There are two very small points I would like to raise on this Clause. The Prime Minister undertook, when the Bill was before the House, to look into the meaning of the words

"armed forces of the Crown,"

to see whether that included also Indian and Dominion Forces, in which case the expression would be wrong. It would be good if we could know the result of that inquiry, either now or on the Report stage. Secondly, there is a reference in the Clause to

"the Limed forces of the Crown as a whole,"

in relation to the application of policy by the Ministry of Defence. The words "as a whole" add nothing to the Clause, and it might be argued, if they are left in, that the Minister of Defence would be acting ultra vires if he applied his policy in a matter which concerned only two of the Armed Forces, say, the Navy and the Air Force. I therefore suggest that the words "as a whole" might be taken out of the Clause upon the Report stage.

I came prepared to deal with the points which the hon. and gallant Member has now raised. During the Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was questioned by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) about the exact meaning of the words "armed forces of the Crown." When my right hon. Friend wound up the Debate he expressed the view that the words did not in any way include Dominion Forces, which were exempted by the Statute of Westminster from legislation passed by this House. Nevertheless, he promised to look into the point and to let the House know during a subsequent stage of the consideration of the Bill.

My right hon. Friend has looked into the matter, and I can now assure the hon. Gentleman, and the Committee as a whole, that the position is as my right hon. Friend indicated. Part of the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster runs as follows:

'And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion."

It is, therefore, quite clear that the term "Crown" in United Kingdom legislation means and must be interpreted as meaning "Crown in right of the United Kingdom." I hope that explanation satisfies the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Committee. It is clear that the Armed Forces of the Crown mentioned here are the Armed Forces in so far as the United Kingdom itself raises and maintains Armed Forces. I might add, perhaps, that the Dominions, are quite entitled to use the same phrase when describing the Forces they may raise. For example, ii the Australian Government raised Armed Forces, as it does, it would be entitled in any legislation or in any context that might require it, to use the phrase "Armed Forces of the Crown," because their Forces are just as much Armed Forces of the Crown as Forces raised in this country.

To deal briefly with a further point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I would tell him and the Committee that the phrasing of this particular clause has been very carefully chosen and we think that the words "as a whole" are necessary. His fear that someone might read into the word "whole" something which should not be there, is quite unjustified. These words have been carefully chosen, they are general in application, but, of course, they must be read with the White Paper. We must keep the words in this clause.

I do not know if my hon. Friend is in a position to answer this question. I have noticed in recent Bills setting up new Ministries this phrase, "the Minister may appoint a Parliamentary Secretary". Everybody knows that a Parliamentary Secretary is appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. However, I noticed that in the Civil Aviation Bill, and now again in this Bill, this phrase is retained. Perhaps my hon. Friend could answer that question on the Report stage if he cannot do so now? The phrase does not make much sense.

I can answer that point. The phrase "the Minister may appoint a Parliamentary Secretary" has many precedents to substantiate it. I have a list here and could quote at least 16 Acts in which it occurred, the last one being the National Insurance Act, 1944, when, I believe, a discussion on this point took place on the Committee stage and the House, as well as the Committee, were satisfied that this phrase was usual and normal, and had precedents to substantiate it. Although we are a Labour Government, we like to act sometimes on precedent.

What is the point in having it there at all?

It is a long and complicated story, and goes back to the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707, and its provisions in respect of profit under the the Crown. Those of us who were in the House during the last Parliament, will remember that we had long discussions on this subject. We were then satisfied that this phrasing had long usage to support it and had worked very well. We think there is nothing to be said against continuing it.

The argument used by my hon. Friend may be an argument in favour of continuance, but it could be an argument that it is high time this was changed. I have never been impressed by arguments that a thing has always been done in such a way, because that might be an abuse. It is high time that meaningless words are looked into, and, if possible, eliminated from Acts of Parliament.

They are not meaningless. It is not proposed to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary at the moment, though at some future time it may be necessary. This phrase in the Bill merely permits appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary, with, of course, the agreement of the Prime Minister. The phrase has been in many enactments and been effective hitherto. There is no real point of principle here, and, therefore, I hope the Committee will let it stand.

May I invite the attention of the House for a few minutes to one of the Acts in the Bill which it is proposed to continue, namely. Section I of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919—

On a point of Order, Major Milner. I have always understood that the proper place to raise points on this Bill was on the Schedule, and not upon the Clauses. May I have your Ruling?

That is so. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr Callaghan) will raise his point on the Schedule?

I was awaiting my opportunity to ask a number of questions regarding some of the enactments set out in the Schedule. I promise the Committee not to take very long but this is the only opportunity we have of inquiring why these enactments, which were originally brought in as temporary Measures, are about to be renewed. To take the order in which they are placed, I first ask about the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904. That Act provides that people who wish to transmit by radio must obtain a licence from the Postmaster—General. It was brought in as a temporary Measure in 1904, and I should have thought that perhaps by now the Post Office might have realised that broadcast transmitting was a thing which had come to stay. Therefore, they might have taken an opportunity of introducing some permanent enactment upon the matter.

I am pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power here, because I would like to ask also why it is thought necessary to renew the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912. That was an Act introduced under Mr. Asquith's Prime Ministership, which established district boards throughout the various coal mining areas in the country, with independent chairmen to settle minimum rates of wages in the district. No doubt it was a very wise Act to pass, and a protection for the working miners against the wicked owners of collieries.

Hear, hear.

But, it does seem a very curious thing to me that the Government should be renewing this Act at the present time, for on 1st January, 1947, if I am not mistaken, the National Coal Board takes over the collieries, and will from that date onwards be in complete control of them. Moreover, as I understand it, miners' wages are guaranteed under the Porter Award until the middle of the year 1948. Even if miners still needed the protection of the Minimum Wage Act of 1912 against the Coal Board, it seems a curious thing that it should be necessary at present to renew it, when the Government have guaranteed full employment and fixed rates of minimum wages for the mining population. As far as I am aware, these district boards are in suspense at present. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will explain why it is thought necessary to renew this Act.

I also want to say a word upon the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act of 1919, a matter in which the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) is interested. The House of Commons takes a great interest in all matters affecting our import and export trade. Where the transport of goods is concerned, great interest is taken, but where the passage of persons is concerned, the immigration of aliens and their settlement and employment in this country, there is a difference. In the course of 20 years, I can remember practically no Debate on the subject. Occasionally there has been a little stir, but the House of Commons has taken curiously little interest in the activities of the Home Office in regard to immigration. It is a very remarkable fact that the Home Secretary's powers in this matter, which are absolute, complete, and wholly autocratic, should still be exercised under a Measure introduced for the first time during 1914, and renewed from time to time in this way ever since 1919. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who will no doubt answer on behalf of the Home Office whether at present the powers contained in this Act are being operated, or whether the restrictions on entry of aliens are being operated under Defence Regulations. I should also like to direct attention to the unsatisfactory state of affairs under which the immigration of aliens rests upon a Measure introduced as a temporary expedient some 33 years ago, and renewed annually ever since in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. On the whole, I think there has been very little criticism of the way in which these powers have been exercised, but I am sure the House will have to take the opportunity before very long of reviewing the policy which successive Home Secretaries have carried out as regards the entry, settlement, and employment of aliens in this country. I hope some further opportunity will arise when that matter can be further debated.

The only other matter in the Schedule to which I should like an answer is in regard to the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939. That also was a temporary Measure introduced to enable the Home Secretary to deport Irish terrorists from this country. It was enacted for a period of two years owing to various outrages of a terrorist character which occurred during the summer of 1939. I should like to know whether there is still considered to be any fear of outrages of this character, and whether anybody in recent months, or recent years, has been deported to Eire under the provisions of that Act. That is to say, I should like to know why it is thought necessary that it should be renewed.

I am glad that my lack of knowledge of procedure did not enable me to forestall the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). I raise this matter of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act because we on this side of the House have maintained a steady and continuous pressure on the Home Office in regard to this question during the 14, or 15, months we have been in the House. The Home Secretary, as the right hon. Member for North Leeds rightly said, exercises autocratic powers in this matter. He has power under the Act to prohibit the entry of anyone into this country. That power was never put into the hands of a Home Secretary before the outbreak of the war of 1914. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a power we must watch most carefully, not only in relation to the present Home Secretary, but in regard to the exercise of such powers by anyone at any time. If I may, I would respectfully congratulate the Home Secretary, on the change in Home Office policy which has taken place in recent months in regard to immigration of many classes of people who desire to come here. Since we raised this matter, and maintained our interest in it. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman has been exceedingly good in the way he has received our representations on behalf of individuals, and in the way in which he has dealt with such cases It is now the case that the husband of any English girl living in this country can come and live with her, provided he can satisfy the Home Secretary that he is a reasonable and proper person to come here.

But there are certain matters which I would like to raise, and on which I would ask for greater elasticity in administration. There are cases in which entry into this country has been prohibited, but in which I think the persons should have been allowed to come. There are cases of agricultural workers who have been employed in this country when prisoners of war, who have returned to their own country, mostly to Italy, and have asked permission to come back here. They have been refused permission to return, although the farmers are prepared to offer them a job, although there is accommodation available here for them, and although the local branch of the Agricultural Workers' Union raises no objection. I cannot see any reason at all why, in such cases, permission should be refused.

I must remind the hon. Member that obviously we cannot have a detailed Debate on various classes of persons who may, or may not, be dealt with under this Act. The real question is whether it is advisable to continue this particular Section of the Act for another year or not. It would not be in order to go into the details, which might be considered when an Order was made under the Act.

On a point of Order. Is it not in Order to discuss whether the Section in its entirety should be renewed, whether it is too wide in its present form and whether it should be restricted by the exclusion of certain classes of cases? I would respectfully suggest that the question of agricultural labourers and nurses for hospitals would be in Order on this Debate.

The hon. Member will appreciate that if he desired to make some alteration, his proper course would be to put down an Amendment. That has not been done. The whole question is whether or not Section I of the Act shall be continued. I do not think that one can go into details of how the Section might or might not be altered.

With the greatest respect, I submit that we are deciding whether Section I of an Act prohibiting aliens from landing in the United Kingdom shall be continued. The Government are asking that the Section should be renewed. Surely it is in Order to say that it should not be renewed because it is too wide, and to support that proposition is it not in Order to point to certain classes, and to argue that those classes ought not to be included?

I think I must hear what hon. Members have to say. I cannot give a Ruling on hypothetical questions which may or may not be raised in debate.

The only point I wish to raise is that there are certain types of people who should be admitted to this country, and on the answer of the Home Secretary will depend the question of whether it will be necessary to divide against this Schedule or not. All I am doing is putting forward certain reasons in that connection. I was saying that there are certain classes of people who should, we feel, in the national interest be able to enter this country. There are certain other people who, on humanitarian grounds, should be permitted to come into the country. I am anxious not to transgress your Ruling, Major Milner, if I can help it. But I ask that there should be greater elasticity in the administration of these rules. As I see it, within the limits which the Home Secretary has laid down for himself, the administration is at the moment wise and humane, but the administration has been limited to certain classes and there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said, other classes not included in the hon. Gentleman's purview at the moment. It is these other classes with whom I am concerned—people who are being kept out of the country.

This is not the opportunity for raising that discussion, The administration of the Home Secretary in regard to these matters could properly be raised on the Home Office Estimates.

I cannot understand, Major Milner, how you rule that the proposed extension of the life of an Act does not allow a Member to discuss how such an Act has operated in the past, and show reason why it should not be extended.

I am sorry if the hon. Member cannot understand the position. It happens that the Rules of this House, in the case of Measures of this particular class, do not admit—for quite obvious reasons, because the range would be so wide—detailed consideration of the powers which may or may not be exercised by the Home Secretary. There are other occasions when they can be discussed in detail.

I am sorry, Major Milner, but it is obvious that you misunderstood what I said. I was dealing, not with the powers which the Home Secretary had, but with your previous Ruling regarding the extension of the life of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act. My hon. Friend was proceeding to point out that certain powers under that Act had been used which, in his opinion, should not be allowed to continue. You ruled that he could mot do so. I do not see why. If a new Bill had been introduced we would have proceeded to discuss all the merits and the demerits of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary in the Bill If an extension of the life of the same Measure is asked for, are we not allowed to discuss this matter?

This not the occasion of considering a new Bill. It is an extension of an old Act. There have been opportunities, and there will be opportunities in the future, for discussing the details of the powers of the Home Secretary.

I am not discussing the powers of the Home Secretary at all. I am discussing the administration of a particular Act.

That is precisely what the hon. Member cannot do in detail On this occasion.

May I ask whether my hon. Friend would be in Order in moving a manuscript Amendment to omit this particular Measure from the list of the expiring laws which it is sought to continue? If he is in Order in moving such an Amendment, would he not then be in Order in discussing the details of the Section?

I am afraid that cannot be done. I have already put to the Committee the Question, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill," and the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) is now in possession of the House.

May I submit to you, Major Milner, that on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill last year, we had a discussion on the Pensions (Increases) Act which went on, to the best of my recollection, for a couple of hours. What I am putting to you—I do not want to be difficult, but I think this is important—is this: The Committee is being asked to agree to the continuation of Section I of tile Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act. Am I not in Order in giving reasons why I do not think that that Section should be continued? How else may I explain to the Committee why, in certain circumstances, I should not be able to support my right hon. Friend in that particular?

So far, I am with the hon. Member, but in giving his reasons he cannot go into the operation of the Section in connection with particular classes of cases. In general terms, he may refer to the Bill.

I am much obliged for what you have said, Major Milner. It gives me an opportunity of continuing to say that I am concerned with the refusal to admit certain people. The Home Secretary is refusing to admit, or is not admitting, certain people. Section 1 (1) of the Act of 1919 gives him power to refuse admission to everybody. I do not think I can really make my argument unless I am entitled to refer to some of the cases he has refused to admit, in order to explain why he should now admit them.

Perhaps the hon. Member will continue.

Thank you. Major Milner. I put down a Question to the Home Secretary on 17th October asking what his general policy was on the subject of Section I of the Act of 1919. I received the reply that he was prepared to admit immigrants to this country who satisfied him that they were desirable, in so far as it could be fairly done without detriment to the interests of the existing population. That seemed to me to be a pretty good start, and therefore I ask him for further particulars as to those classes which it should cover; and it is to some of the classes that it does not cover that I wish to refer this morning. There are two types. There are people who desire to come here and who have good compassionate reasons for asking to come here—and this country always has been a home for such—and there are other types who should be brought here in the national interest. May I refer to the first type? One case I had was of a small boy aged 12, who stowed away—

The hon. Member cannot go into details of cases. That, obviously, is purely a matter of administration on the part of the Home Office. There are other opportunities for discussing such things.

I will not discuss any particular case. May I refer, if I may use the Home Secretary's term, to the general interests of the existing population—so that we may promote the national economy? I suggest that is something which we are entitled to raise in this regard. What I am concerned with is the shortage of workers, to which reference has been made, and which, in my judgment, makes it necessary for us to adopt a forward looking policy. I speak with more difficulty, perhaps, than most hon. Members, because in my constituency there is considerable unemployment. Therefore, I am open to great criticism, and I get it. The fact remains that over the country as a whole, as we understand it, there is going to be a shortage of workers. For that reason I suggest that we should adopt a forward-looking policy in agriculture, in the foundries, and in various other industries. I was very pleased to see in "The Times" this morning details of the arrangement that has been made in regard to permission for 2,800 Italian emigrants to come here to work in the iron foundries. That is a great tribute to the trade unions concerned, to the Home Secretary and to all others who helped to make the arrangement. I will not detain the Committee any longer because on this subject I am not quite sure when I am in Order and when I am not. In conclusion I want to say—I think perhaps I would be in Order in saying this—that the Administration—

I am sorry. Administration is not a matter which the hon. Member is entitled to criticise on this occasion.

I will not detain the Committee any longer except to say that I think on the whole, if my hon. Friend gives me the sort of reply which I think he will be able to give, I shall be able to support him.

like my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), J am a little puzzled at the appearance in the Schedule to this Bill of the Coal Mines (Minimum.Wage) Act, 1912. When the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill was under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power was profuse in his assurances of the extreme and almost sentimental benevolence with which the new coal industry would be administered. Therefore, it is striking that he, or his Parliamentary Secretary, should, nevertheless, find it necessary to continue in force this Act of 1912 which was originally enacted in very different circumstances. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why, under the beneficent new dispensation about which we have been told, it is necessary to continue this safeguard. I am the more surprised at the continuance of this Measure from the fact that not more than a fortnight ago the Parliamentary Secretary's chief, the right hon. Gentleman himself, indicated to the House that the discussion of the emoluments and the remuneration of the employees of the Coal Board, in future, would be a matter with which the House should not concern itself. May I refresh the Parliamentary Secretary's memory? On 15th November, the right hon. Gentleman said:

"There is another point to which the hon. Member referred. He seemed to indicate—and I hope I do not misinterpret what he said—that we are entitled to know all about the wages of miners. Does the hon. Member really suggest that this should be a platform for discussing wages and salaries? Has the House of Commons come to this?"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 483.]

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will explain how, within a fortnight of these very words from his chief, the House, in Committee, should have come to this position.

I want to return to the question of aliens and I hope the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will forgive me for not following his argument.

I would forgive the hon. Member anything.

The argument that I wish to put forward why the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act ought not to be continued is, first, that the Act was for a limited period When an Act is passed for a limited period, it is of the very essence of the decision to make it a limited period Act, that it is recognised as a Measure applicable to certain circumstances, which may pass. I want to argue that the circumstances which justified the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act in the form which it took, both in 1914 and as it was continued, in 1919, no longer exist. That is my first point: the difference between the circumstances which called for the Act and the circumstances which exist today. Then I shall proceed, if I am in Order, to argue that in the existing circumstances the Act in the form in which it is proposed to continue it and in which it was passed in 1914 is inappropriate today. The reasons for it being inappropriate are that its administration entails the exclusion of people who, in existing circumstances, ought not to be excluded, and it does not provide for the exclusion of people who ought to be excluded. I shall argue that although the Home Office ought to have certain power over aliens, it ought not to have these powers. In my humble submission that argument will be in Order. What I wish to say with regard to the circumstances is that we in this country, and in particular, I think, the Home Office, have not recognised the full implications of a policy of full employment. That is the policy today, but it was not the policy, in 1919 or 1914. That change of policy has altered the circumstances—

I am sorry. That is a little far from the point under discussion. I do not think I can allow the hon. Member to initiate a discussion on full employment.

With great respect, may I say that the Act of 1914, which was the Act continued in 1919, and which we are asked to continue again, specifically sets out the circumstances of danger which justify the exercise of these powers. When we are asked to continue that Act; surely it must be in Order for us to say that the circumstances which justified the Act in 1914 are not the circumstances which exist today. One matter in which there is a difference between then and now is the general policy of the country—a difference between a policy of restricted competitive outlook, and a policy of full employment. I respectfully submit that it must be in Order, when one is asked to continue an Act, to show that existing circumstances do not justify its continuance. It is precisely the change of policy between 1919 and 1946 which is the change of circumstances. That alteration means that, whereas it was necessary in 1919 to protect the labour in this country from competition which could be brought in and which, in those circumstances, would have created unemployment, that need for protection no longer exists. A policy of full employment means, first, a rising standard of living and, secondly, that—

I have given the hon. Gentleman a good deal of licence, but I cannot allow him to follow his present line of argument, which is too remote from the Bill.

On a point of Order. May I submit that the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) are in Order or, at any rate, are a great deal more in Order than those of the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) who preceded him?

They may be less out of Order.

The hon. Member for Northampton now seems to be arguing that these powers should not be continued. Surely that is in Order, seeing that the two main reasons which are bound to be advanced by His Majesty's Ministers for the continuance of these powers are, first, national security and, secondly, the protection of the people of this country from cheap labour competition. Surely, it must be in Order for the hon. Member to argue that there is no danger upon the latter ground and, therefore, no reason why, in his view, these powers should be renewed for a further period?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has been the invariable rule that it is not permissible on this occasion to criticise administration on the Committee stage of the Bill or to permit discussion on individual cases on this annual Bill. The line is not always easy to draw, and I am always prepared to give what licence I can in a Debate.

As I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, he was not dealing with the way in which the matter had been dealt with by the Home Secretary; he was arguing that the powers were unnecessary.

I was attempting to argue that, in the existing circumstances, the powers of this Act were unnecessary. It may be that other powers are necessary, but not these. The reason for that point of view—and I am sorry that I must come to the point—is the different policy which circumstances have enabled the Government to put into operation today. Those circumstances are wholly different from those of 1919. With very great respect, and with gratitude to the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who put the point very much more clearly than I did, I submit that, on that basis, it must be in Order to try to argue that, with a policy of full employment, these powers are unnecessary, and that is the argument upon which I propose to base my remarks. A policy of full employment means, first, that we are going to have a rising standard of living and, secondly, are going to have a choice of jobs. A choice of jobs inevitably means that there are jobs which are not chosen, and those jobs are, equally inevitably, the least attractive though often the most necessary jobs. One finds that the present shortages of labour existing in the foundries, in the mines and in agriculture are not going to be replaced. As we get a rising standard of living, it will not be a case of more people choosing such jobs, but of less people choosing them. Therefore, unlike 1919, it is no longer necessary to protect the people in those jobs from competition by people who may come to this country. There is also another very strong argument. I am afraid that experience teaches us that when we get a rising standard of living, we inevitably get, in almost precise proportion to that rising standard, a falling birth rate. There is a falling birth rate, and the prospect of a continuing falling birth rate. That was not the position in 1914. Instead of excluding people we ought to be thinking of filling up that section of our age groups which is doing the work of the country.

I hope that the Government will realise that, if we are to work a policy of full employment, that policy must be related to a permanent immigration policy into this country. The thing must be worked out on rational lines, and we must not plunge into it in a haphazard way. An Act which entitles the Home Secretary to restrict the entry of aliens into this country is wholly inappropriate at the present time. What are required are powers to encourage the right immigration and to work out a plan which will dovetail into a full employment policy, and which, alone, can make that policy a success.

I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but I would like to pass one comment on the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I would not venture to keep the discussion on the question of immigration; that would be beyond my power. But I think it is of interest to mention that there was a falling birth rate in the years between the wars, and that there is a rising birth rate at the present time.

I feel that before we decide to continue this Act, it is important that the Committee should realise that, in continuing it, we are bound to continue a philosophy which is beyond the Act. That has been divided into two parts—the necessity for national security and the necessity for economic security at the time the Act was passed. If we merely continue this particular Act, however, humanely it is administered, the main principle that lies behind it will lie behind the general policy of this country in regard to immigration. I take it that we are entitled to discuss that subject this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has done a great service in stressing this contrast between national security and economic security as they concerned this country in 1914–19 and as they concern the country today. I would like to refer to one other aspect of the question which has not been touched upon. I regard it as directly related to our national security, that, at this moment, there are about a million persons, without homes or countries, in enemy territory. One million people are living as displaced persons, and room must be found for them in other countries. That is an item of national security in relation to which any immigration policy has to be considered. That problem was not present in 1914 or in 1919. There was no concept at that time, that that problem would face this country. I suggest that before we decide definitely to continue this Act, we should carefully bear in mind these contrasting conditions between 1919 and today. That is only one instance, and we should be perfectly honest and admit to ourselves that, if we cannot relate our immigration policy to that problem of displaced per- sons, we shall endanger our national security by leaving that problem totally unsolved in Europe.

May I turn back to the home side of the case, and show the contrast between 1919 and today? Between 1919 and 1921 there was, for instance, acute unemployment in the building industry. At least, in the city which I represent there were demonstrations by unemployed building workers in the years after the war, and the result was that there was no alternative but to take steps to prevent anything which might threaten the employment of the people. What is the situation in 1946, on the day on which we are deciding to renew an Act drafted in 1919? We are in a situation of acute shortage of building labour—a situation exactly the opposite of that under which this Act which we are being asked to continue was originally approved by the House of Commons. I will quote only one instance to illustrate this change in the situation. I refer to civil engineering. This illustration will give a graphic example of the principle I am discussing. Whereas in 1919 tens of thousands of men were anxious for jobs connected with roads and sewers, the men employed on roads and sewers today in Coventry are solely German prisoners of war. Therefore, I think in discussing the continuance of this Measure it is fitting to point out that, whereas the Act when it was originally passed in 1919 could be justified in terms of economic security for the people of this country, today the same Measure actually prevents the potential introduction to this country of men who are vital for providing the roads and sewers without which we cannot build the houses. That is one graphic example. May I take another—domestic service? In 1914, and even in 1919, when this Act—

I really must draw the line somewhere. I understood that the hon. Member was illustrating a principle, but I cannot allow him to go into a catalogue of detailed categories.

With great respect, I was giving no catalogue. I gave one example to illustrate a principle. Surely, in a Debate on a principle, one may illustrate a principle with an example. It would be difficult for me to explain a principle in purely abstract terms without giving one or two illustrations of it.

The question is how far the hon. Member goes. He can go a certain way, but he certainly cannot go through a catalogue of detailed categories of people who may or may not be admitted to this country under the powers conferred by this Act, one Section of which it is now proposed to continue.

With great respect, Major Milner, you have foresight and, no doubt, can foresee my intentions, but on this occasion my intention was not to give a catalogue, but to illustrate with a graphic example a principle which it is vital to consider before we can decide whether or not to continue an Act drafted in 1914, amended slightly in 1919, but including in it only the philosophy of 1919 and not of 1946. With great respect, I can hardly prove my point without quoting one or two illustrations which, I think, make the principle somewhat clearer, as illustrations usually do. If I may, I would like to deal with the problem of domestic employment in order further to illustrate this principle. In 1914 and 1919 there was a considerable amount of domestic unemployment in this country. Conditions have entirely changed today, and the same applies to the nursing profession. We find profession after profession—I shall not go through the catalogue, Major Milner—in which there were too many people for the jobs in 1919, but where there are now, in 1946, too few people for the jobs.

The question I am raising with the Home Secretary is whether this Measure, in its present form, really fulfils the needs of 1946. In its present form, it is purely a restrictive Measure. What I am stressing in this discussion on principle is that, instead of a Measure of this negative description, there should be an Act with a positive immigration policy and a positive attitude to immigration, which does not say, "We will stop anybody except", but which contains certain positive principles on which to develop our immigration policy in these changed conditions. There are certain industries in which we need these men and women, and we want a positive attitude to this problem in any future Socialist legislation.

There has been a certain Agag-like quality in the speeches to which we have been listening. The point I wish to raise is a simple one, although it is with a certain sense of delicacy that I do so, because the last thing I wish to do on a Friday is to embarrass such an imposing array on the Government Front Bench. I would like to ask for some explanation of why it is necessary to continue the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, Section 2. I think it is necessary to understand the full implications of this point, and I hope some explanation may be given. My hesitancy in raising the matter is that I see no one on the Front Bench who is familiar with Scotland to whom I may address my remarks. One looks anxiously for a figure which might look well in a kilt. I think the Home Secretary probably qualifies, but apart from him, I can see no such person. I sincerely hope that before we let this Bill go through, we may have a clear exposition of why the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, Section 2, should be continued.

We are asked to consider whether or not we shall approve the expiring laws in this Schedule. Much attention has been directed to the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. I think it is clear that while some of my hon. Friends have pleaded for almost unrestricted immigration, there is a large number of people, including even some in displaced persons camps on the Continent, whom we do not want in this country. We have seen too much trouble caused by first generation, and sometimes second generation, immigrants in this country, to open the door too wide. I am not speaking without paying my tribute to the great assistance this country has had from many of these immigrants. I am not unaware, for instance, that we owe our knowledge of weaving to Flemish immigrants. In various other directions we are indebted to immigrants. The Huguenots are another example. But at the present time I think it is necessary that the Home Office—and I am not too enamoured of certain phases of the administration of the Home Office in this regard; far from it—should have these powers, even though I am of opinion that that while we are considering this Bill consideration should also be given to a more up-to-date Measure. While I say I dislike certain phases of the administration, I could not bring myself to vote against the continuance of Section I of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. However, I would couple with that the hope that the administration will be more in accord with 1946 than, shall we say, 1919. At the same time, if there is a plea for the total removal of the authority of the Home Secretary and his Department over immigration I, for one, in the present state of the world, think it would be entirely unwise.

I would like to reply to a small point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), which I think I can deal with in a short time. He asked why, seeing that wireless telegraphy and wireless telephony were permanent, there should not have been a permanent Act instead of renewing the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904, from time to time. That is quite a fair point. Without going too far back, may I say that I understand that there have been attempts at permanent legislation from time to time. The main difficulty has been on the vexed question of electrical interference. Prior to the war there was a representative committee of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, which published a report on the matter in 1936. The Post Office were considering legislation but found, owing to the outbreak of war, that they could not enter into negotiations with the trading interests and Government Departments. Therefore, the matter was put to one side during the war period. It is hoped, however, to get a simpler form of Act. The Post Office are now considering the matter, and it may be that, in the future we shall be able to do something to deal with that very vexed problem.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) both asked why the Government thought it necessary to include the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912, in this Bill. I would like to explain the reasons, in a few words. The right hon. Gentleman is substantially correct in saying that that Act has not the same degree of relevance as it had some years ago, on account of recent awards and agreements. I would not dispute that, but I do not think it is quite correct to say that it has no relevance at all, particularly when we take into account the various district rules which have been made under the Act. However, I would also agree that when the National Coal Board takes over the mines, as it will on January 1st, a new situation is created. But one cannot expect the National Coal Board, in advance, to negotiate afresh a completely new set of wage agreements, or even a consolidation of the existing ones. There is bound to be, as it were, an interim period during which the existing arrangements will continue.

Accordingly, we consulted the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers as to whether they thought it desirable that this Act should be continued. They both came to the conclusion that, on balance, it should. They did so because there was a possibility that if it were not continued an impression might be spread abroad that there was going to be some drastic change in wages. I am not for one moment suggesting that hon. Members opposite would have encouraged any idea that miners' wages were to be reduced, but there are some less well-intentioned persons in the country who might have drawn attention to the fact that this minimum wage was not in operation, and might have misled people into supposing that there were to be some changes. In order to be quite sure of that, the Government have decided to prolong the Act for at least another year. It may well be that in the course of the next year the negotiations between the Coal Board and the unions concerned will lead to fresh agreements, and make it less necessary next year. For the moment, however, it is safer to have it in operation.

Finally, may I say a few words on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames about wages and salaries paid by the Coal Board? I cannot accept for one moment the analogy which he draws. The Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912, simply provides for the establishment of machinery for settling minimum wages, and various rules under which the minimum wages are to be paid. It does not, of course, deal in detail with individual salaries and wage payments. This is, therefore, quite a different point.

The discussion on the Schedule relating to aliens has touched a very large number of points. In replying to many of them I am afraid I shall have to tread a very narrow line; therefore, it will be necessary, to generalise for the purpose of expressing, in a phrase or two, the attitude which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes on many of these questions. My hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) said that the philosophy behind the Acts of 1914 and 1919 was a philosophy which was quite out of date in 1946. I am afraid that the evidence which he adduced to the Committee was of a very partial character. I do not agree that the circumstances are so changed in 1946 as to justify the withdrawal of this Act from the Schedule of this Bill. What would it mean 'if we did so? It would mean that the Home Secretary would have no power to control the inflow to this country of people, desirable or undesirable—and there are many undesirable people in Europe today who would gladly avail themseves of the opportunity to come here. Yet it is suggested that this is not an appropriate occasion to maintain this Section of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, in being.

I am glad that tribute has been paid to my right hon. Friend in the administration of those cases which deal exclusively, on grounds of compassion, with the admission of people to this country. He has administered his powers with humanity and with a progressive outlook. The only other contention is, that now is the time of full employment, whereas in 1914 and 1919 no such principle was adumbrated by the Governments of those days. That may be quite true, but my hon. Friends have given no evidence at all.

We were not allowed to.

Let me put it this way. My hon. Friends complain that building workers are not allowed to come in, civil engineers are not allowed to come in, domestic workers are not allowed to come in, agricultural workers are not allowed to come in, nurses are not allowed to come in. To that complaint the answer is this: the Home Secretary is guided on problems of employment by the Minister specially appointed for the purpose, to wit, the Minister of Labour. If the Minister of Labour says that he is prepared to let in so many agricultural workers, or nurses, or people in the other categories referred to this morning, my right hon. Friend is only too glad and willing, subject to the good character of the person, to permit them to come in. My hon. Friend the Member fop South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) referred to 2,000 Italian workers coming to work in foundries here. That is quite inconsistent with what has been stated, and if the Minister of Labour said that he wanted 10,000 people to come into the country my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would, in the exercise of his power, be quite prepared to admit them.

The Northampton General Hospital very urgently required a number of probationer nurses from Austria, but the Ministry of Labour—

Here one sees the difficulty. If we allow a certain amount of licence to discuss detailed cases, the Committee will immediately become involved in a consideration of many other cases. I hope that Members will keep to general principles so far as is possible.

I am sorry if I transgressed, Major Milner, in making a passing reference to the many complaints which have' been lodged. These are matters for the Ministry of Labour, and not so much for the Home Secretary, although final responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend and, therefore, to some extent it is thought that he is the responsible party.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked under what power the Home Secretary was exercising his powers in respect of aliens. It is not under any of the Defence Regulations; it is under the Aliens Order, 1920, which was made under the Act of 1914, and extended by the Act of 1919. We are back, as it were, to prewar administration, working precisely the same Order, and there is no question of a Defence Regulation being involved. Another point raised related to, the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act. This Measure was passed just before the outbreak of war, and was designed to last for two years. It has been continued year by year by the operation of this Bill, and we feel that it would not be wise, at this juncture, not to continue this Measure. I am glad to say that, substantially, nothing has happened under this Measure since 1939, but in the disturbed state of Europe today, we feel that it would be as well to continue it until we are a little out of the wood, and know exactly what will happen during the next one or two years.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when an Order was last made under the Act?

The bulk of the Orders were made in 1939. I have no information as to the date of the last Order, but I think I can say that for all substantial purposes the Act has operated for the purpose for which it was introduced, and that the intervention of the war years has made such a difference in the position that it is rather difficult to judge whether its powers will be invoked again. I sincerely hope that it will not be necessary. After hearing what I have had to say on the various matters which have been raised, I hope the Committee will permit the Schedule to pass.

I would like to express my gratitude to the various Ministers who have endeavoured to explain why the various Measures for which they are responsible form part of this Schedule. I confess, however, that the explanation of the Assistant Postmaster General of why there was not a permanent enactment relating to wireless telegraphy left me in a fog, as did the explanation for the continuation of the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act.

The main discussion has been concerned with the renewal of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, and under your guidance, Major Milner, it was only possible for Members who wished to raise this matter to do so by arguing that all control over immigration should be abolished. I do not think that any Member of the Committee would take up that attitude at the present time unless he were forced to do so for the purposes of debate. The case for the continuation of some powers is absolutely unchallengeable on a wide variety of grounds, including the shortage of houses, foodstuffs, and other things today. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who advocated that the powers should be swept away, would be the first to realise that you certainly cannot have a planned economy of any sort if you have a wholly unregulated flow of aliens into this country.

With regard to the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act, the words which fell from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department were very pleasing to my ears. It is always nice to hear Ministers on the Treasury Bench arguing in favour of the continuation of, and the necessity for, an Act which, at the time of its introduction, they fought most bitterly Clause by Clause and line by line. No action, apparently, has been taken under that Act since 1939, and the necessity for the continuation of the powers seems a little remote at present. Nevertheless, I approve the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter.

I understand that the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) asked why we wanted to continue Section 2 of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, and I apologise for not being here when he asked that question. My absence was due to circumstances quite out of my control. I confess that Section 2 of this Act has not so far been operated. As I think the hon. Member knows, the Section provides for the acquisition by agreement, or compulsorily, of land for reclamation or drainage. We have had drainage legislation since 1939, under which certain drainage work has been facilitated, encouraged, and assisted by the State, but up till now the provisions of this Section have not been operated. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance, however, that we need this Section of the 1919 Act, and indeed, at the moment we are engaged in discussions for the voluntary acquisition of land for reclamation, so that we may add to the agricultural land of this country. I hope the hon Gentleman will not now ask me for any details of the land I have in mind, but I assure him it is absolutely necessary, if we are to do any reclamation work in this country, that we should continue to have Section 2 of the 1919 Act.

May I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving that explanation, which is very much appreciated?

I would like to thank the House for the speedy passage which has been given to this Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. We in Northern Ireland welcome the Bill, which was a freely negotiated agreement first made in 1925, and continued afterwards in 1935. Although this Bill has hardly caused a ripple on the political waters in Westminster, it excites an extremely lively interest in Northern Ireland. I have no intention of enlarging upon some of the remarks that were made on the Second Reading, here and on financial relations in Northern Ireland. We heard here a suggestion that this Bill subsidised Ulster, and at the same time Mr. Diamond, an Ulster Republican Member at Stormont, made the suggestion that we in Northern Ireland were contributing far too much to the Imperial Exchequer and were actually being fleeced by Great Britain. I regard both those statements as extremely mischievous and deliberately calculated to create bad feeling between the two countries. At a time like this, we should be thinking of peace and goodwill, and not engendering bad feeling.

When we look at the Bill, we can see that all the financial implications have been most carefully weighed both by the Ministry of Finance in Northern Ireland and by the Commissioners to the Treasury here. The balance really depends upon the amount of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance and the increase in the population of Northern Ireland. We have many industries in Northern Ireland, and the amount of money that will be involved depends upon employment in these industries. Agriculture is prosperous at the moment and England still requires potatoes and turkeys from Northern Ireland. Linen is one of the greatest means of getting dollars from the United States of America. So long as America continues to clamour for Irish linen there will be little unemployment in that industry. With regard to shipbuilding, we know there is a shortage of ships as there are not even enough to send our glut of herrings from here to Germany. I am not a crystal gazer even when I look at the Members opposite and I cannot say what amount of money will be required for unemployment assistance and family allowances, but whichever way the financial balance is tipped, whether in favour of Great Britain or Northern Ireland, "What is given to a friend is not lost." After all, you do not call in a chartered accountant on the occasion of your daughter's wedding, your son's coming of age, or even the christening of a grandchild or the burying of a grandfather. It is a family matter, and it will be very bad for Great Britain and Northern Ireland if the relations between the two countries are solely a matter of filthy lucre. We do not ask very much in Northern Ireland. 'Other parts of the Empire seem to want to secede from this country. All we want is the honour of fighting by the side of this country in its wars and working by its side to recover from the wars, with an equal standard of living on both sides of the Channel under one King and one flag, the Union Jack. I thank the Government for having brought this Bill so far, and I hope it will be given the Third Reading.

Perhaps I might say, briefly, that the Government deprecate any suggestion from any quarter that Northern Ireland is either a poor relation subsidised by this country or, on the other hand, is paying far more than she should do towards the upkeep of the national exchequer. Neither of those things is correct. Actually, Northern Ireland is a part of this country. It is not her fault that, since 1922, she has had to have an Exchequer of her own. The Government do not share the view that Northern Ireland is a poor relation. An agreement between the two countries, in one form or another, has been subsisting since 1926, with the willing consent of all parties in this House and I am sure this new agreement, and the one that will have to follow it of a more comprehensive nature when the full security code is put into operation, will also receive the fullest assent of all parties when the time comes.

I am very disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place for this Debate, although I understand that he is coming later. I should like to declare to the House, in accordance with the usual custom, that I have an interest in the fishing industry. I have been interested in the industry for a great number of years—years when losses were made year after year. I am, therefore, speaking from experience when I try to put my views to the House on this subject.

There has been real concern on the East coast this autumn regarding the way the herring industry has been managed, or perhaps I should say, mismanaged by the Herring Industry Board. It is well known, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) frequently tells us, that herrings are in abundance in the summer months—the two months about midsummer—and in October and November, off the East coast of England, and I should have thought that the Government and the Departments concerned, including the Control Commission, would have taken adequate steps to see that we were capable of handling them. It is well known in the industry that during the full moon in October, and again in November, there are frequently very heavy catches. There has been little fishing off the East coast during the war years, but this year there were very heavy catches, and no appropriate arrangements were made to deal with them. I put a Question to the Minister of Food on 16th October, and in a supplementary question I asked:

"In the event of exceptional heavy landings of catches this autumn, will the hon. Lady consider sending vessels direct to Hamburg, or other German ports, to land their herrings there?"

The reply was:

"We have been doing that to a great extent this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1946; Vol. 427; c. 897.]

I regret to say that the hon. Lady was misinformed; because I put a further Question, ten days later, asking how many vessels had gone direct from the fishing grounds to German ports, and the reply was ".None".

That was a matter which should have been considered because vessels could have gone to Hamburg or the Dutch port of Ijmuiden and landed their catches there, transporting them direct to Germany. The real trouble, in my view, this Autumn, lay with the Herring Industry Board. I know that the Minister will tell me that he has no direct control over that Board. That may be, but steps should have been taken to ensure that the Board were competent to deal with the situation The Herring Industry Board have shown themselves to be completely lacking in energy and initiative, and quite unworthy of the responsibility which they hold. It was only last May that the Herring Industry Board assumed full control. That was at a conference at Edinburgh, and it was agreed that area committees should be set up to deal with such a situation. They had full powers and authority to regulate the fishing at any of the ports, and to say which vessels were to stay in over night and not go to sea, or that the number of nets to be carried and used by these vessels were to be restricted, and probably halved in number.

When the area committees came to be appointed, the Scottish fishermen objected to the buyers being on these committees, and, consequently, section committees were set up. That was a display of weakness, in my view, on the part of the Board. If they had not given way on that point, they would have had more control over the situation some few weeks ago. The only way to assure cooperation between the producer and the buyer is to have them adequately represented on the committees. It is known that the section committees are merely advisory bodies with no authority, but, nevertheless, in July, in Scotland, these section committees did exercise some power, and actually prevented English vessels from going to sea. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with that, but the section committees did prevent English vessels from proceeding to sea. That was a great challenge to the Board's authority, and I should have thought that they would have clamped down hard, and said, "This is just not going to happen" and have exercised the authority which had been given to them.

I am told that some of the members of the Herring Board were previously members of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. They may have done their work very well, because in carrying out such duties, one can approximately estimate how much milk a herd of cows will produce next week, but in dealing with fishing vessels, it is another story. I believe that members of the Herring Industry Board should be men of experience, who know their job, and have gone right through the industry; then we should have men who could visualise the situation.

On the 4th, 5th and 6th November there were exceptionally heavy landings of herrings at Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft—heavier than usual, because the fishing grounds had not been working for a number of years. After Wednesday, the 6th, the Herring Industry Board said that no vessels were to proceed to sea. Some of the vessels had only had one night's fishing that week, and others, none at all. There was an obvious opportunity to send our vessels out to catch the food which we could send over to the half-starving Germans. If there had been intelligent planning and enough foresight given to the matter that would have been done, but for three days and three nights, 400 vessels were tied up to the quays of these two ports, doing nothing at all. After much arguing and difficulty, it was agreed that part of the fleet should go to sea on 10th November. Then it was too late. The shoals had moved, and the catches were very much smaller. It is my estimate that if those three nights had been utilised, that, with over 400 vessels, the catch would have produced some 60 million herrings. That is a tremendous lot of food these days. When we realise that 1lb. of herring contains 735 calories as against 739 for a lb. of eggs, the value of this food will be seen; particularly to a nation which is more short than we are.

It is obvious that the Board lacked initiative, and did not see this situation arising, because after the heavy catches were brought in, three German vessels were brought over from Hamburg to transport them in bulk If that could be done afterwards, it could quite well have been done before 5th November. I submit that that was not realised, although I am told that 12 vessels from Hamburg and other German ports were available to deal with the situation; but nothing was done about it.

I have here an extract from the "Eastern Daily News" of 26th November. They said:

"After waiting at Lowestoft for a week to load herrings the German vessel "Seahen" sailed for home yesterday empty. Two other vessels in Yarmouth may leave tomorrow."

These last-mentioned vessels have since departed for Germany empty. If that is an example of Socialist planning, it is even worse than I thought it could be. It is a deplorable situation, because this was a simple problem to deal with, had the matter been taken in hand. I do not know whether the Minister has taken disciplinary action against the Herring Industry Board, but I hope that he will do so. If a farmer farms his land ineffi- ciently, he is deprived of his farm, and I suggest that these gentlemen should be deprived of their job—those who are responsible for this situation. I would suggest that the Herring Industry Board should set up a proper sales organisation; men of experience who would go to Europe and explore the market in great detail. I know that a certain amount has been done in that direction, but the scope is much more than what has been done hitherto.

I do not think the Board should be situated permanently in Edinburgh. It is remote control to have the Board in Scotland. It should be mobilised as far as possible and should work with the fishing industry, moving around the coast. In the summer it should be at, say, Fraserburgh, and in the autumn at Lowestoft. The Allied Control Commission in Germany must accept their share of the responsibility for the muddle. They ought to have seen the situation developing and they should have got every vessel on which they could lay hands to bring the fish to Germany. However, nothing was done, and this is only another indication of the inefficiency of the Control Commission. We could for three days have fed 20 million people, giving each person a square meal on each of those three days, which would have meant 60 million herrings. I think that the sooner we have a Minister resident in Germany to look after major problems and make the people in the Allied Control Commission realise their responsibilities the better it will be for everyone.

In conclusion, I want to refer to Command Paper 6957, which covers the Report of the Herring Industry Board for the past year. It reads like a fairy tale. It is the most lamentable document I have read. It talks about a target in 1951 of three million crans a year, but what are the immediate prospects of the industry in 1947? Perhaps that will be given consideration also. They talk about 1,000 vessels in 1951 which will be manned by some 12,000 men. Today, we have got some 400 vessels and there are insufficient men to man them. We have to face a labour problem now through insufficiency of men. Like the miners who prefer a job above ground, many fishermen prefer a job ashore. For the Board to talk about 1,000 vessels is absolute nonsense. Let us instead have a small fleet which can be managed efficiently. I criticise my own party for their attitude in the past as far as the herring industry is concerned, and I would ask the Minister if he will to give an assurance of some change in the Board, that more Englishmen will be appointed to the Board, and that they will be men who know their job completely.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has performed a useful service in drawing the attention of the House to the conditions operating in the East Anglian fishing fleet last season and with what he says I am largely in agreement. I cannot, however, accept the statement that the present situation is the result of Socialist planning. It is due to non-Socialist planning, and it will be the responsibility of the Minister concerned to see that an examination of a very urgent character is made of the Herring Board. At the beginning of the season there were great hopes in the industry that there would be a highly successful and profitable season, due to the increased facilities, the extension of the fishing ground and a greater number of personnel. Indeed, it was anticipated that the 1945 season would be a bumper fishing harvest. Unfortunately, these aspirations have not been fulfilled, and there is a considerable feeling of disappointment throughout the industry, though the catches in some cases were extraordinarily good. However, the control by the Herring Board was ill-directed and the arrangements made were ineffective. The fishing was not developed to anything like the extent to which it should have been developed; in fact, great shoals were left in the sea. Too many fish were left in the sea and not sufficient caught and distributed.

Disappointment has been felt that the needs of the home market suffered, and also that the exportable surplus, except on one or two occasions, was not sent for consumption on the Continent, particularly in Germany where the need is so great. I remember my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) saying on one occasion that, if only we could get a herring and a potato a day for the Germans, it would stave off starvation. I have heard the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) saying something similar. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield has called attention to the food value of the herring, and it is a well known fact that of all the fish in the sea, with the exception of the cod, it is the most nutritious. The great tragedy is that so few people know how to cook a herring.

It would have been thought that the Herring Board, knowing the likelihood of gluts during the November and October full moon, would have been prepared for any eventuality, and that adequate arrangements would have been made for dealing with any surplus. I can assure the House that the arrangements were not adequate, and that there was a great deal of confusion on account of the restrictions, resulting in a tragic loss of herring. All sides of the industry were extremely disappointed and alarmed. I am told that six ships were available for the shipment of exportable surplus abroad, and although I have made inquiries, I have found it difficult to discover exactly what those ships did. Certain it is that when they were wanted they were not there, and the herring which they should have taken away were turned into meal and processed. Yet, at the same time, there were facilities available in Holland for direct transmission into the British zone. There was really no necessity to send ships on the roundabout way to Hamburg. The fish could have been landed in Ijmuiden, where they would have been bought and transferred. I am not suggesting that the Government should not have bought this herring and given it to the Germans, but I am suggesting that facilities ought to be available for British exporters to do it. The Dutch were able to enter into a satisfactory arrangement for the supply of herrings which they caught. Naturally they are elated, for they have now contracts for the supply of two million kilos of herrings.

It has been claimed that in order to clear the glut shipping was not allowed out to fish for three days, but it was as late as Sunday, 10th November, and only after great pressure was brought to bear on the area controller, that permission was given to the fleet to put to sea. In the meantime, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, it was difficult to keep contact with the shoals. When the wind changes the herring shoals go in a different direction, and those vital three days in harbour made it difficult for the ships to maintain contact with the herring. The ships were kept in port in spite of the Lowestoft buyers guaranteeing to take 3,500 crans of herring, and only 600 crans were available on the Monday morning. These were sold to the home market and the exporters got none, yet 375 vessels should have been landing 40,000 crans, sufficient to load 20 steamers for Germany.

In the trade journal it has been stated that the herring fishermen refused to realise the possibilities for export. I will read the exact quotation:

"That the herring fishermen refuse to realise the possibilities for export and persist in refusing to catch fish immediately the price falls below the maximum, that they would sooner close the port than land a herring that would not fetch top price."

This is very vigorously denied by the fishermen themselves, and I am very glad to make this denial on their behalf. They are only too anxious to take any kind of fish to the full capacity provided for them. During the last few weeks I have been consulting various branches of my constituency—catchers, buyers, the union and a large number of individuals—and one and all have expressed lack of confidence in the Board. They say that it remains out of touch with the day to day problems through sitting in Edinburgh and it is in insufficient contact with its own officers and advisers.

The main fault, as I see it, is that there is no coordination of any value between the different elements comprising the industry. I emphasise what has already been said, namely, that there should be strong area advisory committees of catchers and buyers. The Labour interest should not be neglected and a representative should be included. The present catchers and buyers, on different committees, have a considerable amount of jealousy. The Scottish representatives upon the catchers' committee are in a majority. We suffer from a certain amount of Scottish domination on the East coast, and naturally so, because the large majority of the people engaged in the industry are Scotsmen. The Scottish people refuse to sit with the buyers. I cannot accept the position that when the Scotsmen come to England they must impose their conditions upon the herring fleets and upon the people engaged in the trade.

There cannot possibly be coordination unless all the elements of the trade work together and develop the industry to its maximum capacity. That would result in the best advice being tendered to the area control officer who is responsible, under the Board, for the maximum production from the fishing industry. In my constituency it is not the area officer who is to blame so much. We are told that his hands are tied by the Herring Industry Board. Reconstruction of that Board is essential if the confidence of the industry in the Board is to be restored. The members of the Board should be alert. The Board should be mobile, and able to go from place to place as the position in the industry varies. They should take the advice of the herring committee, not only on the day to day conduct of the industry, but particularly in regard to its future development. The Minister has told us that he has no control over the Herring Industry Board. I suggest that he should secure powers to exercise some influence and some direction, when it is clear that there has been weakness in administration. I think the present case fully justifies the Minister taking very strong measures in regard to the Board.

I would now say a word about the future. Foreign markets have been mentioned. Are the present Board capable of exploring new markets and regaining lost ones? Have they a sound recruiting scheme? The hon. and gallant Member has referred to what he called the daydream, or the fairy book story, of having 1,000 drifters by 1951. Where are the men to man those vessels? What is the Board's scheme of recruitment, conditions of work, amenities and remuneration for the fishermen? What about skilled dockside workers? What about coopers, a great many of whom went, all during the war, from the coopering trade into that of the brewers? All the skilled industries are in a very low condition as regards their manpower and their prospects of attracting new men into the work. I am told that it becomes increasingly difficult to get gutters, because girls will not take up that part of the work.

All those questions relating to the ancillary trades connected with fishing require alert minds and men abreast with the latest developments in the labour situation. Is the Minister satisfied that large—scale experimenting in freezing and processing, and particularly in transport, should be left to the present body? Is he satisfied with the quality of the fish put upon the market and masquerading under the name of "kipper"? Is it hoped to develop the export trade in that type of herring? What has happened to the bloater? These two kinds of delectable fish have been allowed to deteriorate until the housewife turns up her nose at them. All this is attributable to a lack of purpose on the part of the authorities, in seeing that the quality of the stuff put upon the market has some relation to the name it bears.

Are the Board making adequate arrangements to supply materials? We know that the rise in costs has effected all forms of gear, and has been one of the great difficulties that the industry has had to bear. I hope that the Board will go into this matter with great thoroughness and vigour. I can assure the Minister that there are grave doubts on these matters in the minds of those with whom I have been in contact. All these problems require at the top a strong, virile Board, if the industry is to prosper, and the Minister should see that the Board are able to meet their responsibilities. What is needed is an infusion of many qualities that are at the moment lacking.

I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) was lucky in the Ballot and was able to initiate this Debate. I am happy to be able to say, on behalf of my constituents, that nobody can dispute that Great Yarmouth is the greatest herring port in the world. I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to know the record that has been put up in the last few weeks. Despite restrictions and bad weather, one of our boats, the "Romany Rose," under Skipper Rudd, went out, and managed to bring back 264¾ cran of herring, for one boat and one catch. It won the Prunier trophy and was a magnificent result. We have had the report of the Herring Industry Board, and we are all very much interested in it. I hope we shall see that it is considered here and is put into operation. I disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield in one respect. The present Government have made no real effort to tackle the industry on the lines of Socialist planning. We must face that fact.

Will the hon. and gallant Member say why nothing has been done to plan this industry? The Government have been in power for 18 months.

That is what I am going to say. It is obvious that this industry is subject to postwar shortages such as of timber for barrels, and of ships. There is also a shortage of recruits. There must be quite a number of boys in the Forces. We want some temporary measure to carry us over this season and give us as much benefit as we can get from the shoals which have been lying off Yarmouth in the last few weeks. Under the constitution of the Board, that matter is left to the Herring Board. On this point we all agree but in the last few weeks the Herring Board has fallen down.

Not many people seem to be aware that the season now rapidly drawing to its close off the East Anglian coast is very short. When we talk about ships taking herring to the Germans as soon as it is caught, and the risk in waiting after the catch comes in, we are apt to forget that if one waited for the whole season they would not wait longer than seven weeks. For thousands of people, in big cities like Hamburg, surely it was worth while. Hon. Members will remember there was a slight amount of trouble this season, owing to the fact that fishermen were suffering from lack of sufficient food to do their job. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and I went to see the Minister of Food. We along with the fishermen put the case and we were successful in gaining our point for the fishermen. They immediately went off to sea on 10th October, which was a late start. That was followed by a strike of the girls, who thought that what the fishermen would get in one way, they could get in another. Finally the girls went to work and the season got started.

The last time I was there, on walking round the quays and talking to the fishermen, I found that the catches were not coming in very well. There was, therefore, a great deal of complaint from the herring dealers, especially from the exporters to the Mediterranean market, and there was some grumbling that the first call on the catches was for the klondyking of fish to be sent over to Germany. There was substance in their case. I put the inevitable Question in the House and received the inevitable answer, that there is no power to do anything. However, we had a certain amount of fair weather and there was a glut. We talked about gluts in this House on 21st March this year and we thought we had given enough warning to everybody involved that we did not Want to see any gluts this year, since there are not enough kippers to go round, you can never get a bloater, and there is this problem of near starvation in some countries.

Therefore we thought that after the Debate, once the herring season started on 10th October, some measures would have been taken to deal with any possible glut but immediately the herrings came, the Herring Board closed the port and, as if the Almighty wanted to teach them a lesson, bad weather came down, and the boats could not go out for that reason. All the time the herring were waiting outside in millions ready to feed ourselves and the Germans. Three German ships have left this week—empty—the only ships which the Control Commission could get over here for this part of the season, and they were here well over a week. If it is possible to get them over here within a fortnight from Germany, surely it was possible to have had them here on 1oth October and send them back fully loaded, instead of going back empty as some of them have this week, and perhaps they could have come back again for further supplies.

From some of the replies we have received to Questions in this House one would think that Germany was in the Antartic and that it was a very great project to ship herrings to Germany. Yet the nearest point from Yarmouth to Holland is only 90 miles, and the distance to London is 10 miles longer. It would have been simple to show a little more imagination and have these ships waiting before the glut arrived. There was, however, apparently a perfect lack of initiative and imagination, and the responsibility for that must be placed on the Herring Board. The answer we get to our Questions in the House is, "We have no responsibility. We cannot give orders to the Herring Board either through the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, or the Board of Trade." So the responsibility must rest with the people who can make decisions. If it were a military operation, such as many of us saw during the war, if we had wanted millions of herrings, we would have got them, even by the most temporary measures, and that spirit ought to have been shown before 10th October. For instance, Yarmouth was heavily bombed during the war, especially in the quayside area, and there are acres and acres of land on which the buildings are either in a state of disrepair, or have been obliterated completely. There is plenty of space there where temporary tanks could have been erected such as we put up to hold water in case of incendiaries. Any extra catches could have been kept in those tanks in brine in the same way in which, in my own constituency, herrings are kept up to six months before they are processed. The Herring Board could have done that many weeks ago.

Besides this lack of initiative and imagination there seems to be a lack of coordination. For instance, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries about a week ago answered a Question on East Anglia. HE said:

"I presume, that the Minister has no power to issue directions to the Herring Industry Board."—[18th November 1946, Vol. 430, col. 516.]

By a curious coincidence just as I finished reading that copy of HANSARD, I picked up "Tam o' Shanter" and found these very well-known and appropriate lines:

"Oh Tam, oh Tam, thou'll get thy fairin'!

In hell they'll roast thee like a herrin'."

The Minister of Agriculture said he had no power to give orders to the Board. It has taken days and days to find out where the Minister of Agriculture comes in and where the Minister of Food comes in, and who gives the overall order to these people, acting like dictators, saying what catches shall go where and what prices shall be given. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, answering a Question the other day, said that all steps practicable had been taken to get these gluts of herrings to Germany. Do "practical steps" mean that after the glut had arrived, it was impossible to get ships from Germany beforehand and that, when the ships arrived and the glut did not occur, the ships have gone back empty to Germany? I should have thought something more practicable than that could have been done, and that it was for the Chancellor and his Department to see that ships were waiting in Germany on 9th October to come over at once.

A very important part of our local trade, in that it helps the sterling position, is the smoked herring trade with the Mediterranean, which has been carried on for many years in my own constituency. We expected this year to get started in building up this trade with Italy and Greece, but what happened? One of our customers had a ship lying in a port in Italy, I think Genoa. There was another boat on its way over fully loaded with smoked herrings. Then he found out that the Italian Government would not allow them in, and was making a barter agreement with the Dutch and Norwegians who were not very much concerned in this trade before the war. That is a country which we are taking part in ruling at the moment, an ex-enemy. We had to act quickly. The Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade happened to be in Rome. He received my telegram and the matter was put right. However it may not be right next season, and such things ought to be looked into before next season since we are trying to put this business on its feet.

I had another telegram saying that the Greek Government had put an absolute embargo on the import of smoked herrings from Yarmouth, which is a very important part of our trade. I had to take action on that. The wires to Athens began buzzing and, eventually, the Greek Government rescinded the order and our smoked herrings are now going over. But such things should not arise, and presumably we have the Herring Board to see that they do not arise. It should organise this business properly. The Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Ministry of Food and the Board of Trade are all involved. We ought to get some coordination worked out before the herrings disappear. Indeed they are actually disappearing at the moment, for the catches are no longer as good as they were. Scottish boats are leaving Yarmouth now, making the long trek back North, so to all intents and purposes the season of 1946 will soon be over. Are we going to repeat that in 1946 and 1947? The Herring Industry Board has in view not the trees in front of us, but the wood ahead in the season of 1951. We should see that as many herrings as possible are brought out of the North Sea, and I have no doubt that our Scottish friends want to get a maximum catch from their activities off the West Coast of Scotland.

We want more kippering to be done. Instead of allowing the extra catches to be made into manure, let us make them into kippers so that they can be used for feeding Germans in Germany. If we provided for every man, woman and child in Germany one slice of bread, one potato and one herring a day they would be getting the calorie value which we fixed for them at S.H.A.E.F. before the war ended, and this ration they have never had yet. I think that should be borne in mind in 1947. We want the Mediterranean trade, especially for Yarmouth and particularly the trade with Greece. If we do not secure that trade, it will go to the Dutch and Norwegians who will have great advantages, including the fact that they can buy our nets which are exported and which our own people cannot buy. Finally, I hope that present negotiations proceeding with our Russian Allies and friends will lead to a very big export trade with the Soviet Union from next year onwards.

I know very little about herring, except that, when cooked and fresh, they make a very good meal. The House is greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) and other hon. Members for raising this very important matter. It is right to show that there is resentment also among people who know nothing about this industry and are not experts on the job but who feel that the Debate should not be allowed to pass without expressing their resentment. We ordinary people who know so little about this, know that in the past there have been gluts which were caused by mismanagement. But we feel now we have at last a Government which ought to be able to manage this industry. Nevertheless, I think, we have to admit that they have fallen down on the job, and that something has gone wrong. We could all foresee that this position might arise: that it was not, therefore, a question of not knowing what was going to happen, but a question of some simple inability to cope with the situation which was foreseen.

The tragedy is the greater because not only are there people in this country who would need herring, kippers and bloaters but there are also people all over the world, particularly in Germany, who urgently need them as food. I have never been able to find out the difference between a bloater and a kipper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—beyond the fact that a bloater is made into paste, and kipper is not. Perhaps I come from an area that has never seen a bloater and would not recognise it. But let that pass. The point is that here we have a Government of international Socialists, and it appears they have failed, for some reason or other, to deliver that food to the people who needed it.

I rise to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have urged upon the Government the necessity of avoiding in future what has happened in East Anglia during this fishing season. I do so, because I feel that unless the Government take steps very shortly to organise this industry we are going to be in the same position in which we found ourselves in the years between the wars. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) charges the Government with neglect during the last 18 months in regard to this matter. I hope he will remember that for 18 years the party to which he belongs were in power.

I did not excuse my own party any more than the present Government.

We accept that, but I would mention that 18 years of power gives a Government the larger opportunity to organise an industry than does 18 months. The Government in power in this country today have nothing to be charged with so far as that is concerned. Time has been too short to organise this very complex industry. It has been quite impossible to do it. There has, of course, been a toning down in the capacity to catch the fish, but I remember the days between the wars when large quantities of fish were caught and dumped back into the sea. The plain fact is that this indus- try has never been organised, and will be required to be thoroughly organised from now on. It has been left in the hands of private enterprise so long that haphazard sporadic attempts have been made to deal with the harvest of the sea and they are not the way in which the Government should proceed. That belongs to the past.

I agree with hon. Members who have advocated that the Government should go forward and organise the industry. I feel that the Herring Board is not adequate nor has it the necessary powers to tackle this problem, and I hope the Government will consider reorganising the Board in order to, give that greater power and to make it more flexible. It is not only the herring industry which requires the attention of the Government, but the white fish industry as well. I hope that powers may be given to the Board to enable it to deal with the whole question of the fishing industry comprehensively as a fishing Board dealing not only with the herring industry but with white fish as well. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield has done a good thing in raising this matter. I hope the Government will from now on be able to reorganise the machinery of distribution in such a way that we shall never have a repetition of the former tragic waste at a time when Europe could be supplied with this very sustaining and excellent food.

The House is indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) for taking the opportunity of this Adjournment Debate, to raise the several matters of very great interest in regard to herring fishing. He and other hon. Members have made strictures, not all well deserved, on the way in which the herring industry Board have carried out their job. I was a little relieved when the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield made a point of saying that his own party were not completely free of responsibility in this matter because I think the House should understand that the present Government were not responsible for the legislation which brought the Herring Industry Board into being. Whatever may be its shortcomings in so far as its powers are concerned, these are matters wrapped up in legislation, for which this Government are in no way responsible.

In the Gracious Speech last year the fishing industry was mentioned. Surely, in the intervening period, steps could have been taken to get efficient members on the Board?

I was dealing with the question of powers rather than the personnel. Whatever might be said as to whether the powers are adequate or inadequate, legislation would be ultimately involved. It will be no part of the case of hon. Members opposite that this Government have not kept the House fairly busy with legislation.

The point of this criticism arises largely out of certain circumstances that have occurred in regard to the East Anglian fishing season this year. I suppose the two points upon which everybody who knows anything at all about herrings will agree are, first, the great variability about the herring catch from time to time—it has been the most difficult thing to handle in the past and to regulate the scheme of things; secondly, the fact that the fresh herring has little keeping quality. In fact, if a fresh herring is not consumed within about 36 hours of being landed, it goes out of condition. In considering this matter of herring and all the things that have been said, it is important to keep these two important facts in mind when one tends to criticise the Herring Industry Board. I think I should also make the point that anybody who is familiar with the reports of the Herring Industry Board must at least give the Board this credit: I am not at all sure that its members themselves are at all satisfied with their existing powers.

What happened in the circumstances complained of was that in the first four weeks of the East Anglian season, landings at Lowestoft and Yarmouth were not heavy; in fact, it was not necessary to regulate the catch, which is, of course, the function of the Herring Board. But in the first four days of the following week, 4th to 7th November, from the Monday to the Thursday, more herring was landed in both those ports than in the whole of the previous week. The House will better appreciate that when I put it in this fashion, that for those four days the average landing per boat went up to as high as 109 crans compared with only 60 crans in the previous week. The result of that phenomenally heavy catch was completely to block the ports up for a day or two, and just because of that the Herring Industry Board, in the exercise of its powers, regulated the actual going to sea of the herring fleet.

Let us bear in mind that one of the objects of the Board in regulating fishing is to even out the landings, and to equate the quantity of herrings wanted to the facilities provided for the disposal of catches to the home market and export. That is one of their jobs. I venture to suggest that with all the skill in the world, however clever the personnel on the Herring Industry Board may be, a situation of that kind is not the easiest thing to handle. It should be said in defence of the Herring Industry Board that even when it was faced with that position—that awful paradox which I have always found myself objecting to strongly—of having fish dumped back into the sea, that did not occur. I speak with my own division in mind. I remember the terrible interwar years when, in a great industrial division such as I represent, the people never had the money to buy the herrings available in this country, with the facilities for transport, etc., then available. At least we are one stage better than that, because there are certainly remarkably few people in this country today who have not the means of buying the herrings which are available.

They have always been very cheap.

Very cheap, but when one has not the means of buying them they still cannot be bought. I was delighted to find the hon. and gallant Member out rivalling the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) who, quite rightly, acclaims in the House the virtues of the herring.

Herrings are cheap to the fisherman, but not to the housewife. The fisherman gets a small return; the housewife pays a high price.

I was making the point that that was the position, with all the facilities of transport, barrelage, etc., which were available in normal peace time in this country. Herrings were dumped back into the sea again and again.

They were this summer.

The remarkable thing this season has been that there has been very little—practically none. In the East Anglian fishing season the Board have done their job in such a way as to avoid that sort of situation, and they should at least be given some little credit for doing that.

It is quite obvious that herrings would have been dumped but the fact that the vessels were tied in the ports, whereas there could have been a bigger catch if we had had German vessels over to collect a certain quantity to take back to Germany.

I am coming to that point in a moment. The point I was making was that the catch in these four days was so heavy, 109 crans per boat as against 60 crans in the previous week, that the result was to overload the facilities of the ports for disposing of the catch. Despite those difficulties the Herring Board managed to handle that situation. Let us give them some credit for what they did in that great difficulty.

The point is made: Why were not facilities given so that these herrings might have been exported to the Continent? The Ministry of Food, who were concerned about this matter, sought to do two things.. They were concerned in the first place to push up the home market supplies of herrings to the utmost of the market's capacity; secondly, to do what they could, in conjunction with the Control Office for Germany and Austria, in seeing to it that the export side was covered. In that regard the Ministry of Food were responsible for placing a contract on behalf of the Control Office for Germany for the supply, in the first place, on contract, of 10,000 tons of herring to Germany during 1946. The criticism was made that this is the result of Socialist planning. I am bound to tell the hon. and gallant Member that that is the last case which should be put from the other side of the House on this point, because these contracts were placed with the United Fresh Herring Exporters Limited, a private company. It was the job of that private company, having received the contract. The contract imposed upon them the responsibility of procuring the boats for that purpose. If there is any case for criticism the case would he not against Socialist planning but against the private company who were responsible for completing that contract.

The Control Commissioners had the boats.

No, Sir. The contract was made for the supply of 10,000 tons of herring. It was placed with the United Fresh Herring Exporters Ltd., and under the terms of the contract it was their job to see that the boats were available to handle them. I am only making a perfectly valid point that if criticism there be, and if it be deserved, it does not lie on any issue of Socialist planning but on the exporters responsible for handling that contract.

But the situation should never have arisen.

Apart from that contract for 10,000 tons, it was made abundantly clear that if that contract was fulfilled there would be a second contract for another 10,000 tons. I am making this point only to show that, so far as the Ministry of Food were concerned, acting on behalf of the Control Office for Germany, they had done their bit in the placing of these contracts. I now come to the point about home supplies. The suggestion that there were not sufficient supplies available for the home market has no foundation in fact. The position in the home market is that, largely because of the interest which the Ministry of Food have given to the matter of developing the market, the home market this year has taken 80 per cent, more herring during the East Anglian season than were consumed in the same period of 1945. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen is not here. I am sure he would have been most interested to know that the Ministry of Food were so concerned. In the first place, by a slight reduction in price and, second, by other facilities, they have been able to arrange things in such a way that the supply of herring for the home market has increased by over 80 per cent., which means in tonnage that in this period 17,440 tons were sold in the home market compared with 9,583 tons in the corresponding period of last year.

I think the Minister will agree that last year a great number of these vessels were employed on Admiralty duties and could not possibly subscribe to our food supplies. It is only now that the vessels have been released that they are producing the food.

I am glad the hon. and Gallant Gentleman made that point. I agree with him entirely that this increase is because the Herring Industry Board virtually started from scratch. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman points out, the fishing fleet were engaged on Admiralty duties and it is only since then that this development has been possible. I say that the interest of the Government has been such, through the Ministry of Food, that the supply to the home market has increased by 80 per cent. and I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that that is a not inconsiderable increase. I am not going to trouble the House with many figures.

I think it was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) who mentioned the point that in the desire to develop the export trade, which we all want to see re-established in harmony with general export policy, negotiations have now been entered into with the authorities representing the U.S.S.R. Government in order to see whether we can develop that side of the export trade. We have had criticisms about contracts placed with the Dutch. To my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn), who raised that point, I would say that the total amount of these contracts was so small, relative to our own position as in the nature of things, almost to be negligible.

I would like to explain that I am not complaining about the contracts, but about the fact that we did not have facilities.

I have no desire to do the hon. Member an injustice. I was merely making the point that the volume of the contracts placed with the Dutch on behalf of the Control Office is negligible and, in any case, they will not adversely affect us, because the Control Office are anxious to get all the supplies available. I was invited to offer some views as to the future. I was asked what it was likely that the Government would do in connection with the Herring Industry Board. I invite hon. Gentlemen to make themselves familiar with the nth Annual Report of the Herring Industry Board which has recently been published. There it will be found that the Herring Industry Board have postulated certain proposals for development and we have made one or two criticisms of their proposals. The Herring Industry Board, in putting forward these proposals, have taken the next step of putting them to the industry. In turn, it will be for the industry to comment on the proposals and, when they have said what they want to say, the Herring Industry Board will make submissions to the Government. The Government will consider the suggestions and make their own decision. It is not for me at this stage to anticipate what the position of the Government in this matter may be. I assure the House—certainly my hon. Friends on this side of the House who represent so many fishing constituencies—that the Government will pay the most earnest attention to any suggestions or recommendations. Having received them the Government will be charged with the job of making up their own minds with regard to what is to be done in this situation.

I want to make it clear, though I do not know whether I need to say this—it should have been self-evident—that no complaint can be laid at the door of the Government that we have not done this already. All Government Departments are faced with the same problem at present. All Ministers are anxious to introduce legislation and to get their own proposals before the House and we cannot all stand at this Box at the same time; but in due course, the Government will give their considered opinion and make proposals

Will the Minister give an assurance that something will be done to have a wider representation on the Herring Industry Board? Men who know more about the job should be consulted. Will he give an assurance that he will investigate the whole matter and do something about it?

I cannot accept the suggestion that the personnel of the Board is unsatisfactory. That is much too much to ask me to accept. If I may say so with respect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I should want far more evidence than has been available in this Debate to prove that the personnel is unsatisfactory. However. I can assure him that this Government are only too ready to examine any evidence they get on matters of this kind, and that we in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries are concerned and interested in everything we receive from hon. Members by way of evidence on any matter. We should naturally give the most detailed consideration to such submissions. I want to make it quite plain that, so far as the Ministry are concerned, I do not accept the imputations that have been made about the personnel.

The House has been discussing the question of making arrangements to enable supplies of a particular item of food to be made available to hungry people. I should like, for a time, to direct the attention of hon. Members to the wider and more general question of the making available of urgently needed supplies, particularly of food, to countries and to peoples in need throughout the world. In particular, I should like to deal with the decision that has apparently been taken to wind up the activities of that great international organisation, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. A very difficult and tragic situation is going to arise if this decision becomes effective, and if no adequate steps are taken to provide other means of doing the work which that organisation has been and is still doing.

This is not the moment to give anything like a comprehensive review of the work which U.N.R.R.A. has done, but, in order that we can appreciate what is involved in its disbandment, we should, at least, remind ourselves of one or two essential facts. U.N.R.R.A. was set up in 1943 as the result of a recognition that, at the end of the war, there would be widespread need for urgent supplies in many countries which would not be in a position to meet that need from their own internal resources or by the normal process of imports. Forty-seven nations participated in the formation of U.N.R.R.A., and all of them have contributed to its administrative budget. On the other hand, the much higher costs represented by the operational budget have, by international agreement, been borne only by those nations which were not invaded. Some 31 nations have contributed a sum representing, approximately, one per cent. of their national incomes towards the operational budget of U.N.R.R.A. The largest burden has, inevitably, fallen upon the United States, which has contributed, approximately, 70 per cent. of the operational costs. We ourselves have been next in rank, providing something like 17 per cent. of the budget. Altogether, the total contributions to U.N.R.R.A. in the course of the two years in which contributions have been made, have been a little over £900 million, towards which this country has made a contribution of £155 million.

Let me say right away that I think we should place on record our recognition of the magnificent contribution which has come to U.N.R.R.A. from the United States, and that we should also place on record the fact that we, too, have played a very big part in this international relief work, and have made a fine contribution from our own severely limited resources. The Canadian Government—one of our own Dominions—have, I think, been third on the list of contributing nations, and, in accordance with its general tradition of playing a part in international relief work, Canada has made a contribution of which she can justly be proud.

The work of the organisation has been to provide urgently needed supplies, especially of food, but also of agricultural materials and of materials for the resuscitation of industry, to a number of European and Asiatic countries. As they found themselves in possession of adequate foreign exchange resources, most of the countries of Western Europe decided not to take advantage of U.N.R.R.A. assistance. Countries like France, Belgium, Holland and Norway voluntarily forfeited their rights under U.N.R.R.A. Relief has, therefore, been provided to such countries as Greece, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ethiopia, the Ukraine, Byelorussia, China, Korea, Italy and Austria. Emergency supplies have also been sent to Hungary, Finland, the Philippines and the Dodecanese Islands.

In carrying out this work U.N.R.R.A. has been helped by having a genuine international staff of some 10,000 persons drawn from 43 nationalities. Under the capable direction, first of all, of Director-General Herbert Lehmann and, more recently, of Director-General LaGuardia, this staff has given a magnificent example of the way in which people of different nationalities—British, American, French, Russian, and many others—have worked loyalty together as a team, giving devoted service to the cause for which they stood. Although criticisms have certainly been made, and must inevitably arise when one is dealing with a totally new international Civil Service, nevertheless, on the whole, I think that all observers will agree that, in the circumstances, this staff has given a magnificent example of loyalty, hard work and devotion to duty. As a result, this organisation has brought aid and succour to the hungry, the sick and the dispossessed throughout the world. Moreover, it has represented something of significance in the international field. It has been, perhaps, the first working example of a supranational organisation possessing its own funds and machinery, and carrying out its work with a minimum degree of interference from the principles of absolute national sovereignty. It has been an example of international solidarity on the highest scale, and I suggest, without wishing to give offence to the few hon. Members present on the opposite side of the House, that it has also been an example of a Socialist principle which some of us regard as being of considerable importance—the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. "That has been the principle which has inspired the work and operations of U.N.R.R.A.

Finally—and this is no insignificant point—it has been what "The Times" recently described as "a working link between East and West." Perhaps not least of the tragedies in the present difficult international situation is that this working link may be broken. The decision has been taken to terminate U.N.R.R.A. The decision was taken at the fifth session of the U.N.R.R.A. Council held last August at Geneva. The circumstances surrounding the decision are, perhaps, a little strange, because early in the session the Director-General said that as not one of the contributing nations had made any provision for U.N.R.R.A. for the year 1947, this was taken by the Administration as notice that U.N.R.R.A.'s labours were ended. There does not appear to be any record that the Director-General or his staff made any protest against the non-arrival of the third annual contributions, nor is there any evidence of efforts made to find out what nations would be willing to make a third contribution. Apparently, it was just accepted that those contributions were not, and would not be, forthcoming.

The decision was accordingly taken to wind up U.N.R.R.A. formally, as far as Europe is concerned; on 31st December this year, and, as far as the Far East is concerned, on 31st March, 1947, with an allowance of something like three months in each case for the completion of the shipment programmes. There was no uncertainty in the minds of any of the delegates at that Council meeting that the needs which U.N.R.R.A. was set up to serve were continuing and would continue well into next year. The official reports made by the U.N.R.R.A. field teams and investigation committees had shown that in many countries that need would continue well into next year. While it was agreed that one or two countries had made an excellent recovery—Czechoslovakia, perhaps, would be in a position to meet her needs from her normal resources, and that Poland was well on the road to recovery—nevertheless, I think it was not contested by any delegate that, in the majority of the countries which U.N.R.R.A. existed to serve, the need would continue well beyond the period at which it had been decided that U.N.R.R.A. should terminate its activities. Country after country came forward at that meeting to describe the situation in which they would be placed as a result of the cutting off of the supplies which they had been receiving, and particular attention was directed towards the gap which would exist between the ending of the pipeline supplies, roughly in March next year, and the coming in of next year's harvest, approximately in September. Here was a particular gap of some six months which represented the most urgent need of many of these countries and for which no machinery and no means were being provided.

There were two rather curious anomalies about the decisions taken at this U.N.R.R.A. Council meeting. One was that there was to be one exception to the countries which were to cease to receive U.N.R.R.A. aid. That was Korea. One may ask, why Korea? It certainly seems a curious exception. Can it be that the United States is particularly interested in the situation in Korea because of the difficulties surrounding the joint occupation by the Soviet Union and the United States, and that there is a particular anxiety that help should continue to come to that one country? I do not know what the reason is, but one can only speculate, and that seems to me to be a possible answer to the question. Another general exception was made in favour of U.N.R.R.A.'s work for displaced persons, and in this connection a notable statement was made by the Director-General when he said:

"I am going to ask you not to abandon these people until the international refugee organisation of the United Nations can take over. We will find some way."

There was a desperate concern, and a perfectly right and justified concern, that there should be no gap between the ending of U.N.R.R.A. help to the displaced persons and the taking over of that help by the new International Refugee Organisation.

But if there was so much concern about the gap in the case of displaced persons, why was there not equal concern about the gap in the case of the hungry people of Europe and the Far East? Why was a decision not taken that the gap would not be allowed to occur in their case either, and that U.N.R.R.A. would continue at least until new international machinery was ready to take over and carry on the work where it was required? What were the reasons for this decision? Apparently they were financial reasons. It appears that those countries which had made very large contributions to U.N.R.R.A. were unwilling to continue them in the future. For two years they had contributed large sums of money. Now they had decided that they would contribute no longer. They had become weary of well doing, and just at the point when they should have gone on to complete the task, they decided that they could no longer afford it. One wonders here again whether there were not also political reasons behind this decision.

Let us be frank about this. It is well known that in the United States Congress, which would have to vote the largest of the appropriations for a third contribution, there was a considerable feeling that the United, States should not continue to make funds available for supplies to coun- tries in Eastern Europe, particularly to the Soviet Republics of the Ukraine and Byelorussia Now I turn to our own attitude towards this question. The British representative at the U.N.R.R.A. Council meeting supported the decision to terminate U.N.R.R.A. activities. He said that we had made a great contribution in the past, and that this country could not afford to go on making such considerable contributions in the future; that a new assessment would have to be made, and new decisions taken to ensure that relief went only to countries, in desperate need. For that reason, the decision was supported by our representative. But a proposal was put forward at that meeting for a compromise solution, which would have gone very far to cover this particularly difficult six months' gap which is likely to arise next year. The Norwegian delegate proposed that a request should be made to the contributing nations for a further one half of one per cent. of their national incomes. The Norwegian delegate indicated that his own country, which had been one of the occupied countries of Europe, and which suffered the deprivations of German occupation for five years, would be willing to make its own contribution of one half of one per cent. of its national income if U.N.R.R.A. could only be continued for a further period. This, coming from one of the formerly occupied countries, was a magnificent example of the desire of some of the smaller nations of Europe to play their part in international solidarity.

I ask the Minister of State, who is to reply, Why did not we at least support that Norwegian proposal for a further contribution of one half of one per cent. of our national income? According to an answer given to me recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would cost us something like £42,400,000. It is said, of course, that this means that the British taxpayers will have to foot another bill, which they can ill afford to pay. But I ask: What are we going to do? What is the British taxpayer going to do about the provision of relief to certain countries in Europe which will be in a very desperate situation next year, and to whom help will in any case have to be given? There are countries like Austria, where, according to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, U.N.R.R.A. activities are likely to terminate, not on 31st March next year, but on 31st December this year, and where there will be starvation next spring, if not sooner, unless help is provided from outside. The Select Committee state in their report:

"The official minimum ration in Austria has provided during the Summer a diet of 1,200 calories, which may be characterised as slow starvation. To meet even this ration there have been large imports by U.N.R.R.A. But U.N.R.R.A. will cease to function at the end of this year, and urgent supplies are necessary to close the gap which will be left."

The Select Committee go on to say, on page 14:

"What is the prospect for the British taxpayer when U.N.R.R.A. relief to Austria comes to an end? Is he to let Austria go without food, so undoing the work already done, and wasting the money already spent? Is he to subscribe to a loan to a borrower who, on all the evidence at present available, will not be able to repay it? Or, is he to continue relief through some new agency …?"

Austria is not the only country in Europe which, in any case, we shall have to help. I am convinced that the people of Britain will not stand by and see the people of Austria starve. But Austria is not the only country. There is Greece, too, for whom we have some responsibility. I am quite sure the Greek workers and peasants—whatever we may think of the present Greek Government—will not be allowed to starve by this country.

What will all this cost us in any case? Our contribution—even if America helps—to the necessary relief of Austria and Greece, and perhaps other countries, will amount to what next year? £25 million? £30 million? £40 million? It may well be that in the long run we shall be spending as much on direct relief to these countries as we would have spent if it had been decided to continue U.N.R.R.A. during next year. It may be said by the Minister of State that in any case it would have been futile for us to make the gesture; that if we had supported the Norwegian proposal there was no hope whatsoever that the United States would agree, and, therefore, it would have been pointless for us to make the gesture. But I ask: Has this country reached such a point that we are afraid of stating openly what we believe to be right, what we think should be done, and what we are prepared to do ourselves if others will not do the same? Surely, it is up to us to set an example to the world, and to show that we, at least, are prepared to play our part in all legitimate schemes of international solidarity.

Nevertheless, the decision has been taken—the tragic decision—to bring U.N.R.R.A. to an end, to disband its staff, to break up the work, and to leave relief to other methods. To what other methods? What is to replace U.N.R.R.A.? At the U.N.R.R.A. Council it was decided, in Resolution 100, to ask the United Nations to take up this question of providing new international means of giving relief to countries in need after U.N.R.R.A. had terminated. The Council delegates were asked to consult with their respective Governments

"with a view to the issuance of instructions by the Member Governments to their representatives in the General Assembly to secure the adoption and implementation of the Council Recommendations."

At that meeting our own representative, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), gave what was, in effect, an undertaking on behalf of this country. He said:

"What we want is not by any means necessarily the stopping of aid, but a new deal, and we think that the deal should be on the basis of a fresh assessment."

He then gave this pledge:

"I can assure the Council that my Government intends to take its full share in obtaining in the General Assembly results which can set at rest the legitimate fears of the countries who suffered so greatly in our common struggle during the last 10 years."

So said the hon. Member for Grimsby at the Council meeting. But now this matter has been transferred to the floor of the United Nations. It is being discussed now by the Economic and Financial Committee of the General Assembly, to which the Director-General of U.N.R.R.A., Mr. LaGuardia, made certain specific proposals. He called attention to the decisions of the U.N.R.R.A. Council, and pointed out that so far no agency had been designated to replace U.N.R.R.A. He went on to say that there were three ways of dealing with that problem. The first was that it should be on a national basis, that each rich nation should choose the recipient and impose its own conditions That, he said, was the old-fashioned Imperialist way, and must be rejected Secondly, said Mr. LaGuardia, a group of powerful nations could select the recipients of their charity. That, he said, was not true international cooperation but power politics likely to lead to war. The third alternative was that an international authority could be created to operate under the control of the United Nations and meet relief needs without distinction of race, creed, or political belief. That, said Mr. LaGuardia, was the method which should be adopted.

Mr. LaGuardia went on to make specific proposals that a United Nations emergency food fund should be set up to meet the food needs, in 1947, of countries unable to finance their essential requirements. Notice that very legitimate qualification—"countries unable to finance their essential requirements." He proposed that members of the United Nations should contribute money or goods to make up a fund worth 400 or 500 million dollars. He proposed that the fund should be given an executive board, nominated by the General Assembly, and that the board should establish which countries were in need—and here is the "new assessment" proposed by the hon. Member for Grimsby—the extent of their need, the allocations necessary to meet their needs, and that it should operate at least until the 1947 harvest. Here, you have a proposal which is entirely in accordance with the new situation created by the fact that some of the countries supplied by U.N.R.R.A. may now be able to meet their own needs, a proposal which maintains the principle of international solidarity, and which also seeks to bring in all members of the United Nations as contributors to the resources of the fund.

In advocating this proposal, Mr. LaGuardia said this—and it is important to note this, because it has an important bearing on the financial aspect of this matter:

"I am convinced that in the long run it will be cheaper, or less costly—I hate to use the word 'cheap,' if we do it on an international basis, without interruption, than to let this thing go, have a gap, and pick it up peacemeal, each nation waiting for some other little nation to come cap in hand."

Some months ago, in this House and elsewhere, there were protests against the action of the Soviet Union in making several hundred thousand tons of wheat available to France shortly before one of the French elections. It was said and, quite rightly, I think, that this was an example of food politics, an example very much to be deplored. I think there is probably no more terrible accusation that one could make against a nation in the present state of international affairs than that they are playing food politics. Nevertheless, it appears from reports we have seen of the meeting in New York that Mr. LaGuardia's proposals have been met with a blunt refusal from the United States representative, who definitely stated his preference for national, as distinct from international, action. I have to refer to reports in "The Times," because, unfortunately, our own Government does not do what the Soviet Embassy so conveniently does, circulate official statements made by their spokesmen at international meetings. According to "The Times" our own representative, the Secretary of State for Air, said that he supported the United States' point of view, that he preferred that individual nations should get together on a reciprocal basis. Is this on a much bigger, on an international, scale an example of playing at food politics? I am not suggesting that we are playing at food politics, because we have not any food to play with, and we cannot play food politics, but the United States can on a colossal scale, because they have the food. Quite frankly, their attitude to this question leads me very much to believe that that is what they are doing at present, that they are deciding which nations they will favour with their food riches, that they have scrapped the principle of international solidarity and have set in motion a political competition in the distribution of food to favoured clients.

I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means by playing "food politics." Is he suggesting that export policy can be interpreted in these terms? If we send cars to the Cocos Islands are we playing car politics? Could he give us a further explanation of what he means?

What I mean by playing food politics or, if you like, car politics—although it is not likely to arise in the case of cars—is where you have people in a number of countries desperately needy and hungry for a commodity, and you decide to send your supplies of that commodity to one or two particular countries, and not to others, that is introducing a political element of discrimination; it is playing food politics when you are playing with the sufferings of hungry people in a way which no civilised community ought to tolerate. That is the kind of thing we shall get if we scrap this prin- ciple of international solidarity. If it is too late to attempt to resuscitate U.N.R.R.A. at least cannot we give our support to the proposals put forward in New York by Mr. LaGuardia, or any of the alternative proposals for some establishing international machinery to replace U.N.R.R.A., with its own fund, to enable it to buy and allocate supplies to countries in need? Can we not at least do that? Cannot we, in this country, show that we stand for the principle of international solidarity, and that we believe, at least as far as food and vital commodities are concerned, in the principle that each should contribute according to his ability, and each should receive according to his need?

I do not want to follow the whole field of argument so ably dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey), but there are a few aspects to which I wish to draw particular attention, if only because I and many of my colleagues on these benches feel gravely perturbed with regard to the closing down of U.N.R.R.A., and we feel there are certain aspects of the matter which should be clearly ventilated without delay. It was decided in Geneva, last August, that U.N.R.R.A. should be closed down, and and in my submission that decision was taken very hastily. The only reason that was given for this very sudden closing down was that there was no money in the till. In certain circumstances that may be a very good reason for not taking action, but as I hope to show, and as my hon. Friend has already shown, when it is a matter of dealings between nations and when the needs of the world are concerned, there should be other considerations besides the mere question of a shortage of money.

It is strange, apart from the financial considerations, that when a great organisation is doing work which is admittedly of the first importance in a shattered world, there should be, in the course of a few months, an attempt to close down that organisation. One does not need to go into details to realise the importance and scope of its work. It may be of interest to mention that during its work U.N.R.R.A. has handled no less than 16 million tons of food, apart from other commodities and goods, to a value of approximately £600 million. One comes face to face with the stark realities of this matter when one recalls that in August, at Geneva, the Director-General, Mr. LaGuardia, admitted that, before the 1947 harvest was gathered and usable in Europe, there would certainly be a need for food alone to the value of £200 million. That is an extraordinary and striking admission on the part of a Director-General presiding at the obsequies on his organisation, and it is worthy of note that at that time he was rather underestimating than overestimating the potential needs of Europe. In fact, in November, at the meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee of the United Nations, he had increased his estimate of the requirements in Europe alone from £200 million to £500 million.

Another aspect of the matter to which I want to call attention is the queer changes and gyrations of policy, in regard to food alone, which have been shown by the Director General. Perhaps there are reasons for these changes of attitude. In Geneva he advocated that an international emergency food council directly under the Food and Agriculture Organisation should take over these responsibilities with regard to food when U.N.R.R.A. closed down. There was at that time, particularly on the part of the United States delegation, a good deal of talk about direct negotiations and arrangements between nations which could supply food and those in need of it. Then, in November, after the Director-General had made a tour of some of the more important capitals, and had seen our Prime Minister and Marshal Stalin, he proposed a different authority to take over responsibility for food after the end of U.N.R.R.A. He suggested that there should be an international authority set up under the United Nations. He suggested that this would be the best and most satisfactory of the three possible alternatives.

One gets a further change of attitude, particularly as far as this country is concerned, when there is a proposal of a scheme which is in many ways a reinstatement of U.N.R.R.A. It is peculiar that we should go full cycle from the abolition of U.N.R.R.A. to the reintroduction of U.N.R.R.A. in a somewhat altered form; but our own representatives, quite recently, have seemed to be supporting the United States representatives, not only in hinting, but in suggesting, that a better method than a new international organisation might be direct arrangements as between one nation and another. I fully share the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton in regard to the fact that this proposal has emanated from the United States, and I fully share his very great regret that our own representatives should appear to be supporting that very ominous proposal.

The magnificent work of U.N.R.R.A. has not in any way been confined to food. The other aspects of its work, particularly some of the minor but important aspects, are often overlooked. It is worth while to recall that at the August meeting of U.N.R.R.A. at Geneva, the Director-General estimated that in Europe alone there would be need for seeds and agricultural implements to the value of some £12 million, with a view to the 1947 crop. When considering ways of stopping up these obvious gaps that is a matter which must not be lost sight of, because the supply of seeds and other implements is of paramount importance with regard to food in Europe in 1947 and beyond. In the closing down of this organisation, the Director-General recommended that £28 million of fertilisers would be required in Europe for the coming year.

With regard to displaced persons, it is all very well to say that an organisation would be set up—a brand new organisation—to take over the work of looking after, and sending to their respective countries, displaced persons. It is not so easy as that. There must be, at the present moment, somewhere in the region of half a million displaced persons still in camps in Europe, under the guidance and protection of U.N.R.R.A. It is not enough that we should be told that U.N.R.R.A. is hoping to carry on until the new International Refugee Organisation is ready. This is not a question of dealing with food supplies, but of dealing with human beings, and all their tremendous needs. It is worth while remembering that U.N.R.R.A. has done this magnificently, not only in the camps and with regard to food, but in looking after the women and children, the transportation of displaced persons returning home, and their clothing, etc. I suggest that we cannot gamble with the chance of another organisation being put in the place of U.N.R.R.A. It is very wrong to think in terms of continuing the activities of U.N.R.R.A. for two or three months until the other organisation is ready to take over. We cannot work on those fines when dealing with human beings.

In the matter of health and welfare, here again, U.N.R.R.A. has carried out a magnificent piece of work. I would call attention to what I think is a rather slip-shod attitude on the part of our representatives. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), at the August meeting at Geneva, referred to this most important matter of health and welfare in these terms:

"There should be no insuperable difficulty in arranging for continuity to be achieved."

There was no suggestion at that time—although I know that there had been suggestions subsequently—as to a practically brand new organisation looking after the health section and social welfare department of U.N.R.R.A. I submit, again, that we cannot do it that way. It is taking quite a wrong attitude to think that we can produce brand new organisations, and that they will take over these functions in anything more than name. They will take them over in name, but, so far as efficiency and effectiveness is concerned, I challenge the suggestion that we can close down one organisation, which has the experience, and experienced personnel, and virtually over-night hand over these tremendously important functions. They cannot be dealt with in that kind of way.

With regard to the question of the expense of U.N.R.R.A. to this country, we have contributed something in the region of £155,000,000 to U.N.R.R.A. It is suggested that that is a lot of money, and I do not disagree; but I think that it is a totally wrong assumption to think that now U.N.R.R.A. is being closed down, we can divest ourselves of any responsibility, moral or financial, for the sufferings of the people in Europe or elsewhere. I suggest that very often, if not always, any brand new organisation will turn out to be more expensive than carrying on with the established organisation, with its trained and experienced personnel. I, therefore, suggest to my right hon. Friend, who is to reply, that if it is a matter of economy, it is totally false economy, and that it will be found, in the long run that financially, apart from any other consideration, we are paying far more dearly for these improvised and rushed-together organisations to take the place of U.N.R.R.A. I would call attention, as illustrating what, I think, was a very wrong attitude which our representative took at Geneva, to one of the arguments which he gave for closing down U.N.R.R.A. He said:

"The food demands of certain countries now are for reconstruction rather than for emergency rehabilitation."

I think that that is splitting hairs. I think that it is more than that—it is very wide of the truth. One has only to turn one's mind to the present and continuing situation in Austria, as we have heard from my hon. Friends, and in Greece and China. Statements of that kind seem to me to be nothing less than evasion and' prevarication. Again, our representative said:

"The claims on U.N.R.R.A. now are based less on the imminence of famine than on consideration of balance of payments."

I think that was a very wrong and unworthy thing for our representative to say. When we talk about the imminence of famine, we have only to turn our mind to Austria or to the declarations which authorities, such as Sir John Boyd Orr, have made, and we will soon come to the conclusion that it is still—and will be for a long time—a question of imminence of famine. I say, in all seriousness, that this matter is becoming the shuttle-cock of politics, when we have the suggestion of closing down because of reasons of finance, the suggestion of an organisation under the Food and Agriculture Organisation, visits of the Director-General to our Prime Minister, to Stalin and other leading figures, the suggestions made in the United States, and the very ominous suggestions coming from our own representatives and from the representatives of the United States that there is a certain advantage to be gained from direct arrangements between needy countries and those able to supply them.

The noble Lord the hon. Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) questioned what was wrong with arrangements of that kind. I think that when we get, on the one hand, people in urgent need, and, on the other hand, countries, particularly America, which have not only the food but the finance, we cannot hope to get any kind of arrangements, whether short term or long term, which are in any way equitable. It is not in the nature of things that that should be so. We are all aware of the fact that America not only entered into an arrangement, which I think was a very uncalled for arrangement, with China, but also said she intends to multiply commercial arrangements of that kind. I do not want to over-paint or to do any scaremongering, but I do say today with regard to the United States, that the proposals now emanating from the representatives of that country are ominous, and I regret, if it is a fact, that our representatives are supporting those suggestions.

I should like to see, if it is not too late, U.N.R.R.A. altered somewhat in its constitution and in its set-up, particularly with regard to the proportions of finance which are paid. I should like to see Russia coming into the picture, as, indeed, she has agreed to come in. I want to see such an arrangement made that we should get a reconstituted U.N.R.R.A. because if we did that we would effect two very important things. We would avoid all these unfortunate gaps between the ending of U.N.R.R.A. and the starting of these miscellaneous organisations, and the impoverishments which will be part of that change over. At the same time we would re-establish more firmly than ever, I hope, the important principle, not of negotiations and arrangements as between one nation and another, but the much more advanced, and, if you like, Socialist principle of total arrangements between world organisations and those in need of their help.

I have only a few words to say on this particular subject. I would not have taken part in the Debate at all if I had not detected in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) some kind of doubt as to why, after contributions to other parts of the world have been finished, U.N.R.R.A. is contributing to Korea and to displaced persons. I heartily agree with my hon. Friend; I am pleased at this continued relief to the suffering. I was in Austria just after the visit there of the Select Committee, and I have read the Select Committee's report. Had I been a Member of that Committee I might have wanted to enlarge on the question of why U.N.R.R.A. is continuing to give assistance to displaced persons and to Korea. The answer surely is simple. Displaced persons have no nationality and are of no country, but they are gathered together in one place. I speak now of Austria, not Germany. In Austria someone must take responsibility for those displaced persons other than the government of the country in which they are residing. Otherwise that country would probably take the step which other countries have taken, namely, push them over the border Austria facing a future following the end of this year, in which she herself will lose a certain amount from U.N.R.R.A., is in no position to help these people. I am glad to say that I was assured by the representatives of U.N.R.R.A. that relief would go on even in the New Year for a period, shall we say of three months. It was not put exactly like that, but I was assured that relief would continute until the new organisation was ready to take its place. Because these displaced people are in Austria surely we would not expect Austria to support them. This must be the liability of the United Nations, a liability which they must honour. Hence my reason for intervening in the Debate.

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) did not wish to misrepresent me, but I made it clear that I wanted U.N.R.R.A. to continue to aid displaced persons and Korea and not only displaced persons and Korea but all countries in need of urgent relief.

Yes, I agree, but I thought I detected in the selection of these two cases a reflection of the attitude of bread politics. I want to dissociate Austria from that political line of thought.

One of the most encouraging features in the middle of the grim war just concluded was the proposal, early in 1943, to establish this new international organisation to deal with some of the problems which were inevitable in such a conflagration. What was prophesied at that time, materialised in perhaps a more monstrous form than was imagined, for the Axis countries overran 35 of the nations in Europe and Asia, they employed the tactics of the "scorched earth" policy, and a policy of mass starvation and deportation as well as the destruction of machinery and industry. This has created in a way, never before experienced, great problems for the so called victor nations and indeed for the vanquished nations, too. I was greatly encouraged when I saw a lead given in this direction of trying to set up an organisation which should deal with some of the elemental needs of mankind. It was a great tribute to the sanity of some people that, when passions were inflamed, men should be sufficiently objective and even sufficiently generous as to project their minds into the condition of things which was likely to ensue on this awful catastrophe. Whatever may have been said here today, and in another place and at other times, all of us would agree that in starting this organisation America and Great Britain did a piece of work which is really to their credit, even if it is to stop now.

It is not an easy position in which we find ourselves. The finances of this country are limited. There is not a bottomless pit from which we can draw resources to feed the nations of the world for ever and ever. Indeed, that was never the intention of the organisation. The simple problem which we pose today is this: Has the time arisen when the grand scheme of things, which has been operating for some time has to come to an end? Has the need been met? Have the necessities of the people in terms of health, food, epidemics, rehabilitation even in the embryo stages been satisfied? Is the job complete? I say clearly, in answer to that question, that the job is not completed. Even America, who seems to be more intransigent, and quite on the wrong track in regard to its future activity, would not say so. The question of method of dealing with the problem is exercising the minds of my hon. Friends and myself. It may be quite impracticable to continue the allocation of one per cent. of the national income from this country, from America and from the un-invaded countries. I believe that is the basis of the finances. We could not hope for a continuance of £80 million a year from this country indefinitely or, in the case of the United States, £337 million annually, I believe. Those are very great sums of money. The proposition that we are advancing today is that if this work is to continue it should not do so upon unilateral lines. This great experiment among other experiments in international organisation seems to be one which we should encourage and conserve by every possible means. Mr. LaGuardia said, before the Assembly, that it was a strange paradox that the United States of America, so internationally minded in many matters should, in this case, to meet one of the most urgent needs of mankind, propose to deal with it upon a national basis.

I may not fully share the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) in regard to the ulterior motives of America's line of thought in this matter. I am supported by the fact that some of the countries which have profited by U.N.R.R.A. gifts have not been unduly grateful to the donors. I will leave the matter there. All these matters of giving help, whether it is financial, or rehabilitation of the country, or in terms of services, are open to suspicion, it seems to me. One is apt to find that however good one's intentions may be, if one acts unilaterally, picking out, as it would seem, a country or a sphere of the world in which one has a particular interest, people argue that one has some strategic interest. For example, if we were to underwrite Greece economically, or in terms of goods and services, that would be said. Indeed, I regretted when we had to give £10 million, or make a loan of that amount, to Greece earlier in the year, to rehabilitate the country economically, stabilise the currency, and so on. However altruistic our motives are, we are always open to suspicion on that account.

We on these benches, and I believe many hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches, are vitally concerned that the United Nations organisation should work. I hope that we can get beyond the limits of national sovereignty and that, in God's good time, we may build up some sort of collective machine which will give us security in terms of peace and prosperity. Yet here, after such a successful experiment, we are proposing to wind up the organisation at an early stage. If, as I imagine it will be argued, we are unable to pay I per cent. of our national income to this organisation, that we never intended to continue indefinitely, it is certainly a reasonable point of view, but we are prepared to continue to make some contribution, whatever it is, and it should be done on the international level. That is the main point we are seeking to stress this afternoon. Clearly, we cannot go on supporting every nation in the world for all time, but I am arguing that, in terms of some of the needs, the job is incomplete, that this country, the United States, France and Russia will have to take the job a little further, and that we want to do it on the international level.

May I say a word about the need in regard to displaced persons? An unfortunate issue of the recent war has been that so many hundreds of thousands of men and women have been uprooted from their homes and harried across the face of the earth. There are many explanations—political, religious and national. I am not concerned very much with the reasons today. I would follow the line which the hon. Member for Luton advanced, when he reminded us that LaGuardia said we are not dealing with Governments, but with men and women. We are dealing with the human need and, irrespective of the creed or the political belief or the race, we ought to look at this thing fairly and squarely and see what we can do with it on a universal basis.

As we know quite well, in Germany today there are many thousands of displaced persons, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) has just reminded us of the position in Austria. Displaced persons fall into several categories: those outside their own countries who are unable to return without assistance; those who are inside their own national boundaries but for some reason such as that they have lost their family, their home and their goods, are unable to return to their home; and a large number of displaced people who are made up of slave labourers, political prisoners, war refugees and concentration camp internees. These unfortunate, miserable people are a problem in Central Europe today and we cannot afford, nay, we have no right to seek to repudiate responsibility for them, and I do not think this country would ever wish to do so. Indeed, I think the widespread interest in this House in the conditions in Germany appears to show that. We won the war, but we do not desire to pursue a policy of revenge indefinitely. We desire to be firm, but generous within the limits of our means.

So I say, after seeing one of those hospitals provided for displaced persons in Germany, that I should regard it as a great tragedy if this kind of activity were to cease and were to become nobody's particular responsibility. There we saw all kinds of victims of Nazi aggression, homeless people, people who were separated from their families, receiving first class attention with very limited resources from generous-hearted and well-equipped personnel provided by U.N.R.R.A. It seemed to me that the work was by no means completed, and I am sure that if we can be assured by our Government that they intend to pursue this relief in some form or other, above all in the form for which we have argued today—on the international level—it will give a message of hope and encouragement to those people. We do not want to argue in terms of necessity on the ground that it is of political value, but it is surely that. If we put it no higher, as it says in Scripture, if we cast our bread upon the water, it will return to us after many days. But, some people are suspicious that America is seeking to get her feet into this country, and that country, and that Britain is seeking to get her feet into this or that country, and argue that Russia may be indicted on the same count, and that there is competition, and jockeying for position. Here is an opportunity to get together and to clinch the offer made by M. Stalin, who is willing to contribute, at the international level, to a scheme which the United Kingdom and the United States of America will join to tackle this thing in the way outlined. I hope the Government will afford that hope.

I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) for having brought this matter to the consideration of the House today. I believe it is one of deep human principle. I am also grateful for the fact that the Minister of State has sat throughout the Debate, and shown such an interest in it. It is unfortunate that from the other side of the House, no one has risen all through the long Debate, in order to try to make a useful contribution. This is a problem which, I, believe, appeals to the ordinary people throughout the United Kingdom. U.N.R.R.A. was born in a time of great suffering when the bonds of unity were strong, because we shared common diffi- culties. I am of the belief that the idea was conceived in the mind of that greatest statesman of our time, President Roosevelt. It was he, along with the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who gave the world the phrase, to express what we were fighting for:

"Freedom from fear, and freedom from want."

I believe that U.N.R.R.A. is the attempt on the part of the United Nations to put into practical expression that aim of freedom from want. It would be a foolish man indeed who suggested that we have now reached a position when Eastern Europe, or Far East Europe could be said to be able to stand on its own.

Recently I was privileged to visit Poland, and, as I toured that country, I saw many evidences of the magnificent work which has been done by U.N.R.R.A. Let me say at once how deeply the people of these distressed countries have appreciated the fact that the ordinary folk of Britain and America have contributed to the relief of their suffering. When I went into a great cotton mill at Lodz, the Manchester of Poland, I saw a huge stack of wool, the raw material of the industry. I was assured that it came from U.N.R.R.A. Poland would not have survived the dreadful experience through which she has passed had it not been for the friendly hand of U.N.R.R.A. I believe that Hungary is in that position, although she was not an ally. Poland was a gallant Ally, as her sons showed in the days of the war. I like to think that even while accepting this fait accompli that U.N.R.R.A. is now to end, we will make every conceivable effort to have an international organisation which shall deal with this human problem. We are not dealing merely with Poles, or Czechs, or Yugoslavs, we are dealing with men and women, boys and girls, people who bore so much more than we bore here in this island, severe as was our trial in the days of the war. I thank God that we were spared occupation, but there they had that severe trial added to that which we knew, of bombing and the loss of loved ones.

Mr. LaGuardia has been referred to this afternoon by a number of my hon. Friends. I think that the House should know that when he was speaking at the U.N.O. Committee on economic and financial questions on Tuesday, 12th November, Mr. LaGuardia told the United Nations that he had had discussions with Marshal Stalin, with Mr. Attlee, with President Truman, and that he had learned from Marshal Stalin that the Government of the U.S.S.R. would like to see international relief action continued into 1947, and would contribute its share of operational expenses, provided that such enterprise was entirely divorced from political considerations. It would, indeed, be ironical, if we in this country, or if the noisy idealists in America, were to say, now that Russia is prepared to join in an international enterprise and pay her quota, that we prefer private deals between States.

I am proud of the contribution of this country towards U.N.R.R.A. I know it is unusual to say a kind word for the Foreign Office and I hope the Minister of State does not mind, but in this question the Foreign Office showed all that wide and deep understanding which we desire in the early days of U.N.R.R.A. But now, I fear, it is about to spoil its grand record. I hope that even at this hour the good name of Britain, and its concern for suffering humanity, will be held as high as I like to think it has been throughout our chequered history. I hope we shall say now that we stand for collective dealing with the human problem of these people, because we recognise that the sorrows and the troubles of these people are due to a common cause with our own.

I feel that it would be improper if this Debate did not include some reference to the position of China, in regard to U.N.R.R.A. supplies. U.N.R.R.A. has poured into China an immense volume of goods during the last year or so but, owing to the vast population of China, as has been pointed out by the head of the Chinese National Relief and Rehabilitation Association, which in effect acts as the agency of U.N.R.R.A. in China, it only means that one dollar 20 cents per head of the population has been spent as against 46 dollars 90 cents in Greece. I know this cannot be helped. I realise the immense population of China as against a country like Greece, but these figures show that what has been done is trifling compared with what has been done in other countries. China has passed through great hardships during the last year. If I might refer briefly to the re- port of the Friends' Ambulance Unit in China relating to the province of Hunan, I think it would be helpful. As hon. Members probably know, Hunan in normal times is one of the granaries of China. It is not by any means a depressed area, but it is one of the places from where China reckons to get most of its food. This is a description of this normally fertile province early this year:

"Never had the rivers been so low. Fonda had dried up. The ground was too hard to plough, and anyway there were no buffaloes left to plough it: they had not survived the Japanese occupation. There was going to be a famine, even if it rained within the next month. Fields were more like a desert—parched, yellow, cracked, they stretched for miles in all directions. Here and there an attempt had been made to plough, but the farmer bad given up in despair. Not much, it seems was being done to meet this situation. Rice was expensive, but still procurable. Few people realised how small the stocks were, or how slim the chances of replenishment. Hospitals were piling up stocks of pills and tablets, which would be available when the crisis came, ft seemed to be a case of putting the horse after the cart for relief organisations to wait for the famine to start before doing much about it. The obvious thing was to import food. But there was a larger issue. It was grevious to see vast agricultural areas lying sterile when, if ever, they should be productive."

I will not trouble the House by reading the whole extract, but it goes on to say that the farmer had no seed and no agricultural implements, even the primitive implements of China. As I have said, I know a great deal has been done for China by U.N.R.R.A. but, unfortunately, a lot of the goods which were intended for the Chinese in need never reached them, for one reason or another. Also, some of the goods were quite unsuitable for the Chinese. It so happens that there is a strong suspicion that some American business firms dumped on U.N.R.R.A. certain goods for which they could no longer find a market in the United States. For example, the Chinese were surprised to receive a large consignment of women's body belts at one period Whatever relief and rehabilitation these body belts may have given to the ladies of New York, they are not really the type of thing to give to the women peasants of China, who, I understand from hearsay, do not wear these articles.

In addition, there are very persistent stories of corruption with reference to the Chinese organisation and to U N.R.R.A. operating in China. I think probably both sides are to blame. It is unfortunate, how- ever, having regard to the dire need of the country, that the source should be tapped in this way and that goods should be going not to the community at large but into the black market. Most serious of all, there is a suspicion that U.N.R.R.A. goods and services have been used in China to build up supplies for military purposes. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will say that this is not so, and that the suspicion is unfounded. I have evidence, however, from members of U.N.R.R.A, in China who believe that base hospitals, roads and the like are being built up by U.N.R.R.A. supplies, not for the purpose of supplying the needy in China, but for military purposes, for purposes of carrying on the war which has been going on for some time, and which, unless we are very careful, will be the beginning of a third world war.

The present position with regard to U.N.R.R.A. was outlined by the Minister himself in reply to a Question that I asked him on 21st October last. He said:

"The U.N.R.R.A. programme for China is not likely to be completed until the autumn of 1947. The question of what needs, if any, there will be in the countries now receiving assistance from U.N.R.R.A. after the termination of the tatter's operations, has been referred to the General Assembly of the United Nations in a resolution by the Fifth Session of the U.N.R.R.A. Council which met at Geneva on 5th to 16th August. It will be for the General Assembly to decide how the problem should be handled, but the first essential is to establish whether any external assistance is required, apart from loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and other leading agencies. This is largely a question of deficits on balance of payments, which cannot be reliably estimated so long in advance, and not a question of relief and rehabilitation for which U.N.R.R.A. was constituted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1946; Vol. 427. c. 299.]

That is rather a bleak prospect for China. It seems to be quite obvious that, when the supplies end next year, any assistance given to China will be very largely on a commercial basis, and will certainly not be the type of assistance being given at the moment.

I do not want to weary the House by going into this matter at any great length. I think that I have shown that the position in China is one which should give us cause for great anxiety. To my mind, it has not had the attention it deserves because China is 10,000 miles away, and a famine 10,000 miles away is nothing like as serious as a slight shortage of food ten miles away. Unfortunately, geography has a good deal to do with the realisation of disasters, as we found out only too well in South Wales during the inter-war years. Therefore, I should welcome some hope expressed by the Minister this afternoon that the position of China is having very special attention paid to it by the Great Powers. The Chinese deserve it if for nothing else than because they waged a war against the Japanese many years before any one else, and because of what they did during the war, in Malaya and other places, for our people who were either imprisoned or interned. In my opinion, there has never been in the Far East such a good relationship as there is now between the Chinese and the British. I believe that the two nations have a great future of friendship in the years to come. But this friendship will undoubtedly be in peril and, in fact, the lives of many Chinese will be jeopardised, unless some sensible plan is inaugurated by the great nations with regard to the rehabilitation of China.

I am glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words on this subject. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches that have been made, starting with the one by the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) I only wish to make a few observations, the first of which is about what the hon. Member for Luton called "food politics." After listening very carefully to all that has been said on this subject today, I, at any rate, was unable to find any evidence in any of the speeches made which could lead me to suppose that either this country or the United States has been playing, what certain hon. Members choose to call, "food politics."

I am not sure whether it was intended to suggest that food politics had been played rather more than it might be played when U.N.R.R.A. comes to an end. I think that was the intention of previous speakers, but, as far as I can see, "food politics" has not been played. It may have been played by Soviet Russia to a certain extent in rather a different way, which I will mention in a moment. To give one example of a contribution which they made, they sent a shipment of wheat to France during the elections, with the fairly obvious intention, I would have thought—at any rate, it was fairly obvious to me—of having some influence on Communist votes in France.

If food politics has been played in connection with U.N.R.R.A. activities, it has been played within countries and not on the international level. I had a most interesting short stay in Poland at the beginning of the year, and one of the matters into which I inquired carefully—and the U.N.R.R.A. officials there, under an efficient Canadian officer, were very helpful—was the distribution of U.N.R.R.A. goods inside Poland. I was disgusted at the partisan approach of the Provisional Government in Poland to the distribution of U.N.R.R.A. goods. The distribution was in the hands of the Provisional Government, and I have definite and irrefutable evidence, which the U.N.R.R.A. officials admitted, but which they could do nothing to stop, that U.N.R.R.A. beds which were being provided went, first of all, to the N.K.V.D., and in no circumstances went to anybody who was not a Communist, or a crypto-Communist if you like, supporting the Government. There is no doubt in my mind that there was a great deal of "twisting" and playing at "food politics," or U.N.R.R.A. politics, within Poland. That may have occurred in other countries. I do not say it was the responsibility only of the countries which had Left Wing governments.

There have been accusations that it has occurred in Greece. I do not happen to have been to Greece, and I am not in a position to deny it, but if it has occurred I would say that, obviously, it is equally bad and undesirable. The solution would obviously have been a vastly increased U.N.R.R.A, staff at increased cost, to ensure that distribution was fair within these countries. I think that argument means, if it means anything, that the activities of U.N.R.R.A., particularly in connection with distribution, have not been nearly satisfactory enough. I think that fact will, to some extent, build up an argument against the continuation of U.N.R.R.A. for very much longer.

Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves the question of "food politics," I would like to ask him a question. If he explains the sending of wheat by the U.S.S.R. to France on the basis of influencing votes, how would he explain the sending of wheat to the British zone in Germany?

The sending of wheat to the British zone in Germany by whom?

By Soviet Russia.

I am sorry, but I simply do not understand the question. One of the main factors about Germany which has struck me most forcibly has been that the wheat producing area is the Soviet zone in Germany, and always has been. Another way in which Soviet Russia has been playing "food politics" has been by deliberately starving Germans in the British zone, and one of my main causes of complaint about our handling of the situation in Germany is that we have not made it clear to those people in our zone that they are going short of bread because Soviet Russia will not cooperate. It seems to me to be an argument which reinforces my point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. I am afraid we on this side of the House have not had a large attendance.

Would it be correct to say that the number was three?

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has counted quite accurately.

It is three times as many as it was.

We on this side of the House have not taken a particular interest in this Debate, for one reason, namely, that on the whole, I and my colleagues with whom I have discussed this subject feel that the administration of U.N.R.R.A. has been performed as efficiently as it could have been in the circumstances. We have no particular criticism of His Majesty's Government in this connection. If we had, we should be here to make it. If hon. Members opposite have any criticisms to make—and they have not been particularly critical today, but have all spoken on the same lines—they are entitled to make their criticisms. I have really risen to speak very largely to support what has been done and what is to be done. Quite frankly, I think we have had some very dull and very uninspiring speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They rambled about a good deal, and there was a great deal of unpractical stuff in connection with what they said, although I found a great deal to admire in the sentiments that were being expressed As everybody has stressed, U.N.R.R.A has been run at an immense cost to this country, and at far greater cost to the United States, who are in a much better position to pay. For that reason alone, if for no other I would say the time has come when we cannot go on asking for contributions from our taxpayers—who, heaven knows, are intolerably overburdened already under this Government. We cannot allow this vast expenditure to go on bearing on the backs of our taxpayers. It seems to me to be another argument for returning to some more direct form of trading. The United States have been very self-sacrificing in this matter, and have made a vast contribution.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) mentioned that when Mr. Fiorello LaGuardia was in Moscow he was given an assurance by Marshal Stalin that Marshal Stalin would like to see U.N.R.R.A being continued into 1947, and for his part would be prepared to make an effective contribution. I hope I am correctly paraphrasing what the hon. Gentleman said. The question I ask in that respect is this: If that is so, have the Soviet Union told His Majesty's Government that they are prepared to turn over a new leaf in connection with U.N.R.R.A activities, and, if U.N.R.R.A. is perpetuated, are they prepared to make an effective contribution in proportion to the contribution which their position as one of the world's greatest granaries entitles them?

I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not wish to misrepresent the position I must say, quite fairly, that we have not had any official indication from the Soviet Government of their intention. I think it ought also to be said that the U.N.R.R.A. contributions were fixed in ternationally, and were confined to countries which Had not been invaded. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's criticism of the Soviet Union in that regard is entirely unjustified.

Surely, even if Marshal Stalin made an offer to Mr. LaGuardia, who is the Director-General there was no call for him to make it also to His Majesty's Government?

I entirely agree, I am sorry if I perhaps exaggerated somewhat in making my point. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Naturally, to what better person than Mr. LaGuardia could he make the suggestion? I am also grateful to the Minister of State for his intervention. My point is really this. I know Soviet Russia has gone through an appalling invasion. On the other hand, I think I am right in saying that bread rationing has been taken off recently in the Soviet Union. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] I understood it was so. At any rate, it is true that they have had an exceptionally good crop I think it is reasonable to say that in the light of that, it would be fair to expect them to make a, greater contribution in 1947 than they have been able to make in 1946. Perhaps I was exaggerating slightly before, and I apologise if I was doing so. I am grateful to hon. Members opposite for their correction.

In conclusion, let me say that U.N.R.R.A. has tided us over from VE-Day until today extremely effectively. Mistakes have been made, of course. It was a most difficult organisation to set up at fairly short notice. A large number of people have put in a great deal of work to considerable effect, and I think we should be extremely grateful to them. Transport facilities in Europe have improved immensely since VE-Day; and the world grain crops, fortunately, have been very much better than any of us, I think, dared to hope. Those are two further reasons why we should return to some form of more direct trading, although I would not for one moment suggest that an end should be put to international cooperation at the highest level possible.

One further point which I would like to make before I sit down is in relation to displaced persons. Quite frankly, in this connection, I find very little to agree with, if anything, in the part Mr. LaGuardia has played. I understand that he was very much in favour of bringing a great deal of pressure to bear on displaced persons in Europe to return to their own countries. He made several speeches in Europe which gave me, at least, the impression that that was what he wanted to do. I am against that. Mr. LaGuardia's name has been used in connection with the phrase, "human kindliness," a sentiment with which I entirely agree, but that does not seem to tie up when we talk, in the same breath, of the appalling problems of many people in Europe. Mr. LaGuardia's policy is to bring far more pressure to bear on displaced persons than I would like to see brought. Speaking for myself, I feel that U.N.R.R.A. has tided us over extremely well, and that the time has come to return to some form of more direct trade. I am satisfied with the way His Majesty's Government have handled this whole matter, and I feel sure that when the Minister replies, he will satisfy those who have made criticisms today.

I am sure that, even more than usual, we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. War bey) for this Adjournment Debate, because it has offered many points of criticism—some constructive—and it enables me to state the policy of His Majesty's Government on this subject. I am very confident that there is no reason why we should apologise for our past, or our intentions in the field of international relief.

May I deal, first, with three points which have been made rather off the main line of the argument? Reference has been made to the offer which Mr. LaGuardia says was made to him by Marshal Stalin. I have no reason to disbelieve Mr. LaGuardia, and I am delighted to hear of the offer, but I differ both from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain), and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), when they say that it was most proper and obvious to make the offer to Mr. LaGuardia. Mr. LaGuardia is an eminent international civil servant who, if reports are true, is just about to leave office. But a Government does not make such an offer to an international servant. The place to make the offer is the relevant committee of the Assembly. If the Soviet Government have an offer to make—and I am not criticising them in relation to international relief, because I do not know the facts sufficiently well to say that there is any reason why they should make an offer at this time—I hope they will make it to that committee—

I cannot for the life of me see why the offer should not be made by Marshal Stalin to the person who, after all, is in charge of U.N.R.R.A., who is their Director-General. I cannot see what argument my right hon. Friend has adduced to show why that should be out of order.

I suggest, most respectfully, that it can hardly be said that Mr. LaGuardia is in charge of U.N.R.R.A. He is an employee of this international organisation.

But he does represent it abroad.

So do other representatives, of U.N.R.R.A. totalling, I believe, some 40,000. I suggest, and I think I am right, that the proper place to make the offer is in the committee of the Assembly.

And we would welcome the offer.

Naturally. I hope the Soviet Government will be in a position to make the offer there.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) asked a question, in relation to China, about women's body belts. I do not speak so confidently on this subject as my hon. Friend.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend has not been married so long as I have.

I am relieved to hear that my hon. Friend is married [Laughter.]I must choose my language carefully here or I shall elicit some further laughter. However, if my hon. Friend will give me any particulars of the allegation, I shall be most glad to have inquiries made into it. On the broader question of food in China, no part of this House can be unconcerned about that. I should say that our most recent information is that the harvest has been better than was expected, but distribution is the main problem. The picture is very patchy. I am not claiming that there are any areas in which there is plenty but I am most firmly of the view—and my hon. Friend, who is an expert on this subject, will not disagree—that there are areas in India which make the worst of China look comparatively adequate, if I can use that phrase. No member of this Government is at all acquiescent about the Chinese situation, and it will be considered in relation to whatever plans for international relief are developed.

Several Members have spoken about displaced persons. It was essential that special provision should be made for displaced persons, because they could in no sense be laid at the door of any one country. Theirs was a terrible international problem, which must have an international solution. There is, of course, the large problem of displaced persons in eastern areas of Europe. In this respect, the record of His Majesty's Government will bear very close examination. We have been in the lead in affirming, from the beginning, that an international organisation was needed for this purpose. If our advice and lead had been accepted then an international refugee organisation could have been set up last January, when the Assembly was meeting for the first part of its session in London. I regret to tell the House that the latest advice we have does not lead me to conclude that it is certain that we shall have an international refugee organisation after the present session has been completed in New York. If that does happen, I am sure that His Majesty's Government cannot be blamed for the delay. I hope they will not. This is no administrative problem, as some insist; it is a subject involving hundreds of thousands of the most miserable and distressed people in the world, and no Government could be excused for playing politics while, at the same time, prolonging their distress.

When my hon. Friend opened the Debate, I felt rather guilty and was getting ready to apologise, because it is quite well known to the House that the hon. Member for Luton has several attitudes which he holds very firmly; and when he looks West, he does not always use the kindest language. I was delighted to hear him pay tribute not only to the not insignificant part which this country has played in U.N.R.R.A. but to Canada and the United States of America for their part. I am glad that he did so. I thank him for doing so and offer my congratulations. But I was very disappointed that he spoiled his party piece by the suspicion, if not the venom, which he brought to the discussion of certain parts of the U.N.R.R.A. programme. For example, I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Member, who is an expert on this subject, does not know the full context of the Korea programme. The full context is that the programme of Korea is only permitted within the dated programme for the rest of the East, and, moreover, it could only take place provided there was no curtailment of the rest of U.N.R.R.A.'s Eastern programme. Further, the programme was agreed unanimously by the Council. Therefore, if anyone was playing food politics—hunger politics—it was not the United States of America, it was the whole Council of U.N.R.R.A. They accepted this programme, they carried it out, and they are jointly responsible for its organisation. It was mean and highly illogical to make such an innuendo in this House.

I want to say something else very strongly, on these lines, about hunger politics. My hon. Friend knows that allocation was not the job of U.N.R.R.A., and even if U.N.R.R.A, or any international relief organisation, disappeared, allocation would continue undisturbed by such a decision. My hon. Friend knows that the Food Board and the Coal Organisation are the allocating organisations, and the disappearance of U.N.R.R.A. makes no difference to that situation—none at all—except that the former U.N.R.R.A. countries will have to be represented by their own representatives on these organisations.

My right hon. Friend will, I think, agree that what is now the International Emergency Food Council or Board, while it may be concerned with allocation, is not concerned with the procurement and distribution of supplies; and that, after all, is what really matters. What matters is whether we can get supplies and actually send them to the countries which need them, and not simply the making of paper decisions about where supplies are to come from, and where they are to go.

Distribution, I agree, but the United States would not be responsible for distribution in any case. Neither the United States nor any other State playing this game of hunger politics, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, would be distributing to countries needing such supplies. As long as they continued in need they would appear before the Food Board where they would make their application. They would be dealt with according to international standards. Where the difficulty comes in, of course, is that they must have the foreign exchange. Mere allotment is no good to them. They must be able by some method or another, to secure that allotment. There, I think, we do see the final conversion of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton. When he last spoke in this House—as he did with his usual directness—his argument, if I understood it, was two-fold. It was that the United States should be shut out from Europe. We were to have an economic council for Europe. Secondly, if I understood him correctly, he argued that we should sever our close economic connections with the United States.

I am sure my right hon. Friend does not want to misrepresent me. What I said was that we should get together with those countries which had the control over their own international economy, and try to form an economic union of these countries. But I did, at the same time, emphasise that we should maintain the greatest possible degree of international exchange of commodities and services, with countries outside the union and with non-European countries like the United States.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Luton has had the opportunity of elucidating his argument. Either the countries of Europe are to be invited to trade with America, or they are not. I understood him to say that until this union was developed, that trading should be discouraged.

indicated dissent.

That is a very great advance. I now understand the hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton to say that America would be welcomed in Europe until such a union was formed.

American trade.

I think that is much more reasonable, but certainly it means that the hon. Gentleman says, "Since I am asking America to contribute to these receiving countries in Europe, I have no objection at all to America trading in this and neighbouring areas." I am heartily glad I have had that misconception removed from my mind. Secondly—and I am sure I am not wrong about this—the hon. Gentleman wants—and I think properly—Great Britain to continue to play its part in relieving the distress of Europe and the Far East. He has referred to Austria as have a few other hon. Members. What Austria will need within a few months will be wheat. If Britain is to relieve that need, she can do one of two things. She can reduce her rations—which I make it plain my hon. Friend was not suggesting—or she can buy that wheat in Canada, the United States or the Argentine. With what will she buy it? With what can she buy it? With dollars, nothing but hard, massy dollars. I understood my hon. Friend to brag, the last time, that we debated this matter, that he had gone into the Lobby against the American loan—

If we are to continue with this relief, we cannot cut ourselves off from these dollars. It is essential that those of us who have the purest and loftiest ideals—I deny these to no-one—should talk coherently and realistically on this problem, and related problems, and talk in the same terms in one Debate, as in another Debate.

The main worry of the House has been that the United Kingdom should not lend itself to unilateral relief, if it were satisfied that the case for multilateral relief had disappeared. I suggest firmly, that the case for continuing an organisation like U.N.R.R.A. has disappeared, because the vast emergency relief problem does not exist any more. I am not suggesting for a second, no-one is, that there are not places which still need relief, but the huge emergency area in Europe has grown, happily, much smaller. The view of His Majesty's Government, as of all the other members contributing to operational costs, was that the problem had now become substantially a problem of finding foreign exchange for the comparatively few distressed countries and that there was no longer a case for continuing this vast organisation of U.N.R.R.A., to which, most properly, every member of the House who spoke paid tribute—although the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) in paying his tribute, if I understood him correctly, wanted to extend U.N.R.R.A. to supervise distribution.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I did not say that. I tried to point out that the only way, in fairness, would be to increase the size of U.N.R.R.A. but at a vastly increased cost, and I was not advocating it.

The hon. and gallant Member will understand my fear—almost horror—at hearing such a phrase as "an increased U.N.R.R.A." We decided, with the other contributing countries, that the size of the job was no longer such as to justify all those countries continuing it. It started with procurement, went on to ocean transport, missions in the field, regional offices, sub-regional offices and right down to towns, and in some cases to villages. I thought my hon. Friend was a little unjust in asking why we had not made a stand at Geneva in August of this year. Of course, if such a stand had to be made, then it should have been made in the previous August. He quoted Mr. LaGuardia, but I did not think he paraphrased Mr. LaGuardia's actual words, because Mr. LaGuardia made it quite plain that it was in August, 1945, that the decision to end in 1946 had been taken because when the countries then agreed to contribute their second one per cent. it was framed to end the U.N.R.R.A. programme. However, that is by the way.

The next question was: If there was no need for U.N.R.R.A., was there no need for international organisation to do the job of meeting these limited needs? I say most emphatically that it has been the view of this Government and let us be fair it is the view of the United States Government, that international collaboration is needed for this job. Perhaps I am being unjust to the hon. Gentleman. He may not have seen the full records of the relevant committee debate at the Assembly, although that does not mean for a second that I shall argue that we ought to accept his suggestion, and see that our speeches are circulated in the same way that the Soviet sees that the speeches of her leaders are circulated.

Why not?

Because those who want to understand what His Majesty's Government are saying and what is their attitude, can discern that easily in a variety of ways—by reading HANSARD, by reading the free newspapers of this country, by reading the free reports which we permit reporters—there should be no credit in this—to export to any country, to which they want to send their news. As long as we have that kind of system in the United Kingdom, there will be no need to spend public moneys in circulating the speeches of such insignificant persons as myself, or the hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton.

Does my right hon. Friend seriously maintain that the views of the Secretary of State for Air are correctly made known to hon. Members of this House through their being able to read one and a half inches in "The Times"?

No, but if the hon. Gentleman goes along to the Library, he will find the proceedings of the United Nations summarised.

They have not yet reached the Library.

No, but the hon. Gentleman can find out at any time what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government on this subject and can be quite certain that the Secretary of State for Air—or whoever represents His Majesty's Government at New York—will say the same thing. We do not speak with two voices; we do not say one thing today and another tomorrow. The Secretary of State for Air made it quite plain in New York that there would be no hunger politics.

Now, having made a decision to give up U.N.R.R.A., what kind of machinery are we proposing We are proposing—and we have said it publicly and it is now engaging the study of the relevant committee of the Assembly—that there should be a committee of experts to decide what international need still exists that cannot be met by the normal commercial methods. To that conception the United States have also committed themselves. In fact, I do not know, any one who disagrees because, of course, that is, substantially, what the Council meeting in Geneva recommended its members to do. It is substantially what the committee on Devastated Areas endorsed; it is precisely what the Social and Economic Council endorsed at its last meeting, and it has now been endorsed by the Committee which is meeting in New York at present.

I hope it will be plain that His Majesty's Government have not been villains in this matter, or, if they have been villains, that they are in a very large company of villains. His Majesty's Government have also made it plain that when that need has been ascertained and reported they are willing, by informal international collaboration, to decide how the needs shall be met. Perhaps I used a curious phrase, "informal collaboration," because I wanted to make it plain that there is, as yet, no need to create a new organisation. The work of coordination can be done by the secretariat of the Social and Economic Council. Each of the contributing countries will accept what obligations they can accept, and those which can most fitly be discharged by them. To that machinery, the United States, Canada, and other contributing countries, have also agreed. If that organisation seems humble and not ostentatious, if it has not a proper name like U.N.R.R.A., if it is not going to have a definite headquarters, and a very hefty staff, I hope the House will not, therefore, assume that it is not going to be effective.

Two hon. Members referred to the external commitments of this country, which are very heavy. But all of us are agreed that no one in this country would seek to shirk international obligations towards greatly distressed people. British people never have done so, and, indeed, if I may say so humbly, they do not seek to do so even with changes of Government. I might put it this way, it is a quality of the British people, and not the peculiar character of any British Government. In this case, we will not seek to escape the obligations which, I agree with every hon. Member who has spoken, are very real.

Of course we are peculiarly concerned about the next harvest period. We have been geared up for that period, and we will meet whatever need we can without discrimination, political or national, or in regard to colour. We are quite willing that these transactions should take place in public, and that methods should be devised as to how international agree- ments shall be discharged. I hope it is plain that any difference there is between His Majesty's Government and hon. Members who have spoken is not a difference of principle. We are all agreed on that. There may be grounds for differing opinions about the methods we are going to employ, but the methods, we hope, will be economical, direct, and impartial, and we do not ask for any other qualities than those.

Do I understand from the statement my right hon. Friend has made, that His Majesty's Government are, in effect, opposed to the setting up of an international body, or machinery, to which contributions could be made by all members, and from which allocations of supplies could be made on the basis of a generous estimate of need, without regard to special political, or commercial considerations?

I took my hon. Friend to ask me if we were opposed. Of course we are not opposed, but I have made it plain that we are committed to ascertaining by a committee of experts what proven international need exists. By international collaboration we are committed to make our contribution towards meeting that need, and coordination, where necessary, will take place through the Secretariat of the United Nations organisation.

Is it ensured that this new arrangement will operate immediately where U.N.R.R.A. leaves off, and that there will be no gap in the present arrangements for relief?

There is no gap. The carry-over period was designed at Geneva to meet that. The carry-over period for U.N.R.R.A. will be until March. I am not suggesting for a moment that, in every field where U.N.R.R.A. is operating, some other relief will immediately be applied, because the whole basis of the change is that we do not expect to find all these needs continuing. But where there is a proven need, ascertained internationally, that need will be met internationally.