides the food and the Italian Government attend to the distribution, but quite honestly the Italian Government has not the administrative machinery at the moment to attend to that distribution in a really fair manner, and propaganda should be distributed or, if necessary, directions should be given to the receiving countries that they have to see that fair shares for all are granted in food received from U.N.R.R.A. or that otherwise U.N.R.R.A. must step in and carry out distribution themselves.[Interruption.] It may be a big job but is it not better that food from a producing country should be distributed fairly in the receiving country?

I was not criticising my hon. Friend but I merely remarked that it was an impossible job because it means taking over the whole administration of the country.

It does not necessarily mean taking over the whole of the administration; they could have stricter control and supervision. At present the supervision is very lax but they could improve this without actually taking over themselves. They could issue rules and orders; but if these were to be enforced they would have to originate from a higher level than U.N.R.R.A., and any order of that kind would have to come from an organisation such as U.N.O. I do not think that U.N.R.R.A. itself has the power to ask for new powers but perhaps the Under-Secretary could take the initiative with U.N.O. to make sure that these foods are distributed fairly and I think that if he did there would be greater sympathy in the countries which produce food.

The next point with regard to the receiving countries is the question of indigenous foods, and any food which is produced in a country should be rationed in addition to rationing the food brought in by U.N.R.R.A. I was informed in Northern Italy that they had a tremendous amount of dairy produce which they were producing themselves in certain parts, and that the reason for the plentiful supply of butter and cheese in the shops was the fact that they were not going to ration their own goods but only those coming in via U.N.R.R.A. Of course, that was not official information but merely gossip passed on, and I in turn pass it on to the Under-Secretary for what it is worth.

I think that during the U.N.R.R.A. Debates in America—which I have read very carefully since putting down this subject for the Adjournment Motion —the Delegates from the producing countries mentioned the fact that indigenous foods were not rationed as they might be. This was the thread running through their speeches, and they were complaining about it. Surely this Government should take up the lead—on moral grounds we are entitled to take a lead of that sort—to see that the control is improved in the producing countries, in order to make sure that more is available; and to make representations that the control in the receiving countries should be such that the producing countries may be satisfied that food is distributed fairly; and, in fact, see that food is distributed in the receiving countries.

Another criticism concerns the question of the future of U.N.R.R.A. At the present moment U.N.R.R.A. is due to die a natural death at the end of this year and I am going to produce four reasons why I think that should not be. The first is the question of food, and on this again Mr. Lehman states in his statement which he made in March of this year:

" Mr. Hoover was reported in Paris as expressing his opinion that the present crisis would end with the arrival of the new harvest in Europe. On the evidence available to U.N.R.R.A. on this subject I believe the reported views both of the Secretary of Agriculture and Mr. Hoover do not recognise the full scale of the emergency with which the United Nations are faced. We have absolutely no right at the present time to plan on any basis other than that the situation next winter may be even worse than the present crisis."

That is what Mr. Lehman said, so I think we can take it as being fairly certain that on grounds of relief—that is food for starving people in Europe—it is very necessary that U.N.R.R.A. or some such similar organisation should continue.

The second argument in favour of U.N.R.R.A. continuing is the question of rehabilitation, that is to say, the restarting of the economic life in Europe. Who, in this House, can say that the Ruhr will be in a fit state for production at the end of 1946 with all the communications in Europe smashed and disagreement, to put it mildly, between the Eastern and Western zones in Germany alone? How can the economy of Europe he restarted by the end of 1946? It just is not possible, and on these grounds of rehabilitation U.N.R.R.A. or some similar organisation should be continued after the end of 1946.

I now come to the third and the most important reason why U.N.R.R.A. should continue, and I refer to the question of displaced persons. U.N.R.R.A. looked after these people from the moment they were uncovered by our advancing armies, and looked after them to the best of their ability in very difficult circumstances. At the present time U.N.R.R.A.'s rather large staff is reasonably well deployed and is still looking after displaced persons, again to the best of its ability, but it is, disturbing to hear that because the end of U.N.R.R.A. has been pronounced there is a reduction being made in some of the staff, which will certainly not help the displaced persons at all. The reduction would be all right providing a final settlement of the displaced persons problem was reached, but so far there has been no signs of a settlement, and the majority of the displaced persons concerned are still in camp.

Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the majority of these persons are still in camps?

At least they are still in Europe, and in the case of the Jews, for example, there is no sign of a solution to the problem of their settlement at the present moment. If U.N.R.R.A. came to an end at the end of 1946, who on earth would look after them? Presumably, the cost would fall upon this country in our own zone and ultimately upon the taxpayer once more, in addition to the £80 million already provided. It seems clear that as the political situation in Europe is developing the displaced person problem is going to be a long drawn-out job. That being so, it provides a third reason why U.N.R.R.A. should not come to an end in 1946. The Under-Secretary knows more about this than I do because he was the chairman of the sub-committee set up by U.N.O. on the question of refugees. I believe that their report recommended that a new body should be set up to look after displaced persons, but the report has to go before U.N.O., I imagine, and it will be some time before a decision is reached as to whether a new organisation should be set up or not. Even if a new organisation is started at the end of September it will be quite impossible for it to be efficient by the end of the year. It is no use therefore disposing of U.N.R.R.A. until such time as there is another organisation to come in and take its place—and any such organisation must be efficient, its personnel will have to be trained, and so on. The question of displaced persons is the most powerful and pertinent argument for the retention of U.N.R.R.A. after the end of 1946.

My fourth argument is that the administration of U.N.R.R.A. has had a tremendous number of teething troubles, as indeed every new business has, but they have a certain efficiency now—not efficiency from an absolute point of view, but relatively it is an efficient machine and it would be a tragedy to destroy that machine and have nothing efficient to put in its place To summarise, I think that at any rate the uncertainty regarding the future of U.N.R.R.A. should be removed and some positive contribution made by this country either in suggesting that U N.R.R.A. continues or that a new organisation takes its place to take over the personnel of U.N.R.R.A. in a smooth manner.

I turn to the question of U.N.R.R.A. staff. In the early days of war the Personnel of U.N.R.R.A. and their standard of training were not too high. The Secretary of State, in the Debate in November, admitted as much. Then the higher level of administration became much better, because very distinguished people were borrowed from various Ministries as and when they became available. There was also a certain improvement in the lower level of administration. -But at present in peacetime U.N.R R.A. provides merely a blind alley job. There is no pension and, so far as I know, there is no job following afterwards. That being so, how do the Government reconcile the fact that they want efficient people with the lack of social security? The Government and the Labour Party have, rightly, made a great point about the security of employees, but those employed by U.N.R.R.A. have no security of any sort. As the Royal Air Force would say, "There is no future in it."The Government should come out with the scheme for U.N.R.R.A.'s staff, so that they would know that their future is provided for and would then become reasonably efficient.

I would now like to say a few words about publicity, which was also recommended by Mr. Lehman in March last. When I first went into the Army we used to have to move a whole unit numbering perhaps 300 men from one site to another. A magnificent scheme was prepared in the officers' mess, but only three people knew about it, and the other 297 did not. The cooks would go to one site, the food to another while the soyer stoves remained behind and complete confusion would reign. I am glad to note that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) agrees with me; he has probably had some of it, as I have. The moment I began to go short of food I thought there had better be an alteration, so the whole unit was gathered together and the information was spread around. Everyone knew what was happening, and the consequence was that the cooks and the food and the other things went to the right place. I use that as an illustration to show that more information about U.N.R.R.A. should be made available, in the form of statistics, including drawings and illustrations which would make that information easy to assimilate. Why cannot the Government provide a White Paper on the achievements of U.N.R.R.A.? I think this has been pressed for before, but so far as I know there is not in existence a White Paper giving complete details of what U.N.R.R.A. has done. U.N.R.R.A. should be sold to the world, in order to encourage the world to cooperate to a much greater extent.

Now for a word about the Emergency Economic Committee. The Minister of State is president of this Emergency Economic Committee for Europe. This is a fact finding body which is producing very good facts indeed, but which are known only to the people who are interested in this matter, and who can ferret out what they are doing. It ought not to be necessary for average members of the public to have to scratch around for information. It should be presented to them in the daily newspapers, and in White Papers. Further, this information should be sent to America and other food producing countries. If that was done efficiently it would create a good deal of sympathy, which would help the rehabilitation of Europe. For example, I see that, in 1945, Yugoslavia was the second largest recipient of relief. That country had 1,000,000 tons of various commodities, costing £70 million. What publicity has there been inside Yugoslavia, where, at present, great hostility is being shown to this country? The facts should be brought home to the persons who eat the food in Yugoslavia, to show them where it is coming from and how it gets there.

Also the question of the Combined Food Board is a very vital one, because its operations are shrouded in secrecy. The Leader of the House came back recently from America and was not able to give us complete information because he said it would have been contrary to the Combined Food Boards to disclose it. He was quite right if that was the policy, but the Board is wrong to have such a policy. Mr. Lehman, who has been Director-General of U.N.R.R.A., said:

" … it seems imperative that each allocation recommended by the Combined Food Board be made public, and that at the same time the extent to which that allocation meets the reasonable standards of consumption. It seems inevitable that suspicion and misunderstanding will grow in the countries whose people are threatened with starvation, if they are not given the information by supplying countries which indicates the extent to which help has been given other countries."

Why cannot this country take the lead, with the Board, and make certain facts available to the public and the world in general?

It would be useless for the Board to make the facts available if the organs of the Press which support hon. Members opposite continue to misrepresent those facts.

If the facts are put into the newspapers they could not be distorted.

I said " misrepresent."

Quotations from a White Paper, or an official document, could not be distorted, except by comment. There are certain papers which represent the interests of Members opposite which are not free from a certain amount of taint in that respect.

Is the hon. Member aware that the Economic Committee for Europe made a full report in the early part of February, and that the only paper, other than the " Daily Herald," which carried news of that report was the " Manchester Guardian "? No Tory newspaper referred to it at all.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for that interruption which reinforces my argument, that a White Paper issued in this country would receive more publicity than the document to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. A White Paper would be published in almost every newspaper, Right Wing, Left Wing and Centre. I see the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) agrees with me about that, and if the hon. Member is fortunate enough to catch Mr. Deputy-Speaker's eye I hope he will bring out that point, and reinforce it. U.N.R.R.A., I think, should have representation on the Combined Food Board. At present, they have to go to the Board with other countries; by that, I mean other receiving countries who buy. In order to get U.N.R.R.A. into the over-all picture, surely it is necessary for them to have a seat on the Combined Food Board.

I have not made these criticisms in a party or carping spirit; I have made them because I want publicity fo U.N.R.R.A. I think it is too early to give a final verdict on what U.N.R.R.A. have done, but they have certainly tackled one of the most difficult jobs which any organisation has had to take on in the history of the world. Taking all things into account, it has done very well. At the same time, it can be improved. It has done a good job from the moral point of view as well as from other points of view. I hope that, when the Under-Secretary goes to America—I am told he is leaving tonight—he will try to do something to see that U.N.R.R.A. is represented on the Combined Food Board, and that due publicity is given to U.N.R.R.A.'s contribution to a great and urgent problem.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) for having afforded the House an opportunity of discussing this important aspect of world affairs. will not follow him in his remarks about the state of things in Italy because, apart from the fact that I have not been there recently, I- have not read the " Sunday Graphic " and the " Daily Sketch " over the last few weeks. I am more concerned about the state of affairs in the Far East. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Wallasey that there has been far too little information reaching the public in regard to what is going on in the Far East in-connection with U.N.R.R.A. I think the House will agree that it is most important that the activities of U.N.R.R A., which have relieved so much suffering in various European countries and in the Far East, should be conducted in a manner that is absolutely above suspicion. As far as this country's institutions are concerned, we are always able to question a Minister of the Crown, we are always able to draw attention to the manner in which a Government Department conducts its affairs; but in regard to U.N.R.R.A. we rely entirely upon the good will of the organisation itself, possibly supplemented from time to time by declarations from the Minister of State as to how its activities are being conducted. There have been rumblings from time to time from the Far East, which, as far as I am concerned, have recently crystallised in a letter I have received from a correspondent in China, who is a representative of a reputable firm. He says:

" China is for the moment virtually under American control and this state of affairs is not improved by the operations of U.N.R.R.A. and its Chinese counterpart, C.N.R.R.A. These two organisations are now under heavy criticism on charges of corruption, and are, in effect, no more than highly organised selling agents for -American goods, particularly those luxury articles which, for some unknown reason, form such a large part of C.N.R.R.A. shipments."

I am making no allegation on the basis of the information I have received, but I think the House is entitled to have some explanation in due course—not necessarily this afternoon—on any investigations which the Minister of State may see fit to undertake in regard to the U.N.R.R.A. administration in the Far East. If it be true that the U.N.R.R.A. organisation in the Far East and its Chinese counterpart, C.N.R.R.A., are being used for purposes of this kind, it is a matter which is highly reprehensible and which should be taken up vigorously by our own Government. Therefore I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to give me an assurance that the allegation will be investigated. I am bound to say, from experience of American military and semi-military organisations—I had the privilege, during the war, of serving on an Anglo-American staff—one did from time to time wonder whether all that vast organisation of officers quartered in the Avenue Kleber in Paris was an entirely military organisation, or was there partially for the purpose of furthering American commercial interests. I hope the Minister of State may be able in due course, after the Recess, to present us with some reassuring information.

I want to reinforce one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), to whom I am very grateful for having initiated this Debate. The work that U.N.R.R.A. does is of the utmost importance. While my own knowledge is limited chiefly to Germany, I can say without any fear of contradiction that the work being done there is absolutely first class, even though it may have been criticised when it was making a somewhat shaky start in the early days. Like the hon. Member for Wallasey, I wish to make some constructive criticisms.

I want particularly to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether some arrangement can be made to prevent the rather absurd and contradictory directives that arc being put up, signed both by the Military Government and by U.N.R.R.A. representatives, in the displaced persons' camps. I do not believe it is the fault of the representatives of U.N.R.R.A., but the fact remains that the military are very anxious to get rid of the displaced persons. I understand their anxiety. All of us are anxious to find some solution to the problem. The fact is, however, that most alarming and unfair notices are posted in the camps from time to time, without the headquarters of U.N.R.R.A. having any previous knowledge of them, because the local representatives at the camps are practically forced to give their signatures because the Military Government have so decreed. I do not know whether the U.N.R.R.A. representatives in the camps can he told that, when anything of this nature is put up which does not come within the compass of the agreement already arrived at by the Economic and Social Council, they should refuse to put their names to it. These notices have the most alarming and unfair effect on some of the inmates of the camps. Secondly, like the hon. Member for Wallasey, I want to ask what is to happen to the displaced persons. Under the present arrangement, U.N.R.R.A. is supposed to come to an end on 31st December of this year, but I understand that, in fact, there is no likelihood of a decision being arrived at before the September Council.

It is impossible.

In that case, something ought to be said now about the future duration of U.N.R.R.A. We cannot simply leave the camps under nobody's control, and for heaven's sake, do not let us put them under military control. Let us insist that U.N.R.R.A. shall go on until a decision has been taken and a period of time allowed to elapse, so that the displaced persons can start off a new life, wherever it may be. I and some other hon. Members have pressed for a decision to be taken now. We have pressed that the Big Three should decide where this hard core of half a million persons should go within the confines of their own Empires. Let us get on with the job in the summer months. If that is not done, no decision will be taken until September, if then, and it will be next summer before anything can be done. There ought to be some decision now, so that the people operating U.N.R.R.A. may have a feeling of confidence, of continuity of job, and of security in the work which they are doing.

Thirdly, I ask the Under-Secretary of State whether a decision has been arrived at; and if not, when it will be arrived at, with regard to the Central Tracing Bureau. That Bureau is under the direction of U.N.R.R.A. at the present time. It does very useful work. It is engaged in all countries in Europe in trying to find out where people have gone. Over 1000 inquiries a day come into the Bureau about people who were displaced, who got lost, and many of whom are, no doubt, dead. The Central Tracing Bureau are doing magnificent work. They have a most efficient organisation, and an extremely keen body of people working for them; but with the impending demise of U.N.R.R.A., they have no indication of what is to happen to their control and administration when U.N.R.R.A. conies to an end. I do not speak without some knowledge of this subject. I would like to be assured that if U.N.R.R.A. closes down, the Central Tracing Bureau will come under the United Nations, so that its very valuable international work will continue. With regard to the distribution of foodstuffs, the hon. Member for Wallasey implied that it would be better if U.N.R.R.A. had closer control of the distribution of bulk supplies than at present appears to be the case in territories which he has visited.

What I said was that it fair shares are not being distributed in any particular country and if the Government concerned cannot guarantee fair shares for all, that Government would have to be very closely controlled by U.N.R.R.A.

:I see the hon. Member's point, and the House will have heard it. I have been in Germany twice this year and I know there is a great number of displaced persons whom U.N.R.R.A. does not and cannot touch. The responsible heads of U.N.R.R.A. are no mean people. They include the chap who planned D-Day. He said to me, " For heaven's sake don't put that job on to me. I haven't got the staff The thing is too vast. I simply can't tackle it." U.N.R.R.A. should not be asked, especially in view of its temporary nature, to undertake a task the scope of which is at present beyond the possibility of efficient operation.

The hon. Member referred to certain rumours which he said were rampant, particularly in America, as to the emergency position being over, because when this harvest came in all would be well. I agree with him that the crisis is nothing like over and will not be over for a long time. For the benefit of the House I would like to quote the words of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd Orr), who said last week in this House:

"The facts are that when we get in the 1946 harvest the world will be as badly off for food as it was when we got in the 1945 harvest. Unless measures are,taken immediately to conserve the 1946 harvest and to spread it over the year and distribute it according to our needs, at this time next year we shall be in the same desperate plight as which we are today. The shortage might even continue beyond 1947 into 1948."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31E1 May, 1946; Vol. 423 C. 1548.]

The hon. Gentleman is an authority on the subject. If his gloomy forebodings turn out to be true there is a very solid argument for the continuance of U.N.R.R.A. at least until the end of 1947, so that a fair and proper distribution of supplies may take place.

With regard to displaced persons; U.N.R.R.A. is doing magnificent work. I do not suggest for a moment that all the camps are perfect or that all the people inside them are saints. We know they are not, but in the main, the camps are well administered. The U.N.R.R.A. teams in charge of them are enthusiastic and are throwing their heart and soul into them. It should be within the knowledge of the House that the expenditure on the displaced persons is in the order of only two per cent. or three per cent. of the total U.N.R.R.A. expenditure. It is the most humane part of their work. Therefore, it is vital that U. N.R.R. A. 's life should he prolonged and that it should be known that it will be prolonged, not only until a decision has been taken as to how displaced persons are to be disposed of but until a period of time has elapsed after their disposal, during which period they can be moved around to their new homes and destinations.

Another point is the replacement of the personnel who are running U.N.R.R.A. It is quite impossible to get people to go into U.N.R.R.A. and to volunteer to work in that organisation unless it has a definite life ahead for a fixed period. At the present time, displaced persons have been told that U.N.R.R.A. is closing down on 31st December this year, whereas people with practical knowledge know that U.N.R.R.A. must not close down, or that some other organisation must be put in its place. If the camps are to be properly administered the people there now should have security for whatever future period may be decided upon. The filling-in people, who are taking the place of those who, for one reason or another, may resign, will be of a much better type:f they see a definite future of one year or 18 months ahead for the work which they have undertaken.

As the hon. Gentleman is talking about the replacement of resigning U.N.R.R.A. officials, perhaps he might ask the Under-Secretary to make reference to the possibility of these people being replaced by suitable displaced persons. Until recently promotion of this kind was taking place. Recently it has stopped. It is disastrous that it should have been stopped.

I should not preclude that for a moment, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his suggestion. There are in these camps admirable people whose services could be used, and, in many cases, their services are being used although in rather different capacities, but there is no reason why they should not be used to administer some of the camps. In my view, U.N.R.R.A. has taken on a somewhat new lease of life on the American side since La Guardia has taken the helm. He is a man of whom people have differing opinions and he is known by all sorts of names from " Little Flower "To " Butch." However, he is a man of tremendous drive and character, and if anybody can stir the Americans into keeping this going until the work in Europe reaches a satisfactory conclusion, he will do it. In order that the work he is doing on the other side should be adequately supported on this side, I ask His Majesty's Government to make a pronouncement as soon as possible, by arrangement with the American Government, as to the life of U.N.R.R.A. to ensure that both the people who administer it and those who are administered by it can have some certainty of tenure.

I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) saying that U.N.R.R.A.'s good deeds were not known. I have an ample supply of literature from U.N.R.R.A. describing in detail all the work which is being done, and that literature is open to anybody who is interested in its work and its great. humanitarian scope. I should be very glad if the Under-Secretary would make clear one point about Yugoslavia. We are, I believe, the second largest contributors to the funds of U.N.R.R.A., and our contribution is made by great sacrifice on the part of this nation—a sacrifice in consumer goods which are urgently required for this country itself, including a large amount of rolling stock, and a sacrifice by the additional strain on our dollar exchange for food stuffs and other commodities which are supplied and paid for in dollars. Yet we are told that Yugoslavia cannot be represented at the Victory Parade tomorrow because Great Britain is unfriendly to Yugoslavia. Is there any truth in the statement, which is made on very good authority, that once our contributions are landed in Yugoslavia all indications of the source and origin of those contributions completely disappear and the people who receive those very substantial benefits have no idea whatever of whence they come, and by whom they are paid for? That is a statement which is causing some disquiet to good many people in this country, and I shall be glad if the Under-Secretary will if it is true convey to the Yugoslav Government a distinct warning that this one-sided arrangement cannot go on, or, if it is not true, that he will remove the anxieties of those who are anxious to give every support to U.N.R.R.A. and the magnificent work it is doing.

If in the few minutes at my disposal I do not follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) in his argument, it is not because I consider it uninteresting or unimportant, but I wish specifically to refer to one aspect of U. N.R.R.A.'s work which has not been touched upon today. That is its function in rehabilitating European agriculture. This, in turn, depends to a very great extent on its ability to obtain and supply mechanised equipment for agriculture. If we look at Europe today we see that the tractor, which was coming into general use, particularly in the Eastern part of Europe, is today being used less and less owing to the fact that so many of the tractor plants were destroyed during the war. In Russia, for example, it is well known that the great tractor works of Stalingrad and Kharkov were destroyed by the Germans, and the result is that much of the traction for agriculture in Eastern Europe is today done by hand. The effect of that on agricultural productivity is almost incalculable, and is a reason why one might well discount many of the accounts of abundant agricultural supplies in Russia. The Russian agricultural economy was very largely based on the tractor and on the tractor station. With the destruction of its power to produce tractors and mechanical equipment, its agricultural productivity must inevitably have fallen.

It is quite clear that if U.N.R.R.A. is to be helped in its work of feeding Europe, it must also have the opportunity and the power to acquire agricultural equipment and mechanised equipment of various kinds for agricultural purposes. I hope, therefore, that whatever the future of U.N.R.R.A. it will, before it winds up in its present form, or when it takes on a new form, enter into large-scale " forward " contracts to buy agricultural equipment and, in particular, tractors. There are in the world today three great areas where tractors and mechanised equipment for agriculture can be produced: first the United States, secondly, the Midlands of this country—in particular, Coventry—and thirdly, Northern Italy. It seems to me that if U.N.R.R.A. had the power and the means to purchase tractors in Northern Italy and the Midlands of this country, for " forward " delivery in 1947 and 1948, not only would we stimulate two great industrial areas of the world but would be providing for the great ultimate benefit of European agriculture.

I do not believe that agricultural productivity in Europe can reach its former level unless it is aided by mechanisation in that form, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what are U. N. R.R.A.'s plans for purchasing agricultural machinery and tractors. The tractor is not something which can merely be taken off the peg; its production has to be scheduled and planned. U.N.R.R.A. has a major responsibility for the mechanical rehabilitation of Europe's agriculture; it is a responsibility which involves foresight and action, now.

I want to press the point to which I referred in a brief interjection just now. I was in the British zone about a fortnight ago, and I found great dismay amongst many of the best U.N.R.R.A. officials as to a recent rule from U.N.R.R.A. headquarters prohibiting the appointment of displaced persons to U.N.R.R.A. officer positions. I saw many U.N.R.R.A. officers who had been displaced persons and had been appointed before this rule was promulgated, some very excellent people. I saw, for example, a sick bay organised by a man, obviously a very able doctor, who had been Dean of the Faculty at Riga, and other people who were obviously qualified for U.N.R.R.A. officer positions, some of them quite as efficient as some of the present U.N.R.R.A. officers. It is obvious that if they can be promoted there are certain advantages. For instance, you save money, because it is cheaper to employ these persons than to bring people from England or America. In the second place, which is more important, by choosing the best of these displaced persons, we could give a stimulus and encouragement to the morale of the community from which they have been taken, and make them feel that this is not a kind of external Anglo-American soup kitchen arrangement, but a cooperative enterprise in which they are taking part. I hope the Under-Secretary, unless he can satisfy us that there is a sufficient reason—which I cannot imagine why this rule is in force. will see that it is removed

There are two very simple points I wish to raise, and I do not expect an answer. I support the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) but only in a modified form. I do not think we can ask for a White Paper or for something specially printed, but we are entitled to know what U N.R.R.A. is doing week by week. It is no use saying that the Government do not know. They do know. I think that if we were to search through the files, or if any of the Ministers on the Bench before me searched through the files in any of their Departments, they would find full information concerning all the different countries in Europe. They would find what calories are available day by day, and the amount of foodstuffs which have been imported, and the amount of reserves and the estimated cost, and all the different items which go to make the normal dietary of the different liberated countries, in fact of every country, apart from America and Russia. We know very little indeed as regards those two countries.

I believe we are making a great mistake today. Government Departments are marking papers " Secret " which are not secret at all. This is of paramount importance, and I am,going to confess something which I think should be confessed. I have never read such stuff and nonsense as I have read in recent weeks headed " Secret," while associated with the Ministry of Food. I make no apologies for saying that. Ordinary information which Dutch friends have given me, and which I have had delivered to me this afternoon in the Lobby of the House, has been published in European countries, yet it is published as secret information in Government Departments. Why should that be so? Why should we not be told precisely what is available in different European countries? If it should be that there are 35,000 or 40,000 cattle on the hoof surplus in Denmark and U.N.R.R.A. ought to have them, why has not U.N.R.R.A. the money, or why have not the cattle been moved?

Does my hon. Friend recognise that this disease is part of the plot of the Civil Service against Parliament?

Whoever is responsible for the plot, it will be my firm determination to unravel or expose the plot and to rid us of this suspicion on both sides of the House. It is of paramount importance that we should come into the open with this information. Government Departments could tell us when we stop produce coming to this country. We stopped produce coming. from Holland on 3rst May, but no one has ever told us why that produce is not going to U.N.R.R.A, and to liberated countries. No one has ever told us that it is going there. There are other issues concerning the Balkan States. The Balkan countries have certain surplus products. The hon. Member for Wallasey raised the question of surpluses in Italy. I saw the information weeks ago marked " Secret," and a fortnight ago I read it in information circulated from Italy, so there was no secret in it. Why is it that Members of Parliament cannot have this information? We are entitled to know. Members of Parliament must know, for the sake of the reputation of Britain and the honour that is associated with U.N.R.R.A. in the work it is doing. We ought to have these secret documents, as they are called. Of course, it is stuff and nonsense to call them secret documents. They should be circulated in the weekly postbag. We get a lot of other trash. These would be useful to us. It would save Ministers from having to answer a lot of questions which sometimes annoy them, and it would cause us to believe that we are getting good value for our money.

A final point that I do not understand is concerned with the Island of Malta, the George Cross Island. Some few weeks ago they had thousands of tons of surplus potatoes. Personally, I tried to find out how it was that they were supposed to have exported potatoes to the United Kingdom. I did not believe that they had and I found out that they had not, but those potatoes have gone somewhere. They have not come here. They have not come with the approval of the Minister of Agriculture. The fact is that they have gone somewhere. Three thousands tons of potatoes left Malta for commercial reasons and for somebody's advantage; but between now and September we shall have to send possibly a similar amount of flour from stocks we cannot afford to replace potatoes that have been sent to give somebody commercial advantage.

These are serious matters and I beseech the Minister to consider them. I do not want to reply now, I know he cannot answer this question now, but I know the Government can provide the answer, and the Government must provide the answer if they are to retain the confidence we want to feel in the work U.N.R.R.A. is doing. Therefore, I support the hon. Member for Wallasey. He raises many questions on which we like to find ourselves in agreement with him. We ought to rid ourselves of this suspicion. We ought to have this information. It must be circulated to Members. Give us the fullest information not only of U.N.R. R.A.'s work, but of all the stocks of food, where they are, where they are going, where they are needed—give us all this information and it will save a lot of time in our Debates. We will also certainly feel the amount of confidence we want to feel in U.N.R.R.A.'s useful contribution for the wellbeing of mankind.

I am sure the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman who raised this Debate which has ranged very widely indeed, so widely that it has included some questions to which I cannot possibly address myself. For example, it is quite plain that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) is in a much better position to reply for the Ministry of Food than I am and questions about the movement of food should be addressed to the Minister of Food. At any rate, I cannot deal with those matters. I want to try to get rid of some of the smaller points before I deal with the substantial points of the Debate. First I want to say to the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) that I am indebted to him for having told me seven days ago of this apparent cessation of the employment of displaced persons in camps. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I fulfilled my promise to him and immediately made inquiries. I assure him and the House that I am not a partner to this apparently wasteful, thoughtless, and almost immoral pushing aside of people who are anxious to help and who have qualifications.

I am afraid I cannot answer the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) with reference to Yugoslavia. There are various points on which we have slight differences with this friendly Government—because it is a friendly Government. I have had almost a running fight with the representatives from Yugoslavia who sat with me on the Committee for Refugees, and there will probably be continued difficulties, hut, while I engage quite freely to follow up the point made by the hon. Gentleman and have inquiries made concerning it, I should, in fairness to that Yugoslav Government, say that, to the best of my recollection, we have had no substantial complaints relating to U.N.R.R.A. supplies to Yugoslavia. Indeed, the informtion has been rather the other way, but I know the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to reply in detail now, and I will therefore have inquiries made and see that he is furnished with the information.

The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) raised a number of points. Let me try to dispose of one of them—the -fate of the Central Tracing Board. If I am right in my recollection, there are really two Central Tracing Boards, and I rather think my hon. Friend was thinking of the one in the American zone, which comes completely under U.N.R. R.A.

indicated assent.

Of course, there is one in the British zone, too, where a close association is maintained with U.N.R.R.A. but it does not lie under their control. My anticipation would be that, in any future international refugee organisation—and I shall deal with that in a moment—a component part would obviously have to be a tracing bureau of some kind. I should also imagine that, if there were a gap between the cessation of U.N.R.R.A.—and this might not necessarily be—and the starting up of a new refugee organisation, this Government, at any rate, would do what it could, I imagine, with the full assent of the United States Government, to see that the present Board does not have its personnel dispersed and its organisation broken down. It has a substantial humanitarian value.

Next, I come to the fate of displaced persons. May I say, in passing, that the hon. Gentleman who raised the question was, I think, wrong in his impression about the proportion of these displaced persons. I think it is true, though I am speaking from memory, that something between 80 and 90 per cent, of the displaced persons have already been repatriated. That is not to say, of course, that there is still anything but a very substantial task on our hands jointly, but repatriation continues, and no one here knows what will be the figure of the hard core of repatriates, although my hon. Friend has suggested 500,000. The United Kingdom has been represented on the Committee to which reference has been made, and, from this Committee, we hope there will develop an international organisation, which is very important, not only from the financial, but from the responsibility, point of view. It would not be sufficient, in the opinion of the Government, that there should just be an arrangement with the Americans for dealing with this problem. We hope there will be an international organisation.

If there should be a gap between U.N.R.R.A. and the operation of this international organisation, the House can be assured that the Government are already addressing themselves to that possibility. It is one which, I hope, will not arise, but it is not one which we have overlooked. Indeed, apart from the official job which I hope to do in relation to refugees in New York, I hope to have conversations with our American friends upon the kind of interim machinery which we shall require and to extend this discussion if necessary. Our hope and endeavour will be to see that there will be no gap, but that the new international refugee organisation will take over a running machine.

Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman believes that U.N.R.R.A. will continue until such time as the new organisation is set up?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will not mind if I address myself to this question in my own way. I must point out that my hon. Friend's question represents a lack of logic which I would never have associated with him. It may be that it would be in a position to operate on a scheduled day, but there is another side to the question, and I think my hon. Friend shows one-sided logic. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) asked me a question to which I can give no immediate answer. I can only say that the U.N.R.R.A. Committee for the Far East is now to meet in China. The Government are represented on that Committee, if my recollection is right, by a Foreign Office official, but I will see that inquiries are made and that a reply is furnished to my hon. and gallant Friend. Regarding U.N.R.R.A. publicity, I think that here again, there is some misunderstanding. It would not be possible, for example, for the Government to publish a White Paper about the scope and extent of the work of U.N.R.R.A. It might be possible, if the House thought it advisable, for the Government to publish a White Paper about their work inside U.N.R.R.A. In fact, for other reasons, a statement on this is in a fairly advanced state of preparation, and, if the House wishes it to be published as a White Paper, I will consider it very sympathetically and I rather think that my right hon Friend would agree. That is as far as it could go. It would be quite impossible for H.M.G. to issue a White Paper about U.N.R.R.A., because U.N.R.R.A. is an international organisation in which we only take part.

Surely, the hon. Gentleman could make representations to the other Governments concerned in order to produce a combined document which would be very impressive in its scope?

Did the hon. Gentleman say " H.M.G." or " H.M.V."?

" H.M.V."Is on the other side of the House. I have no doubt that what the hon. Member suggests could be done, but I am quite certain that the importance of this will not be allowed to disappear without reasonable publication. Again, that would not be a White Paper, but would involve quite a different question from the one addressed to me.

The question of U.N.R.R.A. personnel is a much wider one. I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but I share, as everyone must, some of the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate. In any organisation which is temporary, it is most unusual to get first-class people, although, as I have pointed out, there are some very good examples of officials in the service of U.N.R.R.A. It is increasingly difficult to obtain, and even more difficult to,retain, first-class people for this work.

Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has considered the position of those refugees who are in this country and in other countries and who would be prepared to assist U.N.R.R.A. if they were not placed in the difficulty of being afraid that they may not be given the opportunity of returning to their homes in this country or elsewhere? Would the hon. Gentleman consider, when the question of personnel is being dealt with, that an assurance might be given to such people who would be extremely helpful in this work that, by participating in it, they were not to be placed in the difficult position of being doubtful about the certainty of their return here?

Of course, that is a question for the Home Office, to which I could not possibly address myself. As far as employment is concerned, a very great proportion of the staff would fall into this category, and we have within U.N.R.R.A. just now many foreigners, if I may so call them, from the United Kingdom, who are giving very important service. U.N.R.R.A., I should add, is already attempting to deal with this problem, and would welcome a personnel agreement with the public services of the United Nations and with the permanent international organisations. Much of the experience being gained by highly qualified people inside U.N.R.R.A. would be of immense value to any international organisation. I may add, before I pass from this subject, that the point is not as had as it seems. It is true that U.N.R.R.A. has been able only to offer short term contracts, but like most contracts of that kind there is a compensating factor in the shape of rather higher salaries. Indeed, I did see in the Press a comparison, which I thought quite an unfair one, which showed how badly paid British civil servants were compared with U.N.R.R.A. personnel. But the weighting factor is the temporary nature of the employment.

As to better control of goods at the receiving end, it would not be possible, because of U. N.R. R.A. 's constitution, for it to undertake distribution. Without discussing the subject too fully, may I say that if the hon. Gentleman reflects upon it, he will see it would expose itself to a politically difficult situation if short-circuited the Government of a country. My recollection is that by its agreement, it cannot have direct control over the distribution. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, it takes an active interest in distribution, and the Governments concerned are pledged to provide U.N.R.R.A. with full information regarding the distribution of U.N.R.R.A. supplies, and to allow free movement to U.N.R.R.A. observers throughout their countries. In Italy, as in other receiving countries, U.N.R.R.A. has made representations on several occasions regarding the control and distribution of the supplies. Within the last two weeks indeed. in relation to Italy, the Mission has established a special unit to investigate in conjunction with the Government, reports of black market activities. There is also in the process of formation in the European Regional Office a special international unit which will have the duties of inspection and supervision of the arrangements by the Mission for the distribution of U.N.R.R.A. supplies in the receiving countries.

Perhaps I shall not be expected to go too fully into figures relating to dairy products in Italy. In my letter to the hon. Gentleman I did supply him with as full figures as I could. The position may be summed up by saying, that, first, it would be difficult to secure rationing, in appreciable quantities, of the goods available; and, second—and I am quite certain of this—that the average Italian worker is spending something very like 75 per cent. of his wages already on food and that, therefore, to offer these other foods at their high prices on the rations would not improve his position at all.

The future of U.N.R.R.A. was the subject which engaged Members on all sides of the House. This will be the major question for discussion, I am quite sure, at the August Council of the Administration. H.M.G. are very much alive to the considerations which we have heard from both sides of the House, and the question is being considered most urgently and earnestly by the interested Ministries just now. Of course, H.M.G. alone cannot make an decision about U.N.R.R.A.

Did the hon Gentleman say " H.M.V."?

I thought we had disposed of that rather tiresome joke, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any difficulty in following me in the use of this well known abbreviation I will—

Would it not avoid any possible mistake, and be much more in Order if, instead of using the initial letters " H.M.G.", we described His Majesty's Government as His Majesty's Government? With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman I think we should.

I am sorry. I did not want to hurt anybody's susceptibilities. I should like to have a clear Ruling in the matter. I have been allowed to say U.N.R.R.A. throughout up to now, which is much more convenient—

That is different.

Perhaps it is. If it is different in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, I will endeavopr to talk about His Majesty's Government. Perhaps, it would be much simpler to say "The Administration." So I will say that the Administration is actively considering this matter. I must not go further than that, because there are many demands upon our resources, and a balance has to be made upon this. But, in our consideration, one of the things we cannot overdo is the very valuable work of U.N.R.R.A. in relation to the displaced persons. We shall see that that job does not suffer.

From U.N.R.R.A. one may pass without too great a jerk to B.A.O.R. I wish to refer to the continued delay in arranging for British officers and men in Germany to be joined by their wives. It is rather appropriate to raise this matter on the eve of the day on which representatives of those soldiers and airmen will be marching through London to celebrate victory. On rfith April the Secretary of State for War said:

" A scheme has been worked out, but the availability of transport and accommodation and other conditions in Germany must be the dominant factors in reaching a decision as to when the scheme can be started."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 16th April; Vol. 421, C. 419.]

A month later, on r4th May, the Financial Secretary to the War Office said, as evidence, no doubt, that this question was engaging the attention of the Government:

"I am attending a meeting on this matter this afternoon. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May; Vol. 422, c. 1664.]

That announcement raised both this House and the long suffering soldiers and airmen in Germany to the very tiptoe of expectation. But it was three and a half weeks ago, and nothing whatever has happened. Before we separate this afternoon, I do hope that His Majesty's Government will give a definite statement as to when the scheme for allowing these wives to go will be brought into force. I am quite sure my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who himself served in Germany during the last war, has done his best. What is holding this thing up? Cannot the Secretary of State, or my hon. Friend, or some one else, go to Germany with full powers to settle this matter on the spot, instead of continuing what appear to be interminable inter-Departmental communications? British wives are already in Austria. In Berlin, Russian wives have been there for some time—at least, I have been told that Russian generals have their wives there; in the Soviet Army, the rank and file do not enjoy the same privileges as the officers in the matter of wives. American wives have been in Germany since 2nd May, and almost the first four American wives to arrive happened to be Britishborn—a fact which increases the bitter feeling of British officers and men. French wives have been in Baden-Baden for some months. British officers and men alone are compelled to go on living a monastic life, which does not exactly encourage them to respond to the invitation of His Majesty's Government to join the permanent Army.

The Minister said, in the statement which I have quoted, that there was a shortage of accommodation in Germany, but I am told that in Berlin, at least, there is plenty of accommodation. There seems to be proof of that in the fact that quarters for married women were actually cleared two months ago, and after a census had been taken, which showed that only 300 officers and men wanted to have their wives out, some of these quarters were actually released. In most towns, I am also told, there is no greater difficulty than there is in Berlin, although I admit that in some it may not be possible to provide accommodation at present. Are we to be told that because it is impossible to have wives in all places,- we cannot have them in any? I am quite sure that the troops themselves would not adopt that dog-in-the-manger attitude. On the contrary, I am sure that it would give them all great satisfaction if a start could be made, because then they would realise that a genuine attempt was being made to provide them with something better than promises and hopes.

To return to the statement of the Financial Secretary, he said that there were other considerations which were holding the thing up, besides accommodation. What are these other considerations? Will the Minister tell us? Is it the risk of civil disturbances in Germany? What about the hundreds of girls—I am told that there are hundreds of girls—who are serving with the Control Commission, both in Berlin and elsewhere? There seems to be very little substance in that objection.

I would ask the House to remember that many of these soldiers and airmen have been separated from their wives for no less than six years. Are the wives to sit at home at a blank undefined future, when all around them in England they see families being reunited? Quite obviously, the nation is losing a chance of adding to its languishing population, and I am quite sure that the babies would prove to be of good stock.

The men in the Control Commission, both Service men and civilians, are subject to the same " no wife " rule, and this is having the inevitable effect of restricting recruitment for the Control Commission. How can you expect civilians to go out under those conditions and sign on for a term of years? Why should those whose short-term contracts have expired renew their contracts if they cannot get any promise on this matter? I am told that because of the failure to give any definite promise, the Control Commission is losing men with very valuable experience gained during the last 12 months.

This morning I attended the opening of the Germany Under Control Exhibition, in Oxford Street, when the Chancellor of the Duchy, the Commander-in-Chief in Germany, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Sholto Douglas, and Lieut.-General Sir Brian Robertson delivered excellent speeches on the control system. If the facts are anything like the pictures in the Exhibition the control, both military and civil, must be very good, but I suggest that it would be better still if wives were allowed to join their husbands.

The House will forgive me if I rise at this moment because time is limited and not only the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter but others, particularly those serving overseas, would like an answer from the War Office who are mainly responsible for any arrangements to be made in the event of wives being permitted to go to B.A.O.R. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has been good enough to refer to previous statements of mine in the H; use, and I think that that reference showed quite clearly that my own personal views are in sympathy with those lie has put forward, and with the views of those overseas in B.A.O.R who wish their families to join them. I think I can say that in general His Majesty's Government are in sympathy with the wish of those who have been long separated from their families at home to have them out there, but the matter is not so easy as would appear on paper, or, perhaps, as I myself, with a more optimistic outlook in these matters, imagined when I first began looking into this case. In the War Office we have been going into the detailed arrangements— the operational side of it if I may call it that—of the possibility of what may very well be a considerable movement of wives and children from this country to the B.A.O.R.

What is the figure?

It is rather difficult to arrive at a definite figure, because although we put out questionnaires to the officers and men serving in the British Army in Germany, at the moment many of them have not made up their minds; they want to see what is going to be offered to them. Indeed, if any scheme were arranged it would have to be limited obviously to those who had a certain period still to serve in the B.A.O.R. It would be most uneconomical and unwise to allow families to go out there to join their husbands and fathers if those husbands and fathers had only a very short time to remain in Germany before they came home for release. I will mention some of the difficulties that have to be overcome before any scheme like this can be embarked upon. The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to the numbers of girls and women on the Control Commission in Germany and in Berlin, and used that as an illustration to show that, if girls can be sent over there in those circumstances, it would naturally be quite easy to send soldiers' wives and families out there.

I did not use it as an illustration of that, but merely to show that there did not seem to be any substance in the suggestion that women might be the victims of civil disturbance

They might not be the victims in that sense but it is much easier to handle uniformed bodies of women or any military personnel or personnel under some control or discipline than it is to allow wives and children to join their husbands in scattered parts of Germany where the British units are serving. It may be an easier matter for the Control Commission, but I rather doubt that, as the situation in large towns, like Berlin, from a security point of view is not, I regret to say, satisfactory today even for military personnel. Therefore, I think it is the duty of the Government to take every precaution before they allow wives and children to go over to the B.A.O.R.

As evidence of our desire at the War Office—and it meets with the general approval of the Government—to see the reuniting of families where part of the family is serving overseas, we have, as the hon. Gentleman said, inaugurated a scheme in Austria and a very limited number of families have already gone out to Austria. I can well imagine the feeling aroused in the minds of those in the country next door to Austria when they themselves have not similar facilities. I can only say that the problem in Germany is quite out of proportion to the problem in Austria. For example, the number of troops serving in Germany is very much larger than in Austria, and I think that from a security point of view the situation is not so settled in Germany as it is in Austria, although even in Austria it is not all that we could desire.

The hon. Gentleman said that there is plenty of accommodation in Berlin for families. I do not know whether he has visited Berlin since the war. I have myself and I should not have thought that there was plenty of habitable accommodation in Berlin; there are a good many ruins there, especially in the centre, but I should not have thought that there is enough accommodation for the masses of German people who want to live there or who have to live there. Again, never let us forget that if our families go to Germany they will have to live in close contact with the Germans. We know the situation among the German population as regards their food difficulties, and it is not going to be an easy matter for young people or for women folk to be comparatively well fed themselves—as they will be if they go there under Army auspices—and to see the unfortunate position in which the Germans are.

I do not, however, want to over emphasise the difficulties because I know from my own personal correspondence that many of the troops out there are quite prepared to say, " We know the difficulties just as well as you do and we are prepared to take any risks, if there are any, such as they may be."In concluding my remarks today I should like to say that whatever the troops may think about the reasons, His Majesty's Government know much more than they do and are in possession of facts and information which lead it to go perhaps a little more slowly than many would desire before it can come to a decision to lay on a plan of the nature such as the hon. Gentleman has suggested in his speech today.

As I said in my opening remarks, His Majesty's Government are sympathetic with the idea, and I may say that the problem is being still further examined from certain aspects. There is the educational aspect, for example. which is very serious; if children go over there we cannot allow them, as it were, to run wild. They must have their education continued if they are going out for any length of time, and matters like that add up to make this a very difficult problem. All I would ask the House to do is to accept my assurance that the mind of His Majesty's Government is very wide open and sympathetic to the project of sending families overseas to the B.A.O.R., but that we are not yet in a position to give a definite decision.

I am afraid that I am about to commit a crime. I am going to commit an offence—"Infamous conduct "In a professional respect. I venture to draw the attention of the House to the judicial tribunal which governs the conduct of the medical profession. That body can make its own crimes and mis-demeanours but it can inflict only one sentence, depriving 'a man, trained, experienced, and knowledgeable, who, in the past, has done good work—

Because of some charge against him, a medical practitioner can be brought before this tribunal, which judges his conduct professionally. That tribunal is the General Medical Council This is a subject which, as far as I know, only one

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should like to have your Ruling. It was distinctly understood that the subject which I raised had half an hour allowed for discussion. A number of other hon. Members wanted to speak, and they stood up when the Minister sat down We certainly have not had half an hour. We have not had 20 minutes. I wish to ask whether, when the hon. Member now on his feet has finished speaking, you will allow us to return to the question which I raised.

I must point out that the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. H. Davies) was not present when his turn came and we are now half an hour ahead of the time fixed by Mr. Speaker and there is another subject to follow.

Perhaps I did not make quite plain the question I wished to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The subject I raised was debated for only 20 minutes, or rather less. Therefore, I hope you will allow that subject to be resumed when the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) has finished his speech.

The Minister must be allowed to reply but if there is time the previous subject can be resumed.

I hope that you will cut them, so as to allow of our having our half hour.

Can we resume the Debate when we come back?

I hope that you will not cut my time, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, after I have been lucky enough to catch your eye. This is a most important subject.

So was the one which we were discussing.

The hon. Member cannot have it all his own way.

Will the hon. Member be as brief as he can?

No, I will not..I am inclined to think that this is just the Oppossition's way of trying to waste time when there is a.very important subject which they do not want to have discussed.

This matter has nothing to do with the Opposition in that sense. Several of us want to have the matter discussed. I felt rather sorry that we had only 18 minutes to talk about it.

Hon. Members are now taking away the time available to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) by continuing this point of Order.

I have been lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I ask for your protection. These opportunities always run unevenly, and now that I have a chance I should be allowed to say what I have to say.

The General Medical Council came into being about l00 years.ago, in order to enable the public to distinguish between the professional medical man and the untrained. In order to keep at a very high level; as it ought to be, the conduct of those practising this profession which involves such intimacies in relationship between patient and doctor, it was important that some tribunal should be allowed to exist which would judge the conduct of any man who was offending against the ethical codes of the profession. So this body was set up—an undemocratic body with only seven elected members out of 42, charged with certain duties, medical education, treating of professional conduct and, what we call, the " five asinine offences."The General Medical Council is what the doctors call "The Court of Asses."The procedure adopted by this body is unlike that of any other tribunal in the country. They make their own procedure. They decide what is evidence and what is not evidence to them. They can decide to discard evidence, and insist on cross-examination on evidence which the tribunal has not heard orally. The members who investigate the original complaint and decide that there should be a trial also sit in judgment on the accused. The accused is allowed to be represented by counsel. The General Medical Council has a legal assessor but that legal assessor has the right to cross-examine the accused person, whilst, so far as is known, counsel representing the accused person has no right to cross-examine other witnesses. A more degraded form of topsy-turvy justice cannot be found anywhere, and yet it has existed for 100 years without change. The General Medical Council is a prejudiced, partisan body, and its judicial procedure is irregular.

The minutes of the cases which are heard in camera can actually be faked with the permission of the Council. I have before me a resolution passed by the Council. It was moved by the Chairman of Business, who is a prominent member of the British Medical Association, and seconded by Dr. Bone, another prominent member of that Association. It reads:

"That it be delegated to the Chairman of Business, as on previous occasions, to adjust the minutes of the Council in camera arising out of the business of the session, and that the President be authorised to sign them when thus adjusted."

In other words, the minutes of the business can be changed. I could give example after example. I have here counsel's opinion showing that evidence given before the tribunal need not be sworn. It may be written and not declared in open court. There need be no cross-examination. Every possible obstacle to an accused being able to state his case properly is put in front of him.

Quite recently there was the celebrated case of Dr. Hennessy, to whom a great personal indignity and injustice was done. He was a man fighting for his professional livelihood and when his wife, a grand woman, gave evidence in his favour it was said in court that her evidence was unassailable and invulnerable. And yet it was said that her evidence, which was so unassailable and invulnerable that it could not be broken by cross-examination, must have been concocted. It was not appreciated that truth is sometimes unassailable. I am not asking for legislation. I am only asking for an inquiry by a Royal Commission or a Select Committee or by some other means. All that I want is that the present procedure by which the G.M.C. conducts its nefarious proceedings shall be changed and reformed. I want also to ask that this should not be done in private inside the profession, because the G.M.C. is not technically a professional body. It is a public body, and I decline to accept the suggestion that something should be done inside the profession. A section of the profession will say they will want to do it themselves, but doctors have had 100 years in which to do it and they have not done so. Because in recent years they have come to some considered misjudgments, they now say they want the procedure changed.

As I have said, evidence before this tribunal need not be sworn, so that any man or woman can make a charge against an innocent doctor and can give any evidence against him, and yet, because they are not sworn, such people cannot be charged with perjury. They can go into the witness box before the General Medical Council, before gentlemen who have the highest degrees in medicine and are the bishops of the profession, who teach medical students, and whose personal character is as a rule unassailable. Yet these men will sit and perpetrate injustices of the most despicable kind against their own colleagues, even when the evidence before them is such that it could not justifiably be used to condemn the worst criminal. Any man or woman can make a charge against a doctor and on unsworn evidence escape the consequences. The legal assessor, when summing up for the Council, does not advise them in public but in camera. The legal assessor cross-examines a respondent but not the complainant. That is difficult to correct by any rule or regulation of the Council. The respondent has no right of appeal to the High Court. The decision is final. The case can only be reopened or reviewed by the G.M.C. A series of cases of precedent law have been built up. The only sentence they can impose is one of erasion. They erase a man from the Register and prevent him from practising again.

There is one other thing they can do. They can indulge in the mental torture of postponing sentence for a year or six months or as long as they like, so that all the time the man is suspended he can practise but is waiting for either sentence or revocation of a conviction. Such a man is in a state of nerves and frustration. There have been very many celebrated cases. The anaesthetist to Sir Herbert Barker was struck off the roll, but when Sir Herbert Barker himself gave a demonstration in one of the teaching schools before some of the most skilled orthopaedic surgeons in Great Britain the G.M.C. did not attempt to say anything to that body about having asked- an unqualified manipulator whose anaesthetist had been struck off the roll whilst assisting him at his work to give a demonstration. They did not attempt to say anything to those specialists when they attended on an occasion to demonstrate the Barker methods at one of the teaching schools. It was a perfectly extraordinary state of affairs. Some of the things that happen before the G.M.C. have been almost unbelievable—the partisanship and the way M which complaints are treated are all against the accused.

There is the case, for example, of Dr. Hennessy, who had to fight alone because, although a member of the Medical Defence Union, when erased, he lost his membership of that Union. They could do nothing for him at the very time when he wanted their help. He had to fight his battle alone, with the help of his wife, producing evidence and showing the faked evidence which could not stand examination before a court of law. Many a doctor goes down on his knees at night, and I am sure Mrs. Hennessy does, thanking God for His Majesty's judges I myself might be tried next week, or the week after, for this speech, being regarded as an attempt to criticize—[HON. MEMBERS: " No."]. Oh, yes, I might. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is privileged."] There is no privilege in the case of the General Medical Council, They make their own procedure, and decide their own evidence.

rose

I arranged to speak for 20 minutes. I am sorry, but, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you tell me to do so, I will sit down. May I finish?

There was a lady, associated with the C.I.D. by marriage, calling herself by her single name, who made one charge. That charge was dismissed, but at the hearing, the second complainant was allowed to take shorthand notes of the evidence about a scar on the abdomen. When a charge was subsequently made by another woman whose moral character could not stand investigation in an ordinary court of law, she produced in medical terms the evidence she had taken down verbatim at the first trial in shorthand with the General Medical Council looking on When asked by Mr. Justice Charles about this, Mrs. Hennessy had to point out that she saw the woman taking notes of the evidence by a prominent member of the G.M.C. who examined Dr. Hennessy for them—evidence about the scar on the abdomen at the time of the first charge.

I could go quoting case after case, but I can see that you are impatient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will have to sit down. I should have thought that even one dastardly case against a professional man, causing him to lose his livelihood, and his wife suffering personal indignity and degradation, and his children being deprived of their education, and the man having to leave Britain and go to the Colonies because of some infamous judgment by the court, would have interested the Labour Government. I challenge the Labour Government not to allow this profession to have their own investigation. I challenge the Labour Government to submit this to an impartial inquiry with a judge of known integrity at the head, and with a lay assessor, if desired, and a prominent Member of the House of Commons, if desired, but an impartial inquiry with rules of evidence, procedure, membership and method of laying charges and evidence, made public. I am sure the Labour Government would accept that and not leave it to the profession themselves to do it. I am sure that if they do that, they will have done something which will bring them respect—very important —now, and the good will of many of the men who are going to practise in the profession.

My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council is the Minister who is ultimately responsible for dealing with questions relating to the General Medical Council, but he has asked me to reply on this occasion and, of course, my Department has in fact a great interest in anything that affects medical discipline and education in this country. For example, it has been definitely accepted that some amendment of the Medical Acts is necessary, and the Good enough Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Schools made certain recommendations on that point. The General Medical Council itself for some 18 months has been considering the question. I understand it is going to put forward certain proposals. It is the Government's intention, if it is possible to secure the necessary Parliamentary time in the corning Session, to put forward their own proposals with regard to this matter and that a medical Bill shall be—

The hon. Member is not entitled to deal with legislation. I understood the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) was asking for an inquiry.

We regard it as quite inappropriate that an inquiry should be held because it has already been settled that the matter shall be dealt with adequately and properly. The Government have decided that there is necessity for dealing with the problem which has been raised, and they wish to study very carefully the information that has been provided and to consult with the profession and the people interested. They regard that as a much more proper method of investigating this matter than the setting up of a special committee to deal with it. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman a very firm assurance that the points which he has raised will be borne in mind in the consideration of this problem and the formulation of our proposals to deal with it. I think also I must say that it would be very unfortunate if the impression got about that as a result of an individual case it was understood that it was a general sort of thing that members of the Medical Council could be struck off the register arbitrarily for some slight offence. The General Medical Council can work only within the powers which have been conferred upon them by Parliament. I am sure many hon. Members will bear me out when I say, quite definitely, that in general, the Council discharges its disciplinary functions ably and carefully and with a sense of grave responsibility—

I deny that entirely.

The fact that there is no appeal against its decisions is not the responsibility of the General Medical Council. If there is any blame involved, the blame must rest upon Parliament which did not confer any such right of appeal. Criticism has been made of the constitution of the General Medical Council. Here again, of course, I can say nothing with regard to the proposals of the Government. Due consideration will be given to the points that have been raised when we consider the proposals to deal with the matter. We are of the opinion that the stage has now been reached when it would be quite unnecessary on our part to set up a special committee of inquiry into the matter. Due consideration will be given before the proposals are formulated to put before Parliament.

I am very grateful indeed for the courtesy shown by the Parliamentary Secretary in making his remarks brief in order to give me the last few minutes in which to make a protest against the miserable statement which was made by the Financial Secretary to the War Office about the possibility of soldiers' families going out to Germany. I was bitterly disappointed at that statement and, what is more important, the men out in Germany and their families in this country will be bitterly disappointed. It appears as if the situation had got worse. When the Financial Secretary answered some questions on this subject not long ago in the House, be was much more optimistic in his forecast as to when the families might be able to go out. All he did today was to tell us that it is a difficult problem, and that he is sympathetic. He said nothing more definite than that. It is most disappointing to the men in Germany, and to their families, at this time, over a year after the war with Germany has ended, to be given nothing more than a statement of that nature.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is a case in which there has been incompetence. I was in Germany about two months ago, and I visited the Headquarters, Rhine Army. If I could have the attention of the hon. Gentleman to whom I am making this protest, I would be much obliged. I discussed this very matter with Headquarters, Rhine Army. I was specifically told by a very high ranking officer that the War Office had ordered a complete cessation of all the plans and preparations which were being made for the families to go out. The officer did not know the reason; he thought it was a financial difficulty raised by the Treasury. It is a fact, and the Financial Secretary and the Minister know it, that two months ago the Headquarters of the Rhine Army were told to stop making plans for these families to go out to Germany. We have never been told the reason, and I would very much like to know it. But why has not the Secretary of State for War himself been out to Germany to see? It is only two hours' flying from this country. I cannot understand a Secretary of State for War, who is in charge of a great Army in Germany, and who does not go out to see that Army.

I think I ought to say this about my right hon. Friend. It is not because he has no desire to travel. He gave evidence of that as soon as he took office by going out, in a very difficult period of the year, to S.E.A.C. My right hon. Friend is a Member of the Cabinet and I am afraid, like other Members of the Cabinet, he is under heavy pressure in this country and cannot leave Whitehall to go out there.

I cannot regard that explanation as being in the least satisfactory.

On a point of Order. May I have your assurance, Major Milner, that this Debate is really in Order? It seems to me that my time was unduly cut, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health gave a very brief reply. We are now coming back to a. subject which was finished, after the Minister had replied.

The hon. Member is perfectly in Order. No one else rose to speak on the hon. Member's subject.

I am very grateful Lo you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

I propose to raise this matter again.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) spoke for 22 minutes, while we had only 18 minutes on this subject, including the reply of the Minister. In my last two minutes I desire to say, with all the force at my command, that I cannot regard the explanation of the Financial Secretary, as to why the Secretary of State for War has not been out to Germany, is at all satisfactory. He has great responsibilities connected with the Rhine Army. I cannot believe that his work in the Cabinet and at the War Office is so great that he cannot give his attention to the Rhine Army in the form of a personal visit, and look at this very important problem himself. I am driven to the conclusion that he finds his work at the War Office so difficult that he cannot get through it, and that is why he has lot the time to go to Germany. This is the third occasion on which I have raised this matter in the House, and the sooner the Secretary of State for War is replaced by someone who is more competent and capable of looking after the British Army of the Rhine, the better it will be for the Army.

>: I am sorry the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) should have made a personal attack on the Secretary of War following the excellent case he made out in the first part of his speech. I agree with him entirely that there is something very much wrong about this business of sending soldiers' families over to Germany. I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office to look into it again. It is something which ought to have come to a head long ago. The families ought to be going there by now. We know the Financial Secretary has been to Germany. In that regard I make no complaint such as was made by the hon. Member for Solihull. I do not think that is terribly important. What I do think is important is that the administrative difficulties which are in the way of getting families out there should be removed; I believe they could be removed if there was a will. I make this appeal to the Financial Secretary, that he should deal with this problem, and that we should have an early announcement some time after Whitsun that we can get these families out there.

In the moment that remains I would like to remind the Financial Secretary that the tone of the reply which he gave to Questions a month ago was far more hopeful than what he has said this afternoon. It is obvious that something has happened, and we should like to know what.